Posted on 01/22/2020 7:15:33 AM PST by edwinland
Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower" who touched off Trump's impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new “America First” foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.
“Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,” said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.
“They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda,” the former official added. “They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.”
Misko left the White House last summer to join House impeachment manager Adam Schiff’s committee, where sources say he offered “guidance” to the whistleblower, who has been officially identified only as an intelligence officer in a complaint against Trump filed under whistleblower laws. Misko then helped run the impeachment inquiry based on that complaint as a top investigator for congressional Democrats.
...
A military staffer detailed to the NSC, who was seated directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko during the meeting, confirmed hearing them talk about toppling Trump during their private conversation, which the source said lasted about one minute. The crowd was preparing to get up to leave the room at the time.
“After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what ‘America first’ foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, ‘We need to take him out,’ ” the staffer recalled. “And Misko replied, ‘Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.’ “
Added the military detailee, who spoke on condition of anonymity: “By ‘taking him out,’ they meant removing him from office by any means necessary. They were triggered by Trump’s and Flynn’s vision for the world. This was the first ‘all hands’ [staff meeting] where they got to see Trump’s national security team, and they were huffing and puffing throughout the briefing any time Flynn said something they didn’t like about ‘America First.’ ”
He said he also overheard Ciaramella telling Misko, referring to Trump, ‘We can’t let him enact this foreign policy.’ “
Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately reported what he heard to his superiors.
“It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”
Wow! I’ve heard the sentiment before but you put it together very nicely.
Bravo!
Trump had no support from his own party - yet I am surprised he let the White House be infested with these subversives. Anyone who worked for Obama should have been shown the door.
Is there any legal way that the dems can fold their hand if they hear the barking dog?
I just read over HR 1627. It sounds like they are saying it’s illegal to makes threats to kill or do bodily harm.
I don’t see an issue with this. Confusing it with trying to take away free speech is pushing it.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+HB1627
I’m sure Alan Dershowitz already has a copy of that report.
—
But has the report’s relevance been cleared by Schiff? /s
Did the missing FIB agent (Joe_P)intersect with this cast of characters?
COMPLICITY UP AND DOWN THE LINE!!!
CIA spooks are now in charge of overseeing on those we elect? Last I checked, the CIA has nothing to do with domestic affairs. In fact it's usually illegal.
> Corroboration should exist
The first thing I do whenever a “progressive” makes an assertion is to demand corroborating evidence. Without it, the assertion is meaningless.
They often stammer and stumble into logical fallacies, which I am also quick to point out.
I like to hold myself to the same standard. I wouldn’t repeat the assertion in the top post without documented evidence.
When government servants, sworn to faithfully execute the orders of their boss, conspired and plotted behind his back to overthrow him and his duly established government and those acts matured to a point where the participants began executing on their plot, the acts became treasonous. To make matters worse, this treason was all paid for by the government.
not really hearsay...it would be first hand knowledge so maybe they could put them under oath?
So who are the people he reported it to and why didn’t they do something, tell the President, someone, open investigation, seek their resignation. Another missed opportunity.
Also why didn’t these superiors and this person speak up during house investigation?
A whistle-blower whistle-blowing the whistle-blower.
You scratch my back....
There’s also a “window of opportunity” to take into account. In the private world, you can fire whoever you want at any time, without even needing a reason. In politics, you only get a free pass to fire many of these appointees if you do it right at the beginning of the administration.
Once you let them stay, it becomes much more difficult to get rid of them later on.
You definitely are onto something.
“I wonder who the military superior was? Vindman?”
Reading the superb investigative report helps.
Bingo. Getting rid of people at the beginning of Administration (look at the Attorneys General who get wiped clean-or SHOULD get wiped clean-at the start of a new administration) is de rigueur, but later, it does bring the press like sharks to blood in the water.
Early on, I had heard of this guy Joe P as a “white hat” in all this, but since then, people like Dan Bongino have been saying he is nothing of the sort.
Thank you, Eleutheria5...funny how we never hear about these things in Democrat administrations.
Funny that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.