After two years, 37 indictments, and prison terms for the president’s former lawyer, campaign manager, and (probably) national security adviser, special counsel Robert Mueller has completed his investigation of Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Below, we answer all your most pressing questions about what we know so far.

FINALLY. Okay, what does the Mueller report say?!

We don't really know.

But...but you said it was complete!

Correct. Federal regulations governing the special counsel's appointment, however, require him to transmit a report not to Congress or to the public, but instead on a confidential basis to the attorney general, William Barr, who was confirmed to that position just over a month ago. The Mueller report itself was not released on Sunday; what you might hear referred to as "the Mueller report" today is actually Barr's four-page summary of it, which he wrote over the weekend and delivered to House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler.

All right, well, what does that say?

According to Barr, Mueller's report is divided into two sections: one dealing with whether the Trump campaign "conspired or coordinated" with Russia in 2016, and one dealing with the Trump White House's alleged efforts to obstruct law enforcement efforts to find answers to that question. On the first issue, says Barr, the investigation affirmed that Russian government actors were responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee servers and used WikiLeaks to disseminate those stolen documents. It found no evidence, however, of the Trump campaign's criminal complicity in those efforts.

On the obstruction-of-justice question, Barr's letter is notably vague: It says that Mueller did not make a determination one way or the other, but instead "sets out evidence on both sides of the question" and "leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as 'difficult issues' of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction." Quoting Mueller's report directly, Barr adds, "The special counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.' "

Hmmm. How does Barr propose to resolve that ambiguity?

By exonerating him. Barr goes on to say that after consulting with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, he has "concluded that the evidence...is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense."

That feels like a really big and significant finding. What evidence exists for it, exactly?

We don't know! Barr's position is that he has reviewed it, and you can trust his analysis.

I want to make sure I understand this. Barr made a determination after two days that Mueller didn't feel comfortable making after two years?

Correct.

Is there any reason to question the, um, objectivity of Barr's claims?

There sure is. Before he was nominated as attorney general, Barr lobbied hard for the job by offering vociferous defenses of the president to any media outlet that would listen. In The Washington Post, he praised Trump's firing of former FBI director James Comey as "the right call," and parroted Trump's "13 angry Democrats" criticism of Mueller's team by opining that the special counsel should have sought a more politically balanced roster of attorneys. A year after the 2016 election, he was still arguing in The New York Times that Congress should be probing the Clinton-Uranium One conspiracy theory, and has generously excused Trump's calls for law enforcement investigations of his political opponents as fully within his powers as chief executive.