Read the Letter: Mueller Complains Barr Caused 'Public Confusion'
“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.”
May 01, 2019 at 09:57 AM
3 minute read
U.S. Attorney General William Barr can be expected to face questions Wednesday from members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee about the nature and scope of his communication with Robert Mueller III, the special counsel who was appointed to lead the Russia investigation.
Mueller was frustrated about how Barr in late March portrayed the “principal conclusions” of the report, which was released in redacted form last month. In a letter to Barr on March 27, the substance of which was released late Tuesday, Mueller said the attorney general's four-page summary “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.”
Mueller's letter was excerpted widely Tuesday night in media reports, but the full letter was made public Wednesday morning—as Barr prepared to testify about Mueller's report before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The appearance is Barr's first since the release of a redacted version of Mueller's 448-page report.
Barr drew criticism in March for releasing a four-page summary that largely characterized Trump as being cleared by Mueller's special counsel team. Mueller did not find the Trump campaign conspired with Russian actors, and the special counsel did not make a recommendation on whether Trump tried to obstruct the investigation. Still, Mueller's report was more damning than Barr presented it in a letter to Congress.
Mueller in his letter urged Barr to release certain materials that Mueller said would “alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.”
After receiving Mueller's letter, Barr called the special counsel to talk about it, the Justice Department said. Kerri Kupec, a DOJ spokesperson, described the call as “cordial and professional.”
Mueller “expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel's obstruction analysis,” Kupec said.
“They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released. However, the Attorney General ultimately determined that it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion,” Kupec said.
Mueller's letter to Barr is posted in full below:
Ellis Kim contributed reporting from Washington.
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 AllRepublican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
4 minute readCars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readTrending 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