The Mueller report? I did not read it.

Mueller report: It's time to look at reality: only a small segment of the most powerful in America has read it.

President Donald Trump can not give a clear answer on the subject. More than a dozen members of Congress quickly admitted to POLITICO that they too had jumped instead of studying each of the 448 pages of the special council report. And despite the ranking technically classified as a bestseller, only a tiny fraction of the American public has actually deciphered the cover and really plunged into it.

History continues below

"What is the goal?" Said Senator Tim Scott (CS), who, like many other lawmakers recently interviewed on Capitol Hill, acknowledged that he had not completed his own detailed reading.

Legislators, historians and cultural critics, the result is a huge gap in literacy in the country. This is the most serious analysis of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether Trump obstructed the investigation. Bridging this gap could determine whether Democrats feel they are being publicly supported to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. That's why many Democrats, campaigners and impeachment advocates say it's up to them to teach Americans what the Mueller Report says, even though the public is already suffering a lot.

The educational campaign covers the entire spectrum, with celebrities having a dramatic reading on Broadway of Mueller's juiciest findings on the obstruction of justice, and House Democrats withdrawing Robert Mueller from his retirement week next to testify publicly, in the hope that live TV cameras can illuminate what the government's dense report can not.

"You can not expect people to read large documents in large numbers. They have their own lives to lead, "said Jerry Nadler, Speaker of the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, an influential member of the New York Congress, who explained that his decision to initiate impeachment proceedings was largely tied to public opinion.

It's hard to get anyone to study the Mueller report, especially after Trump and his GOP allies put themselves in their shoes in mid-April to reinforce the "no collusion and obstruction" mantra. And getting legislators to read beyond the Mueller report summary, media reports, or notes from their own collaborators is not a simple task.

"It's tedious," said Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has a copy of Mueller's work in a large pile of things she turns to for her daily reading. She said she had immediately started the first volume of the report detailing the contacts of the Trump campaign with the Russians during a trip to Vietnam and that at the end of June, she was still connected. "In all fairness, I have not picked it up for at least two weeks."

"I have a lot of things on my reading list," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Explaining why he had avoided one of the most anticipated reports in recent American history.

Republicans are not alone. "I would be foolhardy enough to say that I have a complete understanding," said Rep. David Price (D-N.C.). "I have to spend more time with her."

Representative Collin Peterson (D-Min.) Also stated that he had not read the report in full. "That's what he is," he said to the question of why.

"I did not have to read it. I lived it, "proposed Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Hillary Clinton's Vice-President in 2016." I had the intention to read from page to page, but nothing in it has surprised me. "

The Mueller report was of course barely ignored. The Washington Post's version – published with an introduction written by its reporters at the Mueller – has made its way onto the New York Times bestseller list for 10 consecutive weeks. More than 357,000 copies of the report published by three publishers were sold in late June, according to NPD Bookscan.

It is also a subject of fascination and obsession for the news of the cable and days of comic fodder for the nocturnal animators.

Yet, a poll conducted by CNN in late April revealed only 3% of respondents saying they followed the report. Several members of the House polled in recent weeks have taken this figure and extrapolated it to suggest that about 9 million people would have read the entire report, which some say seems excessively overestimated.

"I think it's really high," Murkowski said. "I think they're lying to you."

But looking through all of Mueller's conclusions – SPOILER ALERT: Mueller shows how Trump was able to obstruct justice – helped many people draw their own conclusions about what should happen next.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Appeared at the beginning of May in a speech to the Senate explaining how she went "end to end, every page" about 24 hours after the report was released. and then decided that Congress should remove Trump.

Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a first-year Democrat from South Florida, said she had decided to support the impeachment process after "spending countless hours" to read the report, to study the testimony of the special advocate and listen to recent testimony. legal experts.

J.W. Verret, a law professor at George Mason University and working on Trump's transition, experienced a similar conversion. He called on Congress to begin the impeachment process after reviewing the report. "I mean, I read it twice. That was my impression in the first 10 pages and I think we need to take it seriously, "he said in a recent interview with CNN.

Others said that reading the Mueller report had allowed them to draw different conclusions. Representative John Ratcliffe R-Texas), a former federal prosecutor, recalled in an interview given to Fox News in late April that, after reading the report, his main idea was that "the only person to always have tell the truth [a potential Trump-Russia conspiracy] was Donald Trump. "

Reading the Mueller report – or not – has even become its own political symbol among Democrats.

Briana Urbina, a democrat who ran against Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) In 2020, criticized the majority leader in the House for stating that the impeachment was "not useful at this point" soon after the publication of the redacted version of the Mueller report. In a letter to the Baltimore Sun to the editor, Urbina wrote that Hoyer had "launched the firearm with a public statement denouncing the indictment without even having read the Mueller report, a few hours after its publication." A spokesman for Hoyer responded that the congressman had read "important parts of the report and discussed the findings of the special advocate with other members and staff.

Meanwhile, MSNBC's host, Joe Scarborough, landed on Mueller last month for acting like he had "come over Capitol Hill to testify for Americans" and to order Americans to read the report.

"It's outrageous," Scarborough said.

Trump was barely consistent with his own answer as to whether he read the report. "Yes, and you should read it too," said President George Stephanopoulos of ABC last month. But a few days later he was less categorical: "Let me tell you that I have read a lot. I read the conclusion, "he told NBC's Chuck Todd.

The Mueller report has its share of promoters. Democrats in the House spent more than 13 hours in public reading in mid-May. PBS brought together the main findings of the report in a special 30-minute show. Last month, a small theater company in Bangor, Maine, tried to read it aloud to a listener who, according to a local columnist, "never passed the threshold of the handle".

Journalists make calls to the public. "With nearly 450 pages, it's a bit of a lift. But it's a quick read, "wrote the columnist Tribune News Service, John Crisp, in late April. "Read it yourself," said Scott McGrew, an NBC presenter in San Francisco, during a television show broadcast the night that followed the report's release.

Celebrities also intervened. The pro-removal group of Tom Steyer shot a two-minute video of actors claiming to audition for a Mueller film while reading the report's lines. Another video made by Rob Reiner promoting the report ends with Martin Sheen, imploring viewers: "Please, read it yourself." And reading Broadway last month staged the section on the obstruction of the report in 10 acts, dividing roles into famous actors such as John Lithgow as Trump, Kevin Kline as Mueller and Jason Alexander as Chris Christie.

New attempts to keep the Mueller report alive are forthcoming. An 11-hour reading of the section on obstruction is scheduled for Thursday in Washington, DC An original graphic version of the report will be released in April 2020. The Mueller Book Club, a group comprising Public Citizen, Common Cause and Electronic Privacy Information Center (Center for the Protection of Electronic Privacy) advocates more public readings across the country.

These attempts to turn the report into something more than just a government document can help the public to better understand. "It's an easier way to bring down the drugs," said Kurt Andersen, host of Studio 360 at Public Radio International.

Don Ritchie, the retired Senate historian, compared recent attempts to dramatize the report to a humourous board game associated with one of Watergate's key moments. "I remember that during the evenings in the '70s, it was common to read the volume of the Nixon cassette aloud and guess the" expletives suppressed "," he said. "A dedicated minority will read every word and the rest will best support the headlines."

Mueller's report will have a chance to come true next Wednesday when the former special advocate will visit Capitol Hill for a day of public testimony. Some key Republicans and Democrats, including Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, have even stated that they reread the report before the event.

Although Mueller has vowed to stick to the boundaries of the report during his hearings, there are many who claim that his appearance will sensitize millions of people who never plan to open the report.

Steve Benen, producer of MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show," said in a recent article on his blog that "millions" of Americans can still learn more about the findings of the Mueller report, although the former special advocate followed a tight scenario during his testimony.

"A large part of the country would benefit, even if he did not read anything," wrote Benen. He recounted how a pro-Trump voter told a network reporter he was informed of the damaging information of the Mueller report after attending a public session in Michigan of Republican Justin Amash, the only non-Democrat to support the impeachment.

Because of the way most people learn about complex issues, the focus on reading the report may be a bit politically out of place, said Elaine Kamarck, a long-time member of Democracy who worked at Clinton White House and Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000.

"Frankly, the damage is already done," said Kamarck, currently a researcher at the Brookings Institution. "I do not think it's a loss. I think it's good to put that together in a coherent narrative. This is useful. But is that going to move Republican voters? I do not think so. "

At Capitol Hill, lawmakers are divided on whether it's worth continuing to read.

"I did not think about it, to be honest with you," said Senator Scott, who explained that he read "a lot" of the report on his electronic device when he went out.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) Stated that he had not read the report and had not planned to start now. "We were a little busy," he said.

Murkowski said she was still working there because of a personal wish not to comment before finishing.

"I think most will read like the condensed version of Reader's Digest," she said. "Uh, I think it's important to read it, and that's why I'm looking at it. I just do not have 18 hours to just sit and read. So, I have 15 minutes here and 25 minutes there. But I think it's important to read and that's why I'm going to commit to doing it. "

Several lawmakers said they did not need to read all of Mueller's conclusions, as their own work on Capitol Hill had also involved investigating the 2016 elections.

"I would tell you if I read every page? Did I go though? Yes. Some sections more than others, "said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), A member of the Intelligence Committee at the last convention, mentioning that some of this information was" old "and that it was could "quickly go through. "

"I could get to the sections saying," Know it, know it, "he said.

Representative John Shimkus (R-Ill) did not hide the question. "I knew it would take me a moment to ask. So I would have liked to have read it before you asked the question. But in all honesty, I would not do it. "

He explained that he did not need to dig because there was no impetus and pressure in my district specifically for impeachment. And he asked why Trump could even be investigated for obstruction of justice when he was not charged with an underlying crime.

About two hours later, a spokesman for Shimkus sent a message to the congressman: "He asked me to inform you of reading the Mueller report."