TGP provides a handy list of circumstances that show that this Deep State political operative--a more accurate description of Ciaramella--was extremely well connected, beyond what one would expect from his nominal status. One of those circumstances which we've previously discussed is Ciaramella's likely role in propagating the Leftist fantasy that Putin "ordered Trump to fire James Comey." That connection is strongly suggested by the fact that a Ciaramella email regarding Trump's contact with Russian diplomats--following a Trump - Putin phone conversation--is cited but not quoted in a footnote on p. 283 of the Mueller Dossier:
 SCR08_000353 (5/9/17 White House Document, "Working Visit with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov of Russia"); SCR08_001274 (5/10/17 Email, Ciaramella to Kelly et al.). The meeting had been planned on May 2, 2017, during a telephone call between the President and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the meeting date was confirmed on May 5, 2017, the same day the President dictated ideas for the Comey termination letter to Stephen Miller. SCR08_001274 (5/10/17 Email, Ciaramella to Kelly et al.).
Get it? Trump spoke with Putin. Then, having received his orders, sat down with Stephen Miller to write up the Comey firing letter. What could be more obvious--to Lefty fantasists? Or cynical operatives like the ones who wrote the Mueller Dossier.
Jarrett reviews some of those connections and then proceeds to explain how the hyper-partisan Ciaramella may also, at the least, be a witness in the cases that will follow upon the soon to be released OIG FISA report. Basically, Jarrett is pointing to Ciaramella's relationship with several persons believed to be involved in the creation of the so-called "Steele Dossier".
Jarrett's full article is a must read: Will the “Whistleblower” be Implicated in FISA Report? (Jarrett doesn't name Ciaramella.) I've also included in this excerpt Jarrett's explanation of the implications that follow from the fact that Ciaramella is not a whistleblower. That means that he's facing possible criminal charges for his leaks--reason enough to back out of testifying. Note: I've corrected what appears to be a typo, which I've placed in brackets in the first paragraph. The article reads "them", which makes no sense in context. I've substituted "Ciaramella," since it appears to require a clear reference to the person Jarrett calls the "whistleblower":
If this information is true, it is possible that this “whistleblower” [Ciaramella] could be one of the individuals who might need a defense lawyer in the coming weeks when the findings of the FISA report are made public. The reported direct relationship with James Brennan, the “Democratic National Committee operative [Alexandra Chalupa] who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” and Susan Rice makes [Ciaramella] a likely candidate to be at the very least called as a witness in the cases that are likely to start following the FISA report. In addition, his area of expertise is reportedly Russia and Ukraine; two of the reported locations where information used in the anti- Trump Russian Dossier was “gathered.” The name that Real Clear Investigations revealed [Ciaramella] is also listed as a source in one of Robert Mueller’s footnotes in his report. [Quoted above.]
This means that with the Democrats starting the impeachment inquiry the “whistleblower” may be a witness, or a defendant, in a separate case where real evidence has been produced of criminal wrongdoing. In this case, their feelings, opinions, and rumors that they heard will not be important. The facts and potentially illegal actions that took place to start the witch hunt against President Trump will be concrete evidence that the Democrats and the media will be unable to spin politically.
Regardless of [whether] the identity that Real Clear Investigations revealed is true, the “whistleblower” is not actually a whistleblower. Article II of the Constitution gives the president sweeping power to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, and make demands or offer promises. Whoever the “whistleblower” is, his problem was not that President Trump did anything illegal, or uncommon, but rather, he simply did not like what the President was doing. Originally, the office of the Director of National Intelligence said the complaint did not meet the ICWPA definition because it involved conduct “from someone outside the intel community and did not relate to intelligence activity.”
It is worth noting, however, that since the “whistleblower” does not qualify for such status under the statute, he is technically not entitled to identity protection in any government proceedings. Even if he was, the statutory protection has no application to, and is not binding on, the media revealing his identity.
If Real Clear Investigations’ revelations are correct, the “pinnacle of irresponsibility and intentionally reckless[ness]” is the fact that the United States has been thrown into an impeachment on the word of a political hack whose complaint should have been dismissed immediately.
No wonder Dems are all of a sudden reconsidering this whole Ukraine Hoax.