The Democratic resistance is running at full tilt, making threats and launching investigations of 81 people and enterprises associated -- and some of them not even associated -- with President Trump.

Now naturally the Democratic House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler's out bloviating for the president's impeachment. He believes Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation, telling another cable news network, "It's very clear that the president obstructed justice. It is very clear. 1,100 times he referred to the Mueller investigations as a 'witch hunt.' He tried to protect [Michael] Flynn from being investigated by the FBI. He fired Comey in order to stop the 'Russian thing,' as he told NBC News."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM LAURA INGRAHAM

OK, hold on a second. So now giving one's opinion qualifies as obstruction of justice? Now I don't know what federal criminal law Nadler studied, but my legal background says that is just ludicrous.

Now contrary to what Nadler and company claim, none of this is about exercising their constitutional right to oversight of the executive branch. I want you to understand that it's not about what they say. Document requests? Who needs documents? Why hear testimony? They've already made up their minds.

Mueller, by the way, has spent two years investigating Russia's possible collusion in the 2016 election and it looks like he's come up with nothing. He's issued indictments, called witnesses before the grand jury. He's interviewed more than 40 people. He's reviewed over a million documents, and he's even referred separate matters to the Southern District of New York.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE ENTIRE EPISODE.

Why does Nadler not trust Mueller and his prosecutors, who, already by the way, spent $25 million of taxpayer money on this investigation? Why did they trust him then to get to the bottom of things, since he was the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Nadler is going to almost entirely retill the ground that Mueller has already passed over. But why is Nadler doing this? For the sole purpose of creating a political spectacle and to continue it right up until the last vote is counted in 2020.

Remember, President Nixon was threatened with impeachment for obstruction of justice. President Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice so why is Nadler not moving forward with the articles of impeachment against President Trump immediately? "Before you impeach somebody, you have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen," he has said in interviews.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP.

But isn't that what Nadler has been trying to do with his recent impeachment media tour? He's been trying to convince the public that there are 1,000 reasons to impeach the president, even if he cannot prove a single one.

Meanwhile, the House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal is requesting the President's tax return from the IRS. (Oh,that's a shock.) Nancy Pelosi's spokesman says they will take all necessary steps, including litigation if necessary, to obtain them. What does that have to do with collusion?

This is a political war. All of this that you're seeing around you -- it's meant to undo the president's successes and block his agenda for the next two years. That's what this is all about.

Well, anyway, all of this sends a thrill up the leg of the media resistance, of course. On Monday, the New York Times' editorial page tantalized its readers by predicting a long and painful ordeal for the president and those close to him.

The editorial read, in part: "Political investigations tend to be marathons rather than sprints. With his investigation, Mr. Nadler is looking to build a case for impeachment, so compelling it will have enough bipartisan support to survive the Republican-controlled Senate. Barring that, his investigation will serve to keep the heat on Mr. Trump and perhaps keep the Democratic base at least somewhat placated as the next election approaches."

Ah-hah! At least they admit that this is an entirely politically-motivated attack meant to soften up the president for 2020, and dangle some red meat on a hook for their base. Now, note the wishful thinking. I love that line on the editorial, thinking there will be bipartisan support for impeachment.

Well, can you count that out completely? At a time when Republicans should be bolstering the president's agenda on key issues, some are undermining him. And leadership can't seem to hold it together. On President Trump's national emergency declaration, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "I am hoping the president would not take the national emergency route. And once you decide to do that, I said would support it. But I was hoping he wouldn't take that path."

Well, that's a really bold statement. I was supporting it but hoping he wouldn't take it, meaning he's not going to insist that his members put the real pressure on as he could do on his members.

With all due respect, it is partly Mitch McConnell's fault that the president had to declare a national emergency at all. He and Paul Ryan promised the president when he signed that ridiculous omnibus spending bill last year, that they would get him the funding he needed for the wall, before last year ended, no matter what happened in the election.

But what happened? Well, as we predicted on this show, they didn't do it. McConnell has done a masterful job of getting judges for the Senate, phenomenal on the court, Supreme Court stuff -- all of that. And he can't control how Senator Collins and Murkowski, and people like Senator Rand Paul vote. But he basically signaled to them that their vote against the president on this issue of the national emergency was OK.

My friends, Congress specifically delegated to the president the authority to declare national emergencies. They did it long ago in Sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act. And the president has already invoked his national emergency powers on three occasions, adding to the 28 earlier national emergency measures that remain in effect today.

This is an important point. Congress has never before moved to end a president's emergency declaration -- until now. Now even though New York Times front page on Tuesday painted a grim picture of what's happening at the border -- the Customs and Border Patrol numbers of family units crossing the border was breathtaking. The president must continue to stand firm on this issue and forge ahead against the Chamber of Commerce Republicans who want an endless flow of cheap labor and the open borders Democrats who think they have an endless supply of new voters.

And as for the Democratic impeachment squad, we'll keep unmasking their real motives, you bet. If they cared about the Constitution or the rule of law, they wouldn't have let the border get this out of control in the first place. And they would have demanded that Hillary Clinton and her protectorate pay for their wrongdoing. That's law and order, don't you think?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

This is a political war. All of this that you're seeing around you -- it's meant to undo the president's successes and block his agenda for the next two years. That's what this is all about.

This isn't just harassment of President Trump. It's harassment of the millions of Americans who voted for his agenda, and it's an abuse of the entire democratic process that the Democrats claim to care so much about.

Adapted from Laura Ingraham's monologue from "The Ingraham Angle" on March 5, 2019.