Reports by The New York Times and The Washington Post released Wednesday evening said that some of Mueller's investigators believed that the results of the special counsel's investigation were more damaging to Mr. Trump than Barr's letter revealed.
According to The Times, some members of Mueller's team have told associates that they are concerned Barr's initial review of the report, which included his "principal conclusions" of Mueller's findings, has already shaped the public's perception of the probe before the final report has been released.
The say-nothing nature of the Mueller team is either gone now that the captain has left the ship, or special counsel officials are frustrated enough by Attorney General William Barr's summary of their work that they're now willing to leak their opinion.
Barr's signature is seen at the end of his four-page letter to USA congressional leaders on the conclusions of Mueller's report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Barr said Mueller's team found no evidence that Trump or anyone associated with his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian Federation.
Democrats in the House made it official and partisan, voting 24-17 along party lines to authorize subpoenas, but waiting before firing them off.
The president has largely deferred to Mr Barr on the report's release while also saying he wouldn't mind if the full version was made public. Nadler said he will give Barr time to change his mind on redactions, but if they can not reach an agreement they will issue the subpoenas "in very short order".
However, Lazare said we still need to see what the redacted report says - and it could say a great deal - before we can determine who'll come out on top in the end.
The Washington Post specifically alleged that Mueller's team prepared summaries that could be released publicly, reflecting different sections of Mueller's report, which Barr has so far withheld.
Since the delay, the House judiciary committee have approved subpoenas to access the document.
Nadler, whose committee would preside over any impeachment proceedings against the president, said the committee has the right to see the entire 400-page report and all supporting evidence. Most of the documents were provided, however, and Harriett Miers, the former White House counsel under President George W. Bush, had to testify under oath, but in a closed, transcribed hearing.
Nearly every shift in partisan control of Congress after a unified government has been followed by a wave of congressional investigations, and that's especially true in intensely polarized times, says Douglas Kriner, co-author of the book, "Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power" and a government professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. "Under applicable federal law, President Trump waived his claims to executive privilege once this information was transmitted to outside counsel".
Remember all those stories about the number of Democratic lawyers Mueller hired to carry out his investigation?
"I think Mueller had really no choice but to punt on this question and leave it to Barr to decide, and Barr, predictably, concluded there was no basis for a prosecution", Lazare told hosts John Kiriakou and Walter Smolarek.
Mueller left unresolved in his report the question of whether Trump obstructed justice by impeding the Russian Federation investigation.
"We believe that these individuals may have received documents from the White House in preparation for their interviews with the special counsel".