I’m just a humble litigator. I’m not a prosecutor. I don’t claim to be an expert. But I’ve drafted a question or two in my day, and I don’t buy it: I don’t think the leaked questions are the genuine article. As a whole, they don’t pass the smell test. I’ll try to illustrate.
Many are (to my eye) poorly conceived. For example:
What was the purpose of your calls to Mr. Comey on March 30 and April 11, 2017?
Yes, I know, Trump’s motive is the key to a possible obstruction of justice charge. But simply asking “what was the purpose” of a call is asking the question in a way that can easily be evaded. I expect Mueller’s actual questions to be better.
The next example compounds the previously-described error with another:
What was the purpose of your July 2017 criticism of Mr. Sessions?
A cardinal rule of written legal questions is, when you’re asking about a person’s statement, don’t characterize (“criticism”) that person’s statement with your question—just describe the statement sufficiently to make your question specific, or better yet, quote it. When you characterize the responder’s statement in your question, it makes it easy for a canny responder to attack your question rather than responding. In legal terms this question is “leading”. I’m not saying it’s never done; I’m saying that normally when you ask a leading question you do so to make a point, whereas here it appears to have been done gratuitously, simply to make an imprecise question a bit more precise. The question is simply not the kind of work I would expect from a team of Mueller’s caliber.
Other questions on the list are simply not appropriate:
What was your opinion of Mr. Comey during the transition?
Besides the fact that “what was your opinion” is another type of easily evaded question (unless you’re asking an expert for his expert opinion, which these questions are not), and besides the fact that this question covers a too-lengthy period of time for the context, the question appears to seek (or, at least, would surely result in) a purely political answer. It just seems out of place.
Still other questions do not appear to be designed to elicit a meaningful response:
What did you think about Mr. Comey’s intelligence briefing on Jan. 6, 2017, about Russian election interference?
“What did you think”? Really? The question is easy to evade, and even when answered will not yield a usable result. Besides, Trump is, in fact, already on the record with what he thought about Comey’s intelligence briefing about Russian election interference. He has repeatedly said that he does not believe it. I don’t see a response to this question as being particularly helpful to the investigation.
I’m not saying that none of the questions appear genuine. E.g.:
When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?
is a great question. As this question illustrates, the trick is to word the question broadly enough to be impossible to evade, while requiring a narrowly-focused answer that cannot be spun. Indeed, the list contains several well-drafted questions like this one sprinkled among the clunkers—enough that I’m not 100% sure of my conclusion.
But Mueller’s team is not just a group of average lawyers. They are all-stars led by a hall-of-famer. And to my eye, taken as a whole, the questions do not appear to be the carefully crafted product of a team of all-stars led by a hall-of-famer. Caveat emptor!