# 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:** 98
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1941 "2018-01-24T18:03:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What great non-partisan need was there to have a public denunciation before the election?You’ve misunderstood this issue. They said she did do something criminal but not something which has historically been prosecuted. Don’t try to swallow that camel all at once… ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1942 "2018-01-24T18:03:57Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Republicans who want to prosecute Clinton believe (whether justifiably so or not) that she is indeed guilty of crimes. Sure. But since they do that _in opposition_ to the facts, that makes them worthy of only derision. ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1943 "2018-01-24T18:21:08Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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. I don’t appreciate any such thing. Republicans know full well that she wasn’t guilty of anything. But they know their base is so stupid that there are easy votes to be harvested by simply pretending that there are crimes of hers that should be prosected. ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1944 "2018-01-24T18:27:16Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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. :eek: Not sure how I missed that. Sorry about both mistakes, then. ---
**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, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1945 "2018-01-24T18:31:19Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t appreciate any such thing. Republicans know full well that she wasn’t guilty of anything. But they know their base is so stupid that there are easy votes to be harvested by simply pretending that there are crimes of hers that should be prosected. OK, now you seem to be making a distinction between “Republicans” and “their base”. In the context of the original point we’re discussing here - public support for prosecuting former politicians - this distinction is pointless, and “their base” are themselves “Republicans”. The point, again, is that public support for actually prosecuting Clinton even among those who believe she’s guilty of crimes - that being “Republicans” or “their base”, as you prefer - dropped once she lost the election. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > :eek: Not sure how I missed that. Sorry about both mistakes, then. OK. ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1946 "2018-01-24T18:51:41Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK, now you seem to be making a distinction between “Republicans” and “their base”. In the context of the original point we’re discussing here - public support for prosecuting former politicians - this distinction is pointless, and “their base” are themselves “Republicans”. The point, again, is that public support for actually prosecuting Clinton even among those who believe she’s guilty of crimes - that being “Republicans” or “their base”, as you prefer - dropped once she lost the election. I think we agree, Republican politicians know that investigation number 623 isn’t going to find anything prosecutable any more than the first 622 did. The Republican voters are convinced that there must be something to put her in jail for. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1947 "2018-01-24T18:56:59Z")
Not so fast. The Republican voters who are convinced of that were convinced \*by \*those Republican politicians. The gullible were misled by liars. And they still are. ---
**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, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1948 "2018-01-24T19:05:44Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not so fast. The Republican voters who are convinced of that were convinced \*by \*those Republican politicians. The gullible were misled by liars. And they still are. I agree. The politicians knowingly lie to their base, knowing that the anti-Hillary hysteria can be extended indefinitely with no facts whatever. I’m pretty sure that Trey Gowdy knows that he’s just running a smoke machine, but he also knows that it has paid off handsomely for his party. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1949 "2018-01-24T19:11:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Fotheringay-Phipps** : > > 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. No, I meant it the way I said it. The President can’t be prosecuted at the federal level because he is the executive. He’d be, in effect, prosecuting himself. At the state level, meanwhile, the Supremacy Clause wouldn’t come into effect at all unless there were some federal law which conflicts with state law, and I’m struggling to think of any federal law which could even plausibly exist that would work. Suppose a state wants to prosecute the President for tax evasion, for instance: Would there actually be a federal law that declares tax evasion not to be a crime? ---
**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, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1950 "2018-01-24T19:13:46Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > No, I meant it the way I said it. The President can’t be prosecuted at the federal level because he is the executive. He’d be, in effect, prosecuting himself. The President does not have authority over the Justice Department in the way you think he does. Just look at what happens when he tries to shut down an investigation. ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1951 "2018-01-24T19:25:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > No, I meant it the way I said it. I understood exactly what you meant. When I said you had it backwards I meant you were wrong. 🙂 > [@](#): > > At the state level, meanwhile, the Supremacy Clause wouldn’t come into effect at all unless there were some federal law which conflicts with state law, and I’m struggling to think of any federal law which could even plausibly exist that would work. Suppose a state wants to prosecute the President for tax evasion, for instance: Would there actually be a federal law that declares tax evasion not to be a crime? The Supremacy Clause comes into play in that the state guy would be depriving the federal government of its chief executive. It’s not my own argument. I cited to a pretty knowledgeable fellow (law professor and author etc.) writing in Newsweek. [Here’s another link](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/17/15654158/trump-prosecuted-constitution-impeachment-prosecutor) to some other experts cited as saying pretty much the same thing. (I’m not saying it’s settled law. But ISTM that state prosecution is shakier than federal, contrary to your assertion.) ---
**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, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1952 "2018-01-24T23:24:31Z")
Trump saying he is looking forward to [speaking to Mueller under oath](https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/politics/robert-mueller-donald-trump/index.html). I’m guessing that’s because he just found out that this has already been arranged and there is no getting out of it. Better to look like it is voluntary. No doubt he will lie. No doubt the lies will be obvious. No doubt this will be way worse than Clinton lying about sex. No doubt the GOP won’t care. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1953 "2018-01-24T23:33:49Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > No doubt he will lie. No doubt the lies will be obvious. No doubt this will be way worse than Clinton lying about sex. No doubt the GOP won’t care. The GOP won’t, but this will be invaluable to the independent and Democratic voters. It basically forces the GOP to either acknowledge that the Clinton impeachment was a partisan attack for something far less damaging than what Trump has done, or to explicitly state that the rules are different for Republicans. Their base will eat up whatever lame excuse they offer, but it’s a watershed moment. There will no longer be any way for the GOP to claim that Trump “hasn’t done anything impeachable.” ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1954 "2018-01-24T23:53:45Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Trump saying he is looking forward to [speaking to Mueller under oath](https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/politics/robert-mueller-donald-trump/index.html). I’m guessing that’s because he just found out that this has already been arranged and there is no getting out of it. Better to look like it is voluntary. > > No doubt he will lie. No doubt the lies will be obvious. No doubt this will be way worse than Clinton lying about sex. No doubt the GOP won’t care. Whoa, whoa, whoa…he said he’d be willing to talk, just as soon as the FBI interrogates Hillary Clinton under oath about her email server. In other words: he’ll do it when hell freezes over. This was just empty talk on Trump’s part. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1955 "2018-01-24T23:54:56Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > The GOP won’t, but this will be invaluable to the independent and Democratic voters. It basically forces the GOP to either acknowledge that the Clinton impeachment was a partisan attack for something far less damaging than what Trump has done, or to explicitly state that the rules are different for Republicans. > > Their base will eat up whatever lame excuse they offer, but it’s a watershed moment. There will no longer be any way for the GOP to claim that Trump “hasn’t done anything impeachable.” Based on historical trends the GOP won’t feel forced to admit anything, and will easily claim anything they want to. They don’t feel constrained by things like “facts” or “history”, because they’re not - they have a comfortable base ensconced in an echo chamber of transparent lies that inconvenient facts have no impact on. And I’m betting they’re still counting on division and demoralization (and gerrymandering and physically blocking voters) to keep independent and democratic voter turnouts low. It worked for them last time, and there’s no chance in hell of them increasing their voter base without changing things that they clearly don’t intend to change. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1956 "2018-01-25T00:35:40Z")
That’s not to mention the admittedly annoying fact that no one gives a single goddamn about Slick anymore. That was a generation ago. The American public can’t remember last month, and doesn’t want to. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1957 "2018-01-25T02:22:08Z")
Just so we’re clear, Trump wasn’t obstructing justice, he was “[fighting back](http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370620-trump-fighting-back-against-russia-probe-is-not-obstruction)” against the investigation. Big difference. Jesus, this interview is just a perjury trap. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1958 "2018-01-25T03:10:08Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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) > > If this article is correct, and I don’t think there’s a factual answer, then Mueller cannot indict but a grand jury can. and all Clinton had was a blowjob. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1959 "2018-01-25T03:13:05Z")
> [@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. How much time, money, and “effort” has been wasted on investigating her over nonexistent bullshit??? Enough already. I say, if they can prove Trump’s money laundering, treason and collusion with the Russians, hang his sorry ass. During or after his so called presidency. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/1960 "2018-01-25T03:17:15Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Just so we’re clear, Trump wasn’t obstructing justice, he was “[fighting back](http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370620-trump-fighting-back-against-russia-probe-is-not-obstruction)” against the investigation. Big difference. > > Jesus, this interview is just a perjury trap. No difference. I don’t care how that fat orange filth describes it now today. He was interfering and obstructing. He ADMITTED IT AND WE ALL SAW IT, He fired Comey over “the Russia thing” because he wouldn’t back off and let the other scumbag traitor Flynn slide. Obstruction. And it isn’t a perjury trap unless the “target” is a liar… and Trump always has been a liar. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=97) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=99)