In addition to the significant contribution to Orwellian left-wing Newspeak, the terms "active collusion" and "passive collusion" suggest that there is another side to the "collusion." Which one? The answer is provided by the Mueller Report (there is also a convenient searchable WikiLeaks version ). Starting on page 144, the Mueller Report begins to resemble a good comedy script. It turns out that immediately after Trump's victory in the November 8, 2016 elections, the Putin administration was trying to establish contact with the newly elected president by hook or by crook.

Following the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report by Attorney General William Barr, an unusual television interview was held by former President Obama's director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. A fantastic phrase came from his mouth: "If there was no active collusion proven, then I think what we have here is a case of passive collusion."

Mueller's report tells us that on election night (at 3 A.M.!), Trump's press secretary, Hope Hicks, received a call from an unknown person. Her correspondent, in very bad English, said something to her, but she understood only the word "Putin." She asked him to send all of what he told her by e-mail. The next day, she received an email from Sergei Kuznetsov, who turned out to be an employee of the Russian embassy in Washington. The letter was sent from his private (!) Google Mail account. The letter was congratulations to Trump from Putin.

Hicks questioned the authenticity of the letter and decided to consult with Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Kushner recommended an inquiry at the Russian embassy, but it turned out that he did not even know the name of the Russian ambassador in Washington. They eventually learned the name of the Russian ambassador through some acquaintances and contacted him, and only after that did Trump get informed of Putin's congratulations.

It was the supposed "conspiracy" between them.

I am at a loss to answer the question of whether this conspiracy was "active" or "passive," but, as Mueller's investigation showed, there were no other suspicious contacts between Putin and Trump — neither before nor after the election. There were also no secret communication channels. There was no coordination of joint action. There was an attempt by the Russian intelligence services to penetrate Trump's campaign headquarters before the elections, but this attempt failed. (However, the Russian attempt to penetrate Hillary Clinton's campaign headquarters was a success.)

The tumultuous activities of the Russian side (again, I do not know what exactly in the Newspeak they were — "active" or "passive") began immediately after the elections. The Kremlin realized that he had put the wrong horse (Russia was working against Clinton and Trump, trying to bring 75-year-old communist Bernie Sanders to power in America) and decided to improve relations with the new administration.

Mueller's investigators found that it was not only Putin's entourage trying to establish such contacts, but also major Russian businessmen. According to Peter Aven, the head of Russia's largest Alfa Bank (and who was interrogated by Mueller's team), Putin complained that he could not manage to establish any contact with the new president's team. According to Aven, Putin bitterly stated that the Kremlin does not even know whom to contact to get to Trump or someone close to him.

That such Putin puppet was Trump.

Mueller's report also tells of other desperate attempts by numerous Russian citizens to establish contacts with Trump and his inner circle after the 2016 elections. There were attempts by Kirill Dmitriev, a major Russian financier; the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak; Sergey Gorkov, the head of the Russian state-owned Vnesheconombank; and also Peter Aven. All of these attempts remained just that: attempts.

It seems that both the U.S. intelligence services, under the leadership of Obama, who worked against Trump in 2016, and the Russian intelligence services under the leadership of Putin, who also worked against Trump, are flooded with idiots. It is still unknown if they are active or passive idiots.

The entire Mueller Report is written in such a way that it becomes immediately apparent that it is not designed for the one to whom it was originally intended by law: the U.S. attorney general. It is clearly intended not for a legal, but a political effect from its publication. This farce with the Mueller investigation had purely political goals from the very beginning.

The Mueller Report goes on to say the bulk of the investigative work — interrogation of several accused and numerous witnesses — was completed around the end of summer of 2018. In other words, the absence of corpus delicti was known to Mueller's team a few months before the November 2018 election. Nevertheless, Mueller remained silent and allowed the "Russiagate" card to play against the Republicans in the midterm elections, as it was intended to by the Democrats, and allowed them to seize the majority in the House of Representatives.

Then, in 2018, the idea of fictitious "active collusion" was being exaggerated by the Democrats, and now, on the eve of the elections of 2020, from their point of view, the time of "passive collusion" has come.

Do the Democrats know that the publication of the Mueller Report is a catastrophe for them? Perhaps the Democrats would prefer to use the word "Nakba," which is better known to their current electorate, instead of the word "catastrophe."

Gary Gindler, Ph.D. is a conservative blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles. Follow him on Twitter.