We’ve covered this ground quite a bit over the past months. But today’s editorial in the New York Post brings it home so cogently that I want it up here again.
The “whistleblower”, as you may remember is the unnamed person who didn’t hear a thing first-hand, but claims to have heard from someone else that, during their July 25th telephone call, President Trump demanded a quid pro quo from newly elected President Volodymyr Zelensky – investigating the Bidens – in return for military aid to Ukraine.
The fact that this “whistleblower” did not hear this first-hand, that it was nothing but hearsay, should have ended the issue right there. ‘
But Democrats, stung by the Mueller report which showed Trump did not collude with Russia and that there was insufficient evidence to pursue even one claim of obstruction of justice, were desperate for something to nail him with.
And, knowing that most mainstream media would have their backs, no matter how ludicrous the charges were, they latched onto this “whistleblower” story.
Media’s willingness to be their lapdogs was so complete that, even when the White House released a transcript of the call showing no quid pro quo was even mentioned, and even after President Zelensky confirmed that he felt no pressure to do anything during the call and had no idea that any aid money was being withheld, they still backed up the Democrat-invented story.
The fact that the Bidens SHOULD have been investigated, and STILL SHOULD, because then-Vice President Joe Biden is on video, doing exactly, precisely what Trump was being accused of – threatening to withhold aid unless he got what he wanted (in this case, the firing of a prosecutor looking into Burisma, the company his son, Hunter, was making millions from for doing nothing other than being Joe Biden’s son), was, and continues to be, ignored.
So much for our “neutral” media.
In any event, the fact remains that this entire charade, this farce, originated with a so-called “whistleblower”.
So who is this person?
Pretty much everyone in Washington knows that his name is Eric Ciaramella – a virulently anti-Trump Democrat operative with close ties to the major anti-Trump players. And that it seems apparent Ciaramella was no “whistleblower” at all, just a “McGuffin” – i.e. a vehicle for Democrats to take a major pot-shot at Trump.
This excerpt from the New York Post editorial – the final part of the editorial – puts it in perspective:
… if Ciaramella is the whistleblower, isn’t it also relevant that he, according to (investigative reporter Paul) Sperry, previously worked with CIA Director John Brennan, a fierce critic of Trump, and Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s political opponent and the crux of the impeachment inquiry? That he’s a registered Democrat and that he was – again, according to Sperry – accused of leaking negative information about the Trump Administration and that’s why he was transferred back to Langley?
What, if anything, did he leak? Did he work with Biden on Ukraine, apparently Ciaramella’s area of expertise? Did he know about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Who told him about the call, and why did that person not complain instead of him? How did Schiff’s staff help him tailor the complaint?
This is only the fourth time in our history that a president has faced impeachment. Shouldn’t we know the answers to these questions now, and not in two, three years when the inevitable official reports and tell-all books come out? Why must we wait for the truth?
Read that, and know where the real scandal is.
Then think about the fact that, if Democrats actually go through with articles of impeachment – which means the Republican-controlled Senate gets control and can (finally) present the other side of the story; the one suppressed by schiff, Nadler & Co….
Eric Ciaramella’s identity as the “whistleblower”, and the fact that he was/is a Democrat operative, not some nonpartisan concerned citizen, is going to come out loud and clear for the public to see.
But, since Republicans can name Ciaramella any time they want, why haven’t they exposed his identity and his activities already?
I don’t know for sure, but I have to at least consider the possibility that it is strategic; that Republicans first wanted Democrats to hang themselves out to dry by putting on the “impeachment inquiry” farce in the House of Representatives. And after the formal impeachment vote, when Democrats will have gone far past the point of no return, Republicans will then spring these revelations on the public.
I admit that, if their history is any indication, I may be giving a lot more credit to Republicans than they deserve. But if this, in fact, is what they’ve strategized, then – so far – it is working like a charm.
Let’s see if they are foolish enough to go through with it and vote formal articles of impeachment…thus opening the door for Republicans to make mincemeat of this farce in the senate.
It will be quite a show.