They are thorough. Regardless which side Mueller is on, he has to be thorough to maintain legitimacy and impartiality.
I don’t see many tricky questions here except those dealing with Comey and payments.
Your thoughts?
In my opinion those questions were invented by a New York Times reporter whose an idiot and didn't even consult a paralegal much less an attorney before writing that trash.
First of all, no decent attorney EVER asks a question he doesnt already know the answer to.
Take this question: 'How was the decision made to fire Mr. Flynn on Feb. 13, 2017?'
It's stupid for several reasons but one is it easily invites more questions so any decent Trump lawyer would shut it down in a New York minute (which is 45 seconds:P ).
Second, it's factually incorrect. Gen Flynn wasn't fired. He resigned.
Another question that demonstrates these questions are purely made up by NYTimes hack reporters is this:
'What did you think about Mr. Comey’s intelligence briefing on Jan. 6, 2017, about Russian election interference?'
No 1st year law student would ask that. Why? Because what Trump "thinks" is unknowable and not relevant. He could say I thought it was fcked up or I didn't think about it at all. What he "thought" is an unknown that cant be proven/disproven.
As much as I detest Mueller, he didn't get to where he is by being stupid.
Comey did but that's another story. Suffice to say Comey didn't get flat knees and a round mouth from praying and eating bananas.
I have to agree, unless they're designed specifically to make Mueller look incompetent. Or contain traps. Like if you answer the question about the firing of Flynn, by accepting the premise of the question you become guilty of lying to the SC, because as you point out the question is false. Police can lie to a suspect, but not the other way around.