It goes farther than that: > At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstr

It goes farther than that: > At the same time, 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. So if it looks like he didn't commit obstruction of justice, they would have said that. They can't prove a negative, but if there hadn't been any evidence, they would have been willing to make a judgement that Trump was innocent. But they did find evidence, so they're unwilling to say he's not guilty of obstruction.