Thread by @AriMelber

There are 2 legal mechanisms to assess Mueller’s findings:

Indictments
The Report

We have seen *one* of these categories so far

Indictments hurt Trump, revealing a faster indictment rate of advisers than any POTUS in history, & helped Trump, revealing no chargeable conspiracy

Indictments (and ensuing convictions, no Mueller defendant has been acquitted yet) revealed many obstruction crimes by Trump figures.

Some allegedly linked to covering up for Trump (Cohen, Manafort, Papadopoulos), and some that may have been arguably unrelated (Stone TBD).

The *holes* and questions remaining from the indictment process may be filled by The Report, which has always been the place for other evidence and context, through Mueller’s presentation of findings.

Legal experts were not exactly waiting to study a few partial quotes from The Report — which literally by definition is a selective view of parts of the report — any more than an obstruction analysis that goes beyond The Report’s findings.

As I’ve reported since Sunday night, the A.G. has every right to share his views with Congress, and the public, and his views matter.

He *is the A.G.* He oversees the special counsel probe.

But for learning *what Mueller* found, it’s always been about indictments & The Report.

And to state the obvious:

A conspiracy involves *multiple* people, so no indictments told us on Friday there was no chargeable conspiracy.

A President obstructing justice can be an analysis of just his conduct, and historically prosecutors present those findings.

So Friday closed the door on chargeable conspiracy, & left open the door on obstruction.

Sunday cracked the door further as we learned Mueller did not exonerate Trump on obstruction, a finding Barr felt he should (a) disclose &
(b) add his own views to before the Report is out.

Legally, things have been largely paused since Friday...

The next step for seeing Mueller’s findings will be...

seeing Mueller’s findings.