Robert Mueller didn’t want to be there. That was clear from the outset of his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and then the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. The former FBI director and federal prosecutor said weeks ago that his report spoke for itself, in voluminous detail laying out his findings as the special counsel investigating the Russian intervention into the 2016 election and whether the Donald Trump campaign worked in some way with the Russians.

A reluctant witness proved a reticent one, Mueller often answering with a word or two, deflecting questions from Republicans and Democrats, ever seeking to keep his prosecutorial distance from the partisan fray. For those assessing the scene as theater, the moment was disappointing, Mueller not what many wanted in a leading man.

In the end, the special counsel left lawmakers, and the country, where things started. The report is his testimony. It doesn’t tell the entire story, yet it reveals much, fact upon fact, about how Russian operatives intervened and how Trump the candidate and then president responded. These facts should be driving the discussion. It shouldn’t matter whether Mueller delivered a boffo performance.

Recall what the investigation found, starting with the “sweeping and systematic” effort of the Russians. They conducted a massive cyberattack, exploiting social media through such things as fake stories, fictitious personas and bots, or “computational propaganda,” amplifying messages designed to deepen the polarization already present. The operation began with the objective of subverting public confidence in our democratic institutions. In the end, it also aimed to help Trump prevail in the election.

The investigation wasn’t a “hoax,’ something the president still claims and committee Republicans echoed in their questions. On Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported that election systems in all 50 states were targeted by Russia, reinforcing what Mueller told lawmakers, “They’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign.”

All of this merits what Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, resists, resources for states to enhance election security, especially the installation of verifiable paper trails. For his part, the president recently indicated he wasn’t troubled about the prospect of Russia intervening as he seeks re-election next year.

Which gets to another set of facts in the Mueller report, how the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian efforts on its behalf. If the special counsel found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy, he did document “numerous links” between Russians and Trump campaign officials or associates. When candidate Trump cheered WikiLeaks, his campaign not only was aware of what the Russians were doing. It touted the illegal hacking of email.

The Trump campaign chairman shared with the Russians polling data about key swing states. Trump repeatedly lied about his business dealings with Russia, insisting there was nothing when, in truth, he was pursuing a hotel project. Such deception is how someone becomes compromised, Russia with an edge, aware of what Trump doesn’t want the American public to know.

The lying found full expression in the president’s efforts to impede, or block, the Mueller investigation. True, Mueller and team went forward. Yet the report explains how the president’s actions in at least four instances met the elements of obstruction of justice.

Does that translate to House Democrats proceeding with impeachment? That really is a political calculation, especially with an election soon, voters delivering their more powerful statement. Start an impeachment inquiry? If it is necessary to overcome White House barriers to oversight, or the required checks and balances. Most important, Robert Mueller has delivered the facts, with which, as his testimony showed, a divided country has yet to come to grips.