Ciaramella hosted 2016 WH meeting to get Ukranian officials to drop investigation of Hunter Biden

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com ^ | November 12, 2019 | Jim Hoft

[Enterprise]

FULL UNALTERED TITLE: HUGE! — ‘Whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella Was Hosting 2016 WH Meeting Where Ukrainian Officials Were Told to Drop Investigation on Hunter Biden!

This explains it.
Anti-Trump CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella filed his second-hand “whistleblower” complaint against President Trump after speaking with Adam Schiff’s team in September.
Ciaramella claimed he was concerned about President Trump’s discussion of Hunter Biden during his call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

Now we know why Ciaramella was so concerned. According to White House visitor logs Eric Ciaramella was hosting the January 19, 2016 White House meeting where Ukrainian officials were told to drop the investigation into Hunter Biden.

[SaveFerris]

Perfect post - that's exactly what those people are and what they are doing

[SaveFerris]

Yes, that whole thing is brilliant. I noticed him too.

Whoever made that is great.

[Enterprise]

Too bad that the Democrat Party can’t be tried under criminal and civil RICO statutes and be banned from further participation in politics on the grounds it is nothing more than an ongoing criminal activity.

[SaveFerris]

[Enterprise]

I couldn’t have illustrated it better!

[nutmeg]

BTTT

[SaveFerris]

I believe, in the old days, that's how a coup like this would have been handled.

It's like people are trying, on purpose, to destroy America.

And the public face of that attempt always leads with Democrats.

But, then, I drive this car, often.



So I won't suggest anything crazy like destroying American sovereignty for the New World Order, by creating chaos inside America. Because that would just be crazy tinfoil stuff.

But I will say, Democrats will do anything for power. Absolutely anything. And if they have to destroy the country because they're still butt-hurt that they lost, then they will destroy the country by any means possible.

Never in my lifetime have I seen a dumpster fire like the Democrats. Or that so many people in the public would be stupid enough to give them a pass for being obvious traitors to the Republic.

[topher]

This article needs to reach the offices of members of Congress (House and Senate).

[Eleutheria5]

Let’s not mention his name. That’s so vicious. I propose we call him Blow-Boy. He was just doing a job, after all.

[SteveH]

> Let’s not mention his name. That’s so vicious. I propose we call him Blow-Boy. He was just doing a job, after all.

I take your suggestion into consideration. Eric Ciaramella, (strike) alleged whistleblower (/strike) “Blow-Boy”! It just kind of rolls off the tongue! I like it!! :-P

[Enterprise]

FReeper Patriots Flag posted that One America News was on it this morning. The people who really want to know will find out soon, if they haven’t already.

[enumerated]

“No Carlson, no Hannity, no Ingraham, no Dobbs that I know of. Real profiles in courage over at Fox.”

Those of us defending President Trump have good reason for not being in a big hurry to name the so-called whistleblower:

A true whistleblower never remains anonymous. The whole point of the whistleblower protection statute is to protect a whistleblower from the risk of negative consequences when he comes forward to “blow his whistle” - such as termination, etc.. A witness hiding behind anonymity and never facing those he is accusing, has no need of protection under whistleblower status, and is not a true whistleblower.

Furthermore, whistleblower protection under the law is ensured precisely to encourage a witness to come forward and be named. So, why would such a witness need the protection of anonymity? It suggests there is something wrong with this witness, something the Democrats are hiding. They are trying to have it both ways.

For these reasons, the best strategy for Team Trump in discrediting the Democrats’ impeachment case is to challenge the legitimacy of a so-called whistleblower on the basis that they are hiding behind anonymity, and not available to the defense for cross examination.

Obviously then, if team Trump figures out who the whistleblower is, it would be in their best interest NOT to name him, but instead to insist that the Democrats name him.

Team Trump is calling the Democrats’ bluff by not naming the so-called whistleblower.

I’m pretty sure that’s what’s going on.

[Eleutheria5]

Adam Scif would agree.

[Chgogal]

CIAramella had better testify if it goes to the Senate.

[SteveH]

Not to mention the confrontation clause of the 6th amendment.

Does Trump have a right to confront his accuser(s) in all impeachment proceedings? if he is being accused of a crime or misdemeanor, it seems to me that impeachment may be construed as a criminal court proceeding. If it is not, then why use terms of criminal justice to define it?

[enumerated]

Exactly. The anonymity of the “whistleblower” is what disqualifies him as a witness.

Therefore, ironically, it is in the President’s best interest that the “whistleblower” remain anonymous.

This, I believe, is why Hannity, Carlson, Levin, Dobbs, etc. are acting like they don’t know who he is - not out of cowardice, but because it makes their case stronger.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

The only problem with that scenario is that one of their own people already mentioned his name on the air and none of them said one word in her defense. Media outlets have published his name. A Senator has mentioned his name. His name was on official impeachment documents, supposedly left on by mistake. Mollie was just pointing out what a farce it is and none of them defended her right to point that out, they just let those bus wheels roll right over her without one attempt to pull her out from under it.

Tucker Carlson had an entire segment Monday or Tuesday on how the first amendment is being squashed, not by the government but by corporations and colleges. He proved his own point.

[Candor7]

Eric Ciaramella is NOT a whistle blower, her is not covered by the Whistle Blower statute.

That makes Eric a Thistleblower, and he is now in considerable personal jeopardy becquse of his activity, not a part of his job, but rather activity whichi was actually espionage against a duly elected President of the United States, and the People who elected the President,

Ciaramella must be indicted, and Shiff knows that, which is why Schiff all of a sudden, does not know who the Thistleblower actually is. I am sure that Deputy A G Durham will be interviewing Ciaramella, and shortly thereafter he will be indicted on either espionage , sedition or influence peddling under RICO.

[reg45]

A quid pro quo with real pros.

[HollyB]

The article shows the Excellent research which located the meeting in the WH logs.