This was mostly what I expected would happen.
When it comes to high profile politicians like Trump, the ability to establish motive beyond a reasonable doubt in these kinds of obstruction of justice cases is pretty important. In other words, even if it looks like Trump obstructed justice (in my opinion, it does), one has to demonstrate that those actions were because of a direct attempt by Trump to obstruct justice. It's very similar to the Bob McDonnell corruption case and why his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court. In a nutshell, Bob McDonnell was apparently engaged in what looked like a quid pro quo situation while in office, but motive couldn't be established. Reading about that case might make the topic of Trump's possible obstruction of justice make more sense.
Everyone should understand that this doesn't exonerate Trump when it comes to obstruction of justice. The outline of the report admits it's a gray area for the reasons I explained above, and there might be evidence to support an obstruction of justice argument. However, since they can't prove an obstruction of justice motive, Barr isn't going to indict Trump. The report doesn't make a judgement one way or the other.
With regard to Russia collusion, it was unlikely they were going to be able to demonstrate it, regardless of whether or not it happened. The report also reiterated that Russia did indeed meddle with the election; they just can't prove they worked with Trump's campaign when doing so.
With regard to Trump's many other scandals, this report doesn't address them.
