So I'm mostly staying away, but I guess a summary might be that almost everything we thought happened was true, it's just that the definitions of collusion and obstruction are very different than we thought?
Are the definitions actually that different? The whole reasoning about not being able to reach a conclusion about indictability of offenses, due to DOJ policy, was pretty widely discussed? Mueller's take on it was possibly a *bit* more conservative that one could have imagined?