He didn’t commit perjury

That isn’t exactly what those articles say lol

Lawfare:

The legal standard for perjury is a high one, and it’s highly unlikely that the attorney general’s comments clear that bar.

CNN:

The standard for lying to Congress and committing perjury is very high and willful intent to mislead must be proved. But if the question is whether Barr was being fully truthful and forthcoming to Congress in his answers, Mueller's letter presents problems to Barr's position to the contrary.

…

Again, Barr can be seen as splitting hairs here, especially given that Crist noted that concerns within the special counsel's office were not just about the accuracy of Barr's summaries, but in how adequately he had portrayed the work of the special counsel.

To clearly state that he did not know what these reports were referencing, as he did to Crist on April 9, while perhaps not rising to the level of an outright lie, is clearly an example of Barr not being completely forthcoming about what he knew at the time of his testimony.

…

The US code tackling perjury states that to be found guilty of lying to Congress, the individual must "willfully" subscribe "as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true."

Law & Crime:

So it’s pretty clear that what Barr said Mueller found, and what Mueller actually found are two different things. But does that add up to perjury as many have suggested?

The short answer is probably not.

Clearly, Barr gave sworn testimony before a competent tribunal authorized to administer an oath. What’s open for discussion is: 1) whether Barr willfully stated anything that he does not believe to be true; and 2) whether, if so, those things count as “any material matter.”

…

If “the case” were ascertaining some level of Trump wrongdoing, what are material are the findings of the Mueller Report itself – and not Barr’s second-hand, predictably spin-doctored version thereof. In fact, whether Barr interpreted the Mueller Report as gospel from on high, or as untrustworthy dreck is unimportant in the calculus of whether Trump committed an offense. Bottom line: what the report says is material. What the AG says it says is only distantly related.

So, they’re technically saying Barr can’t perjure himself if he isn’t actually representing the Mueller findings in his testimony before Congress. Therefore, whether or not he lied about his other lies is not necessarily relevant to the testimony he gave to Congress.

It does not conclude that he didn’t lie or commit perjury. Their argument is realistic, yet quite narrow.