# 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:** 96
**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:** [January 23, 2018, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1901 "2018-01-23T22:37:23Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Why don’t you just click on the linked article and see what it’s about? There was no link in the post I was replying to and I was not confident which topic you were commenting on in that post. If you say, “I hate George!” And I reply, “If you mean George Butler, in accounting, then…” I don’t believe that a follow up of, “Man, why don’t you just look at his file!”, is very on the point. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1902 "2018-01-23T22:38:11Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Worth noting, BTW, that whether a president can be indicted is even less settled law than whether he can be forced to testify. > > In theory, no president should be above the law. The flip side of that is that you wouldn’t want to give every DA in the country the ability to indict the president (of an opposing party :)) In theory? Really? Have you every been indicted? I haven’t. I had hoped that we wouldn’t elect a criminal to the highest office in the land, but that’s where we are now. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1903 "2018-01-23T22:49:17Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > There was no link in the post I was replying to and I was not confident which topic you were commenting on in that post. But there was a link in the post that that post was responding to. It’s pretty conventional to assume that posts respond to the ones immediately preceding them. (E.g. my post #1885 - the one you responded to - was responding to post #1884 which preceded it, and was not just hanging out there in mid-air. Similarly, post #1886 was not some random comment that should confuse you, but was addressed to my post #1885.) > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > If you say, “I hate George!” > > And I reply, “If you mean George Butler, in accounting, then…” Even leaving aside the above, this is off-point. Because I specified Mueller, and you turned around and suggested maybe it was really about Strzok. So it’s more like if I say “I hate George!” And you reply "if you really mean Bob, then you’re confused, because George and Bob are two different people … > [@enipla](#): > > Have you every been indicted? I haven’t. Are you the subject of vociferous political opposition from millions of people, some number of whom are DAs? If you are, and you still haven’t been indicted, then your experience would be relevant. ---
**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:** [January 23, 2018, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1904 "2018-01-23T23:20:52Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But there was a link in the post that that post was responding to. [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20742919&postcount=1885](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20742919&postcount=1885) You do not quote a post in this thread and the link is after you’ve moved on to another topic. If my guess about the subject was wrong, it would have been easier to simply say as much. Which post were you replying to? ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1905 "2018-01-24T00:17:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Because whether a president can be forced to testify is not settled law. (Bill Clinton had to be forced by court order, but that was a civil suit.) Mueller is not asking Trump to testify. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1906 "2018-01-24T01:46:35Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > Mueller is not asking Trump to testify. Wha–? That was the only fun thing to look forward to in this mess! Oh, well. Maybe he’ll testify at the tax evasion hearings. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1907 "2018-01-24T03:07:09Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Worth noting, BTW, that whether a president can be indicted is even less settled law than whether he can be forced to testify. > > In theory, no president should be above the law. The flip side of that is that you wouldn’t want to give every DA in the country the ability to indict the president (of an opposing party :)) Oh shit that would be a never ending disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1908 "2018-01-24T03:29:05Z")
OK, so Mueller tells Trump’s handlers that he’s just going to ask about the obstruction charge. Then he sits down in the room with Trump and asks him about the other stuff. Why wouldn’t he? He’s tasked with investigating that, so he’s investigating it. What’s preventing him? Investigations wouldn’t ever go anywhere if the investigators could be restricted on what questions they’re going to ask before-hand and had to tip off their interviewees. As for Presidents being indicted, it’s inherent in the nature of our system that they can’t be indicted for federal crimes. Note my word choice, there: I said “can not”, not “may not”. That’s why we have an entirely separate procedure for impeachment, because it’s the only way to touch the President for federal crimes. But there’s absolutely nothing stopping state authorities from indicting him: As far as the states are concerned, he’s just another guy. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1909 "2018-01-24T13:29:11Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > As for Presidents being indicted, it’s inherent in the nature of our system that they can’t be indicted for federal crimes. Note my word choice, there: I said “can not”, not “may not”. That’s why we have an entirely separate procedure for impeachment, because it’s the only way to touch the President for federal crimes. That story was popular among Republicans during the Clinton impeachment, as a way to justify and vindicate their actions. But it just ain’t so. Impeachment has nothing whatever to do with the criminal justice system, and there is no constraint other than custom against charging a President. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1910 "2018-01-24T14:22:18Z")
I think the notion that presidents can’t be indicted [is by no means certain.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-president-can-be-indicted--just-not-by-mueller/2017/07/27/a597b922-721d-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.f521c10522bd) > [@](#): > > Nothing in the Constitution would bar a federal grand jury from returning charges against a sitting president for committing a serious felony. But — and this is a big but — differences between the Clinton situation then and the investigation of President Trump now mean that where Starr had the authority to indict Clinton if he chose, Mueller most likely does not possess the same power. If this article is correct, and I don’t think there’s a factual answer, then Mueller cannot indict but a grand jury can. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1911 "2018-01-24T14:29:37Z")
Apparently, the FBI [interviewed Flynn](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/flynn-kept-fbi-interview-concealed-white-house-trump-n840491) only a few days after the inauguration. The fun part of the story is that they did it in the White House and without anyone knowing about it. Flynn didn’t have a lawyer present because, essentially, the FBI just put a meeting on his calendar and he accepted it without knowing what it was about. The best people. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1912 "2018-01-24T14:41:09Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Which post were you replying to? OK, enough of this silliness. > [@Fubaya](#): > > Mueller is not asking Trump to testify. I assume you’re splitting some semantic hair, in which Trump answering questions from Mueller does not amount to testifying. Whatever. > [@Chronos](#): > > OK, so Mueller tells Trump’s handlers that he’s just going to ask about the obstruction charge. Then he sits down in the room with Trump and asks him about the other stuff. Why wouldn’t he? As I suggested earlier, it’s in Mueller’s interest to have Trump cooperate with him. Provoking Trump into refusing to answer his questions by lying to Trump about the subject of the interview is not going to be helpful. It would only give Trump ammunition in the public eye for defying him. I would be shocked if Mueller double-crosses Trump in this manner. > [@](#): > > As for Presidents being indicted, it’s inherent in the nature of our system that they can’t be indicted for federal crimes. Note my word choice, there: I said “can not”, not “may not”. That’s why we have an entirely separate procedure for impeachment, because it’s the only way to touch the President for federal crimes. But there’s absolutely nothing stopping state authorities from indicting him: As far as the states are concerned, he’s just another guy. I believe you have it backwards here. Whether a president can be federally indicted is debatable. Whether he can be indicted by a state is more dubious, due to the [Supremacy Clause](http://www.newsweek.com/can-trump-be-indicted-are-sitting-presidents-immune-prosecution-650484). ---
**Author:** ![JackieLikesVariety](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackielikesvariety/32/296_2.png) [@JackieLikesVariety](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JackieLikesVariety)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1913 "2018-01-24T15:02:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Flynn didn’t have a lawyer present because, essentially, the FBI just put a meeting on his calendar and he accepted it without knowing what it was about. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1914 "2018-01-24T15:13:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Whether he can be indicted by a state is more dubious, due to the [Supremacy Clause](http://www.newsweek.com/can-trump-be-indicted-are-sitting-presidents-immune-prosecution-650484). Once he’s out of office, he’s of course fair game for states to prosecute. Donald in Rikers Island would be oh so wonderful to behold. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1915 "2018-01-24T15:31:55Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Once he’s out of office, he’s of course fair game for states to prosecute. Of course. And he has certainly painted a huge target on his back. That said, there tends to be a sense that once a guy is out of office it’s overkill to go after him. Similar to prosecuting HCR after she lost the election. So I don’t know how it would be received by the public once he’s out of office, and if it doesn’t look like a popular move it’s less likely to happen. Of course, there could be any number of state DAs with some sort of jurisdiction, and all it takes is one. So you never know. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1916 "2018-01-24T15:33:43Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Of course. And he has certainly painted a huge target on his back. > > That said, there tends to be a sense that once a guy is out of office it’s overkill to go after him. **Similar to prosecuting HCR after she lost the election.** So I don’t know how it would be received by the public once he’s out of office, and if it doesn’t look like a popular move it’s less likely to happen. > > Of course, there could be any number of state DAs with some sort of jurisdiction, and all it takes is one. So you never know. The difference being there’s nothing to prosecute her for. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1917 "2018-01-24T15:34:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Similar to prosecuting HCR after she lost the election. Of course 1) Hillary didn’t do anything criminal and 2) Republicans still fantasize about prosecuting her. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1918 "2018-01-24T15:55:39Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Of course 1) Hillary didn’t do anything criminal and 2) Republicans still fantasize about prosecuting her. Your two points contradict each other. Because while you think she didn’t do anything criminal, many Republicans disagree with you. And yet, she’s unlikely to be prosecuted (despite occasional Trump temper tantrums) and public sentiment would not support it even among Republicans. Because you move on. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1919 "2018-01-24T16:03:21Z")
I hope this isn’t too off-topic here, but I was saddened to read the following. The Obama Administration was unwilling to condemn Russian interference before the election because Piece-of-Shit McConnell had, in effect, made clear that he’d attack any such condemnation as a partisan ploy. > [@](#): > > Joe Biden said Tuesday that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stopped the Obama administration from speaking out about Russian interference in the 2016 campaign by refusing to sign on to a bipartisan statement of condemnation. > > That moment, the former Democratic vice president said, made him think “the die had been cast … this was all about the political play.” I guess the GOP’s desire to have Piece-of-Shit Trump in power was so great that it didn’t matter if Putin came along as a puppet-master. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1920 "2018-01-24T16:11:55Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Your two points contradict each other. **Because while you think she didn’t do anything criminal, many Republicans disagree with you**. And yet, she’s unlikely to be prosecuted (despite occasional Trump temper tantrums) and public sentiment would not support it even among Republicans. Because you move on. Who gives a flying fuck? The only ones that matter are the ones who can recommend and/or bring charges. [\*They \*said she didn’t do anything criminal.](https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system) > [@](#): > > In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, **we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.** All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=95) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=97)