# A Thread for the Mueller Investigation Results and Outcomes (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 28, 2017, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093 "2017-10-28T20:14:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 528
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10543 "2019-04-03T01:16:18Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Why would this be called the nuclear option? šŸ˜• > > To me this sounds like a perfectly natural step in any congressional investigation of Trump. Yes, Iā€™m waiting for someone to make a good-faith argument to the effect that having Mueller testify is somehow unprecedented or wrong or whatever the hell they think it is. The Supreme Court is going to give a pre-determined, pro-secrecy-about-the-report (pro-Trump) ruling. Thatā€™s what the numbers say. We arenā€™t going to get to see the report if itā€™s left up to the Supreme Court. So why not let Mueller respond to a Congressional request for testimony? It is their duty and prerogative to exercise oversight. They need to know what Mueller found, in order to carry out that oversight. ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10544 "2019-04-03T01:57:11Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Why would this be called the nuclear option? šŸ˜• > > To me this sounds like a perfectly natural step in any congressional investigation of Trump. Itā€™s [said that](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democrats-weigh-legal-options-russia-report-including-mueller-subpoena-n988206): ā€œDemocrats involved in the oversight process say they recognize that subpoenaing Mueller directly would be a nuclear option, typically done as a last resortā€. Iā€™m not sure exactly what the reasons are, but all the Democratsā€™ talk at the moment is about getting the unredacted report, and there is little discussion about subpoenaing Mueller. Maybe, unlike court battles, there isnā€™t precedent for subpoenaing Special Counsels. As the above link points out, there was a somewhat similar scenario when Comey testified before the House Oversight Committee in 2016 over the Hillary email thing. He wasnā€™t subpoenaed, though. Instead they asked Comeyā€™s boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to speak to him directly. So perhaps there might be some chain-of-command complications if Barr is head of the Department of Justice, and theoretically Muellerā€™s boss. I think that when Barr refuses to comply with the Houseā€™s subpoena for the report, it will be the right time to issue the Mueller testimony subpoena, as at that point Barr will have formally refused to comply within a written order/request from Congress, and deadlock will have been reached. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10545 "2019-04-03T01:57:43Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > If indeed you hysterically continue to call the paltry meme-posting that was little more than background noise an ā€œattackā€, how could the Trump campaign have known that this was happening? If anyone would have known it was happening it would have been the spooks working for Obama. They said nothing while it was happening. It was largely something the disgraced spooks cooked up because they failed to stop Trump from being elected. Not true. Obama wanted to issue a bipartisan statement about Russia, but [Mitch McConnell](https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016) said no. ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10546 "2019-04-03T02:16:51Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > The Supreme Court is going to give a pre-determined, pro-secrecy-about-the-report (pro-Trump) ruling. Thatā€™s what the numbers say. We arenā€™t going to get to see the report if itā€™s left up to the Supreme Court. Remember that in 1974 the Supreme Court voted 8-0 (with one abstention) to uphold the subpoena. Neal Katyal, who wrote the Special Counsel regulations, [feels confident](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VYz14UhN5E&feature=youtu.be&t=487) they will vote in a similar way this time, if it comes to it. Hopefully, itā€™s not wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10547 "2019-04-03T02:28:07Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Okay, so Iā€™m sure youā€™re pretty happy with how you use the forum now, but did you know it could be better? Let me show you [One Cool Trick](https://imgur.com/a/sUW7v9U)ā„¢ to improve your forum enjoyment! Holy shit! It works! Thanks, BPC! Guys, you gotta try this thing! ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10548 "2019-04-03T03:38:26Z")
A bit of discussion about Mueller testifying [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPuwVc1Ly8&feature=youtu.be&t=446). Mueller would be bound by rules over what he would be able to say in testimony, and so the key to finding out what he knows will be through reading his report, not from speaking to him. He would probably be able to give an answer, though, to the question of whether he felt the redactions of the Barr version of the report were fair. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10549 "2019-04-03T04:02:10Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > Remember that in 1974 the Supreme Court voted 8-0 (with one abstention) to uphold the subpoena. Neal Katyal, who wrote the Special Counsel regulations, [feels confident](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VYz14UhN5E&feature=youtu.be&t=487) they will vote in a similar way this time, if it comes to it. Hopefully, itā€™s not wishful thinking. Iā€™m cautiously optimistic. The thing about the current court is that while they are biased pro-conservative, Iā€™m not sure that they are biased pro-Republican. Roberts in particular seems to be very concerned about the court appearing overly political. So while they might generally give rulings that follow Republican ideology, they arenā€™t necessarily likely to give out rulings simply because it helps the Republicans and hurts the Democrats. I donā€™t think that even some of the more conservative justices are particularly happy to have a incompetent Russian Stooge running the white house. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10550 "2019-04-03T05:08:25Z")
Agreed. I would be shocked if they could get Roberts to sign on to blocking the report. If something happens to RBG, then we could be in trouble. (Can you imagine? THAT would be political nuclear war.) ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10551 "2019-04-03T15:07:42Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Holy shit! It works! Thanks, BPC! > > Guys, you gotta try this thing! Right with you. It _does_ work pretty well. > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Iā€™m cautiously optimistic. The thing about the current court is that while they are biased pro-conservative, Iā€™m not sure that they are biased pro-Republican. Roberts in particular seems to be very concerned about the court appearing overly political. So while they might generally give rulings that follow Republican ideology, they arenā€™t necessarily likely to give out rulings simply because it helps the Republicans and hurts the Democrats. I donā€™t think that even some of the more conservative justices are particularly happy to have a incompetent Russian Stooge running the white house. The more cynical angels on my shoulder keep whispering that Roberts does not want ā€œThe Roberts Courtā€ to go down in history as being mentioned in the same breath as the Dred Scot decision. ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10552 "2019-04-03T17:37:29Z")
[Rep. Adam Schiff](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT7T71ngX5s&feature=youtu.be&t=534): ā€œI think itā€™s inevitable Bob Muellerā€™s going to have to testify before Congress. I would think that he will probably be needed before more than one committee.ā€ ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10553 "2019-04-03T17:44:53Z")
I apologize if this has been asked and answered already, but I didnā€™t have time to read through 10,000 posts and couldnā€™t think of search terms that would narrow it down for me. How will the general public ever know if any version of the report that gets released is a true, accurate, and complete copy of the original? I certainly wouldnā€™t trust any version released by AG Barr or the White House, and my levels of cynicism and paranoia are rising to the point that I might not even trust one released by the Democrats. How can we be sure we have everything, straight from the lips of [del]God[/del] Mueller? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10554 "2019-04-03T17:51:18Z")
I mean, getting down to it, 99% of everything you know you were told by others, so you would treat differing versions of the ā€œMueller Reportā€ as you would treat any other thing you read. And the MR isnā€™t about ā€œeverythingā€, and in a rational world, the likes of you and I arenā€™t going to get ā€œeverythingā€ as some stuff will likely be redacted. Speaking of whichā€¦ Was the Starr Report redacted? I donā€™t think the issues involved were of such a sensitive nature as to require it, but my Google-Fu is weak today and canā€™t find/filter for that information. Anyone know? ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10555 "2019-04-03T18:36:21Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > I apologize if this has been asked and answered already, but I didnā€™t have time to read through 10,000 posts and couldnā€™t think of search terms that would narrow it down for me. > > How will the general public ever know if any version of the report that gets released is a true, accurate, and complete copy of the original? I certainly wouldnā€™t trust any version released by AG Barr or the White House, and my levels of cynicism and paranoia are rising to the point that I might not even trust one released by the Democrats. > > How can we be sure we have everything, straight from the lips of [del]God[/del] Mueller? Iā€™m speculating, but I would guess that it will be several decades before the general public sees the Mueller report with no redactions, when it becomes a historical rather than political document. I would trust the Democrats, personally. Republicans will have the same information as the Democrats, so itā€™s not as if Democrats can just make stuff up and not get challenged on it. Speculating on the versions of the report, and what the general public might see over the years, there might be: - Mueller Report (original). Locked in Attorney General Barrā€™s desk, and hidden from Congress and the general public. - Mueller Report (Barr version). Released in mid-April 2019. Heavily redacted. - Mueller Report (Congress version). Released mid-late 2019. After the subpoena for the Mueller report has been upheld in SCOTUS, Congress or Congressional Democrats release to the public a partially-redacted version with only essential redactions. - Mueller Report (Updated). Some redactions from the report are because they relate to active investigations, so when these investigations have been concluded, there will be no reason to keep these parts redacted. This may be years away, rather than months. - Mueller Report (Historical artifact). In a few decades, the full unredacted report may be publicly released. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10556 "2019-04-03T19:06:25Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Iā€™m cautiously optimistic. The thing about the current court is that while they are biased pro-conservative, Iā€™m not sure that they are biased pro-Republican. Roberts in particular seems to be very concerned about the court appearing overly political. So while they might generally give rulings that follow Republican ideology, they arenā€™t necessarily likely to give out rulings simply because it helps the Republicans and hurts the Democrats. I donā€™t think that even some of the more conservative justices are particularly happy to have a incompetent Russian Stooge running the white house. I sort of hope that Trump either implies or says outright that ā€œhisā€ Justices ā€œoweā€ him somehow, and will rule in his favor. Thatā€™d be about the best way to get them really thinking hard about everything. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10557 "2019-04-03T19:26:48Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Was the Starr Report redacted? I donā€™t think the issues involved were of such a sensitive nature as to require it, but my Google-Fu is weak today and canā€™t find/filter for that information. Anyone know? According to a meme I saw on Facebook, the whole 445-page Starr report was released without redactions. Take that with all the authority it deserves. šŸ˜ƒ But that raises the question of how previous similar reports have been released and whether **Walken After Midnight** ā€™s multi-part scenario is likely. Is that how previous reports were treated? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10558 "2019-04-03T19:58:39Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > How can we be sure we have everything, straight from the lips of [del]God[/del] Mueller? Ask him. The man ainā€™t dead. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10559 "2019-04-03T20:03:37Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Ask him. The man ainā€™t dead. Thatā€™s the question: would he certify any given published release as accurate and complete, or accurate where not redacted? ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10560 "2019-04-03T20:09:06Z")
Also consider that everyone on the Mueller team (including Mueller), plus several individuals in the Justice Dept, have seen the unredacted original. They canā€™t all be lying scumā€¦if the redacted version is at odds with the memories of those individuals, I suspect the Truth Will Out, one way or another. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10561 "2019-04-03T20:36:23Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Also consider that everyone on the Mueller team (including Mueller), plus several individuals in the Justice Dept, have seen the unredacted original. They canā€™t all be lying scumā€¦if the redacted version is at odds with the memories of those individuals, I suspect the Truth Will Out, one way or another. On the contrary, I imagine that they may be subject to some form of NDA which prevents them commenting on their work in any fashion. Wouldnā€™t that be why Schiff has to subpoena Mueller? ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10562 "2019-04-03T20:39:44Z")
[Here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/25/democrats-say-theyll-force-robert-mueller-testify-what-could-he-say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1dd9a8cf679b)ā€™s an article discussing what Mueller might be able to say in testimony. Basically, Barr will decide what Mueller will be able to reveal. The special counsel statute Mueller has been working under ā€” which is different than the one independent counsel Kenneth Starr operated under in the 1990s ā€” says decisions about disclosure are left to the attorney general (Barr) and not Mueller. Furthermore, the statute under which Mueller is operating do not support the idea of Congress being able to compel disclosure from him. Mueller is by-the-book and so, even if he wanted to, Mueller would not reveal more than he is legally allowed to. It will not be possible to get an oral version of the Mueller report by asking him questions in testimony. I think there will probably still be some things that will be learnt speaking to Mueller, though. As said former Obama Justice Department official Matthew Miller: ā€œOf course, if he feels that DOJ is doing something inappropriate, maybe that changes things.ā€ So if Mueller believes that Barr is obstructing justice, then maybe he would say that in testimony. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=527) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=529)