House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff, a man whose unhealthy obsession with President Donald Trump has become the focal point of his life, inadvertently admitted Monday that he and his team of pseudo investigators have nothing substantive on the president.

He made the admission while speaking with CNN senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that she doesn’t intend to pursue impeachment.

“I’m not for impeachment,” she bluntly said in an interview with The Washington Post published Monday afternoon. “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

Schiff concurred, telling Raju in statements made later that afternoon that “in the absence of very graphic evidence, it would be difficult to get the support of” the GOP-led Senate.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff tells me he agrees with Pelosi on impeachment: “If the evidence isn’t sufficient to win bipartisan support for this, putting the country through a failed impeachment isn’t a good idea.” — Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 11, 2019

Schiff added: “I think given how polarized the country is right now and given how the Republican members of Congress have prostrated themselves right now in front of the president, in the absence of very graphic evidence, it would be difficult to get the support of” the Senate — Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 11, 2019

This unwitting admission provoked surprise among conservatives who’ve been hearing Democrats and their media allies clamor nonstop that Trump most certainly committed certain unnamed (and unidentified) crimes and must therefore be impeached for these mysterious crimes:

Hasn’t that grifter been peddling “evidence” of collusion for two years? — Smoking Man (@CGBSpender8874) March 11, 2019

Thank you @AdamSchiff and co for leading us on a wild goose chase the last 2 and a half years. — Peter Anderson (@petemanderson1) March 12, 2019

The sign of a defeated man!! @AdamSchiff — CHIPICKS???? (@chipicks1) March 11, 2019

Wait @RepAdamSchiff! I’m so darn confused. I thought YOU SAID you had long list of mounting evidence… that there is proof. That’s what you said… publicly… repeatedly. Was that NOT the truth?!? — ??FORMER DEMOCRAT?? (@FormerDemocrat2) March 12, 2019

What happened @RepAdamSchiff? You had absolute proof. Could it be you’ve been lying for two years? — Tonya (@watchingfoxes) March 12, 2019

Hey @RepAdamSchiff, you’ve been telling EVERYONE since day1that you have plenty of evidence! Sssssup -> It’ll Be Difficult to Impeach Without ‘Very Graphic Evidence’ https://t.co/gJ3o22GbeL via @BreitbartNews — Joe D #WAR (@joeinthejeep) March 12, 2019

Just weeks earlier House Financial Services Committee chair Maxine Waters again reiterated her long-held belief that Trump is a criminal mastermind guilty of committing so-called high crimes.

“As you know I have been looking at this president before he was inaugurated, and I came out early talking about impeachment because I knew all about Manafort and Flynn and Sater and all of these people,” she said at the time to MSNBC host and mea culpa expert Chris Hayes.

Waters never once raised a single concern about then-businessman Trump before he announced his candidacy for office in the summer of 2015. Moreover, the conviction of Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had zero to do with him. Flynn’s conviction was based on “process crimes,” while Manafort’s was based on shady actions he took years before he joined the president’s campaign.

As for Felix Sater, he’s a Russian-born real estate executive and longtime government informant who once worked with Cohen on an innocuous project to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. The lawyer’s convictions are unrelated to this deal.

Listen to Waters below:

HERE’S WHAT YOU’RE MISSING …

And regarding Schiff, after The New York Times ran a spurious report last year accusing Trump of having engaged in “suspect tax schemes” sometime in the past, he boasted to the media that there’s a legal precedent for impeaching the sitting president over past criminal activity.

Though over a year has passed since the Times ran its report and Schiff made his remarks, the president still hasn’t been charged with any crimes, let alone convicted.

Now flash back to early December, just a month or so after the Democrats retook the House.

“Top House Democrats have raised the prospect of impeachment or the real possibility of prison time for President Donald Trump if it’s proved that he directed illegal hush money payments to women, adding to the legal pressure on the president over the Russia investigation and other scandals,” the Associated Press reported at the time.

“There’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him, that he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time,” Schiff himself said at the time. “The bigger pardon question may come down the road as the next president has to determine whether to pardon Donald Trump.”

Only three months have passed since he made these remarks, and yet here he is now admitting there’s no “graphic evidence” of Trump committing any crimes. Why the change of heart? Could it be because these investigations have never been about justice but rather about winning elections?

Some of the president’s associates and supporters have warned that if Democrats prioritize harassing Trump over pursuing meaningful legislation, it could and will likely backfire on them by spurring the American people to hand the House back over to the Republicans.

Too late. The unfair treatment of President Trump has already angered his supporters. We WILL re-elect him in 2020. #Trump2020 Trump camp warns Dems that their barrage of abusive probes could boomerang https://t.co/2nenuwfEHP — KimOh (@kohlweiler) March 11, 2019

And lo and behold, Pelosi and Schiff have suddenly decided to steer away from the path of impeachment. Is it just a coincidence, or is there more to this?

HERE’S WHAT YOU’RE MISSING …