Unredacted Mueller Report: Judge Finds 'Inconsistencies' In Barr's Statements, Questions 'Credibility'

The Mueller Report has come back to haunt president Donald Trump. A federal judge Thursday questioned attorney general William Barr's credibility, saying he couldn't square Barr's redacted version of the Mueller Report released April 2019 with the actual findings in the report itself.

Judge Reggie B. Walton, a federal district court judge in Washington also ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to hand over to him a copy of the unredacted Mueller Report by March 30. He said he'd review the full report to determine if the redactions made by the DOJ are subject to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the Washington Post noted. The unredacted version won't be released to the public in the meantime.

Walton noted Barr's public statements about the Mueller Report caused him to doubt the DOJ's arguments the redactions should remain in place.

"The Court has grave concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report and its impacts on the Department’s subsequent justifications that its redactions of the Mueller Report are authorized by the FOIA," wrote Walton.

Officially titled "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election," the 448-page Mueller Report was submitted to Barr on March 22, 2019. A redacted version of the report was publicly released by the DOJ on April 18, 2019.

On March 24, Barr sent Congress a four-page letter summarizing the report's conclusions. On March 27, Mueller privately wrote Barr, stating Barr's letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions." Mueller also said Barr's letter led to "public confusion."

Walton echoed Mueller's conclusion about the confusion. The judge said he couldn't reconcile Barr's public comments about the redacted report submitted to Congress on April 18, 2019 with the report's actual findings.

"The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary," wrote Walton.

"These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility" as well as the DOJ's arguments in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit."

Walton was appointed to the court by former President George W. Bush.