Is there reasonable doubt? The Memo

I don’t understand how Democrats can say some of the things they do, take for example Sen Amy Klobuchar here (https://www.facebook.com/amyklobuchar/videos/10154927798211191/). 

They truly are playing political games and ignoring the facts. I agree that interpretation can vary, based on your world view. However some facts do insist upon close scrutiny. The “Memo” (a left leaning analysis here https://www.npr.org/2018/02/02/582828461/fact-check-read-the-gop-memo-released-by-house-intelligence-committee) had some basic facts that are basically universally accepted:

• 1) The dossier, which had no verifiable information just salacious innuendo, was compiled by an ardent anti Trump agent (desperate to prevent a Trump Presidency) through the paid request of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign “to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia”. In the FISA court applications, this was not revealed, though it was known to the agents. 
• 2) Testimony given to the committee indicated the dossier play a significant role in the FISA applications. How significant is being debated between sides, though “Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information”, a statement that is somewhat disputed by Democrats.
• 3) The agents involved all expressed significant anti-trump sentiments and did not want him to be President. Text messages of those involved in the Mueller investigation, have since shown the extent of this bias.

These basic facts are not really in dispute, except where noted. 

Outside of the memo we know Russians did hack the DNC (via Podesta and other avenues), and used Facebook to produce fake news. Well they contributed, along with US media sources like CNN, to attempt to confuse the electorate. Investigations of that are eminently reasonable. However what is the basis for accusing one campaign of a link to that over the other campaign’s links to Russian sources? One paid for a dossier to accuse the other., and got an FBI investigation. One met with a Russian lawyer, possibly for opposition research, but got nothing, except accusations from opponents. That’s about all. If we go from business connections there is probably more evidence of collusion (as defined as money paid) in the payments from Russian sources into the Clinton Foundation, but we mustn’t talk about that of course.

So the question is, why do the Democrats not agree with the legitimate concern about violation of Fourth Amendment rights, and possible agency malfeasance? We have had over a year of “Russian Collusion” that has to the best public knowledge produced nothing but process charges. At some point the Mueller investigation should end. It is unreasonable to continue public accusations, ad infinitum, with no verifiable evidence. That is a smear and witch hunt, not an investigation. Was it originated due to an entirely partisan unfounded accusation? Was it based on any facts? Is it unreasonable to point fingers at Justice Dept agents who quite likely let their partisan views push unfounded investigations for political reasons? If there is reasonable doubt that these investigations not simply politically motivated, should we sit back and not complain? According to Amy Klobuchar Republican should not resist or object. That is unreasonable. What would she say, were these investigations and charges made about her?  

The above three facts should cause great alarm for anyone concerned about honesty and fair treatment, regardless of political ideology. The fact that it is not for the Democrats is equally telling. And Amy Klobuchar as prosecutor ought to know and admit that!