Is everyone happy now ... ?

Happy?

Not exactly, but I am pleased that Barr articulated better his rationale for finding insufficient evidence to support a corruption charge.

Essentially, although he still hasn't explained what his specific differences were with Mueller over the law with regard to some of the alleged acts, he says that they didn't make a difference, because there was insufficient evidence of corrupt intent, and specifically cited to evidence which he felt weighed against a finding of corrupt intent, before concluding:

[quote]
Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.

[/quote]

Where I disagree with Barr is how the evidence he cites is relevant to corrupt [i]intent[/i].


[quote]
In assessing the President's actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President's personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.


[/quote]

This part, IMO, should not be relevant to the issue of whether the President [b]intended[/b] to obstruct. Neither the the lack of sufficient evidence of an underlying collusion offense nor the fact that he was angry and frustrated by the investigation and its sequella have any bearing as to whether he intended that any act he took might impede the investigation, etc.


[quote]
Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.
[/quote]

Likewise, this is really evidence that the President didn't commit other acts of obstruction which he might have. That's great, I'm happy he didn't, but I don't see where it's so especially relevant to what his intent was with regard to any of the alleged ten acts.