Will the Mueller Report Be Made Public? 17 Answers to What May Come Next

Maggie Haberman, Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and more of our journalists explained what the submission of the full report means and what may come next.

Comments: 208

  1. "Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that sitting presidents are immune from prosecution, and no court has ruled that they have any such shield. " "Essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president — either through impeachment and removal, or because his term is up. This interpretation of the Constitution is disputed, but it is nevertheless binding on Justice Department prosecutors, including Mr. Mueller." Essentially, a sitting President is above the law, and may do whatever he or she chooses with impunity, because the poor dear is so very busy. Its the death of the "Rule of Law" myth. There is no other possible interpretation, and it is the end of the America we believed we knew. As you say, none of that exists in the Constitution, and the "Originalists" are exposed for who they are.

  2. @oogada Any judge can see that Trump doesn't do much at his day job. I don't worry about that aspect.

  3. @oogada, great point. And it certainly didn't stop Republicans from dragging Bill Clinton through the process, ostensibly over an affair (which, egregious as it may have been, did not affect political policy.)

  4. Sorry my two earlier replies to this discussion seem to have bounced on time-outs. Search the October ‘73 Times for Spiro Agnew. He said he wouldn’t resign if indicted, then did, 10 days later, as he pleaded no contest to a just-unsealed indictment and immediately announced his resignation. Nixon and Clinton would both claim this bizarre invention that goes beyond any extension if rights Conservatives ever accused the Warren court of inventing, but Nixon resigned on “no quid pro quo”, and Clinton found himself cleared, re-elected and in a position clearing him because it is not a crime to fool around with an adult page in the Oval Office - tacky but no crime. It’s time to bury this lie and bounce the crook for good , and put an end ti the sick idea the President is above indictment for good.

  5. Before I read a single report on the report I want to thank Robert Mueller and his staff. I am grateful for the dedication, the calm, and the persistence in this troubled time. To have been made a target for doing this for our country has given us all reassurance that America is still America and that we follow the rule of law.

  6. @Jann McCarthy let's wait and see what the man comes up with before telling him what a hero he is. I'm starting to have my doubts after reading comments that remind me of all that Trump and Co. have allegedly done and said. If nothing comes of this investigation or others in progress I will have lost my faith in American justice.

  7. @sammy zoso Hard to say "nothing" has come of this investigation when you look at the number of criminal indictments, convictions, and sentences already.

  8. @sammy zoso Don't forget the many, many charges and indictments that have already come of this.

  9. "Essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president — either through impeachment and removal, or because his term is up. This interpretation of the Constitution is disputed, but it is nevertheless binding on Justice Department prosecutors, including Mr. Mueller." What this essentially means is that the USA is an elective monarchy with a King as its leader rather than a Republic with a President as its leader. Not quite what the Founding Father had in mind.

  10. @Alistair. Far from it. A sitting president can be removed via the impeachment process. No “Kings” here.

  11. @Norville T. Johnson I agree that that's the constitutional position but as long as the 'Court' that is empowered to do the impeaching (Congress) is operating with the degree of partisanship that we've seen over recent years there is no effective impeachment process.

  12. One good thing to come out of all this is the breakup of the facade that America is the greatest democracy. Never was, never will be.

  13. Uh oh. "Barr is also likely to acquiesce to any decision by President Trump to assert executive privilege to withhold certain materials, like communications with the president or agency deliberations." Any decision Trump makes? We know this guy's reasoning ability. Zero. He operates only on whim and anger. It's like letting you 3 year old decide on the dinner menu. Will Congress at least get to see the unredacted parts?

  14. @Ex New Yorker Trump literally said he wants it released though soo?

  15. @RingoS. You literally cannot trust or believe anything Trump says, though, so...?

  16. We saw the collusion when Trump asked Russia for help finding the emails. Then the Trump tower meeting and what Cohen talked about the Russian secret meetings? The GOP very corrupt.

  17. So let’s assume that Trump and his crew simply talked about a hotel deal in Moscow as being something that Putin could help approve. So there would be nothing illegal about this, right? Trump was just using his new found medium of validity to get a deal. Right?

  18. @Glenn Woodruff And so what if the guy in charge of foreign policy has foreign dignitaries spending large sums of money in hotels that have his name on them? There's no way that anyone could reasonably conclude that foreign powers were essentially buying favorable treatment despite our national interests. That sound you're hearing is a combination of me rolling my eyes as hard as I can and the founding fathers spinning in their graves.

  19. What happens to the 11 (or more) sealed indictments that the public was told about some time ago? Will these be handled by SDNY or D.C.? Also, is Mueller really done, or will there be wrap up legal work out of his office for some more days or weeks?

  20. Do we know exactly what parameters were given to Mueller? Isn't it weird that Trump and his family never testified before a grand jury? Could it be that Mueller was directed to not touch the Trump family?

  21. @Tracey You have hit on the key questions. Sure seems suspicious that Donald and family didn't testify.

  22. @Tracey I think we should wait until the report of Mr. Mueller is known in order to make a valid judgment. So I will wait and see.

  23. There's really only one question: "Did Russia interfere with the 2016 presidential election?" To my knowledge,they did not cast, change, or erase a single ballot, and if that is the case, nothing else matters. So what if Trump wanted to build one of his towers in Moscow! So what if Hillary's emails and the DNC emails were hacked! Both Hillary and the DNC should have been more discrete in their communications, and they and no one else are responsible for their words and actions. And if Bradley Chelsea Manning was fully pardoned for his release of classified material, why should Wikileaks be guilty of releasing non classified material? This whole thing has been a joke!

  24. @Michael I'm sure the advertising industry would be shocked to learn that purposeful persuasion, including disinformation and propaganda and massive repetition, has no effect on how people make decisions.

  25. @Michael. The question is not whether a foreign power cast, changed or erased votes. It is whether that foreign power tried to influence voters to vote for Trump (as seventeen US intelligence agencies say), and if so, whether they do so with help from or in coordination with “Individual 1” or his campaign. There was evidence Trump’s campaign manager gave a Russian agent internal Trump campaign polling data. If he did that so that Russian trolls could use it to better direct and focus their influence efforts, would that just be “a joke”? If Roger Stone, Trump’s acknowledged “dirty trickster,” coordinated the release of the stolen DNC emails with WikiLeaks to maximize their influence on behalf of the Trump campaign, would that just be “a joke”? If the president of the United States is in thrall to a foreign power, whether because he wants to build the biggest hotel of his career in Moscow or because that foreign power controls hundred of millions of dollars of his debt, would that just be “a joke”? Those would surely be some jokes on American democracy.

  26. @Michael Did Russia interfere? Yes. Eight U.S. Intelligence groups concluded Russia influenced the 2016 election to benefit Trump. You're not even a little concerned about this? So what if Trump was lusting for a tower in Moscow? No problem except that he was running for President. Big conflict of interest there, don't you think? Why his obsequiousness toward Putin? Why all the lying about having no business dealings with Russia? What if Hillary and DNC e-mails were hacked? You have no problem with a foreign adversary hacking into computers of our political representatives? Would you have a problem with Russia/China/Iran etc. hacking Donald Trump's, Paul Ryan's or Mitch McConnell's emails to benefit their political opponents? Be honest! What does Bradley Manning have to do with this? You seem to be justifying/defending Putin's attempt to influence our elections? Who's side are you on? The real joke is all the denial/justifying of the attack on our democracy you hear from a certain segment of the population.

  27. I wish to thank Mr. Mueller and all of his team for a professional execution of their duty. Thank you, all of you.

  28. @rosa I assume that it was professional. But we do not know that.

  29. No further charges? My heart fell to my feet.

  30. @Islandgirl -- Mueller spun off some of the investigation which is a good thing. It means no charges from Mueller but there may be more from other sources. Also there may be indictments made but not yet acted on. So it means no further indictments from Mueller nothing more.

  31. I know, we the public, has to wait a bit to see this report. However, I would like to know now how long the report is. Is is six pages or six hundred?

  32. @Marlo "I would like to know now how long the report is. Is is six pages or six hundred?" Answer: Probably somewhere in between.

  33. What does this mean for Mike Flynn? His sentencing was delayed so he could continue to provide information to the investigation.

  34. Where does the Mueller Report —as far as we can tell so far—belong in the larger constellation of investigations and lawsuits surrounding the President?

  35. Are there any other possible consequences if no other charges will be filed?

  36. Impeachment, but that has already been ruled out by Pelosi, and is unlikely to ever proceed to a Senate conviction even if it did happen.

  37. @Jeanne A Of course there are, and in many cases more secure than anything Mr. Mueller may have come up with. There are a few regional investigations (Southern District of New York, for example). The trouble with those are they are still liable to Mr. Barr directing they be stopped, or pardons for all convicted. There are state investigations (New York and Virginia for a start) completely out of the reach of the White House or the Justice Department. There is the potential for local investigations and indictments on a variety of issues in a variety of jurisdictions. And, if we had a functioning Congress, there would be the possibility of conviction upon impeachment. Beyond that, you must remember the Mueller probe was limited strictly to matters relating to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Many other important issues have been raised. This is far from over and, although the Trumpers are doing their victory dance, it is way premature. They're hoping to trick you into giving up.

  38. If Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report does not include any additional indictments as being reported by CNN this suggests no Russian collusion was found at all since the people already charged with crimes are for unrelated matters, than what justification does the Democratic controlled House of Reps have to continue there investigation? If Nadler and Schiff are looking for other crimes again on what evidence?

  39. @MDCooks8 Justification? How about 2 years of non stop lying? How about all the Russia connected advisers who are going to jail? How about Don Jrs repeated lying about meeting with Russian reps? Why did Sessions feel the need to recuse himself after lying about Russian contacts? How about Trumps obsequious behavior toward Putin? Why do Trump and his brood act so guilty all the time? Don't you want to know?

  40. @MDCooks8 "... this suggests no Russian collusion was found at all" It suggests nothing of the kind. Mueller is a good soldier, and the (ridiculous) policy of his Republican Department of Justice is that a sitting President cannot be indicted so, even if he wanted to, he wouldn't. Also, its a mistake to obsess on the matter of indictments. Trump may have behaved in ways bordering on treason that are not technically criminal. They may not be formally indictable, but he may still be held responsible. Remember, too, that 'collusion' is a shorthand term leaned on by the media and heavily promoted by Trumpers as a distraction. There is a lot more going on here. We're far from finished.

  41. @TR Yes, I want to know why they aren't indicted.

  42. I'm trying hard to hope that #45 will not find a way to whitewash and cover up this report. But his utter corruption and that of all those around him, combined with grave doubts about Barr, make me as nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

  43. Thank you for breaking it down. There is so much going on and now I understand it better.

  44. “Essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president” I don’t think an indictment would harm the ability to send tweets.

  45. @Mark It might cut into his golf time.

  46. Do we know that Mueller finished his investigation and was not shown the door by Whitaker and Barr?

  47. No matter what Mr. Mueller concludes, trump and Barr must be jailed immediately!!

  48. Should I trust Barr? My gut tells me no.

  49. @Patrick Lovell My only hope is that his avowed friendship with Mueller has some influence on his decision.

  50. @Patrick Lovell. Why should any of us be required to trust the AG, regardless of who and what administration that AG is? Isn't that the larger point, that somehow we are all required to trust our government I do not care which party is in power when it comes to trust, I want transparency and utter and complete disclosure, period. I have lived through the Pentagon Papers (LBJ) and Watergate (Nixon), no one should ever trust the government, they will lie when it suits them even about life and death matters.

  51. @Patrick Lovell What? NOT trust the man who pursuaded George Bush (the 1st) to PARDON the whole Iran / Contra crew so they could NOT implictate Bush for his role in it? Hmmm.... Maybe you're On to something there...

  52. I saw no provision to submit a question. So I will submit here. My question is, Will we see out of the wildly abusive pundits of my side (the Left) wisely step forward on their own with a sort of "truth & reconciliation" process, whereby they acknowledge their Trump derangement and therefore cool the firestorm they have created with overblown predictions of convictions for treason and/or justification of a coup? Will they have the guts and decency to cut their losses and admit how horribly wrong they have been? Will the NYT institute an investigation into derangement lockstep on the part of it's staff, and design procedures to prevent this sort of "fact burying for career gain" in the future? I'd like to see my Liberal side succeed, and I'd like to see the NYT get back on track, and I'd like to see Trump defeated. Hence my questions.

  53. @CK You make more sense than any other comment I have read. To be fair, after almost 3 years of investigation at an enormous cost in dollars and the well being of our country, the NYT should have run the headline “Trump Vindicated.” All of us need to accept the results and move on to the next election.

  54. @CK the “firestorm they have created”? “Justification for a coup”? And “guts and decency” and “fact burying”? It doesn’t sound like you have been paying attention for the past two years and it sounds like you listen mainly to Fox “News.” The statements “I fired him over this Russia thing” and “I take Putin at his word” and the obvious putting of private business interests over the nation’s interest are alone serious enough to raise alarm bells in the minds of any thinking person.

  55. @Anne How do you know the report “vindicates” Trump?? At this point all we know is that an indictment of Trump will not occur at this time. Did you receive an advanced copy of the report?

  56. What will the New York Times do to fill in all the content they published online and in print the past 22 months concerning the Mueller Investigation now that the report has been issued? Obviously the editors will stretch this out for as long as possible, however it is evident the Times already has trouble filling content since the same articles or news reports are already duplicated in different sections of the online edition.

  57. @MDCooks8 no matter what we all know trump will continue to beat this dead horse in his tweets because as with McCain dead things don't lash out anymore. So for the rest of this dictatorship until the ruler's death we will continue to see trump tweets about the witch hunt & how he has won.

  58. How many pages is the report? Is it bigger than a bread box?

  59. I’m not happy right now . We should have had a special commission to investigate this , not a special prosecutor who’s only looking for criminal activity that’s “ indictable “ . I’m VERY DISAPPOINTED. Maybe Democrats and other Independents like myself will be just as indignant as I am and will be motivated to get out to the polls and GET RID OF THIS CREEP in the Oval Office !

  60. @KarenE My only consolation today was reading that the state of New York is actively investigating the Trump businesses. At least he won't be able to pardon himself and his family if found guilty in state courts.

  61. @KarenE It's up to us now. There is no savior out there waiting to free us from Trump. We need to get to work and end this nightmare in 2020. And Democrats need to step away from the circular firing squad and get behind whatever candidates are running no matter age, race, gender. If they have a D after their name, they will help get us on the right track, we can sort out the details later.

  62. As in the past (Pentagon Papers etc) please publish the entire Mueller report when it becomes available.

  63. Will there be an e-book version? Inquiring minds want to know.

  64. @macman2 The temptation to speculate is very high but unless someone has access to an online search engine we may never know the truth. Hope this clears things up for you.

  65. if there are sealed indictments, would we even know? would the AG and WH?

  66. Your story leads with, “...Does Not Recommend New Charges” Why lead with that? DoJ has made it clear a sitting president can’t be indicted, so new charges weren’t expected.

  67. They mean “no new charges” against anyone, not just the President. Notably, this includes the President’s children and their spouses (like Jared Kushner) as well as other friends and associates of Trump.

  68. Mike A: “Additional charges” could have been directed at Trump’s children. There was considerable speculation about that.

  69. @Mike A He could still recommend them. They might not lead to indictment while in office, but if it has evidence of criminal conduct that could be used in impeachment proceedings.

  70. "Essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president — either through impeachment and removal, or because his term is up. This interpretation of the Constitution is disputed, but it is nevertheless binding on Justice Department prosecutors, including Mr. Mueller." I understand that stigma and trial prep might "interfere" with a President's execution of the office, but what about Presidential activities that interfere with the Constitution the President is elected to uphold?

  71. what about hours of playing golf with rich people and watching hours of Fox tv News? what about his time spent on tweeting and issuing directives to cover up suspicious activities of his relatives and on-going business? the question more rightly should be, does President Trump spend enough time paying attention to the responsibilities of his office as it is,or is he a part time employee?

  72. It’s real simple. Every American call in sick until the full report is made public. No excuse to withhold any part of it.

  73. Are there still sealed indictment? For example, could Donald Trump, Jr., already be indicted by Mueller but that indictment is sealed and we don't know about it? If that is the case, does no more indictments recommended mean anything?

  74. @Eric Eitreim No. It's been reported there are no outstanding indictments from the SCO. The other agencies investigating these crimes might indict people for crimes committed to benefit trump, or for crimes that came to light during the course of the primary investigation.

  75. "There is also a wild card: Mr. Barr has long adhered to a sweeping view of executive power under which the president, as head of the executive branch, has a constitutional right to control the exercise of discretionary policymaking by a subordinate such as himself." There seems to be a built-in conflict of interest here. How independent and "prosecutorial" can the DOJ be when a President needs to be investigated and perhaps prosecuted, but the DOJ itself is part of the executive branch and with its head (likely to be of the same political party as the president) appointed by the President that needs to be investigated? This reminds me of those clauses in corporate contracts where if there is a problem, the corporation investigates itself or there is an arbitration board that is anything but independent.

  76. @PB Investigate old man Barr interesting he so wanted this job . How many phone calls, meetings did he have with the Trump cover up squad . Old man Barr survived Iran Contra affair I don’t think he will survive the will of the people. History will remember him in the same negative manner as we remember Ken Starr and other traitors to democracy,

  77. Trump should have been required to answer questions from the special counsel under oath. Why is Donald Trump held to a different standard than everyone else? During his presidency Bill Clinton was threatened with a subpoena to answer questions about an affair. This case deals with the national security of our country and whether our president conspired with a hostile foreign government to win an election. Why is everyone so afraid of this immature man-baby?

  78. @L I'm not a lawyer, so it stuns me that a central player in a conspiracy under investigation can get out of testifying because everyone knows he'll lie his face off. It's possible he lied in writing; his pathological dishonesty suggests it's even likely. Can anyone think of other alleged federal criminals -- apart from, say, Jeffrey Epstein -- who got to dictate the terms of their involvement in investigating their own lawbreaking? It reminds me of the strip mall massage parlor scandal in that men under investigation have argued against the public release of surveillance video on the grounds that they'll be embarrassed. I look forward to the day a punk robbing a convenience store implores the judge not to share any incriminating video because he's having a bad hair day, and video might undermine his newish youtube empire.

  79. @L The rumor is that Trump's attorney's told Mueller that the President would plead the fifth to ever question past what is your name. Hopefully, this, and many other mysteries will be solved when the report becomes public.

  80. @jim Muller should have put Trump on the stand and let him "plead the fifth" away to any question. Let him do that and this fact would have have spoken for itself as an innocent person, as Trump claims he is, does not answer every question by pleading "the fifth". Period.

  81. Does the law give the President the right to read the full report? Is the Attorney General required to show him the full version?

  82. If the Mueller team did find evidence of collusion (i.e., conspiring) or other crimes by the President or by his close associates including without limitation his family members and extended family (including former family members and his chain-migration in-laws), would that explosive and highly sensitive information appear in the report and made available to the President and/or others before other legal action has been taken? How would national security concerns inform what is and is not in that report? Might there be a shadow report as well?

  83. Does the law allow the AG or President to order that certain things in or about the report be changed, omitted, added, or redacted? Where and how will the report, and the evidence and work product that allowed its creation be stored, short term and for the long term? Are there laws or rules about that? May any of it ever legally be destroyed? Is there a sunshine date on which the report and/or supporting documentation must be released to the public? For that matter, is the President or AG permitted to share whatever parts of the report and/or supporting documents or evidence with whomever he wants? Say, perhaps, Putin or others in the Russian government or country, or their formal or informal allies? Are the AG or Trump allowed to reveal the report or substantive aspects of it to their wives or other family members but not to the general public (of which those wives/family are a part)? May people told about it or shown the report before it goes public be subpoenaed and deposed about it?

  84. @C.D.M. I meant this as an honest question. It may seem obvious, but not to me. The report is made to the AG, who isn't the president's employee. Is there anything in the laws regulating Special Counsels that requires (or allows) the AG to share its contents with the White House?

  85. It's impossible to classify the numerous comments on the NYT's article announcing the release of Mueller's report -- with just one exception: For a while, the focus will shift from "When will Mueller's report be released?" to "How much of Mueller's report will be made public?" The new focus won't last long, though. Both Trump and Barr have indicated that the public should see the report. If they change their minds, it will be leaked. It should be made public, one way or another, and public release, rather than leaking, will be more likely to result in discreet redactions to protect innocent people identified in the report. I hope that happens, and soon, though the redactions should be kept to a minimum so that the report's narrative flow is not disturbed unnecessarily. Whenever and however the report becomes public (i.e. through a leak, or through public release, or a little of both), the focus will soon shift again -- from "How much of Mueller's report will be made public?" to "Just because Mueller says there's not enough evidence to charge someone doesn't mean Mueller thinks he's innocent." That new "focus" -- and others -- will spawn many debates over the next few months. And finally, one hopes, it will all go away, and we'll have something else to be pre-occupied about -- the 2020 election, perhaps.

  86. @MyThreeCents Yes we are all looking forward to 20/20 but the facts will come out and the GOP will be crushed along with the Con artist president, enough with the entire family. Hopefully respectable society will shun them going forward as they did with Nixon.

  87. The thing is, Congress does have the ability to respond to Trump's crimes, and the crimes of his "gang", "mob" (or what ever you want to call it). And they have chosen not to pursue those options. I'm not sure what that says about where the country is, but I have an intuition it isn't good

  88. @smarty's mom. Huh? Congress is going after his many hijinks.

  89. Somewhere, someone has a flash drive copy of this thing. It’s only a matter of time before that’s released. I’m also sure Wikileaks is already working on this.

  90. There have been rumors for months that Mueller has filed sealed indictments. What do we know about that? If there are sealed indictments, when and under what circumstances will they be unsealed?

  91. @Steel Magnolia That's an interesting question that wasn't addressed in this article -- or else where to my knowledge.

  92. I am not hopeful that Barr will release the report. Sessions was fired in order to replace him with someone Trump felt comfortable with, someone capable of the fealty he expects. But no matter how the Republicans handle this, and they are in key positions to handle it, Trump has shown the world who he is. And it was not the media who ruined the man's reputation; it was his tweets.

  93. @sailor2009 Surely ,the world knew who and what Trump is long before he got to the White House. He's had a bad reputation since he was a kid. How could it be ruined? You're right about the tweets : they give a clear view of his character ,and it's not a pretty sight.

  94. Some outlets have raised the question of a counterterrorism investigation—and possibly a separate report—dealing with Russia’s influence over Trump, whether via blackmail or control of his massive debt or otherwise. Were those issues within Mueller’s investigatory ambit? If not, are they under investigation and if so by whom and under what authority? Will we ever get answers to those questions?

  95. Good point: "For example, could Donald Trump, Jr., already be indicted by Mueller but that indictment is sealed and we don't know about it? If that is the case, does no more indictments recommended mean anything?" Mueller reportedly does not recommend any additional charges. But, as this commenter points out, there may ALREADY be sealed indictments out there that we just don't know about. Mueller's reported decision not to recommend any additional charges doesn't mean he hasn't already charged, say, Donald Trump, Jr. -- or even Donald Trump, Sr. One imagines that Mueller would have seen fit to let us know already if he'd found evidence sufficient to support charges that haven't yet been made public, but who knows? Maybe he had good reasons not to tell us. We'll soon find out.

  96. What happens to Stone, Corsi, Page and all those other lower level associates? Why was Corsi pressured to plea guilty to lying when others closer to the president also lied?

  97. @Tedj Corsi refused to be screwed by Mueller and refused to plead guilty. So Mueller dropped the case as he could not squeeze Corsi into testifying and had no case to begin with.

  98. I’m hoping that the intrepid reporters at the New York Times or Washington Post have got confidential sources that will provide them with the full report if Barr does not release it. The people of this country have a right to read the full report for themselves.

  99. @Anne V The press -- I've learned as a journalist for fifty years -- is a thin reed to depend on. They never were, for example, able to provide us with Hillary's speeches to the bankers -- and hundreds must have heard those. And, come on, how can they not find Trump's tax returns? Perhaps somebody, like our billionaire lefties in Katona or the Bay Area, could offer a huge reward for anybody putting Trump's tax returns into the public domain, no questions asked. Where oh where is our next Edward Snowden when we need them? The nation calls out for you. You could win the noble prize.

  100. Oh good, a panel of New York Times journalists. We can *totally* trust them to be objective on a matter of the Trump presidency. No doubt they will get right to the bottom of it .

  101. @citizenjim, who do you consider objective? What criteria must be met for objectivity? How can you tell if a journalist is objective? Does one's education and training impact objectivity? Does the reputation and institutional commitments of a newspaper impact its objectivity? I assume you think that Rupert Murdoch has a long-standing commitment to objectivity?

  102. @citizenjim Unfair, uninformed, ad hominem attack. They are some of the best journalists around and are actually doing a public service by explaining complex procedures. This Q&A simply states facts. Remember those?

  103. @citizenjim That's right. Only Trump can be *totally* trusted on matters of the Trump presidency. No doubt he will tweet right to the bottom of it, if he can hit bottom.

  104. If the report is released in its entirety, we will know that it was a whitewash by a republican appointee. Shame. Shame!!

  105. If Robert Kraft’s sexually graphic spa videos can be distributed to the public then why can’t the Mueller Report also be distributed, warts and all, no pun intended?

  106. @Covfefe I didn't know of 'the if,' I heartily agree with 'the then' -- but, most of all, I pray to 'un-see' the mind's-eye picture 'painted' with 'the if.'

  107. As lengthy as the report might be, wouldn't it fit on a thumb-drive? What are the chances someone with access leaks it to the press or to the House of Representatives? Fairly good, I would think, and without much of a delay.

  108. @Joseph Flynn Were that leaking were so simple! If it were, don't you think we'd have seen Trump's tax returns?

  109. I wait with bated breath for a leak of this report.

  110. @Joseph Flynn I suggest having a sleuth, preferably an attractive female, "accidentally" spill some hot coffee on Bill Bar's lap. While he leaves his office to clean himself off, she sticks the thumb-drive into his computer and copies the report. Then see to it that it gets delivered to he proper people, who delivers the full report to the American people.

  111. War. I don’t think this was ever really discussed or even mentioned. Could the Mueller Investigation have precipitated war with Russia? It’s fairly certain that President Putin believes the current order in the Balkans was formed at a time when Russia was down and the West took advantage of that weakness, i.e., when Bill Clinton was President. So, it’s reasonable to speculate that this was one of the main reasons he was against Hillary Clinton becoming President. Is this why Russia interfered in our 2016 election? Was this why Russia was supportive of Donald Trump? If the Special Council revealed even part of such a simplistic plot to meddle in our elections, how would they Russia have responded? Maybe it was too frightening to contemplate, so the onus is on Congress to make the interpretation of the Report. Unless of course, President Trump chooses to pick up the course of action General George Paton wanted.

  112. Good analysis, Thanks. Hopefully Director Mueller will soon be able to take a well earned, long vacation with his wife somewhere he's always wanted to go. If anyone deserves a break, he deserves it. Being in that frying pan and leading such a high caliber, hard-charging team for two years without a vacation must have left him exhausted, to say the least. Thank you Director Mueller, for your stellar public service and leadership.

  113. @Ed It seems that Robert Mueller loves his line of work and thrives in his pursuit of justice so rather than be eager to go on vacation he may actually dread the prospect of relaxing. Instead, he'd probably prefer testifying before Congress about his investigation rather than watching the sunset from some exotic destination.

  114. It seems like there is a lot of information, like grand jury stuff, that's protected from public scrutiny. Not just here but for all grand juries. How can they possibly release the entire report under those circumstances?

  115. Thanks to the Times today, we can see the usual profile of the people in charge in this country. For example, at this crucial moment, we have Robert Mueller and William Barr making the key decisions. They both know each other very well and their wives go to Bible Class together. They've been to the Best Schools, run in the "best" circles and fought in the best US wars. They believe in all the American Myths you could round up in an hour and they will lie and deceive and say anything to sustain those myths in America. They will do anything to "Manufacture Consent" for those in power. I remember Mueller before congress promoting the lie of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. They are dangerous people in more ways than one.

  116. It's amazing that the Trump administration continues to break all "norms" of competence, ethics and decency and yet remains as President of the USA because a "norm" stating a sitting president cannot be indicted.

  117. The dangers presented by Russians and others continuing to meddle in American politics and in our economy will not be paused while Attorney General William Barr tries to suspend or curtail release of the full Mueller report. The sophistry of Barr’s views about an imperial presidency cannot be allowed to place Donald Trump above the law. Robert Mueller appears to be a good man acting in good faith. William Barr does not. History will judge how the American people and the men and women in charge of our institutions respond to a clear and present danger facing our democracy by the ongoing greed and disloyalty of Donald Trump. Unfortunately, we must protect our nation now, rather than await the verdict of history. The patriotic forces for decency -- and we should include The New York Times in that group -- are too polite by half. Men like William Barr will take advantage of that civility, if we let them.

  118. I am not a fan of speculation posed as reporting. There will be plenty of actual news in the days ahead regarding Mueller Report and Southern District of NY four system.

  119. The 5th Ave. Republican base is emboldened. No indictments is proof positive to them. They are already calling 2020. I can't say I disagree if the Democrats latch hard on to this report. The main perps have already been sentenced. What's in the report that his own personal lawyer didn't already know? By all means, let's see the details. I don't expect it to make much of a difference. The longer it's drawn out, the more red meat he has for his upcoming MAGA rallies.

  120. Everyone is missing one distinct possibility. Think of the Trump family as a criminal enterprise (i.e., "mob family"). Every Federal mob prosecution for conspiracy involves indictment of the ENTIRE criminal "family," including the mob boss at the top. The interlocking nature of a conspiracy absolutely requires that ALL necessary parties (a lawyer phrase) be included in the indictment and prosecution -- no one can be left out, especially the boss of all bosses. But DOJ has this rule that says sitting presidents cannot be indicted, and Mueller feels compelled to follow it. No one has ever seen or experienced a president whose immediate family is essentially his "crew." As such, assume an indictment for conspiracy COULD be brought against the president and members of his immediate family right now, because the president "cannot" be indicted, a conspiracy charge against other members of the Trump family without including the president (the "boss") himself would be only half a loaf, completely hamstrung and a loser without his involvement, testimony, etc., in the courtroom. A conspiracy indictment now with the president sitting comfortably at home in the White House, immune from indictment, while the rest of his family goes to trial? Impossible from a "mob" prosecution standpoint. As such, Muller's statement that "no new indictments" will be forthcoming. Until after the president leaves office -- then watch out.

  121. @JTS "Every Federal mob prosecution for conspiracy involves indictment of the ENTIRE criminal "family," including the mob boss at the top." Umm, no. That is simply not true. You made it up.

  122. I think it's time for a new legal opinion regarding indictment of sitting Presidents. Policies and procedures are just that, and they can change. No one ever anticipated a President who had as much Executive down time as Trump. He is not "running the country". He is ruining the country. Why should that be permitted? It's time for a new opinion.

  123. There are good reasons to edit the report that the OSC submitted to the AG: There's an ongoing counter-intellingence investigation. Sources and methods shouldn't be compromised. Innocent parties should not be swept up into a morass. These edits apply to the underlying rationale and supporting documents. They don't apply to the conclusions, which Barr indicated go beyond a simple listing of who was indicated, who wasn't, and why. What we have been waiting nearly 4 years to learn is, what happened in the 2016 election? Who did what, with whom, and with what effect? For me, that question is more important than who is charged with a crime. I am eager to learn what the report brings to light.

  124. No trust for Trump or Barr. We have no idea of what we will or wont get to see. The criminals are running the roost and we can't trust any of what is released. But it is likely to be a Trump whitewash and where will that leave us? It's becoming clear that our system of government was not set up to deal with a strong criminal element getting into the Oval office. But here we are. I am beginning to wonder how deep the Trump effect has invaded DOJ. But it can't be good.

  125. Indeed, the notion that a sitting president cannot be indicted is disputed...by the man who wrote the 1973 DoJ review of this issue. The US addressed this question 6 times in internal memos and litigation briefs. These documents shows that it's not clear what criminal prosecution steps are (or should be) precluded—and there's no longstanding policy against indictment of the president. Consider Robert Dixon's the 1973 OLC memo stating that a sitting president should not be indicted. Far from being authoritative, it was essentially repudiated within months by the Justice Department in the United States’ filing in the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon. Perhaps the most important point emerging from a review of all the opinions is that only once has the US addressed the question of whether a president can be an unindicted co-conspirator. The conclusion was yes. Nixon was named in the Watergate indictment, and that inclusion was sustained by Judge Sirica and defended in United States v. Nixon. (The Supreme Court did not resolve the question.)

  126. Are there sealed indictments out there against members of Trumpworld? Are there federal investigations not yet completed of members of Trumpworld? Will the State of New York, or other states investigate, and/or indict members of Trumpworld? The answer to one or more of these questions is, wait for it, YES. It's going to take a long time to hunt down all of the criminals in Trumpworld, and deliver justice to them.

  127. if it is not released we are not going to believe anything we hear, are shaken Trust of will be broken completely.

  128. the special council 's report might possibly include information that genuinely needs to be kept secret - for example, ways to identify intelligence agents, facts that might allow our adversaries to draw conclusions about our intelligence gathering techniques, call outs concerning military installations or equipment, etc. in short, bona fide state secrets. at the same time, the President and his staff, his political supporters, and his employees deserve no special dispensation for themselves, for no matter what AG Barr believes, the President works for us, he is not the king, we do not need to defer to him, he does not get to decide unilaterally what Americans deserve to know about him and his actions and associates, and executive priveledge, as I understand the intentionally vague concept, is about the office of the presidency, and not about its current occupant.

  129. I understand there were several sealed indictments filed as a result of the investigation. What happens to those?

  130. Can anyone confirm that -- new indictments or no -- there still remain some 8 to 12 sealed files at (some) District Court in Mueller-initiated matters?

  131. I’d love to see the GOP in the dustpin of history, however this whole Russia gate affair has been a big distraction and excuse for Democrats from focusing on putting forward real progressive positions that benefit working people. Some folks still can’t aknowlege that the elections were mainly lost because of the ineptitude of Clinton and that meddling in foreign elections is what the US has been doing for ages now..at least as much as Russia is doing it. Not that I like it, but it’s just what independent powers do to further their national interests.

  132. It is entirely possible we will never know the whole truth, but every effort to get it through legal and evidence-based investigations, is worth it to serve as a warning to those who would corrupt our government and abuse their power in the future. There must be at least the threat of discovery and punishment when individuals make decisions about whom they will work for and protect and what lines they will cross. We have seen much of the corruption surrounding Donald Trump by those in his service and seeking his favor. Imagine how deep and wide the corruption would be in there was no threat of being caught?

  133. It seems that any solution for misconduct by the president is political, not legal. And given the Republicans’ willingness to keep lowering the bar on acceptable behavior by the president, it’s entirely possible, and I’ll bet highly probable, that the report will do nothing except fuel more outrage on the left. And that, in turn, will empower Trump.

  134. @MWR It should empower the Democrats to get out and vote at every election for Democrats.

  135. "Mr. Trump’s lawyers consider it one of their greatest accomplishments that he never sat for an interview. " Isn't Mr. Trump's side irrelevant? Mr. Trump's testimony isn't really credible evidence, when compared with both the facts in the Mueller Report and the patterns of the testimonies of Trump's team that Mueller was able to interview. The transcript of Trump's interview, if it were recorded, would have been disallowed as executive privilege and national security. He will have ample opportunities, via Twitter and his press secretary, to make statements. He's more at home as a spectacle than as a witness, I should imagine.

  136. Several comments state that the report will be released, one way or another--leaked if not outright released. I certainly wouldn't argue that point...just wanted to point it out . Seems in the 21st century nothing can stay private or secret for long. However...Donald Trump's financial disposition has remained private through out the inquiry.

  137. Its too early to draw any conclusion. One thing is undisputable: The Mueller report is certainly not comprehensive without at least a personal interrogation of Trump himself. Let's hope that Special Counsel Mueller addresses this point in is report. Anyway, the Mueller did ignite the public interests in this dangerous constitutional crisis. The night is still green. Don't celebrate yet, the Trump family.

  138. Trump serves in a public office. Taxes pay his salary. Transparency is paramount. The report should be made public. Period.

  139. "This interpretation of the Constitution is disputed, but it is nevertheless binding on Justice Department prosecutors, including Mr. Mueller." It's unsettled, but it's binding? Indicting trump would be soul cleansing for America; and, it would give Pence something to do.

  140. I hope the Mueller Report provides a detailed account of the mechanisms by which Russia and other nations twisted the 2016 election and put(s) our system of elections in jeopardy. I hope there are serious recommendations for upgrading protections for electoral process on the basis of what Mueller's team uncovered. I hope that the report galvanizes congressional committees to budget modernization nationwide of upgrading voting machines and all the apparatus around conducting elections. I hope that the report urges Congress to work on specific needed changes in election laws and policies. I hope it presses Congress for changes in the profit structure and practices of social media, and proposes an initiative to educate voters recognize foreign interventions. It strikes me that in all of the reporting about the emerging Mueller Report there's virtually nothing about the grave danger for which the investigation was initiated in the first place. (In the interest of "balance" I'll leave the other political threat to our electoral system out of this post)

  141. @Jean L. So much is already known as to how Russian operatives were actively meddling in the 2016 election by identifying and sending erroneous/bizarrely wrong information about the candidates to potential voters. Facebook has admitted its errors and has taken some steps to protect the public. Statements on line about Clinton seem to show that the work of the Russian trolls was effective and remains to this day. We don't need the Mueller report to understand what was done to the electorate.

  142. @Jean L. Amen to that. I intend to hold my representatives responsible for making changes to protect our electoral process.

  143. Not even the length of Mueller's report is known. So when Barr submits his report o the report, will we know how much he deleted? $25 million by Sept. 2018, that figure is bound to leap into millions more when the last six months are added up. I have the sense that this will be anticlimactic. But I hipe that at least it serves as a warning for future presidential candidates on where the limits are. I don't think it will serve as any kind of scarecrow to the Russians, or any other country that wants to try to meddle, given the venues to do so in the current system of internet and global communications. (But at least conspiracies with campaigns and candidates to interfere will be more difficult...).

  144. The Mueller Report is merely the end of the beginning. This will go on for decades.

  145. The DOJ memorandum is the elephant in the room. No where in our Constitution or in statutory or case law is it forbidden to indict a sitting president for crimes committed while in office. It has been opined that "structural principles" in the Constitution implicitly bar indicting a president. In a case of this magnitude, this memorandum should be ignored, because it is against the rule of law - that no man is above the law, not even the president. We don't know how Mueller came to his conclusions, but we know that it was in strict compliance to the DOJ memorandum. The House of Representatives should demand that all of the evidence be made public and then use it to indict this president, and/or impeach him to avoid a miscarriage of justice and a blot on our democracy.

  146. There is no news, only that it has been released. Speculate all you want, but none of that does any good until you read the report. If it is not released as a complete document, then the struggle begins, but not before.

  147. Two years of thorough investigation. No further indictment Yawn

  148. If "negative information about people whom prosecutors scrutinized but decided not to charge with a crime" won't be released, and if Muller respects the Justice Dept guidelines saying that a sitting president can't be indicted, then it seems that even if Muller found mountains evidence that incriminates Trump in various illegal activities, we will never know about it.

  149. after very very thorough multi-year review, a big yawn. Let’s move on

  150. Trump hand-picked Barr for a reason. Part of it was an agreement to protect Trump. So now Barr can determine how much of the investigators’ findings should be made public. We are getting screwed. I do not trust Barr’s ‘update to Congress’. Barr showed a bias on how he might handle the Mueller investigation when as a private citizen he criticized the Mueller probe for ‘proposing an unprecedented expansion of obstruction laws’ that could have ‘grave consequences’ for the executive branch. He believed that this overly broad interpretation of the law and could have far-reaching ramifications down the road. He wrote a memo last year where he argued that Mueller’s obstruction-of-justice investigation into Trump is ‘legally unsupportable’ and should be be sanctioned by the Justice Department. He had controversial views on executive power and the Mueller’s investigation into the Russia’s interference in the 2016 US election. And now we are now supposed to TRUST Attorney General William Barr to do what is right?

  151. @Carol Ring I agree, and so have been tamping down any hopes of justice coming out of this report for months. The awareness that none of this is likely to go anywhere is also supported by the fact that Mueller is a lifelong Republican and Barr's son is serving in the capacity of Trump's personal attorney. (if you can call that service.) I think we can expect the least of the least out of this report.

  152. When will Vladimir Putin start coming to Washington DC and occupying the Oval Office of the White House whenever Donald Trump is away vacationing and playing golf?

  153. I hope the report has some significance; I wouldn’t be at all surprised if nothing comes out of it—and if it did, Trump & Co. will probably get a slap on the wrist. America, get off your butts and VOTE in 2020; that’s the ONLY WAY to get rid of Trump & Co.

  154. If what you suggest turns out to be true, then neither you, the NYT or the dozens of DNC astro-turfers that have been filling the Times comments section with anti-Trump vitriol for two years will spend even one second on self reflection. Maybe the real problem during the 2016 election was that Hillary was such resoundingly bad candidate that even Donald Trump could beat her.

  155. @Fred Rick. It wouldn't change anything else Trump has clearly done, who he is, or how he runs this country and his administration. So, no, I don't think it would change anyone's mind one way or the other. There's more than enough to despise Trump for as it is.

  156. Some people are paralyzed by what seems like the anticlimax of the Mueller report. While that whole story is still unfolding, the REAL work is organizing coast to coast to keep making our communities more progressive not just by electing better people, but by agitating for more progressive policies from the elected officials already in power. Yes, we want and need Trump and the gang out. But long range we need to fashion a system of government as good as our people. Democracy now.

  157. Actually we have democracy, just FYI. You may not always like the results of each election but that is what makes a democracy

  158. @Joe Yoh. We technically have a democracy, but it doesn't always function very well. A democracy is not just a thing you have or don't have.

  159. For months we have been told that the Muller investigation was the most thorough and impartial look at the possible collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russians (that was the principal charge against Trump). The investigation had to be protected at all costs and the conclusions needed to be reached and heard. Well let’s hear the principal conclusions and move on with our lives and allow the government to focus on the daily task of governing. Every President deserves the right to govern without constant distractions brought about by myriad investigations.

  160. Unfortunately that never happens.

  161. @Serge Troyanovsky With trump, it is better to keep him preoccupied with distractions, rather than allowing him a clear path to continue tearing up our government.

  162. I have just one question, if the Justice Department believes that information on individuals not charged, should not be released and they also believe a sitting president can’t be charged, then how will we ever know if trump SHOULD be charged?

  163. My question is: What of the 30 sealed indictments?

  164. @ainabella1 That's my question too!

  165. I won’t hold my breath, but I would hope Barr would do the right thing for the country and release the information and not be Trump’s sidekick, kickback. How would you Barr like to be remembered in the history books? Someone who helps a criminal or defeats one?

  166. He committed treason in plain sight in Helsinki in front of millions of viewers and Putin himself. There were no staff in the meeting. He profits from the presidency. He attacks news media endlessly and indicates a transition of power may not be peaceful. And America does nothing. The tolerance of corruption is staggering.

  167. Mueller is a true a American hero. Now we need a couple of more. Barr may be an enemy or maybe not so much. It is one thing to say that the special prosecutor should never have been appointed but it's quite another thing to violate the law by keeping the report from Congress. At least, unlike most Trump appointees, he is not ignorant of the law and what the law says he should do. If he breaks it he will at least know what he did and he will certainly understand what his legacy will be. He knows that the history books will not be written by Rupert Murdoch, they will be written by constitutional lawyers and university professors. No one has forgotten the heroes Richardson, Cox, and Jaworski. History will forever tell the ugly and sad story a criminal president, what he did before and after he was elected, and how the country's democratic government was able to respond.

  168. So 13 angry Democratic loving prosecutors and one conflicted special counsel came up with diddly squat on collusion and obstruction of justice by Trump. Now Adam Schiff and his ilk are claiming they wont accept the conclusions of the Mueller report from the A.G. unless Mueller is hauled before congress to testify that's all he wrote. Nada nil zip no collusion nothing burger waste of time and money.

  169. Just another way to not concern themselves with the true state of the union, poverty, gun violence, drugs, failing infrastructure, education and the immigration debacle, is to investigate, investigate, investigate. What do politicians, who get great health care, crazy time off, and the ability to purchase stocks on insider information, actually do to benefit the union!?!

  170. It is inconceivable that only Michael Cohen will go to jail for lying to Congress and other crimes. This would be a gross perversion of "justice". When will we see Junior, Jared and others indicted by SDNY, NYAG or Manhattan District Attorney?!

  171. "The idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president." As applied to this president, this is a laughable justification. When has he ever "overseen the executive branch and carried out his constitutional duties"? His presidency consists of nothing more than unhinged, impulsive actions, deranged tweets and endless "rallies" with his rabid supporters.

  172. Here is the deal. My tax dollars paid for that report and it is owed to me and to all of you. It is also vital that our government show that it is capable of doing the “right” thing and trusting to the American people to take the report and learn from it. Bet Mitch McConnell would try to block that!

  173. @Sandra How many reports from your tax money you have seen or actually read? If we did that we would be better off!

  174. This country has reached an absurd state. The only material that should be censored in the report are the names of our spies. Executive privilege is baloney. Trump is not a king. So is the idea that he can’t be indicted. All he does, when he’s not opening national monuments for exploitation, is watch Fox News and send out Tweets. This country is supposed to be run by the people, not a bunch of rich oligarchs. Nor is it to be run by the military-industrial complex. Somewhere along the line we got it wrong. Really wrong.

  175. I have one more question. Is it possible that if DOJ does not release the complete report, someone, say the Congress, can somehow get ahold of a full copy of it?

  176. The POTUS is a very powerful position. And when you have a president like 45 (and we have seen enough of abnormality) the question becomes: Is the POTUS powerful enough to alter our democratic instituons in a way it weakens the foundation of our democracy? This is the big test, and we might be witnessing the rollout of the answer to such a question. Stay tuned.

  177. What criminal investigation does not include an interview with the key person involved ? This seems like a big mistake at best and ,at worst, another one of those deals for people in the "club."

  178. More prognostication. Does this never end? How much time and money has been spent on this goose-chase and where does it end? Charges have been filed and those of us who are Trump nay-sayers have to let this go. There are no more surprises, just speculation and media clamoring. Give this a rest!!

  179. What a sham of a process. William Barr's shameful policies as AG during Bush Sr. (preventing entry to the U.S. of HIV+ people, anti-gay lobbying, mass incarceration) have been thoroughly discredited. Like everyone in Trump's cabal, however, he saw an opportunity for career promotion by publicly criticizing the Mueller investigation. Now he is screening the report dutifully for Trump's lawyers to redact any info they do not want disclosed. My only comfort is that eventually, maybe years from now, the truth will be revealed and these deceitful, throughly corrupt men will all be exposed as frauds.

  180. The question is just what kind of report is it that Trump would like to see released ,if something must be released? One where he can say: "No collusion?" "Witch hunt. I told you so?" How dose he want the public to rate this report or what's left of it? Trump wants a "report " that the public will rate as three cofefies and a la dee dah. It is not going to happen. Come election day, because the Trumpist senate will never convict Trump if the House impeaches him, the white nationalist dead enters who cannot tell truth from lies and don't care will vote for him; but the vast majority, report or no report, in spite of all of Putin's help and Russian money and hacking, will toss Trump out on his ear awaiting the indictments which will be waiting for him in New York. He will be arrested as soon as his term ends and the GOP will go the way of the Whigs.

  181. So the DOJ cannot indict a sitting president because, like the British, we rely on tradtion in government. But that cannot prevent the Senate from impeaching such a president. Why is this distinction not being made loudly and clearly in this allegedly expository piece that seems to be composed of questions selected on the basis of their arcane and erudite lawyerly content?

  182. How about saving us all the drama and taxpayers' hard earned money....each citizen, xcept of course the Republicans, contribute $100 and send DJT and his family out of 1600 and to the Tower or Mar-a-Lago for a one time only trip with a bundle of cash. As it is, we are in for lots more for security and what not over their lifetime. A do over for the country while he gets what he wanted his whole life: a whole of money for nothin'.

  183. So, conservatives like Justices Scalia & Thomas used to be “strict constructionists”, which means they’d allow a President to be indicted because: “Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that sitting presidents are immune from prosecution” Unless they’re hypocritical, which I assume they are.

  184. “I’ve got plenty of nothing, and nothing’s plenty for me” - Robert S. Mueller

  185. Could Mueller have issued sealed indictments that, tho not technically "new," are currently unknown (but will become known when they are unsealed in the future)?

  186. @JiMcL And what of the status of the FBI's investigation as to whether Trump has been compromised by Russia? All we know is that an investigation was started. Will we ever learn what they concluded?

  187. If only Robert Mueller were a Democrat. I can only dream of a Trump vs. Mueller 2020 presidential election.

  188. Kriminy, just fax me a copy of the report and I'll read it aloud in a conference call with reporters and Congressional leaders.

  189. @james haynes Do people still send things by fax?

  190. Hurry up and wait.....these dishes are best served cold anyway.

  191. The Justice Department says a sitting president cannot be indicted because it conceivably would impinge upon “a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties.” So, why can’t Trump be indicted? He certainly has demonstrated he can’t oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties. So, it’s hard to see how an indictment would interfere with his incompetent performance.

  192. Restrictions on the release of the Mueller report which is a confidential report to the Attorney General resulted from the salacious report issued about Bill Clinton partially authored by Brett Kavanaugh who wrote a public account of Clinton's sex infidelities with Monica Lewinsky for which he was likely rewarded by a current Supreme Court post. If the Report remains secret, which is Bill Barr's prerogative its questionable as to whether the current version whatever it says is worth the attention and the taxpayer money. All material save material involving another investigation or classified information should be made public by law. Lets hope Barr does the right thing and releases as much consistent with these constraints as possible.

  193. "Essentially, the idea is that the stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to oversee the executive branch and carry out his constitutional duties, so any indictment would have to wait until he is no longer president — either through impeachment and removal, or because his term is up."--NYT answer to why a sitting president can/can't be indicted. So Trump's above the law & will continue to put our nation to shame until enough cowards in Congress decide that this POTUS is guilty enough to not cause them to lose their seat when they rise up against him. Makes sense...

  194. I am monumentally disappointed there are no new indictments. I am worn out from two years of an investigation of this outlandish behavior only to have this dud result. A significant chunk of my life has been spent open-mouthed in front of my television waiting for a correction, for justice .... and now we're supposed to wait more years for the SDNY. When will this nightmare end? How do we cope with this travesty?

  195. I have zero faith that Barr is inclined to do the right thing by the American people. Given that the Republicans in the Senate believe that they have every interest in protecting Trump and that Trump himself is the most dishonest public servant that I have ever witnessed, I believe that it will be some time before we know the contents of the report in its entirety. In simple terms, I don't for one second believe that I live in a democracy.

  196. This was not at all helpful. Why weren't there any answers about who will manage the case against Roger Stone?

  197. All I care about is whether we can arrest Trump or do we have to wait for the Southern District of New York to hand down indictments? We all know Trump is a criminal -- if only for the wholesale destruction of American governance and values.

  198. No mention of where the money from Deutsche Bank came from? Why was this not apart of the Mueller investigation?

  199. The conclusion is: After two years of the Mueller investigation on collusion with Russia not one American has been indicted for collusion with Russia. NOT ONE.

  200. @db Lots of suspects, but yes, no indictments...yet. Of course, if you were really in love with your country, you would want the report to be honest and you would want anyone who did collude with the Russians to be prosecuted, be you Republican or Democrat. Right?

  201. Ted Bundy roamed the West for years killing innocent girls and women. And yet, not one person was indicted for the murders in those same years. NOT ONE. That is your argument, kind Sir. Still brag about your party much? I have no idea of your actual politics, and it really does not matter very much. But your argument fails.

  202. As I read the comments one thing is painfully clear to me, most people's opinions of Trump BM (Before Mueller's report) have not changed one iota AM--they hold their same opinion of Trump. Trump's supporters are elated because the report "vindicates" the president because there was no indictment recommendation. Trump's critics are disappointed because the "wicked witch" is not yet dead. The passion with which the left hates the president is as strong as the vitriol with which the right hates the left. How long before the "United" States are just merely A "collection" of states...kind of like the European "Union"? Our country is at a watershed moment. Either we, as AMERICANS, come together and get on with the business of fixing our country's many ills and problems OR we divorce and begin dividing our states/territories into "this stuff is ours that stuff is yours". The United States of America--we will become the EAST/WEST coast states of America and the Middle STATES of America. Or the LIBERAL territories versus the CONSERVATIVE territories. Maybe Putin's meddling in our election was not to get Trump elected but more about payback by bringing about the implosion of our democracy. Similar to what occurred to the former "United" Socialist Soviet Republics. Very Concerned American

  203. Am I the only one who is feeling really fatigued by all of this? I see all the coverage and know I should read it and I do want to stay informed but it's all beginning to feel like math homework.

  204. SDNY and other New York based investigative agencies may be able to prove that Trump and his organization has engaged in corrupt practices even if past the statute of limitations such negative outcomes could hurt Trump's reelection chances. The GOP and the TRump cult of followers may look the other way on having a corrupt president but I'm sure the democrats ,independents and some republicans may see it has a disqualifying factor in handing the vast power of the USA govt to such an individual.

  205. The whole reason for this report can be attributed to one person, Trump. The process has, to some extent, great or small, paralyzed our government. Important issues have gone wanting - healthcare, education, infrastructure, meaningful tax reform, and on. So let the AG make his report to Congress, and let’s all move on to 2020. The Trump presidency has been a side show anyway. He is a child, unfit and unable to govern. It’s time we put people in DC who will move our country forward. Political gridlock must stop. We would be better off keeping these things in mind during the upcoming year. Let’s send Trump and his family of grifters back to NYC where they belong. And say a prayer for the poor people of NYC when he goes back.

  206. @HeyJoe He Wouldn't dare........I'm from NYC........

  207. The full report with evidence, not just the conclusions, now needs to be published and widely distributed to the public, just like materials produced or created using public funds. To be sure, nothing would have been done to try to stop this train wreck Administration if we relied upon personal integrity or corporate ethics. All of it belongs to the American people, and we will decide what next to do, including at the ballots in 2020.