I'm not sure this is an answer to my question, and I'm surprised by the confrontational tone. I'll re-ask the question. How do you get from, "did not draw ultimate conclusions" to "Mueller thinks there's not enough evidence". What's your rational here. Is it because of the line "actions and intent presents difficult issues"? Is there some specific line I've glossed over? You've written:
Mueller is very clear the evidence is problematic because SOME of the evidence is innocent, some of the evidence is incriminating.
Ok. That's fine. I believe you. I'm simply asking where you read this and/or what you're inferring it from, specifically.
Hmm, yeah. I've thought about it a little bit more, and I agree, my statement is incorrect. It's tough to ignore the juxtaposition between Volume I and Volume II in light of Mueller's statement that prosecutorial decisions are typically binary, his points one through four on pages 1 and 2 of Volume II, and that in Volume I he was willing to make a firm statement about the quantity of evidence. But giving it more thought, I'm making a big overstep. (this isn't sarcasm)