In the middle of Russia fever, the liberal press took a hectoring tone to any outlet that showed a glimmer of doubt. How dare any journalist not believe that President Trump is an agent of Vladimir Putin! Who would question the upstanding virtues of the FBI?

Of course, we now know that the conspiracy theories were wrong. There was no Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

And, moreover, the inspector general report proves that the FBI trampled over civil liberties and common sense in pursuit of the case. While idle conversation during a meeting with George Papadopoulos and an Australian official may have sparked the inquiry, Crossfire Hurricane, it was only because of outlandish gossip in a Democrat-funded opposition report, the Steele dossier, that the FBI was able to land a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Even as the agency found that Steele’s sources did not back up the dossier, that facts did not back up the dossier, they continued the red scare. When it came out that Page was an informant for the CIA, an FBI lawyer lied about it.

Every suspicion of FBI agents was leaked to the press and printed without skepticism. Few questioned their methods.

It is only now that the New York Times begrudgingly publishes an “analysis” that, oops, maybe this was “A Disturbing Peek at U.S. Surveillance.”

Forgive us, then, for the sense of déjà vu when it comes to the impeachment hearings. This time, the press is near united in arguing that you shall not question the narrative of how this whole thing got started. Don’t you dare name the whistleblower. Don’t ask how Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) might have helped him write his complaint. Or even that Schiff is lying when he says he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. Or why Schiff is subpoenaing the phone records of his colleagues.

This is the same Schiff, by the way, who in 2018 said that the Department of Justice’s warrants for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISAs, met “the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed.”

Schiff had the same information as Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who found the exact opposite. So we know Schiff is a liar.

Two years from now, will we find out the real story? It may not change either side’s view of impeachment, but isn’t that what the press does — try to find the truth?

The whistleblower is most likely CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella.

Journalist Paul Sperry reported his name in late October, saying that sources inside the closed-door impeachment hearings identified him. Ciaramella has put out no statement denying these reports. Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps. In a sign of how farcical this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats angrily denounced the “outing.” If you don’t know the man’s name, how do you know the man’s name?

Politico’s Jack Shafer has eloquently argued that the press should name the whistleblower. It is not against the law — whistleblower protections are to prevent retaliation in the workplace and apply to his superiors, not the media. Yet while the press eagerly tried to out Deep Throat or the anonymous author of “A Warning,” they suddenly lack curiosity.

They’ve also been hypocritical. In September, the Times reported the whistleblower was a male CIA officer who worked at the White House and was now back at the CIA. Why? Executive editor Dean Baquet said, “We wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.” A cynic might say they were trying to argue that the whistleblower was credible.

But if that’s the argument, and if Ciaramella is the whistleblower, isn’t it also relevant that he, according to Sperry, previously worked with CIA Director John Brennan, a fierce critic of Trump, and Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s political opponent and the crux of the impeachment inquiry? That he’s a registered Democrat and that he was — again, according to Sperry — accused of leaking negative information about the Trump administration and that’s why he was transferred back to Langley?

What, if anything, did he leak? Did he work with Biden on Ukraine, apparently Ciaramella’s area of expertise? Did he know about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Who told him about the call, and why did that person not complain instead of him? How did Schiff’s staff help him tailor the complaint?

This is only the fourth time in our history that a president has faced impeachment. Shouldn’t we know the answers to these questions now, and not in two or three years when the inevitable official reports and tell-all books come out? Why must we wait for the truth?