Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California showed himself to be a liar during the special counsel’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, repeatedly claiming to have knowledge of “direct” and “ample” evidence proving President Trump’s campaign colluded with the Kremlin.

Yet despite outing himself as an untrustworthy partisan operative, many of the same members of the press who uncritically parroted Schiff and members the intelligence community during the collusion and FBI spying episodes are promoting the congressman now as a heroic and awe-inspiring manager of the impeachment proceedings; because we have learned nothing from the last three years.

“Adam Schiff might be the most underestimated politician California has produced,” gushed Washington Post national security reporter Greg Miller. “Many in GOP dismiss him as bland/partisan. But the way he has handled impeachment will leave a mark on history, exceeding nearly all contemporaries.”

Miller, by the way, is one of the journalists who reported in 2017 that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions “met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose” in security clearance forms, suggesting falsely that the former Alabama lawmaker tried to conceal secret contacts with foreign agents. As it turns out, FBI officials instructed Sessions specifically that he did not need to list the meetings he took in his capacity as a U.S. senator.

Miller’s Washington Post colleague Jennifer Rubin, one of the loudest proliferators of the Russian collusion dud, said of Schiff’s performance this week: “This is the most brilliant legal presentation I have heard. None comes close. The tone, the facts, the anticipated defenses. I am in awe.”

At CNN, contributor and USA Today board of contributors member Raul Reyes said: “On a strategic level, Schiff's presentation was masterful: It was eloquent, thoughtful and, most importantly, restrained.”

Restrained? Reyes must not have seen the part where Schiff said, “The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.” Or the part where he said that it was necessary to provide military aid to Ukraine, "so we don’t have to fight Russia here.” That is not “restrained.” That is deranged.

“While [Schiff] invoked everyone from Alexander Hamilton to John F. Kennedy, he never slipped into histrionics or hyperbole, which any trial lawyer knows can backfire,” Reyes continued, contradicting reality. “Instead, he methodically went through a timeline of the president's alleged improper conduct.”

Also at CNN, chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, whose legal expertise includes him claiming, “happy people don't obstruct justice. Trump's frustration at leaks and investigation are evidence of guilt, not innocence,” characterized Schiff’s presentation as “dazzling.”

MSNBC political analyst Richard Stengel said, “When we get back to teaching civics in this country — as we must do — Adam Schiff's sweeping, beautifully-wrought opening argument, should be on the syllabus.”

“[Schiff] and his team were outstanding,” added MSNBC contributor Jill Wine-Banks, who contributed to the broad effort to downplay FBI malfeasance against the Trump 2016 campaign. “They made clear what Trump did and why and why it matters and why it is grounds for impeachment and removal. Facts should persuade the Republicans who have so far resisted hearing the truth.”

Remember: Most of these characters contributed in some way to the mountain of disinformation surrounding the collusion hoax and the far-reaching attempt to downplay the FBI’s spying on the Trump campaign.

You think these people would be at least a little cautious by now about blindly promoting known partisans, but you would be wrong.