Select Page

HORIST: Blowing the whistle on the whistleblower – by name

HORIST: Blowing the whistle on the whistleblower – by name

It is likely that three things will lead to the confirmation of the identification of the whistleblower – the person who set off the Ukrainian phone controversy – (1) the constitutional tradition of a right to confront and cross-examine accusers, (2) the American public’s sense of fair play and transparency and (3) the fact that Washington cannot keep a secret.

With regard to the latter point, too many people already know the identification of the whistleblower – including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, his staff, other Democrats on the Committee, some of the Republicans, the whistleblower’s lawyers, the folks who told him the stuff he reported, the Inspector General, several members of the news media, any number of personal friends, members of the family and maybe even President Trump.

Whew!  With all those in the know, it is amazing that the name is not already out there in the public domain – but maybe it is.  A name has already hit the social media and a couple of news operations – although not confirmed.  While the name of the Whistleblower is not on the tip of the tongue of the general public, it will be very soon.  The speculation already points to … drum roll here … Eric Ciaramella.

Even before this name surfaced, we did learn a few things about the whistleblower.  We had heard credible reports that the individual was working in the White House as a holdover from the Obama administration – and that he comes from the CIA.  We heard that he is an activist Democrat who worked for President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.  He has been an outspoken critic of Trump even as he worked in the White House.  We know from the Inspector General’s referral of the whistleblower complaint to the Department of Justice that he has a “political bias.”  No kidding.

This description fits Ciaramella to a tee.  In addition – and perhaps most significantly – he worked closely with former CIA Director John Brennan.  This may become very relevant as we learn more about the roles played by such intelligence officials as former Brennan, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper and former FBI Director James Comey in investigating the Trump campaign – not to mention operatives such as Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and others. Was the whistleblower part of that team with the same motivations?

Ciaramella also has a history of being a political dirt digger.  He is reported to have work with the Democrat National Committee operative Alexandra Chalupa in digging up dirt on former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort.

So, was Ciaramella an active participant in promoting the impeachment strategy?  We know he initially conferred with the premier impeachment scriptwriter, Adam Schiff, and his staff on the Intelligence Committee.

Schiff and the Democrats — and their friends in the media — have been calling the anonymous whistleblower a courageous person … a patriot.  Now that we can see who likely he is and what he is, he looks a lot less noble – and that is exactly why it is important he be known and be required to testify.

Democrats argue that the whistleblower does not need to testify because things he alleged in the report are substantiated by others – which is not entirely true.  More importantly, however, is for Ciaramella to be questioned on his role in the impeachment melodrama.  THOSE are the answers Democrats hoped to shield.

The question is: Have the Democrats in cooperation with the Intelligence community under President Obama … in cooperation with a supplicant news media … been engaged in a slow-motion politically-based impeachment strategy to undermine or terminate the Trump presidency?  And is Ciaramella one of the scripted performers?  One does not have to be a conspiratorial theorist to believe that there are enough signs to warrant a fuller investigation – and that is exactly what is taking place.

All that should be clarified by the soon-to-be-released report by Inspector General Michael Horowitz and the eventual outcome of the Department of Justice investigation of the aforementioned investigators being conducted by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

If the whistleblower were accusing Trump of crimes in a court-of-law, he would have to testify openly because our Founders saw secret accusation as so dangerous that they forbade it in the Constitution.  But since impeachment is not a judicial process, that may not apply – even though the accuser is claiming criminal activities on the part of the President.

That is where the public comes in.  There is a natural curiosity – and for good reason.  We the people understand that accusations must be judged against the credibility of the accuser – the witness.  In trials, building up or tearing down the credibility of a witness is standard operating procedure for the defense or prosecution, respectively.

Just because the constitutional provision may not apply in the impeachment process, it does not mean that it is not a good idea.  Secret testimony is bad, bad, bad – and frankly, whistleblowers should not have that so-called protection if making criminal accusations.  Just my opinion.

While Democrats are pumping hard their impeachment narratives and politicized process, they seem to be keeping a fearful eye on those other investigations – ignoring them as they can and discrediting as they must.  It would seem, however, that ALL the reports and ALL the facts – including the identity of the whistleblower — will be face up on the political poker table by the time we the people go to the polls to cast our ballots.  And that is a good thing.

If it turns out that Ciaramella IS the whistleblower – and I assume that will be the case – the revelation of his identity is also a good thing.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Santina

    Thank you and God Bless You for all you do and keep you and you Loved ones Safe

  2. Mike

    You are 100% wrong, the whistleblower does not (and should not be identified). The only reason the republicans want him to be identified is for retaliation, and to intimidate any future whistle blowers not to come forward. His report may have started the impeachment process, but it is only the brave testimony of others that will be used to determine whether to impeach, or eventually whether to convict. Stop trying to tear down our democracy with your partisan ideas!

    • Knock Knock

      The democrats raided the law firm of his personal lawyer and took his private correspondence… and still didn’t have something to get the impeachment they’ve been looking for all these three years. Now they have this flimsy thing to get the coveted impeachment and people like you actually are so red faced that you can’t see how awful this is… you call us the destroyers as your puppets destroy every possible avenue toward a fair and decent trial. Get real. You have pointed everybody and everything you have at unseating this duly elected representative and this is all you have – when are you going to see the big picture? What is wrong with you?

    • Larry Horist

      You are on the wrong side of the democracy. Our Founders were opposed to secret accusations for good reason. They banned it in the Constitution. That is what they did in the Inquisition, and Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany and when the Democrats controlled the south. We do not allow it in our courts. Also, the whistleblower should be cross examined. There are many issues to answer apart from what he wrote in his complaint. Since the whistleblower is a hardcore Democrat activist, I would hardly call him brave for blowing the whistle/

      • MIke

        Larry, You are the one on the wrong side of history. Trump has broken the law here, and you folks are supporting him. The whistleblowers identity is irrelevant, witnesses that corroborate his testimony will be cross-examined. He does not deserve retribution for calling out something he saw as wrong, in fact the law does not allow it. When will you folks wake up and realize that Trump did exactly what was investigated in the Mueller probe, he attempted to collude with a foreign power to get dirt on his political enemy. Should be removed from office for gross stupidity if nothing else! And, by the way, I did not refer to the whistleblower as brave, I was referring to all the folks that have testified corroborating his testimony….

        • Knock Knock

          So we’re supposed to wake up to something that might happen? How does that work in your mind? Seems a little cloudy in there Mike.

        • \Randal Ward

          Keep drinking that Koolaid Mike! And I bet Hillary using BleachBit and destroying 5 phones is just a normal everyday thing people do to their phones as long as they are Democrats.

          In our country you are innocent first and as Larry points out you are allowed to face your accuser. As for your 100% you haven’t heard any corroborating testimony, just the miss guided leaks by Shift. This is your chance to stop being a Democrat robot and actually look at the facts, stand for justice, and demand the real criminals Obama, Kerry, Clinton, the Biden’s, and the rest of the supporting cast Larry listed get investigated and thrown in jail.

          I have faith in our Country, President Trump, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Attorney General William Barr, and U.S. Attorney John Durham. The Democrats will get what they deserve they should have stopped after their bogus Mueller inquiry failed. They don’t know when enough is enough they just keep manipulating and lying. We united in 2016 and sent a message and they still think they can change an election. We are deplorable’s and they are above God and the law, soon the citizens of this great country will stop them from raping and pillaging our country and their rein of terror will come crashing down.

    • Waka Sasha

      I’m sorry Mike but you are 100% wrong. I was a whistleblower myself when working at the V.A. medical center & there is NO anonymity clause or protection anywhere in the law. What the protection is – is against unjust firing from you job due to whistleblowing. A whistleblower is NOT automatically shielded from sight of others & you do have to make an accounting at some time of your complaints. Look at Christine Blasey Ford, who thought originally she’d finger Brett Kavanaugh anonymously but Diane Feinstein had different plans & won. I found out it was Ciaramella’s lawyers themselves who first passed this “strange new” anonymity clause for whistleleakers & now people believe it to be so. I investigated it to see why it had not been so in my case & found out these lawyers made it up.

  3. Lawrence Thomas

    If Eric Ciaramella is the famed secret “whistleblower” (and even if he is not) then the whole impeachment inquiry needs to be condemned by the American People (as a whole) and Republicans (all). A call to halt and desist needs to be ordered and specific Democrats removed from power for their flagellant violation of the President’s (an any American’s) right to “due process”. Pelosi and Schiff are violators of their own “oaths of office”, an impeachable offense in their “own words”! This is nothing short of a Democratic “coup” that absolutely reeks and yet most Republicans are doing “lip service” to it. McConnell, Graham, McCarthy, and other Republicans need to call it what it really is, a Democratic coup attempt, not an “impeachment inquiry”. They “all” need to stand up for their Republican President, whether they like him or not, and fight the Democrats for what they are trying to do. Secret whistleblower, secret hearings, asking the President to give up his Executive Privilege, coaching witnesses, etc. – it all stinks and all most Republicans can do is say it is a “valid impeachment inquiry” that needs to be considered – what a joke!

  4. CCblogging

    I hope and pray that the Democrat Party is crushed so bad in the coming elections, that they never regain power! What an evil bunch of fools they are!

  5. Jeanette Kelley

    Leave it to “Mike” the all knowing DEMOCRAT
    To say we all are 100 Percent Wrong! As you
    Know all DEMOCRATS in the Senate & Congress
    Who are Leading this farce of a spectacle to
    Over Throw this Great President of ours, are really
    Really worried about saving our Democracy!

    Give us all a Break!!

    We know what is going on, we have Brains
    & are not stupid!

    Get a Clue!

  6. Fred S

    Its time for President Donald Trump, through Executive orders, to start recovering our branch of offices that has been take over by TREASONOUS ACTS to over throw a presiding President, also the media that’s been in bed with them should also be treated the same,, TREASONOUS CRIMINALS.