As expected, the top line of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s review of the origins of the FBI investigation into potential conspiracy between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign tended to exonerate the FBI—investigators found “no documentary or testimonial evidence” that FBI officials were driven by political bias against Trump when they opened the probe, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” in July 2016.

And, also as expected, Trump's night-is-day spin began immediately. “It’s a disgrace what’s happened with the things that were done to our country.... It’s incredible, far worse than what I ever thought possible,” Trump declared at the White House, focusing his criticisms on the findings related to Carter Page, a former adviser to Trump. “They fabricated evidence and they lied to the courts.”

But what was truly surprising to some veterans of the Robert F. Kennedy building and the DC bar was the reaction from Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham, who Barr tapped to run a parallel investigation of Crossfire Hurricane and related investigations. Both issued statements throwing significant shade at Horowitz's report, though, technically, Barr is Horowitz's boss. “I’ve never seen such an internal DOJ effort to challenge and undermine the IG's findings,” Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney, told me Monday. “It is not what the Department of Justice does.”

While Barr endorsed Horowitz’s conclusions condemning the FBI’s handling of the Page surveillance, he deviated from the determination that Crossfire Hurricane was adequately predicated. “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Barr wrote in a statement. “It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration.”

Barr’s decision to publicly distance himself from Horowitz’s findings was met with some astonishment. “No law enforcement purpose is served by the Attorney General announcing that he disagrees with the inspector general’s conclusion that the FBI had an adequate predicate for its investigation of Russia’s contacts with the Trump campaign,” William Jeffress, a white-collar defense attorney who worked on the Valerie Plame leak case, told me. Barr's missive was reminiscent of the now infamous four-page summary of Robert Mueller’s report, respinning the results of an exhaustive investigation in ways favorable to the president. “The statement by Barr will only deepen the sense that he is a Trump partisan who lacks the independence to lead the Department of Justice,” Jeffress added.

Durham's was, in some ways, even more unusual. “Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.,” Durham said in a statement. “Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Given the reality that Durham’s investigation, which is reportedly criminal in nature, remains ongoing made his decision to speak out even more perplexing. “I am surprised that Durham announced now that he does not agree with certain of the inspector general’s findings, rather than waiting until his own work is complete,” Eric Columbus, a former senior counsel to the deputy attorney general, said. And Jeffress echoed his criticism of Barr regarding Durham, telling me his statement, “encourages the belief that he is not acting as a professional prosecutor but is only doing the partisan bidding of his boss.”