Time to ask Adam Schiff about his informant, Eric Ciaramella
Senator Rand Paul’s question to the House Managers in the impeachment question-and-answer phase of the proceedings against Donald Trump follows: “Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together, and are you aware, and how do you respond to, reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?”
Of the roughly one hundred questions asked, why is this the most important? According to the Washington Post, the campaign to impeach Donald Trump began “at the moment he was sworn in.” Hoax followed hoax until the present Ukrainian debacle, resulting in the Senate impeachment trial and inevitable acquittal of President Trump. But the hoax perpetuators always walk away without consequence despite two notable victims: the Constitution and Donald Trump.
Nancy Pelosi knew what she was doing when she said, “He will be impeached forever.” Trump’s name will be listed forever in the history books with Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton as having been impeached — all associated with wrongdoing. When a very large segment of the population was so ignorant of the Constitution that they wondered why Trump was still president the day after being impeached by the House, the same will be so in the future.
Ignorance rules. Impeachment means accused, not tried. Pelosi could not have done anything more harmful to Trump’s reputation with generations yet unborn, and she knew it. Her name will be forgotten in the dust heap of history, but Trump’s never will, primarily because of her.
Trump’s name has been defamed, although no crime can actually be identified and certainly not one listed in the Constitution as impeachable. Trump can’t sue to recover it. He can never remove this defamation — acquittal only partially helps. This may be the best case in American history when the accused was not allowed to face his accuser in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment requiring it.
Yet the individual most responsible for having placed this stain on Donald Trump walks the streets, having irreparably hurt another but having protected himself from disclosure because he called himself a whistleblower, although in no way does he fit the definition of the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act, thus he is not entitled to special protection. Without his complaint, based entirely upon hearsay as were 16 of the 18 House witnesses, the impeachment would have never resulted. He was billed by Adam Schiff as their strongest case but was disarmed when Trump declassified and published his conversation with the Ukrainian president.
Notice that Senator Paul’s question did not use the term “whistleblower.” Said differently, “Congressman Schiff, how do you respond to reports that your employee and his friend Ciaramella, from a shared previous post in the NSC, worked together to plot the whistleblower leak to push the House into this impeachment charade before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?” And, “In refusing to identify the person you first brought to the public’s attention as key to the need of impeachment, are you not hiding your connection as a fact witness in this plot to unseat an elected president?”
Chief Justice John Roberts, without explanation, announced: “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.” He did the same with a second and similar Paul question the next day. A presumption is that it contained the name of the so-called whistleblower. But how could he assume this — not from the question — unless this name was already DC common knowledge? In a town known for leaking like a sieve, it was. Only the public is denied knowing it.
So John Roberts, by refusing only this question of a hundred, indirectly gave credence that one of the two names Senator Paul was asking Schiff about was the whistleblower. Since everyone already knew Shawn Misdo as a Schiff employee, Eric Ciaramella is the man most responsible for the impeachment of Trump and the name forbidden by the Democratic Party media machine to name.
No other name is mentioned as being the infamous whistleblower. The Internet is full of references to him, some more credible than others. Real Clear Investigations observes that Ciaramella’s name has been an open secret in Washington D.C. His lawyers Mark S. Zaid and Andrew P. Bakaj refuse to confirm or deny that he is. According to The Washington Post, the whistleblower is still working at the CIA but has been provided security. Q followers identified him last September. He has been named by Rush Limbaugh, Eric Trump, and Rand Paul.
The Washington Examiner established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the NSC at the White House during the Obama administration working as point man on Ukraine issues with Vice President Joe Biden traveling with him to Ukraine on Air Force Two at least one of the six visits Biden made to Ukraine. Ciaramella also worked under leaker James Clapper.
It is time to reveal outside the DC beltway the name of the one person who started the most recent of several impeachment parades, Eric Ciaramella. We insist that he be investigated thoroughly as an accomplice in the Biden quid pro quo and as an accomplice with Adam Schiff in the Ukranian Hoax Coup to replace a president of the United States.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Nixon was not impeached by the House. The process was started, Nixon resigned, then two-weeks later the hearings were closed. No vote was taken on Articles of Impeachment in the House.
it is APPALING that anyone WHO HAS ENOUGH POLITICAL COVER can cast aspersions that lead to an impeachment process. the whistleblower has no right to anonimity and the PRESIDENTS RIGHTS were denied in being able to face his accusor. we should move on to investigating the PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL along with the sect of state of selling russia 20 percent of our uranium and tracking where every dollar went. we should also rewrite the CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATUTES which allow sons, daughters, friends ect to enter into obviously corrupt influence peddling scams, like the bidens, chris heinz and the whole group of scammers who founded ROSEMONT GLOBAL CAPITAL, ROSEMONT REALTY AND THE OTHER COMPANIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIDENS. HOW ELSE CAN THE SE BOY WONDERS GET DIRECT MEETINGS WIT H UKRAINE AND RUSSIAN OFFICIALS LIKE MEDVEF. ITS DISGUSTING
I’m with Michael.
It is the law that he have anonymity, so get over it.
Yea!! Oh crap I put my name on this didn’t I??
You really shouldn’t talk about things you don’t know about….
Do whistle-blowers have a right to remain anonymous?
Only in a limited way. Another part of the Inspector General Act says that agency watchdogs “shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the inspector general determines such disclosure is unavoidable.”
In line with that law, the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, did not include the whistle-blower’s name in his report to the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire. Mr. Maguire testified last week that he did not know the name of the person, whom people familiar with the matter have identified as a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to the White House at one point.
But the legal prohibition on disclosing the official’s name applies only to Mr. Atkinson. It does not bar Mr. Trump and his allies from trying to identify him or disclosing his name if they figure it out. (It would be illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for any official to disclose his name if he is a covert agent, but no one has suggested that he is.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/whistleblower-complaint.html
The whistleblower is irrelevant. Credible, more informed people corroborated his story. Even the Republican Senators admit that Trump did what he was accused of. Coward.
What exactly did he do and was it impeachable. Who are the informed people and what senators called it impeachable offense. Please don’t use the biased senators. Explain exactly or shut up.
It’s irrelevant that the whisteblower had a conversation with someone talking about doing something to get rid of the president nearly 2 years before all this crap??? You democrats are insane. Who are these credible more informed people that corroborated his story? Why do you all always leave out the fact that, because of Biden’s stupidity, his son working at Burisma is a clear conflict of interest worthy of an investigation no matter if he’s guilty or not? I think I know why. Because that fact makes this whole claim that Trump did something wrong on the phone call go away. Luckily for everyone Pam Bondi didn’t forget to mention it at the trial…. https://youtu.be/6kqmojRRqB0
As has been stated earlier, Nixon wasn’t impeached.
And, you have the time wrong, for starting impeachment
proceedings. It happened within minutes, of Shrillary
conceding the election. Way before the Inauguration!
steve
Trump did what Nixon did, only worse. And Nixon resigned the presidency before he was impeached. This article is all opinion.
Trump won.