Attorney General William Barr sent a letter to Congress yesterday summarizing the findings of the highly anticipated Mueller report.

Over the 22 months that Robert Mueller served as Special Counsel, his investigation racked up 34 total indictments, seven guilty verdicts or pleas, and earned a net profit for the federal government in the form of cash and seized assets.

Barr’s letter quotes a section of the report that concludes “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

This section appears to put to rest any serious speculation that Trump and his team colluded with the Russian government. On the other hand, Barr’s letter also reveals that the report does not exonerate Trump on potential charges of obstruction of justice.

According to Barr, Mueller “did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” Barr also acknowledges that Mueller examined potential arguments for and against potential obstruction of justice cases relating to a variety of actions taken by President Trump.

Mueller’s arguments for or against specific obstruction cases would be particularly useful for Congressional Democrats weighing articles of impeachment, although Speaker Pelosi has made it clear she will only move forward with impeachment if it has bipartisan support.

While he was obviously not being fully transparent, there is one part of Barr’s letter that is simply incorrect — when he asserts that “the Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.”

In fact, the Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts without reaching legal conclusions leaves the decision to Congress. Barr’s claim to the contrary belies his understanding of the legal reality — if he actually believed he had the authority to determine whether or not Trump obstructed justice, he wouldn’t have any problem handing over the full report to Congress.

Wikileaks recently announced a campaign to raise $1 million as a prize for anyone who leaks the report, and there’s no doubt that countless journalists would love to be the first to publish the report. It’s not hard to imagine such a high profile, controversial report leaking —it’s the aftermath that would be even more interesting.

If it were leaked by a mainstream U.S. media organization, would the Justice Department compel reporters to testify under threat of imprisonment as they did in the Plame affair? If it were leaked by Wikileaks, would we ramp up efforts to prosecute Julian Assange and anyone else involved?

The fallout would be immense, and would almost certainly inflict an immeasurable degree of damage on our democracy.