If Donald Trump believes yesterday’s release of the long-awaited Mueller report is the end of his troubles, he’s in for a rude awakening, writes a former investigator into Reagan’s Iran-contra scandal.

The release on April 18 of a redacted version of the Mueller report came after two years of allegations, speculation and insinuation – but not a lot of official information about what really happened between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Nor had there been much light shed on whether the president tried to obstruct the investigation into his campaign.

The report prepared by special counsel Robert Mueller and issued by the Justice Department provided greater detail about those questions. And it offered more information about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The Trump administration will want to argue that the release of the Mueller report is the end of investigating the Russia scandal.

On the contrary, the version of the report released is only the start of wide-ranging and intensive House investigations.

I served as special deputy chief counsel of the House Iran-contra investigation of the Reagan administration. We did months of hearings on the type of material that is either incomplete or redacted, as today’s Congress will find, in the Mueller report.

Here are some of the ways the House will likely follow up with more investigation.

1. Bring in witnesses to testify

The House will call some of the witnesses mentioned in the report for their full story, not just their cameo appearance in this incomplete report.

For example, the report has the public’s first account from Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser. So, there are a number of contacts mentioned for the first time on the public record between Flynn and Russia that in my reading consistently demonstrate Trump’s partiality to Putin and Russia.

But, until we get a House public hearing with Flynn as a witness, we will not know the full story.

Why did Trump have such a strong bond with Putin? Did Trump have a personal reason, not some foreign policy reason, to favor Russia? Why did Trump push Flynn to be favorable to Russia?

The report does not say.

With Flynn, as with many others, the report is the start, not the finish, of getting the full story.

2. Intelligence committee investigation

Attorney General Barr has announced that a “less redacted” version is, or will be, prepared for a few congressional figures. Presumably he means that the classified parts of the report that describe secret intelligence, which have been redacted, will be shown to the congressional leadership.

But, the leadership cannot itself undertake an investigation.

This is the kind of material that normally goes to the entire House Intelligence Committee. That committee can follow up with demands for documents and closed hearings. And that committee has the trusted expertise to determine that the conclusions of their inquiry can be made public, either via open hearings or by report to the House and the public.

The committee could determine what is actually known by investigators about how Russia viewed Trump and what Russia may have done that secured Trump’s favor.

3. Release grand jury information

Furthermore, the report redacts not just classified information, but grand jury information as well. And Barr may well have omitted, rather than redacted, invaluable grand jury evidence, especially documents.

These could be released by the attorney general to Congress with a court order under what is called Federal Criminal Rule 6(e).

Barr refused at congressional hearings to seek such an order. But, under sufficient pressure from Congress – against the background of a public that wants the full report and the full story – he could reconsider.

In the Watergate scandal, the prosecutors got exactly such a court order so they could make invaluable evidence available to the House Judiciary Committee.

4. Limit what’s limited by ‘HOM’

There is a great deal of key material redacted in the report with Barr’s label, “HOM” or “Harm to Ongoing Matter.” That means the redacted material likely relates to an ongoing investigation by law enforcement.

This appears to have been done with a very broad brush. Under pressure from the House, backed by the public, this could be treated by Barr with a fine scalpel instead.

For example, one of the most promising avenues to investigate is the potential overlap between Russia’s attempts to help Trump, WikiLeaks’ dissemination of material embarrassing to Hillary Clinton, and Trump’s requests for help in making material damaging to Clinton public. Who can forget Trump shouting, “I love WikiLeaks”?

Yet, Barr’s broad-brush redactions wipe out a whole section on WikiLeaks. Presumably Barr is saying, by this redaction, that the case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is an ongoing matter.

As the recent arrest of Assange makes clear, there is currently an investigation into his actions by the U.S., which has charged him with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. That means that WikiLeaks’ interaction with the Trump campaign is not the heart of that judicial matter. Rather, the heart is about Assange working with hackers who stole the damaging material.

So the House should be allowed to pursue the part – WikiLeaks and its interactions with the Trump campaign – which is central to the House’s concerns but peripheral to prosecutors of Assange.

5. Documents, documents, documents

Finally, this is just Mueller’s report. Behind it is much more that would be of vital interest to congressional investigators and the public.

This 400-plus page report is not the underlying information alluded to in the report, like copies of emails or other documents, that provides broader information about so many matters.

The House has every reason to seek and to receive the underlying information.

These various examples are just the beginning of what the House can seek to find as it takes off from the incomplete and redacted Mueller report.

When I was an attorney for the House Iran-contra Committee, we received far more encouragement and cooperation from independent counsel Lawrence Walsh than is promised by Barr. And we went on to dig up striking material during months of hearings.

I believe the House will now pick up where the Department of Justice has left off.

Charles Tiefer is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

And she’s the only elected leader in the top 10.

Jacinda Ardern has been widely praised for her leadership following the Christchurch attacks last month, but now one American magazine has put a number on it, ranking the New Zealand prime minister second in a list of the “world’s greatest leaders”.

The accolade for Ardern, who leaps up from 29^th in the same list last year, is all the more remarkable given that she is the only elected leader in the top 10. The next conventionally elected political figures come in at No 18, in the form of “The Pink Wave: 42 Newly Elected Women [to the] United States Congress”.

Bill and Melinda Gates top the list, for the work their foundation has done in fighting global health crises. Third, one place beneath the New Zealand PM, is Robert Mueller, the man whose appointment as special counsel, we learned this morning, prompted US President Donald Trump to say, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.”

“Jacinda Ardern had already broken new ground as a pregnant woman—and then a new mother—leading a nation,” reads the citation on Fortune. “And this year, the 38-year-old Prime Minister showed the world her fullness as a leader as she deftly, empathetically, and humbly navigated New Zealand through the worst terror attack in its history, after 50 were killed at two mosques in Christchurch in March.”

Pointing to Ardern’s choice of language, and the decision to wear a head scarf, Ardern had “set a standard for dignity in the face of violence by refusing to speak the attacker’s name … Future leaders can look to Ardern for a master class in how to guide a country through a crisis.”

Another staple of US newsstands, Time, this week placed Ardern for the second year running in its own pantheon: the Top 100. In 2018 Facebook’s  2IC Sheryl Sandberg wrote the blurb. This year it’s London mayor Sadiq Khan.

“Jacinda Ardern’s leadership since the attack has been an inspiration to us all,” he writes. “Not only is she delivering such swift action on gun control, she has sent a powerful message around the world about our shared values — that those who seek to divide us will never succeed, and that New Zealand will always protect and celebrate the diversity and openness that make our countries so great.

“Londoners stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Christchurch. We will never forget that when terror sent ripples of fear through communities around the world, New Zealand’s Prime Minister proudly stood up for hope, unity and inclusiveness in the face of fear, division and hatred.”

The international acclaim is justified, even if as often as not it is expressed around the world to underline the perceived inadequacies of other leaders. But while there is an undeniable element of reflected glory for New Zealand, some of it, it’s not always useful: critics love to seize on international coverage to argue that it reveals a public relations focus.

Back in February I asked Ardern what she thought about the international attention, and she said she didn’t really think about it much at all. “I know that for a New Zealand audience and for New Zealand voters, that stuff’s not material, and so for me my focus is always going to be on what we’re doing here domestically. Because, you know, ultimately, I’ll be judged on my performance here, rather than anything that happens anywhere else – and my performance of behalf of New Zealanders.”

After a week in which Ardern announced that a capital gains tax was off the table, and off her agenda forever, the truth of that is clear.