Can we talk about Eric Ciaramella?

 

Can we talk about Eric Ciaramella

Serious question: Where are we allowed to talk about alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella? It seems like so few are doing so even though he is one of the final missing pieces of the puzzle at the conclusion of the impeachment saga, a loose end that won’t seem to go away.

You can’t talk about him on YouTube, as Senator Rand Paul learned.

You can’t talk about him on Facebook, as Ken LaCorte learned.

Mainstream media, including Fox News, has a “Voldemort Rule” in place. Guests are told He Who Shall Not Be Named is anathema and cause for instant excommunication from cable news forever if his name is uttered.

Twitter has remained Ciaramella-agnostic thus far, though some have reported there’s an algorithmic suppression of Tweets that tag him. I’ve written extensively about Eric Ciaramella on my site, but we’re not Fox News. Not yet.

Where does that leave us? Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes has threatened to refer the investigation into Ciaramella to the Justice Department if Inspector General Michael Atkinson doesn’t comply with a request for information surrounding his whistleblower exploits. Considering the tip-toeing the DoJ is doing right now as a result of the Roger Stone situation, it’s hard to imagine them going after the whistleblower until the smoke clears, if ever.

The conversation needs to be had, as Ciaramella’s involvement in questionable activities that extend back to before the 2016 election tells us he knows a lot more that needs to come to light. His fingerprints are all over Burisma, and not just as a whistleblower to the Zelensky phone call. Reports indicate he was engaged in covering for Hunter Biden while President Obama was still in the White House. His leaked conspiracy theory that Vladimir Putin ordered the firing of James Comey has never been fully resolved. Considering how much access he had to sensitive and classified White House information through the NSC, CIA, and working for H.R. McMaster, he must be questioned by the right people at some point in the very near future.

There are precious few places online where Eric Ciaramella’s name is even allowed to be mentioned. His exploits continue to be important even as impeachment is fading into the history books. It’s time for people in power (and everyone else) to know what’s really behind the alleged whistleblower’s actions.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 41 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Just fire Eric Ciaramella and see what happens.

    • #1
  2. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    The funny thing is the efforts to squelch any reference to the whistleblower’s identity have merely served to confirm his identity!  At this point it serves no purpose to pretend we don’t know his name. 

    • #2
  3. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    Just another example of liberals trying to prohibit the enunciation of self evident truths. 

    • #3
  4. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Just fire Eric Ciaramella and see what happens.

    Where does he work?  If it’s for the Federal government, drag his pajama-boy butt to DOJ for questioning . . .

    • #4
  5. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    We must not discuss the C-word person.  

    • #5
  6. JD Rucker Member
    JD Rucker
    @JDRucker

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    The funny thing is the efforts to squelch any reference to the whistleblower’s identity have merely served to confirm his identity! At this point it serves no purpose to pretend we don’t know his name.

    It serves their purpose of pretending he doesn’t exist so they don’t have to report on him and clue in others about his existence.

    • #6
  7. JD Rucker Member
    JD Rucker
    @JDRucker

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    We must not discuss the C-word person.

    That’s not the first time I’ve heard him referred to as the “C-word”

    • #7
  8. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball
    @DougKimball

    He could be called to testify regarding his roll in the Obama era meeting to discuss the Hunter Biden situation.  He sent out the invitation memo.  He signed in the Ukraine representatives for the meeting at the WH.  This was all disclosed on Laura Ingraham’s show.  This meeting predates any of the Russia collusion nonsense. 

    • #8
  9. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    That YouTube would remove a video of a statement from the well of the Senate boggles [auto correct inserted “giggles”] the mind. Exhibit A in removing the exemption of “platforms” from claims that can be made against publishers.

    • #9
  10. JD Rucker Member
    JD Rucker
    @JDRucker

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    He could be called to testify regarding his roll in the Obama era meeting to discuss the Hunter Biden situation. He sent out the invitation memo. He signed in the Ukraine representatives for the meeting at the WH. This was all disclosed on Laura Ingraham’s show. This meeting predates any of the Russia collusion nonsense.

    Exactly. When Ukrainian prosecutors came to discuss their shared “problem,” Ciaramella was smack-dab in the middle of it.

    • #10
  11. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    Regarding your picture, who shakes hands like that?  He’s shorter than Barry and yet he shakes hands like he’s LBJ.  He looks so athletic and masculine that he probably injured his rotator cuff doing that.

    • #11
  12. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    The funny thing is the efforts to squelch any reference to the whistleblower’s identity have merely served to confirm his identity! At this point it serves no purpose to pretend we don’t know his name.

    The purpose now is to demonstrate the authority of the talking class. It’s not about hiding Eric C., and hasn’t been for some time. It’s about rubbing our faces in it.

    • #12
  13. JD Rucker Member
    JD Rucker
    @JDRucker

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    Regarding your picture, who shakes hands like that? He’s shorter than Barry and yet he shakes hands like he’s LBJ. He looks so athletic and masculine that he probably injured his rotator cuff doing that.

    You can tell a lot about a person by how they shake hands. Ciaramella seems to have the I-wish-I-was-a-linebacker shake.

    • #13
  14. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge
    DonG (skeptic)
    @DonG

    Bob W (View Comment):

    Just another example of liberals trying to prohibit the enunciation of self evident truths.

    Indeed, there is an effort to make discourse a minefield of forbidden words, phrases, and names.  This is done to shut out voices and ideas that Leftists don’t want to hear.  I say, let’s go down fighting for free speech.

    • #14
  15. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge
    DonG (skeptic)
    @DonG

    JD Rucker: Ciaramella’s involvement in questionable activities that extend back to before the 2016 election

    I would love to have all the communications between him and Chalupa and Biden and the mobsters in Ukraine.

    • #15
  16. Ben Sears Member
    Ben Sears
    @BenMSYS

    “Is Bill the whistleblower?”

    “No.”

    “What about Cindy?”

    “No.”

    “There was that Eric guy…”

    “Do not dare mention his name!”

    “I guess we’ll never know.”

    • #16
  17. MichaelKennedy Member
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    It did tell us whose side the Chief Justice was on.  At least clear now.  I wasn’t sure after Obamacare.  I am now.

    • #17
  18. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    It did tell us whose side the Chief Justice was on. At least clear now. I wasn’t sure after Obamacare. I am now.

    There is that.  It is hard to accept the number of people we are supposed to respect that hate Trump and his supporters.

    • #18
  19. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    This “whistleblower” stuff bewilders me. I get that there should be protections for a person who comes forth to expose concerns about possible wrongdoings of elected officials, or corporate bigwigs, or whatever. The dude shouldn’t lose his job or whatever, if it is decided that his information led to exposing  some malfeasence by the people he is working for.

    But once his whistleblowing leads to the whole affair coming to light, once we’re all aware of it, once it’s all now in the open and being investigated by the proper athorities, isn’t the whistleblower’s anonymity now moot? Indeed, shouldn’t he want to be known, for a book deal if not the thanks of a grateful nation?

    Why all the cageyness around the name of Eric Ciaramella? If he’s not the whistleblower, shouldn’t he be coming out on all the available social media rolling his eyes and damning Trump, who he hates?

    Then we are not allowed to know who this WB is. Okay. What does that have to do with this random person, Eric Ciaramella? He’s just one of 2,000,000 people on the government payroll, and we have a few questions for him. Who said he’s the whistleblower, not us. Not even Adan Schiff himself knows who the whistleblower is; Mr. Schiff sathat he did not know who the WB was , and that he had never talked to him. But what about this other guy, this Eric Ciar-something? Why can’t he be called to give account of his actions in this matter?

    However, if it turns out that he is the “whistleblower” in this case,  then we also have quite a few legitimate questions for him. They should be put to him immediately.

    The whistleblower laws are important, for all the obvious reasons. But if they are appropriated for political ends, it is always going to turn into the s***show we have been watching for the last many months.

    • #19
  20. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):

    This “whistleblower” stuff bewilders me. I get that there should be protections for a person who comes forth to expose concerns about possible wrongdoings of elected officials, or corporate bigwigs, or whatever. The dude shouldn’t lose his job or whatever, if it is decided that his information led to exposing some malfeasence by the people he is working for.

    But once his whistleblowing leads to the whole affair coming to light, once we’re all aware of it, once it’s all now in the open and being investigated by the proper athorities, isn’t the whistleblower’s anonymity now moot? Indeed, shouldn’t he want to be known, for a book deal if not the thanks of a grateful nation?

    Why all the cageyness around the name of Eric Ciaramella? If he’s not the whistleblower, shouldn’t he be coming out on all the available social media rolling his eyes and damning Trump, who he hates?

    Then we are not allowed to know who this WB is. Okay. What does that have to do with this random person, Eric Ciaramella? He’s just one of 2,000,000 people on the government payroll, and we have a few questions for him. Who said he’s the whistleblower, not us. Not even Adan Schiff himself knows who the whistleblower is; Mr. Schiff sathat he did not know who the WB was , and that he had never talked to him. But what about this other guy, this Eric Ciar-something? Why can’t he be called to give account of his actions in this matter?

    However, if it turns out that he is the “whistleblower” in this case, then we also have quite a few legitimate questions for him. They should be put to him immediately.

    The whistleblower laws are important, for all the obvious reasons. But if they are appropriated for political ends, it is always going to turn into the s***show we have been watching for the last many months.

    The person being protected here is likely a criminal who has given false testimony under oath. That should be investigated.

    • #20
  21. MichaelKennedy Member
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    Rodin (View Comment):

    That YouTube would remove a video of a statement from the well of the Senate boggles [auto correct inserted “giggles”] the mind. Exhibit A in removing the exemption of “platforms” from claims that can be made against publishers.

    I wonder if Rand Paul plans to start an anti-trust action against Google, owner of You Tube?  It does speak to the Peter Thiel interview about innovation.  New startups are bought by the dinosaurs quickly.

    • #21
  22. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Coolidge
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Of course, it’s worth noting that Ciaramella is not any sort of “whistleblower.” He’s a traitorous coup-plotter. Can we agree to stop using the word “whistleblower” to describe him?

     

    • #22
  23. Ray Kujawa Coolidge
    Ray Kujawa
    @RayKujawa

    And here you have illustrated beautifully how it is that the administrative state avoids the checks and balances built into the Constitution. By using the law and the threat of ostracism by the fourth estate to protect itself. But against what? What branch of the Federal government does Eric Ciaramella work for? Isn’t he part of the Administrative branch of the US government? And how can the whistleblower statute protect him from the consequences of all of his other nefarious actions not involving the Ukraine phone call? I can see no reason for his other suspect involvements to be above scrutiny by the Executive, the Legislative, the Judicial branches of government, nor the conservative media. Of which you should realize that the public side of Ricochet is a part. 
    In case you might have forgotten, Ricochet has been quoted occasionally on Rush Limbaugh’s program.

    • #23
  24. Slow on the uptake Thatcher
    Slow on the uptake
    @Chuckles

    Can we not just replace the name with something like @#%?  I do know from experience that FB misses the post if you misspell the name – they used to, anyhow.

    Or don’t use the word “whistleblower” (maybe use some small avatar)? Or, as Mr. Caward has suggested – avoid that particular context and discuss, rather, one of his many other questionable activities.

     

    • #24
  25. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Slow on the uptake (View Comment):

    Can we not just replace the name with something like @#%? I do know from experience that FB misses the post if you misspell the name – they used to, anyhow.

    Or don’t use the word “whistleblower” (maybe use some small avatar)? Or, as Mr. Caward has suggested – avoid that particular context and discuss, rather, one of his many other questionable activities.

    Or, when referring to him directly, just use C-word.

    • #25
  26. Slow on the uptake Thatcher
    Slow on the uptake
    @Chuckles

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Slow on the uptake (View Comment):

    Can we not just replace the name with something like @#%? I do know from experience that FB misses the post if you misspell the name – they used to, anyhow.

    Or don’t use the word “whistleblower” (maybe use some small avatar)? Or, as Mr. Caward has suggested – avoid that particular context and discuss, rather, one of his many other questionable activities.

     

    On, when referring to him directly, just use C-word.

    (picture of palm striking forehead).  Yes, of course.

    • #26
  27. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Last time I looked, my personal blog over at RushBabe49.com is not censored by anyone.  I’m pretty incendiary sometimes.  I can do a post with his name in the title and see what happens.

    • #27
  28. Luke Thatcher
    Luke
    @Luke

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):
    Why all the cageyness around the name of Eric Ciaramella?

    This is , I think, the most real question to ask.

    • #28
  29. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Luke (View Comment):

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):
    Why all the cageyness around the name of Eric Ciaramella?

    This is , I think, the most real question to ask.

    Well, we may get some more clues as US Attorney Durham pursues his investigation involving CIA leadership under Obama. Should be fun.

    • #29
  30. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Rodin (View Comment):

    That YouTube would remove a video of a statement from the well of the Senate boggles [auto correct inserted “giggles”] the mind. Exhibit A in removing the exemption of “platforms” from claims that can be made against publishers.

    This. Precisely. But, will Sen. Rand Paul see past his libertarian leanings to call for a DOJ led interagency team to descend upon Google?

    • #30