The logo for Facebook appears on screens at the Nasdaq MarketSite, in New York’s Times Square, Thursday, March 29, 2018. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

A man is watching a dam when he notices a leak. As he watches, that leak becomes larger and larger until the dam has water coming out from so many places that a small river is now forming beneath it.

“Don’t worry. I’ve got it!” says the man as he rushes forward.

He inserts a finger into one of the cracks and grins back at onlookers, pleased with himself.

“I’ve stopped the leak!” he shouts back as water continues to pour over him.

That’s Facebook. Facebook believes that it can somehow stop the name of the Ukraine “whistleblower,” Eric Ciaramella, from being distributed by banning any mention of him from the platform.

According to CNN’s Oliver Darcy, Facebook issued a statement saying as much.

“Any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content ‘outing of witness, informant, or activist.’ We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate,” said a Facebook spokesperson.

Facebook says it is removing "any and all mention of the potential whistleblower's name" from its platform. pic.twitter.com/yezibCohT7

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) November 8, 2019

If Facebook was waiting for the name to be more widely distributed, then it doesn’t have to wait any longer. It’s distributed. It was up on the Drudge Report, a news aggregator trafficked by millions of people daily. RedState itself has been reporting about Ciaramella since October.

But Facebook isn’t looking to distribution from sites like Redstate for its go-ahead. As the spokesperson said, they’ll stop censoring it when it’s “widely published in the media or used by a public figure in debate.”

That doesn’t mean just any public figure. Donald Trump Jr. already used it. They don’t just mean any media, again, we’ve been talking about Ciaramella for a while now.

No, they specifically mentioned “public figures in debate” and “the media.”

They’re waiting for Democrats, or Democrat-friendly media outlets to use it first and in any capacity. The moment a Democrat uses it in a committee hearing, it will signal Facebook to go ahead and begin allowing the distribution of news…that’s already been circulating for over a couple of weeks now.

Facebook is already under fire from Democrats and continues to get shellacked by the left for its hand in the 2016 elections. Democrats largely blame it for Hillary Clinton’s loss.

Facebook brass now seems to know what their marching orders are, and it’s “do not make the Democrats angry,” and as I recently wrote, revealing Eric Ciaramella’s name would make them incredibly angry.

He is, after all, their stooge, and it’s important to them that the public doesn’t find that out.

To that end…say Eric Ciaramella’s name.