One of the most chilling lines of the Mueller Report has nothing to do with what Mueller found, but rather what he didn’t find. The Special Counsel’s office, the Report notes, “cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.”

So what answers are we missing? Here are three of the most significant unanswered questions in the Mueller Report:

Did George Papadopoulos tell higher-ups in the Trump Campaign that he was offered “dirt” on Hillary Clinton?

George Papadopoulos had two meetings with Russian professor Josef Mifsud. The first occurred in March, 2016. At this meeting, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that Russian…


Image for post
Image for post

The Mueller Report added an exclamation point to an unprecedented record of illiberalism.

On March 31, 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump and a group of his advisors got together at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. to discuss foreign policy. One of those advisors, George Papadopoulos, fresh-off a meeting with a Russian professor, told the group that Russian officials wanted to set up a meeting with Trump. A month later, Papadopoulos heard that Russians possessed “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, and top-Trump officials soon got word.

Did Trump or anyone surrounding him alert the FBI or otherwise seem concerned that a foreign adversary was seeking to smear one of our country’s presidential candidates? No…


Several media outlets are now reporting that CNN’s blockbuster story this week about the impending end of the Mueller investigation is wrong:

ABC’s Mike Levine was the first to report the news:

Many, including myself, were skeptical about this story from the start. After all, Mueller clearly has a ton of work left, including a mystery grand jury subpoena at the Supreme Court, Roger Stone’s trial, further grand jury testimony, and more.

But the obvious question here is: what went wrong? CNN’s Shimon Prokupecz threw out one possibility: that DOJ officials will withhold the report because they don’t want…


Last week, I explored the possibility that the Trump Campaign’s contacts with Wikileaks began prior to the period identified in Robert Mueller’s indictment of Roger Stone. Since then, we’ve learned that Mueller is still seeking grand jury testimony from Andrew Miller, a former Stone employee, signaling that we have a lot more to learn.

Mueller’s indictment of Stone laid out one theory of collusion: that the Trump Campaign coordinated with Wikileaks to maximize the impact of stolen emails once they were already in Wikileaks’ hands. But if the coordination between Trump’s campaign and Wikileaks began prior to July (when Wikileaks…


Stone can shed light on the heart of Trump-Russia collusion

To newcomers, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of Roger Stone was not all that earth-shattering. Lying, witness tampering, obstruction — these are serious crimes, but they are hardly the sort of grand conspiracy some have speculated about.

But the overall picture painted by Mueller’s team is quite the opposite. The hardball tactics used by Mueller in charging Stone, along with the information witheld in the indictment, suggest Mueller is narrowing in on the heart of Trump-Russia collusion. And Stone — either by cooperating or through a raid of his belongings — can provide help.

But what exactly does Mueller want?


The front page of the New York Times on November 5, 2008 is forever engraved in my memory. “OBAMA” it read, in massive bold font. “Racial Barrier Falls in Decisive Victory.”

Image for post
Image for post

Exactly ten years later, it is difficult to comprehend how much we have done to completely obliterate the progress achieved on that night in November. State legislatures across the country are actively denying black Americans and other minorities the right to vote. The president praises and employs white supremicists. Congress is turning a blind eye to staggering levels of corruption. Anti-semitic hate crimes have a spiked dramatically.

No one…


Image for post
Image for post

“Let’s dispel once and for all with the fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he is doing. He knows exactly what he is doing.”

We all remember the infamous February debate when Senator Marco Rubio repeated this line six times. At the expense of making a fool of himself on national television, Rubio wanted to make it crystal clear that, in his view, ignorance is no defense.

Until today.

Following James Comey’s testimony on Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Rubio floated the idea that, although the evidence looks bad, President Trump is not competent enough to commit obstruction…


Image for post
Image for post

I, for one, would be happy to set aside the question of whether the New York Times was obsessed with Hillary Clinton’s emails, and just call it water under the bridge. (Indeed, I’ve already got it out of my system.)

But Times writers seem to have other plans. On Sunday, not one, but two prominent New York Times writers took to Twitter to vent about the subject.

The first was this stubborn, rather childish response to a Nate Silver tweet from Times writer Nick Confessore.

The other was a long battle between MSNBC host Joy Reid and Times…


Image for post
Image for post

Day 1 of the Trump Administration was everything that is good and everything that is bad about what is to come.

Only in American can the sheer dread and hopelessness of Donald Trump’s inuaguration quickly get replaced with the euphoria and pride of the Women’s March.

The March, which drew millions of protestors all across the globe, is proof that resisting President Trump is possible. Protestors literally took over the world today. They owned the news coverage and the public dialogue. They wielded all the power.

But around 6pm, we got a wake-up call. Sean Spicer, the new press secretary, took to the White House breifing room to berate the press and peddle lies. He combatively lectured the press about their…


Image for post
Image for post

People who know me would probably have placed a healthy bet that I would be glued to the television Tuesday night to watch President Obama’s Farewell address. They would have lost. I didn’t watch. I couldn’t.

I instead went to the movies to see “La La Land,” a dazzling feat of imagination about the tragic triumph of ambition over passion. It was a pleasant escape, but it didn’t last long.

I returned home, where President Obama’s tearful eyes hid just behind the front door, dominating our large TV screen. …

Jess Coleman

Law student, New Yorker, Yankees fan, former political blogger at HuffPost.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store