2. According to the report, what are two examples of times that President Trump lied or tried to get his staff to lie about matters related to the Mueller investigation?
3. The authors write:
The president has spent the past two years denouncing the news media. He has repeatedly accused reporters of making up sources to destroy his presidency. The report, though, shows not only that some of the most unflattering stories about Mr. Trump were accurate, but also that White House officials knew that was the case even as they heaped criticism on journalists.
According to the Mueller report, what are two examples of times the president denounced the news media even though White House officials knew the news stories were accurate?
4. On page 220, the report explores the question of whether the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense:
The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
What does that conclusion mean? What does the Mueller report say about whether the president committed obstruction of justice?
5. What did the Mueller investigation uncover about Russian interference in the 2016 election?
6. The analysis ends with the following three paragraphs:
Prosecutors describe a president who was preoccupied with ending a federal investigation, a White House that repeatedly told misleading and changing stories, and a presidential campaign that was in repeated contact with Russian officials for reasons that are not always clear.
Even though prosecutors concluded that didn’t amount to provably criminal conduct, the report is astounding in its sweep. Yet it is also a reminder of how much the public has learned over the past two years about Mr. Trump’s conduct.
If the American public or members of Congress were learning these things for the first time, the political fallout would normally be devastating. The consequences of the report remain to be seen, but if people are not surprised or shocked by the revelations, then Mr. Trump may have benefited by the steady drip of news stories he has so loudly criticized.
What point are the authors making? Do you agree?
Finally, tell us more about what you think:
What is your reaction to the seven takeaways that Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman, two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, make in the article?