I’m going to do something I don’t usually do. I’m going to agree with Nancy Pelosi. Nancy, Chuck — and a few others who got the memo — said Sunday that Attorney General William Barr’s summary of Robert Mueller’s findings “raises more questions than it answers.” It does.

But before we get to that, we have to say over and over again, the findings did answer the one question that mattered. The one question this whole stinky bag of business was supposed to answer: Did Trump collude with Russia? The answer to that question is a definitive No. Or in deference to Hillary’s collaborators on the Steele Dossier, “Nyet.”

What’s hysterical is just how many Democrats on Capitol Hill swore up and down there was proof and evidence of collusion. Even earlier Sunday, Rep. Jerry Nadler was saying, “We know there was collusion. Why there have been no indictments we do not know.” Rep. Nadler’s the guy who’s dragging in 81 White House officials, Trump associates and family members (to start) to find that one morsel of allegation he can turn into an impeachment. Or at least ruin the staffers’ lives in the process.

I am expecting a subpoena from Nadler ordering a seance with my late mother-in-law to see if there was anything nefarious about her meeting Trump at the Beverly Hills Hotel 10 years ago. “Did he take more than one mint when leaving the Polo Lounge? America demands answers!”

The Ghost of Journalism

Speaking of seances, what are we supposed to do about the Ghost of Journalism? I know Hannity likes to say “Journalism is dead.” But when is its ghost going to haunt those who toil and soil today’s newsrooms? Now that this Mueller Report has put a stake through the heart of the hoax, all of them from Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews to Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin, should be terrorized at their terminals like Tony Goldwyn in Ghost.

For two-plus years, we were hammered 24/7 with “Trump-Russia Collusion.” Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell promised collusion with the earnestness of a randy teen’s promise of love. And like lovestruck girls, the Resisters fell.

Oh, Schiff. You sucked up more airtime than diet commercials after New Years insisting you had the evidence. And when questioned by Tucker Carlson about that evidence, you accused Tucker of doing Putin’s bidding. Even for a lawyer … and a politician … that is sleazy.

What more can you say about Schiff? Plenty. But for the moment, let’s just say if he were in Ireland, St. Patrick would drive him out.

Then There’s Clapper and Brennan

And then there’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan. Both have been making bank as contributors to CNN and MSNBC. You know what they contributed? To the deliberate effort to undermine the President of the United States.

Take Clapper. Barely more than a week ago he was predicting Mueller would drop more indictments. Sure, he claimed he didn’t have inside knowledge. Except, when you are the former DNI, that’s exactly why people watch you. You’re the man. You’re in the know. You’ve got secrets and people still on the inside. Raise the hopes of the Resistance. Raise the ratings. Wink-wink.

Same with Brennan. He just got done predicting a “significant number” of additional indictments out of Mueller, insinuating the Trump kids would be among them. One word for Brennan: “Projection.”

Clapper said something Sunday that blew my mind. He told CNN that when he left government service in 2017 there was “no proof” Trump had colluded with Russia. This wasn’t what Capitol Hill and the media were being told. The Steele dossier was “100% true,” CIA agents told the musician Moby, asking him to spread the fact on his vast social media. Former Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas spoke of the “frantic desire” of the Obama White House to spread the Trump-Russia narrative.

The only reason CNN started talking about Trump and Russia in January 2017 was because Clapper (or someone close) leaked that FBI director James Comey had met with Trump about the Steele Dossier. CNN had the dossier. They knew it was trash, but were awaiting a news hook to give them the excuse to run with it. And the Obama Administration served it up like pancakes at IHOP.

Clapper, Comey, Brennan meet at the White House with President Obama, Susan Rice, Sally Yates and a few others about Russia … and Trump. Clapper and Comey decide (afterwards, they say) that Comey will tell President-elect Trump just about the “salacious details” of the dossier.

Comey flies to New York for a “secret” meeting with Trump. By the time Comey reaches the atrium of Trump Tower, CNN knows about the meeting. They have their hook and they threw that hook right into Trump’s flesh.

By this point, remember that Peter Strzok has been investigating Trump-Russia collusion for about five months and he has found zero evidence of it. Comey doesn’t know that? Clapper doesn’t know that? Of course they do. And yet they’re party to CNN unleashing the dossier and the hell that followed.

Yes, the Barr Letter Raises Questions

Which gets to just some of the questions raised by the Barr letter and Mueller investigation:

• When will the MSM see the wrath from the Trump-haters for having been played them for suckers?
• What consequence will there be for those lawmakers who flat out lied?
• What will be the consequences for the former Obama administration officials who took part in the charade?
• When will we know exactly when this Trump-Russia hoax started? Devin Nunes says the House Intelligence Committee has evidence it started in late 2015-early 2016. (In other words, when Carter Page was still an FBI asset and George Papadopoulos was a young go-getter who hadn’t gotten much of anywhere. Meaning, the claim Page or Papadapoulos’s activities ignited the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign would be a lie.)
• If Nunes is right, why would we believe Donald Trump was the only GOP candidate targeted?

Robert Mueller determined the Trump campaign did not conspire with the Russians, despite many Russians offering to help. Given Mueller’s earlier determination that Russia’s efforts involved messing with both sides, did Russians also offer to help Hillary’s campaign?

Did they accept the help?

The Rice Email

Many more questions arise from the Barr Letter. But we’ll close with another letter. More specifically an email. Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice sent herself a bizarre email just minutes after Trump was inaugurated. It had to do with that January 5 White House meeting … the one that sent Comey scurrying to Trump Tower. A meeting leaked within minutes to Clapper’s friends at CNN. A leak that started Trump-Russia media mania. A mania that has cost this country two precious years and hampered the presidency of the man everyone in that White House meeting wanted to block.

Rice wrote:

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book’. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

In light of the fact Strzok had found zero evidence of collusion by this time — and Mueller after two years hasn’t found a hint of it — why limit what Trump knew?

Did Comey and Clapper decide without Obama’s knowledge not to wait the “few weeks,” but immediately limit the knowledge being shared?

Did Susan Rice see the CNN report and the explosion of “Trump-Russia collusion” stories and panic? She knew there was no evidence of collusion. She knew the sources for the stories knew there was no evidence for it. And she knew eyes would eventually turn to the January 5 meeting. Did she write the email to cover her tush … and try to cover Obama’s?

In light of what we know, can anyone argue that anything was done “by the book”?

Can we begin to admit that Obama’s order that things be done “by the book” had all the legitimacy of Col. Jessup’s order in A Few Good Men that “Santiago as not to be touched.” (Didn’t see the movie? A second secret order was given by Jessup. Santiago was given a “Code Red” and died.)

The Russia Hoax has been put to bed, maybe now we can concentrate on who ordered this “Code Red.” Or should we say “Code Orange”?