“Evidence and witnesses!” is the constant refrain from the House impeachment managers like Rep. Adam “Shifty” Schiff and Rep. Jerry “Jabba” Nadler even as Schiff had hidden evidence in the form of the transcript for his star-chamber interview with ICIG Michael Atkinson and block witness in the person of himself and the Ukraine phone call whistleblower. The hypocrisy of it all is underscored by the fact that by hiding the whistleblower and the details of his initial contacts with Schiff and the ICIG, Schiff and the House managers are denying President Trump a basic constitutional right -- the right to confront one’s accuser. Why the President’s Senate defenders have not hammered this point home is a mystery.

On the January 26 edition of “Sunday Morning Futures” With Matia Bartiromo on Fox News, Rep. John Ratcliffe brought up again this continuing Schiff cover-up he has mentioned many times only to be ignored by the media who accept Schiff’s fictitious mantra that because of all the other “overwhelming” evidence the whistleblower and his testimony are no longer needed. As noted by PJMedia:

During the open hearings in the Impeachment Inquisition, Representative John Ratcliffe asked -- several times -- for the release of the closed-interview transcripts with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. His request was refused: Representative Adam Schiff, the current chair of the House Special Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) had classified the transcript SECRET.

Now, with impeachment in the Senate for trial, Schiff is still hiding this crucial piece of, dare we say it, evidence. The question is, why? The reason is that the ICIG interview exposes Schiff’s early contacts with the whistleblower which could be classified as witness tampering. It exposes Adam Schiff as a fact witness who should be the first witness called in any Senate witness testimony. It exposes the weakness of the whistleblowers claims and underscores why he should also be called as a witness. Without the whistleblower we aren’t having this conversation and the Senate is not having an impeachment trial.

The whistleblower’s name is Eric Ciaramella. We know because Adam Schiff told us, at least not intentionally. In a major goof-up, Schiff forgot to redact the name of the whistleblower -- Eric Ciaramella -- as noted by Gateway Pundit -- in a posted PDF of the transcript of Ambassador Bill Taylor’s testimony. Since then his story has been revealed in spite of efforts by the deep state to conceal it.

Like the Steele dossier produced through Fusion GPS, the Ukraine “whistleblower’s” letter to the inspector general is largely unverifiable hearsay or outright fiction. Written by a CIA mole assigned to the White House who was not in the room or on the call, it is designed for one purpose -- to bring down a sitting and duly elected President

Now we find Adam Schiff and committee staff had a copy of the letter before it was submitted to the IG. The New York Times published a report that Schiff "learned about the outlines of a C.I.A.. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint." As the Times related:

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it…. Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague. The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff.

Schiff and his staff claim they had no hand in writing or editing the letter and did not coach the so-called whistleblower, even though his letter reads more like a legal brief written by a committee of lawyers. Schiff, with his track record, is not to be believed.

The whistleblower would not need a lawyer, since Schiff himself would be his protector, and Rep. Ratcliffe knows why:

Congressman John Ratcliffe (R-TX) a member of the House Intelligence committee, revealed why Schiff is hiding the transcripts: Investigative reporter Paul Sperry this week asked, “Why is Schiff still withholding transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s Oct 4 closed-door testimony which lasted 8+ hours? He’s released 15 witness transcripts but is still hiding Atkinson’s. Also, what’s Atkinson’s connection to Obama officials including David Laufman?” Congressman Ratcliffe responded to Paul Sperry, “I know why, Paul Sperry. It’s because I asked IG Atkinson about his “investigation” into the contacts between Schiff’s staff and the person who later became the whistleblower. The transcript is classified “secret” so Schiff can prevent you from seeing the answers to my questions.”… ICIG Michael Atkinson altered the whistleblower form to allow for second-hand information, which allowed suspected Schiff whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to present a bogus accusation against the President.

Atkinson, it turns out, was quite an active participant in the anti-Trump coup that was underway. As analyst Elizabeth Vaughn writes, Atkinson was frustrated the DNI’s lack of concern with hearsay and decided to do an end-run:

Frustrated by the lack of action from acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, Atkinson felt the whistleblower’s complaint to be of such urgent concern that he took the matter directly to Congress. In a September 9 letter to Schiff and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-CA) (which can be viewed here), Atkinson threw his boss under the bus in order to perpetrate this hoax. He followed up with a second letter on September 17 (which can be viewed here). Adam Schiff immediately called him to testify before his committee. Atkinson testified for eight hours in a closed-door session on October 4th. Considering the fact that Atkinson’s actions triggered the impeachment inquiry, the American people need to hear what he had to say.

Indeed, they do. Want witnesses and evidence? Adam Schiff can provide them both.

Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.