Former U.S. solicitor general Ken Starr complained that the Mueller report was “special counsel overkill” with all of its details, Media watchdog Media Matters reports.
“There's just too much detail,” he began. “Take one little segment, the meeting of the Russian ambassador with then Sen. Jeff Sessions during the campaign. The whole issue is, is there collusion? Well, in about a page and a half we learn everything about that meeting.
“It starts out with there is no suggestion of collusion, whatever. At the end of that discussion, no suggestion of -- and yet we read all of this detail, elaborate footnotes. There's some 17 footnotes. There are over 1,000 footnotes. I mean, why?”
He argued that the report is “not a term paper” and that it should simply “say why I prosecuted or why I didn’t prosecute.”
Starr continued that “We simply want to restore the justice department traditions, provide a confidential report,” presumably one that is much less detailed.
But it is precisely the details of the report that allow readers, lawmakers, and mediators understand the legitimacy of the allegations against the president. Moreover, as special counsel Mueller wrote in his report, he cannot indict a sitting president.