Its a remarkable thing for a sitting U.S. district judge to say about the Attorney General of the United States: Comparing the public statements by AG Barr about the Mueller report, at a time when the public did not have access to the report, to the actual redacted Mueller report, portions of which conflict with AG Barr’ public comments, the court “seriously questions 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.” See CNN news report and copy of the Judge’s order here. The lawsuit was filed by Buzzfeed and a public interest group seeking an unreacted copy of the Mueller report. The court noted what appears to be attempts by AG Barr to mis-lead the public about the contents of the Mueller report. It finds several inconsistencies between the report and AG Barr’s public comments.

The court finds that due to these inconsistencies, the court cannot accept at face value DOJ’s representations about what the unredacted Mueller report states. The court then grants the plaintiffs motion asking the court to review the report in camera and it denies DOJ’s motion for summary judgment. That means the court will review the unredacted Mueller report itself to determine whether it contains classified information.

And a siting federal judge finds the word of the Attorney General to be unreliable. Judge Reggie Walton, appointed by Pres. Bush, issued the order. This really is quite the slam on AG Barr.