It's not about "concluding" anything - it's about reading English on pages 1&2 of Volumes 1 and 2 of the Mueller Report. If you can't do that, there's no use talking to you so piss your way on out of here.

As  set  forth  in  detail  in  this  report,  the  Special  Counsel’s  investigation  established  that Russia  interfered  in  the  2016  presidential  election  principally  through  two  operations.  First,  a Russian  entity  carried  out  a  social  media  campaign  that  favored  presidential  candidate  Donald  J. Trump  and  disparaged  presidential  candidate  Hillary  Clinton.  Second,  a  Russian  intelligence service  conducted  computer-intrusion  operations  against  entities,  employees,  and  volunteers working  on  the  Clinton  Campaign  and  then  released  stolen  documents.  The  investigation  also identified  numerous  links  between  the  Russian  government  and  the  Trump  Campaign.  Although the  investigation  established  that  the  Russian  government  perceived  it  would  benefit  from  a  Trump presidency  and  worked  to  secure  that  outcome,  and  that  the  Campaign  expected  it  would  benefit U.S. Department of Justice
 1 
electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference.

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel’s Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.  In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts. 

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.  That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.  We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
==========
Beginning  in 2017, the  President of  the United States took a  variety of actions  towards the ongoing  FBI  investigation  into  Russia’s  interference  in  the  2016  presidential  election  and  related matters  that  raised  questions  about  whether  he  had  obstructed  justice.  The  Order  appointing  the Special  Counsel  gave  this  Office  jurisdiction  to  investigate  matters  that  arose  directly  from  the FBI’s  Russia  investigation,  including  whether  the  President  had  obstructed  justice  in  connection with  Russia-related  investigations.  The  Special  Counsel’s  jurisdiction  also  covered  potentially obstructive  acts  related  to  the  Special  Counsel’s  investigation  itself.   This  Volume  of  our  report summarizes our obstruction-of-justice investigation of the President.   We  first  describe  the  considerations  that  guided  our  obstruction-of-justice  investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:  First,  a  traditional  prosecution  or  declination  decision  entails  a  binary  determination  to initiate  or  decline  a  prosecution,  but  we  determined  not  to  make  a  traditional  prosecutorial judgment.  The Office of Legal Counsel  (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that  “the indictment or  criminal  prosecution  of  a  sitting  President  would  impermissibly  undermine  the  capacity  of  the executive  branch  to  perform  its  constitutionally  assigned  functions”  in  violation  of  “the constitutional  separation  of  powers.”

1 

Given  the role  of  the  Special  Counsel  as an  attorney  in  the Department  of  Justice  and  the  framework  of  the  Special  Counsel  regulations,  see  28  U.S.C.  § 515; 28  C.F.R.  §  600.7(a),  this  Office  accepted  OLC’s  legal  conclusion  for  the  purpose  of  exercising prosecutorial  jurisdiction.  And  apart  from  OLC’s  constitutional  view,  we  recognized  that  a  federal criminal  accusation  against  a  sitting President  would  place  burdens  on  the  President’s  capacity  to govern and  potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct....
Third,  we  considered  whether  to  evaluate  the  conduct  we  investigated  under  the  Justice Manual  standards  governing  prosecution  and  declination  decisions,  but  we  determined  not  to  apply an  approach  that  could  potentially  result  in  a  judgment  that  the  President  committed  crimes...
Fourth,  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.  The  evidence  we obtained  about  the  President’s  actions  and  intent  presents  difficult  issues  that  prevent  us  from conclusively  determining  that  no  criminal  conduct  occurred.  Accordingly,  while  this  report  does not conclude  that  the President committed a crime, it also does  not exonerate him.   
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.justice...

Wisconsin wouldn't have been as close as it was for the presidency if this hadn't happened. Luckily Biden continued to coo cooling steady bipartisan messages, didn't attack anyone and didn't do "where's the outrage?" People don't like cops being out of control but they don't like civilization being out of control a heck of a lot more.