# 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:** 595
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11883 "2019-07-25T15:13:45Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > So when will you correct yourself? What’s the predicted date for Hell freezing over? ---
**Author:** ![gytalf2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ac91a4/32.png) [@gytalf2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gytalf2000)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11884 "2019-07-25T15:20:47Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > This quote, this exchange might be the most important of the day: > > [GOP's Ken Buck Accidentally Gets Mueller to Say Trump Could Be Charged](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/robert-mueller-ken-buck-hearing-trump-obstruction-862902/) > > This is why the president is desperate to win next year. He is fighting for his survival, and he will only get nastier. > > Think you’ve seen racism now? You’ve seen nothing. Oh yeah, my sentiments, exactly! The nasty orange booger knows that he needs that second term. I just hope that we can stop the evil piece of shit… ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11885 "2019-07-25T15:55:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Mueller was incorrect about this. Fortunately, he later corrected himself. > > Regards, > Shodan When he “corrected” himself, he still refuted your assertion about his report. It had nothing to do with the evidence, and everything to do with the OLC opinion. Mueller said nothing about whether there was enough or not enough evidence to indict, only that the OLC opinion prevented him from making a decision on indictment. Your assertion that the Mueller report indicated not enough evidence of obstruction to indict is false on the facts. The Mueller report does not say this. You are still incorrect. ---
**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:** [July 25, 2019, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11886 "2019-07-25T16:11:22Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > He did. You are just too dense to understand. He’s not dense. He just can’t hear above all the furious tap-dancing the 'Pubs are doing. > [@Shodan](#): > > Mueller was incorrect about this. Fortunately, he later corrected himself. > > Regards, > Shodan QED ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11887 "2019-07-25T16:29:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > When he “corrected” himself, he still refuted your assertion about his report. It had nothing to do with the evidence, and everything to do with the OLC opinion. Mueller said nothing about whether there was enough or not enough evidence to indict, only that the OLC opinion prevented him from making a decision on indictment. Your assertion that the Mueller report indicated not enough evidence of obstruction to indict is false on the facts. The Mueller report does not say this. You are still incorrect. This is right. Mueller has made clear over and over that he simply did not make a final determination about whether the obstruction evidence was sufficient for indictment, and that the reason he did not make that determination is the OLC memo. I think it’s pretty clear, given the “not exonerated” language, that Mueller personally thinks the President probably committed obstruction of justice (there’s really no other way to explain the contrast to the language about not establishing the crime of conspiracy). But that is not the determination that would be necessary to indict. He would also have to determine the likelihood that courts would agree with his reading of the obstruction statutes and the likelihood that a jury would find the requisite facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are the kinds of determinations he did not ultimately reach because they were moot given the OLC memo. ---
**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:** [July 25, 2019, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11888 "2019-07-25T19:03:47Z")
Legal Q: Let’s suppose that he’s impeached for obstruction of justice, is acquitted by the Senate, and then loses the election in 2020. Could a 2021 Justice Department under a Democratic President’s administration indict and try him for obstruction of justice without triggering double jeopardy? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11889 "2019-07-25T19:30:02Z")
Multiple sovereigns, innit? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11890 "2019-07-25T19:30:14Z")
I think Granny Nancy is being sneaky. Doesn’t take much to move for impeachment, AOC can carry that ball with a little help. Investigations ensue. Moderate, sensible Dems and/or chickenshits can say sensible stuff. Like not being in favor of impeachment, but clearly we have to investigate! Gotta keep an open mind! Remember: the House was _totally_ protecting Il Douche for years, its what they call a target rich environment. Let the nervous Dems show off their sensible maturity, and lets have a good look . Il Douche will lose his shit every time, and the Dems can posture as calm, reasonable, middle of the road. Why, we are doing the President a favor, giving him a chance to prove he’s innocent! And, if Granny Nancy wants to use her position as a bargaining chip, well, what’s the harm? Barry Obama would most likely disapprove, its not strictly ethical. Bless his heart, he really _does_ mean well! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11891 "2019-07-25T19:51:41Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Legal Q: Let’s suppose that he’s impeached for obstruction of justice, is acquitted by the Senate, and then loses the election in 2020. Could a 2021 Justice Department under a Democratic President’s administration indict and try him for obstruction of justice without triggering double jeopardy? Let’s ask the Founding Fathers, shall we? Article 1, Section 3: “… the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11892 "2019-07-25T20:14:04Z")
TG, IANAL, but seems to me those words “according to law” have enough wiggle room for about a hundred billable hours. ---
**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:** [July 25, 2019, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11893 "2019-07-25T22:39:13Z")
> **[Opinion | Mueller didn’t fail. The country did.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/25/mueller-didnt-fail-country-did/)** > > I worry that we — the media, voters, Congress — are dangerously unserious when it comes to preservation of our democracy. > [@](#): > > To spend hours of airtime and write hundreds of print and online reports pontificating about the “optics” of Mueller’s performance — when he confirmed that President Trump accepted help from a hostile foreign power and lied about it, that he lied when he claimed exoneration, that he was not completely truthful in written answers, that he could be prosecuted after leaving office and that he misled Americans by calling the investigation a hoax — tells me that we have become untrustworthy guardians of democracy. > > The “failure” is not of a prosecutor who found the facts but might be ill equipped to make the political case, but instead, of a country that won’t read his report and a media obsessed with scoring contests rather than focusing on the damning facts at issue. > […] > Trump reads from the same hymnal of disinformation and recites the same slander of democratic institutions that 20th-century totalitarians deployed, yet too many in the media call him the “winner” because Mueller did not pass their ridiculous tests (e.g. add new information, persuade Republicans). > > [T]oo much of the chattering class remains dangerously unfocused and frivolous. It deploys irony and cynicism when clear-eyed explanation and morally defensible perspective are essential. ---
**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:** [July 26, 2019, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11894 "2019-07-26T02:06:07Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Legal Q: Let’s suppose that he’s impeached for obstruction of justice, is acquitted by the Senate, and then loses the election in 2020. Could a 2021 Justice Department under a Democratic President’s administration indict and try him for obstruction of justice without triggering double jeopardy? This is a crucial question. And the likely answer leads me to want to slap the ‘_let’s do what’s right regardless of the consequences_’ folks right upside the head. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11895 "2019-07-26T02:31:01Z")
Don’t care that he goes to jail. Only care that he goes away. ---
**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:** [July 26, 2019, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11896 "2019-07-26T11:57:45Z")
Well, that’s the primary consideration, but can’t we have both? “Nobody is above the law” and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11897 "2019-07-26T12:54:09Z")
Everyone at the hearing kept repeating that phrase. “Nobody is above the law”. And yet, there we were accepting the premise that regardless of crimes, the president of the United States can not be held accountable. How is that consistent? Leaving aside the details of this specific case, it’s pretty clear that we have set the precedent that the president (regardless of who it is) is, in fact, above the law. ---
**Author:** ![Celidin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Celidin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Celidin)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11898 "2019-07-26T13:51:45Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Everyone at the hearing kept repeating that phrase. “Nobody is above the law”. And yet, there we were accepting the premise that regardless of crimes, the president of the United States can not be held accountable. How is that consistent? > > Leaving aside the details of this specific case, it’s pretty clear that we have set the precedent that the president (regardless of who it is) is, in fact, above the law. Nobody\* is above the law. - Unless they’re a Republican. They’re above the law. Generally speaking. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11899 "2019-07-26T14:02:30Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > This is right. Mueller has made clear over and over that he simply did not make a final determination about whether the obstruction evidence was sufficient for indictment, and that the reason he did not make that determination is the OLC memo. > > I think it’s pretty clear, given the “not exonerated” language, that Mueller personally thinks the President probably committed obstruction of justice (there’s really no other way to explain the contrast to the language about not establishing the crime of conspiracy). But that is not the determination that would be necessary to indict. He would also have to determine the likelihood that courts would agree with his reading of the obstruction statutes and the likelihood that a jury would find the requisite facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are the kinds of determinations he did not ultimately reach because they were moot given the OLC memo. QFT. And I don’t understand why Mueller is unable to explain this. Wimp. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11900 "2019-07-26T14:21:02Z")
> [@Celidin](#): > > Nobody\* is above the law. > > - Unless they’re a Republican. They’re above the law. Generally speaking. There’s an acronym for that. ---
**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:** [July 26, 2019, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11901 "2019-07-26T14:36:20Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Legal Q: Let’s suppose that he’s impeached for obstruction of justice, is acquitted by the Senate, and then loses the election in 2020. Could a 2021 Justice Department under a Democratic President’s administration indict and try him for obstruction of justice without triggering double jeopardy? > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Multiple sovereigns, innit? Dunno. Is the U.S. Senate a separate sovereign from the U.S. DOJ? I recently saw an item where the DOJ declined to prosecute some contempt of Congress citations against the AG and the Commerce Secretary, so it seems not. ---
**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:** [July 26, 2019, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/11902 "2019-07-26T14:48:01Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Legal Q: Let’s suppose that he’s impeached for obstruction of justice, is acquitted by the Senate, and then loses the election in 2020. Could a 2021 Justice Department under a Democratic President’s administration indict and try him for obstruction of justice without triggering double jeopardy? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Let’s ask the Founding Fathers, shall we? Article 1, Section 3: “… the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” That “according to Law” part is, as **luci** mentions, a fiddly bit. As is the word “convicted.” It doesn’t mention whether the Party is liable and subject to (&c.) when the Party is acquitted. It is also in the main body of the Constitution, rather than the BoR, suggesting that double jeopardy might not have been contemplated when the Article was drafted, but applies because the 5th Amendment was ratified. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=594) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=596)