Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III pushed back Tuesday against a prosecutor in his office who says in a tell-all book that investigators should have done more to hold President Trump accountable, suggesting that the account is “based on incomplete information” and asserting that he stands by his decisions in the case.

The rare public statement from Mueller came on the day Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor in the special counsel’s office, released a book alleging that the group did not fully investigate Trump’s financial ties and should have stated explicitly that it believed he obstructed justice.

Although Mueller’s statement did not name Weissmann or the book, “Where Law Ends,” it seemed clearly designed to address some of his complaints — particularly those directed at Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s top deputy, whom Weissmann said was not sufficiently aggressive.

“It is not surprising that members of the Special Counsel’s Office did not always agree, but it is disappointing to hear criticism of our team based on incomplete information,” Mueller said.

Mueller said the team operated “knowing that our work would be scrutinized from all sides” and he sought to make clear that he was the office’s ultimate decider.

“When important decisions had to be made, I made them,” he said. “I did so as I have always done, without any interest in currying favor or fear of the consequences. I stand by those decisions and by the conclusions of our investigation.”

Asked about Mueller’s statement by MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace, Weissmann said he agreed with “most of what special counsel Mueller wrote” but he maintained his “personal views” on some of the steps the office didn’t take, such as subpoenaing the president, conducting a more complete financial investigation and clearly stating the view that Trump obstructed justice.

“It would have been easy to write a book that said everything we did was right, and everything we did responded to the onslaught coming from the White House or the attorney general,” Weissmann said. “But I was trying to write something for the American public and, frankly, for the historical record, and to try and be as candid as possible about what we did right and what we could have done better.”

Mueller’s statement offered another indication of tension among those who investigated whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election, and whether Trump sought to obstruct that inquiry. Last week, the Justice Department made public an interview with an FBI agent assigned to Mueller’s team who criticized what he called a “get Trump” attitude among some prosecutors.

Weissmann’s book acknowledged what he considered the team’s failures, asserting that investigators’ efforts were limited by the ever-present threat of Trump disbanding the office and by their own reluctance to take aggressive steps. He took particular aim at Zebley for stopping a broader look at Trump’s finances, comparing him unkindly to “timorous” Civil War Gen. George B. McClellan, whom President Abraham Lincoln relieved of his command in part over concerns that he was not aggressive enough.

“It was agonizing to be told, again and again by Aaron, not to follow any of these leads, and always according to the same defective rationale: that we couldn’t afford to be fired over it,” Weissmann wrote.

In the statement, Mueller said Zebley “was privy to the full scope of the investigation and all that was at issue” and broadly praised his work.

“I selected him for that role because I knew from our ten years working together that he is meticulous and principled,” Mueller said. “He was an invaluable and trusted counselor to me from start to finish.”

Through a representative, Zebley declined to comment.

In previous interviews with The Washington Post, Weissmann conceded that it was Mueller, rather than Zebley, who was in charge of the office, and he made some of the most critical decisions with which Weissmann disagreed, including not saying explicitly that Trump obstructed justice.

The special counsel’s final report outlined significant evidence of possible obstruction but did not draw a conclusion about whether Trump had obstructed justice — citing previous Justice Department opinion that a sitting president cannot be federally indicted, combined with concerns about the fairness of leveling an allegation against someone who would not be able to answer a charge in court.

“Director Mueller’s decision was to not make that conclusion, and by the way, I would have done it,” Weissmann said. “I told him why I would have done that.”

Ultimately, Attorney General William P. Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein reviewed the case and decided the evidence was not sufficient to make an obstruction case.

Mueller was silent throughout the special counsel investigation, although he held a brief news conference when he formally closed his office, testified before Congress about the work and wrote a Washington Post column in July defending the prosecution of Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone, a case the special counsel’s office had initiated.

Julie Tate contributed to this report.