It's been 96 days since US special counsel Robert Mueller released his report into Russian election interference.
It was on April 19 that the public learned that President Donald Trump did not collude with the Russians, but Mr Mueller could not conclude whether the President's actions amounted to obstruction of justice.
Since then, the American public has largely lost interest in the 448-page beast of a legal document, but Congress certainly has not.
Fifty-five members of the House of Representatives lobbed questions at Mr Mueller over the course of two hearings totalling seven hours, each political party with a different objective.
Did they achieve them? Did Mr Mueller break any news? And how will the public react?
We broke down what you need to know.
1. Mueller refuted Trump's claim that he was exonerated
As soon as Mr Mueller submitted his report, the President graduated his "witch hunt" rhetoric to a claim that the report completely exonerated him.
Not surprisingly, the Democrats pressed Mr Mueller on this in the very first question of the day.
"The President has said he was exonerated but that's not what the report said is it?" asked Chairman Jerry Nadler.
"It is not what the report said," Mr Mueller replied.
In fact, the report said: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
"Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."
Republicans turned the exoneration question on its side, saying that the President should not have to be proven innocent, but rather presumed innocent until proven guilty.
"Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?" asked Republican John Ratcliffe.
"The bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence," he added. "You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided."
But "Mueller says Trump is not exonerated" is already dominating headlines and chyrons as one of the key points of the hearings.
2. Mueller said Trump could still be charged with obstruction of justice, then clarified
The closest thing we had to a 'gotcha' moment started with questioning from Republican Ken Buck.
Buck: Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?
Mueller: Yes.
Buck: You believe that you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?
Mueller: Yes
The exchange was quickly labelled the moment the Democrats dreamed of, but close listeners knew it shouldn't have come as such a surprise.
Before and during the hearings, the media has made much of an old ruling from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which stipulates that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
Once Mr Trump leaves office, he'd be subject to different rules as a private citizen. But while in office, the only body that can hold Mr Trump accountable is Congress, which can begin impeachment proceedings.
Another representative, Republican Debbie Lesko, pointed out that the newest soundbite contradicts a statement Mr Mueller released with the Department of Justice.
"The Special Counsel has repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that for the OLC opinion, he would have found that the President obstructed justice."
At the start of the second hearing, Mr Mueller clarified his stance.
He was not saying he would have charged Mr Trump with obstruction of justice if not for the OLC opinion. He was saying that the OLC opinion precluded him from making a decision on whether or not Mr Trump should be charged.
So count that one not as a win for Republicans or Democrats but for America's crazy legal system.
3. Democrats got a few soundbites…
Mr Mueller was reluctant to face Congress so publicly, saying that his report would serve as his testimony. He's been secretive about the process since the beginning, as is his prerogative as prosecutor.
Why would Democrats drag him into the spotlight, knowing that he'd only rely on legalese, reiterating what's already been written?
They wanted the audiobook. Or, more accurately, an audio summary. Even just a few juicy soundbites.
Very few Americans ever got around to reading the dense, 448-page document. But they may very well catch the highlights on their evening TV news program.
Mr Mueller, predictably, relied on one-word answers or phrases like "I can't get into that" and "I rely on the wording of the report".
Democrats spent weeks practising for that exact scenario and strategically loaded their questions with all the phrases they needed.
Here's a sampling:
- Cedric Richmond: "So, it's fair to say the President tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?"
- Hakeem Jeffries: "Donald Trump told [former White House counsel] Don McGahn that Mueller has to go. True?"
- Mike Quigley: Do any of Trump's quotes about Wikileaks disturb you?
Mr Mueller answered in the affirmative for all those questions (and added "problematic is an understatement" for the last one). Democrats, surely, cheered internally.
4. …and so did Republicans
The Republicans' strategy was to 1) reiterate that the President was not charged with a crime and 2) take any and all measures to undermine the validity of the report.
On the first point, they stressed the presumption of innocence principle and accused Mr Mueller of offering prosecutorial analysis when he didn't need to.
"What he's doing is not obstructing justice. He is pursuing justice," said Louie Gohmert. "And the fact that you ran it out in two years means that you perpetuated injustice."
Some representatives went further, saying the report should not have been made public.
It's certainly not common for a prosecutor to share information on someone who wasn't charged with a crime. Though it's worth noting that it was the Department of Justice, not the special counsel, who had the power to release the report.
The second point was a bit trickier for Republicans thanks to Mr Mueller's curt answers.
The President has insisted that the Russia investigation is illegal because it was launched based on information contained in the Steele Dossier, an opposition research packet partially funded by the Democratic National Convention.
Mr Mueller said in his opening statement that he wouldn't comment on the origins of the investigation. He more or less stuck to that for the whole seven hours.
Yet the Republicans kept trying.
"I know you don't want to ask any dossier questions, so I'm not going there," said Devin Nunes, before asking five consecutive questions on the topic and voicing a narrative that's been dubbed a conspiracy theory by some media outlets.
Mr Nunes led the questioning for most of the Republicans during the second hearing. He went as far as to accuse the Democratic party of being the real ones who colluded with Russia.
Other Republicans characterised the $US25 million cost of the report as exorbitant, needled Mr Mueller on his interest in the FBI director job and dissected the political beliefs of the special counsel's team. He pressed back hard on the last point.
"You must be aware by now that six of your lawyers donated $US12,000 directly to Hillary Clinton," said Kelly Armstrong. "I'm not even talking about the $US49,000 they donated to other Democrats. Just the donations to the opponent who is the target of your investigation."
"I've been in this business for almost 25 years and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation," Mr Mueller responded. "It is not done. What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity."
5. In the end, it probably won't matter much
Both political parties have said publicly that Americans deserve to know the full and comprehensive facts. It's an appeal that's tough to knock down.
And yet both Democrats and Republicans alike have already made up their minds about this report and what it means.
There was no notable difference in opinion on impeachment following the release of the Mueller report, according to a poll by the Washington Post.
Mr Trump and his allies have made maximum use of spin when it comes to the facts of the investigation to convince his supporters not to believe its contents. He frequently tweeted his frustration throughout the hearings, and vented to reporters in the afternoon.
"There was no defence to this ridiculous hoax," he said. "This has been a very bad thing for our country."
One poll suggests only 19 per cent of Republicans believe the President has lied to the public about the facts related to the investigation, compared to 90 per cent of Democrats.
There's little evidence to suggest those beliefs will change after today.
If anything, it could lead the tribes to further lean into their convictions — to defend the reality they believe, whether it's that the President is a criminal or he's completely innocent.