In Senate Testimony, Barr Defends Characterization of Mueller Report
The comments came during Barr's first appearance since the release of a redacted version of Mueller's report.
May 01, 2019 at 12:10 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
U.S. Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday defended his rollout of Robert Mueller III's findings and tamped down claims that Mueller believed Barr's initial four-page memo outlining the principal conclusions of the special counsel's findings was misleading.
Barr said he spoke with Mueller by phone in late March, and that Mueller made “very clear” in that call he was not suggesting the Justice Department misled the public. Instead, Barr said, Mueller believed public reporting of the memo was inaccurate and wanted more information to be released related to Mueller's explanation for why he didn't reach a conclusion on obstruction.
Barr's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday came moments after the public release of a March 27 letter Mueller sent to Barr complaining the attorney general's initial four-page statement on the special counsel's findings “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions.”
“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation,” Mueller wrote. “This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”
Barr said he told Mueller during the call that he was not interested in putting out summaries about the report. Barr has come under fire for the release of the memo and recalled telling Mueller that he “wasn't going to put out the report piecemeal.”
“I wanted to get the whole report out,” Barr said, believing the release of summaries could set off “a series of different debates and public discord over each tranche of information that went out, and I wanted to get everything out at once and we should start working on that.”
Nonetheless, Barr said he released the initial four-page memo to Congress on March 24 because “the body politic was in a high state of agitation.”
Barr reiterated that he offered Mueller an opportunity to review his four-page memo, but the special counsel declined.
Mueller's March letter makes clear the special counsel at least twice urged the Justice Department to release his own executive summaries of his findings. He again encouraged Barr to release certain materials in late March, writing “release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.”
Barr also told lawmakers Wednesday that he was initially surprised when he learned Mueller would not reach a conclusion on whether to recommend obstruction charges against Trump. He said Mueller stated three times during a March meeting “that he emphatically was not saying that but for the (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion he would have found obstruction.”
Mueller told him that “in the future, the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case,” Barr said.
Barr has come under fire for his four-page memo and over how he characterized Mueller's views after the letter's release. On Wednesday, some Democratic lawmakers called on Barr to resign over an earlier statement he gave to Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland. Van Hollen asked Barr in an April 10 hearing, “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?”
Barr replied: “I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for US's Hardline Approach to Region
- 2Weil Advances 18 to Partner, Largest Class Since 2021
- 3People and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
- 4Beef Between Two South Florida Law Firms Deepens With Suit Over Defamation
- 5Judge Skips Over Sanctions in Talc Bankruptcy: 'That’s A No'
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250