What we can’t say yet is what firm and final conclusions Mueller has drawn from his exploration of whether Trump and his presidential team colluded with Russia or its proxies during the 2016 election — and whether Trump or anyone else in his orbit obstructed that probe or any investigations preceding or related to it.
We know now that Mueller, in what can only be construed as institutional deference to the presidency, decided not to subpoena or otherwise compel Trump to testify in person and under oath. That may not be a surprise, given that Mueller is an institutionalist to his core. But it also is a glaring and, in my mind, unfortunate lapse in what otherwise appears to have been a thorough and sophisticated investigation. Trump has provided written answers to Mueller’s queries, but compelling the president to answer in person would have given the probe and its report more authority and traction — especially given how aggressively the president chose to interfere with what he relentlessly described as a “witch hunt.”