is that although there's a lot of circumstantial evidence (and of course circumstantial evidence is still evidence), there is not likely to be either a paper trail or a recording that would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I keep going back to Watergate, for which there are many parallels -- it's doubtful that articles of impeachment against Nixon ever would have been produced if the "smoking gun" tape hadn't been discovered, proving Nixon tried to prevent the FBI from continuing its investigation. Had Ford not pardoned Nixon it's likely that he'd have been tried for obstruction and other things, and that the tape would have been enough evidence for a conviction.
In Trump's case as well we have emails relating to the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians, but while they hint at it they don't conclusively show that Trump Jr. and others conspired with the Russians to illegally interfere with the election, or that there was an illegal exchange of something of value in violation of campaign finance laws. And since Trump himself doesn't use email, he has left no paper trail, and there don't seem to be any recordings (it was Cohen's recording of Trump directing the Daniels payoff that cemented that charge against Cohen, and would have done for Trump if he weren't the president). So Mueller might have concluded that the evidence he had wouldn't persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt - and in the federal system prosecutors don't take cases unless they're confident they can meet that burden of proof.

On the other hand, the financial investigations of Trump, his business and his bogus foundation that have been handed off to other prosecutors and to the Manhattan DA are entirely paper cases. The FBI have a particular sort of investigators called forensic accountants whose job is to analyze complex financial records to find the trail of malfeasance. Trump is so crooked, and has been for so many years, that I have no doubt they'll find tons of evidence of tax evasion, bank fraud, money laundering and other financial crimes. It will take time but I believe it will happen. In the meantime the House committee investigations will go on, and Trump will die a political death of a thousand cuts. Of course his mindless cult followers won't care, but everyone else will.

Patience...

But let's also remember that "insufficient evidence" does not mean "innocent." It just means that enough evidence was not found or was thrown out for some reason.

[edit] I was responding to the OP, not to Post 1.

It seems clear that the objective of the Mueller investigation was NOT to indict trump since the DOJ has a policy against that.

The purpose of the investigation was to share all the investigation results with DOJ and Congress and not to indict the president.

So the DOJ coming out and saying... nothing happened and there where no indictments of the president would be stupid since that was not the intent of the investigation.

(Patience is a lesson we are all learning.)

We did OUR part by working so hard to get the House back. Job well done.

Obviously more to come, but until then....I am going to marvel at Mueller's example of patriotism, hard work and loyalty to the rule of law.

No citizen can bring an indictment. It's a moot point.

We can be fairly confident that the DoJ won't indict anyone they don't have the evidence to convict. They are all republicans.

They may indict Hillary, I wouldn't put it past them, but that also isn't in our control.

& considered innocent until proven guilty but I will always wonder how much money & powered played in the roll of lack of evidence.

"I will always wonder how much money & power played in the roll of lack of evidence."

Yes. In particular Obstruction of Justice. In particular Witness Tampering. And very much in particular Pardon Dangling. Trump did everything within his illegitimate power to prevent witnesses from cooperating with the probe, offering up the specter of a possible pardon for those who don't, thus making it harder for Mueller to nail down air tight evidence against Trump. Assuming Mueller abides by DOJ opinion that a sitting President can not be indicted, he may well have made the case in his report instead that Presidential interference sabotaged key aspects of the probe. Pure speculation of course, hopefully the truth will out.

Mueller kept a copy of the report? It's could be hard for Barr to do a coverup if Mueller has a copy.

I trust the Mueller investigation, from what I know about it and about Mueller's reputation, which is stellar. If I trust it, I trust it, regardless of whether I like the outcome.

I find it hard to believe there wasn't sufficient evidence, given what even we know from the outside.

That said, it doesn't mean the House can't investigate, and it should. I do wish they'd move faster. We're nearing the end of March, and it seems very little has been done.

And with all that said...one of Trump's major crimes against humanity isn't something that breaks any laws I'm aware of. That is, his treatment of the children at the border. We must have more hearings on that.

boss he has always had others do his dirty work for him including his children

The summary report will only have conclusion and not the underlying data to support the conclusion. Nor will it include matters before a Grand Jury, matters subject to counterintelligence and material the Whitehouse will insert Executive Privilege claims. That doesn't leave a whole lot. And it will be the most favorable material available for Trump to gloat about. Then comes the leaks - our real hope.

As Seth Abramson said, "But if you think any *experts* are sanguine tonight... no."

Experts agree: TRump, et al, are guilty.