Private tensions between Justice Department leaders and Robert Mueller's team broke into public view in extraordinary fashion Wednesday as Attorney General William Barr pushed back at the special counsel's "snitty" complaints over his handling of the Trump-Russia investigation report.

Testifying for the first time since releasing Mueller's report, Barr said he was surprised Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether President Donald Trump had tried to obstruct justice, and that he had felt compelled to step in with his own judgment that the president had committed no crime.

Barr was also perturbed by a private letter Mueller sent him last month complaining that the attorney general had not properly portrayed the special counsel's finding.

Barr called the note "a bit snitty."

"I said 'Bob, what's with the letter? Just pick up the phone and call me if there is an issue,'" Barr said.

The airing of disagreements over the handling of the report followed Mueller's two-year investigation into Russian interference to help Trump in the 2016 campaign and the possibility that Trump's team conspired with the Russians.

During most of the investigation, the Justice Department and Mueller's team seemed to be unified in approach.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers have been anything but unified.

And their partisan divide was on full display during Wednesday's contentious Judiciary Committee hearing, which included three Democratic presidential candidates.

Some Republicans, in addition to defending Trump, focused on the president's 2016 Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton's email and campaign practices and what they argued has been a lack of investigation of them.

Democrats, for their part, moved to exploit the daylight between Barr and Mueller to attack the attorney general's credibility and accuse him of unduly spinning the special counsel's report in the president's favor.

Barr sought to minimize the rift by suggesting the special counsel's concerns were largely about process, not substance.

Barr's appearance gave him his most extensive opportunity to explain the department's actions, including his news conference held before the Mueller report's release.

Barr has also been invited to appear Thursday before the Democratic-led House Judiciary panel, but the Justice Department has said he would not testify if the committee insisted on having its lawyers question him.

Neither side broke much new ground Wednesday on the specifics of Mueller's investigation, though Barr did articulate a robust defense of Trump as he made clear his firm conviction that there was no prosecutable case against the president for obstruction of justice.

POOL

Washington DC - 1 May 2019

1. Wide, Senate Judiciary Committee

2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Sen. Cory Booker, Democrat - New Jersey:

"We right now have a new normal in our country. We have a document that shows over 200 hundred attempts, connections between a presidential campaign and a foreign adversary sharing information that would be illegal if you did it with a super PAC. We know that. (Barr: What information was shared?)  The polling data was shared sir. It's in the report I can cite you the page. (Barr: With who?) And I guess my point here is is that your willingness to seem to brush over this and use words like the American people should be grateful. What's in this report? Nobody should be grateful."

3. Back view of hearing

4. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"Sen. Kamala Harris: Attorney General Barr has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?

Umm, I wouldn't I wouldn't.

Harris: Yes or no.

Could you repeat that question?"

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Kamala Harris, Democrat - California:

"I will repeat it. Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone? Yes or no please sir?"

6. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"The president or anybody else.

Harris: Seems you'd remember something like that and be able to tell us.

Yeah but I'm trying to grapple with the words suggest. I mean there have been discussions of of matters out there that they have not asked me to open investigation but  ...

Harris: Perhaps they've suggested?

I don't know, I wouldn't say suggest.

Harris: Hinted? Inferred?"

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Kamala Harris, Democrat - California:

"Is in reaching your conclusion did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?"

8. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"No. We took and  ...

Harris: Did Mr. Rosenstein?

No we accepted the statements in the report as the factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate."

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Kamala Harris, Democrat - California:

"As the Attorney General of the United States. You run the United States Department of Justice. If in any U.S. attorney's office around the country, the head of that office when being asked to make a critical decision about in this case the person who holds the highest office in the land and whether or not that person committed a crime, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they had not reviewed the evidence?

Barr: Well that's a question for Bob Mueller. He's the U.S. attorney. He's the one who presents the report.

But it was you who made the charging decision, sir? You made the decision not to charge the president."

10. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"In a pross (process) memo and then a declination memo.

Harris: You said it was your baby, what did you mean by that?

It was my baby to to let to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public

Harris: And whose decision was it? Who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice?

Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor, in this case it was the the attorney general and the deputy attorney general who who decide on the final decision."

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Democrat - Minnesota:

"Mr. Attorney General, on April 27th President Trump stated 'Mueller, I assume for 35 million dollars he checked my taxes and he checked my financials.' Is that accurate? Did the special counsel review the president's taxes and the Trump Organization's financial statements?"

12. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"I don't know.

Klobuchar: Can you find out if I ask later in a written question?

I, yes or you could ask Bob Mueller when he comes here.

Klobuchar: OK I'll do that too."

13. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Democrat - Connecticut:

"In fact in response to your question 'why not just pick up the phone,' this letter was an extraordinary act. A career prosecutor rebuking the attorney general of the United States, memorializing in writing. Right? I know of no other instance of that happening. Do you?"

14. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"I don't consider Bob at this stage a career prosecutor. He's had a career as a prosecutor.

Blumenthal: Well, he's a very eminent prosecutor.

He was the head of the FBI for 12 years.

Blumenthal: He's a career a law enforcement professional, right? Yeah I know of no other instance of ...

But he was also political appointee and he was a political appointee with me at the Department of Justice. I don't know the letters a bit snitty and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people."

15. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Democrat - Connecticut:

"Did you make a memorandum of your conversation? Did you make a memorandum"

Barr: I didn't.

Did anyone, either you or anyone on your staff memorialize your conversation with Robert Mueller?"

16. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"Yes.

Blumenthal: Who did that?

Barr: There were notes taken of the call.

Blumenthal: May we have those notes?

Barr: No

Blumethal: Why not?"

Barr: Why should you have them."

16. Pan, Barr leaving hearing

Private tensions between Justice Department leaders and Robert Mueller's team broke into public view in extraordinary fashion Wednesday as Attorney General William Barr pushed back at the special counsel's "snitty" complaints over his handling of the Trump-Russia investigation report.

Testifying for the first time since releasing Mueller's report, Barr said he was surprised Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether President Donald Trump had tried to obstruct justice, and that he had felt compelled to step in with his own judgment that the president had committed no crime.

Barr was also perturbed by a private letter Mueller sent him last month complaining that the attorney general had not properly portrayed the special counsel's finding.

Barr called the note "a bit snitty."

"I said 'Bob, what's with the letter? Just pick up the phone and call me if there is an issue,'" Barr said.

The airing of disagreements over the handling of the report followed Mueller's two-year investigation into Russian interference to help Trump in the 2016 campaign and the possibility that Trump's team conspired with the Russians.

During most of the investigation, the Justice Department and Mueller's team seemed to be unified in approach.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers have been anything but unified.

And their partisan divide was on full display during Wednesday's contentious Judiciary Committee hearing, which included three Democratic presidential candidates.

Some Republicans, in addition to defending Trump, focused on the president's 2016 Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton's email and campaign practices and what they argued has been a lack of investigation of them.

Democrats, for their part, moved to exploit the daylight between Barr and Mueller to attack the attorney general's credibility and accuse him of unduly spinning the special counsel's report in the president's favor.

Barr sought to minimize the rift by suggesting the special counsel's concerns were largely about process, not substance.

Barr's appearance gave him his most extensive opportunity to explain the department's actions, including his news conference held before the Mueller report's release.

Barr has also been invited to appear Thursday before the Democratic-led House Judiciary panel, but the Justice Department has said he would not testify if the committee insisted on having its lawyers question him.

Neither side broke much new ground Wednesday on the specifics of Mueller's investigation, though Barr did articulate a robust defense of Trump as he made clear his firm conviction that there was no prosecutable case against the president for obstruction of justice.

POOL

Washington DC - 1 May 2019

1. Wide, Senate Judiciary Committee

2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Sen. Cory Booker, Democrat - New Jersey:

"We right now have a new normal in our country. We have a document that shows over 200 hundred attempts, connections between a presidential campaign and a foreign adversary sharing information that would be illegal if you did it with a super PAC. We know that. (Barr: What information was shared?) The polling data was shared sir. It's in the report I can cite you the page. (Barr: With who?) And I guess my point here is is that your willingness to seem to brush over this and use words like the American people should be grateful. What's in this report? Nobody should be grateful."

3. Back view of hearing

4. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"Sen. Kamala Harris: Attorney General Barr has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?

Umm, I wouldn't I wouldn't.

Harris: Yes or no.

Could you repeat that question?"

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Kamala Harris, Democrat - California:

"I will repeat it. Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone? Yes or no please sir?"

6. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"The president or anybody else.

Harris: Seems you'd remember something like that and be able to tell us.

Yeah but I'm trying to grapple with the words suggest. I mean there have been discussions of of matters out there that they have not asked me to open investigation but ...

Harris: Perhaps they've suggested?

I don't know, I wouldn't say suggest.

Harris: Hinted? Inferred?"

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Kamala Harris, Democrat - California:

"Is in reaching your conclusion did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?"

8. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"No. We took and ...

Harris: Did Mr. Rosenstein?

No we accepted the statements in the report as the factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate."

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Kamala Harris, Democrat - California:

"As the Attorney General of the United States. You run the United States Department of Justice. If in any U.S. attorney's office around the country, the head of that office when being asked to make a critical decision about in this case the person who holds the highest office in the land and whether or not that person committed a crime, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they had not reviewed the evidence?

Barr: Well that's a question for Bob Mueller. He's the U.S. attorney. He's the one who presents the report.

But it was you who made the charging decision, sir? You made the decision not to charge the president."

10. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"In a pross (process) memo and then a declination memo.

Harris: You said it was your baby, what did you mean by that?

It was my baby to to let to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public

Harris: And whose decision was it? Who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice?

Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor, in this case it was the the attorney general and the deputy attorney general who who decide on the final decision."

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Democrat - Minnesota:

"Mr. Attorney General, on April 27th President Trump stated 'Mueller, I assume for 35 million dollars he checked my taxes and he checked my financials.' Is that accurate? Did the special counsel review the president's taxes and the Trump Organization's financial statements?"

12. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"I don't know.

Klobuchar: Can you find out if I ask later in a written question?

I, yes or you could ask Bob Mueller when he comes here.

Klobuchar: OK I'll do that too."

13. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Democrat - Connecticut:

"In fact in response to your question 'why not just pick up the phone,' this letter was an extraordinary act. A career prosecutor rebuking the attorney general of the United States, memorializing in writing. Right? I know of no other instance of that happening. Do you?"

14. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"I don't consider Bob at this stage a career prosecutor. He's had a career as a prosecutor.

Blumenthal: Well, he's a very eminent prosecutor.

He was the head of the FBI for 12 years.

Blumenthal: He's a career a law enforcement professional, right? Yeah I know of no other instance of ...

But he was also political appointee and he was a political appointee with me at the Department of Justice. I don't know the letters a bit snitty and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people."

15. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Democrat - Connecticut:

"Did you make a memorandum of your conversation? Did you make a memorandum"

Barr: I didn't.

Did anyone, either you or anyone on your staff memorialize your conversation with Robert Mueller?"

16. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General:

"Yes.

Blumenthal: Who did that?

Barr: There were notes taken of the call.

Blumenthal: May we have those notes?

Barr: No

Blumethal: Why not?"

Barr: Why should you have them."

16. Pan, Barr leaving hearing

House Republicans are pledging tough questioning of special counsel Robert Mueller when he testifies before Congress this week as Democrats plan to air evidence of wrongdoing by President Donald Trump in a potentially last-ditch bid to impeach him.

Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on House Judiciary Committee, said the American public is growing weary of the Russia investigation three months after the release of the special counsel's 448-page report and that "any thought of impeachment is waning." He said Republicans will be focused on making clear that the report represents a "final episode" in the Russia probe, which he described as flawed.

Days before back-to-back hearings Wednesday, both sides seemed to agree that Mueller's testimony could be pivotal in shifting public opinion on the question of "holding the president accountable."

"This is a president who has violated the law 6 ways from Sunday," said New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He argued that Mueller's report lays out "very substantial evidence" that Trump is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors," the constitutional standard for impeachment.

"We have to present - or let Mueller present - those facts to the American people ... because the administration must be held accountable and no president can be above the law," Nadler said.

The House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee will question Mueller in separate hearings on the report. While the report did not find sufficient evidence to establish charges of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to swing the election, it said Trump could not be cleared of trying to obstruct the investigation . But Mueller believed Trump couldn't be indicted in part because of a Justice Department opinion against prosecuting a sitting president.

POOL

Washington, DC - 29 May 2019

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Robert Mueller, Special Counsel:

"Two years ago the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel's office.  The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. Now I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I'm speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel's office and as well, I'm resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life. I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work, but beyond these few remarks it is important that the office's written work speak for itself. Let me begin where the appointment order begins and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers, who were part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they use sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate."

House Republicans are pledging tough questioning of Special Counsel Robert Mueller when he testifies before Congress this week as Democrats plan to air evidence of wrongdoing by US President Donald Trump in a potentially last-ditch bid to impeach him.

Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on House Judiciary Committee, said the American public is growing weary of the Russia investigation three months after the release of the special counsel's 448-page report and that "any thought of impeachment is waning."

Collins said Republicans will be focused on making clear that the report represents a "final episode" in the Russia probe, which he described as flawed.

Days before back-to-back hearings Wednesday, both sides seemed to agree that Mueller's testimony could be pivotal in shifting public opinion on the question of "holding the president accountable."

"This is a president who has violated the law six ways from Sunday," said New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Nadler argued that Mueller's report lays out "very substantial evidence" that Trump is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors," the constitutional standard for impeachment.

"We have to present – or let Mueller present – those facts to the American people...because the administration must be held accountable and no president can be above the law," Nadler said.

The House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee will question Mueller in separate hearings on the report.

While the report did not find sufficient evidence to establish charges of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to swing the election, it said Trump could not be cleared of trying to obstruct the investigation.

But Mueller believed Trump couldn't be indicted in part because of a Justice Department opinion against prosecuting a sitting president.

POOL

Washington, DC - 29 May 2019

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Robert Mueller, Special Counsel:

"Two years ago the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel's office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. Now I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I'm speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel's office and as well, I'm resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life. I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work, but beyond these few remarks it is important that the office's written work speak for itself. Let me begin where the appointment order begins and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers, who were part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate."

Attorney General William Barr says special counsel Robert Mueller's report recounts 10 episodes involving President Donald Trump that were investigated as potential acts of criminal obstruction of justice.

Barr says Mueller did not reach a "prosecutorial judgment" and that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded the evidence was not sufficient to establish the president committed an offense.

Barr spoke Thursday at a news conference with reporters.

While Mueller drew no conclusion about whether President Donald Trump had obstructed justice in the investigation, Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein personally had concluded that while Trump was "frustrated and angry" about the Mueller probe, nothing the president did rose to the level of an "obstruction-of-justice offense."

POOL

Washington - 18 April 2019

1. Side shot of US Attorney General William

2. SOUNDBITE (English): William Barr, US Attorney General:

"Finally the special counsel investigated a number of links or contacts between the Trump campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. After reviewing these contacts, the special counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russian-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign. So that's the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those efforts. After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the special counsel's report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the special counsel's investigation. As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the special counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts 10 episodes involving the president and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those activities to the elements of an obstruction offense. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other department lawyers, the deputy attorney general and I concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. Although the deputy attorney general and I disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the special counsel's legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusions. In assessing the president's actions discussed in the report it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president's personal culpability. Yet as he said from the beginning there was in fact no collusion. And as the special counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the president took no act that in fact deprived the special counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of noncorrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the president had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation."

3. Side shot of Barr