On Monday, The New York Times published a list of questions they’d like to see Robert Mueller address during his testimony this week. We may never hear these questions asked during the hearings, and we most definitely will never know everything Mueller is privy to via his two-year investigation. But we will learn more about what is actually contained in the historic documents. It’s reported a very small percentage of Americans have read the report. Even some lawmakers have admitted they have only skimmed through. These hearing will be about educating Americans and the world regarding government collusion, obstruction of justice—and corruption.
Here are the New York Times’ top four questions with context.
1. Why didn’t you subpoena the president? Context:
The Mueller report says his prosecutors did not want to delay the investigation at a late stage with a subpoena fight that could drag on. They also thought they had “substantial” information from other witnesses that allowed them to assess the president’s actions. Nonetheless, not subpoenaing Mr. Trump was one of Mr. Mueller’s most controversial decisions because it arguably allowed the president to evade hard questions without real political damage. Read Appendix C-2 of the report»
3. Do you think the president was candid in his responses? Context:
The prosecutors asked Mr. Trump more than 65 written questions, including follow-ups. Although he has professed to have the “world’s greatest memory,” Mr. Trump said more than 30 times that he had no recollection. For instance, he said he did not recall any communications with Roger J. Stone Jr., a friend and former campaign adviser now facing criminal charges, in the six months preceding the election. When prosecutors complained that his answers were “inadequate,” they were rebuffed. Read Appendix C-1 of the report »
4. If Mr. Trump were an ordinary citizen, would you have found that there was sufficient evidence to charge him with obstruction of justice? Context:
This is probably the most burning question for Mr. Mueller, but good luck getting him to answer it. His report cites a 2000 opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel which states that a sitting president cannot be criminally charged. Given that, the prosecutors never analyzed whether the evidence against Mr. Trump amounted to a prosecutable case. Still, one would assume the team discussed it, at least informally.
Click here to read all 19 questions.
Many of us have our own questions. Feel free to add yours in the Daily Kos community comment section below.
Though the hearings may not lead to the result many Americans hope for, they may attract enough television viewership to see an increase in voter conversation, turn out and activism. And that can only be a good thing.