“Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistentwithlegalrequirementsandDepartmentpolicies. Iamrequestingthatyouprovidethese materials to Congress andauthorizetheir public releaseatthis time.
As we stated in our meeting of March 5 andreiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congressandreleased to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concerntotheDepartmentonthemorningofMarch25. Thereisnowpublicconfusionabout criticalaspectsoftheresultsofourinvestigation. Thisthreatenstoundermineacentralpurpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcomeofthe investigations. See Departmentof Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).
While we understandthat the Departmentis reviewing the full report to determine whatis appropriate for public release—a process that our Office is working with you to complete—that processneednotdelayreleaseoftheenclosedmaterials. Releaseatthistimewouldalleviatethe misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about thenatureandoutcomeofourinvestigation.“
Here is the Q and A between Crist and Barr:
“Now, here is the exchange on which the perjury allegation is based, with my italics highlighting key portions:
CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel’s teamare frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter . . . that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?
BARR: No, I don’t. I think — I think . . . I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but, in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. So I was not interested in a summary of the report. . . . I felt that I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Mueller’s own language in doing that.”
From here [news.yahoo.com]
I think that Barr should have said while I don’t know the opinions of individual staffers, I know what was in Mueller’s Letter. And then he had to explain that, the statements in the letter.
This is how I see it.