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

The House Judiciary Committee has approved subpoenas for special counsel Robert Mueller's full report on his Russia investigation.

The committee voted 24-17 to give Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., permission to issue subpoenas to the Justice Department for the final report, exhibits and any underlying evidence or materials prepared for Mueller's investigation.

Nadler has not yet said if he'll send the subpoenas.

House Democrats had given Attorney General William Barr until Tuesday to produce the full report to Congress.

The Justice Department ignored that deadline, with Barr telling committee chairmen last week that a redacted version of the full 300-page report would be released by mid-April, "if not sooner."

The vote further escalates the Democrats' battle with the Justice Department over how much of the report they will be able to see, a fight that could eventually end up in court if the two sides can't settle their differences through negotiation.

Democrats have said they will not accept redactions and want to see the evidence unfiltered by Barr.

The Judiciary panel also voted Wednesday to authorize subpoenas related to five of President Donald Trump's former top advisers, including strategist Steve Bannon, communications director Hope Hicks, chief of staff Reince Priebus, White House counsel Donald McGahn and counsel Ann Donaldson.

POOL

Washington, DC - 3 April 2019

1. Wide of House Judiciary Committee members on dais

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Jerry Nadler, (D) New York, Chairman, House Judiciary Commmittee:

"This committee requires the full report and the underlying materials because it is our job, not the attorney general's, to determine whether or not President Trump has abused his office. And we require the report because one day, one way or another, the country will move on from President Trump. We must make it harder for future presidents to behave this way. We need a full accounting of the president's actions to do that work."

3. Wide of committee members

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. David Cicilline, (D) Rhode Island:

"This investigation was conducted on behalf of the American people when our democracy was attacked by a foreign adversary. We fought hard to protect Mr. Mueller, so he could complete his work free from political interference. And now we have a right, this committee has the right and the responsibility to see the full contents of this report and the supporting materials."

5. Mid of committee members

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Doug Collins, (R) Georgia, Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee:

"Under regulations written by Janet Reno and other Democrats don't require him to do this, but in the name of transparency, he is. He may even furnish us the report as early as next week. Yet the chairman plows ahead. What's the rush?"

7. Wide of committee members

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. John Ratcliffe, (R) Texas:

"Mr. Chairman, today I heard you say over and over again, Congress requires, Congress requires, there are constitutional rights, or there's a necessity for this information. What I didn't hear was what law? The special counsel, where in the special counsel regulation does it say that the special, that the attorney general must turn over an unredacted full Special Counsel report? The special counsel regulation doesn't say that. No law says that."

9. Wide of Judiciary Committee members voting on resolution

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

The House Judiciary Committee has approved subpoenas for special counsel Robert Mueller's full report on his Russia investigation.

The committee voted 24-17 to give Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., permission to issue subpoenas to the Justice Department for the final report, exhibits and any underlying evidence or materials prepared for Mueller's investigation.

Nadler has not yet said if he'll send the subpoenas.

House Democrats had given Attorney General William Barr until Tuesday to produce the full report to Congress.

The Justice Department ignored that deadline, with Barr telling committee chairmen last week that a redacted version of the full 300-page report would be released by mid-April, "if not sooner."

The vote further escalates the Democrats' battle with the Justice Department over how much of the report they will be able to see, a fight that could eventually end up in court if the two sides can't settle their differences through negotiation.

Democrats have said they will not accept redactions and want to see the evidence unfiltered by Barr.

The Judiciary panel also voted Wednesday to authorize subpoenas related to five of President Donald Trump's former top advisers, including strategist Steve Bannon, communications director Hope Hicks, chief of staff Reince Priebus, White House counsel Donald McGahn and counsel Ann Donaldson.

POOL

Washington, DC - 3 April 2019

1. Wide of House Judiciary Committee members on dais

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Jerry Nadler, (D) New York, Chairman, House Judiciary Commmittee:

"This committee requires the full report and the underlying materials because it is our job, not the attorney general's, to determine whether or not President Trump has abused his office. And we require the report because one day, one way or another, the country will move on from President Trump. We must make it harder for future presidents to behave this way. We need a full accounting of the president's actions to do that work."

3. Wide of committee members

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. David Cicilline, (D) Rhode Island:

"This investigation was conducted on behalf of the American people when our democracy was attacked by a foreign adversary. We fought hard to protect Mr. Mueller, so he could complete his work free from political interference. And now we have a right, this committee has the right and the responsibility to see the full contents of this report and the supporting materials."

5. Mid of committee members

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Doug Collins, (R) Georgia, Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee:

"Under regulations written by Janet Reno and other Democrats don't require him to do this, but in the name of transparency, he is. He may even furnish us the report as early as next week. Yet the chairman plows ahead. What's the rush?"

7. Wide of committee members

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. John Ratcliffe, (R) Texas:

"Mr. Chairman, today I heard you say over and over again, Congress requires, Congress requires, there are constitutional rights, or there's a necessity for this information. What I didn't hear was what law? The special counsel, where in the special counsel regulation does it say that the special, that the attorney general must turn over an unredacted full Special Counsel report? The special counsel regulation doesn't say that. No law says that."

9. Wide of Judiciary Committee members voting on resolution

The House Judiciary Committee has approved subpoenas for special counsel Robert Mueller's full report on his Russia investigation.

The committee voted 24-17 to give Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., permission to issue subpoenas to the Justice Department for the final report, exhibits and any underlying evidence or materials prepared for Mueller's investigation.

Nadler has not yet said if he'll send the subpoenas.

House Democrats had given Attorney General William Barr until Tuesday to produce the full report to Congress.

The Justice Department ignored that deadline, with Barr telling committee chairmen last week that a redacted version of the full 300-page report would be released by mid-April, "if not sooner."

The vote further escalates the Democrats' battle with the Justice Department over how much of the report they will be able to see, a fight that could eventually end up in court if the two sides can't settle their differences through negotiation.

Democrats have said they will not accept redactions and want to see the evidence unfiltered by Barr.

The Judiciary panel also voted Wednesday to authorize subpoenas related to five of President Donald Trump's former top advisers, including strategist Steve Bannon, communications director Hope Hicks, chief of staff Reince Priebus, White House counsel Donald McGahn and counsel Ann Donaldson.

POOL

Washington, DC - 3 April 2019

1. Wide of House Judiciary Committee members on dais

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Jerry Nadler, (D) New York, Chairman, House Judiciary Commmittee:

"This committee requires the full report and the underlying materials because it is our job, not the attorney general's, to determine whether or not President Trump has abused his office. And we require the report because one day, one way or another, the country will move on from President Trump. We must make it harder for future presidents to behave this way. We need a full accounting of the president's actions to do that work."

3. Wide of committee members

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. David Cicilline, (D) Rhode Island:

"This investigation was conducted on behalf of the American people when our democracy was attacked by a foreign adversary. We fought hard to protect Mr. Mueller, so he could complete his work free from political interference. And now we have a right, this committee has the right and the responsibility to see the full contents of this report and the supporting materials."

5. Mid of committee members

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Doug Collins, (R) Georgia, Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee:

"Under regulations written by Janet Reno and other Democrats don't require him to do this, but in the name of transparency, he is. He may even furnish us the report as early as next week. Yet the chairman plows ahead. What's the rush?"

7. Wide of committee members

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. John Ratcliffe, (R) Texas:

"Mr. Chairman, today I heard you say over and over again, Congress requires, Congress requires, there are constitutional rights, or there's a necessity for this information. What I didn't hear was what law? The special counsel, where in the special counsel regulation does it say that the special, that the attorney general must turn over an unredacted full Special Counsel report? The special counsel regulation doesn't say that. No law says that."

9. Wide of Judiciary Committee members voting on resolution

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

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 felt compelled to step in with his own judgment that the president had committed no crime.

The airing of disagreements over the handling of the report was notable given the highly secretive nature of the special counsel's investigation and the public appearance for at least most of the probe that the Justice Department and Mueller's team were unified in approach.

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

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

It was also a forum for him to repair a reputation bruised by allegations that he's the Republican president's protector and by the emergence of a private letter from Mueller that criticized his handling of the report.

Democrats seized on the daylight between the two men to attack Barr's credibility and accuse him of unduly spinning Mueller's report in the president's favor.

They also pressed him on whether he had misled Congress last month when he professed ignorance about complaints from the special counsel's team. Barr suggested he had not lied because he was in touch with Mueller himself and not his team.

"Mr. Barr, I feel your answer was purposely misleading, and I believe others do too," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

While Democratic senators bluntly questioned Barr's actions, Republicans, in addition to defending Trump, focused on the president's 2016 Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton's email and campaign practices and what they feel is a lack of investigation of them.

Neither side broke much 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.

Barr entered the hearing on the defensive following reports hours earlier that Mueller had complained to him in a letter and over the phone about the way his findings were being portrayed.

Two days after receiving Mueller's report, Barr released a four-page letter that summarized the main findings.

Mueller's letter, dated March 27, conveys his unhappiness that Barr released what the attorney general saw as the bottom-line conclusions of the special counsel's investigation and not the introductions and executive summaries that Mueller's team had prepared and believed conveyed more nuance and context than Barr's own letter. Mueller said he had communicated the same concern two days earlier.

Once Mueller submitted his report, his work was done and the document was "my baby," Barr insisted defiantly.

"It was my decision how and when to make it public. Not Bob Mueller's," he said.

POOL

Washington DC - 1 May 2019

1. Wide, Senate Judiciary Committee

2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Sen. Lindsey Graham, Chairman Judiciary Committee:

"The conclusions in your page four page summary, you think, accurately reflect his bottom line on collusion. Is that correct? (Barr: Yes) And you can read it for yourself if you got any doubt. As to obstruction of justice, were you surprised he was gonna let you decide?"

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

"Yes, I was surprised. I ... I think the very purpose the function he was carrying out the prosecutor of investigative and prosecutor function is performed for the purpose of people. (Graham: How many people did he actually indict, do you know?) I can't remember off the top of my head. (Graham: It was a lot.) Yeah."

4. Mid, Barr listening

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

"Thing that was confusing to me is that the investigation carried on for a while as additional episodes were were looked into, episodes involving the president. And so my question is or was why were those investigated if at the end of the day aren't going to reach a decision on them? (Graham: So did you consult Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein about the obstruction matter?) Constantly. (Graham: So, was he in agreement with your decision not to proceed forward?) Yes."

6. Wide, Barr listening

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democrat - Vermont:

"What really struck me, Mr. Mueller wrote that your letter threatened to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel to ensure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation. Why did you testify on April 9th that you didn't know the concerns being expressed by Mueller's team, when in fact you had heard those concerns directly from Mr. Mueller two weeks before?"

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

"Mueller had never told me that that might that the expression of the findings was inaccurate. But I did then volunteer that I thought they were talking about the desire to have more information put out, but it wasn't my purpose to put out more information."

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democrat - Vermont:

"Mr. Barr are you ... I feel your answer was purposely misleading and I think others do too. May I ask you another one? You said the president is fully cooperating with an investigation, but his attorney had told a defendant he'd be taken care of if he didn't cooperate with the investigation. Is there a conflict in that there are conflict in that?"

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

"I'm sorry, could you just repeat that? (Leahy: Both Mr. Manafort and Mr. Cohen we're told by Trump's personal attorney they'd be taken care of if they did not cooperate. You said that the president was fully cooperate. Is there a conflict there? Yes or no.) No."

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat - Illinois:

"No I'll just say this Mr. Barr if you received a letter from Bob Mueller a few days after your March 24th letter, it was clear he had some genuine concerns about what you had said and done to that point. Can we move to another topic?"

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

"Yeah, his concerns was he wanted more added and I would analogize it to this my ... you know after, after a months long trial if if if I wanted to go out and get out to the public what the verdict was pending preparation of the full transcript and I'm out there saying here's the verdict. And the prosecutor comes up and taps me on the shoulder and says, 'well the verdict doesn't really fully capture all my work about that great cross examination I did or how about that third day of trial where I did that. This doesn't capture everything.' My answer to that is I'm not trying to capture everything. I'm just trying to state the verdict. (Durbin: No you just absolutely use the word summarize though in your letter.) Summarize the principal conclusions. (Durbin: Principle conclusions which most people would view as a summary.)"

13. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat - Rhode Island:

"You described the report in four pages and it's a 400 page report, I don't know why you're cavalier about whether it is a summary or not?"

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

"Because, as I state in the letter that I'm stating the principal conclusions. You know Bob Mueller is the equivalent of a U.S. attorney. He was exercising the powers of the attorney general subject to the supervision of the attorney general. He's part of the Department of Justice. His work concluded when he sent his report to the attorney general at that point it was my baby and I was making a decision as to whether or not to make it public. And I effectively overrode the regulations, use discretion, to lean as far forward as I could to make that public and was my decision how and when to make it public not Bob Mueller's."

15. Wide view of hearing

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

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 felt compelled to step in with his own judgment that the president had committed no crime.

The airing of disagreements over the handling of the report was notable given the highly secretive nature of the special counsel's investigation and the public appearance for at least most of the probe that the Justice Department and Mueller's team were unified in approach.

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

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

It was also a forum for him to repair a reputation bruised by allegations that he's the Republican president's protector and by the emergence of a private letter from Mueller that criticized his handling of the report.

Democrats seized on the daylight between the two men to attack Barr's credibility and accuse him of unduly spinning Mueller's report in the president's favor.

They also pressed him on whether he had misled Congress last month when he professed ignorance about complaints from the special counsel's team. Barr suggested he had not lied because he was in touch with Mueller himself and not his team.

"Mr. Barr, I feel your answer was purposely misleading, and I believe others do too," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

While Democratic senators bluntly questioned Barr's actions, Republicans, in addition to defending Trump, focused on the president's 2016 Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton's email and campaign practices and what they feel is a lack of investigation of them.

Neither side broke much 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.

Barr entered the hearing on the defensive following reports hours earlier that Mueller had complained to him in a letter and over the phone about the way his findings were being portrayed.

Two days after receiving Mueller's report, Barr released a four-page letter that summarized the main findings.

Mueller's letter, dated March 27, conveys his unhappiness that Barr released what the attorney general saw as the bottom-line conclusions of the special counsel's investigation and not the introductions and executive summaries that Mueller's team had prepared and believed conveyed more nuance and context than Barr's own letter. Mueller said he had communicated the same concern two days earlier.

Once Mueller submitted his report, his work was done and the document was "my baby," Barr insisted defiantly.

"It was my decision how and when to make it public. Not Bob Mueller's," he said.

POOL

Washington DC - 1 May 2019

1. SOUNDBITE: (English) Sen. Lindsey Graham, Chairman Judiciary Committee:

"The conclusions in your page four page summary, you think, accurately reflect his bottom line on collusion. Is that correct? (Barr: Yes) And you can read it for yourself if you got any doubt. As to obstruction of justice, were you surprised he was gonna let you decide?"

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

"Yes, I was surprised. I ... I think the very purpose the function he was carrying out the prosecutor of investigative and prosecutor function is performed for the purpose of people. (Graham: How many people did he actually indict, do you know?) I can't remember off the top of my head. (Graham: It was a lot.) Yeah."

3. Mid, Barr listening

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democrat - Vermont:

"What really struck me, Mr. Mueller wrote that your letter threatened to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the special counsel to ensure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation. Why did you testify on April 9th that you didn't know the concerns being expressed by Mueller's team, when in fact you had heard those concerns directly from Mr. Mueller two weeks before?"

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

"Mueller had never told me that that might that the expression of the findings was inaccurate. But I did then volunteer that I thought they were talking about the desire to have more information put out, but it wasn't my purpose to put out more information."

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democrat - Vermont:

"Mr. Barr are you ... I feel your answer was purposely misleading and I think others do too."

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat - Illinois:

"No I'll just say this Mr. Barr if you received a letter from Bob Mueller a few days after your March 24th letter, it was clear he had some general genuine concerns about what you had said and done to that point. Can we move to another topic?"

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

"Yeah, his concerns was he wanted more added and I would analogize it to this my ... you know after, after a months long trial if if if I wanted to go out and get out to the public what the verdict was pending preparation of the full transcript and I'm out there saying here's the verdict. And the prosecutor comes up and taps me on the shoulder and says, 'well the verdict doesn't really fully capture all my work about that great cross examination I did or how about that third day of trial where I did that. This doesn't capture everything.' My answer to that is I'm not trying to capture everything. I'm just trying to state the verdict. (Durbin: No you just absolutely use the word summarize though in your letter.) Summarize the principal conclusions. (Durbin: Principle conclusions which most people would view as a summary.)"

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat - Rhode Island:

"You described the report in four pages and it's a 400 page report, I don't know why you're cavalier about whether it is a summary or not?"

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

"Because, as I state in the letter that I'm stating the principal conclusions. You know Bob Muller is the equivalent of a U.S. attorney. He was exercising the powers of the attorney general subject to the supervision of the attorney general. He's part of the Department of Justice. His work concluded when he sent his report to the attorney general at that point it was my baby and I was making a decision as to whether or not to make it public. And I effectively overrode the regulations, use discretion, to lean as far forward as I could to make that public and was my decision how and when to make it public not Bob Mueller's."

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

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 felt compelled to step in with his own judgment that the president had committed no crime.

The airing of disagreements over the handling of the report was notable given the highly secretive nature of the special counsel's investigation and the public appearance for at least most of the probe that the Justice Department and Mueller's team were unified in approach.

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

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

It was also a forum for him to repair a reputation bruised by allegations that he's the Republican president's protector and by the emergence of a private letter from Mueller that criticized his handling of the report.

Democrats seized on the daylight between the two men to attack Barr's credibility and accuse him of unduly spinning Mueller's report in the president's favor.

They also pressed him on whether he had misled Congress last month when he professed ignorance about complaints from the special counsel's team. Barr suggested he had not lied because he was in touch with Mueller himself and not his team.

"Mr. Barr, I feel your answer was purposely misleading, and I believe others do too," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

While Democratic senators bluntly questioned Barr's actions, Republicans, in addition to defending Trump, focused on the president's 2016 Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton's email and campaign practices and what they feel is a lack of investigation of them.

Neither side broke much 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.

Barr entered the hearing on the defensive following reports hours earlier that Mueller had complained to him in a letter and over the phone about the way his findings were being portrayed.

Two days after receiving Mueller's report, Barr released a four-page letter that summarized the main findings.

Mueller's letter, dated March 27, conveys his unhappiness that Barr released what the attorney general saw as the bottom-line conclusions of the special counsel's investigation and not the introductions and executive summaries that Mueller's team had prepared and believed conveyed more nuance and context than Barr's own letter. Mueller said he had communicated the same concern two days earlier.

Once Mueller submitted his report, his work was done and the document was "my baby," Barr insisted defiantly.

"It was my decision how and when to make it public. Not Bob Mueller's," he said.

POOL

Washington DC - 1 May 2019

1. Wide, Senate Judiciary Committee

2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Sen. Lindsey Graham, Chairman Judiciary Committee:

"The conclusions in your page four page summary, you think, accurately reflect his bottom line on collusion. Is that correct? (Barr: Yes) And you can read it for yourself if you got any doubt.  As to obstruction of justice, were you surprised he was gonna let you decide?"

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

"Yes, I was surprised. I ... I think the very purpose the function he was carrying out the prosecutor of investigative and prosecutor function is performed for the purpose of people. (Graham: How many people did he actually indict, do you know?) I can't remember off the top of my head. (Graham: It was a lot.) Yeah."

4. Mid, Barr listening

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

"Thing that was confusing to me is that the investigation carried on for a while as additional episodes were were looked into, episodes involving the president. And so my question is or was why were those investigated if at the end of the day aren't going to reach a decision on them? (Graham: So did you consult Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein about the obstruction matter?) Constantly. (Graham: So, was he in agreement with your decision not to proceed forward?) Yes."

6. Wide, Barr listening

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democrat - Vermont:

"What really struck me, Mr. Mueller wrote that your letter threatened to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel to ensure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation. Why did you testify on April 9th that you didn't know the concerns being expressed by Mueller's team, when in fact you had heard those concerns directly from Mr. Mueller two weeks before?"

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

"Mueller had never told me that that might that the expression of the findings was inaccurate. But I did then volunteer that I thought they were talking about the desire to have more information put out, but it wasn't my purpose to put out more information."

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democrat - Vermont:

"Mr. Barr are you ... I feel your answer was purposely misleading and I think others do too. May I ask you another one? You said the president is fully cooperating with an investigation, but his attorney had told a defendant he'd be taken care of if he didn't cooperate with the investigation. Is there a conflict in that there are conflict in that?"

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

"I'm sorry, could you just repeat that? (Leahy: Both Mr. Manafort and Mr. Cohen we're told by Trump's personal attorney they'd be taken care of if they did not cooperate. You said that the president was fully cooperate. Is there a conflict there? Yes or no.) No."

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat - Illinois:

"No I'll just say this Mr. Barr if you received a letter from Bob Mueller a few days after your March 24th letter, it was clear he had some genuine concerns about what you had said and done to that point. Can we move to another topic?"

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

"Yeah, his concerns was he wanted more added and I would analogize it to this my ... you know after, after a months long trial if if if I wanted to go out and get out to the public what the verdict was pending preparation of the full transcript and I'm out there saying here's the verdict. And the prosecutor comes up and taps me on the shoulder and says, 'well the verdict doesn't really fully capture all my work about that great cross examination I did or how about that third day of trial where I did that. This doesn't capture everything.' My answer to that is I'm not trying to capture everything. I'm just trying to state the verdict.  (Durbin: No you just absolutely use the word summarize though in your letter.)  Summarize the principal conclusions.  (Durbin: Principle conclusions which most people would view as a summary.)"

13. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat - Rhode Island:

"You described the report in four pages and it's a 400 page report, I don't know why you're cavalier about whether it is a summary or not?"

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

"Because, as I state in the letter that I'm stating the principal conclusions. You know Bob Mueller is the equivalent of a U.S. attorney. He was exercising the powers of the attorney general subject to the supervision of the attorney general. He's part of the Department of Justice. His work concluded when he sent his report to the attorney general at that point it was my baby and I was making a decision as to whether or not to make it public. And I effectively overrode the regulations, use discretion, to lean as far forward as I could to make that public and was my decision how and when to make it public not Bob Mueller's."

15. Wide view of hearing

President Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general says he doesn't believe special counsel Robert Mueller (MUHL'-ur) "would be involved in a witch hunt."

Barr made the comment Tuesday at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Trump has repeatedly decried the special counsel's investigation as a "witch hunt" and has suggested he is being targeted by the Justice Department.

Mueller is investigating potential ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.

Barr also says it would be an "abuse of power" for Trump to intervene in an investigation he "has a stake in."

William Barr said Tuesday at his confirmation hearing he believes such an action would be a breach of the president's constitutional duties and could violate federal law depending upon the circumstances.

Barr was responding to questions from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (FYN'-styn), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in light of a memo he wrote criticizing special counsel Robert Mueller's obstruction-of-justice investigation.

Barr has said the memo was intended to be narrowly focused on one of Mueller's reported interpretations of obstruction. Barr also says his memo was based solely on public reporting and not any confidential information.

POOL

Washington - 15 January 2018

1. Wide of hearing

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina:

"Are you familiar with the January 11th New York Times article about FBI open inquiry into whether Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russians."

3. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee (off camera):

"Yes Mr. Chairman."

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina:

"Would you promise me and this committee to look into this and tell us whether or not, in the appropriate way, a counterintelligence investigation was opened up by somebody at the FBI slash Department of Justice against President Trump."

5. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think there were a number of investigations as I understand it going on in the department."

6.  SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"You ever heard of such a thing in all the time you've been associated with the Department of Justice."

7. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"I have never heard of that."

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina:

"Are there rules about how you can do counterintelligence investigations?"

9. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"I believe there are Mr. Chairman."

10. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"So if you want to open up one against the president. are there any checks and balances?"

11. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Not outside the FBI."

12. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"OK well we need to look at that."

13. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina:

"Mueller. You say you've known Mueller a long time. Would you say you have a close relationship with Mr. Mueller?"

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

"I would say we were good friends."

15. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"Would you say that you understand him to be a fair minded person?."

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

"Absolutely."

17. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"Do you trust him to be fair to the president and the country as a whole?"

18. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Yes."

19. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"When his report comes to you, will you share with us as much as possible?"

20. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Consistent with the regulations and the law, yes."

21. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina:

"Do you believe Mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt against anybody?"

22. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"I don't I don't believe Mr. Mueller would would be involved in a witch hunt."

23. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California:

"Will you commit to no interference with the scope of the special counsel's investigation?"

24. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"I will--the scope of the special counsel's investigation is set by his charter and by the regulations and I will ensure that those are maintained."

25. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California (off camera):

"Will you commit to providing Mr. Muller with the resources, funds and time needed to complete his investigation?"

26. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Yes."

27. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California (off camera):

"Will you commit to ensuring that Special Counsel Mueller is not terminated without good cause, consistent with department regulations?"

28. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Absolutely."

29. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California (off camera):

"If special counsel Mueller makes any request, for instance, about the scope of his investigation or resources for his investigation will you commit to notifying Congress if you deny that request?"

30. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"I think the regulations require notification of Congress if there's a disagreement."

31. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California:

"Will you commit to making any report Mueller produces at the conclusion of his investigation available to Congress and to the public?"

32. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"As I said in my statement I am going to make as much information available as I can, consistent with the rules and regulations that are part of the special counsel regulations."

33. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California (off camera):

"Will you commit to making any report on the obstruction of justice public?"

34. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"That's the same answer."

35. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California:

"Your 2018 memo, in it, you stated and I quote 'the framers plan contemplates that the president's law enforcement powers extend to all matters including those in which he had a personal stake' end quote. Please explain what you base this conclusion on."

36. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Here's the Department of Justice right here and within the Department of Justice, enforcement decisions are being made. The president's over here. And I think of it as there are two categories of potential communications. One would be on a case that the president wants to communicate about that he has no personal interest in no political interest in. Let's say the president is concerned about Chinese stealing trade secrets and say I want you to go after this company that's being, you know, that may be stealing trade secrets. That's perfectly appropriate for him to do, to communicate that, but whether it's bona fide or not, as I said in my statement, the Department of Justice's obligation and the attorney general's obligation is not to take any action unless we reach, we, the Department of Justice and the attorney general, reach their own, independent conclusion that it is justified under the law. And, regardless of the instruction and that's my quote that everyone is saying you know siccing you know it's OK for the president to direct things. All I said was it's not per se improper for the president to call on the department for doing something, especially if he has no personal or political interest in it. The other category of cases and let's pick a you know an easy bad example would be if a member of the president's family or a business associate or something was under investigation and he tries to intervene. He--he's the chief law enforcement officer and you could say well he has the power. But that would be a breach of his obligation under the Constitution to faithfully execute the laws. So in my opinion if he attempts, if a president attempts to intervene in a matter that he has a stake in to try to protect himself that should first be looked at as a breach of his constitutional duties whether it also violates a statute depending on what statute comes into play and what all the facts are."

Attorney General William Barr defended his handling of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia report on Wednesday amid new revelations that Mueller expressed frustration to Barr about how the attorney general was portraying the investigation's findings.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr said he was surprised that special counsel Robert Mueller and his team did not reach a conclusion on whether or not President Donald Trump obstructed justice.

A Justice Department legal opinion says sitting presidents cannot be indicted. Barr says Mueller told him he wouldn't have recommended indicting the president even without that opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel.

Barr says Mueller told him that there may come a time when the Justice Department should consider revisiting that opinion but that this is not that case.

The Attorney General said it is the responsibility of the special counsel using a grand jury to "determine whether or not there has been criminal conduct."

"We don't conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public. We do so to make a decision," Barr said.

Mueller has written a letter says that Barr's summary of his Russia report created "public confusion about critical aspects of the results."

Barr testified that Mueller told him in a phone call that Barr didn't "misrepresent" Mueller's Russia report in a letter summarizing the probe's principal conclusions.

Barr said Mueller told him press reports were reading too much into Barr's letter and Mueller wanted the public to see more of his reasoning for not answering the question of whether President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice.

POOL

Washington, DC - 1 May 2019

1. William Barr being sworn in prior to testimony

2. Cutaway of Senate Judiciary Committee members

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

"Now we first heard the special counsel's decision not to decide the obstruction issue at the March 5th meeting when he came over to the department and we were frankly surprised that that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. And we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this. Once we heard that the special counsel was not reaching a conclusion on obstruction, the deputy and I discussed and agreed that the department had to reach a decision. We had the responsibility to assess the evidence as set forth in the report and to make the judgment. I say this because the special counsel was appointed to carry out the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the department and to do it as part of the Department of Justice. The powers he was using including the power of using a grand jury and using compulsory process exist for that purpose, the function of the Department of Justice in this arena, which is to determine whether or not there has been criminal conduct. It's a binary decision. Is there enough evidence to show a crime? And do we believe a crime has been committed? We don't conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public. We do so to make a decision. And here, we thought there was an additional reason which is this was a very public investigation and we had made clear that the results of the investigation were going to be made public. And the deputy and I felt that the evidence developed by the special counsel was not sufficient to establish that the president committed a crime and therefore it would be irresponsible and unfair for the department to release a report without stating the department's conclusions and thus leave it hanging as to whether the department considered there had been criminal conduct."

4. Wide shot of hearing

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

"When the report came in on the 22nd and we saw it was going to take a great deal of time to get it out to the public, I made the determination that we had to put out some information about the bottom line. The body politic was in a high state of agitation, there was massive interest in learning what the bottom line results of Bob Mueller's investigation was, particularly as to collusion, former government officials were confidently predicting that the president and members of his family were going to be indicted. There were people suggesting that if it took any time to turn around the report and get it out it would mean that the president was in legal jeopardy. So I didn't feel that it was in the public interest to allow this to go on for several weeks without saying anything, and so I decided to simply state what the bottom line conclusions were, which is what the department normally does, make a binary determination - is there a crime or isn't there a crime. We prepared the letter for that purpose to state the bottom line conclusions."

6. Cutaway of committee

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

"On Thursday morning, I received, it probably was received at the Department Wednesday night or evening, but on Thursday morning I received a letter from Bob. The letter that's just been put into the record. And I called Bob and said you know, what's the issue here? Are you, and I asked him if he was suggesting that the March 24th letter was inaccurate. And he said, 'no,' but that the press reporting had been inaccurate. And that the press was reading too much into it and I asked him specifically what his concern was. And he said that his concern focused on his explanation of why he did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. And he wanted more put out on that issue. He wanted, he argued for putting out summaries of each volume, the executive summaries that had been written by his office. And if not that then other material that focused on the issue of why he didn't reach the obstruction question. But he was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report."

8. Side shot of Barr testifying

US Attorney General William Barr defended his handling of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia report on Wednesday amid new revelations that Mueller expressed frustration to Barr about how the attorney general was portraying the investigation's findings.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr said he was surprised that special counsel Robert Mueller and his team did not reach a conclusion on whether or not President Donald Trump obstructed justice.

A Justice Department legal opinion says sitting presidents cannot be indicted. Barr says Mueller told him he wouldn't have recommended indicting the president even without that opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel.

Barr says Mueller told him that there may come a time when the Justice Department should consider revisiting that opinion but that this is not that case.

The Attorney General said it is the responsibility of the special counsel using a grand jury to "determine whether or not there has been criminal conduct."

"We don't conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public. We do so to make a decision," Barr said.

Mueller has written a letter says that Barr's summary of his Russia report created "public confusion about critical aspects of the results."

Barr testified that Mueller told him in a phone call that Barr didn't "misrepresent" Mueller's Russia report in a letter summarizing the probe's principal conclusions.

Barr said Mueller told him press reports were reading too much into Barr's letter and Mueller wanted the public to see more of his reasoning for not answering the question of whether US President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice.

POOL

Washington, DC - 1 May 2019

1. William Barr being sworn in prior to testimony

2. Cutaway of Senate Judiciary Committee members

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

"Now we first heard the special counsel's decision not to decide the obstruction issue at the March 5th meeting when he came over to the department and we were frankly surprised that that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. And we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this. Once we heard that the special counsel was not reaching a conclusion on obstruction, the deputy and I discussed and agreed that the department had to reach a decision. We had the responsibility to assess the evidence as set forth in the report and to make the judgment. I say this because the special counsel was appointed to carry out the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the department and to do it as part of the Department of Justice. The powers he was using including the power of using a grand jury and using compulsory process exist for that purpose, the function of the Department of Justice in this arena, which is to determine whether or not there has been criminal conduct. It's a binary decision. Is there enough evidence to show a crime? And do we believe a crime has been committed? We don't conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public. We do so to make a decision. And here, we thought there was an additional reason which is this was a very public investigation and we had made clear that the results of the investigation were going to be made public. And the deputy and I felt that the evidence developed by the special counsel was not sufficient to establish that the president committed a crime and therefore it would be irresponsible and unfair for the department to release a report without stating the department's conclusions and thus leave it hanging as to whether the department considered there had been criminal conduct."

4. Wide shot of hearing

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

"When the report came in on the 22nd and we saw it was going to take a great deal of time to get it out to the public, I made the determination that we had to put out some information about the bottom line. The body politic was in a high state of agitation, there was massive interest in learning what the bottom line results of Bob Mueller's investigation was, particularly as to collusion, former government officials were confidently predicting that the president and members of his family were going to be indicted. There were people suggesting that if it took any time to turn around the report and get it out it would mean that the president was in legal jeopardy. So I didn't feel that it was in the public interest to allow this to go on for several weeks without saying anything, and so I decided to simply state what the bottom line conclusions were, which is what the department normally does, make a binary determination - is there a crime or isn't there a crime. We prepared the letter for that purpose to state the bottom line conclusions."

6. Cutaway of committee

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

"On Thursday morning, I received, it probably was received at the Department Wednesday night or evening, but on Thursday morning I received a letter from Bob. The letter that's just been put into the record. And I called Bob and said you know, what's the issue here?  Are you, and I asked him if he was suggesting that the March 24th letter was inaccurate. And he said, 'no,' but that the press reporting had been inaccurate. And that the press was reading too much into it and I asked him specifically what his concern was. And he said that his concern focused on his explanation of why he did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. And he wanted more put out on that issue. He wanted, he argued for putting out summaries of each volume, the executive summaries that had been written by his office. And if not that then other material that focused on the issue of why he didn't reach the obstruction question. But he was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report."

8. Side shot of Barr testifying