Hi! We’re Eric Tucker and Jeff Horwitz, two AP reporters who have been writing about Robert Mueller’s investigation into how Russia tried to meddle in the 2016 US election. Ask Us Anything!

In your opinion, how is this all going to end?

Hi, and thanks for asking the question that is obviously on everyone's mind right now. I unfortunately cannot begin to predict where this goes or how and when it might end. I would say that I have been surprised by certain developments; in the media, for instance, journalists were caught off guard by the unsealing of an guilty plea against an ex-Trump campaign adviser, so i would hesitate to even hazard a guess about the outcome.

Hello to both of you, and thanks for this AMA.

I see you used "tried to meddle". Is that just the easy way to describe things before proof is shown (e.g. 'The alleged attacker'), or do you both believe that Russia tried and failed?

Thanks in advance!

Hello there, and thank you for the question. It is accepted within the U.S. intelligence community that Russia attempted to meddle in the 2016 presidential election through the DNC and Podesta email hack as well as a vast social media effort to sow discord in the American political process. While the evidence suggests Russia at minimum tried to meddle in the election, and appears to have succeeded given the millions of Americans exposed to Russian-purchased Facebook ads, government officials have also said that no vote tallies were altered on Election Day.

Hello there, and thank you for the question. It is accepted within the U.S. intelligence community that Russia attempted to meddle in the 2016 presidential election through the DNC and Podesta email hack as well as a vast social media effort to sow discord in the American political process. While the evidence suggests Russia at minimum tried to meddle in the election, and appears to have succeeded given the millions of Americans exposed to Russian-purchased Facebook ads, government officials have also said that no vote tallies were altered on Election Day.

what does 'meddle' mean, from a legal standpoint, in a free-country?

It is certainly not a legal term, but in this context, it means to interfere in an unwanted way with a political election. To your question, no, no one will be charged with meddling, per se. But hacking into Americans email accounts, purchasing Facebook ads from another country, or dangling opposition research, could all reasonably be construed as meddling.

There's lots of intel community experts/insiders on twitter. Who do you follow, who is credible and worth paying attention to?

Hi, thanks for the question. I look for people who are not aligned with particular partisan causes and who are not overt cheerleaders for any one particular outcome or another.

I've gotten the feeling there may be some misconceptions about exactly who is involved and how (for example, was Trump directly involved, etc). Is there anything you would like to clarify for the American public?

Hello, good morning. Thank you for your good question. That remains unclear at this point and is the subject of the special counsel's investigation. We do have evidence at this point that Trump campaign associates were in communication with Russian government intermediaries during the campaign. That includes a Trump Tower meeting in June 2016 that involved the president's oldest son, his son-in-law and his campaign chairman. But it remains unclear the scope of people who might come under investigation or who might be implicated. Within the White House, investigators are trying to determine whether the firing of FBI Director James Comey amounted to obstruction of justice, and that decision was ultimately made by the president.

It seems like there was a significant amount of anti-Trump advertisement on Facebook that originated from Russia, as well as the well-reported anti-Hillary advertisements. Could these be legitimate attempts to earn money through ad clicks, rather than a massive conspiracy to foment political discord? Or does Russia really have that much of a grip on Americans' psyches that a few thousand dollars in advertisements on the internet can wreak so much havoc?

Good morning, and thank you for the question. You are certainly right that many of the ads that appeared on Facebook were indeed anti-Trump ads, and I, too, find that interesting. I cannot through my reporting discount the possibility that they were money-making attempts, but I also do understand these ads _ as does Facebook _ as efforts to cause confusion, anger, distrust and discord in the American political process, writ large. I think that helps explain why some of the ads and messages were anti-Trump ones. It seems clear that this reflected a desire to influence public opinion and cause a degree of chaos.

What do you think the widespread implications of Russian meddling is? How should we move foward from this knowledge?

Hello, and thank you for the question this morning. I do think one clear outgrowth of this investigation is close scrutiny of the role of foreign influences in our American political process, and I think that's a good thing. I do think it's important, for instance, that American users of social media understand the source of a particular political message or advertisement. And I think this investigation, and the public discussion around it, is helping us better understand that some of what we see on social media is not actually legitimate and may instead be the work of foreign actors. Similarly, we now have heightened scrutiny of a law meant to require foreign lobbyists to register the source of their payments, and to identify as doing the bidding of a particular foreign government. I do anticipate that in the legal and lobbying community that there will be greater care in the future about abiding by those requirements.

Do you think Kushner should be worried about being indicted?

That's a fair question and is probably best addressed to his excellent attorneys! It is hard to rule out what actions could or might be taken with respect to individual White House staffers including Jared Kushner, but it is fair to note that Bob Mueller's investigation has reached into the White House. There have been requests for documents, interviews with current and former White House officials, and some of the key actions of the Trump administration _ such as the firing of Jim Comey as FBI director _ are now under investigation. Kushner was involved in that decision, so it's reasonable that anyone connected to that process could be questioned.

What do you see as the best possible solution to this investigation?

Thank you for the question. It is not my job as a member of the media to determine the outcome of the process, or the best possible solution. But I would also say, again speaking as a member of the media, that I am all about maximum transparency, and I do believe that the public would benefit from as much information as possible about what Bob Mueller and his team of investigators find. I think the release of information to the public, such as in the form of a report to Congress that can be declassified, as a good step toward public transparency.

Are you guys having fun? Or is it a schlep?

In my opinion, an unintentional outcome of Trump has been the press reverting to high quality investigative journalism. Is that your take too?

A fair question. Covering a high-stakes investigation such as this can be very fun but also very exhausting, and I think most journalists would tell you that it is one of the hardest _ if not the hardest _ story we have covered. It is an incredibly competitive, challenging assignment, with developments that come at you from all corners in ways that are often hard to analyze or synthesize. I agree that there has been a surge in high-quality investigative work, both by excellent colleagues at AP and my competitors at other news organizations!