AG Barr: No Plans to Ask Court to Release Grand Jury Info in Mueller Report
The attorney general's statement came during a hearing in which he said he expects to release a redacted version of the report next week.
April 09, 2019 at 11:26 AM
4 minute read
U.S. Attorney General William Barr said he expects to hit a mid-April timetable for releasing a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller III's report to the public.
Barr's comments came during a budget hearing before a U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees spending for the Justice and Commerce departments. But Democrats on the panel, who are demanding the full release of Mueller's findings, still used the opportunity to badger Barr with questions.
“From my standpoint, within a week, I will be in a position to release the report to the public and then I will engage with the chairmen of both judiciary committees about that report, about any further requests that they have,” Barr told lawmakers.
Tuesday's hearing came the same day a federal judge in Washington rejected a nonprofit group's bid to fast-track a Freedom of Information Act that demands Mueller's report.
The attorney general said the Justice Department will color-code redacted portions of the report and provide explanatory notes that describe the basis for each redaction. He's identified four types of information that could be redacted, including grand jury information, and material that could interfere with ongoing prosecutions or compromise sources and methods.
Barr reiterated he is working with Mueller to identify areas in the report that could fall under those redaction categories.
Rep. Ed Case, D-Hawaii, questioned Barr on whether he intends to directly ask a federal judge to make sensitive information in Mueller's report public. Although Barr has said it would be illegal to release grand jury material, he could ask the judge presiding over Mueller's grand jury—Chief Judge Beryl Howell of Washington's federal trial court—to permit the release.
“My intention is not to ask for it at this stage,” Barr told Case. He noted Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, could make that request himself. Nadler has threatened to subpoena the Justice Department for Mueller's findings, if he and Barr can't come to an agreement over redactions.
In an exchange with Rep. Nita Lowey, D-New York, Barr defended how quickly his four-page March 24 letter to lawmakers—summarizing Mueller's main findings—came together. “The thinking for the special counsel was not a mystery to the people of the Department of Justice prior to the submission of the report,” Barr said.
Barr noted that before Mueller submitted his findings, Mueller interacted with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's office, who initially oversaw the special counsel probe. The attorney general said he met with Rosenstein and Mueller on March 5, too.
Barr said earlier in the hearing that Mueller's team was not involved in drafting Barr's March 24 letter. The attorney general said he offered Mueller a chance to review it, but the special counsel declined. Various news reports suggest members of Mueller's team were dissatisfied with Barr's initial summary, believing it only provided a limited picture of the special counsel's findings.
Under questioning from Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Alabama, Barr said he is reviewing the conduct of the Mueller investigation, “and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016.”
He noted that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's pending investigation into possible abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is expected to conclude in May or June.
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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
Trending Stories
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