The ONLY secret the Schiff team is remotely interested in actually keeping is that ONE name. But WHY are they so careful to protect it?
The official story you will hear from Democrats and their Media allies is that this ‘whistleblower’ (leaker? conspirator?) was merely doing his duty. Answering a ‘higher loyalty’.
And how can anyone possibly argue with the intentions of someone who is acting on their conscience?
If it really were this uncomplicated and unconnected to political power plays such a view might be entirely correct.
But there are a lot of conflicting agendas in play with such a high-stakes political game, and the clandestine cooperation with Schiff’s team does nothing to dissuade that.
Nor do allegations of illicit profiting from his role as ‘conspiracy leaker/whistleblower’.
If you missed those allegations, we’ve got you covered: BREAKING: ICIG Complaint Alleges Whistleblower Is Soliciting Illegal Donations Through GoFundMe
But there is another wrinkle. We know through various reporting that there a connection between this shadowy figure and Joe Biden.
Furthermore, if the name being thrown around is the right one, there is another potential motive that the American public deserves to see explored.
100%. I refuse to cower before the authoritarian intimidation campaign.
He’s not Voldemort. And he’s not a bona fide whistleblower. Even if he were, he wouldn’t be entitled to secrecy.
Eric Ciamarella is a deep state conspirator. He needs to testify now. https://t.co/JOxhEOOJiA
— Dan Bishop (@jdanbishop) November 12, 2019
Let’s see, why would a phone call inviting Ukraine’s President to check out allegations of corrupt US influence in forcing Ukraine to fire a public official be of any personal interest to this Eric fellow?
Well, how about this?
“Hurray,” a celebratory Nuland wrote in response to a translated Ukrainian government announcement about the signing of the $1 billion loan guarantee. The announcement singles out Joe Biden as being present for the conclusion of an agreement leading to the loan guarantee.
Ciaramella was one of several people CC’d in the email, which was sent from the U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, who was another key champion of the loan guarantee to Ukraine along with Nuland.
The email is one of several that shows Ciaramella in the loop with top officials such as Nuland working on Ukraine policy under the Obama administration.
The loan guarantee was pushed through after Ukraine agreed to several reforms, especially the firing of the nation’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. This at a time that Shokin was reportedly investigating Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company paying Hunter Biden. Joe Biden infamously boasted on video about personally threatening to withhold loan guarantees from Ukraine unless Shokin was removed.
Another released email shows Ciaramella himself sending a message to Nuland and others. Most of the contents are blocked out, including the email’s subject line. One non-classified section of that email shows a reply stating, “Embassy Kyiv — coordinated with our USAID mission folks — will have detailed input tomorrow.”
One email involving Nuland was sent two days before the loan guarantee was signed on June 3, 2016. “Can you confirm who will be doing the actual signing for each side?” the exchange asked.
Ciaramella is one of the names involved in an email exchange discussing the particulars of the very event that Biden bragged about. You remember that video where Biden said ‘son of a bitch he was fired’ or else Ukraine would not get that billion dollars. (Which under Schiff and the other Democrats’ ever-changing definitions currently falls under either ‘bribery’ or ‘extortion’.)
Is it not just as possible that Ciaramella was concerned about something a resumption of that investigate might turn up — something that could incriminate him and his associates?
Doesn’t that make one plausible motive for the entire narrative he’s spinning a term that was very fashionable among Democrats until their faint hope in Mueller evaporated?
Does anyone else remember that phrase they kept parroting? Could the lynchpin moment the Democrats are insisting was an act of conscience and duty actually be a willful OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
Let’s revisit the conversation with an eye to this additional information:
Trump knows that President Z has run on a drain the swamp mandate in a nation trying to dig itself out of a history of corruption. It actually came up in the conversation.
The context is that the Mueller investigation has finally flamed out only days earlier, (it, too, came up in conversation) and Trump is now free to look into lingering questions surrounding what happened in 2016, especially concerning foreign interference that was publicly alleged both in Politico about Ukraine helping Hillary’s campaign and various reporter’s work on what really happened to kick off the Russiagate/Spygate fiasco in the first place.
Add to that mix, Joe Biden’s foolish boasting that he held the revocation of a billion dollars over the head of the then-President of Ukraine unless their prosecutor gets canned.
That looks an awful lot like American politicians abusing their power against their supposed allies. Can you look into that, and see if Americans corruptly abused our authority?
Biden and his media water-carriers can call it ‘debunked’ all they want. That doesn’t wave away the very incriminating evidence that still leaves unanswered questions about that whole situation. Questions like these:
Media tried to portray the Ukraine stories as conspiracy theories. But in one week we now have confirmed Hunter Biden got VIP access at State. His company used it to try to quash corruption allegations just before VP Biden got prosecutor fired.
— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) November 8, 2019
So, this entire exercise is one of three things.
1) a good-faith exercise in conscientious objection.
2) a bad-faith coordinated effort by anti-Trump operatives in kneecapping the president to influence the outcome of a 2020 election that they don’t think they can win fairly
3) a willful act of obstruction of justice using a strategy of deflection and accusation to conceal real wrongdoing.
If this case is to be anything more than a kangaroo court with a rubber-stamped outcome, these three possibilities need to properly examined. And the only way to do it is to have the name made public, and his motives put to the same testing that every other supposed whistleblower has theirs subjected to.