,
27 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
Okay, baby’s napping (on me, of course). Let’s do this. #MuellerReport. (Thread.)
Okay so perhaps the redactors could have used a style guide for consistency: 
The first em dash appears in the second paragraph, so you know the document was written by lawyers. Also A+ for following the Bluebook rules on indicating alterations/omissions from quotations.
One thing that’s interesting in this document is the use of the first-person plural in describing the investigation. Narrating from the first person is not common in most #legalwriting genres, and while it makes sense here, it makes certain quotations particularly interesting.
ROADMAP! ROADMAP!
Oh I see that @lawprofblawg will be happy: two spaces after periods (and colons). (Not surprising IME from a bunch of attorneys who habe been through BigLaw.) Also, full justification.
Okay, so. You know how I previously said I found the use of “we” interesting? It’s also interesting that sometimes the report eschews that formulation and talks about “the Office” and “its” (not “our”) decisions:
Points for: in-line citations; properly making “Wikileaks” a possessive and hyphenating “hacking-and-dumping” as a phrasal adjective; and using good signpost words (first, second, third). Deductions for “inter alia,” “pleaded” (#sorrynotsorry).
Classic #legalwriting move: identifying limitations in analysis/cabining conclusions to the facts as currently known. (Kinda burying the lede re: destruction of potentially relevant evidence tho 👀.) The Office is also v willing to start a sentence w/“and,” which I appreciate.
Effective use of a list to illustrate the scope of the investigation.
Baby’s up. More in a few hours. (Baby doesn’t like to sleep during the day.)
Spot the Bluebooking error!
“Light redactions.” (FN numbers apparently will not harm ongoing matters.)
Cont’d
Lots of citations to tweets, because 2019.
“He was no longer Jean Valjean, but number 24601." (Okay sorry that’s not legal writing but.)
Special Counsel sliding into the DMs . . . *and citing them.*
In a document this long and dense, it’s very helpful for each section to begin with a roadmap and conclude by summarizing the section’s main findings. The report does this very well. (Pro tip: always make sure the roadmap, analysis, and summary are all perfectly consistent.)
Lots to be said about the report’s use of embedded visuals: screenshots of tweets, photographs of meetings, and this image of handwritten notes, along with a helpful side-by-side “translation.”
This is a strong rule paragraph, and a good example of how to selectively use statutory language without block quoting. Effective use of the known-new technique (aka writing from broad to narrow). *Citation nerds: note the decision to reproduce “22 U.S.C.” in each citation.
Look at all the parentheticals and citation clauses in this rule paragraph! Very effective way to quickly survey the case law on a single relevant point (here, the breadth of a particular term).
Also, note that the portions of the report that consist of legal analysis—rather than a summary of the investigation and its findings—consistently explain the law on a particular issue before applying it (aka CRAC).
Ooo, ALL the phrasal adjectives!
If you’re very quiet, you’ll be able to hear typography nerds’ heads exploding over the bold italics.
And now, a lesson in properly characterizing authority, both because it’s the right thing to do, and also to maintain your credibility with your readers.
The summary of the governing law on pages 9-11 of volume 2 is really well done. Clear, precise, efficient.
This #legalwriting Mueller report thread was written in fits and spurts, while wearing and sometimes bouncing a baby, and entirely on my phone. Now my eyes hurt and I’m tired, so I’m calling it a night. But in true lawyerly fashion, I reserve the right to amend or supplement. 😉
