As an investigator of fraud by trade, mostly federal, (in my personal opinion on this subject only) I can say that this is how technical reports for the cases are mostly written when there are gaps in information, and a concrete determination can't be made one way or the other. It sounds better than "the investigation established that it does not know whether the Trump Campaign conspired..."; which would not read well. It appears that it may be assumed the campaign committed the crimes, but the report can't fully connect the dots and leaves it open for a prosecutorial body to determine if the evidence at hand would be sufficient to warrant a trial. It's a big waste of time and money if the prosecution isn't confident they have a real case. Some things like meetings off the record, shell companies making financial transactions and using cash for transactions.. makes it harder to investigate obviously.

If it was determined that no crime was committed and he was exonerated, it would likely read, " it was determined that the Trump Campaign did not knowingly collude or conspire..."

"Investigation did not establish" is in no way clearing the parties. In my experience, if outside the scope of the initial investigation, this is where additional information is examined (by house committees, grand juries, etc) and/or the case(s) may be handed off to another totally separate investigative or prosecutorial body, or subpoenas are issued.

Of course Trump followers believe his obvious spin without second guessing it or giving any amount of scrutiny to any of his statements. It really is true that he could shoot someone and his followers wouldn't care.

I can't wait until the totally unredacted version of the report is available to the masses.