Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III says he is done talking, but he would be obliged to respond to a subpoena. If he appears before the House Judiciary Committee and sticks to his “nothing beyond the report” standard, here’s what the committee can still and should ask:

⋅ What is the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo? You said in your news conference on Wednesday that because of that Justice Department policy, “charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.” Was this the reason you did not indict the president or recommend indictment?

⋅ You said that “the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” What is that process? Was it your intention that the attorney general assume that role? Did you intend for Congress to take up the matters set out in the report?

⋅ Does the OLC memo prevent prosecution of a president after he leaves office for crimes he committed during his term? What steps have you taken to secure your findings and evidence in the event that a prosecutor should decide to indict the president after he leaves office?

⋅ When you said, “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Where in the report would we learn facts that prevented you from concluding that President Trump did not commit a crime? Would those be the 10 categories of conduct you lay out in Volume II?

⋅ Please briefly explain each of those categories of conduct.

⋅ In which of those categories did you find all elements of obstruction of justice?

⋅ Who did you find met all the elements of obstruction of justice?

⋅ You said at your news conference, “When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.” Is obstruction of justice a serious felony? Who did you find in the course of your investigation lied to investigators? Who did you find encouraged others to lie?

⋅ In the course of your investigation, did you find that anyone “spied” on the Trump campaign?

⋅ Going to Volume I, what was the precipitating fact(s) that led to an investigation into Russian interference being opened?

⋅ You did not find sufficient evidence to demonstrate a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, correct? Did you find any such evidence?

⋅ Did you find efforts to solicit information from Russia or encourage information to be released? Who did these things?

⋅ Did you find the president encouraged or welcomed release of hacked materials?

⋅ When he did this, he certainly did not deter Russian action, right? Would Russians take receptivity to offers of help as a green light to continue interference?

⋅ Is it correct that such actions in your view do not constitute a crime?

⋅ Did Trump or anyone from the campaign ever report Russian contacts to the FBI or other federal authorities?

⋅ You said, “The releases [of hacked emails] were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.” Whom were they intended to damage? Did you see any evidence that the Russians tried to damage Trump?

⋅ You said that “there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.” Was an investigation into that interference a hoax? Was it legally justified? Did you find any evidence that the investigation was opened for improper or political reasons?

⋅ Did you ever find evidence that any member of the FBI lied to a court? Did you find any evidence of “corruption” in the FBI?

Read more: