# 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:** 97
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1921 "2018-01-24T16:12:00Z")
I just came here to post the same story – I’m very happy to see Biden throw McConnell under the bus. That bastard has a lot to answer for. There was a time, not so long ago, when a president considered the integrity of our elections so important that it was critical to get bipartisan support so as to appear above partisanship. Seems so charmingly naive, now. ---
**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, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1922 "2018-01-24T16:17:09Z")
Skimming this thread, I was amused to see that these two posts were by the same poster: > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Actually, when people are unable to understand simple exchanges that they’re commenting on, it’s probably a better idea that they cease writing altogether … > > Speaking of nothingburgers … > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Your two points contradict each other. That three-syllable word doesn’t mean what you think it does. But please do go on commenting on simple exchanges you’re unable to understand. 😃 ---
**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, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1923 "2018-01-24T16:24:50Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 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. What great non-partisan need was there to have a public denunciation before the election? > [@running\_coach](#): > > 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) You’ve misunderstood this issue. They said she did do something criminal but not something which has historically been prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1924 "2018-01-24T16:30:39Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > … > There was a time, not so long ago, when a president considered the integrity of our elections so important that it was critical to get bipartisan support so as to appear above partisanship. Seems so charmingly naive, now. Emphasis added. “Above partisanship”? There’s no _there_ there anymore. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1925 "2018-01-24T16:54:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What great non-partisan need was there to have a public denunciation before the election? Let’s assume that the Obama Administration wished to release a statement like this: “My fellow Americans: we’ve recently learned that the Russian government is directing a campaign to influence our national election through the manipulation of social media and the selective release of illegally obtained information. This is a direct affront to our national interests and our sacred right to free and fair elections. We have no interest in how you vote, but make sure that your choice is informed by accurate information.” Anybody who has a problem with that is someone with a stake in the outcome and doesn’t care how it happens. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1926 "2018-01-24T17:09:47Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Let’s assume that the Obama Administration wished to release a statement like this: > > “My fellow Americans: we’ve recently learned that the Russian government is directing a campaign to influence our national election through the manipulation of social media and the selective release of illegally obtained information. This is a direct affront to our national interests and our sacred right to free and fair elections. We have no interest in how you vote, but make sure that your choice is informed by accurate information.” > > Anybody who has a problem with that is someone with a stake in the outcome and doesn’t care how it happens. The problem is that there can still be evidence of bias in a statement like that. If Obama didn’t want Trump to win, he could have influenced the investigation to look into where his support comes from. But did he do the same for Hillary’s support? Maybe she’s being illegally propped up by Saudi Arabia, but Obama never investigated the source of her support. I’m not saying that happened, but people can easily view it that way. ---
**Author:** ![BeenJammin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beenjammin/32/448_2.png) [@BeenJammin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeenJammin)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1927 "2018-01-24T17:17:35Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Anybody who has a problem with that is someone with a stake in the outcome and doesn’t care how it happens. Funny (sic) how it really all boils down to what you actually care about. ---
**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, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1928 "2018-01-24T17:18:51Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Let’s assume that the Obama Administration wished to release a statement like this: > > “My fellow Americans: we’ve recently learned that the Russian government is directing a campaign to influence our national election through the manipulation of social media and the selective release of illegally obtained information. This is a direct affront to our national interests and our sacred right to free and fair elections. We have no interest in how you vote, but make sure that your choice is informed by accurate information.” > > Anybody who has a problem with that is someone with a stake in the outcome and doesn’t care how it happens. A statement like that is phrased in a neutral manner, but as a practical matter would be hugely damaging to Trump. Presidential statements don’t just sit out there, to be blindly accepted at face value. They attract enormous attention and reporting and commentary by informed experts and insiders, and had such a statement been released the storyline would have been that Trump was Russia’s guy (much as it is now). Of course, if there was a genuine and important purpose in such a statement, then let the consequences fall where they may. That’s what I’m questioning. Naturally, from the perspective of someone who preferred that HRC win anyway, that type of statement would be a win-win. From the perspective of someone like McConnell, it would have been a win-lose, and you need to balance one against the other. So the point again is what would have been won by that type of thing. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1929 "2018-01-24T17:27:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Of course, if there was a genuine and important purpose in such a statement, then let the consequences fall where they may. That’s what I’m questioning. Well, if you don’t think the integrity of our electoral process is important, there’s not much left to say. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1930 "2018-01-24T17:29:18Z")
There’s always “Goodbye!”. ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1931 "2018-01-24T17:30:29Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Well, if you don’t think the integrity of our electoral process is important, there’s not much left to say. To make it simpler for you, my question would then be how much that particular statement at that particular time contributes to “the integrity of our electoral process”. ---
**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, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1932 "2018-01-24T17:34:05Z")
> [@](#): > > There was a time, not so long ago, when a president considered the integrity of our elections so important that it was critical to get bipartisan support so as to appear above partisanship. Seems so charmingly naive, now. it’s an uglier world, now, isn’t it? thanks Repubs. ---
**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 24, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1933 "2018-01-24T17:41:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK, enough of this silliness. I take it then, that you were replying to the post immediately preceding yours, in which case I revoke my statement. I’m not sure what the value was in not simply correcting me about what topic you had been referencing. Can you think of any reason, if I say, “Well, if you mean Gerald Butler…” To not reply back, “No, I meant Gerald Donahue.” ? Feel free to be you, but I fail to see the wisdom in the path you chose. ---
**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, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1934 "2018-01-24T17:43:20Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > There was a time, not so long ago, when a president considered the integrity of our elections so important that it was critical to get bipartisan support so as to appear above partisanship. Seems so charmingly naive, now. There was a time, somewhat longer ago, when \*both \*parties would have considered the national interest and the strength of our democracy to be more important than temporary partisan advantage over fellow citizens with somewhat differing priorities. Now, one party can no longer even conceive of anything more important than partisan advantage, or that the other party can be something other than an enemy that must be destroyed. Putin didn’t cause this. It started before him. He’s just taking advantage of it. ---
**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, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1935 "2018-01-24T17:43:23Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > The problem is that there can still be evidence of bias in a statement like that. If Obama didn’t want Trump to win, he could have influenced the investigation to look into where his support comes from. But did he do the same for Hillary’s support? Maybe she’s being illegally propped up by Saudi Arabia, but Obama never investigated the source of her support. I’m not saying that happened, but people can easily view it that way. That’s a great argument in favor of the sources of support being 100% transparent. ---
**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, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1936 "2018-01-24T17:48:13Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I take it then, that you were replying to the post immediately preceding yours, in which case I revoke my statement. > > I’m not sure what the value was in not simply correcting me about what topic you had been referencing. Can you think of any reason, if I say, “Well, if you mean Gerald Butler…” To not reply back, “No, I meant Gerald Donahue.” ? > > Feel free to be you, but I fail to see the wisdom in the path you chose. Well for my part, I fail to see the “wisdom” in your asking “_Which post were you replying to?_” when in the very post you quoted, two sentences after the one you snipped, I had already written “_E.g. my post #1885 - the one you responded to - was responding to post #1884 which preceded it_” (emphasis added). Unless playing cutesy games counts as “wisdom”. I don’t think so, but everyone chooses their own path. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1937 "2018-01-24T17:50:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > To make it simpler for you, my question would then be how much that particular statement at that particular time contributes to “the integrity of our electoral process”. Does a burglar alarm contribute to the integrity of your valuables? ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1938 "2018-01-24T17:52:02Z")
I’m not going to get into picking apart analogies, in this instance. Simple but boring. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1939 "2018-01-24T17:54:37Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Of course 1) Hillary didn’t do anything criminal and 2) Republicans still fantasize about prosecuting her. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Your two points contradict each other. Nonsense. They fact that she didn’t commit any crimes doesn’t prevent Republicans from fantasizing any more than the fact that Scarlett Johansson probably isn’t interested in homely middle aged guys prevents… but I digress. ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1940 "2018-01-24T17:59:37Z")
If you’re interpreting BobLibDem’s words in a hyper-technical way - that Republicans who want to prosecute her are people with fantasies that they themselves know are nothing more than fantasies about a prosecution that they themselves know is unjustified - then you would have a point. But I’m thinking BobLibDem is probably capable of appreciating that Republicans who want to prosecute Clinton believe (whether justifiably so or not) that she is indeed guilty of crimes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=96) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=98)