It is time to move on.

Robert S. Mueller III spent two years painstakingly investigating President Donald Trump. The president and his 2016 campaign stood accused of colluding with the Russian government to hurt Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and gain advantage in the race.

Nothing supports the charge, as concluded in Mueller's 448-page report:

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Good. We would not want a president who criminally colludes. That would be tragic.

Mueller simultaneously investigated suspicions Trump obstructed justice by trying to interfere in collusion inquiries.

As seen with former President Richard Nixon, even a president's political allies will not support criminal activity by the government's chief executive and commander-in-chief. There is too much at stake.

We remained open to the possibility of criminal corruption, even after Attorney General William Barr gave the public an optimistic Cliff's Notes summary of Muller's report. We knew the truth would be in details, not a sweeping and simplified summary by one man close to the president.

Today, like millions of other Americans, we have seen the report. We have consumed exhaustive media analysis of the report. If this were a novel, it would not sell.

Mueller's report reveals nothing that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors that would lead to prosecution or an honest case for impeachment.

A good chunk of the media do not care about Mueller's true findings. They hoped for a negative outcome, reporting the findings as if their wish had come true.

A "news" report by The New York Times early Tuesday pulled a piece of the report that supposedly blows the lid off a conversation revealing obstruction. The excerpt, which Americans have known of for two years, explains how Trump called then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation.

Sessions, as most know, declined the request and kept his job for the next 18 months. He offered his resignation, but Trump refused to accept it. The Times used this well-known account to pretend Mueller found obstruction.

"The president wanted an attorney general who would shield the president, and his efforts to put Mr. Sessions back in charge of the Russia investigation showed he actively interfered in Mr. Session's recusal as a possible act of obstruction."

If merely asking someone to reconsider a decision amounts to "obstruction," then The New York Times lives on a distant planet with a different set of laws.

One can say it was rude to call Sessions. One can say it made Sessions uncomfortable. Anyone can classify Trump's request as inappropriate. It is not, by any stretch, a case of criminal obstruction. It is not evidence of a crime Trump needed to hide. It likely shows a man embattled by allegations, wanting to get past them.

Other ostensible examples of obstruction, which Mueller refused to charge for lack of evidence, mostly tell us what we know. Trump has no filter between his brain and his mouth. He crosses boundaries and speaks extemporaneously. This costs him friends. Some call it buffoonery. It does not amount to corruption.

Mainstream journalists and other liberal Democrats are blowing up Mueller's unwillingness to "exonerate" Trump on obstruction. Exoneration is not the job of an investigative prosecutor. It is the job of juries, and only when prosecutors bring charges they cannot prove. In this tale, we have no charges. That makes exoneration mute.

Mueller conducted an honest and thorough investigation that came to one indisputable conclusion: Trump says and does things that raise suspicions and undermine his stature. We all knew that long ago. It is not news; it is not a crime.

Our country does not flourish in a state of perpetual scandal for the sake of political gridlock. It is time to move past this and allow the system to work for the benefit of all. Those who dislike Trump should get busy taking him out the old-fashioned way — by voting him out of office next year.

REPRINTED FROM THE COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE