Mueller vs. Barr: How They Framed Russia Probe’s Findings

(Bloomberg) -- After more than two years of silence over his investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller spoke to the American people for the first time.

Even as he said his 448-page report should stand on its own, he chose to emphasize some key points — several of which diverged in nuance from what his boss, Attorney General William Barr, said two months earlier, in a March 24 letter introducing the report to the public.

Here is a point-by-point comparison:

On Summarizing

Barr: “Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.”

Mueller: “We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.”

On Conspiracy or Coordination With Russians

Barr: “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Mueller: “The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.”

On Whether to Charge a Sitting President With Obstruction of Justice

Barr: “After making a ‘thorough factual investigation’ into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

Mueller: “The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view — that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

On Whether President Trump Committed a Crime

Barr: “The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

Mueller: “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

On Who Has the Authority to Pursue Allegations

Barr: “Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

Mueller: “First, the justice department’s written opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged. And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeffrey Grocott at jgrocott2@bloomberg.net, David Joachim

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

With assistance from Bloomberg