Is this man's name 'Ratcliffe' or 'Rat Dog'?

Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas just did a kickass job exposing how shammy the entire foundation of the impeach-Trump effort, led by Rep. Adam Schiff of California, really is.

He tweets:

This is impeachment effort 3.0 by Schiff. After twice falsely accusing the President of treason with Russia and obstructing justice, Democrats put Schiff in charge of impeachment 3.0 with someone who became a whistleblower after meeting with Schiff’s staff. pic.twitter.com/9BNiFOuFbV

— John Ratcliffe (@RepRatcliffe) November 1, 2019

It’s more than just bias—it’s an actual legal conflict of interest. Schiff is using his authority as a Chairman presiding over an impeachment inquiry to prevent the investigation and discovery of facts about his own actions or the actions of his staff. https://t.co/7R8Xxdfj1A

— John Ratcliffe (@RepRatcliffe) November 1, 2019

"The person who planted fake evidence shouldn't be the one ruling on the admissibility of fake evidence," Ratcliffe said of Schiff on Friday.

Ratcliffe: Adam Schiff Is Running A Corrupt Process To Overthrow Trump https://t.co/yUgHpUVnsO

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) November 1, 2019

Ratcliffe argues that not only was Schiff's meeting with the whistleblower bad biased politics, it's a massive conflict of interest, meaning, Schiff is running a recognizably corrupt operation himself needs to be out of committee for any semblance of fairness in impeachment to move forward. The whistleblower, meanwhile, identified as Eric Ciaramella, is in perjury terrority for claiming he never pre-planned the whole scame by meeting with Schiff's staff.

According to an interview Ratcliffe gave with The Federalist:

“It’s more than just bias—it’s an actual legal conflict of interest,” Ratcliffe told The Federalist. “Schiff is using his authority as a Chairman presiding over an impeachment inquiry to prevent the investigation and discovery of facts about his own actions or the actions of his staff.”

According to the Washington Examiner, he also noted this:

Ratcliffe was asked on Friday whether Republicans can prove if Schiff was "complicit" during public impeachment hearings that are expected to begin this month.

"We can if we have access to either sworn testimony of the whistleblower or chairman Schiff and his staff," the Texas Republican told Fox News.

So in other words, Schiff's no dispassionate prosecutor just looking for the facts, he knows the facts because he helped cook them up, and now he's got secrets to conceal. That explains why he's so hellbent on keeping Republicans out of the hearings and if he can't do that (Ratcliffe is on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees so SOL for Schiff), his next order of business is to keep them from issuing subpoenas, calling witnesses, and asking questions.  He's even been ordering witnesses not to answer questions from Republicans. He's got a kangaroo court to run and no Republican must take the bounce out of it.

But Ratcliffe has, singlehandedly shredding the narrative that there's anything honest about Adam Schiff plotting with with whistleblower from the start to Get Trump, then getting the rules changed for whistleblowers somehow, then lying about the cozy contacts with Schiff and all his lefty intel-linked hate-Trump staff, and then claiming he can be a credible judge and juror, all the while blocking any cross examination from Republicans.

Schiff's the one who needs to be on trial, he just can't do anything with honesty it seems. Ratcliffe has also reportedly been shredding otherwise vaunted witnesses in Schiff's secret testimonies, according to Rep. Devin Nunes. It signals that the previously little-known Ratcliffe is now breaking out, shifting the narrative, and Schiff isn't going to live down this. Ratcliffe ought to be one hell of a rising star among the Republicans, given his indisputable ability to cut the crap and get to the bottom of Schiff's dirty-pool impeachment. 

Photo illustration by Monica Showalter with use of image by Tom Childers, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0 and public domain source.