Democrat politicians should pay a price for Russian collusion hoax

Buck Sexton:

For two years, most of the national news media have been building the case that Donald Trump somehow colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Countless editorials, roundtables, and expert segments all fed the perception that “Russia collusion,” an imprecise narrative shorthand for a nonexistent offense, would inevitably be proven. The left promised the puppet of Vladimir Putin would get his comeuppance in due time.

The problem is that this was all a lie. The biggest “bombshell” stories on Russia collusion reported thus far have all been either duds or outright fakes. The special counsel has yet to, and almost certainly will not, file any charges that prove Trump took part in Russia collusion. The overwhelming likelihood is, at worst, the special counsel report will contain unflattering information about the president and some of his close senior advisers.

Whatever Robert Mueller has, it will not be the coup de grace to end the Trump administration and avenge Hillary Clinton that the mainstream media has assured us was coming since November 2016. Now, with the investigation supposedly ending in a matter of weeks, if not just days, the collusion theorists are scrambling to deal with this reality. In a sane world, a lot of prominent voices on the left, in both politics and media, would be held accountable for stoking such partisan mass hysteria in our country.

How can the same Democrats and journalists who have been alleging for two years, without evidence, that the president is a criminal and a traitor come to terms with the reality of the hoax they have perpetrated out of petty partisan spite? They will not as they already have plans to move on to the next narrative con. This is where “obstruction” comes into play. Democrats have made it clear that, unable to prove the primary charges they used to hobble a presidency for two years, their follow up act will be to open new investigations and chase other charges around obstruction.
...

How does one obstruct an investigation of a nonexistent crime?  I suspect the obstruction investigation is an attempt to avoid accountability for their original hoax with a follow-up hoax. This is an attempt to act like they are on offense when the reality is the opposite.  This is a defensive effort to con their base into continued support even if the real world knows it is bogus.  It is just another bad faith effort.  Those being subpoenaed should challenge the subpoenas in court and refuse to testify before a panel steeped in bad faith.