Attorney General William Barr repeated his contention that President Donald Trump “fully cooperated” with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

When confronted with the actual contents of Mueller’s report, however — which dispute the attorney general’s assertion — Barr dodged, before appearing to offer up a lie to back his claim.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) first asked Barr how someone who refused to testify under oath and provided only incomplete answers to written questions, as Trump did with Mueller’s team, could be classified as fully cooperative.

“The president, of course, declared many times publicly, in tweets and at campaign rallies and all, that he would testify. He never did testify, correct?” Leahy asked.

Barr responded that this was true, as far as he knew.

“Mr. Mueller found the written answers to be inadequate, is that correct?” Leahy continued.

“I think he wanted additional, but he never sought it,” Barr said. “He never pushed it.”

Mueller’s report contradicts this claim. According to the special counsel’s report, which detailed key findings from the nearly two-year long investigation into Russian interference and which was made public last month, Mueller’s team first requested an in-person interview with Trump about certain aspects of the probe, which Trump and his lawyers refused. The special counsel’s office eventually agreed to send Trump written questions, which he returned in part in November last year.


However, after reviewing the president’s responses, Mueller and his team informed Trump’s counsel that his answers were incomplete and “demonstrate the inadequacy of the written format,” saying they had “no opportunity to ask follow-up questions that would ensure complete answers […].”

Investigators once again requested an in-person interview with the president to ask such follow-up questions, which Trump declined. The president later claimed to reporters that the request was a perjury trap.

According to Mueller’s report, investigators considered trying to subpoena Trump’s testimony at one point, though ultimately they decided against it, assuming Trump might drag it out through “lengthy constitutional litigation.”


Barr has been criticized repeatedly for misleading the public and Congress on the results of the Russia investigation, which concluded earlier this year. While Mueller was unable to prove criminal coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, he detailed the two sides’ extensive ties, the campaign’s willingness to accept Russian aid, and at least 10 instances involving Trump that may have constituted obstruction of justice.

This week, The Washington Post and The New York Times reported that Mueller had been dissatisfied with Barr’s summary of his final report, which was overly sympathetic to the president, suggesting Trump had been vindicated.

Mueller informed Barr of his concerns at least twice, in letters to the attorney general. Despite those concerns, Barr pressed forward with his initial messaging.

When asked about Mueller’s letters on Wednesday — specifically Barr’s prior testimony in which he had said he was unaware of any concerns over his summary — the attorney general punted, claiming he had been referring to vague news reports about unidentified Mueller staffers’ qualms with his messaging.

Barr’s testimony this week was punctuated with a number of other lies, including one exchange in which he said he had publicly criticized former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Barr vs. Barr Sen. Graham: Did you have a problem with how Comey handled the Clinton case? Barr: Yes, I said so at the time. Here is what Barr wrote at the time: "James Comey Did the Right Thing" Oct. 31, 2016.https://t.co/aVjcfZbKXO#BarrHearing — Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) May 1, 2019

However, in October 2016, Barr penned an op-ed for the Post titled “James Comey did the right thing,” stating Comey’s last-minute decision to announce further investigation into Clinton’s emails, just prior to the election, was warranted.


“The continuing refrain from Hillary Clinton supporters and other observers that FBI Director James B. Comey’s action was ‘contrary’ to Justice Department policy is flatly wrong,” he wrote. “Given the particular circumstances facing Comey, it is absurd.”