The Perverse Paradox of the Mueller Report

On Thursday morning, the report that had been compiled over the past 22 months by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was released, in a “lightly redacted” digital format, to the American public. By Thursday evening, cheeky reviews of the 448-page compendium (title: The Mueller Report; author: US GOVERNMENT) had popped up on Goodreads. One went like this: “The previous owner used a black highlighter on all the interesting bits and the main character has no redeeming qualities.” Another: “Slightly better than the SparkNotes edition released a few weeks ago.” Another: “The whole ‘we wouldn’t presume to say the president was guilty even if he was, but we will say that he’s definitely not not guilty’ thing is a bit of a cop-out. But it did have its moments.”

What did the president [redacted], when did he [redacted]? The report, as those playfully disappointed assessments suggest, does not fully answer those questions. Instead—a situation that occasionally; you could call it ; or you could call it what Trump did , as he publicly celebrated the report’s nonfindings: “It’s called , .”