Here's the Possible Whistleblower — and the Questions He's Supposed to Answer

 



In the midst of Russia's fever, the liberal press took a hectoring tone to every medium that displayed a glimmer of doubt. How dare any journalist refuse to believe that President Trump is an agent of Vladimir Putin! Who will challenge the rational virtues of the FBI?

We now know, of course, that the conspiracy theories were false. There was no Russian collusion with Trump's campaign. Moreover, the Inspector General's report proves that the FBI has trampled on civil rights and common sense in the pursuit of the case.

Although an idle exchange during a meeting with George Papadopoulos and an Australian official may have sparked an investigation, Crossfire Storm, it was only because of the lavish gossip in a Democratic-funded opposition article, the Steele file, which the FBI was in a position to issue a warrant for Trump's campaign strategist, Carter Page.

And when the Agency found that Steele's sources did not backup the file, that the evidence did not backup the file, the red scare began. When it came out that Page was a CIA informant, an FBI lawyer was lying about it.

Every suspicion of FBI agents was leaked to the press and printed without scepticism. Few have challenged their practises.

It's just now that the New York Times has released a "review" that, oops, may have been "A Troubling Look in the U.S. Surveillance.'

Forgive us, then, for the feeling of déjà vu when it comes to the prosecution proceedings. This time, the press is almost unified in arguing that you are not going to challenge the storey of how this whole thing began. Don't you dare call the whistleblower?

Don't ask if Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) would have inspired him to compose his complaint. Or maybe that Schiff's lying when he claims he doesn't know who the whistleblower is. Or why Schiff is subpoenaing his colleagues' phone records.

This is the same Schiff, by the way, who said in 2018 that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISAs) warrants of the Department of Justice met "the necessary rigour, transparency and evidence base."

Schiff had the same details as Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who had noticed the exact opposite. So we know that Schiff is a liar.

Two years from now, are we going to find out the true storey? It might not change either side's opinion of the prosecution, but isn't that what the press is doing—trying to find the truth?

The informant is possibly Eric Ciaramella, a CIA analyst.

Journalist Paul Sperry published his name at the end of October, reporting that he had been named by sources within the closed-door prosecution hearings. Ciaramella did not make any comment denying these claims.

 Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny that Ciaramella is their man. Apparently, his identity is the worst kept secret of the Washington press corps. As an indication of how farcical this has become, Rep.

Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a sequence of names during a live broadcast on television on Wednesday night.

He never called him the whistleblower, just claimed he was someone who the Republicans thought could testify to, but the Democrats furiously protested the "outing." If you don't know the man's name, how do you know the man's name?

Politico's Jack Shafer argued eloquently that the press should call the whistleblower. It is not against the law—the protection of whistleblowers is intended to deter reprehension at the workplace and apply it to managers, not to the media.

But, while the press was eagerly trying to erase Deep Throat or the anonymous author of "A Warning," they surprisingly lacked interest.

They were hypocritical, too. In September, the Times reported that the informant was a male CIA officer who served in the White House and was back at the CIA.

Why? Why? Executive editor Dean Baquet said, "We wanted to provide readers with information that would allow them to make their own judgments on whether or not they are credible." Cynics may suggest they were trying to argue that the whistleblower was credible.

But if that's the point, and if Ciaramella is a whistleblower, isn't it also true that, according to Sperry, he had previously collaborated with CIA director John Brennan, a fierce critic of Trump, and Vice President Joe Biden, Trump's political foe, and the crux of the prosecution investigation?

That he is a registered Democrat and that he was—again, according to Sperry—accused of leaking derogatory details about the Trump administration, and that's why he was moved back to Langley?

What, if anything, has he been leaking? Did he work on Ukraine with Biden, obviously Ciaramella's area of expertise? Did he know anything about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Who told him about the call, and why didn't he complain instead? How did Schiff's team help him deal with the complaint?

This is just the fourth time in our history that the president has been charged with indictment. Shouldn't we know the answers to these questions now, and not in two or three years, when the inevitable official reports and all the books come out? Why do we have to wait for the truth?

 

Written by – Mehak Sachdeva


Post a comment

0 Comments