First-time
author Robert Mueller gives readers a riveting, yet sometimes dry, government
thriller in the new novel The Mueller
Report.
Cleverly
packaged to look like an actual government document, the first volume of The Mueller Report focuses on a special
counsel investigation into President Donald Trump to ascertain whether the
president has conspired with Russia to win an election. The somewhat maddening
answer to this question seems to be that the special counsel cannot prove conspiracy.
The second
volume focuses on whether the president has obstructed justice and it is here
that the real fireworks begin. The most vivid scene happens when Trump is
informed that his firing of an FBI director will spur the investigation
chronicled in Mueller’s novel. “Oh my God,” Trump says. “This is terrible. This
is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked.” What follows is Trump trying to get
White House attorney Don McGahn, in a meta flourish, to fire Mueller, the very
author of the book. Several instances of obvious obstruction of justice follow.
Mueller makes
the stylistic choice of presenting the book in a non-omniscient second person
style, as if the information is being presented to a government team that we
never see. However, it is odd that the author names the novel after himself, as
it would more accurately be called The
Trump Report.
Throughout, the
author makes an impressive commitment to getting names and dates correct. The
book does contain some typos and formatting inconsistencies but the assumption
is that this is intentional to mimic the look of a government report that was
produced quickly to be transmitted to the public and would thus contain
mistakes. The book cites (real) court cases at every level to bolster its legal
arguments. It also includes voluminous appendices and supporting documents.
There is even the nice touch of frequently redacted passages, tantalizing to
the reader.
However, one
misstep in the publication is the inclusion of a four-page summary written by
the attorney general. This summary is misleading and glosses over many of the
key points of the main text. Reading only the summary and not the full Mueller Report would be like when George
Costanza embarrassed himself at his book club after only watching the movie
version of Breakfast at Tiffany’s and
recounting scenes that happened only in the movie and not the book. However, another
interpretation of this summary is possible. Did Mueller intend to use the
device of the unreliable narrator to make a critical point about how the
government distorts information?
As interesting
as the legal machinations are, we don’t get a lot of fully formed characters in
the book. The character of Donald Trump does not significantly evolve
throughout the story, starting as an under-informed, corrupt narcissist and
ending pretty much the same way. It would have been better to have a more
dynamic character as president.
Like David
Foster Wallace, Mueller includes endless footnotes in his novel. Many of these
are dry legal citations but many contain juicy information. For example, one
footnote at the end of the book implies that even if the report does not indict
the president, Congress does have the option of impeachment proceedings to hold
the president accountable.
Tucked away at
the end, does this footnote hint that a sequel is on its way? As interesting as
The Mueller Report is for political
nerds, one gets the sense that there are more fireworks to come.