By far the most interesting, and the most nuanced, legal argument in the report appears in Mueller's obstruction findings.
He laid out 11 potential instances of obstruction by the president, but the special counsel declined to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment."
On Thursday morning, Barr told reporters Mueller's decision was not influenced by DOJ guidelines that state a sitting president cannot be indicted. He said that in fact, Mueller's determination — or lack thereof — was prompted by the inconclusive nature of the evidence.
But in his report, Mueller did not cite the nature, or lack of, evidence as a reason he did not come to a decision on obstruction. He did, however, cite the DOJ policy against charging a sitting president.
Moreover, the special counsel's team emphasized that "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not [emphasis ours] commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."
Read more: DOJ officials reportedly discussed Mueller's findings with the White House for several days ahead of the report's release
"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred," the report continued. "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
It is not new knowledge that Mueller's report did not exonerate the president. Indeed, Barr quoted that part of the sentence in his initial summary to Congress of the special counsel's findings.
But what stands out in the report is the reason Mueller states for not being able to exonerate the president.
It doesn't hinge on a lack of evidence. Instead, the special counsel appears to determine that even if he wanted to charge Trump with a crime — and he laid out multiple instances in which the president appeared to meet the threshold necessary for obstruction — he is constrained by the current legal framework.