I have read the transcript and have listened to the Guardian's audio-visual excerpts. The underscored emphasis below in the money shots of the transcript excerpts is mine from Mueller's oral emphasis. The bolded emphasis is mine entirely, for which I offer explanation at the end of the transcript excerpts
The first volume of the report details numerous efforts
emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a
discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our
conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our
obstruction of justice investigation involving the president.
The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to
investigate actions that could
obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation…And as set forth in
the report, after that investigation, if
we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however,
make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
…
The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
...
…we concluded that we would not reach a determination one
way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the
office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or
hypotheticals about the president.
He "could not" charge Trump with a crime, therefore he "would not" make a determination "one way or the other.". See?
Now, to those of you who say "Everybody is presumed innocent! If you, Mueller, didn't determine Trump committed a crime that means Trump didn't commit a crime!" No. For at least two reasons, no. First, Mueller explains clearly that he "could not" charge Trump and why he couldn't: there was no prosecutable crime. Second, people throw the presumption of innocence all over the place. The ONLY place where there is a presumption of innocence is in the jury box, okay? You think cops presume people innocent? Thank God they do not! Prosecutors? Of course they do not presume people innocent! In fact a prosecutor has to have a subjective belief (as well as a reasonable objective belief that the case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt at trial) in the person's guilt to file charges in court! Cops and prosecutors presume people they arrest and arraign are guilty. They are sometimes wrong, especially on my cases, but the money shot here is do not be loose with presumption of innocence talk.
