Finally we have heard from Robert Mueller himself. For two years, in the face of immense presidential pressure and outright attempts to have him fired, the special counsel and his team quietly pursued their mammoth inquiry. He remained silent too as the Trump administration falsely claimed his 400-plus page report as a vindication. Now it is – to a large degree – in the public domain. But this is not the last word.

Its length, and the complexity of matters with which it deals, means that it will take time to fully digest the document and understand its ramifications. The politicians and journalists frenziedly combing through it in Washington have already found plenty of meat. The bar had been set high by the shocking facts that had already emerged about Russia’s role in the 2016 election and the actions of Donald Trump and his campaign. There is no single new killer fact which transforms the picture and is likely to sway a dedicated Trump supporter. But the report is nonetheless damning, and a vital and necessary addition to the body of evidence already amassed. Mr Mueller’s role allowed him to access evidence and press individuals as the media cannot. The report’s status as a formal, official record of events is also crucial, even if it will inevitably be assailed as partisan.

It details the “sweeping and systematic” Russian interference. It lays out the multiple links between the campaign and those with ties to the Russian state, reminds us that it “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts”, and was at times receptive to Russian offers of help, even if conspiracy or coordination could not be established. It lists 11 possible instances of obstruction. It states that there was evidence which precluded the investigators from conclusively determining that the president did not commit a crime. Attempts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful “largely because persons surrounding the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests”.

The document released on Thursday, however, is not the complete story. It is copiously redacted, often in striking places. There are valid legal reasons to excise material from such a text. But no confidence can be placed in the man overseeing the process, Mr Trump’s hand-picked attorney-general, particularly after his almost comical attempts to misrepresent the document. In William Barr’s world, the president’s refusal to be interviewed amounted to the White House’s “full cooperation”. The entire tenor of his remarks implied that the matter was now done and dusted: “GAME OVER”, as his boss posted on Twitter.

But all those who care about democracy in America must keep going, with all Mr Mueller’s diligence and persistence but none of his reticence. First, they must press for members of Congress to have access to the full, unredacted version. Second, they must continue reminding voters that if Mr Mueller was unable to judge whether the president obstructed justice based on facts and legal guidelines, Mr Trump’s actions are nonetheless abnormal and appalling. So is the willingness of his supporters and the Republican party elite to stand by him given what was already known about his campaign’s relations with an adversary interfering in democratic elections in their country. Third, they must push for a concerted strategy to protect the US against further such attempts. This report is further proof that Mr Trump is unfit for office, and of the methods which helped to place him there. Mr Mueller took his time, but the matter could hardly be more urgent as the next presidential race approaches.