Another thing: Whoever actually wrote the Mueller report went out of their way to qualify their conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy. Let's take a look at the end of the executive summary on the conspiracy investigation again:
Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the UnitedStates.
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
Among other things, any objective person should wonder what they could not corroborate. Maybe I'll know if I ever read the whole report. But it suggests that they had witness statements possibly indicating conspiracy but could not corroborate them. Do I know that? No. But what are they talking about?
Either way the author or authors of that language are clearly saying, "WE ARE NOT SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE LOOKED AT."
As I thought about this I thought about the recent national news story about a case where a guy killed his wife and his toddler son told people "Daddy hurt Mommy." The local police strongly suspected the guy offed his wife but they couldn't charge because they didn't have sufficient evidence. Didn't have a body. It wasn't until decades later that the son as a grownup was doing some work around the house and found his Mom's remains that they went after him
The point is, as you know very well, saying "we did not find sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy" is not saying "we don't think there was a criminal conspiracy" and it CERTAINLY isn't saying "there was no collusion."
And, no, it's not like suspecting you of kidnapping the LIndbergh baby.