“Mueller’s conclusion was the opposite of what the Democrats were anticipating. Trump was correct when he tweeted, “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION.”

Yet every time I turn on CNN or MSNBC, the insanity hits me right in the face. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, interviewed by Chris Wallace after Mueller's finding of no collusion, had the gall to insist, "We know there was collusion." What is this refusal to accept the conclusion of the special counsel if not Nadler’s attempt to create his own facts? Similarly, Democratic presidential candidate “Beto” O’Rourke tweeted, “You have a president, who in my opinion, beyond the shadow of a doubt, sought to collude with the Russian government.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, speaking on ABC’s This Week, insisted there is “ample evidence of collusion in plain sight.” In fact, he added, “Every act that I’ve pointed to as evidence of collusion has now been borne out by the [Mueller] report.” Did Schiff forget to take his meds? Chris Wallace reminded Schiff on Fox News Sunday that special counsel Robert Mueller failed to find "the kind of coordination" that Schiff claims took place. Schiff tried to sidestep Wallace’s rebuke by using classic doubletalk: “The fact that you may not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a criminal conspiracy doesn't mean there is an absence of evidence of crime." Schiff is ignoring the basis of our legal system that if you can’t prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no crime.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, another deluded member of Congress, continues to insist that the Mueller Report justifies impeaching the president. “We cannot be an America that says it is OK for a president of the United States to try and block an investigation into a foreign attack on our country or an investigation into that president’s own misbehavior—so I have called on the House to initiate impeachment proceedings.” What the hell is Pocahontas raving about? Trump did nothing to impede Mueller’s investigation and actually cooperated on a massive scale. “Some things are bigger than politics,” Warren argued. Yes, senator, how about “some things” such as FACTS?”

Yes, senator, how about “some things” such as FACTS?”

Despite the FACTS and Speaker Pelosi's attempts to restrain her more extreme members, House democrats will probably pull the trigger on impeachment anyway. The consequences for casting a symbolic mark against the man they hate will be dire. The democrats will lose the House (which they won via a handful of moderates) and they will guarantee Donald Trump a second term. I suppose, when one is filled with that much hate, smearing a President with impeachment is too much temptation.

Indeed.  

““If the facts don’t support my position, the hell with the facts.” This could be the rallying cry of today’s progressive liberal Democrats. As he advocates for diversity out of one side of his mouth, the progressive rails against viewpoint diversity—also known as free speech—out of the other. “Diversity” means “it is great to look different as long as you think the way I do.” Whatever you say that contradicts leftist ideology is “hate speech.” The Democrats are using this warped thinking to justify their assault on the facts. If a fact denies the validity of a Democratic talking point, that fact constitutes hate speech and must be relegated to the trash bin.

This is the beginning of totalitarianism.”

I have been recently thinking that Jerry Nadler isn't a Representative but a reincarnation of Torquemada, you know the guy that tortured anyone whom did not believe in Roman Catholicism until they renounced their religion and beliefs in favor of Roman Catholicism for the Spanish in the late 1400s.  Nadler's goal seems to be to force Trump into line by any means necessary and that line is whatever the Democrats ic Party leaders want not what is best for the country.

"We have a clear statement of two pertinent facts from the Mueller Report: (1) There was no Trump-Russia collusion; and (2) There is no basis for a charge of obstruction against the president."

Except that's not at all what the report said, that's what Barr said. Those are two very different things. The Mueller report said there was collusion, they just didn't have any evidence it rose to the level of criminal conspiracy or that those in the Trump campaign giving campaign data and election strategies to Russian operatives knew they were Russian government operatives. Mueller also says that there were 10 clear examples of obstruction and that those around Trump lied to investigators which did in fact keep them from confirming criminal conspiracy, so in effect, the obstruction worked. It kept them from finding direct evidence of Trump knowingly conspiring with the Russians. Instead they show just about everyone around Trump were either unwittingly conspiring, unclear of any illegality of asking for illegally obtained dirt from foreigners (Rudy's still apparently confused on that one) or were simply too stupid to have surreptitiously tried to conspire like the brain dead moron Carter Page.

Democrat revisions of the facts must be resisted.  The was  No collusion, no obstruction.  Period.  

The was  No collusion, no obstruction.  Period.

Seems more like you're trying to convince yourself of that, not us.

We already know it to be fact.  We don’t have to prove innocence.  It is presumed and there is nothing in the report that can change that on either count. 

When Facts Get In the Way—Blame Trump

Now I have to ask: Are we discussing actual facts or alternative facts?

I will attempt to state this nicely. You are aware that Mr. Trump passed the 10k lie marker recently I am sure and yet you assail the Left on truth. How do you square that pray tell?