A Side-by-Side Comparison of Barr’s vs.

Mueller’s Statements about Special

Counsel Report

By Ryan Goodman
co-editor-in-chief, Just Security

This Chart compares Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s May 29 public statement with statements made by
Attorney General William Barr.
Whether or not Mueller was intentionally trying to correct the record, the differences between what he
and Barr said are, in many cases, stark. Some of the differences involve near complete contradictions—in
other words Mueller’s statement and Barr’s statements cannot both be true. Other differences are more a
matter of emphasis or tone (e.g., references to the threat posed by the Russian operations, descriptions of
the qualities of the special counsel staff).
The special counsel’s Report also contradicts some of Barr’s statements (such as his claim that the Report
found no evidence of “collusion,” his suggestion that difficult issues of law and fact stopped the special
counsel from concluding the president engaged in criminal obstruction, his claim that the President
cooperated fully with the investigation). The following analysis, however, does not include the Report.
Instead, it focuses only on Mueller’s public statement and how it compares to statements made by Barr
between March 22 (the date that the special counsel handed his final report to the attorney general) and
May 29 (the date of Mueller’s statement). This includes statements made by Barr in his 4-page summary
submitted to Congress, a formal press briefing, and three congressional hearings, but it does not include
Barr’s interviews with Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

Comparison of Attorney General William Barr’s and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s
Statements about Special Counsel Report

1. Evidence of conspiracy

Added analysis: Mueller’s statement is more explicit, in some respects, than what’s in the Report. He
states that the bottom-line conclusion in Volume 1 is that there was “insufficient evidence” to bring a
charge for conspiring with the Russians. That’s also very different from any suggestion that the
investigation found “no evidence,” or that allegations against the president were proven false, or that
the conspiracy with Trump campaign associates did not occur. What’s more, Mueller frames the issue
importantly in terms of insufficient evidence to charge “a broader conspiracy.” That’s a significant way
of framing the investigation’s scope and findings.

Mueller Barr

“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
(1) “[I]f the president is being falsely accused,
which the evidence now suggests that the
accusations against him were false….”
insufficient evidence to charge a broader
conspiracy.”
2. Referral to Congress
Mueller
“The [Justice Department’s Office of Legal
Counsel] opinion says that the Constitution
requires a process other than the criminal
justice system to formally accuse a sitting
President of wrongdoing.”
“We now know that he was being falsely
accused.”
Senate oral testimony, May 1
(2) “Thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough
investigation, we now know that the Russian
operatives who perpetrated these schemes did
not have the cooperation of President Trump
or the Trump campaign.”
Press briefing, April 18
(3) “With respect to the disinformation scheme,
the Special Counsel found no evidence that any
Americans—including anyone associated with the
Trump campaign—conspired or coordinated with
the Russian government or the IRA. Likewise,
with respect to hacking, the Special Counsel found
no evidence that anyone associated with the
Trump campaign, nor any other American,
conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its hacking operations.”“
Senate written testimony, May 1
(4) “There was no evidence of Trump campaign
‘collusion’ with the Russian government’s
hacking”
“[T]here was in fact no collusion.”
Press briefing, April 18
Barr
(1) SEN. LEAHY: “Did he express any
expectation or interest in leaving the
obstruction decision to Congress?”
BARR: Not that--he--he didn't say that to me, no.
Senate hearing, May 1
(2) Reporter: “Did the special counsel indicate
that he wanted you to make the decision or that it
should be left for Congress? And also, how do you
respond to criticism you're receiving from
congressional Democrats that you're acting more
as an attorney for the president rather than as the
 chief law enforcement officer?”

Barr: “Well, special counsel Mueller did not

indicate that his purpose was to leave the
decision to Congress. I hope that was not his
view, since we don't convene grand juries
and conduct criminal investigations for
that purpose.”

Press briefing, April 18

3. Attorney General’s deciding if President committed a crime

4. Authority to consider indicting a sitting President

Additional analysis: These two topics are closely connected. Mueller appears to be saying, as one
might expect, that the Office of Legal Counsel opinion precludes the Justice Department from deciding
whether to indict a sitting president. “It is unconstitutional,” Mueller adds in a curt sentence. He also
emphasizes that indicting the president was not an option that his office, as “part of the Department of
Justice” could even consider. Presumably that would apply to the Attorney General as well, unless Barr
overturns the Office of Legal Counsel opinion.

Also, if “it is unconstitutional,” as Mueller states, then the Attorney General could not consider
indicting a sitting president either as a matter of constitutional law.

Mueller Barr

(1) “We did not, however, make a determination
as to whether the President did commit a crime.
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.”
(2) “So that was the Justice Department policy
and those were the principles under which we
operated. From them we concluded that we would
not reach a determination – one way or the other
– about whether the President committed a
crime.”
(1) “I didn't talk to him directly about the fact that
we were making the decision, but I am told that
his reaction to that was that it was my
prerogative as attorney general to make
that decision.”
Press briefing, April 18
(2) “Once a prosecutor has exhausted his
investigation into the facts of a case, he or she
faces a binary choice: either to commence
or to decline prosecution. …
The appointment of a Special Counsel and the
investigation of the conduct of the President of the
United States do not change these rules.”
Senate written testimony, May 1
(3) “And as you know, from your own experience,
from a prosecutor's standpoint the bottom
line is binary, which is charges or no
charges.”
House oral testimony, April 9

(3) “The [Justice Department’s Office of Legal (4) SEN. GRAHAM: “As to obstruction of justice,
Counsel] opinion says that the Constitution
requires a process other than the criminal
justice system to formally accuse a sitting
President of wrongdoing.”
5. Why investigate if a decision on whether president committed a crime can’t be
reached?
Mueller
“The Department’s written opinion explaining the
policy against charging a President makes several
important points … First, the 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.”
were you surprised he was going to let you
decide?”
BARR:” Yes, I was surprised. I think the very
purpose--the function he was carrying out, the
prosecutive and investigative and prosecutive
function is performed for the purpose of
(INAUDIBLE)”
GRAHAM: “How many people that he actually
indict? Do you know?”
BARR: “I can't remember off the top of my head.”
GRAHAM: “It was a lot.”
BARR: “Yeah.”
GRAHAM: “So he actually has the ability to indict
if he wants to. He's used that power during the
investigation. Is that correct?”
BARR: “That's correct.”
Senate oral testimony, May 1
Barr
(1) In response to Sen. Graham:
“The other thing that was confusing to me is that
the investigation carried on for a while as
additional episodes 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 you aren't going to reach a
decision on them?”
Senate oral testimony, May 1
(2) In response to Sen. Grassley:
“I think that if he felt that he shouldn't go down
the path of making a traditional prosecutive
decision then he shouldn't have investigated.
That was the time to pull up.”
Senate oral testimony, May 1
6. Origins of Russia investigation

Note: One subtext of Mueller’s statement is a defense of the origins of his investigation, upon which
Barr has repeatedly cast aspersions. Mueller is telling the public that whatever one might think about
the origins of the Russia investigation back in 2016, the special counsel’s office was established by Rod
Rosenstein, a Republican, Trump-appointed deputy attorney general (confirmed by a Republican-
controlled-Senate). Rosenstein determined that a special counsel was needed, that Russian interference
should be the focus of the mandate including any links or coordination with associates of the Trump
Campaign.

Following Barr’s confirmation that he has opened an “investigation of the investigators,” Mueller’s
following words also bear emphasis: the efforts to interfere in the political system “needed to be
investigated and understood.”

Mueller Barr

(1) “Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General
asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he
created the Special Counsel’s Office. The
appointment order directed the office to
investigate Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election. This included investigating
any links or coordination between the
Russian government and individuals associated
with the Trump campaign.”
(2) “As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment,
Russian intelligence officers who were part of the
Russian military launched a concerted attack on
our political system. … The indictments allege,
and the other activities in our report describe,
efforts to interfere in our political system. They
needed to be investigated and understood.
That is among the reasons why the Department of
Justice established our office.”
(1) “To the extent there were any issues at the FBI,
I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the
FBI. I think there was probably a failure
among a group of leaders there at the
upper echelon. … I have an obligation to make
sure that government power is not abused.”
Senate oral testimony, April 10
(2) “I think spying did occur.”
Senate oral testimony, April 10
(3) SENATOR MORAN: “I want to go back to
something you said in your testimony, that's
you've indicated that there is the possibility that
unauthorized surveillance, or spying,
occurred. And my question is maybe twofold. My
question is what is the basis for reaching that
conclusion or a belief that something like that
occurred? And what are the consequences for
those who committed on authorizing--an
unauthorized surveillance?”

BARR: “Did you say that I said that it occurred?”

MORAN: “You indicated I think--I tried to at least

reflect on what your quote was, that you thought
spying on a political campaign occurred in the
course of an intelligence agency's investigation
into Russian interference in 2016.”

BARR: “Well, I thought the question was did I

have any basis for saying that.”

MORAN: “And I'm now asking what the basis is or

what the facts are that you to that thought.”

7. Context and significance of obstruction as a crime
Mueller
(1) “The matters we investigated were of
paramount importance. It was critical for us
to obtain full and accurate information from every
person we questioned. When a subject of an
investigation obstructs that investigation or
lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of
the government’s effort to find the truth and
hold wrongdoers accountable.”
(2) “The indictments allege, and the other
activities in our report describe, efforts to
interfere in our political system. They needed to
be investigated and understood. And that is
among the reasons why the Department of Justice
established our office. That is also a reason we
investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation.”
8. Russian attack in 2016
Mueller
“As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment,
Russian intelligence officers who were part of the
Russian military launched a concerted attack
on our political system.
The indictment alleges that they used
sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into
computers and networks used by the Clinton
campaign. They stole private information, and
then released that information through fake
online identities and through the organization
WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed
BARR: “Okay. I felt--I am concerned about it,
and I was asked about whether there was
any basis for it. And I believe there is a
basis for my concern, but I'm not going to
discuss the basis.”
Senate oral testimony, April 10
(4) See also statements contending that President
Trump was “falsely accused” under section 1
(Evidence of conspiracy).
Barr
“[T]here is substantial evidence to show that the
President was frustrated and angered by a sincere
belief that the investigation was undermining his
presidency, propelled by his political opponents,
and fueled by illegal leaks. … Apart from whether
the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-
corrupt motives weighs heavily against any
allegation that the President had a corrupt intent
to obstruct the investigation.”
Press briefing, April 18
Barr
“The Special Counsel's investigation determined
that there were two main Russian efforts to
influence the 2016 election. The first involved
attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet
Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation
and social media operations in the United States
designed to sow social discord, eventually with the
aim of interfering with the election. …
The second element involved the Russian
government's efforts to conduct computer hacking
operations designed to gather and disseminate
to interfere with our election and to damage a
presidential candidate.”
9. Concerns about Americans’ awareness of the election interference threat
Mueller
“I will close by reiterating the central allegation of
our indictments—that there were multiple,
systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every
American.”
10. Qualities of Special Counsel staff
Mueller
“I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the
analysts, and the professional staff who helped us
conduct this investigation in a fair and
independent manner. These individuals, who
spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s
Office, were of the highest integrity.”
information to influence the election.”
Summary letter to Congress, March 24
Barr
“I am sure that all Americans share my concerns
about the efforts of the Russian government to
interfere in our presidential election.”
Press briefing, April 18
Barr
(1) SEN. BLACKBURN: “I think that Mr. Mueller
assembled what would be called a dream team, 19
all-star lawyers, a Watergate prosecutor, a deputy
solicitor general, a fluent Russian speaker who
clerked for two Supreme Court Justices, former
head of the Enron investigative task force, chief of
the Public Corruption Unit in the Manhattan U.S.
attorneys office, federal prosecutors who have
taken down mob bosses, the Mafia, and ISIS
terrorists. Do you consider these lawyers to
be the best and the brightest in the field?”
BARR: “Not necessarily.”
SEN. BLACKBURN: “Are they the warriors you
would want on your side in the courtroom?”
BARR: I mean, it--you know, there are a lot of
great lawyers in the Department of Justice. You
know, he assembled a very competent team.”
Senate oral testimony, May 1
(2) “The letter’s a bit snitty and I think it was
probably written by one of his staff people.”
Senate oral testimony, May 1