In other words, if the original charge proves to be baseless, the complainants will invariably lower the threshold of guilt so that even a lesser transgression will be sufficient to condemn the accused.

The ridiculously long, drawn out, overdone "Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election" investigation proves an ages-old political maxim: the benchmark of proof that a political accusation has to satisfy in order to be considered true will constantly change as the needs of the accuser shift in response to new information.

President Trump is the latest example of that. Let's be candid here — everything about President Trump is anathema to the Democrats.

He beat Hillary Clinton, depriving the Democrats of boasting how they elected the country's first female president.

He is direct, unequivocal, and absolute in his policy pronouncements, eschewing the usual "nod-nod, wink-wink" of Washington speak. What makes it even worse is that President Trump's policy pronouncements are conservative, and his direct, clear-meaning speech rips the cover off years of oh, so carefully developed liberal deceptions.

President Trump calls out the Democrat-sympathetic liberal media for who they are, enraging his enemies for not rolling over and meekly accepting mistreatment at the hands of his liberal opponents the way his milquetoast Republican predecessors did.

His policies — the withdrawal from the Paris Accords, his dismissal of the Iranian nuclear agreements, his tough stance regarding NATO paying its fair share, his position on border security and illegal immigration, his desire for greater domestic American energy production, the re-negotiation of international trade agreements to be more advantageous to this country, and many others — are so blatantly pro-American and popular with the average voter that the supposedly sophisticated liberal Democratic intelligentsia are infuriated over the way his approach resonates in such a positive, commonsense manner with so many people.

Therefore, with Democrats unable to accept Trump's 2016 victory (no surprise, really, in light of how they and the liberal media refused to accept George W. Bush's election victory over Gore in 2000 or Bush's defeat of John Kerry in 2004, blaming that on Ohio voting irregularities and unscrupulous, deceptive "Swiftboating" attacks), the Democratic Party desperately searched for a reason to explain Hillary's defeat, a reason they could take to the general public and convince them that Trump's election win was illegitimate. At the best, the Democrats hoped to somehow delegitimize his victory, and have it voided (by some vague, never explained, nonexistent legal mechanism); at the very least, they hoped to sully him so badly that they'd force a disgraced resignation or completely torpedo any possibility of his re-election in 2020.

Hence, the Mueller investigation was born. It's not necessary to recount here the questionable basis on which the investigation was founded, the highly partisan make-up of the roster of "impartial" investigators, or the blatantly improper legal procedures that were swept under the rug by both the Mueller panel and the liberal media (such as the erroneously granted, baseless FISA warrants). These are all well known and have been documented before in great detail.

But what is fascinating is that now that the Mueller report has come to the conclusion that there is no justification for any further indictments of anyone (including President Trump) for reasons of Russia collusion or obstruction of justice, the Democrats are rewriting the rules of the game as to what they can sell as "guilt" to the public.

Their first move is to discredit Attorney General William Barr as some unreliable agent of President Trump, appointed simply to do Trump's political bidding. CNN, a reliable Democratic media ally, was quick to label Barr's summation of the Mueller Report as "Barr's version," dripping with the implication that it was not to be believed, that the "real truth" lies elsewhere.

Next, the Democrats have demanded the release of the full, unredacted report. Buried in its dense, legal meanderings, the Democrats hope to find several "aha!" passages that they hope will confirm beyond question President Trump's absolute, undeniable guilt of impeachment-worthy crimes.

There are likely none, and the Democrats undoubtedly know that. But they will lower the bar of what constitutes an inexcusable crime (at least to them) and will trumpet their "discovery" to the public — via the ever helpful liberal media — in their vain, pitiable hopes to keep the Trump-collusion matter alive and thus boost the Democrats' presidential electoral prospects in 2020.

The Adam Schiffs and Jerrold Nadlers of the world — reflecting the emotionally unhinged, almost maniacally obsessed refusal of their hardest-core constituents to accept President Trump as the legitimately elected president of the country—will never let the matter go and accept that the facts of the so-called Russia collusion incident point only to its nonexistence.

Instead, cheered on and encouraged by CNN, MSNBC, the N.Y. Times and WaPo, NPR, and all their obedient foot soldiers like Jim Acosta, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Cuomo, the Democrats will continue to shift and adjust downward the standards needed to cry "Guilty!" in the Russia matter.

The goalposts are being moved closer and closer. At some point, the most rank amateur kicker — even an 11-year-old Pee Wee league player — can make a 3-yard field goal. However, a Pee Wee–league field goal doesn't count in the NFL. That's where we are now.