When now-former Special Counsel Robert Mueller strode to the podium Wednesday morning (punctual, as per his usual) he appeared exhausted and war-weary. The former decorated Vietnam War Marine has aged a lifetime since he was tapped to head the investigation into the Kremlin’s election-meddling during the 2016 presidential campaign. Resignedly he began to speak, knowing each understated sentence and every particular chosen word would be parsed, dissected, and hyper-scrutinized by basement litigators and couch-confined investigators.

We witnessed quintessential Mueller — economy of words, the penetrating stare that accompanies a particular point he wants to resonate, and a refusal to take questions from the assembled press. I know this from having stood a few feet from him during innumerable protection details for the one-time FBI director, both stateside and in a combat theater.

Mueller is the antithesis of his successor at the FBI, James Comey. One is drawn to the spotlight like a moth to a porch light at midnight. The other is Robert Mueller.

Conjecture and speculation were rampant in the hour or so between the announcement Mueller would address the cameras and his actual delivered remarks. What would Mueller say? Would he contradict his boss, Attorney General William Barr? Was there a chance he would provide more deliverables to the #Resistance so desperate to see this president led from the White House in handcuffs?

But there would be none of that.

The taciturn former special counsel made a point to lead off his roughly 10 minute address with reminding us of the actual Russian military intelligence officers and a private Russian company indicted for their efforts to influence 2016 voters via effective, targeted social media efforts. He ended his remarks reminding us again of the Kremlin’s perfidy and omnipresent threat to our democratic process.

We, of course, know all this. There have been a number of announced indictments. But no one really believes that Vladimir Putin has any intention of ever surrendering his consorts to stand trial in a U.S. courtroom. Yes, as the 448-page Mueller report expertly lays out, there have been members of the Trump campaign who were indicted, pled guilty, or were convicted of a number of process crimes or crimes unrelated to the president. As shady, deceitful, and predisposed to questionable conduct they may have been, not one of them was charged with conspiring with Russian agents to hijack the 2016 election.

But you wouldn’t know that if you listen to the breathless exhortations from many in the media that the president, his family, his campaign, and his administration are a traitorous lot. Recognizing that the dream of uncovered collusion has long since been exposed as so much hooey, they have shifted their hopes and dreams to one of obstruction of justice.

Mueller addressed the Volume I conspiracy case by acknowledging there was “insufficient evidence to charge a broader [collusion] conspiracy.” Every instance of Russian efforts to contact the Trump campaign is highlighted in the report, including the infamous Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016. No Trump associates were ever identified as “witting members” of Russia’s efforts.

Again asserting that the report “speaks for itself,” Mueller shifted to the more hotly-debated Volume II, and the case for obstruction. His most damning line, consistent with his nonexoneration declaration in the report, was this one: “If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

That is a fairly stark departure from the long-standing legal tradition of not “dirtying up” a person under investigation who is ultimately not charged. One can fully appreciate the stakes here. The special counsel was appointed to get to the bottom of the Russian interference case. If it led to a conspiracy with the Trump campaign, ferret it out, make a determination as to charge or not, and provide the findings to the attorney general.

But Mueller ducked out on this. He again cited (as he did in the report) another longstanding DOJ Office of Legal Counsel protocol not to indict a sitting president. So, why does he continue to refuse to fully address this in plain language for us? As in, why didn't he say, "If we could indict this sitting president, we would or would not have indicted him."

"Would" is the operative word here.

Why the deference? Why the careful language? On one hand, Mueller is comfortable asserting his investigation and report fails to exonerate Trump. And yet, he seemingly can’t bring himself to clearly state there exists enough evidence to bring obstruction of justice charges. And I know the counter: Mueller cited the point that the president would be hampered by the magnitude of his office and his inability to mount a defense, to which he is certainly entitled. Fair enough.

But again, why say this? “If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

That defeats the purpose of Mueller's reluctance to bring charges if they were merited. Mueller has purposely, or inadvertently, “dirtied up” one of the targets of his investigation. Yet, we know Robert Mueller is one of the rarest of rare birds in D.C. — an apolitical, honest arbiter of fact.

But as the Washington Post recently reported: "Barr has said that in a private meeting with Mueller in early March, the special counsel made clear 'he was not saying but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime.'"

So, is the attorney general lying about this private conversation with his long-time friend and colleague, Robert Mueller, or is Mueller saying something different in private conversation than he articulated in his report and today in front of the microphones and cameras?

I am disappointed. The Mueller report and the subsequent special counsel statement left me, and many others, still seeking answers. That is not what we need during these hyper-divided times, where so many tend to view almost everything through a partisan lens.

Though he announced his intention to return to private life, Robert Mueller must be subpoenaed to testify in front of Congress.

James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) worked in the FBI for 25 years. He is a law enforcement analyst for CNN and an adjunct assistant professor in homeland security and criminal justice at St. John's University.