The dissonance is strong with this one...
Top-ranking Democrat, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jerry Nadler did the rounds of Sunday's political shows this morning but it wasn't until he reached the safety of CNN that he decided to unleash his 'facts' in response to the narrative-crushing conclusions reached by special counsel Robert Mueller.
"We know there was collusion," Nadler insisted several times during an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" while shrugging off Mueller's apparent facts - "Why there's been no indictments, we don't know."
While the CNN host did attempt to push back, noting that none of Nadler's 'facts' had warranted an indictment, the Democrat would have none of it, reeling off a list of various events, from The Trump Tower meetings (which have been dismissed by fact patterns numerous times) and the way Trump "pressured the FBI to go easy, to stop investigating Flynn," and Trump firing Comey as evidence of the alleged "collusion."
“Well, there have been obstructions of justice, whether they are - clearly, whether they are criminal obstruction is another question,” Nadler implored...
“But we have - the special prosecutor is limited in scope. His job was limited in scope and limited to crimes. What Congress has to do is look at a broader picture. We are in charge — we have the responsibility of protecting the rule of law, of looking at obstructions of justice, abuses of power, at corruption, in order to protect the rule of law so that our democratic institutions are not greatly damaged by this president.”
Of course, Nadler is not alone. House Intelligence chair Adam Schiff said on ABC's "This Week" Sunday that even if the Mueller report does not recommend any new indictments — as has been reported — that does not necessarily rule out impeachment for President Trump.
STEPHANOPOULOS: "You told the San Francisco chronicle on Friday, if there's no bombshell, there's no impeachment. Does no new indictments qualify as no bombshell?
SCHIFF: "Not necessarily because again, George, as you pointed out, they can't indict the president. That's their policy. And therefore there could be overwhelming evidence on the obstruction issue. And I don't know if that's the case, but if there were overwhelming evidence of criminality on the president's part, then the Congress would need to consider that remedy if indictment is foreclosed."
Quite obviously, this is far from over in the minds of the Russia-gate-ist of Russia-gaters as their entire world construct dissolves around them.