Although many of us in the blogosphere have been tossing about Eric Ciaramella’s name ever since Real Clear Investigations’ Paul Sperry published his October 30th report outing him as the alleged whistleblower, major media outlets still pretend not to know.
Consider the following:
1. The whistleblower’s complaint triggered the impeachment of the President of the United States.
2. We have learned that Eric Ciaramella has been deeply involved with Obama administration officials such as John Brennan, Susan Rice, Joe Biden, and others.
3. Ciaramella and his friend/colleague Sean Misko were overheard two weeks after President Trump’s inauguration discussing how to remove him from office.
4. Sean Misko was offered and accepted a position as an aide to Lead Impeachment Manager, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) the day after the Trump/Zelensky call.
5. Fox News’ Laura Ingraham reported the bombshell news that Ciaramella had run a January 2016 White House meeting which had been touted as a “prosecutor’s training program.” They had invited a group of Ukrainians and one of the Ukrainian officials told Ingraham that “much of the conversation revolved around the Bidens and Burisma and it wasn’t the Ukrainians who brought up the Bidens and Burisma.”
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
If it is confirmed that Ciaramella is the individual who submitted the complaint, his status will change from that of a whistleblower who must be protected, to that of a co-conspirator in the deep state’s soft coup against the President.
If the whistleblower is not Ciaramella, tell us.
In a recent article, Ricochet’s J.D. Rucker asks, “Can we talk about Eric Ciaramella?” He writes:
Serious question: Where are we allowed to talk about alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella? It seems like so few are doing so even though he is one of the final missing pieces of the puzzle at the conclusion of the impeachment saga, a loose end that won’t seem to go away.
You can’t talk about him on YouTube, as Senator Rand Paul learned.
You can’t talk about him on Facebook, as Ken LaCorte learned.
Mainstream media, including Fox News, has a “Voldemort Rule” in place. Guests are told He Who Shall Not Be Named is anathema and cause for instant excommunication from cable news forever if his name is uttered.
Twitter has remained Ciaramella-agnostic thus far, though some have reported there’s an algorithmic suppression of Tweets that tag him.
Only a handful of people have been bold enough to say his name, including The Federalist’s editor Mollie Hemingway, President Trump and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
In November, Hemingway uttered Ciaramella’s name on a Fox News panel hosted by Howard Kurtz. For a moment, there was a stunned silence. My colleague Streiff wrote an amusing post about it at the time entitled, “Mollie Hemingway Turns Fox Studio Into HAZMAT Area as She Names the Whistleblower.”
— Unmask Them All 🇺🇸 (@almsadventures) November 10, 2019
In December, President Trump retweeted a post that contained Ciaramella’s name.
And during the Senate impeachment trial, Paul submitted a question to the House Managers which included Ciaramella’s name. Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts who read the Senators’ questions out loud, refused to read Paul’s question.
In an interview with Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett, Paul emphasized that he did not identify Ciaramella in his question as the alleged whistleblower. Paul merely asked for the House managers to respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot the impeachment of the President.
When Sen. Johnson resubmitted the question, which included the names of Sean Misko and Alexander Vindman, Chief Justice Roberts read the names without hesitation.
Yet, Justice Roberts seemed to know that Ciaramella was the alleged whistleblower and refused to say his name. If nobody knows who he or she is, then why would saying his name as naturally as a hundred other names have been referenced throughout the trial be an issue.
In an earlier tweet, Paul wrote, “My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.”
Hilariously, Schiff himself has stated on several occasions, including during the impeachment trial, that he still does not know the name. Perjury?
The Intelligence Community’s Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who received the complaint from the “whistleblower” and thus, has firsthand knowledge, is closely tied with many past and present deep state operatives. For starters, in July 2016, Atkinson became “the senior counsel to John Carlin, the head of the National Security Division. Carlin was Robert Mueller’s chief of staff when he ran the FBI and was appointed NSD chief by President Obama in 2013.” He testified before the impeachment inquiry panel last fall, however, Intelligence Committee Chairman, the repellent Schiff, has refused to release the transcript. In fact, he has sealed it.
Rucker points out that “ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), has threatened to refer the investigation into Ciaramella to the Justice Department if Inspector General Michael Atkinson doesn’t comply with a request for information surrounding his whistleblower exploits.”
Ciaramella’s involvement in questionable activities that extend back to before the 2016 election tells us he knows a lot more that needs to come to light. His fingerprints are all over Burisma, and not just as a whistleblower to the Zelensky phone call. Reports indicate he was engaged in covering for Hunter Biden while President Obama was still in the White House. His leaked conspiracy theory that Vladimir Putin ordered the firing of James Comey has never been fully resolved. Considering how much access he had to sensitive and classified White House information through the NSC, CIA, and working for H.R. McMaster, he must be questioned by the right people at some point in the very near future.
Before Democrats ramping up for another, and it’s become very clear Ciaramella’s whistleblower status is fraudulent, why does the media silence continue? The cat was let out of the bag months ago. Why should media outlets such as Fox support the Democrats’ denial?
The Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkin’s, Jr. recently wrote about the “Democrats’ and the media’s astonishing and studied obliviousness to the bonfire they made of their own credibility with the Russia hoax. Unless I miss my guess, even many Trump-skeptical voters have no interest in giving victory to so corrupt an opposition.”
Far too much is known about the corruption of the deep state to turn back now. The Democrats have become reckless as they try to stave off their day of reckoning, which will come.