“My guess is that where this will help Trump the most is not with traditional swing voters but with Trump-skeptical Republicans. Even Republicans who don’t love Trump tend to be critical of the news media, and they’d already thought that the media was devoting too much attention to Russia-related matters. If the investigation now looks to them like a wild goose chase — or a ‘WITCH HUNT,’ to use Trump’s preferred term — it will create greater solidarity between them and the rest of the Republican Party. While this isn’t a huge group of voters, every little bit helps in an election that could shape up as another 50-50 affair.”
Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight

Many point out that “when prosecutors say that an investigation ‘did not establish’ something, that doesn’t mean that they concluded it didn’t happen, or even that they don’t believe it happened. It means that the investigation didn’t produce enough information to prove that it happened. Without seeing Mueller’s full report, we don’t know whether this is a firm conclusion about lack of coordination or a frank admission of insufficient evidence. The difference is meaningful, both as a matter of history and because it might determine how much further Democrats in Congress are willing to push committee investigations of the matter.”
Ken White, The Atlantic

“As Americans have waited for Mueller to complete his work, there’s been a consistent question that some have argued implied some level of guilt: Why did so many people lie about what happened? A campaign adviser, Trump’s personal attorney, his national security adviser, his former campaign manager, his former deputy campaign manager — all admitted to misleading investigators. Why? Different reasons for each? A common interest (as at least two suggested) in buffering Trump?”
Philip Bump, Washington Post

Regarding the conclusion reached by Attorney General Barr that Trump did not obstruct justice, the fact that he did so “within 48 hours of receiving the report (which pointedly did not reach that conclusion) should be deeply concerning to every American… Mr. Barr says that the government would need to prove that Mr. Trump acted with ‘corrupt intent’ and there were no such actions. But how would Mr. Barr know? Did he even attempt to interview Mr. Trump about his intentions? What kind of prosecutor would make a decision about someone’s intent without even trying to talk to him?”
Neal K. Katyal, New York Times

Moreover, “Barr’s poor reasoning in the four-page summary will reinforce the conclusion that he prejudged the matter. For example, he claimed that because Mueller was unable to establish that Trump was ‘involved in an underlying crime,’ that suggested that he lacked the intent to obstruct justice. That will come as a surprise to Martha Stewart and many other defendants who were convicted of obstruction of justice but not of any underlying crime. Simply put, that is a fragile reed upon which to support a finding that there was no obstruction.”
Renato Mariotti, Politico

“You could say that the weekend largely ended as it started. No one except Barr and a small handful of his aides has read the Mueller report. Trump has overreached in his victory statement. Democrats are demanding the release of the report before accepting its conclusions. Serious allegations about the President’s alleged obstruction of justice remain. An epic fight over what Congress can see of Mueller’s work is all but inevitable. The country is divided. And we still have no idea why Donald Trump seems to like Vladimir Putin so much.”
Susan B. Glasser, New York Magazine