I said I would accept whatever conclusion that special counsel Robert Mueller III reached regarding whether Donald Trump “colluded” with Russians who attacked our election in2016.

He has delivered his verdict: There is no evidence of collusion, no evidence of obstruction of justice.

I accept his findings. I do so not because I am happy about what the special counsel has determined. I accept it because I believe implicitly in Mueller’s thoroughness, his integrity, his professionalism.

Do I believe this is the end of the line for those who still question the president’s motivation? Does this mean there’s nothing to questions about whether Trump is profiting from dealings with foreign leaders and governments? Uh, no on both counts.

But . . . Mueller’s findings, which he delivered to Attorney General William Barr this past Friday, have cleared the president of criminal behavior as it regards collusion or obstruction of justice.

On that score, I welcome the news that the president of the United States did not work in tandem with a hostile foreign power to influence the outcome of a presidential election.

However, my acceptance of Mueller’s findings notwithstanding, I want to challenge the assertion that Trump made that the authorities need to look at “the other side.” He means Democrats and their 2016 presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mr. President, they have looked carefully at Clinton, at Democrats and others on their side of the aisle. The FBI drew the same type of conclusion that Mueller has just delivered: no criminality.

There’s more investigating to be done, by Congress and by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.

Mueller’s work is done. Good. He’s earned some time off.

I’ll just add that although he says there was “no collusion” or “no obstruction,” Mueller has not — contrary to what the president has said via Twitter — provided “total exoneration.”

More to come.