No, it said there is evidence both for and against, but that it was up to the AG to decide.
Barr and Rosenstein determined that (paraphrasing)"if there is no crime to obstruct, there can be no charge of obstruction", and didn't even concede that a sitting President could be indicted. I found that statement very dismissive of Mueller's obstruction evidence.
Exactly, its over
No obstruction
No evidence
Because you obstruct an investigation that has no crimes
Mueller was trying to leave something for the democrats, and he failed even with that. Barr is right, no obstruction. Because of no evidence of it.