Americans are now inured to California congressman Adam Schiff as the public face of congressional Democrats' now withering allegations that "collusion" took place between the Trump campaign and Russians during the 2016 presidential election.  Did we all catch that he has a kindred spirit in the Senate?

Virginia's Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has raised his own profile in recent months, insisting to any who will listen that Congress must defend Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation from being shut down, particularly after current Washington "whispers" hinted that President Trump's lawyers want Mueller fired.

In late 2017, Warner went so far as to denounce on the Senate floor anyone calling for the dismissal of Mr. Mueller as "irresponsible and reckless."  He doubled down on those remarks by asserting that "the charges some have made that somehow Democratic political bias has crept in this investigation are baseless given the makeup of the [special counsel's] leadership team."  Earlier in the year, Senator Warner sought to investigate for himself and had his own extensive clandestine contact with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who offered access to former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele.

Most recently, he advocated in a USA Today op-ed that public officials "must … challenge those in our ranks who would put partisan politics over truth" (never a Democrat's "sin," of course) by passing legislation to protect Mueller.  Yet, as an influential senator, he never objectively broached any possible Senate or committee discourse over limits, boundaries, or evidentiary findings for the special counsel, especially given Mueller's dearth of evidence and results after so many months.

Mueller's mandate as special counsel was to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."  It is not to investigate Russian interference in the election and campaigns independently.  Warner has to understand that distinction, yet in his same USA Today commentary to protect Mueller and warn President Trump, he also wrote:

The truth is that Russia attacked us right here at home – not with guns or missiles but through cyber raids and a broad disinformation campaign aimed at undermining our democratic process.

All probably true, but those are not the actions of the Trump campaign, nor is it campaign "collusion" with the Russians.

Mr. Mueller has so far brought charges against four people associated with the Trump campaign, but of those charges, none involves playing a role in a scheme of coordination, conspiracy, or "collusion" with Russians (which by itself may speak to the credibility of "collusion" allegations).  Meanwhile, Senator Warner has conveyed no interest in even interviewing, subpoenaing, or deposing any figures associated with "the dossier," Christopher Steele, the Democrats' campaign, or Fusion GPS.

Mueller has ranged to the faraway Seychelles islands off the coast of East Africa to obtain information on a January 11, 2017 meeting purported to be an effort to establish a back channel between the Trump administration transition team and Russian officials well after the election.  Yet Senator Warner – the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee – couldn't be made to comment on whether the FBI should have kept his committee in the loop on the Uranium One investigation with its clear Russian links to the Democrat candidate.

At the heart of the matter – and maybe most telling – is that after all these months, no one, let alone Senator Warner or Congressman Schiff, among those seeking to mortally wound President Trump politically with their "collusion" allegations has yet provided the American public convincing evidence or even a plausible rationale for "collusion."  Why would the Russians have wanted a President Trump instead of a President Clinton anyway?  What did they stand to gain from "colluding" with President Trump when their gains from a Clinton administration would have been far more easily obtainable?

Is Senator Warner just practicing partisan politics (like his kindred House spirit Schiff), or does he truly believe that Mr. Mueller's mandate is so open-ended that it should not be reasonably subject to expectations of results, time limits, or restraints on the taxpayers' expense?  Neither of those conditions casts Senator Warner in the role of upright statesman.

Is it then fair game for the public to question Senator Warner's motive for protecting Mr. Mueller?  Does he seek to unnecessarily prolong the special counsel's investigation at least through the 2018 midterm elections – or maybe longer – so as to be a political millstone for Republican candidates?  Could it be that Senator Warner is really the one putting "partisan politics over truth"?

Chris J. Krisinger (colonel, USAF ret.) writes on governance and national security topics and lives in Burke, Virginia.

Image: Mark Warner via Flickr.