It will likely be many months before the dust fully settles from the “no collusion” bomb dropped by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, but one inescapable truth emerged almost immediately: Never have so many been so wrong about so much for so long.

From members of Congress to a broad segment of the media to assorted academics, intelligence experts and lawyers, Mueller’s finding that no evidence existed to prove collusion or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives demolished their narrative that somehow American voters were duped by a foreign power into supporting a presidential candidate.

Mueller and dozens of seasoned attorneys and investigators spent more than two years and upwards of $30 million to reach a conclusion that Donald Trump’s election in 2016 was a legitimate and fairly reached decision, that his campaign did not enter into a surreptitious arrangement with Russian agents to influence the outcome.

In those two years, the American people were bombarded by media reports that Trump’s election was tainted by a nefarious plot with a longtime and bitter enemy.

Major television networks joined leading national newspapers in a barrage of “bombshell” revelations purporting to prove that highly placed Trump campaign officials eagerly sought the help of  Russian operatives to swing the election. That several of the “bombshells” turned out to have all the power of a wet firecracker was no deterrent and the relentless pursuit of even greater and often poorly-sourced erroneous reports merely provided  Trump more opportunities to gleefully ridicule “fake news.”

Members of Congress tripped over one another in their haste for facetime on cable and network shows, sharing their views with political and media figures of the same mindset — Trump was an illegitimate president whose election was fraudulent and, as a result, should be impeached.

Words like treason, betrayal and Putin’s puppet were tossed around recklessly along with predictions of indictments and prison terms.

With the release of the Mueller report, the house of collusion collapsed.

That faction of the media that played a prominent role in promoting the collusion narrative responded by insisting it had nothing to apologize for and that its reporting was in the noblest tradition of journalism and the First Amendment.

It sounded like a collective guilty conscience or  an effort to disguise embarrassment, but it was in keeping with the principle that being in the media means never having to say you’re sorry.

Not surprisingly, many saw it was an institutional failure, that the media had lost its way in its zeal to punish a president they believed was unfit for the office.

Confidence in the news media declined steadily accompanied by rising doubts about its truthfulness.  Polls showed a majority of Americans believed the media guilty of deliberate distortions in furtherance of an anti-Trump agenda.

It was not the media’s finest hour. Too often basic rules were ignored or bent.  That bright line separating speculation from reality, opinion from fact, was extinguished. Personal or partisan agendas were presented as legitimate news.

Corrections or clarifications were offered grudgingly if at all and had little impact on reports which had already gone viral, rocketing around the world and repeated through millions of social media posts.

Without question, judgments were flawed, mistakes made and errors committed, but characterizing the media’s actions as an institutional failure is an overreaction, a kneejerk response to cast blame for unfavorable coverage.

There was, and still is, a considerable body of  solid news reporting and insightful commentary; unfortunately drowned out by the raucous voices arguing over reports that are not solid and commentary that lacks insight.

There will be no mea culpas from the media, but the industry’s leaders would do well to engage in some serious introspection.

For those members of Congress who pursued the collusion narrative with Inspector Javert-like intensity, the Mueller report was a deep disappointment, but they recovered quickly and reacted as if the findings meant little.

California Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for instance, continued to insist he had uncovered indisputable evidence of collusion, although he said he accepted Mueller’s conclusion there was insufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy.

Schiff never shared his findings with Mueller  and his repeated allegations have seriously undermined his credibility.  His California colleague, Congressman Eric Swalwell seems intent on reaching new heights of foolishness by insisting that regardless of Mueller’s findings, he knows Trump is guilty, but — like Schiff — offers no rationale for his view.

The Democratic Congressional leadership quickly understood the devastating blow the Muller report had dealt to their party and — more importantly — the enormous public relations victory it handed Trump.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi quickly announced it was time to move on, change the subject and put the collusion issue behind them.  Democrats, she said, would concentrate on more important issues, starting with health care and protecting the Affordable Care Act from the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle it.

It would be in her best interest to rein in Schiff and Swalwell who continue to use their media access to promote the collusion theory. She understands the risk of a damaging overreach that  will lead inevitably to a public backlash.

By word and deed, Trump has alienated  much of the country, but, for many, the Mueller report settled the issue.

As is his custom, Trump turned to exaggeration and hyperbole to claim total vindication and belabor his opponents, scornfully and insultingly.

Winston Churchill once advised world leaders to be gracious in defeat and magnanimous in victory.  Trump is neither; he needs enemies like the rest of us need oxygen.

If Schiff and Swalwell continue to roam free, however, the Democratic Party will appear as a bunch of vindictive, revenge-filled hyper-partisans refusing to accept the findings of an individual they spent two years praising as scrupulously fair and the embodiment of integrity simply because his conclusions aren’t what they wanted them to be.

Continuing to confront Trump on his turf will accomplish little.  He is vulnerable; he is unpopular in many regions of the country and Democrats would serve themselves well to take advantage of his weaknesses on issues that matter most to the American people — health care, immigration, infrastructure, taxes, deficit spending, the country’s standing in the world.

Swapping insults isn’t on the list.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton university.