Donald Trump Law Mueller Report Perjury Politics Robert Mueller

Mueller Wrote Barr Letter Saying Four Page Summar Barr Gave Public False Impression of Investigation – The Moderate Voice

It now seems that Lawyer Common William Barr did get some feedback from Particular Counsel Robert Mueller about Barr’s controversial summary of the Mueller report. And Mueller was not completely happy about Barr’s interpretation of what his investigation showed. The Washington Submit broke the story:

Particular counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Lawyer Basic William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work, based on a replica of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Submit.

The letter and a subsequent telephone call between the 2 men reveal the degree to which the longtime colleagues and buddies disagreed as they dealt with the legally and politically fraught activity of investigating the president. Democrats in Congress are more likely to scrutinize Mueller’s complaints to Barr as they ponder the prospect of opening impeachment proceedings and mull how arduous to press for Mueller himself to testify publicly.

On the time Mueller’s letter was sent to Barr on March 27, Barr had days prior announced that Mueller didn’t find a conspiracy between the Trump marketing campaign and Russian officers looking for to intrude in the 2016 presidential election. In his memo to Congress, Barr additionally stated that Mueller had not reached a conclusion about whether Trump had tried to impede justice, but that Barr reviewed the proof and located it inadequate to help such a cost.

Days after Barr’s announcement, Mueller wrote the previously undisclosed personal letter to the Justice Department, laying out his considerations in stark phrases that shocked senior Justice Department officers, in accordance with individuals accustomed to the discussions.

[Justice Dept., House Democrats at impasse over Barr hearing]

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. 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.”

The letter made a key request: that Barr launch the 448-page report’s introductions and government summaries, and it made initial steered redactions for doing so, in accordance with Justice Division officials.

The New York Occasions notes:

A central problem within the simmering dispute is how the public’s understanding of the Mueller report has been shaped because the particular counsel ended his investigation and delivered his 448-page report on March 22 to the lawyer common, his boss and longtime pal. The four-page letter that Mr. Barr sent to Congress two days later gave little element concerning the particular counsel’s findings and created the impression that Mr. Mueller’s staff found no wrongdoing, allowing Mr. Trump to declare he had been exonerated.

However when Mr. Mueller’s report was released on April 18, it painted a much more damning image of the president and showed that Mr. Mueller believed that vital evidence existed that Mr. Trump obstructed justice.

“The special counsel emphasized that nothing in the attorney general’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading,” a Justice Department spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, stated in response to a request for remark made on Tuesday afternoon. A spokesman for the particular counsel’s workplace declined to comment.

Over the past month, other indicators of friction between the lawyer basic and the particular counsel have emerged over issues like legal theories about constitutional protections afforded to presidents to do their job and how Mr. Mueller’s staff carried out the investigation.

In congressional testimony in April before the report was released, Mr. Barr demurred when requested whether or not he believed that the investigation was a “witch hunt” — Mr. Trump’s most popular term. It “depends on where you’re sitting,” Mr. Barr replied.

“If you are somebody who’s being falsely accused of something, you would tend to view the investigation as a witch hunt,” he stated, an obvious reference to the president.

Mr. Barr’s testimony stood in distinction to comments he made during his confirmation hearing in January. “I don’t believe Mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt,” he stated then.

A rift between the lads appeared to develop in the intervening months as the special counsel wrapped up his inquiry.


Special counsel Robert Mueller wrote a letter to Lawyer Basic William Barr last month complaining that a four-page memo Barr wrote characterizing Mueller’s findings “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the particular counsel’s probe, a senior Justice Division official confirmed to POLITICO.

Mueller despatched the letter to Barr on March 27, three days after Barr issued his four-page abstract, and cited “public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.” The letter was first reported by The Washington Submit.

“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,” Mueller wrote. A spokesman for the particular counsel’s office, Peter Carr, declined to remark.

The letter will doubtless buoy congressional Democrats’ accusations that Barr mischaracterized Mueller’s report on objective to be able to shield the president. Its disclosure comes on the eve of Barr’s public testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and amid a back-and-forth between the Justice Division and the Home Judiciary Committee over whether committee employees can query Barr individually on Thursday.

The letter additionally reveals a widening gulf between Barr and Mueller, who’ve been buddies for many years, and is a sign that the special counsel’s staff was indignant with how Barr characterized the findings.

NADLER demands that DOJ flip over Mueller’s letter by 10am tomorrow.

He adds: “It was only a matter of time before the facts caught up to [Barr].”

— Andrew Desiderio (@desiderioDC) Might 1, 2019

Nadler statement: “The Department of Justice has … been reluctant to confirm a date for Special Counsel Mueller to testify. Given this evening’s reports, I will press the Department to schedule that hearing without delay.”

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) Might 1, 2019

William Safire in New York Occasions, October 1992, about Lawyer Basic Barr, whom he referred to as “the Coverup-General”:

— Michael Beschloss (@BeschlossDC) Might 1, 2019

I notice with interest AG Barr’s four/10 Senate testimony. “Q: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion? A: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.” Now it appears that Mueller objected in this three/27 letter.

— (((Rep. Nadler))) (@RepJerryNadler) Might 1, 2019

NEW — Dem sources tell me and @ErinBanco that Mueller has indicated a willingness to testify on the Hill but that DoJ is getting in the best way, refusing to comply with a date.

— Sam Stein (@samstein) Might 1, 2019

This is a unprecedented move for Bob Mueller. He doesn’t do issues like this. Apparently he didn’t respect having his exhausting work falsified. What ever made Barr/Rosenstein assume that the whitewash would hold, until they deliberate to suppress the report??

— Michael R. Bromwich (@mrbromwich) Might 1, 2019

Just spoke with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who says “a lot of remedies need to be on the table” for congressional response to Barr’s conduct. He does *not* rule out potential impeachment proceedings. Calls Mueller letter “stunning” and a “game changer for [Barr’s] legacy.”

— Robert Costa (@costareports) Might 1, 2019

On 23 March I stated on @MSNBC @amjoyshow “Would Barr create the worst scandal in American historical past by overlaying up the worst scandal in American historical past? Robert Mueller apparently thinks Sure.

— Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) April 30, 2019

We will’t perform as a nation of regulation if we will’t belief the Lawyer Common to tell the reality. Reporting of Mueller’s letter to Barr protesting the contextualization of the Russian investigation is a bombshell. The AG’s job is to serve the public not shield the president.

— Dan Moderately (@DanRather) Might 1, 2019

Within the days after the Barr letter there have been reviews of Mueller’s employees indignant on the letter’s mischaracterization of the complete report. I assume what’s noteworthy here is that Mueller himself was one of the individuals upset, and not those “13 angry Democrats.”

— Aaron Astor (@AstorAaron) Might 1, 2019

After Barr launched abstract, Fox Information repeatedly stated if Barr was mischaracterizing, Mueller would have stated something. They stated Mueller’s lack of objection proved Barr was telling fact. Should have stated this 100 occasions.

Now we know Mueller did object. So what is going to they are saying now?

— Angelo Carusone (@GoAngelo) Might 1, 2019

This sworn testimony doesn’t appear to be … true.

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) Might 1, 2019

Impeach the perjurer.

— Dick Polman (@DickPolman1) Might 1, 2019

Federal judges have repeatedly been impeached and faraway from office for committing perjury, “making false and misleading statements”, “impeding an official investigation”, and “lying under oath”. Those descriptions seem to fit William Barr tonight.

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) Might 1, 2019

The news that Mueller was involved with Barr presentation provides new context to why Barr is protesting answering questions from Home Judiciary Committee employees

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) April 30, 2019

Bob Mueller wrote in & objected
On seeing his work disrespected.
The AG, he discovered,
Had jerked him around,
Which perhaps he should’ve anticipated.

— Limericking (@Limericking) Might 1, 2019

Comply with blog comments on this breaking story HERE.