If there is no Russian interference there is no reason to investigate any collusion obviously. The investigation into the collusion that you admit is in progress presupposes the Russian interference in the election to support Trump. The FBI and all of the intelligence chiefs of the CIA, the NSA, etc. agreed that the Russians were interfering in the election to try to get Trump elected. These are not political hacks, they relayed the conclusions of the professional intelligence officers.
The Russian troll farms are still supporting Trump even up to today. The investigation is continuing to determine the questions above.
The investigation is still in progress so all of these could be taken into account. If you read the report I referred to,
'High probability' as defined means not definite.
See
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
page 23
You apparently can believe anything that makes you feel better. You seem to be heavily invested in the highly unlikely possibility that there was no interference in the 2016 election by the Russians to support Trump.
The high probability that the Russians interfered in the election to elect Donald Trump makes me sick. Even today I can't fully accept the possibility that the Trump campaign would be so stupid as to help the Russians. This is treason. What makes this a possibility for me is the fact that no one in the Trump campaign called the FBI when they found out that the Russians had dirt on Clinton that they were offering to the campaign.
My statement that Trump is failing to protect us from the actions of a foreign enemy is based on the high probability that the Russian government interfered in the election to elect Trump. This is a much higher standard than the minimum that I would expect the president, any president to act on to protect us. Your statements imply that Obama should have waited for an even higher standard of certainty before he acted to impose sanctions against the Russians because that is what Trump is doing. Is this what you believe?
I am afraid that you are confusing "probability" with "possibility." It reminds me of what a statistics teacher told us to understand the difference between the quantitative term "probability" and the qualitative term "possibility."
"The living live with the possibility of dying while the dying deal with the probability of dying."
As a legal term the closest we get is a "reasonable probability" in which there is “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome” had the proposition been known. It is reasonable to define a high probability as "a probability sufficient to have confidence in the outcome."
The report does not produce confirmation of anything.
This will have to do for this discussion because no where in the report you cited did they say that a high probability was "not definite."