President Trump finally weighed in on the first public remarks by special counsel Robert Mueller since the beginning of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2019

Trump's victory lap may ignore the astounding ramifications of Volume I of the Mueller report. There are serious implications to the fact that the Russians went to such great lengths to sow dissent in our democratic system and that they considered the Trump campaign an easy target. But Trump is correct that the public ought to maintain the presumption of innocence, especially given the insufficient evidence to charge him with either conspiracy to collude or obstruction of justice crimes.

Mueller, individually, has remained a consummate professional throughout all of this. But there is one statement he made today that did defy hundreds of years of Western tradition in our evaluation of the role of law: "If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so," Mueller said during his eight-minute statement today.

So, what did Mueller want? Exculpatory evidence? Our legal process presumes innocence until sufficient evidence is found to the contrary. It does not demand that those under suspicion exonerate themselves. Trump is wrong when he claims he's totally exonerated, but why would he need to be? He hasn't been charged with a crime in the first place, and there wouldn't be evidence with which to charge him if they wanted to.