🏛️ Fact vs. Fiction: Rep. Kiley Systematically Dismantles Years of Collusion Claims with Mueller’s Own Report
Special Counsel John Durham Confirms Schiff and Nadler Statements Unsubstantiated by Official Findings in Explosive Hearing
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The House Judiciary Committee hearing room was the stage for a dramatic and clinical dismantling of years of highly publicized political rhetoric. Congressman Kevin Kiley (R-CA), armed with only two things—direct quotes from Democratic leaders and the official conclusions of the Mueller Report—systematically exposed the cavernous gap between public pronouncements and documented evidence regarding the Trump-Russia investigation.
The session featured Special Counsel John Durham, whose own investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Trump campaign probe was the scheduled topic. However, Kiley strategically used Durham’s presence to measure the past statements of key Democrats—namely Representatives Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler—against the conclusions of the prior investigation led by Robert Mueller. The result was a series of confirmations that effectively reduced years of political claims to speculation.
The Schiff Statements: ‘Conspiracy in Plain Sight’
Kiley began by reading aloud several definitive statements made by Representative Adam Schiff in 2017 and 2018, when Schiff was a prominent voice alleging coordination with Russia:
“The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help.”
“There’s clear evidence on the issue of collusion.”
“I think there’s plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.”
Kiley then posed a direct, unembellished question to Special Counsel Durham: “Are those statements supported by the conclusions of the Mueller report?”
Durham’s answer was concise and powerful: “No.”
.
.
.
Kiley repeated the question to ensure clarity for the record, receiving the same definitive negation: “I don’t believe so.”
This exchange underscored the central issue that has plagued the investigation’s aftermath: while the Mueller Report found numerous contacts and did not exonerate the president on obstruction, its central finding was that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Schiff’s public declarations were therefore shown to be unsupported by the very investigation he frequently referenced.
Nadler’s ‘Obvious Collusion’ Falls Silent
Kiley shifted focus to Representative Jerry Nadler, the Ranking Member of the committee, who had also made similarly strong public assertions:
“It’s clear that the campaign colluded and there’s a lot of evidence of that.”
“There was obviously a lot of collusion.”
Again, Kiley presented the quotes to Durham and asked if they were validated by Mueller’s findings.
Durham’s response remained consistent: “I don’t believe they [are] supported by the Mueller report.”
This systematic presentation of evidence neutralized the years-long narrative pushed by senior Democratic figures. Kiley’s method—coldly objective, using their own words against the official record—prevented the typical procedural deflection, leaving the quoted members exposed to the facts.
The Legitimate President and The Credibility Crisis
Kiley further pressed the point, citing statements from other Democratic representatives, including a 2017 press release by Rep. Ted Lieu, which suggested they “may have an illegitimate president of the United States currently occupying the White House.”
“Did the Mueller report establish that we had a illegitimate president occupying the White House?” Kiley asked Durham.
“Not to my knowledge,” Durham replied.
The cumulative effect of these exchanges was devastating to the credibility of the earlier political claims. Kiley’s approach was a masterclass in evidentiary presentation: by asking Special Counsel Durham to merely confirm the absence of specific claims in Mueller’s official report, he demonstrated that the most aggressive public rhetoric surrounding the investigation was built on speculation, not the facts as determined by the Justice Department.
Exposing the Context of the Durham Report
Kiley concluded by refuting two key Democratic attacks aimed at the relevance of the Durham Report itself:
The Timing: Ranking Member Nadler suggested Durham’s testimony was politically motivated by the recent indictments against President Donald Trump. Kiley established that Durham received his special counsel assignment in 2020, before the events alleged in the recent indictments, confirming that his appearance was likely customary following the report’s issuance, regardless of other political events.
The Public Statement Policy: Schiff had questioned Durham’s public statement made during the investigation, suggesting it violated DOJ policy. Kiley highlighted an article confirming that Mueller’s office also made public statements disputing a media report during their probe, placing both special counsels on “equal footing” regarding the practice.
The hearing, thus, accomplished more than just reviewing the Durham Report; it served as a final confrontation between the pervasive political narrative of “collusion in plain sight” and the sober, documented reality of the justice system’s official findings. Kiley’s successful use of simple, factual questions underscored the profound difference between political messaging and legal proof, marking a definitive, though politically uncomfortable, moment of reckoning for the years of rhetoric that followed the 2016 election.
