A Thread for the Mueller Investigation Results and Outcomes (Part 1)

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@carlb

I’m honestly interested in what legal weight the DOJ letter to Mueller carries. I can see where they might have some authority over questions about internal deliberations in the Special Counsel’s Office, or other process kinds of things that occurred within an arm of the Justice Department. However, the DOJ letter seems to be asserting some pretty broad authority over Mueller’s testimony.

Zero legal weight. None. There are zero consequences if Mueller just runs his fucking mouth for 5 hours.

@Shodan

It seems pretty straightforward, at least to me - So, he can’t reveal parts that are redacted, and he shouldn’t discuss uncharged third parties or their conduct. But he can discuss the public report, which is what he has been saying he will do, all along.

There is no “can’t” at all. Nothing and no one prevents Mueller from saying any ddamned thing he wants except Robert Mueller.

[Shodan]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Zero legal weight. None. There are zero consequences if Mueller just runs his fucking mouth for 5 hours.There is no “can’t” at all. Nothing and no one prevents Mueller from saying any ddamned thing he wants except Robert Mueller.

This is the Pit, so no cite is necessary. That having been said, it is, in fact, illegal to reveal the redacted parts of the report, or to reveal grand jury testimony. See Cory “I Am Spartacus, and So Is My Wife” Booker.

I hope, rather than expect, that the Democrats are better versed in the law than you.

IANAL, but at least I have a measurable IQ. Would I could say the same about many of my fellow Dopers.

Regards,
Shodan

[Airbeck]

@Shodan

IANAL, but at least I have a measurable IQ. Would I could say the same about many of my fellow Dopers.

Dwarves have a measurable height too.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Shodan

This is the Pit, so no cite is necessary. That having been said, it is, in fact, illegal to reveal the redacted parts of the report, or to reveal grand jury testimony. See Cory “I Am Spartacus, and So Is My Wife” Booker.

I hope, rather than expect, that the Democrats are better versed in the law than you.

Unless you are claiming that someone or something is going to cut out Mueller’s tongue or glue his lips shut, I stand by my assertion.

Rosa Parks sat where she sat. MLK, Jr. marched where he marched. The only thing preventing Robert Mueller from saying whatever he wants is Robert Mueller.

[Lance_Turbo]

@Shodan

To which he will respond “that’s covered in the report - we did not conclude there was sufficient evidence of any obstruction of justice.”

The report contains lots of events that satisfy the definition of collusion and sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice to charge anyone other than a sitting president.

It is right in the report. Have you read it?

[QuickSilver]

@Snowboarder_Bo

The only thing preventing Robert Mueller from saying whatever he wants is Robert Mueller.

I think what Robert Mueller wants is to remain enigmatic. I think he enjoys being the quiet center of disturbance. i.e.: * “It’s not for me to conclude that DJT shot an individual on 5th avenue in broad daylight. I can only confirm that all the elements of the alleged crime have been documented in the investigation report, including sworn testimony of witnesses who corroborated and video recorded the event. -RM” *

[simster]

I think a fair question would be “If it were not for DOJ policy as quoted on xxx of the report, would you have moved to charge DJT with Criminal Obstruction”

Its not a hypothetical, its not outside of the report and it drives straight to the heart of the matter of Barr’s misrepresentation of the report.

I also find it not surprising at all that Mueller sought guidance - if for no other reason than to get Barr and the current DOJ on record of trying to further obstruct the investigation - in this case, Congress’s investigation into if the evidence presented is valid for impeachment to proceed.

[Walken_After_Midnight]

Shodan, I am interested: if the Mueller report found that Trump incontrovertibly committed obstruction of justice - which would lead to his imprisonment were he not president - would you consider that to be a high crime or misdemeanor, and worthy of impeachment?

[Fear_Itself]

@Shodan

So, he can’t reveal parts that are redacted, and he shouldn’t discuss uncharged third parties or their conduct. But he can discuss the public report, which is what he has been saying he will do, all along.

The hearings are going to be hours of Democrats asking questions like “On page 800 it is clear that President Trump obstructed justice. What then was your basis for not charging him with obstruction of justice?”

How can they ask this question, if Trump is an uncharged party?

[Shodan]

@Fear_Itself

How can they ask this question, if Trump is an uncharged party?

Maybe I don’t understand the question, but there is nothing physically stopping them from asking. And I doubt if the Dems will feel themselves bound by DoJ policy when it comes to Trump. Mueller is the one bound by DoJ policy, because he was acting on behalf of the DoJ.

@Walken_After_Midnight

Shodan, I am interested: if the Mueller report found that Trump incontrovertibly committed obstruction of justice - which would lead to his imprisonment were he not president - would you consider that to be a high crime or misdemeanor, and worthy of impeachment?

Sure, but that’s an easy one because of the “incontrovertibly”.

You might be thinking “the one and only thing that prevented Trump from prosecution is DoJ policy” and that isn’t the case. Read the Mueller report - that was one of but not the only factor. I am assuming that “incontrovertibly” means all those other factors did not apply, or are legally resolved somehow. No doubt the Dems will assume they are and frame their questions on that basis, but I doubt that Mueller will fall for it.

Mueller seems to be a lot more concerned about Russian interference in the election, and I suspect he will try to focus on that as the important thing. The report did not find any collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russians (despite Lance Turbo’s delusions), and therefore the Dems don’t want to talk about that. This is (from their POV) solely and entirely about finding/manufacturing something to impeach Trump over. Mueller won’t play along, and so I suspect his testimony will be about as much a dead firecracker as the report was.

In which case, the Dems will simply repeat exactly what they have been saying up to now. Lather, rinse, repeat. Then look around, find that nobody who wasn’t already convinced is convinced, and back to “Emoluments! Tax returns! Tweets! White supremacy! The way he combs his hair!” Until 2021, or quite possibly 2025.

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

You might be thinking “the one and only thing that prevented Trump from prosecution is DoJ policy” and that isn’t the case. Read the Mueller report - that was one of but not the only factor.

What were the other factors? From my reading of the Mueller report, that was the only factor mentioned.

[Lance_Turbo]

It sure as shit didn’t mention ‘insufficient evidence’.

[JohnT]

Mueller has apparently dropped a bit of a bomb today, asking that his aide also sit with him tomorrow.

Yamiche Alcindor

[Red_Wiggler]

@JohnT

Mueller has apparently dropped a bit of a bomb today, asking that his aide also sit with him tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1153720339861577728?s=19

Why might this “alarm” the GOP? (which sounds like a good thing to me)

[JohnT]

Theories I’ve heard:

1. Mueller may go “off script”, with the aide providing corroboration (but aide isn’t going to be a witness, so…)
2. Aide may not be subject to same regs as Mueller, or bound by letter.
3. Who likes surprises?

Other than that, I don’t know.

[Fear_Itself]

@Shodan

Maybe I don’t understand the question, but there is nothing physically stopping them from asking. And I doubt if the Dems will feel themselves bound by DoJ policy when it comes to Trump. Mueller is the one bound by DoJ policy, because he was acting on behalf of the DoJ.
Sure, but that’s an easy one because of the “incontrovertibly”.

Let me rephrase. If Mueller answers any questions about Trump, would he be in violation of Barr’s directive to not talk about uncharged parties? What do you think is the likelihood of Mueller going the whole day without talking about Trump?

[raventhief]

@JohnT

Theories I’ve heard:

1. Mueller may go “off script”, with the aide providing corroboration (but aide isn’t going to be a witness, so…)
2. Aide may not be subject to same regs as Mueller, or bound by letter.
3. Who likes surprises?

Other than that, I don’t know.

From that tweet:

Confirmed: Robert Mueller has asked that his longtime right-hand aide Aaron Zebley to be sworn in as a witness

1. Sounds more likely if the aide is sworn in as a witness. Plus 2. If the aide is not bound by the same regulations, then who knows what he’ll testify to.

[Shodan]

@Fear_Itself

Let me rephrase. If Mueller answers any questions about Trump, would he be in violation of Barr’s directive to not talk about uncharged parties? What do you think is the likelihood of Mueller going the whole day without talking about Trump?

I think the likelihood of going the whole day without mentioning Trump is pretty low.

Here’s what I could find about the policy.

In all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-parties. In the context of public plea and sentencing proceedings, this means that, in the absence of some significant justification, it is not appropriate to identify (either by name or unnecessarily-specific description), or cause a defendant to identify, a third-party wrongdoer unless that party has been officially charged with the misconduct at issue. In the unusual instance where identification of an uncharged third-party wrongdoer during a plea or sentencing hearing is justified, the express approval of the United States Attorney and the appropriate Assistant Attorney General should be obtained prior to the hearing absent exigent circumstances. See JM 9-16.500. In other less predictable contexts, federal prosecutors should strive to avoid unnecessary public references to wrongdoing by uncharged third-parties. With respect to bills of particulars that identify unindicted co-conspirators, prosecutors generally should seek leave to file such documents under seal. Prosecutors shall comply, however, with any court order directing the public filing of a bill of particulars.

As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily “no legitimate governmental interest served” by the government’s public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party, and this is true “[r]egardless of what criminal charges may . . . b[e] contemplated by the Assistant United States Attorney against the [third-party] for the future.”

This isn’t a plea or sentencing hearing, so that part doesn’t apply, and Trump’s name is already known publicly.

It more or less boils down to “don’t accuse someone of wrongdoing if they haven’t been charged with wrongdoing”. That’s an oversimplification, but less so than the idea that it would be against policy to answer “yes” if some Dem asks “was President Trump included in the investigation?”

Regards,
Shodan

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Robert Mueller is not a federal prosecutor.

[JohnT]

@raventhief

From that tweet:

Confirmed: Robert Mueller has asked that his longtime right-hand aide Aaron Zebley to be sworn in as a witness

1. Sounds more likely if the aide is sworn in as a witness. Plus 2. If the aide is not bound by the same regulations, then who knows what he’ll testify to.

From his tweet below the one linked:

NEW: I’m told from a source familiar that Robert Mueller’s longtime right-hand aide Aaron Zebley “won’t be sworn in as a witness.” But, “he will serve as counsel for the witness.”

Anyway, twitter threading is counterintuitive, so not surprised if you missed this.