From the New York Times, I'm Michael Barrow. This is the day.

Okay Mike. Yeah. I want you to start on page 215, actual results of the

obstruction investigation. Today. Sharon here's what I want you to

start on page 4, Nick. I want you to start at the bottom of the page 848. 448 pages, two years in the making.

That's new. We didn't know that. What we learned from the Mueller report.

It's Friday, April 19th. Michael, can you hear us? Hey Michael. Yeah. Hey guys. Hey. Hey. All right. Mike Schmidt, Mark

Mazzetti, it's 915 on Thursday night. You've both now spent about 10 hours reading the Mueller report.

Tell me about this thing. It's a breathtaking document. It's over 400 pages of detailed insights and accounts of enormous issues.

We've been focused on over the past two years. It's divided into essentially two halves, one for Russia, one for the president's actions in office.

In other words, collusion and obstruction. Those are the two buckets. Right. The first half detailing the contact between Russians and Trump advisers isn't enormously revealing in the sense that we had already heard some weeks ago.

That there had not been a quote criminal conspiracy found by Mueller. At the same time, there's an enormous amount of detail, concluding that in the midst of this really historic effort by the Russians to sabotage the election hacking and leaking of emails, social

meaning manipulation fake news. It says that the Trump campaign welcomed this. They saw a real benefit of what the Russians were doing. Even if at the end of the day, there wasn't an active conspiracy.

He's essentially saying that they were interested. They sought out information about emails. They wanted to know more about how they could get their hands on these messages. They welcomed all this, but they never crossed the line into breaking the law.

Just because they sought out the fruits of the Russian hack doesn't mean that they were part of the crime.

And just to be very clear, how is what you're describing collectively, not collusion?

Well, I think we need to be careful because the Attorney General said that there was no collusion. And the president said there was no collusion. But the Mueller report is more nuanced.

And the Mueller report says, you know, this collusion word doesn't really mean anything to us. There's no legal standard of collusion.

So what we're going to look at is what is a crime and that is conspiracy. And that's what we have to judge all of this voluminous evidence against.

And they said that a conspiracy is two parties acting together in concert to break the law. And what Mueller is very clear about is that there is, quote, insufficient evidence of a conspiracy.

He is not saying there was nothing. He is not saying full exoneration. But he's saying there is insufficient evidence to meet the standard that he had established of a criminal conspiracy breaking the law.

And what would Mueller have needed to see for this to add up to conspiracy?

That would have looked like a conversation between the Trump campaign and the Russians where the Trump campaign was saying, hey guys, can you go break into the DNC and steal some emails so we can then get them out and embarrass the Democrats and help us politically during the campaign.

...