<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Schiff and the Democrats &#8212; and their friends in the media &#8212; 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 &#8212; 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>