Length: 556 Words     Reading Time: 3 Minutes

Yesterday (May 2), I received my copy of the Mueller Report from Amazon. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc. published this version with an introduction by Alan Dershowitz who is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus, Harvard Law School. Mr. Dershowitz does an excellent job of presenting the legal issues in his Introduction to this published version of the report.  Mr. Deshowitz writes with brevity, clarity, and precision throughout the almost 12 pages it takes him to summarize, evaluate, and critique the report.

I cannot match his legal knowledge and erudition, nor would I want to.  My purpose in this post is to critique the format and content of the Mueller Report, especially the two executive summaries.  I have written several major business reports in my corporate career. Consequently, I am quite familiar with the best practices of good report writing.

I have not read the full report in detail.  However, I have read the two executive summaries, one for Volume I and one for Volume II, and skimmed several sections.  With that as a foundation, I would observe the following:

1. The lawyer or lawyers who wrote this report may be excellent investigators and prosecutors, but they are not clear and precise writers.  One of the challenges of report writing is integrating the entire report regarding clarity, style, and quality.

I do not know how Mr. Mueller and his team handled the report writing process. I would award him only a D+ as a grade for the quality of his report.  This report could have easily been written in a much tighter format and with greater clarity.  The report should have been an A+, given the resources and the time available to prepare it.

2. The executive summary of Volume I is six pages in length, and the executive summary of Volume II is six and a half pages.  Both executive summaries could have captured the essential points in their respective pages if written clearly and precisely. 

3. Neither executive summary is a real executive summary, because both summaries provide only a recapitulation of descriptive narratives or themes, without any explanatory roadmap for the reader.

4. The executive summaries do not provide a comprehensive background statement.  The so-called Introduction to each volume does not give a clear and precise background statement either.

5. The executive summaries do not offer a clear and easy-to-comprehend summary of the main findings of the investigation.

6. The executive summaries do not provide a clear and easy-to-comprehend summary of the main conclusions and results of the investigation, based on the findings.

7. I also skimmed several sections in the body of the report, and based on that superficial reading, I would state that the authors did not write with objectivity and neutrality. Instead, the sentences and word choices, in the sections I skimmed, tended to be overly complicated and opaque.  To wit: even the sentences that cleared President Trump and the Trump Campaign of any collusion, conspiracy, or coordination were not written clearly and are easily misread.

I believe Mr. Mueller should have used a small team of professional copy editors to review and revise his report to enhance its clarity and precision.  When I compare the Mueller Report to Attorney General Barr’s cover letter and Professor Dershowitz’s introduction, the Mueller Report is entirely unacceptable.