Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts

Thursday, October 31, 2019

RealClear Investigations "Exposes" Trump "Secret" Whistleblower - Democrats Impeachment house of cards starts crumbling!







The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name

By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations

October 30, 2019, 4:21 PM Eastern

For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous “whistleblower" who triggered impeachment proceedings against President Trump — even though his identity is an open secret inside the Beltway.



Eric Ciaramella as a class of 2004 Connecticut
prep student: He later moved on to Yale and
 the White House. Now he could be at the
 center of an impeachment storm.

More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that’s known publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House and is now back working at the CIA.

But the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous witness could be exposed, Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to redact his name from all deposition transcripts.

RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official's status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate" -- as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.

Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.



Joe Biden: Invited Ciaramella to state
Luncheon with Italian premier. Also invited:
Brennan, Comey, Clapper. 
AP Photo/Matt Rourke



Further, Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.

And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.







Alexandra Chalupa: DNC oppo researcher was
invited to the Obama White House by Ciaramella.
Afric Vision NouvelleTV/YouTube

Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015.  She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.

With Ciaramella’s name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst is so high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the whistleblower in a speech on the House floor.

On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The mainstream media are also aware of his name.






Fred Fleitz, Trump adviser:
“Everyone knows who he is." 
fredfleitz.com/Wikimedia





“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from the media.

Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation’s capital remains uncharacteristically — and curiously — mum, especially considering the magnitude of this story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.

Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a “corrupt” and "biased” media trying to protect the whistleblower from justified scrutiny of his political motives. They also complain Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity – and doesn’t cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing him would put him and his family “at risk of harm," although government security personnel have been assigned to protect him.

“They’re hiding him,” Fleitz asserted. “They’re hiding him because of his political bias."
A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.





Susan Rice: Ciaramella worked under
Obama's national security adviser.
AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File



Federal records show that Biden’s office invited Ciaramella to an October 2016 state luncheon the vice president hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Other invited guests included Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper.



Several U.S. officials told RealClearInvestigations that the invitation that was extended to Ciaramella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, was unusual and signaled he was politically connected inside the Obama White House.

Former White House officials said Ciaramella worked on Ukrainian policy issues for Biden in 2015 and 2016, when the vice president was President Obama's "point man" for Ukraine. A Yale graduate, Ciaramella is said to speak Russian and Ukrainian, as well as Arabic. He had been assigned to the NSC by Brennan.

He was held over into the Trump administration, and headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC, eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017.

“He was moved over to the front office” to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White House official, where he “saw everything, read everything.”

The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the new Republican president’s foreign policies. “My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing – Ukraine,” he said. “He didn’t exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president’s policies.”

“So I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the whistleblower,” the official said.

In May 2017, Ciaramella went “outside his chain of command,” according to a former NSC co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had phoned the president a week earlier.

Contents of the email appear to have ended up in the media, which reported Trump boasted to the Russian officials about firing Comey, whom he allegedly called “crazy, a real nut job.”
In effect, Ciaramella helped generate the “Putin fired Comey” narrative, according to the research dossier making the rounds in Congress, a copy of which was obtained by RealClearInvestigations.

Ciaramella allegedly argued that “President Putin suggested that President Trump fire Comey,” the report said. “In the days after Comey’s firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup [sic] of the special counsel to investigate ‘Russia collusion.’ “

In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy between Trump and Putin. Ciaramella’s email was cited in a footnote in his report, which mentions only Ciaramella’s name, the date and the recipients “Kelly et al.” Former colleagues said the main recipient was then-Homeland Security Director John Kelly.



House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam
Schiff: "Whistleblower" complaint amounts to
impeachable offense.
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite




Ciaramella left the Trump White House soon after Mueller was appointed. Attempts to reach Ciaramella were unsuccessful, although his father said in a phone interview from Hartford, where he is a bank executive, that he doubted his son was the whistleblower. “He didn’t have that kind of access to that kind of information,” Tony Ciaramella said. “He’s just a guy going to work every day.” The whistleblower's lawyers did not answer emails and phone calls seeking comment. CIA spokesman Luis Rossello declined comment, saying, “Anything on the whistleblower, we are referring to ODNI.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.

In his complaint, the whistleblower charged that the president used “the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”  Specifically, he cited a controversial July 25 phone call from the White House residence in which Trump asked Ukraine’s new president to help investigate the origins of the Russia “collusion” investigation the Obama administration initiated against his campaign, citing reports that “a lot of it started with Ukraine," where the former pro-Hillary Clinton regime in Kiev worked with Obama diplomats and Chalupa to try to “sabotage” Trump’s run for president.

Later in the conversation, Trump also requested information about Biden and his son, since “Biden went around bragging that he” had fired the chief Ukrainian prosecutor at the time a Ukrainian oligarch, who gave Biden’s son a lucrative seat on the board of his energy conglomerate, was under investigation for corruption.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff argued the whistleblower's complaint, though admittedly based on second-hand information, amounts to an impeachable offense, and they subsequently launched an impeachment inquiry that has largely been conducted in secret.

The whistleblower filed his “urgent” report against Trump with the I.C. inspector general on Aug. 12, but it was not publicly released until Sept. 26.

Prior to filing, he had met with Schiff’s Democratic staff for “guidance." At first, the California lawmaker denied the contacts, but later admitted that his office did, in fact, meet with the whistleblower early on.






Sean Misko: One of Ciaramella’s closest allies
at the NSC, now on Schiff's committee staff.
Center for a New American Security






Earlier this year, Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella’s closest allies at the NSC — both whom were also Obama holdovers -- to join his committee staff. He hired one, Sean Misko, in August — the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.

During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings told RealClearInvestigations.

Republicans participating in the restricted inquiry hearings have been asking witnesses about Ciaramella and repeatedly injecting his name into the deposition record, angering Schiff and Democrats, who sources say are planning to scrub the references to Ciaramella from any transcripts of the hearings they may agree to release.

“Their reaction tells you something,” said one official familiar with the inquiry.

For example, sources said Ciaramella’s name was invoked by GOP committee members during the closed-door testimony of former NSC official Fiona Hill on Oct. 14. Ciaramella worked with Hill, another Obama holdover, in the West Wing.

During Tuesday’s deposition of NSC official Alexander Vindman, Democrats shut down a line of inquiry by Republicans because they said it risked revealing the identity of the whistleblower. Republicans wanted to know with whom Vindman spoke within the administration about his concerns regarding Trump’s call to Ukraine. But Schiff instructed the witness not to answer the questions, which reportedly sparked a shouting match between Democrats and Republicans.

Determined to keep the whistleblower's identity secret, Schiff recently announced it may not be necessary for him to testify even in closed session. Republicans argue that by hiding his identity, the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.
Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, asserted the American people have the right to know the person who is trying to bring down the president for whom 63 million voted.

“It’s tough to determine someone’s credibility if you can’t put them under oath and ask them questions,” he said.

Added Jordan: “The people want to know. I want to get to the truth."



Rep. Louis Gohmert: Ciaramella was “supposed
to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time
when Ukraine was its most corrupt, and he didn’t
blow any whistles on their corruption."
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin



In an open House Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) seemingly out of left field asked a witness about “Eric Ciaramella of the Obama National Security Council,” in what the Washington press corps took as a bid to out the whistleblower. He later told a Dallas radio station he knew the whistleblower’s name. “A lot of us in Washington know who it is,” Gohmert said, adding he’s a “very staunch Democrat” who was “supposed to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt, and he didn’t blow any whistles on their corruption."

The Washington Post ran a news story over the weekend critical of Republicans for allegedly trying to “unmask” the whistleblower, for attempting to do the job journalists would normally do. Last week, the paper ran an op-ed by the whistleblower’s attorneys claiming he was no longer relevant to the inquiry and beseeching the public to let their client slip back into obscurity.

For its part, the New York Times ran a story last month reporting details about the whistleblower’s background, but stopped short of fully identifying him, suggesting it didn’t know his politics or even his name. “Little else is known about him,” the paper claimed.

On Thursday, Democrats plan a House vote on new impeachment-inquiry rules that would give Republicans for the first time the ability to call their own witnesses. Only, their requests must first be approved by the Democrats. So there is a good chance the whistleblower, perhaps the most important witness of all, will remain protected from critical examination.


This and all other original articles created by RealClearInvestigations may be republished for free with attribution. (These terms do not apply to outside articles linked on the site.)

We provide our stories for free but they are expensive to produce. Help us continue to publish distinctive journalism by making a contribution today to RealClearInvestigations.


Sunday, July 07, 2019

You can love them or hate them, but you cannot beat them – the US Women's World Cup Champions!



They were bold.
They were brash.
They were arrogant.
They were cocky.
They were outspoken.
They were irreverent.

They were Americans.


Oh yes, and World Cup Champions again!

Throughout the entire thirty-day length of the Women’s World Cup Championship over one billion fans from around the world watched in awe, sometimes horror, shock, and in the end respect for the US Women’s National Soccer Team.


In the final round of eight teams there were seven European teams versus the United States, the best competition the world had to offer.  Seven to one against you is just the kind of challenge Americans are born to thrive on.


Thrive they did by overcoming serious challenges on the pitch, along with wave after wave of controversy, condemnation, and consternation off the field.  In the end, the Americans let their actions on the field match their words and only the Americans were left standing at the end of the grueling battle.


You must have the skills to be champions, but you also must have the character to breath fire into your emotions to help you be the best in the world.  No one has ever done it better.  So now we know, you can love them or hate them but you cannot beat them.  For that they deserve the admiration of all those who questioned their actions on and off the field.


Can they help heal the Nation?

They defended the nation’s honor, perhaps they can help heal the nation as well.  As they return World Champions maybe they can help demonstrate those qualities that have been missing in our divided nation.

Partisan politics have dominated our landscape and driven millions into hatred, social chaos, fear, a lack of respect for others, and an unwillingness to work together to solve those problems.  In short, we no longer communicate.


If these champions are truly concerned with women’s rights, pay equality, and ending discrimination, they should know there is only one sure path to getting anything done to help their causes.

They need to be heard by the people who get things done in America, like the President.  If I were them, I would use the stage they earned as world champions to reach a greater stage like the President of the United States.  Rather than disrespecting the Office of the President they should agree to visit the White House so they can take their concerns to someone who can help them bring about change.


The Lesson of Speaker Pelosi

Maybe they can learn from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.  Last week she had her Democrat controlled House pass a spending bill for immigration which differed from the bill supported by the president.  Trump’s bill crushed her efforts and he had bi-partisan support which she did not.  It was a masterpiece of power politics that even the news media has tried to ignore.

If the US team refuses to meet with the president as expected, they will eliminate their only chance to convince him to be their ally on some pretty reasonable women’s causes.  They might even find some unexpected support from the First Lady and the President’s daughter, and it is nice to have powerful allies in the White House.


The AOC Minefield

If they spurn the president and refuse to meet and the outspoken critic of the president on the women’s team, Megan Rapinoe, goes ahead with her announced plan to meet with the radical Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, known as AOC, the rare opportunity to be a voice for women will be blown.

Why, because AOC, while being the darling of the news media, has done absolutely nothing in Congress and is on the verge of destroying the Democrat Party.  Rapinoe should take heed of the words of Speaker Pelosi about AOC this weekend.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi again dismissed freshman like Rep.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, downplaying the amount of power they had amid a flurry of attention the media gave them.
“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi said of Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, D-Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib, D-Michigan, and Ayanna Pressley, D-Massachusetts.

Her comments came during a New York Times interview, published on Saturday after those four voted against a Republican measure funding humanitarian assistance at the border – which was eventually backed by Pelosi.


Pelosi followed her Twitter comments, saying "But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”


The soccer team can be just another voice in the wilderness, or take their case to the highest authority.  Right now, they are pawns in a very dangerous game of credibility.   

Friday, June 14, 2019

Observations from the Swamp #2 – May Wrap up – Mueller musings




Report for May


The month of May ended in a tumultuous avalanche of opinions on the secret meaning of the Mueller report, which was aggravated when Special Prosecutor Mueller came out of his den for the first time in over two years to deliver his own strange public statement on his report.


Yes, there really is a Mueller and we found him indeed alive though a bit worn.
After his nearly ten-minute address in which he said everything he wanted to say was in his original report already released by Attorney General Barr, and everyone should read the 400 plus page document, we were left with our heads spinning.


Seriously, read over 400 pages of legalese that draws no conclusions, no further indictments, and yes, no Russia collusion.  I do not think Americas are that hungry for such an inconclusive document.

Nothing new, so why would we read it?

To those who ignore the report, here is a summary.  There are four competing versions of the report depending on your bias.


Mueller’s version

He said he could not find the president innocent of conspiracy to obstruct justice.  Whoa!  Here I thought our criminal justice system guaranteed we were innocent until proven guilty.  Of course, he did not say the president was guilty either.  Just what is he saying?

So, he then makes the statement that the criminal justice system has no way to solve this conundrum, but there are constitutional means to do this.  This from a prosecutor in the criminal justice system, who works for the criminal enforcement arm of the government, the Justice Department, the heart of the Executive branch of government?

The news media says that means he told the Congress to investigate which is not what he said.  He referred to other Constitutional means.  How in the world could a member of the executive branch make referrals to another independent branch of government, the legislative branch of congress?

It would seem that violates the very principle of the separation and independence of the three branches of government.  Nowhere does any law say the congress has the right to determine guilt or innocence under criminal statutes.  That would be an infringement of the congress, legislative branch, on the executive branch powers.


Democrat version

The second version of the analysis came from the Democrats in the House who are straining to keep from self-destructing.  The leadership, including the six committee chairmen whose committees are investigating the president, seem determined to investigate every single thread mentioning Trump, his kids, his parents, and everything that happened in his life that might reflect on what he is doing as president.

This has the makings of the biggest fishing expedition in the history of our country to find a legitimate cause for impeachment.  Which clearly means after two and a half years and tens of millions of dollars of investigations, they still cannot figure out how to get rid of Trump.
Under the orchestration of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her pit bull chairmen, their intent seems to use every trick in the book to paralyze the president, cripple his presidency, and send him into oblivion in the next election.

Thus, nothing has changed.


Republican version

Not to be left out in the cold, the Republicans have their own version of what the report means.  Most largely remain silent figuring enough politicians are making fools of themselves, why risk a career just to jump on the credibility of the strange report.  That has not stopped President Trump, target of all the investigations, from commenting.
He is a very mad person about what is taking place.  Perhaps he should be since every member of the Democratic leadership has ignored the innocent until proven guilty criminal justice principle.  Before any investigative committee held their first hearings the Democrats already declared him guilty of something and/or everything.


In the meantime…


The Democrats seem to be single-handedly continuing to undermine our criminal justice system which began with the Clinton presidency and his Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, HR 3355. 

The largest crime bill in the history of the United States was originally written by one Senator Joe Biden, consisted of 356 pages, and provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs.  President Bill Clinton signed it into law.


The Center for American Progress says the following about the Clinton/Biden law.
Many consider the crime bill to be one of the cornerstone statutes that accelerated mass incarceration of minorities. But the law’s negative effects did not end there. States and localities were incentivized through a massive infusion of federal funding to build more jails and prisons and to pass so-called truth-in-sentencing laws and other punitive measures that simultaneously increased the number and length of prison sentences while reducing the possibility of early release for those incarcerated.

It has been well-documented that these policies were failures. Their cost to society came not only from the staggering amount of taxpayer dollars that were invested in enforcement, but also from the disproportionate incarceration of a generation of African American men in the name of public safety. Moreover, tough-on-crime measures—specifically longer incarceration sentences—have had at best a marginal effect on improving public safety.

If the presumption of innocence standard and the right to defend oneself against criminal charges are ignore by the Democrats, thus undermining our criminal justice system, we all should be concerned about the future because no one will be safe anymore.


News Media version

Last of the four versions of analysis is the News Media version.  Here the track record of reckless reporting, fake news, intense Trump hatred, and total disregard for professional journalistic principles and ethics were tossed out when Trump first became a threat to the darling of the news media, Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 campaign.

When it comes to Trump, the media long ago tossed out protections like presumption of innocence, right to fair defense, or anything that might leave the impression he is good in any way.  The good news is the media bias is well known to most Americans who know fair, balanced, honest, just or objective reporting is pretty much a thing of the past.

Few people really care what the media says, reports or claims, for their association with the swamp has long ago been established.  As for Trump, Washington insiders, also known as the Establishment, see him as the greatest threat to their power, ability to influence people, and efforts to control people.  When Trump says drain the swamp the media is in his crosshairs.

The Future

Washington, D.C.

Democrat Presidential









Media versus Trump






News Highlights 


UK






North Korea





China - Hong Kong







Venezuela






Iran  







Sudan






Israel