Citing government officials and others familiar with the situation, the Times said some members of Mueller’s team believe Barr should have included more of their material in the summary he released on March 24 of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.
The Times said the officials and other sources declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Barr explained.
It was also not clear how widespread among Mueller’s team, which included dozens of lawyers and investigators, are concerns about differences between Barr’s summary and Mueller’s report, the Times said.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller, declined to comment. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Barr, a Trump appointee, said in the summary that Mueller did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia during the election.
Barr also said the special counsel did not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice. Barr himself subsequently concluded that Mueller’s inquiry had not found sufficient evidence to warrant criminal obstruction charges against Trump.
Trump and the White House have hailed the conclusions as a victory for the president, who has denied conspiring with Russians or obstructing justice.
The attorney general has pledged to release the nearly 400-page report by mid-April with certain portions blacked out for reasons such as protecting secret grand jury information and intelligence-gathering sources and methods.
The Democratic-led House of Representatives Judiciary Committee voted on Wednesday to enable its chairman, Jerrold Nadler, to subpoena the Justice Department to obtain Mueller’s unredacted report and all underlying evidence as well as documents and testimony from five former Trump aides, including political strategist Steve Bannon.
Reporting by Eric Beech; additional reporting by Karen Freifeld and Mohammad Zargham; Editing by Leslie Adler