Thursday, November 7, 2019

An Impeachment Theater Conspiracy Theory

I spent part of the day reading and rereading material about Eric Ciaramella, the "whistleblower," and trying to make sense of the ongoing Impeachment Theater in the House. Somehow it doesn't all seem to add up. It could, of course--reality can be stranger than fiction. Nevertheless, perhaps it's time to try to come up with a more conspiratorial theory than has been previously floated that might tie it all up. After all, the entire Russia Hoax was more conspiratorial in reality than anything we've ever seen before in our history.

On the one hand, it seems possible that Impeachment Theater could be explained by sheer craziness: Trump Derangement Syndrome, rage at how 2016 derailed the permanent Dem ascendancy, the collapse of the Russia hoax--things like that. Certainly we've seen enough craziness in the House Dems to fit in with that explanation.

On the other hand, this whole whistleblower thing is pretty half assed, even as Dem theater goes. There's a nice blog at Zerohedge that goes into how anomalous it is: When Is A Whistleblower, Not A Whistleblower?

The author's central point is that Ciaramella doesn't act like a whistleblower--especially because he and his handlers have taken extraordinary steps to conceal his identity from public view:

Right away, those hearings morphed into an impeachment inquiry that took on the spectacle of a clumsy kerfuffle not to be taken seriously ... 
There is an essential Ukraine backstory which began with the US initiating the overthrow of its democratically elected President Yanukovych in 2014. 
In a nutshell, possession of the CrowdStrike server is crucial to revealing the Democratic hierarchy’s role in initiating Russiagate as the Democrats are having a major snit-fit that now threatens the constitutional foundation of the country. 
On October 31st the House voted to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry based on  still mysterious Whistleblower’s allegations. At the time, there was still no confirmation of who the shadowy Whistleblower was or whether a Whistleblower even existed. 
It is a fact that most whistleblowers bring the transgression proudly forward into the public light for the specific purpose of exposing the deeds that deserve to be exposed.  ... 
This WB’s identity has been protected from public disclosure by TPTB, shrouded in mystery and suspicion as if fearful of public scrutiny or that his ‘truth’ would crumble under interrogation and not be greeted with unanimity.  ... 
...  When was the last time a real whistleblower was ‘protected’ by the government from public exposure. 
There has been no explanation as to why this informant’s identity is necessarily been kept secret – and not just from the public but from Members of Congress especially ... 
Far from the public eyes of Americans, there has been a coordinated effort to stifle any exposure of his identity; presumably to prevent any revelation of the underpinnings of exactly how this convoluted scheme of malfeasance was organized.  ... 
His identity should have been public knowledge weeks ago and yet it took Real Clear Investigations, an alt-news website to publicly reveal what has been well known within the DC bubble for some weeks.  
The answer to the title question is that this WB is instead a very well connected partisan lackey and CIA operative.

What, exactly, have these clumsy attempts at secrecy accomplished? Impeachment Theater has unquestionably hurt the Dems, exposed their disdain for due process, lowered their standing in the polls as the absurdity of the charges--really policy differences--has become apparent. It was always known that the Republican Senate would dismiss this travesty of an impeachment--if it gets that far--quickly. Now such a dismissal will seem like an act of high principle rather than a partisan evasion. From the Dem perspective, nothing will have been gained, and Trump will have cashed in in terms of fund raising.

All this was foreseeable, so what's going on?

Here's a theory that I'll simply toss out--I'm not at all dogmatic about it and I only advance as a hypothetical that might make sense of what otherwise seems so inexplicable.

We start from the known fact that Eric Ciaramella was--for a lowly GS-13 analyst--extraordinarily well connected from a political standpoint. As more and more information has come out we have learned of Ciaramella's close ties with a wide range of high level Dems, including but not limited to: Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Alexandra Chalupa, John Brennan, and James Clapper. As the lead Ukraine analyst at the NSC for several years, and as it has become ever more apparent that all roads in the Russia Hoax actually lead to Ukraine, there is a very real possibility that Ciaramella has remarkable inside knowledge about the Russia Hoax, about the attempted coup.

Oh, not to change the subject at all ... Ciaramella had another important contact: H. R. McMaster. McMaster, of course, replaced Michael Flynn at the head of the NSC when Flynn was quickly chased from the White House by the now disgraced former Director of the FBI, James Comey. Out goes Flynn, in comes McMaster and, hey presto, Ciaramella returns to the NSC--this time as McMaster's personal assistant. But within two months Ciaramella is out the door himself, for leaking. Two months on the job, and he's already leaking? Maybe that was part of his Deep State job description? And that sure makes you wonder about McMaster, doesn't it? It sure makes me wonder.

So here's my theory, my conspiracy theory. Maybe Impeachment Theater isn't really about impeachment. Not really. Suppose that the Dems have learned that Barr and Durham have truly figured out and taken to heart the key to the Russia Hoax: That all the roads actually lead to Ukraine. What if Barr and Durham are making that a major priority? We know from Trump's phone call that they are very interested in the Ukraine angle. We also know that a top priority for Barr and Durham is getting to the bottom of John Brennan's Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that put the Russia Hoax on an official footing--by investigating the analysts who were part of that ICA project. What if Eric Ciaramella was on Brennan's handpicked team of assets that cooked up the ICA? With his close ties to both the White House and to John Brennan, with his credentials as Ukraine and Russia expert, what could be less surprising than that Brennan would ?

So, if Ciaramella was that close to all that was happening in the Deep State's attempted coup against Trump, is it possible that Barr and Durham have identified Ciaramella as a key to unlocking the entire Plot Against The President? Yes, it is.

If that's the case, then the Dem priority has to be to find some way to prevent Barr and Durham from getting to Ciaramella and squeezing him. The only way I can think of to accomplish that blocking move would be a political ploy--there's no legal way to effect that. With Ciaramella now at the center of Impeachment Theater, if Barr and Durham move against him, holy hell will break loose and Barr will be targeted as acting to shield Trump if he targets Ciaramella.

So, maybe Impeachment Theater is actually something like a Dem witness protection program, to protect a key witness from Barr and Durham. We're talking a real last ditch move here, but it would make sense if what we know about the whole Ukraine angle is actually the tip of an iceberg of corruption and skullduggery.

All this is by way of an outline. There are lots more facts to plug in. For now, as George Smiley would say: It's just a theory.


  1. Well, that's a pretty good working hypothesis. I'd guess he might be in the middle of it, but not at the center of it--the perennial "fly on the wall."

    As you say, "lowly GS-13" doesn't seem like someone who'd be key, but maybe vulnerable to pressure and exposure--hence the secrecy--the open secret all around DC, with press lips sealed.

    I must admit, I've learned more about what went on in Ukraine in '14 now, then what was reported at the time. Was there a clearer act of media complicity--up until the hoax?

    Looks like a mess of things Dems don't want anyone looking into...

    Arms for terrorists in Syria
    Iran nuke deal
    Andrew Weissman

    1. So much, and no real reporting, at least not in the MSM.

  2. Mind-boggling, if true. The Lawfare group is seditiously creating narrative upon (or inside of) narrative. There should a law against this...oh wait..

    1. And yet, who would have believed half of what we've learned about the way this country has been run, and the attempted coup? Nothing seems to much to believe now.

    2. Didn't this all begin when Obama's election for the first time let progressives slurp from the power punchbowl. Now they're wild-eyed addicts in a perpetual state of withdrawal.

    3. Something like that. They'd always had to hide the reality but with Obama, for the first time, they were openly talking about "fundamentally transforming" America. And, as with all ideologues, had a sense of entitlement--history was demonstrably on their side. Or so they said.

  3. I can't say if you're on the target about Ciaramella. I haven't had time lately to study about him.

    But I definitely support your theory of protecting him or whoever has inside knowledge and would be an Achilles heel for the Dems if he were to be squeezed.

    I've said for quite a while that the Dems are not in a position of strength. Donald Trump is happy, confident, etc. Why is one side so happy and the other angry?

    I'm no lawyer but it seems commonsense that Clapper, Comey and Brennan can't shut their mouths. Desperation, hubris, cluelessness? I don't know. But I'm glad that keep yapping.

    1. When people are under pressure they makes mistakes.

  4. I agree. But one theory that I've posited in your comments section is that the Reps haven't put up a fight for years. They fold when they feel the white-hot spotlight. So, the Dems are like a heavyweight prize fighter who hasn't had a real challenger in years.

    Now along comes Trump and can punch with the best of them. They're soft, out-of-shape, etc.

    So they are under pressure but they're also out of practice, at least, in my view.

  5. Since you mentioned "it" try this one:

    The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation

  6. Very interesting...

    My 2¢:

    You are on to something, Mark. Ciaramella is not a whistleblower. He doesn't 'know' anything.

    Nor is he a ‘principal’ or a 'target'. He's just not important enough. In particular, he's not Clinton or Obama who would be persons worth protecting through yet another incomprehensible Hoax. Clinton and Obama, who would conceivably be worth, for example, a loyalist Adam Schiff risking his career for.

    So, who is Ciaramella? He is a witness.

    Ciaramella knows what Alexandra Chalupa was up to, and so he knows what she was trying to obscure in Ukraine in 2016. He knows what the DNC was up to. He may well know who hacked the DNC computer.

    He knows what went down in Ukraine in 2014 and 2015. He knows what Joe and Hunter Biden are hiding.

    He worked for Susan Rice. He knows what she knows about unmaskings. He knows what she knows that Obama knows…

    And he worked for John Brennan.

    So, building on your theory, Mark, and employing some version of Occam's razor, I would venture that Impeachment Theatre is a last ditch effort to 'kill' Trump, not specifically before Trump is reelected in 2020, but before he gets to the bottom of Obama and Clinton's wrongdoing.

    Ciaramella is a witness.

    Perhaps this is exactly what you are saying. I just had to suss it through for myself…

  7. All the pieces thus far available fit quite nicely together and present a coherent and very plausible picture. Damn good theory.

    1. It's just a theory, but there are some things that seem to require more explanation than sheer craziness.

  8. A nice theory, but probably not the reality. If you wanted to hide Ciaramella from the DoJ, you have far easier ways to this. No, I think the Democrats just don't have the ability to think two steps ahead. The worked up this Ukraine Hoax, needed a whistleblower, and didn't even consider the baggage that Ciaramella carried from his known political associations. The proof of this is that Schiff really did change his mind about the public testimony of the whistleblower. There was probably a "Come to Jesus" moment between Schiff and Pelosi when she learned all the details about Ciaramella- Pelosi is, at least, smart enough to know that Ciaramella was a politically disastrous face of impeachment. Now the Democrats have nothing.

    1. "If you wanted to hide Ciaramella from the DoJ, you have far easier ways to this."

      For example?

      I agree the House Dems aren't all that smart and have made significant mistakes. My theory here would need to posit that direction is coming from elsewhere than the House itself.

      As I say--it's just a theory.

    2. "'If you wanted to hide Ciaramella from the DoJ, you have far easier ways to this.'

      For example?"

      Six feet under.

    3. This is true. If half what we think we know about Ciaramella is true, he should be on a suicide watch--but NOT being watched by guards from the MCC.

  9. Did anyone ever verify how Ciaramella came to hook up with activist Trump-hating lawyer Zaid, who was tweeting about “the coup” in 2017?

    1. It seems not. I thought I had read that Zaid had been recommended to Ciaramella, but the most I've been able to find was that Schiff's staff recommended that he get a lawyer. Of course, they would want a lawyer of their own mind and would likely have named one or more likely ones, but I couldn't find that direct assertion.

  10. Just over at CTH. Interesting post on the new "rules".
    Tom S.

    1. Yes, well, how would you feel about those people having TOTAL control of the government?

  11. January 2 of this year. Really planning ahead. Line up witnesses, coach them well, see that they’re lawyered up. Forget about working for the American people. That's too dull. We have an impeachment to get done!

    1. Get the rules lined up and give the GoP time to study them because "Rules". The Dems have no fear that Gop.Inc will go rogue on them, they just need time to self-circumscribe their playing field.
      The Dems only believe in rules to the extent that they are an impediment to the other side. The second "Rules" become a problem for their side the "Rules" become mere guidelines that can be moved, bent, worked around, steamrolled or just outright ignored.
      Within the next year, Barr and Durham willing, we are going to find out if there really are "Rules" or not. We've visited this question with Deneen, Codavilla and others. What happens in a society when one side realizes, with finality, that the other side does not, and has no intention of ever, honoring a rule? When one side irrevocably demonstrates that it has no interest in such thing as civility in argument/compromise, only the power to command. I think we will soon have an answer.
      Tom S.