DOJ claims in six meetings he said it carried no weight; and the AG publicly said the same thing.  Key blurb from this link.

Mueller did not say explicitly that he would have accused Trump of a crime had it not been for the standing policy, but he reiterated that his investigation did not exonerate Trump.

A second blurb from the same source.

Barr said repeatedly in April that Mueller told him that it was not the case that he would have charged Trump with a crime had it not been for the policy.
"He reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction," Barr told senators during public testimony in April.

To some extent the legalese wording from Mueller leaves room for misunderstanding of his position; while Barr's position is clear.

Jeralyn: "Robert Mueller will testify Wednesday. The New York Times has these questions for him. But, it recommends, don't get your hopes up[.]"

... whose mantra for the better part of 2015-16 was "But Her Emails!" That paper's clearly biased coverage during the campaign was little more than an extended hit job on Hillary and Bill Clinton. Remember the exclusive agreement they cut with right-wing author Peter Schweizer to develop stories based upon his since-debunked book "Clinton Cash"? Their first article had so many factual problems with it that they never developed another one.

The New York Times' political reporting over the last 27 years was mostly propelled by an anti-Clinton agenda and constitutes a disgrace to journalism. They devoted more lines and space to the Clinton email pseudo-scandal in 2016 than to all of Trump's scandals combined, which includes their appalling decision to devote the newspaper's front page to former FBI Director James Comey's abortive decision to re-open the email investigation only 10 days out from Election Day. Per the Columbia Journalism Review:

"Ten articles [appeared] on the front page of The New York Times in a six-day period (October 29 to November 3, 2016), discussing the FBI investigation into Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. In the same time-period there were six front-page articles on the dynamics of the campaign, one piece on Trump's business, and zero on public policy of candidates."

Sorry for the rant, but that sort of over-the-top sensationalism inflicted wounds to the American body politic from which we've yet to recover. Absent such irresponsibility on the part of the New York Times, there likely would have never been any need for a Mueller Report in the first place. And so, they've lost me for good. I cancelled my subscription in late Nov. 2016 and never looked back, and I don't miss those fools for scandal in the slightest. Now, I read the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.

Mueller's halting and reticent demeanor  ultimately served to fortify his credibility--not a firebrand or radical, but a reluctant witness doing his duty.

 Criticism of Mueller appears based on exuberant expectations--he would be the savior and do the work of Congress and the American electorate.

 All in spite of his prior statements, and with the recent memo from DOJ admonishing Mueller not to go beyond the publicly available redacted report.  Everything else was off limits as propped up by the thin reed of Barr's newly found privilege.

 Barr, no doubt inadvertently, disadvantaged the Republican members more than the Democratic members since it curtailed much of the Republican side show (e.g. dossier, Mueller as spurned job seeker) leaving them flailing in the verboten territory of the Report itself.

The two hearings need to be considered as one piece; the morning session focused on obstruction.  The afternoon session on the wrongdoing so obstructed.

Sound bites from the hearing---no hoax, not exonerated, no witch hunt.  Collusion was not a thing. For conspiracy, not sufficient evidence was found, but the gathering of the necessary evidence was impeded (lying, encryption, destruction of evidence, obstruction by Trump). Trump boosted Wikileaks, which is the equivalent of a foreign intel/conduit. Trump was not interviewed, because on balance and in consideration of the court fights, Mueller had enough evidence to charge Trump, if OLC permitted. That, will have to wait, until he leaves office. Or, until some other Constitutional remedy comes to bear (guess which one?)

Sometimes we gleaned information from one of Mueller's "can't answer that"...particularly after a series of yes or no answers, he used the can't answer to the question of having Trump's tax returns.  And, of critical importance, the FBI is still investigating if Trump is Kompromat or a Russian agent or asset.  

Gaetz: "Can you state with confidence the Steele dossier was not part of Russia's disinformation campaign?"

Mueller: "With regard to Steele...that's beyond my purview."

So much for the notion that Mueller was charged with investigating the scope of Russian attempts to influence the election.

Mueller just looked old.

Is this what will happen with Biden?  Could he hold up, not just now, but in a year?

It does not matter much what Biden says, but how he says it will be critical.  Will he look old and halting?  I fear he will.   And Kamala can't get her Medicare and other policy acts together and Elizabeth Warren will be too far left....

I have seen talking heads on MSNBC say Nancy should make phone calls to the house members canceling the summer vacation and start impeachment right away.