The name Eric Ciaramella has been bandied about as the likely whistleblower that kicked off the impeachment campaign against President Trump. Intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff and the House democrats leading the impeachment inquiry have neither confirmed nor denied that Ciaramella is the whistleblower. They have instead insisted on “his or her” protection, whoever “he or she,” may be.
But did they just screw up and reveal that the man they have been trying to protect – Eric Ciaramella – is indeed the whistleblower?
“Shifty” Schiff and his fellow Democrats have lambasted the president and GOP lawmakers for demanding the release of the alleged whistleblower’s name. They claimed Republican efforts to out the informant violated federal law and could jeopardize the person’s safety. “The president’s allies would like nothing better than to help the president out this whistleblower,” stated House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff. “Our committee will not be a part of that — we will not stand for that.”
However, it appears Schiff may have accidentally leaked the alleged whistleblower’s name in the transcript of a witness testimony. On page 236 of the just released transcript of Bill Taylor’s testimony, the name “Eric Ciaramella” is included in a question the top Ukraine diplomat was asked during his closed-door session. Taylor was asked if the name rang a bell. He denied familiarity with the name as well as any communications with Ciaramella.
RealClear Investigations recently suggested that the alleged whistleblower could be Ciaramella. He is a registered Democrat who previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. His name has been tossed around on social media platforms for weeks and is known by many on Capitol Hill.
Now, the very fact that Schiff did not redact the name in the transcript after saying that he would, should the whistleblower’s identity be revealed in any testimony, could simply mean that Ciaramella is not the whistleblower. Or, it could mean that someone on Schiff’s staff screwed up royally, and accidentally released the name that they were trying so hard to keep secret.
President Trump has been pushing for the name of the whistleblower to be made public. “The whistleblower should be revealed because the whistleblower gave false stories,” stated the president. “Some people would call it a fraud.”
President Donald Trump has implied that he has evidence that will expose the bias against him of decorated war veteran Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.
Over the weekend, Trump seemingly threatened to expose information on Vindman, whose damning testimony reportedly included that the president omitted certain “keywords and phrases” from the White House’s memo of the Ukraine phone call at the center of an impeachment inquiry.
Vindman sat in on the July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that spurred the House of Representatives’ impeachment investigation.
While speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump repeated his earlier claims that Vindman is a “Never Trumper,” a label he also bestowed on former Ukraine Ambassador William Taylor after his impeachment inquiry testimony outlined how Trump officials made demands of the Ukrainian government in exchange for investigations into the Bidens.
Vindman, reportedly testified that he was instructed by White House counsel John Eisenberg to keep quiet about the call after voicing his concerns. “It’s a whole scam… it’s between the Democrats and the fake news media,” Trump said of the inquiry. When asked what evidence he had that Vindman is a “Never Trumper,” the president cryptically responded, “We’ll be showing that to you real soon.”
It’s no secret that President Trump has accused the “fake news media” of shielding the whistleblower’s identity. In a recent tweet, the president said the whistleblower “got it so wrong” and added that he must come forward. The president has claimed that the media outlets know the identity of the whistleblower, but refuse to reveal him because there would be “hell to pay” from the Democrat Party.
It seems that not only may the president be right – that the lame-stream media knows the whistleblower’s identity – but we may now know why they are protecting him and that info.
Reports have surfaced that say that the whistleblower is likely Eric Ciaramella. Ciaramella, an ex-CIA operative, has ties to major Democrats and anti-Trump members of the intelligence community that are as thick as an elephant’s trunk!
It’s no wonder “Shifty Schiff,” the Dems and the media are so adamant about his identity remaining hidden. This wasn’t just standard whistleblower protection. This was narrative protection first and foremost.
If the whistleblower is indeed Ciaramella, the president was absolutely right in his speculation that “I don’t know if that’s true or not, but what they said is he’s an Obama person,” stated President Trump, “and that he was like a big, big anti-Trump person — they said terrible things.”
Here are some things you need to know about Eric Ciaramella. He was fired from National Security Council for leaking sensitive information from the White House. If that kind of information got out about the “whistleblower” that alone would have left people kind of skeptical. But, what if they also learned he worked for Joe Biden and traveled with him to Ukraine? Ciaramella did both of those things. Could this have been his real motive for filing the complaint?
Ciaramella is known to have direct ties to current Schiff staffers who worked with him for a time at the NSC and to associate with people like Susan Rice, James Clapper, and John Brennan. But it gets worse. It turns out his connections to taking down President Trump date back to before the 2016 election. He worked with Alexandra Chalupa, who Glenn Beck exposed as directly contributing to the Russian-collusion hoax, among other things.
The bottom line is, if the whistleblower is indeed, Eric Ciaramella, he’s a manufactured stool pigeon who may be the only person in Washington DC with less credibility than Adam Schiff.
We can all recall how former Democrat Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke entered the presidential race with the adulation of the liberal media. He was compared to Jack Kennedy – a new young face. Dynamic! Charismatic!! Able to leap tall buildings in a single … or that was the fictional superman. Sorry.
O’Rourke was catapulted to national prominence by his campaign against incumbent Republican Senator Ted Cruz. The press praised the great campaign O’Rourke had waged, admired his fundraising capabilities and were celebratory of his vote totals. That was a lot of high praise for a guy who lost the race – but O’Rourke-Ophelia in the press is not conditioned on actually winning,
Beto was everything the mavens of the media love – a young liberal Democrat with a gift for gab. Not only did the press heap praise on the one-time legislator, but they predicted that he would be a serious contender in the Democrat presidential contest. He was a man with a great future in the Democratic Party.
Beto agreed. He saw the presidency as his personal manifest destiny. He said as much when asked why a rather unaccomplished obscure congressman would seek the highest office in the land. In a Vanity Fair interview, O’Rourke describes his political ambition as mystical – almost messianic terms.
He describes his speechifying as of pupil of Star Wars’ Obi Wan Kenobi . O’Rourke said, “… every word was pulled out of me. Like, by some greater force, which was just the people there. Everything that I said, I was, like, watching myself, being like, How am I saying this stuff? Where is this coming from?”
Speaking of his wife, O’Rourke said, “There is something abnormal, super-normal, that we both experience when we’re out on the campaign trail.” He summed up his presidential campaign as “I am just born to be in it.”
After his exaggerated accomplishment in the Texas Senate race and his overly hyped entrance into the 2020 presidential contest, reality has finally come to the O’Rourke ambitions. In the Whack-A-Mole Democrat race for the Democrat nomination, O’Rourke got whacked pretty early by another young charismatic candidate, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. The latter had the advantage of being gay – a definite plus among the more politically correct Democrat voters.
Despite being the momentary darling of the liberal media he sank into single digits, O’Rourke continued to sink. He tried to revive his campaign with the equivalent of political shock treatments. He gained headlines – but not support – for his bold promise to come and get our guns. He then tried to swear his way back into contention by giving out the f-bomb like it was Halloween candy.
With his polling numbers falling below the margin of error – and his highly vaunted fundraising ability fading – O’Rourke responded to the inevitable. His polling number in the first-in-the-nation Iowa primary is close to zero.
His lackluster congressional career – and his subsequent political failures since – have not diminished the idolization of O’Rourke by the east coast elitist press. In reporting his exit from the presidential race, the one-wing news media praised his efforts and assured us that O’Rourke has a bright future in the Democratic Party as well as in the nation. They gushed over his courage (what courage?). For his fans in the newsrooms, O’Rourke is a political Paris Hilton – a celebrity for little more than the media’s willingness to talk about him. But even that has a shelf life.
It is more likely that O’Rourke will slip into the bin of political has-beens – close to a never-was. He will be remembered for … very little for a short time.
So, there ‘tis.
Several key Republican senators have said, should Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump – which seems likely—come to the Senate for trial, would be a mistake if dismissed.
CNN is reporting that several “key Republicans” have told them that the Senate should conduct a full trial of President Trump, should it come to that, “and not try to jam through a motion that would allow them to dismiss the case quickly on a partisan vote.”
For the same reason that they have forced the House investigation to now be conducted more out in the open, the Republicans advocating against swift dismissal believe that a comprehensive and public examination of the charges would be best for Trump, who wants to clear his name and stay in office, and best for the American people, who deserve to learn what happened, and also best for the Senate as an institution — to demonstrate that even in these harshly partisan times, a careful examination of the charges can be conducted.
“Unlike the process up to this point, I think it is important the Senate process be viewed as fair and serious and give serious consideration to whatever the House is going to bring us,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Republican leadership, who added that he is “very doubtful that there will be some immediate attempt to try to dismiss the charges.”
It’s All Up to Mitch McConnell
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not said publicly that he wants to force a quick vote to end the case. But he also hasn’t yet outlined what he thinks an appropriate process should be, outside of acknowledging he is constitutionally required to put it on the floor.
Democrats feared McConnell might try to block a trial — in the way he blocked Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court — and were alarmed when the Kentucky Republican began running campaign ads for his reelection, vowing to stop impeachment.
“I haven’t heard anyone espousing a quick dismissal,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican. “I certainly think we need to hear it out from the House. This is a serious thing. When you are considering removing somebody from office or impeaching them in that way. I think you’ve got to hear it.”
Even if it were to go in that direction, it remains unclear if Republicans, who hold a 53-47 advantage over the Democrats, could even get enough votes to dismiss. Some senators, especially those running for reelection next year, may be wary of not giving the evidence a thorough review, but for now, most won’t comment on the record.
A key former White House staffer is refusing to testify in the ongoing Democrat impeachment probe. Charles Kupperman, the deputy to former National Security Advisor John Bolton, will not provide testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
A letter from Kupperman’s attorney said his client isn’t contesting a constitutional right to testimony, but rather it’s President Trump who’s asserting testimonial immunity to confidential advisors such as himself. The letter says if the committee’s position prevails in court then Kupperman will comply. He filed a lawsuit last week, asking the courts how much he can cooperate after the White House invoked constitutional immunity for Kupperman.
CNN is reporting that The Justice Department and the House have both asked a federal judge to postpone the court hearing about Kupperman’s compliance with the request to appear, which was scheduled for Thursday, October 31. Two hearings are scheduled that will test the White House’s claim that its staffers are immune from testifying. The House and Justice Department agreed to seek the postponement, according to their filing Tuesday, because another court hearing they must attend is happening the same afternoon before a different judge. That case is about immunity from congressional testimony for another White House staffer, former White House counsel Don McGahn, as the House seeks his testimony in its impeachment probe.
The judge, Richard Leon of the US District Court in Washington, has not yet responded.
In the popular vernacular it’s known as a “butt call” or “butt dial. It means when you inadvertently call someone by mistake from your cell phone. Most times they result in a simple “sorry,” and a hang-up, but other times they can lead to a major embarrassment.
Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani seems to have recently suffered the latter. According to reports, in the calls that accidentally connected to an unintended party, Mr. Giuliani spoke about needing money and attacked Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
As you probably know, lawmakers have demanded documents from Trump’s outspoken lawyer earlier this month as part of the presidential impeachment inquiry. In the past, he publicly admitted asking Ukrainian officials to investigate widely debunked corruption allegations against Mr. Biden. Three Democratic-led committees are currently investigating whether President Trump tried to pressure Ukraine’s president into investigating Mr. Biden in exchange for military aid.
What Did Rudy Say?
NBC investigative reporter Rich Shapiro says he received two voicemails from Mr. Giuliani in the space of a month. He described them as the result of “what is known, in casual parlance, as a butt dial.”
Mr Shapiro missed the first call, mid-afternoon on 28 September, because he was at a child’s birthday party. He had interviewed Mr. Giuliani for an article the day before. For the entirety of the ensuing three-minute voicemail – which Shapiro assumes that Rudy did not know was connected, nor being recorded — Giuliani reportedly attacked Mr. Biden and his family.
“Biden has been trading in on his public office since he was a senator,” Mr Giuliani reportedly said to an unidentified man. In the conversation, he brought up the discredited allegations that Joe Biden, when vice-president, stopped an investigation in Ukraine to protect his son Hunter.
“He did the same thing in China. And he tried to do it in Kazakhstan and in Russia,” Mr. Giuliani reportedly added. “They don’t want to investigate because he’s protected, so we gotta force them to do it,” Giuliani says near the end of the recording
In the second voicemail, left on the night of 16 October, Mr. Giuliani again inadvertently recorded a conversation with an unknown man.
“We need a few hundred thousand,” Mr. Giuliani reportedly said at one point, in a conversation that Mr. Shapiro says covered Bahrain and an unknown man named Robert.
Mr. Giuliani has not yet commented on the calls.
Apparently yielding to pressure from the GOP, House Democrats have introduced a resolution to formalize their impeachment inquiry and adopt rules to govern the proceedings. The resolution comes after sustained complaints by congressional Republicans and the White House that the inquiry hasn’t followed past precedent and violates the president’s due process rights.
But, illustrating the balancing act involved as the 2020 election cycle gets started, Democrats have adamantly denied that the document is an “impeachment resolution,” perhaps out of concern for how that label would play in more moderate swing districts.
The resolution directs the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees to “continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump.”
Republicans, however, have countered that there is no “existing” impeachment inquiry because the House has not voted to open one as it did during the Clinton and Nixon impeachments — and Tuesday’s resolution does not explicitly open the probe, either.
“The resolution put forward by Speaker Pelosi confirms that House Democrats’ impeachment has been an illegitimate sham from the start as it lacked any proper authorization by a House vote,” the White House said in a statement. “It continues this scam by allowing Chairman Schiff, who repeatedly lies to the American people, to hold a new round of hearings, still without any due process for the President.”
The White House statement continued, “The White House is barred from participating at all, until after Chairman Schiff conducts two rounds of one-sided hearings to generate a biased report for the Judiciary Committee. Even then, the White House’s rights remain undefined, unclear, and uncertain – because those rules still haven’t been written. This resolution does nothing to change the fundamental fact that House Democrats refuse to provide basic due process rights to the Administration.”
What Does the Resolution D0 for Republicans?
The Democrats’ resolution specifies that ranking Republicans in the minority on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees (Reps. Doug Collins and Devin Nunes, respectively) will have the authority, with the concurrence of committee chairs in the majority, to subpoena witnesses and compel their testimony — a major demand that the White House and top Republicans had made in recent weeks.
If the chair does not consent, the minority can appeal to the full committee. It is common in other proceedings for committee chairs to essentially have veto authority over subpoenas sought by ranking minority members.
The resolution further directs the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the other committees, to prepare a report on its findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would actually write any “Articles of Impeachment.” In response to GOP complaints about Democrats’ selective leaks of opening statements and depositions, the document also authorizes the public release of testimony transcripts, with only sensitive or classified information being redacted.
And, the resolution permits Republicans to submit written demands for testimony and other evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, and raise objections.
There is no timeline given for the impeachment inquiry to conclude. The House Rules Committee, which is the gateway for most measures in the House, will meet Wednesday at 3 p.m. ET to prepare the resolution for the House floor, including by adding additional procedures. The full House will debate and vote on the measure Thursday morning, with a vote expected by midday.
President Trump referred to the impeachment process as a “lynching.” In colloquial usage, the word means that a person is being unfairly treated – outside the bounds of law and tradition. We often call our adversaries in such a situation as a “lynch mob.”
It is, of course, a rhetorical allusion – not a statement of literality. It is a “catch phrase” that has been in common use for generations.
In its current manifestation, it is also another example of how Trump hatred has distorted and reversed the norms of civil discourse. Within moments of Trump’s use of the word, the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement went into high gear – claiming that Trump is engaging in racist rhetoric.
According to virtually every Democrat presidential candidate, the use of the word was ripping open the deep wounds of slavery and segregation – alluding to an era in which more than 4000 people were summarily hanged without due process or the right of a fair trial. About three- fourths of the victims were black Americans.
According to such shameless race baiters as Al Sharpton, Trump’s use of the word was more evidence of his racist soul – minimally an insensitivity to the impact such language has on the African American community.
As with all anti-Trump narratives, the concocted lynching controversy was played out in the elitist east coast media for days and would be archived for periodic future use – whenever the propaganda press chose to pile on with a repetitious history of condemnations of Trump. It has now become a permanent addition to the media echo chamber.
As with much of the negative reporting on Trump, the lynching controversy requires a complete re-invention of history and reality. As an allusion the use of “lynch mob” and “lynching” have been as common as mosquitoes on a hot humid day in Georgia.
Former Vice President Joe Biden was one of the Democrat hopefuls who did not have much to say about Trump’s use of the word. Maybe that is because in a television interview during the Clinton impeachment hearing, Biden referred to the process as a … you guessed it … lynching.
In a total escape from logic and reality, Biden now claims that Trump used the word deliberately while he, Biden, used the word unintendedly – without malice aforethought. Really? Biden then added his use of the “L” word to his growing list of apologies of past statements and actions.
Democrat Congressman Jim Mc Dermott also used the newly forbidden word – and he even went further in a speech on the House floor during the Clinton impeachment hearing. He factiously suggested that Republicans were “… going to find a rope, find a tree, and ask questions later.” And how did his Democrat colleagues respond? They applauded.
Then-Senator John Kerry and then-Senate Leader Harry Reid were also among the verbalizers of the “L” word from the Senate floor, no less.
New York Congressman Jerry Nadler criticized House Republicans for criticizing the impeachment process by saying, “In pushing the process, in pushing the arguments of fairness and due process the Republicans so far have been running a lynch mob.”
Perhaps the most notable examples of using the “L” word came from New York Congressman Gregory Meeks and Illinois Congressman Danny Davis. Meeks called the impeachment of Clinton a “political lynching” and Davis referred to it as a “lynching in the People’s House.” Meeks and Davis are both black legislators. If “lynching” was such a hurtful racist word, you would think they – above all people – would have known that.
It is obvious what is going on here. Reality cannot stand in the way of maligning Trump – and that hypocrisy remains the dominant characteristic of the political class.
So … ignore the mock shock. And, if you want to get away from all the heavy political news of the day, you can always play “Hangman” online at hangmanwordgame.com – or as a “cool math game” at coolmathgames.com. There are other sites featuring what is described as a “classic fun game.”
FOOTNOTE: If there is any value in conjuring up the historic reality of lynchings in America it might be to remind us that virtually every lynching of a black American was done by Democrats with the tacit approval – or even participation of – the racist and segregationist Democrat leadership in Dixie. Repeated Republican attempts to make lynching a federal civil rights crime in the 1930s, were defeated by President Franklin Roosevelt and his Democrat allies in Congress. Just saying.
So, there ‘tis.
Yes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually said that – and the pro-impeachment press played her comment without rebuttal. That let her blatant and obvious political lie stand. That is what the elitist media do.
But what about … ?
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters calling for Trump’s impeachment BEFORE he was inaugurated. She raised that desire during the transition period when the Democratic Party, the political left and most of the east coast liberal media were in a state of shock. The knee-jerk mood on the left was to undo what the public had done – elect Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States.
Since it is not possible to impeach a President before he takes office – despite what unhinged folks like Waters seem to think — the dazed left tried to get Electoral College electors to break faith by defying the vote of their constituents to elect someone – anyone else — to be President. That was not even the craziest idea emanating from the deranged left.
We can recall that there was even a totally idiotic effort to have the Congress refuse to seat President Trump – even though the Congress has no authority to do that. And the Congress can only impeach AFTER a person takes office. Duh! And that is exactly what they are trying to do now.
In offering up her mendacious talking point, Nancy appears to have conveniently forgotten that Maxine Waters repeated and repeated her call for an impeachment of Trump throughout his years in office. Pelosi seems to have forgotten that Texas Congressman Al Green entered a bill of impeachment in the first year of the Trump presidency. Other bills of impeachment were entered subsequently. These folks obviously came to Congress with malice of forethought to impeach Trump.
Did Pelosi forget about Minnesota Congresswoman Rashid Tlaib who told her young son that she was going to Washington to “Impeach the m*****f****r.” When she relayed that bit of dubious motherhood to the others in her freshman class, she was cheered and applauded vigorously.
New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made no secret of her intent to push for impeachment of the President as soon as she was sworn in.
Contrary to Pelosi’s contention that no one comes to Congress with a desire to impeach a President, it is more accurate to say that the vast majority of her Democrat caucus in the 116th Congress came there motivated by one unifying thought – impeach President Trump.
So, there, tis.