Friday, January 31, 2020

Is There An Even Darker Side To Eric Ciaramella?

Greg Rubini has a long thread--it's unrolled at the link:

1. ERIC CIARAM3LLA is involved in much darker things than you can imagine.
Joe Biden, John Brennan, & Barack Obama are also in it.
and Victoria Nuland.
The Ukraine Holocaust

Obviously I can't vouch for the truth of this, but the questions that are raised are questions that we need to get to the bottom of.

It's one thing to say that the President--and by extension the Executive--decides foreign policy under our Constitution.

It's quite another thing to allow a Deep State of career bureaucrats under the direction of a revolving door of appointed officials to run amuck. We The People have a say in this, but we can only decide what to say if the truth is known.

BTW, there are reports out that Ciaramella was personally involved in Biden's firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor.


  1. Probably not true, but I wouldn't be surprised if the event wasn't a false flag staged by the coup plotters in Ukraine at that time. People seeking power are just as evil as the people seeking to hold onto it most of the time, and there is no reason to think one side or the other in 2014 revolution was better than the other.

  2. And I will just add that it isn't implausible or even improbable that the CIA knew it was a staged false flag, if indeed it was.

    1. I think we can take that pretty much as a bottom line.

  3. "Strategy Advisor at [classified]..."
    "(Location) classified"

    Riiiiiiight. I'm gonna have to throw a big red BS flag on this dude.

    1. He has some cred. He was far and away the first to out Ciaramella.

    2. There was PID on Ciaramella a week before Rubini.

    3. Thanks. PID?

      Still, Rubini was out front on that.

  4. Ciaramella is the listed "host" of the Jan 2016 meeting at the WH to which several Ukraine prosecutors, embassy people, and State Department Weenies were in attendance. IIRC recent news report indicate the Biden/Burisma situation was on the agenda, and that the "Shokin is corrupt" narrative was pushed at this meeting, under the auspices of a larger "end corruption in Ukraine" narrative.

    In my opinion, the DS has erupted with a degree of agitation and anger (and fear) over any attempt to look into events in Ukraine in the 2014 to present time frame, that is far beyond anything that makes sense unless there is something very bad being covered up in regard to Ukraine and the Deep State and the Bidens.

    This suggests the likely existence of massive corruption involving money laundering and the like in Ukraine that impinges on members of the DS and the Obama Administration.

    In this sense, the Impeachment of Trump over a utterly innocuous phone call could be viewed as an attempt to thwart any investigation of the Ukraine wrongdoing under the previous administration, and to distract the public from finding out what took place there.

    If you accept the conclusion I have arrived at, that the Impeachment will likely lose the Dems any chance of winning the WH (which, arguably, they had no chance of winning anyway, with this crop of candidates,) it suggests the nature and magnitude of that corruption under the Obama Admin in Ukraine must be pretty serious for them to resort to an Impeachment gambit to try to keep it covered up.

    Same argument vis-avis keeping Ciaramella's name "hidden" as the so-called WB: the extent to which the Dems have gone to not confirm his widely known identity, and to refuse to call him as a witness in the Impeachment Imbroglio betokens something very dangerous to Dems/DS that they don't want coming out.

    The obvious suspicion is that Ciaramella is connected to ALL of these events -- the firing of Shokin in Ukraine to suppress the investigation into Burisma, the plotting with Vidman and the other NSC mole who went to work for Schiff, to find an excuse to claim Trump committed an Impeachable act, and frame him for it, and conspiring with Schiff's committee to set it all up with the fake WB filing.

    Too many coincidences to be random chance, IMHO.

  5. US/CIA is not competent enough to hire snipers to create a causi belli.

    If they had, it would have come out by now. Russians would have full video with audio of the us trying to arrange something like that, and released it to embarrass the US.

    Other support for the Ukrainian color coup, yes, Obama’s administration was doing something.

    1. = casus belli

      I believe it's well established that the US backed the coup. I don't find it far fetched to suppose that that included financial support, and that that financial support went to violent action and perhaps the planning of violent action. It would not have been the first time.

  6. The linked blog has the look and feel of a conspiracy theory leaked on purpose to discredit ALL theories about Ciaramella being involved in anything nefarious.

    And when this allegation is shown to be false, then all other allegations about Ciaramella -- even ones based on documented evidence -- will be similarly labeled as "Conspiracy theory hogwash" that have been disproven.

    This is a scheme we've seen before ...

    1. I think you're reading too much into this. Rubini was, after all, the first to out Ciaramella and has done some excellent work documenting Deep State networking. Nothing conspiratorial. Just documenting what is widely known.

    2. I agree with EZ. Stuff like this, subsequently discredited after sufficient propagation, makes it almost exponentially easier for actual criminal conspiracies to be dismissed out of hand no matter the evidence. And who benefits from that?

    3. I understand where you and EZ are coming from, but it's long past time for real conservatives to take a look at Ukraine--beyond the Bidens. Ukraine is a very big deal in many ways, and the Bolton wing of the GOPe has controlled the terms of the discourse for far too long. Bolton was no more than part of the Uniparty on the Ukraine issue all along. We really need to get to the root of it all, not just the Biden scandals. It's about Trump's foreign policy, too. If Rubini has overstated his case, fine. We don't have to be controlled by Rubini. But he's right to be pointing the connections out.

    4. Mr. Wauck wrote "Bolton was no more than part of the Uniparty on the Ukraine issue all along."

      The common thread seems to be that they have a lot of money, so they have skin in the game. That, and they look down on us as they gorge at the trough.

  7. An article in the Washington Examiner last month disclosed that Schiff had hired Ciaramella’s best pal at the NSC, Sean Misko, the day after the July 25 phone call.

    It was previously reported by the Washington Examiner that public records indicated Sean Misko, 37, started work on Schiff’s committee in August as a professional staff member. A specific start date was not available until this week when the latest congressional quarterly disbursements were released.

    The new records show that Misko’s official hire date was July 26.

    Misko was the director for the Gulf States at the NSC between 2015 until the first half of 2018. The Washington Examiner has established that the whistleblower is a CIA officer who was on the NSC during the Obama administration and worked on Ukrainian issues with Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic candidate, when he was vice president.

    Ciaramella, 33, is a career CIA analyst and was the Ukraine director on the NSC from 2016 until the summer of 2017. In October 2016, he was Biden's guest at a State Department banquet.

    Before joining the NSC, Misko worked in the Obama administration at the State Department for deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, who went on to become Hillary Clinton's senior foreign policy adviser during her 2016 presidential campaign.

    Both Ciaramella and Misko started their tenures during the Obama administration and left during the first year of the Trump administration. The Washington Examiner was told by a former senior White House official that both had a close, “bro-like” relationship while working at the NSC together.

    A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the alleged whistleblower filed an Aug. 12 complaint with the Intelligence Community inspector general about the July 25 phone conversation between Trump and Zelensky.

    The suspected whistleblower did this after meeting with a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff’s staff about the call, which is now the focus of impeachment proceedings. Before going to the Schiff aide, the whistleblower informed the CIA legal counsel's office.

    More here:

    It’s also been reported that Misko and Ciaramella were overheard saying in early 2017 that they had to “take out President Trump” (paraphrased).

  8. This smells of Russian disinformation technique. Where something truthful is taken, then a bit of anti US BS is added to it. Claiming that the US / CIA / Obama would directly hire snipers does not pass the smell test. Pre Church commission back in 1975, there would have been some possibility. Since then, no. The Tell Alls and legal stuff the CIA has endured since then has pretty much neutered the CIA.

    A side question is who is Greg Rubini? Tweet from him: if you worry about the Dems taking control of the House...
    well, you don't need to worry.

    my sources told me that at least 80 (possibly up to 140) congressmen will be prosecuted and brought to jail.
    85%-90% Dems

    so, both the House and Senate will be firmly in GOP hands.

    Russians have been doing disinformation aimed at the US since 1923 Disinformation - Wikipedia lots of good information on Russian usage. Russian intelligence has running rings around the US intelligence for a long time, Aldrich Ames, is just one example. US invented Aids was classic Russian disinformation, plus their support of the anti Nuclear movement, environmental movement, and anti fracking.

    What was positive the US Diplomatic Cables Wikileaks is what the US said in private, matched what it said in public.

    Mea Culpa on the typo of Casus Belli.

    1. "This smells of Russian disinformation technique."

      I'd say that's as over the top as Rubini saying that Ciaramella personally hired and paid the snipers. OTOH, US support certainly went beyond diplomatic support. I don't think it's too far to say that the US was morally complicit in the events of the coup--we were supporting the people who committed the slaughter and we have never backed away from it, nor from well know neo-Nazi elements that were the biggest backers of the coup. Call me a spreader of Russian disinformation for saying so, but it's still so.

      I'd also object to Rubini referring to the murder of 100 people as a "holocaust."

      Yes, Rubini gets carried away, but for me the bottom line in linking that is that the US is culpable in what happened. We own it. And it doesn't require a direct handoff of cash to come to that conclusion.

    2. Rubini also appears at times to have a rather tenuous grasp of English. Not saying that in itself is dispositive, but I'm thinking ESL. There are also other potential red flags.

    3. I think Shmoe is coorrect in this assessment. I know several educated ESL types that would struggle explaining the difference between holocaust and massacre. Largely due to most of their english experience is via the press, which means they are modeling their usage after the most ignorant segment of society.
      Tom S.

    4. I have no inside information but I can believe that a lot of Dems and some Reps are going to be charged.

      Why do they fight so hard against DJT? Sure, they have a lot of vested money interests. But I believe that they have exposure.

      I was suspicious in 2012 about Romney fighting so hard against the Reps and then coasting on Bammer. And then he votes to impeach the President.

      And, yes, sometimes I wonder if the President is giving them the rope to hang themselves. How many times has he said "I caught them all. I'm the only one who could've done it"?

  9. Hasn't been established here and elsewhere that the Executive has little power over it's domain?

    Wasn't part of the first impeachment rumblings about how Trump had no business firing Comey?

    1. True. How deeply was Obama involved? I won't hazard a guess. He may have been watching basketball on TV while Ukraine was going down.

    2. I'll go there. Obama was instrumental in this, no question.

      From his brief political history of his opponents giving up, yeah, that mean's dipwad Romney, to his AG "Wingman" Holder, to his IRS admitting, after Wingman got disc after disc of US IRS data on US citizens, that they specifically targeted conservative Tea Party groups, to several of his coup members admitting that Obama was advised of the coup, to his buying a residence in DC with ValJar residing therein, there is more than of evidence to give support.

      There is no way, no matter how unconstitutionally the Executive has been nurtured in administrating it's own affairs, that something this complex and massive did not come, at least, to his attention.

    3. I can accept that. What I had in mind is Obama's famous "tell Vladimir I can be more flexible after the election" hot mic moment. At first glance that would tend to indicate he wasn't on board with US Ukraine policy as we've come to know it. So maybe that's another example of how he was overruled by the Interagency.

  10. Ukraine was, and is, about control of a natural gas pipeline corridor into southern Europe, which is a huge issue on many levels. And the lever of control is to own the political leadership of Ukraine, even if that means instigating a coup and overthrow. Yes, mass murder in service to a coup is a vile crime, but the larger crime yet to be revealed involves bribery and treason at the highest levels. A lot of DC fellow-travelers have blood on their hands and consequently the coup against Trump has not ended. Only Barr/Durham can put an end to this treachery and the roll-up will be horrific timing for the Ds.

    1. Very well put. The other aspect that drives the Deep State wild is Trump's idea of establishing some modus vivendi with Russia to contain China. Deep State wants dominance, not modus vivendi. We see now the Deep State pushing back against Trump's attempts to prevent Huawei dominance.

      Rubini may have overstated some things, but his basic ideas are IMO correct. As you say, Ukraine is a linchpin in Deep State foreign policy. I'm afraid many "conservatives" have yet to grasp Trump's ideas. Many GOP senators oppose Trump for all the reasons given.

      Barr/Durham are key.

    2. Trump was right when he said we're no better than other countries. I've been politically astute for a long time, at least I'd like to think so. I knew the Reps were playing us for fools, and that's why I quit the party in 2006.

      But I never realized how gluttonous the whole upper crust is for money, power, sex, etc.

      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    3. "Barr/Durham are key. A slight disagreement with you.

      The American People who go to Trump rallies and then get out the vote are key. This is just not the work of Trump, Barr and Durham.

      It's our fight, too.