"In the absence of provable charges, the presumption of innocence still reigns supreme."

John Soloman writes in the Hill,

...One inherent message of the first volume of the Mueller report is clear: It is time for the professional media to assume responsibility for its role in inflaming the public with a scandal that wasn’t proven, by endlessly quoting intelligence and partisan political sources whose claims went far beyond the evidence it slithered upon.

...For the purpose of a court of law, Trump neither committed a Russia collusion crime that he needed to cover up nor took formal action that actually impeded the probe.

And that left only a theoretical case for attempted obstruction. The report shows Mueller’s team so struggled with the issue that it offered novel theories of prosecution, and then abdicated the responsibility it was given to make the traditional charging decision.

...“There is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks,” Barr explained. “Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated.”

...But one lesson from this debacle, which Americans might find applicable to both the courts of law and public opinion, is worth grasping: A guilty man’s conduct to get rid of prosecutors, to impact witnesses or to impugn an investigation looks a lot more like obstruction than an innocent man’s similar actions during an effort to defend himself from bogus allegations.

In the absence of provable charges, the presumption of innocence still reigns supreme.

Read more here.