Very early on in the whistleblower saga, I asked, plaintively, who the “whistleblower” knew. There’s been lots of action on the topic since then, and it looks increasingly like the answer is “everyone.”
I’ve been trying to keep up with all the traffic on this, and frankly, it makes my head hurt. But not too long after my article, Paul Sperry at Real Clear Investigations reported extensive evidence that the person I was calling “whistleblower one” (WB1) was a man named Eric Ciaramella, who:
- Is a registered Democrat, held over from Obama
- Worked with Biden on Ukraine
- Worked for John Brennan when he was DCIA
- Worked for the National Security Council
- … until he was fired for leaking
- … who then turned to Rep Adam Schiff for “guidance” before filing the original “whistleblower” brief
- Cooperated with Alexandra Chalupa, who was lobbying for a Ukraine aid and who Sara A. Carter reports was part of the group coordinating with the then-prime minister of Ukraine to support Hillary Clinton’s campaign over Trump’s.
Chalupa’s lobbying efforts for Ukraine have been controversial.
Since then, another “whistleblower” has come forward, LTC Alexander Vindman, an active-duty Army officer who appeared to have been “whistleblower two” in my piece, the one who did hear the call and was “visibly shaken” by it. And there’s lots more to say about that whole connection.
What I’m finding the most interesting right now, though, is how Ciaramella’s name has become anathema in most of the press. It’s like the Harry Potter books, where Voldemort is referred to simply as “He Who Is Not To Be Named.” And why is that? Because in the Harry Potter universe, merely using the name exposes one to mortal danger, too terrifying to be borne.
So I’ve got to ask, who is exposed to peril by the naming of Ciaramella?