LINDA MOTTRAM: So President Trump says he is exonerated but Seth Abramson says absolutely not.

He's an attorney and Professor at the University of New Hampshire. We spoke first about the question of collusion.

SETH ABRAMSON: Mr Trump and his legal team have quite actively defined collusion in a very particular and narrow way for over a year now and they've done that apparently because Mr Trump felt very confident that he could not be credibly accused of a very particular form of collusion and that form of collusion was signing a secret deal with the internet research agency in Moscow or with Russian military intelligence regarding their disinformation and hacking campaigns respectively.

Now Democrats actually didn't make that accusation against Mr Trump nor did Mr Trump's critics accuse him of that form of collusion, but it appears that Mr Mueller essentially interpreted his brief, or his remit for what he was supposed to be looking into, in the same way that Mr Trump defined collusion.

And so, he declined to suggest that charges should be bought, brought, excuse me, conspiracy aiding and abetting or otherwise relating to that form of collusion but we still have 19 ongoing federal and state investigations in the United States that are looking into other misconduct including conduct with Russia that would coincide with what we, as lay people, might say is collusion.

LINDA MOTTRAM: Let's talk about the second issue which is obstruction of justice. It's not entirely clear what conclusion Mueller drew, if we're to read the Attorney-General's statement. Am I right?

SETH ABRAMSON: That's exactly right. As to the obstruction of justice question, nothing has really changed from where we were a month ago or a year ago.

Eventually Congress will get access to all of the information that Mr Mueller compiled and the house judiciary committee will decide whether to refer the matter to the full Congress for impeachment proceedings.

The only thing that could have changed that process is if Mr Mueller himself had concluded that Mr Trump did not obstruct justice but, in fact, he made no finding on that issue.

What happened was that Mr Barr and the Deputy Attorney-General, Rod Rosenstein, who is actually a witness in the obstruction case, made their own determination that they didn't think it was a chargeable offence but they're not the eligible parties to make that decision and so the issue will go to Congress.

LINDA MOTTRAM: And just to be clear there, as you say, Rosenstein, a witness; the Attorney-General appointed by President Trump. Do you think that's a problematic circle?

SETH ABRAMSON: The fact that Mr Rosenstein is a witness means, and I say this as an attorney who practiced for a very long time, that he should have had no role in making any judgment on the obstruction issue.

As to Mr Barr, it's not that he was appointed by Mr Trump, that is certainly fine. It's the fact that he got the job partly by writing a letter to the White House saying that he thought there was no obstruction of justice and under DOJ regulations and just the way our justice system works, Mr Barr normally would have recused himself from making any judgment as to the obstruction issue because he'd already formed a final opinion on the question before he got the evidence.

That's why we thought that Mr Mueller would make a final judgment on that issue but because he declined to do so, that's why I say the issue will go to Congress.

LINDA MOTTRAM: How quickly is that likely to happen because presumably the Trump administration will be trying for that not to happen?

SETH ABRAMSON: Well potentially. Now Mr Trump said that all of America should see the whole report. His son said that everyone should see the whole report, his attorney Ruby Giuliani's that everyone should see the whole report.

There's a real question as to whether they will stick with what they said over the last two or three days.

Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic representative who runs the House Judiciary Committee, says that he will be insisting on having Congress see the full Mueller report and that that insistence and the letters requiring that from the Attorney-General or requesting it, at least, in the first instance, will happen with a matter of weeks not months.

So, there may well be a court fight. I expect the Trump administration will actually try to keep Americans from seeing this and will try to claim executive privilege, but I do think ultimately Congress is going to get most of the Mueller report if not all of it.

LINDA MOTTRAM: And are we likely to see Mueller himself called before any hearings, hearings of Congress?

SETH ABRAMSON: I think that that's possible if they are excessive redactions from the Mueller report that is ultimately transmitted to Congress and if there appear to be some objections as to what was excluded on the grounds of executive privilege or excluded on counterintelligence grounds then I do think that that could happen.

But I think the reality is we have so many congressional committees including the House Intelligence Committee, Judiciary Committee, Ways and Means Committee, Financial Services oversight that are looking into Trump misconduct, the misconduct of his family and his aides again in some cases involving Russia, that whether or not Mr Mueller is called we will be getting much more of the story, as Americans, than we have right now about what went on both during the campaign, the transition and now during the administration between Trump, his family and his aides and not just the Russians but frankly because of a pending case in the eastern district of New York, what went on between the Trump campaign in transition and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and Israel.

I think that this story is only going to get larger as time goes on and this will be a milestone day, but it won't be quite as big as it looms right now.

LINDA MOTTRAM: Seth Abramson, thank you very much for speaking with us.

SETH ABRAMSON: Thank you for having me.

LINDA MOTTRAM: Attorney and Professor at the University Of New Hampshire, Seth Abramson.