Explain how this is an exoneration

[bripat9643]

How could an article about Mueller recanting what he said at his press conference not be about his press conference?

The headline is about Mueller recanting. The article simply drones on about Mueller's press conference and claims that he contradicted himself somewhere along the way...yet offers nothing to substantiate that claim. In fact, the closest the article comes is to claim that the press conference was inconsistent with what Barr claims Mueller said some time ago.

So your article doesn't even claim Mueller recanted his statements at his press conference. It would seem to imply that the press conference itself is the recantation of previous comments that were allegedly said in private. If you had a reading comprehension level above 1st grade you would already understand this.

Mueller and Barr team up to blast misinterpretations: 'No conflict' on obstruction

“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements," a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.​

 

[Ambivalent1]

Mueller's report explains his prosecutorial decisions in four points.

1. The DOJ's OLC has issued the opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted, and the SC accepted that opinion for the purposes of his investigation, further recognizing that a DOJ indictment might preempt the constitutional mechanism of impeachment.
2. The investigation was nevertheless warranted because an criminal investigation is permitted under the OLC's standard, even when an indictment is not. Other individuals engaging in obstruction could be prosecuted immediately. And the President is not immune from prosecution after leaving office, regardless of whether impeachment proceedings are brought or are successful. So the investigation served the purpose of preserving evidence while witness memories were fresh.
3. The normal public mechanism for an individual accused of a crime to clear themselves is a speedy public criminal trial. If the sitting President cannot be brought to a criminal trial while in office, then it would be unfair for the SC to affirmatively accuse him of a crime that cannot be prosecuted in a criminal court of law at this time. Even a sealed indictment's secrecy could not be guaranteed to be preserved. Accordingly, a criminal accusation against a sitting President could be harmful to the country, because the accusation cannot be resolved in the normal adversarial manner of a criminal trial.
   
4. The results of the investigation do not allow the SC to conclude that the President did not commit obstruction.

So please explain how this exonerates Donald?

Do prosecutors "exonerate " people? If one cannot "prove" one's case then one has NO case. It really is quite simple unless one blinded by hyper partisan hatred