Mueller Pushed Twice for Barr to Release Report's Summaries
Source: New York Times
WASHINGTON The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, pushed Attorney General William P. Barr twice to release more of his investigative findings in late March after Mr. Barr outlined the inquirys main conclusions in a letter to Congress, citing a gap between Mr. Barrs interpretation and Mr. Muellers report, according to a letter released on Wednesday.
The letter, from Mr. Mueller, revealed deep concern about how Mr. Barr handled the initial release of the special counsels findings. Mr. Muellers office first informed the Justice Department of their concerns on March 25, a day after Mr. Barr released his letter clearing Mr. Trump but declined to release the special counsels findings themselves.
We communicated that concern to the department on the morning of March 25, Mr. Mueller said in a second letter to Mr. Barr two days later. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.Mr. Mueller added, 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 offices work and conclusions.
Mr. Mueller asked the Justice Department to release the summaries of his findings. Mr. Barr declined.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/mueller-letters-barr.html?emc=edit_na_20190501&nl=breaking-news&nlid=65264959ing-news&ref=cta
.99center
(1,237 posts)Link to tweet
U.S. DepartmentofJustice
© The Special Counsels Office
Washington, D.C. 20530
March 27, 2019
The Honorable William P. Barr men
Attorney General of the United States a
DepartmentofJustice
Washington, D.C.
Re: Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the
2016 Presidential Election and Obstruction of Justice (March 2019)
Dear Attorney General Barr:
I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and
executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsels report marked with redactions to
remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked
an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be
released publicly.
Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public
consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these
materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.
As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the
afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report
accurately summarize this Offices work and conclusions. 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 Offices work and conclusions. We communicated that
concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. 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. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).
While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is
appropriate for public releasea process that our Office is working with you to completethat
process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. 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. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. § 609(c) (the Attorney
General may determine that public release of congressional notifications would be in the public
interest).
onetexan
(13,058 posts)FakeNoose
(32,748 posts)We just need the original.