Perhaps the most important work I’ve read all year, The Mueller Report is a sobering account that I would recommend to any voting-aged American. Divided into two volumes, this comprehensive report examines Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, as well as obstruction of justice committed by individuals related to the Trump campaign and presidency.

Reading and assessing a federal document is no simple task for most anyone in the general public. To best understand the report’s contents, I chose The Washington Post’s edition as it also included a detailed list of the players involved, a cohesive timeline, a glossary of legal terms, as well as other official documents with guidance on how they related to the Mueller Report. The Post’s guidance served well to contextualize, rather than editorialize, keeping in the spirit of Robert Mueller’s intention.

Volume I:

While I had seen the headlines on reports from U.S. intelligence agencies stating that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election, it was quite chilling to learn about the specifics, at least in the cases explored by the Special Counsel. Notable were the efforts of the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian organization that has since been charged. The IRA mainly orchestrated a social media campaign, posing as American individuals to spread pro-Trump and anti-Hillary memes and groups. I hate to admit it, but I saw people I know post some of their generated anti-Hillary content on my own social media feed. They were horrifically effective.

Most daunting was how the IRA would pose as pro-Trump individuals to generate buzz for rallies, and then ask an actual American to host as they would not be present themselves. To perpetrate some of these activities, members of the IRA acquired American bank accounts under false identities for the sake of making payments for these purposes. A great deal of the early pro-Trump frenzy appeared grassroots oriented, and even if this report shows much of the blatant hate was artificially generated by a foreign agent, I can’t even say I’m happy given the outcome.

The other main case evaluated in Volume I was how the Russian federation's main intelligence directorate of the general staff (GRU) hacked members of the Clinton campaign. These were direct efforts taken by members of the Russian government, following Trump’s on air statement, “Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” Trump never sat down to speak with the Special Counsel, but in his (aka: his lawyers’) written response, he affirmed that he made the statement, “in jest and sarcastically.” That said, the operatives of GRU did not get the joke, but I digress.

At the conclusion of this volume, no one affiliated with the Trump campaign was charged with committing illegal conspiracy or coordination with the Russians. While many in the media claimed this was a win for the country and that all should be happy the President did not outright commit treason, I feel this public claim to be a bit of a stretch (also, a really low bar—the lowest bar). Members of the Trump campaign (specifically Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner) were certainly guilty of wanting to commit a crime, but they were not charged due to difficulty of “proving willfulness” and in “valuing promised information.” Essentially, they were not charged because they were too incompetent to follow through on their intended crime, which was further compounded by the vagueness of their comprehension. Even if the Trumps never successfully “colluded,” the fact that it was stupidity that prevented the treason is in no way a win for the country.

What I was left wanting with this section, was more information on Trump and his business’ history of financial relationships with Russian entities. Given how fast and loose the president and his family plays with the Emoluments Clause, especially with promoting and favoring Trump hotels when conducting foreign business and travel, I feel that perhaps some of the redacted areas under “Harm to Ongoing Matter” may relate to this shadier element of the president’s personal conduct. But that’s a bombshell for another day.

Volume II

It is Volume II that contains the hottest tea (as the kids say) and most damning evidence against numerous members of Trump’s inner circle, including the president himself. In cases of white-collar crime, federal prosecutors rarely ask questions they do not already have the answers to. Why so many thought they could lie under oath is beyond me, especially folks with legal backgrounds and “expertise.” Stupidity and greed coalesce quite a bit in this one.

This section details the President’s conduct in the Michael Flynn investigation, the President’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, the President’s efforts to remove and/or impede the investigatory efforts of the Special Counsel, the President’s efforts to prevent information on the Trump Tower meeting from “leaking,” the President's desire for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal (followed by bullying him into resigning), as well as the President’s conduct involving Michael Cohen (this is the section that indirectly involves Stormy Daniels). Overall, my takeaways from this was that Trump oversees a remarkably toxic work environment (though it is hard to feel bad for the shady figures who chose to associate with him), and that he really, truly has no understanding of the Constitution or law in general. That, or he simply does not care. Most damning though, is Robert Mueller’s final conclusion:

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intents presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgement. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

This conclusion may seem a bit perplexing at first—Why wouldn’t you charge someone so clearly guilty?—but the assessment makes perfect sense in context when you understand that the Department of Justice (DOJ) falls under the federal executive branch of government. For a subset of the executive branch to pass a legal judgement on the head of the executive branch (aka: the President), they would inadvertently impede the President’s ability to lead and preempt the constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct. In part, this dates back to a 2000 memo issued by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that a sitting President cannot be federally indicted.

More so, as outlined in the Constitution, the way to address presidential misconduct would be through impeachment proceedings instigated by Congress (the legislative branch)—so goes governmental checks and balances. The fact the Mueller clearly states that after their lengthy investigation, he was unable to exonerate the President (something the President would later blatantly lie about to the press and on Twitter), clearly shows that Congress has a Constitutional obligation to start impeachment hearings, at least in theory.

Will this actually happen? Well, no. I can definitely see why the more liberal freshman Congresspeople want to move on impeachment hearings, but I also understand Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s reasoning for choosing not to follow through. Even if the House (which currently has a Democratic majority) were to impeach the president, for him to be voted out of the office of president would require a 67% majority vote from the Senate, which is not going to happen because they have a Republican majority. Furthermore, partisan voting could create the visage of perceived innocence, which could hinder legal procedures taken against President Trump once he is out of office.

For anyone interested in learning more, Vox made a really thorough educational video on Impeachment and its history in the United States, as well as why no President has ever been removed from office by Impeachment. I know this was the dream for many in anticipation of this report’s release, and the outcome was not what most desired. Even if Congress does not act, the American voter certainly has an obligation to act come the general election in 2020. At the end of the day, the Special Counsel’s investigation led to 34 people being charged with crimes—26 Russian nationals, 1 Dutch National, and 7 U.S. Nationals (including Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Richard Pinedo, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, and Michael Cohen)—this reality is more than significant.

In conclusion, if you have an interest in this report—definitely read it. Even if you don’t, you could still get a copy to listen to on audiobook for free from your library—just throwing that out there. Rating such a document seems ridiculous, but I settled on 4 stars as there was a great deal of information redacted as “Harm to Ongoing Matter,” “Investigative Technique,” or “Grand Jury.” I would LOVE to know what these sections state and infer, though what we have for now is quite damning all on its own in my humble opinion. Either way, I have never felt more ready to vote come 2020, and I hope you do too.