The Editorial Board

USA TODAY

One reason Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election was his Boy Scout reputation as a principled straight shooter and a disciplined prosecutor who speaks primarily through legal filings.

Laudable as those by-the-book virtues may be, they left Mueller disadvantaged in a world of instant Twitter analysis and a president prone to manipulating facts. Just 3% of Americans read all of Mueller's 448-page report after it was released in April.

The report detailed Russia's efforts on behalf of Donald Trump and what appear to be several attempts by the president to obstruct justice. Yet most of the public either believes that the document cleared the president of wrongdoing or is uncertain about what to make of it.

Whether a reticent Mueller likes it or not, he'll get another chance to explain his findings when he testifies Wednesday during back-to-back House committee hearings. And that's a good thing. Americans can best judge their president — and decide whether he deserves reelection or impeachment — if they understand what Mueller found and what it means.

We know this matters to Mueller. When Attorney General William Barr rushed out a bottom-line summary of the findings in March, putting a pro-Trump spin on the report and clearing the president of obstruction, Mueller complained internally that the public risked being left confused "about critical aspects of the results of our investigation."

At a brief news conference on May 29, Mueller said he wouldn't testify beyond the contents of his report. But just doing that alone before cameras at a House hearing would make valuable evidence accessible to millions of Americans. Consider it the audio version of the written report.

Those who didn't read the full report might find it enlightening to hear how Trump ordered White House counsel Don McGahn to have Mueller fired; how Trump directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to also limit Mueller's investigation; and how Trump ordered that McGahn falsify evidence.

Lawmakers could press for more, though it's questionable how much Mueller will say. Among the questions we'd like to hear him answer:

►Your report lists multiple contacts between Trump campaign associates and the Russians during the 2016 election. Was there no evidence of a conspiracy, or just not enough to warrant a crime? Were you hampered in your investigation by a reluctance by some witnesses, including Trump, to be interviewed in person?

►If not for Justice Department memos from 1973 and 2000 that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, did you have evidence to warrant an indictment of Trump?

►When you expressed the view in your report that a federal prosecution would wrongly preempt "constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct," were you referring to impeachment?

►You said it wouldn't be fair to accuse the president of a crime without him being able to defend himself in court. How is it fair to leave him under a cloud of suspicion, by explicitly declining to exonerate him?

Committee Democrats questioning Mueller would be well-advised to jettison any speechifying and devote limited time to questions that guide Mueller through his key findings. Republicans eager to bruise the reputation of a respected former FBI director and Vietnam War hero do so at their political peril.

On Monday, as Mueller's testimony drew closer, Trump renewed his attacks on the former special counsel, calling him "highly conflicted" and saying he "should not be given another bite at the apple."

Actually, another bite is just what's needed to help the public determine whether it's rotten to the core.

If you can't see this reader poll, please refresh your page.