Here is how it goes. We hear a story. There are facts. There are realities. Then there are speculations as to why this particular fact is actually an certain indication of a whole other slew of facts that don't yet exist. If you don't agree to the speculation and are unwilling to assume these facts that don't actually exist... then you are "in denial" or a "loyalist" or part of some "conspiracy theory".
Apparently those who are willing to jump to conclusions without facts to back those conclusions up, are the open minded, grounded, logical thinkers. Anyone demanding evidence of claims, before accepting them as reality are the close minded, unhinged, illogical ones.
Welcome to 2017.
Case in point is the reaction to the Manafort Gates indictment. It's a simply factual legal document. It's in black and white. The contents of it are clear. Yet, if you dare to take the contents of the indictment at face value then you are being naive, an apologist, and are likely engaged in some sort of wishful thinking.
What Huckabee Sanders stated about the indictment is 100% factually accurate. The indictment had nothing to do with Trump, the White House, or the 2016 election. While we are all certainly allowed to speculate on any number of possible scenarios, that speculation doesn't change the fact that factually the indictment provides no evidence of collusion, nor does it in any way engulf Trump or his administration into that particular legal battle.
Why is it "unrealistic" to accept facts at face value?
Certainly it's a fair speculation to argue that Mueller is attempting to gain some sort of leverage over Manafort in order to get him to provide other information. But it's only speculation and even that speculation suggests that Manafort has not provided Mueller with any information that is helpful to Russian interference in the 2016 election. It's no more crazy to assume that he has none to give, than it is to assume that he is holding out on all of the top secret evidence that has otherwise yet to be uncovered.
Certainly it's a fair speculation to argue that Mueller is "just getting started" and that there are more indictments to come. But there is actually no evidence to suggest as much. Other than some paperwork issues with Michael Flynn, and some murky allegations about Carter Page, there is no known, leaked, or otherwise specific speculations as to whom might be charged for what crime.
Everyone knew that Manafort was a target and was likely to be indicted. Between the late night no-knock raid and the statements to the effect that Mueller was going to indict Manafort... the Manafort indictment was expected. Nobody else has been under that amount of scrutiny and from what we know, there has been no other moves made to link anyone else to any outside crimes (the whole false or misleading statement charges aside).
The reality is that when the speculation was (last Friday) that someone would be arrested on Monday, almost everyone knew that it would be Manafort. In fact, there was almost nobody else that made any sense. If Mueller made the same announcement on Friday that someone else would be arrested on Monday... there would not be such certainty of who it might be. Why? Because there is not an obvious person out there for Mueller to indict. Why is it considered logical and fair minded to simply assume that there is?
Bottom line: It is what it is. Paul Manafort and his business associate were indicted (as expected) for legal issues that has nothing to do with Donald Trump, nothing to do with Russia, and nothing to do with the 2016 election. That's all we know. It certainly doesn't prove that Trump colluded with the Russians and it quite literally gets us no closer to proving that allegation.
Why is that so hard for some people to accept?