Only Donald Trump could describe as “Total EXONERATION” the findings of a two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller that says it “does not exonerate” the US president. Facts matter little to Mr Trump. He prefers to trade in conspiracy theories where evidence does not drive the wider public’s beliefs. We would have expected him to continue in this manner, and demean the presidency, irrespective of the outcome of the Mueller inquiry.

What is now certain is that too much hope was invested in Mr Mueller. He has produced a lengthy and complicated document. Its four-page summary includes some good news for Mr Trump about a scandal that has lapped at his door since he became president. Whether it is all good news for Mr Trump can only be assessed when Mr Mueller’s full report is made public, and it is urgent that it is. The key determinations once all the facts are out in the open are: whether the charge of Russian collusion can be further prosecuted in the court of public opinion; and whether another body is needed to decide whether the charge of “obstruction of justice” is warranted. Mr Mueller, according to the US attorney general, William Barr, found no smoking gun on the charge of Russian conspiracy. This may surprise many: after all, the former FBI director has indicted, convicted or elicited guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to Mr Trump and Kremlin acolytes. Yet the special counsel did not think he could prove to the standard required that the Trump campaign committed a crime in aiding Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 election. It’s hard to see how, if Mr Mueller could not make the charge stick, Congress can.

Mr Trump did attempt to obstruct justice in plain sight. The Department of Justice says it would be inappropriate to indict a sitting president. Yet Mr Barr was wrong to think he could adjudicate over the criminality of those acts. He is uniquely unsuited to do so, given that last June he said Mr Mueller was wrong to look at the obstruction.

There is a high bar of proof for criminal obstruction. Proving “corrupt intent” is hard. Mr Barr argues that if Mr Mueller found there was no crime, then how could justice be obstructed? It is possible for a president to obstruct justice. The responsibility ought to fall to Congress to review any findings of misconduct and whether acts were acceptable in a president. Members of Congress must be able to consider all the evidence, including that which is publicly known and that which is not, to decide whether Mr Trump’s obstructive behaviour went beyond management of the executive.

This affair provides a clear lesson. Mr Mueller was no magician; he could not make Mr Trump vanish. Yet Democrats thought he might. Mr Trump can only be defeated when Democrats understand why he won. The Trump administration’s dizzying number of conflicts of interest have yet to be held to account. Political scientists, such as Joe Uscinki, note that Mr Trump built a coalition by appealing more to conspiracy theories than to partisanship. His supporters use such conspiracy theories to fight what they see as a conspiracy against them. The problem is that the opposing narratives have piled up, obscuring reality. Mr Mueller did not leak and went about his job diligently, qualities lacking in Washington. He stayed above the fray of political bickering and remained impartial. People need to be guided to an appreciation of how their beliefs came about. That will require Mr Trump’s opponents to keep their heads when others lose theirs.