US Special Counsel Robert Mueller has completed his investigation into Russian interference—and Trump's possible collusion—during 2016’s presidential elections.

On Sunday, Attorney General William Barr summarised Mueller’s report in a letter to Congress, affirming Mueller had found neither “the Trump campaign [n]or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia” during 2016’s election.

Barr concluded his study of the 2-year investigation with startling speed.

This haste, combined with the fact Trump hand-picked Barr after firing Jeff Sessions, has only galvanised demand for the investigation’s full release.

Both Republican and Democrat lawmakers advocate its publication, with Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi leading the charge.

Mid-March, Congress voted unanimously to publicise Mueller’s report. Five days later, Donald Trump told reporters: “Let it come out. Let people see it.”

If the report is not explicitly damning, this could vindicate Trump’s characterisation of the endeavour as a “witch hunt”, and dull Democrats’ accusatory clout.

But Mueller has said his findings do “not exonerate” the president, suggesting Trump could still be found culpable.

Supporters of its publication cite transparency, accountability, and expenditure. It’s estimated the investigation cost between $31-$35 million, and taxpayers likely want access.

And, despite Barr’s commitment “to as much transparency as possible,” his summary only quotes four half-sentences from Mueller’s original report.

Full disclosure has practical and legal limitations.

Anything released must comply with Special Counsel and Justice Department regulations. It must neither jeopardise ongoing investigations nor include classified information.

Should the Mueller report be made public?


Credit for this article's header image goes to Getty.