Time to ask Schiff about his informant Eric Ciaramella

0
317
Harold Pease Ph.D.
Harold Pease, Ph.D.

Sen. Rand Paul’s question to the House managers in the impeachment question and answer phase of the proceedings against President 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,” Paul said.

Why is this query the most important question of the about 100 asked? The campaign to impeach Trump began “at the moment he was sworn in,” according to The Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2017. Hoax followed hoax until the present Ukrainian debacle resulting in the Senate impeachment trial and acquittal of Trump. But the hoax perpetuators always walk away without consequence despite two notable victims – the Constitution and Trump.

House Speaker 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 question 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. It 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 Trump walks the streets, having irreparably hurt another but protected from disclosure himself because he called himself a whistleblower. Although in no way does he fit the definition of the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act, and thus, he is not entitled to special protection. Without his complaint, which was based entirely upon hearsay as were the testimony of 16 of the 18 House witnesses, the impeachment would have never resulted. He was billed by Adam Schiff as their strongest case but he was disarmed when Trump declassified and published his conversation with the Ukrainian president.

Notice 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?” Paul said.

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 question Paul asked the next day. A presumption is that it contained the name of the so-called whistleblower. But how could he assume this information – not from the question – unless this name was already common knowledge in Washington. In a town known for leaking like a sieve, it was. Only the public is denied knowing.

So Roberts, by refusing only this question of a hundred, indirectly gave credence that one of the two names Paul was asking Schiff about was the whistle-leaker. Since everyone already knew Shawn Misko as a Schiff employee, then Eric Ciaramella is the man most responsible for the impeachment of Trump and is the name forbidden to name by the Democratic Party media machine.

No other name is mentioned as being the infamous whistle leaker. The internet is full of references to him; some are more credible than others. Real Clear Investigations observed that Ciaramella’s name has been an open secret in Washington. 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 in 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 and 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 the name, outside the Washington Beltway, of the one person that started the most recent of several impeachment parades, Eric Ciaramella. I 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.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and to applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.