Special counsel Robert Mueller released a document comparing his assertions about obstruction of justice to what Attorney General William Barr said about it.

Mueller delivered a public address about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election on Wednesday, after which some politicians and pundits argued the special counsel contradicted Barr.

Hours later, NBC News obtained a copy of the document and shared it on MSNBC.

New document from Mueller’s office contrasts Barr’s assertion about how Mueller determines if there “was an obstruction of justice” — to Mueller’s different explanation: pic.twitter.com/yaApbdTVUh — Ari Melber (@AriMelber) May 29, 2019

MSNBC's Ari Melber, who revealed the existence of the document, said it shows Mueller's office "contrasts" Barr's assertion about obstruction. In a follow-up tweet, he cited a special counsel source who said it provides the quotes to show there is "no conflict" between Mueller's and Barr’s statements.

NBC News' Julia Ainsley further explained the document during a segment on MSNBC.

"He [Mueller] did not contradict. We went back to the Special Counsel’s Office today and said, 'Did you contradict what the attorney general said when he said that "if it had not been for that opinion, you would have charged"?'” Ainsley said. "And they said, 'We’re not contradicting, but we’re providing more context that' — It’s not even the point. They didn’t even make a decision because they didn’t look at this like a prosecution. They didn’t walk down that road because they stopped because of this opinion," she added.

The document contains quotes from Barr's press conference before the release of Mueller's report in April, Mueller's address Wednesday, and a paragraph from his report. It appears to be a response to all the rapid interpretations of Mueller's remarks. Some people, including former Gov. Chris Christie, argued Mueller contradicted what Barr said about obstruction.

“Those comments by Bob Mueller about the other processes — obviously impeachment being the only constitutional way — definitely contradicts what the attorney general said when he summarized Mueller’s report and said he then had to draw the conclusion on that,” Christie told ABC News. “Mueller clearly contradicts that today in a very concise way.”

The Justice Department and the Special Counsel's Office later put up a united front to end the rampant speculation that Mueller contradicted Barr on the decision-making on whether Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice.

“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements," a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.

In his first and only public address about his 22-month-long Russia investigation, Mueller said: "As set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so."

Citing long-standing Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel policy, Mueller said he never considered charging a sitting president with a crime and noted that doing so would be unconstitutional.

"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," he said. "The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation."

Although Mueller declined to make a decision on obstruction, despite laying out 10 possible scenarios in his report, Barr said he and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish a crime.

There has been fierce debate over whether Barr improperly represented Mueller’s findings in his letter to Congress and in his public testimony and statements. Although most Republicans say Barr’s framing of Mueller’s main conclusions was accurate, many Democrats, as well as Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., insist Barr was misleading, especially regarding whether Trump had potentially obstructed justice.

During his roughly nine-minute address, Mueller offered some cover to Barr, who is in Alaska.

"At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released," Mueller said. "The attorney general preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public, and I certainly do not question the attorney general's good faith in that decision."

The text of the document is below. It appears to have at least one typo:

Reporter: Mr. Attorney General, we don’t have the report in hand. So could you explain for us the special counsel’s articulated reason for not reaching a decision on obstruction of justice and if it had anything to do with the department’s long-standing guidance on not indicting a sitting president? And you say you disagree with some of his legal theories. What did you disagree with and why?

Barr: I would leave it to his description in the report, the Special Counsel’s own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction offense. But I will say that when we met with him, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him, along with Ed o’Callaghan [sic], who is the principal associate deputy, on March 5th. We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position.He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.

Mueller: 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. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.