If you thought the Russian collusion story would end with special counsel Robert Mueller's report, think again.

Evidencing the calcifying partisanship that will define the reaction to this report, President Trump's respective supporters and opponents have focused on two different toplines from Attorney General William Barr's outline of the report in a letter to Congress.

For Trump's supporters, the takeaway is Mueller's assessment that his "investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

For Trump's opponents, the takeaway is Mueller's assessment that "while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." That clarification applies to Mueller's investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice in relation to the investigation. Barr's letter states that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein do not believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant the president's prosecution for obstruction of justice.

On Twitter, the battle lines are establishing behind these two takeaways: no collusion versus no exoneration. Mueller's report might be in, but partisanship will rumble on for the foreseeable future. Consider a few examples below.

1. No collusion.

2. No evidence of obstruction sufficient to sustain a prosecution, particularly in lieu of underlying collusion.

Trump is going to LIGHT S*** UP this week. — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) March 24, 2019

It’s amazing that Mueller left the decision on obstruction to an attorney general who criticized his investigation and a deputy attorney general whose memo was used to fire Comey. It may be defensible, but it’s amazing. — Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) March 24, 2019

We’re all going to need a lot more information to understand this decision to essentially punt on the question of whether the president committed a crime. https://t.co/6fs1E3Ndou — John Avlon (@JohnAvlon) March 24, 2019