Whistleblower's Attorneys Make a Desperate and Pathetic Attempt to Silence the Free Press and a Free People

An interesting trend on the left these days is to categorize any reporting that works against their interests as somehow illegitimate and improper. Emboldened by their success at getting social media companies to censor unfavorable news, they are now upping the ante and trying to criminalize reporting they don’t like. The latest example of that is a letter released by the lawyers representing the “whistleblower” who has kicked off the impeachment process aimed at attempting to remove President Trump from office.

Paul Sperry at RealClearInvestigations basically blew the Cone-of-Silence covering the identity of the so-called “whistleblower” in a masterful post a couple of days ago.

That post resulted in this extraordinary statement being issued:

One can only imagine these guys up late at night, hitting the bong, and laughing as they wrote this.

While they may not like their client being outed as CIA employee and Democrat hack, Eric Ciaramella (a Google search for Ciaramella+whistleblower yield nearly 40,000 results), their displeasure does not constitute a legal cause of action. By the same token, speculating on his identity (I’d like to point out that Ciaramella was fingered a the whistleblower in early October) has not caused him to suffer any harm. It isn’t like he’s wearing a MAGA hat in a restaurant or something.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh featured Eric Ciaramella’s role:

There is very little doubt that Sperry is right:

No one, in particular no hireling, has the right to tell anyone in this country what they may or may not talk about or speculate about. The whistleblower law does not guarantee anonymity because that is simply not possible or even legal. The law prevents the whistleblower’s agency from retaliating but the whistleblower law does not apply to private citizens exercising their right to free speech, whether in their living room or on the internet.

If these guys were really concerned about anyone’s welfare, they would either announce the identity of the whistleblower, and so protect innocent people from idle speculation, or they could deny that their client is Eric Ciaramella. The fact that they won’t do either demonstrates both who their client is and the falsity of their alleged concern for anyone’s health and safety.

Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.