Well it's long, but among other things:
Vol. 1; Pages 53-54
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-61
It's clear the trump campaign reached out to Wikileaks who they knew had data stolen by the Russian state (Barr gave a retarded explanation for why that couldn't possibly be illegal this morning with "
collusion with WikiLeaks could not amount to a criminal conspiracy because WikiLeaks’ publication of the emails was not a crime so long as it did not help Russia hacking them."
So according to "the president can never be indicted ever" Barr, even though the trump state knew that they were working with wikileaks who was working with the russian state, the trump campaign is blameless because wikileaks didn't actively help the russians with the hack, they just disseminated selected info on their behalf.
That should be impeachable, if we have any integrity.
Or Vol. 1; Page 9:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-17
Where Trump ordered WH personnel to lie about his attempts to fire Mueller. That's pretty much obstruction on it's face, unless you accept Barr's "it's not obstruction because his lawyers refused to lie for him," excuse.
Or Vol 2; Page 4
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-216
Where Trump called the acting AG at home and directed him to fire Mueller. Again, obstruction unless you believe trump is off the hook because McGahn refused.
And this is of course excepting the large portion that's redacted that deals mostly with Roger Stone reaching out to wikileaks on behalf of the trump campaign. Of course it's likely the most damning portion, hence why Barr's going to keep that redacted as long as possible. His excuse for that being that it would prejudice a future jury, which is just plain horseshit.