Here's what he could ask: NPR

The former special council, Robert Mueller, said he would try to be an unattractive witness for Congress, promising not to say anything about what he would have said. never said before.

Democrats in the House say it always sounds great.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House, Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Reaffirmed Wednesday that he continued to want Mueller to speak in front of his panel.

"Let's say I'm confident that it will arrive soon," Nadler told reporters.

He also pointed out that Mueller should testify in court, not in camera as suggested by the former special council.

"We want him to testify openly, I think the American people need that, frankly, I think it's his duty to the American people," Nadler said. "We will get there."

Some key members of the Democratic majority believe that just describing his discoveries on television, which could reach more Americans than his written spokesperson, deserves to be done for political reasons.

In addition, members of the Congress of both parties could try to learn new information and achieve their own goals in case of Mueller's appearance, even within the limits he said if he would impose himself.

Here's what they could ask:

Did you get Trump's financial documents?

There is nothing in the unreformed version of Mueller's report on Trump's tax returns or, more broadly, on finance and business issues that Democrats want to focus on their own Trump investigations.

Trump stated that he assumed that Mueller had his tax returns and that the investigators had concluded that everything was copacetic. This is one of the foundations of the general way in which the president and his supporters have characterized Mueller's conclusions as all-purpose inoculation – that is, any other inquiry is without merit.

Only a few insiders know for sure what Mueller investigated or not. Mueller also stated that his report is his testimony.

Thus, if he were to say in a few words to Nadler that the absence of mention in the report suggests the absence of work by the investigators of the special council, the Democrats could then justify more the investigations they launched.

The majority of the House attempts to obtain Trump's tax records, accounting records, commercial documents and other information with subpoenas and, in some cases, legal proceedings.

The President stated that his administration would not cooperate and defend himself from certain motions before the courts.

Why did not you insist on an in-person interview with Trump?

President Trump did not accept an interview with Mueller investigators. Trump answered questions from the special advocate's office in writing – and even then, critics said that he was just participating.

Trump answered questions saying more than two dozen times that he did not remember details about the topics in question, including his own knowledge of Russia's interference in 2016 and the actions of his family or other close associates.

The advantage of the written answers was clear from the point of view of Trump's lawyers: they feared the risks of placing Trump in a situation where his statements might not have lived up to the previous statements and that Trump could fall into the warnings of his followers. could be a "trap of perjury".

Why, however, was Mueller in agreement? The special advocate's report claimed that he considered some of Trump's answers as unsatisfactory and that the investigators were frustrated by their inability to follow up with Trump to try to get more details. .

In the end, they did not insist.

Mueller's report explains that the investigators did not want to prolong their investigation with the legal battle that might have been necessary to compel Trump to testify. The special attorney's office also stated that he thought he had established what he could have learned from Trump from other sources.

Congress members will probably want to ask Mueller to develop this.

Why did you remove former FBI special agent Peter Strzok from your team?

Among the reasons why Mueller most likely does not want to sit in the limelight of Congress, one of the strongest might be to avoid revisiting the subplot involving Strzok, an old Counterintelligence specialist and a former FBI lawyer named Lisa Page.

The two men exchanged numerous messages on their official government phones including a number of outspoken political views, some of which were critical of Trump, during the FBI's high-profile investigations in 2016. They have since said they used government phones to hide a case from their wives.

When an internal investigation drew Mueller's attention on these, officials said, the special lawyer dismissed Strzok from his unit.

The office was embarrassed by this episode and much of it was leaked in public, including during Congressional testimony by Page and Strzok themselves.

A Mueller hearing offers Republicans the opportunity to ask Mueller himself why he considered the conduct unacceptable and, in a more general way, some Mueller critics to pressure him about the other members of his team.

Trump and his supporters accused Mueller of leading a "witch hunt" by a team of "angry Democrats" to convince the president to be based only on partisan biases.

The leaders of the FBI and the Department of Justice – and Mueller – defended the special council office, but Mueller himself opened the door to a debate about the quality of his staff when he made the # 1 Praise of his staff last week in a subtle reprimand of all this. previous reviews.

Do you mean now if you believe that Trump broke the law?

Mueller's report opened a divide between his vision of his responsibilities and the opinion of his boss and sometimes friend of Attorney General William Barr.

For Mueller, not only did the federal regulation prohibiting him from prosecuting Trump imply the impossibility of seeking an indictment, but elementary fairness meant that Mueller could not say he thought he would Such an accusation was necessary. He argued, in so many words, that this would amount to a charge against Trump that the President would not have the opportunity to challenge at trial.

For his part, Barr said that Mueller could have said he believed Trump had broken the law and that an indictment was warranted but did not prosecute the president.

With everything that has developed since the detailed reasoning that Mueller detailed in his report, what would the members ask for, he thinks now? Did the Attorney General's opinion put Mueller in a position – again, it being understood that no charge could be laid – namely, whether he thought or not that Trump broke the law?

NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis contributed to this report.