# 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:** 550
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2019, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10983 "2019-04-22T21:40:57Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > That is correct. A criminal investigation is not going to concentrate on a word that is not a crime. Ok, but conspiracy is right? If the Mueller Report can’t prove POTUS is reasonably guilty of even obstruction and doesn’t appear to ask about conspiracy why would it bother concluding that while the report specifically does not implicate him, it does not exonerate him either. Any investigation is that way, ‘we found no actionable evidence’. Why did they throw in the, ‘but who knows, he could’ve done it’? ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2019, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10984 "2019-04-22T22:20:27Z")
The Mueller report can and does prove obstruction. He, mistakingly, left the judgement part to congress. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2019, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10985 "2019-04-22T22:42:27Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Ok, but conspiracy is right? > > If the Mueller Report can’t prove POTUS is reasonably guilty of even obstruction and doesn’t appear to ask about conspiracy why would it bother concluding that while the report specifically does not implicate him, it does not exonerate him either. > > Any investigation is that way, ‘we found no actionable evidence’. Why did they throw in the, ‘but who knows, he could’ve done it’? I think you’re misunderstanding what the report says. Let’s break it down. Conspiracy is a legal crime with very specific elements that must be met. They are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. **intentionally** 3. make an agreement 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. Based on these elements, we know that the crime of conspiracy is a specific- intent crime. In other words, the government must prove that these 2 or more persons **intentionally** entered into an agreement to commit some criminal offense. Also, the overt act done in furtherance of the agreement must occur **after** the agreement has been reached. The part Mueller failed to find was specific intent. However, Mueller did find plenty of evidence of acceptance by the Trump campaign of help offered by the Russians, even in the absence of any specific, intentional agreement. If you read Volume 1 of the report, you’ll see it’s pretty bad. As to the elements of obstruction of justice: 1. There was a pending federal judicial proceeding or investigation; 2. The defendant (or in this case, subject) knew of the proceeding; and 3. The defendant/subject had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding or investigation. Mueller found ample evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct his investigation. In Volume 2 of his report, he lays out 10 specific instances of attempted obstruction. It’s important to note that the law does not distinguish between attempted or accomplished obstruction of justice. If you’re trying to impede a proceeding/investigation, then you’re obstructing. It does not matter if you succeed. Additionally, there is no requirement that the underlying crime – in this case, conspiracy – must be found true in order for an obstruction of justice charge to attach. You will hear this garbage on Trump tee vee, but it simply is not true. A defendant/subject either worked to obstruct justice, or he/she didn’t. What Mueller is saying in simplest terms: Re conspiracy: He could not find the required element of intent such to charge Trump or his campaign members with conspiracy to defraud the United States of a fair and impartial election. However, there were many instances where the Trump campaign enjoyed and appreciated the help from the Russians. Further, they worked to get the Russians to do more. Re obstruction: The _only_ thing saving Trump’s ass from Mueller having brought obstruction charges is the standing DOJ policy that precludes charging a sitting president with a crime. But hey, Congress: Here’s a roadmap on how to impeach the motherfucker on the basis of his criminal actions. Oh, and by the way? If you can get him out of office by January 2021, you can charge him out of the gate with 10 counts of obstruction. IANAL. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2019, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10986 "2019-04-22T22:44:46Z")
A lot of the Trump-defender talking points seem to be bleating about “presumption of innocence”, and how it’s scandalous that the Mueller Report felt they could get away with declaring Trump “not innocent” of obstruction. Is it accurate to say that Mueller was not bound by the same constraints as a courtroom? That in terms of the investigation, there was no such thing as “innocent until proven guilty”? ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2019, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10987 "2019-04-22T22:46:42Z")
WRT to conspiracy/collusion: my layman’s interpretation is that Russia said “Donnie, we’re doing everything we can (most of it illegal) to get you elected”…and Donnie said “Gee! Thanks!” Stinks to high heaven, but it’s not a crime. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2019, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10988 "2019-04-22T23:04:47Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > WRT to conspiracy/collusion: my layman’s interpretation is that Russia said “Donnie, we’re doing everything we can (most of it illegal) to get you elected”…and Donnie said “Gee! Thanks!”… They wouldn’t. No way they are letting a wet brain motor mouth into the conspiracy. They wouldn’t say anything to suggest that he _needed_ their help! Genius like him? ---
**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 22, 2019, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10989 "2019-04-22T23:09:57Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > A lot of the Trump-defender talking points seem to be bleating about “presumption of innocence”, and how it’s scandalous that the Mueller Report felt they could get away with declaring Trump “not innocent” of obstruction. > > Is it accurate to say that Mueller was not bound by the same constraints as a courtroom? That in terms of the investigation, there was no such thing as “innocent until proven guilty”? Mueller’s basic logic is that he has been given the explicit task to investigate and determine if, were the President not the President, he would generally be indicted by the DOJ. This follows from the direct text if the Special Counsel statutes. This sort of decision making would follow from a) the facts available to the prosecutor, and b) the law as understood by the prosecutor. As Mueller cannot act as a prosecutor against the President, all he can do is state what the facts are and what sort of law would be applied to determine whether those facts would fall under the heading of those laws. If you read the facts and the laws as a reader and come to the conclusion that the President should be indicted, then that is not Mueller telling you that, it’s the facts of the matter and the relevant laws. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2019, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10990 "2019-04-22T23:10:10Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > A lot of the Trump-defender talking points seem to be bleating about “presumption of innocence”, and how it’s scandalous that the Mueller Report felt they could get away with declaring Trump “not innocent” of obstruction. > > Is it accurate to say that Mueller was not bound by the same constraints as a courtroom? That in terms of the investigation, there was no such thing as “innocent until proven guilty”? What they are doing is what they do best: Conflating 2 incomplete concepts of the law and pretending they’ve cobbled together a Frankenstein defense. The first concept is absolute and cannot be challenged, at least not under the Barr DOJ: _A president cannot be charged with a crime while he sits in the office of president_. That means a presumption of innocence no longer applies in Trump’s current setting. It’s a moot point. However… The second concept, and the one under which Mueller was bound, was to investigate on the basis of criminality. Do you see the inherent Catch-22 here? _He must investigate whether or not crimes occurred, but he cannot charge the occupant of the Oval Office with a crime!_ (Mueller was simultaneously investigating the whole matter for counter-intelligence purposes, but let’s leave that aside as it is completely separate for purposes of what happens to Trump or his henchmen.) Mueller made it clear that he could not find the crime of conspiracy because of the specific intent requirement. However, he all but screamed that if it weren’t for that DOJ policy, he’d be indicting on 10 counts of obstruction. What Mueller decided to do with this impossible situation was what is customary and has happened in all other Special Counsel/Special Prosecutor investigations: He punted the issue of criminality to Congress. Mueller starts with the very acceptable and traditional notion that no one is above the law, not even a president. But if a president cannot be charged while in office, then there must be some other way to address the criminality of a president when it occurs while he is in office. Hmmm… hmmm… what could it be? Oh, yes. Impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2019, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10991 "2019-04-22T23:25:01Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > I just watched the YouTube clip of Giulliani on Fox being interviewed by Chris Wallace. More deflection. > > Rudy said firing Mueller couldn’t be obstruction because he would have just been replaced with another person in the position. I wonder if Barr was available? It doesn’t make any difference. There wasn’t anybody waiting in the wings to step in and replace Archibald Cox when Nixon eliminated his position. And the America-hating fuckstick wasn’t going to be pressured into appointing a replacement the following week, the way Nixon was. Giuliani was talking out his ass. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2019, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10992 "2019-04-23T00:42:30Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > The second concept, and the one under which Mueller was bound, was to investigate on the basis of criminality. Do you see the inherent Catch-22 here? _He must investigate whether or not crimes occurred, but he cannot charge the occupant of the Oval Office with a crime!_ The lawyer in this video makes the point that Mueller only had two findings available to him, basically: 1. Not accused 2. Not not accused [Mueller Report: A Lawyer’s Analysis (Real Law Review)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f71Rasj_0JY) “Accused” is not an option because Trump can’t be indicted and therefore wouldn’t be able to have his day in court to defend against the charges hanging over his head. If he’s Not Accused, he doesn’t need a day in court. It looks like they went with Not not accused. If he’s out of office by 2021, Trump might have some problems since the DOJ guidelines will no longer protect him. ---
**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 23, 2019, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10993 "2019-04-23T01:28:59Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > … If you can get him out of office by January 2021, you can charge him out of the gate with 10 counts of obstruction. > … > [@dasmoocher](#): > > …If he’s out of office by 2021, Trump might have some problems since the DOJ guidelines will no longer protect him. Why is the statute-of-limitations clock running, in this situation in which an indictment is prohibited? Why wouldn’t the clock stop, then resume ticking when the target is no longer President? ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2019, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10994 "2019-04-23T01:47:12Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Why is the statute-of-limitations clock running, in this situation in which an indictment is prohibited? > > Why wouldn’t the clock stop, then resume ticking when the target is no longer President? Because no one in the country or Congress ever thought we’d have a president so corrupt, together with a Republican Senate so corrupt they would fail to act, such that a specific law would be required to toll statutes of limitations until a president was out of office. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2019, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10995 "2019-04-23T02:09:09Z")
Republicans in office now are basically advertising that they are open for business to any hostile foreign government that wants to buy them. So go ahead- buy a senator! ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2019, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10996 "2019-04-23T02:14:17Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > The lawyer in this video makes the point that Mueller only had two findings available to him, basically: > > 1. Not accused > 2. Not not accused > > [Mueller Report: A Lawyer’s Analysis (Real Law Review)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f71Rasj_0JY) > > “Accused” is not an option because Trump can’t be indicted and therefore wouldn’t be able to have his day in court to defend against the charges hanging over his head. If he’s Not Accused, he doesn’t need a day in court. Yes…This is all stated pretty clearly by Mueller in the Introduction to Volume II. Here are the most relevant parts: > [@](#): > > Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator. > > The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual & 9-27.220. > > Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. So, in summary, they felt their only choices were either to exonerate him or to not exonerate him and lay out the evidence but not reach any prosecutorial conclusion on that evidence. The facts of the case ended up requiring them to do the latter. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2019, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10997 "2019-04-23T03:01:24Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Yes…This is all stated pretty clearly by Mueller in the Introduction to Volume II. Here are the most relevant parts: > > So, in summary, they felt their only choices were either to exonerate him or to not exonerate him and lay out the evidence but not reach any prosecutorial conclusion on that evidence. The facts of the case ended up requiring them to do the latter. This is the most damning statement in the entire thing - * * * Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. \*\*\* ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2019, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10998 "2019-04-23T04:14:41Z")
> [@Mike\_Mabes](#): > > When Trump was elected, and so many were freaking out about the end of the country as we know it, I predicted that it would be the best thing to happen to the democrats and progressvies in years. > > I support Bernie. White male typing detected. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2019, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10999 "2019-04-23T04:24:18Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Republicans in office now are basically advertising that they are open for business to any hostile foreign government that wants to buy them. So go ahead- buy a senator! So, can we get George Soros to buy enough Senators to convict Trump on impeachment charges? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2019, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11000 "2019-04-23T10:26:27Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > So, can we get George Soros to buy enough Senators to convict Trump on impeachment charges? No way they accept filthy Democratic money! Republicans have some standards! So we just have to filter it through Russia and the NRA. Then it’ll be okay. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2019, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11001 "2019-04-23T12:40:40Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Republicans in office now are basically advertising that they are open for business to any hostile foreign government that wants to buy them. So go ahead- buy a senator! Not buy, rent. Sort of like marrying vs. paying a whore. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2019, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11002 "2019-04-23T12:56:50Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Why is the statute-of-limitations clock running, in this situation in which an indictment is prohibited? > > Why wouldn’t the clock stop, then resume ticking when the target is no longer President? The non-chargeability of a President does not derive from the Constitution or statute, but merely from DOJ policy. The arguments supporting non-chargeability are political and practical, not legal. IOW Mueller did not file charges \*only \*because his boss told him not to. There is no legal basis for stopping the clock, at least not until a court rules that way and the ruling holds up on appeal, presumably all the way to SCOTUS. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=549) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=551)