Are you getting tired of seeing and hearing the word “whistleblower” in the story about Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky? Join the club. I also am tired of having to put quotation marks around the word “whistleblower” when referring to this individual, though I still go out of my way to do it because this “whistleblower” is not an actual whistleblower under any U.S. whistleblower statute.
We’ve already discussed why the person who has already been named by multiple news outlets as Eric Ciaramella (pronounced “CHAR-a-mel-ah,” as in “CHAR-lie”) does not qualify as a whistleblower in this case. Of course, I am not a lawyer, but Gregg Jarrett is, as well as a FOX News legal analyst who has focused an electron microscope on all aspects of the “witch hunt” to the point of even writing a book about it called WITCH HUNT. In a new column, Jarrett explains plainly why this person does not qualify as a whistleblower under any U.S. whistleblower statute, and goes on to tell us why he wouldn’t be entitled to anonymity even if he did.
The “whistleblower’s” lawyers, Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj of the firm they call Whistleblower Aid (more on them below), refuse to allow their client to testify publicly or answer any questions that would lead to this individual’s identification. This is a joke. Still, most media outlets are playing along –- knowingly, as in taking marching orders from the DNC, or unknowingly, as in simply being intellectually lazy and unaware of the law –- and refraining from identifying Mr. Ciaramella. Ironically, even Jarrett doesn’t print the name in this column for FOX News, even while explaining in detail why the man does not, under law, deserve anonymity. That may or may not have been his editorial decision. I'm guessing not.
But I have already linked to highly reputable investigators who identify him, have personally used his name and will continue to do so. It’s ridiculous to participate in any way in this sham, like the crowd braying on about the emperor’s new clothes. This person’s identity is central to the whole effort to impeach Trump, and House Intel Committee chairman Adam Schiff is determined to keep it officially under wraps, because doing so helps him hide his own lies –- his own “collusion” with that person to spark an impeachment inquiry in the House. To play along with this farce would be shameful.
The law that supposedly covers this person is the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), which covers intelligence personnel who file internal complaints to report malfeasance within the intelligence community. This is not what the so-called “whistleblower” did. He ("or she," ha) filled out a complaint form –- footnoted extensively, as though crafted by a team of ever-so-crafty attorneys –- based on hearsay about a phone call involving the President of the United States and a foreign leader. Ah, that’s very different.
As Jarrett explains it, “the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community.” (I would think that since there is a provision protecting someone who blows the whistle inside the intelligence community, there should have been a heckuva lot of whistleblowing going on during the Obama years. It seems there wasn’t. I digress.) “To put it plainly,” Jarrett says, “there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the President, the most superior officer in the U.S. government.”
Also, he says the whistleblower law “explicitly excludes a complaint involving ‘differences of opinion concerning public policy matters.’” The President gets to conduct foreign policy matters; Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives him “sweeping power to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, make requests or solicit information.” It’s not up to an underling who disagrees to “blow the whistle” on him.
This does not mean the President gets to act with impunity, like a dictator; there are checks and balances to his power. But it does mean the Whistleblower Act does not apply here. Instead of the term “whistleblower,” Jarrett suggests “undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gathering hearsay evidence intended to damage him.” That says it well, though it seems a bit long. I think that, from now on, when I’m not actually using Ciaramella’s name, I’ll use the term “Democrat operative/spy.” Spying is exactly what was going on in the West Wing, so I won’t need the quotation marks for that. Oh, and his pronouns will be “he,” “him” and “his.”
For the sake of argument, Jarrett also explains why, even if whistleblower status did apply in this case, Eric Ciaramella would NOT be entitled to anonymity. It isn’t mentioned, not anywhere in the statute, except as it would apply to the IG of Intelligence, who is personally prohibited from revealing the name. Anybody else can. Zaid and Bakaj have threatened to take punitive action if their client’s identify is revealed; they’re pretending that they don’t know we know who it is. They’re also pretending that they don’t know we know they know the Whistleblower Act doesn’t apply here. But we do know –- this whole thing is a charade. If anyone knows what that law says and doesn’t say, it’s the lawyers for WHISTLEBLOWER AID.
This person must not be allowed anonymity, and Adam Schiff’s role in using his “complaint” to start an impeachment inquiry must also be exposed. As Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan has said, “You don’t get to ignite an impeachment effort and never account for your actions and role in orchestrating it.”
In a related story about the attorneys for the Democrat operative/spy (yes, that’s the term I’ll be using now), some tweets sent by Mark Zaid in 2017 show that their motives for representing this individual go far beyond protecting a whistleblower. In response to a tweet from the State Department celebrating Canada Day, Zaid responded: “Since Jan. 20th, I would much rather be in Canada. What a great country! We’ll be great again when @realDonaldTrump leaves.”
In response to another tweet (“Mark, are we really going to be able to get him out? He is dismantling our government department by department. It is really scary”), Zaid replied, “It’s very scary. We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.”
If that's not bad enough, how about this one: "#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers.”
This should tell you all you need to know about the Democrat operative/spy and the attorneys for Whistleblower Aid.
Finally, here's more detail on a story we’ve already discussed, about Ciaramella being invited by co-host Joe Biden to a glitzy State Department luncheon banquet in October of 2016 for the prime minister of Italy. Biden’s office had included this relative underling on the prestigious guest list with about 30 other people, including Valerie Jarrett, Lisa Monaco, Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice and Obama press secretary Josh Earnest. Overall, the guest list was full of Washington heavy-hitters, with 115 people designated as having accepted invitations, according to a list released under the Freedom of Information Act. We're not supposed to know his name, but apparently he was becoming well known among these folks.Alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella was Biden guest at State Department banquet