(CNN) Attorney General nominee Bill Barr reaffirmed Tuesday that, if confirmed, he would allow special counsel Robert Mueller to finish the Russia investigation, but Barr's testimony surrounding a prior eyebrow-raising claim that more should be done to investigate the Clinton Foundation, and his related correspondence with a reporter on that issue, has caught the attention of his critics and raises fresh questions on how he'd handle the issue if confirmed.

Barr was interviewed by The New York Times in the fall of 2017 about the pressure President Donald Trump continued to mount on the Justice Department to investigate his political foes. The Times' Peter Baker reported at the time that some conservatives had latched onto a theory that a Russian energy nuclear agency donated to the Clinton Foundation in order to later secure Hillary Clinton's approval of its purchase of a uranium mining company when she was secretary of state -- otherwise referred to as "the Uranium One scandal" by some in conservative media.

Baker wrote that Barr "said he sees more basis for investigating the uranium deal than any supposed collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia," and quoted Barr in the article as saying: "To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility."

It was a noteworthy assertion even at the time given that the allegations against the Clinton Foundation have never been proven and Barr had previously served as attorney general under George H.W. Bush, and his comments only took on greater significance once Barr was picked to be the next attorney general by Trump since he would oversee the Mueller investigation and any probe into the foundation.

Yet when confronted with the article during Tuesday's Senate confirmation hearing, Barr appeared to distance himself from his past remarks, and said the broader point he was trying to make is that "whatever the standard is for launching an investigation, it should be dealt with evenhandedly."

Read More