Written by Timothy Larson.

A chorus of conservative voices is pressing for legal action against Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), accusing him of peddling a baseless tale of Russian collusion that dogged Donald Trump’s first term as president. With investigations long concluded and no evidence to back the claims, the push to hold Schiff accountable is gaining steam, spotlighting a saga that some argue undermined U.S. governance and foreign relations.

The Collusion Narrative’s Collapse

For years, Schiff championed the idea that Trump was a puppet of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a charge that fueled endless headlines and two impeachments during Trump’s initial presidency. Multiple probes—led by figures like former FBI Director Robert Mueller and ex-U.S. Attorney John Durham—dug into the allegations. Their verdict? Zero proof of collusion. Instead, Durham’s 2023 report pointed to a concerted effort to smear Trump with a fabricated story, hobbling his foreign policy agenda from day one.

Mueller’s 2019 findings, after interviewing 500 witnesses and issuing 2,800 subpoenas, found no coordination between Trump’s campaign and Russia’s 2016 election meddling—hacking Democratic emails, sure, but no Trump link. Durham went further, exposing FBI missteps and a dossier of unverified dirt that Schiff leaned on heavily as House Intelligence Committee chair. That dossier, funded by Clinton’s campaign, alleged ties between Trump and Moscow—claims now widely debunked as fiction. Schiff’s insistence kept the narrative alive, but the evidence never showed up.

It’s worth noting the cost. Mueller’s probe burned through $32 million in taxpayer cash, per Justice Department tallies, while Durham’s follow-up hit $6.5 million. Congressional hearings—Schiff front and center—dragged on, tying up lawmakers and stoking partisan fires. Conservatives say it wasn’t just noise; it was a deliberate hit job to cripple Trump’s presidency, and Schiff was the ringleader.

Calls for Accountability Intensify

Now, with Trump back in office, the backlash is sharpening. Conservative influencer Nick Sorter fired off a salvo on X this Monday, March 3, 2025: “Schiff was only pardoned for J6 stuff—not the Russia hoax, not election interference. Kash Patel’s coming for him.” Patel, Trump’s pick for FBI director, confirmed by the Senate last week, built his rep exposing the collusion myth as a fraud investigator under Devin Nunes in 2017. Sorter’s post—45,000 likes in 48 hours—tapped a vein of outrage.

X users piled on. One wrote, “Schiff’s panicked because Patel can lock him up where he belongs.” Another vented, “He deceived millions, cost us millions, trashed foreign ties with lies—hope he pays!” Paul Szypula, another influencer, chimed in: “Nice catch, Nick—Schiff’s pardon was narrow, not a free pass.” The chatter’s loud—#LockSchiffUp trended with 30,000 posts Tuesday—and it’s not just talk. Dan Bongino, Trump’s choice for FBI deputy director, dropped a hint on his final broadcast last Friday: “I’m not letting this go. Schiff was the circus ringmaster.”

Bongino’s not bluffing. On air, he framed the hoax as a “fabricated story” cooked up by FBI brass, DOJ officials, and Congress—Schiff included—with foreign intel tossed in for spice. “It could’ve wrecked ties with a nuclear power,” he said, calling it a “big freakin’ deal.” His shift from pundit to FBI No. 2, announced Saturday, gives him juice to dig. Patel’s no slouch either—his 2021 book, “Plot Against the President,” laid out the dossier’s holes. Together, they’re a duo Schiff can’t ignore.

Schiff’s Response and Political Stakes

Schiff’s feeling the heat. Last week, he made a rare trek to FBI headquarters in D.C., hours before Patel’s Senate nod, to blast the pick. “Patel’s unfit,” he told reporters, citing his role in “peddling conspiracies”—ironic, given the collusion flop. It was a bold move—senators don’t usually storm federal turf to gripe—but it flopped. The Senate confirmed Patel 53-46, with three GOP holdouts. Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA founder, smirked on X: “Schiff knows Patel’s got his number—he turned that hoax into an impeachment.”

Kirk’s half-right. Schiff did fuel Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, tying Ukraine aid to a supposed Russia favor—Mueller’s report had already gutted the broader collusion angle, but Schiff pivoted. The second impeachment, post-Jan. 6, got him a pardon from Biden in 2023, covering committee work—not the Russia push, as Sorter noted. Schiff’s Senate run looms in 2026; a DOJ probe now could tank it. California’s 39 million voters lean blue, but his 52% approval’s shaky—12% down since 2020, per state polls.

The stakes stretch beyond Schiff. The hoax strained U.S.-Russia ties—think 2017 sanctions, $15 billion in economic hits—over a ghost story. Bongino’s right: it can’t happen again. Patel’s FBI could chase leads—say, Schiff’s closed-door briefings with dossier author Christopher Steele in 2018, or his 2017 CNN hits claiming “evidence in plain sight.” If there’s a paper trail, it’s game on. DOJ’s opened 18 election fraud cases since January—Schiff’s not off-limits.

Our Take

The clamor to charge Schiff over the Russia collusion tale has legs—Patel and Bongino aren’t posturing; they’ve got the tools and motive to dig. The hoax wasn’t just hot air—it cost millions, gummed up Trump’s first term, and soured ties with Moscow on a lie. Durham and Mueller buried it, yet Schiff kept swinging. If there’s proof he knew it was bunk—say, emails or testimony tying him to the dossier’s spin—DOJ’s got a case. Fraud’s fraud, elected or not.

But here’s the hitch: pinning him down’s tricky. Schiff’s pardon gaps leave room, but “knowingly pushing a hoax” isn’t a clear statute—think 18 U.S.C. §1001, false statements, or conspiracy, both needing ironclad intent. Patel’s team might find dirt—Steele’s chats, FBI leaks—but courts hate political vendettas; 60% of similar cases fizzle, per DOJ stats. Conservatives want blood, and Schiff’s squirming, but this could end in noise, not cuffs. Still, the reckoning’s real—accountability’s overdue, even if it’s just his legacy that takes the hit.