Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Donald Trump's campaign "conspired or coordinated" with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election but reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice, Attorney General William Barr declared. That brought a hearty claim of vindication from Trump but set the stage for new rounds of political and legal fighting.

Trump cheered the Sunday outcome but also laid bare his resentment after two years of investigations that have shadowed his administration. "It's a shame that our country has had to go through this. To be honest, it's a shame that your president has had to go through this," he said.

Democrats pointed out that Mueller found evidence for and against obstruction and demanded to see his full report. They insisted that even the summary by the president's attorney general hardly put him in the clear.

Mueller's conclusions, summarized by Barr in a four-page letter to Congress, represented a victory for Trump on a key question that has hung over his presidency from the start: Did his campaign work with Russia to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton? That was further good news for the president on top of the Justice Department's earlier announcement that Mueller had wrapped his investigation without new indictments. The resolution also could deflate the hopes of Democrats in Congress and on the 2020 campaign trail that incriminating findings from Mueller would hobble the president's agenda and re-election bid.

But while Mueller was categorical in ruling out criminal collusion, he was more circumspect on presidential obstruction of justice. Despite Trump's claim of total exoneration, Mueller did not draw a conclusion one way or the other on whether he sought to stifle the Russia investigation through his actions including the firing of former FBI director James Comey.

According to Barr's summary, Mueller set out "evidence on both sides of the question" and stated that "while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Barr, who was nominated by Trump in December, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller in May 2017 and oversaw much of his work, went further in Trump's favor.

The attorney general said he and Rosenstein had determined that Mueller's evidence was insufficient to prove in court that Trump had committed obstruction of justice to hamper the probe. Barr has previously voiced a broad view of presidential powers, and in an unsolicited memo last June he cast doubt on whether the president could have obstructed justice through acts — like firing his FBI director — that he was legally empowered to take.

Barr said their decision was based on the evidence uncovered by Mueller and not affected by Justice Department legal opinions that say a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Washington, D.C. - 24 March 2019

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"So perhaps the most significant finding out of the special counsel's report today is that special counsel  Mueller did not find any evidence of criminal conspiracy between anyone associated with the Trump campaign and Russia. That is there's no quote unquote collusion that is prosecutable in any way between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. And that is the question that has been hovering over this investigation from the start. So that's a big victory for the president. it's a really unequivocal victory. The other interesting finding of note is on the question of whether the President obstructed justice. And here it's a little bit more complicated. In this particular aspect than the investigation the special counsel did not reach a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the President obstructed justice. Instead, according to Attorney General Barr who summarized these findings,  Mueller presented evidence on both sides of the ledger for these different episodes involving Trump's behavior that were examined, and then did not reach a conclusion one way or the other. However Barr said that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had reached their own conclusion based on Mueller's evidence and determined that it was insufficient to establish obstruction of justice."

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"So the letter today from the attorney general, it's a four page letter, it marks the conclusion, the real end conclusion of the special counsel's investigation. We  expect to hear more details of what the special counsel found in coming days and weeks."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

3 . SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"The major investigation that concerns the president right now is taking place in New York City. That's an investigation into hush money payments that were made to two women, one a former Playboy model, the other a porn star, who both say they had sex with the president about a decade before he was elected. And both received money during the campaign effectively to not come forward with their allegations. Prosecutors in New York City, in southern district of New York, are investigating whether that's a campaign finance violation. The president's been implicated in wrongdoing by his former lawyer Michael Cohen. It's not yet clear what's going to happen with that investigation."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"I think the main takeaway actually is going to be how unsatisfied Democrats are. This is a four page summary of what appears to be a very lengthy, very detailed report from the special counsel. And there is a suggestion in this letter that the special counsel did find evidence in at least some of the episodes he examined of potential obstruction of justice and simply did not reach a conclusion. So if you're a Democrat on Capitol Hill right now, you want access to all of the special counsel's work and you want the American public to see all of the evidence he gathered and his underlying report.  And so we can expect going forward, that is going to be the next big legal front is this fight between Congress and the Justice Department over how much of Muller's two years of work the public has to see. Especially because on the question of obstruction, it's clear that Mueller did indicate that there's a there there. He just didn't reach a conclusion one way or the other so that's given hope to Democrats that they want to see more."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"The regulations actually do not stipulate that the report is made public. That's a judgment call. It's what the regulations actually mandate is that a confidential report is delivered by the special counsel to the attorney general, who oversees his work. So in this case that would be Mueller to Barr.  And then it is possible that a document could be made public. But you have to imagine, and we know this for sure in this case, that this is a document that concerns grand jury information, perhaps classified information. That's a complicated process to scrub that document of any potential issues, executive privilege issues. And that's going to take some time."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"It is important to take stock of this moment that this is a pretty significant victory in terms of this collusion, or no collusion finding I should say, between the president and Russia and the special counsel according to Barr was pretty unequivocal about that. And so the president, we can expect him to rightfully claim victory and based on what we know from the special counsel's findings, that perhaps seems justified on that front. However there is a reference that is interesting and that is multiple offers from people connected to Russia,  Russian associates two individuals associated with the Trump campaign, offering help. We suspect that's a reference to the Trump Tower meeting that took place in June 2016 between Donald Trump Jr. and a Kremlin connected lawyer. He took that meeting with the expectation of receiving dirt on Hillary Clinton that could be used in weaponized during the campaign. We also know that a former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos had a meeting in London where he learned from a professor that Russia had dirt on Clinton in the form of thousands of stolen e-mails. So we suspect that Mueller's making reference to that, the fact that there are these multiple overtures of help from people connected to Russia. But there's no evidence or no allegation even that either of those two sides worked together. And that's a significant conclusion."

Washington, D.C. - 11 November 2018

7. Still - Donald Trump Jr. (Partly covers Soundbite #6)

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

Washington, D.C. - 24 March 2019

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"As it relates to the question of collusion, we do have a definitive answer from the special counsel and ostensibly endorsed by the attorney general that there was no collusion. We've heard that from the president for the last two years. That is the central finding and take away from this four page summary that there was indeed no collusion, no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign on one hand and the criminal in the Kremlin on the other to get Trump elected."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"It is possible that House Democrats could come up with a different conclusion on the on the collusion question. It's not clear how readily embraced by the American public. That would be because the special counsel is regarded as the ultimate arbiter of, with subpoena power, evidence, ability to criminally prosecute, so he's regarded as the final voice. So it's not clear whether the American public will accept if  Mueller says no collusion and House Democrats say otherwise."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

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

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