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. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 41 comments.

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

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    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?

    I think he can. If you overarching principle is liberty, you can see that corporations cannot be permitted to interfere with the marketplace that censorship brings. Either your business is a platform or a publisher. You play be the rules that associated with each, not sliding between them to engage in shaping speech in the marketplace.

    • #31
  2. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Post is up at RushBabe49.com. 

    • #32
  3. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Post is up at RushBabe49.com.

    You suggested exactly what his real name is, and I hope it sticks.

    Oh and the algorhythm cannot read anything put inside a graphic, so if your post is removed, you can always put your post inside a colored box and put it back up. We have been doing stuff like that over at Facebook inside a group called “Political corruption investigation,” and it seems to work out nicely.

    • #33
  4. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    My idea was that Rand Paul should have had a tee shirt made up with Eric C’s name on it, and worn it into the Senate.

    • #34
  5. Jim Stamos Member
    Jim Stamos
    @JimStamos

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    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.

     

    • #35
  6. Jim Stamos Member
    Jim Stamos
    @JimStamos

    The crazy thing is that if you read the statute, it simply does not apply to him. And if it did, it would not limit anyone other than the inspector general and his employer.  There is literally no legal basis to prohibit anyone from identifying him. 

    • #36
  7. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Some conservative with a few spare thousands of dollars should rent a billboard on the Beltway with a simple question.

    Who is Eric Ciaramella?

     

    • #37
  8. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    Jim Stamos (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    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.

    There is certainly no legal basis for keeping his name unspoken.

    But here are the other reasons for keeping his name unmentionable:

    • #38
  9. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Belated Congratulations on the Instalanche!

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/358260/

    • #39
  10. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Congratulations, JD Rucker; This was Ricochet’s most-read post in February, according to Google Analytics. The answer to your titular question is yes.

    • #40
  11. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Belated Congratulations on the Instalanche!

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/358260/

    oh. 🤣

    • #41
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.