I would love to see someone ask Mueller the following line of questioning when he testifies:
In drawing your conclusion regarding conspiracy between the Trump campaign and other associates with the Russian government, you assessed whether the available evidence supported a finding of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that correct?
In making that assessment, could you provide insight as to how close to meeting that threshold the evidence came? 70%? 80% 90%?
Do you believe that, given the multiple events that suggest obstruction of justice by Trump, it is likely that those efforts may have limited the availability of evidence to the OSC?
Is it possible (or likely) that such additional evidence could have led the OSC to find conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt?
If Trump were not the sitting president, do you think the evidence presented in the Mueller report would support a finding of obstruction of justice?
I would just love to have a crisp, clean clip coming directly from Mueller making the points that (1) there was clear evidence suggesting conspiracy, just not enough to meet the criminal standard, (2) the shortfall in evidence may have been the result of Trump's obstruction, and (3) Trump would have been guilty of obstruction in the absence of the DOJ guidance regarding indicting a sitting president. Maybe, just maybe, that would be enough to get the Chicken Sandwiches of the world to STFU with the "No Collusion! No Obstruction!" chants.