>“if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so” Say your spouse suspects you of being in contact with your

>“if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so” Say your spouse suspects you of being in contact with your ex, so she hires a private investigator. She is not sure whether you spoke to your ex in person, by phone, or through one of several dozen close confidants with whom you regularly interact. After the investigation, she asks the PI whether he is confident that you did not make contact with your ex. How could he possibly be? The sheer number of contact interactions makes it impossible to rule out. This is why our criminal justice system operates on the presumption of innocence. For many crimes, it is practically impossible to arrive at "confidence that the [accused] clearly did not commit a crime". >Mueller felt as if his hands were tied in his ability to present evidence to prosecute a sitting President. Given that the report stated outright that there was no evidence of collusion, I assume this is in reference to the question of obstruction, which is out of scope.