I ran across this argument on an online political website, but I don't recall where. Nevertheless, the longer I've mulled it over, the more plausible it's become in my mind. I'm sorry I don't have a proper attribution for the idea – to be clear, it wasn't my idea originally.
Consider that the whole "Russiagate" thing is actually more to the advantage of the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party. Without Russiagate, Abu Ivanka is a loose cannon that even Republicans can't control, and certainly his less orthodox notions, evidently somewhat toxic to the Republican Elite, are incompatible with what they want to achieve (to wit: social conservatism, scaling back the welfare state, tax reductions, etc.).
But with Russiagate always looming, the Republicans in Congress can say to AnnoyingOrange, "You need us. If you betray us, we can impeach you."
Russiagate is a leash for the beast they unleashed to win the election.
Contrariwise, why should the Democrats be pushing Russiagate? It serves them no purpose – they can't get an impeachment without Republican cooperation, and it just ends up revealing their own dirty laundry as well – of which I'm sure they have plenty.
I'm not normally one for so-called "conspiracy theories," but this one fits the data neatly, and personages like Mueller, the special prosecutor (and former Bush II appointee), are evidently more establishment Republicans than Democrats, anyway.
Bannon's recent departure actually just seems further evidence – his "extreme views" annoyed the establishment Republicans. Because of their leverage, they insisted (either directly or indirectly, it doesn't really matter) that he go. So he went.
Of course directly controlling Turnip's twitterings is harder. So they just tolerate it, as raw meat to toss out for the so-called "base." Meanwhile the backchannel disassembly of the welfare/regulatory state can proceed apace.
[daily log: walking, 7km]