How Deep Will Durham Go?

If Adam Housley is to be credited, the Durham investigation will go beyond the Russia Hoax and may get into issues that ultimately relate to the fake impeachment. Here's my reasoning.

Today Housley tweeted:

The corruption runs deep and through both parties and it ain’t gonna look good when it’s all said and done. 

It ain’t about Republican and Democrat anymore…it really isn’t. People were given the opportunity to do the right thing and some chose wrong. It’s about right versus wrong. 

Names to watch…McMaster. Rosenstein….McCain. This crosses party lines and you all need to be prepared. This isn’t about being pro Trump, or anti Trump. You ALL need to understand that….and you need to be willing to call it out irrespective of party. 

Major issues within the FBI. An agency that I love as you guys know. But major issues. Sides being taken and even amongst former agents, a lot of frustration. Especially outside of headquarters. 

Wray should have cut out the cancer and didn’t.

The key here, I think, is McMaster. With Rosenstein and McCain we're basically talking about the Russia Hoax, pure and simple. True, Rosenstein's involvement in the Mueller Witchhunt leads to impeachment, but not directly. I think we can distinguish Rosenstein from McMaster in that regard.

While it's true that with McMaster we could be dealing with leaks, nevertheless the fact that McMaster took Eric Ciaramella as his personal aide is highly suggestive. It's a far more direct link to fake impeachment than anything else we can come up with.

If Durham is seriously looking at McMaster--as I very much hope--then Barr's characterization of the Durham investigation as "sprawling" takes on a whole new meaning.

Changes Already Under Way At ODNI

According to The Hill--quoting the NYT--Acting DNI Grennell has already started ousting long time Intel Community officials:

President Trump's new acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell, has already made major changes at the agency, including ousting the No. 2 official. 

Former acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire and his deputy, Andrew Hallman, resigned on Friday. According to The New York Times, Grenell told Hallman, who has worked for national intelligence and the CIA for three decades, that his service was no longer needed. 

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) praised both Maguire and Hallman for their service after their resignations were announced. 

The Hill's account, Trump's new intel chief makes immediate changes, ousts top official, largely follows the longer NYT article. The NYT article is a concoction of facts and fake narrative put together by the usual suspects: Julian E. Barnes, Adam Goldman, Nicholas Fandos, David E. Sanger, and Maggie Haberman. I got a kick out of this attempted smear of Kash Patel--the third paragraph is precious:

UPDATED: Will Ciaramella Pay A Price? Here's Hoping.

Rand Paul's tweet during the Senate Impeachment Theater repays a close reading. George Parry, former prosecutor does just that this morning

Saving Private Ciaramella

The alleged “whistleblower” may get the whistle blown on himself.

This morning I commented to Ray-SoCal that I wouldn't be surprised if crimes were committed during the Impeachment Theater. Of course, that doesn't mean those crimes would be easy to prove. However, one important revelation during the Impeachment Theater that points in that direction was that we learned that Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko were overheard at the NSC talking about taking President Trump out. As Senator Paul slyly notes, that happened before any talk of a "whistleblower," and in retrospect looks very much like the beginnings of a conspiracy. A conspiracy to do what? Possibly a conspiracy to submit false statements to the Federal government--that's right, it's not just a crime to the FBI, it's a crime to lie to the federal government generally.

Let's see how this could work, following Parry:

Investigate Eric Ciaramella?

Paul Sperry has an interesting take:

Despite making noises of investigating the whistleblower, SSCI Chair Burr wont follow thru, will continue to be coopted by Warner. Trump will have to leverage McConnell to push Burr off SSCI. McConnell is facing reelection vs a Marine w big war chest. He needs Trump & his rallies

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) February 6, 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.

Re New Revelations About Ciaramella And Misko

Fool Nelson neatly capsulizes a major takeaway from Paul Sperry's lengthy article--Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump. David Laufman looks more and more like a key Dem operative:

@DavidLaufmanLaw appears in every @realDonaldTrump hoax.

1. Exonerated @HillaryClinton of gross negligence

2. Interviewed the Primary Sub-source during the #RussiaHoax

3. Represented Monica McLean during the #KavanaughHoax

4. Advised Ciaramella to initiate the #UkraineHoax pic.twitter.com/EtLbQrtbun

— FOOL NELSON (@FOOL_NELSON) January 22, 2020

The FBI Has Sought To Interview Eric Ciaramella

This story comes via Yahoo, and the details are somewhat sketchy. The article stresses supposed internal debates at the FBI and suggests there was support for the idea that Ciaramella's complaint raised important issues: FBI seeks interview with CIA whistleblower. Whatever the nature of any internal debate, the FBI did reach out to Ciaramella but, obviously, since he's represented by Mark Zaid any such interview is unlikely. I would add that it's unlikely that the FBI would seek such an interview without having done significant background investigation on Ciaramella. The article specifically disclaims any knowledge re the scope of the intended interview and investigation. Excerpts below. Some of these statements are subject to more than one interpretation. Without knowing who the "former senior official" is it's difficult to judge. There are several former FBI officials who have adopted a clearly propagandistic stance in the Russia Hoax and related matters:

WASHINGTON — The FBI recently sought to question the CIA whistleblower who filed a complaint over President Trump’s July 25 Ukraine call — a move that came after a vigorous internal debate within the bureau over how to respond to some of the issues raised by the complaint’s allegations and whether they needed to be more thoroughly investigated, according to sources familiar with the matter. 

McCarthy: Trump impeachment inquiry obstructed by Democrats

Andy McCarthy has an excellently concise explanation of the way in which the whole "whistleblower" charade dishonestly and illegally--if the Impeachment Theater were an actual legal proceeding--obstructs the inquiry. You can read the whole thing: Trump impeachment inquiry obstructed by Democrats' 'whistleblower' secrecy charade. All this has to do with the supposed need to hide the identity of Eric Ciaramella, the putative author of the complaint against Trump.

I'll slightly rearrange McCarthy's argument a bit to hopefully help bring out the essentials.

First of all, we all know that Eric Ciaramella is not, in fact, an individual who is covered by the "Whistleblower Act".

Secondly, even if Ciaramella did qualify as a whistleblower, the Act does not provide for hiding a whistleblower's identity. What the Act does is protect individuals from reprisals for revealing information that may be embarrassing or incriminating.

Thirdly, it is a fundamental principle of our constitutional order, enshrined in the 6th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, that due process of law requires that an accused person be allowed to confront his accusers and not be tried on the word of anonymous persons. Even if the "Whistleblower Act" purported to change that--it would be unconstitutional. In other words, "who we are as Americans" (the phrase so hypocritically used by liberals) forbids that we stage show trials without presenting witnesses to the actual events and facts that are at issue. Nor do we allow hearsay, generally--the facts must be vouched for by identified persons with firsthand knowledge who can be subjected to examination by the defense.

With these facts and principles firmly in mind, McCarthy provides a lucid account of what's been going on with Impeachment Theater--and how fundamentally and outrageously wrong it is:

The American Empire And Its Enemies

Most of us live within what we consider to be a republic. In that republic the citizens vote and elect representives who will pass laws, carry out the executive functions of government, and appoint judges to administer the law. All three of these "branches" of our constitutional order are charged with upholding the Constitution.

Of course, that outline is increasingly seen to be hopelessly simplistic. For conservatives it's an ideal to be restored. For "progressives," it's an instrument of oppression that stands in the way of a fundamental transformation of American society (Obama's words)--this constitutional order is to be resisted and ultimately overthrown.

The Impeachment Theater, flowing from the Ukraine Hoax, has revealed a different America--one that few of us truly feel that we belong to: the American Empire. For most Americans our foreign policy is intended to safeguard our security at home, not to police the world in the name of a non-national ideology of Globalism. And yet, what's being revealed in the Impeachment Theater is that there exists a confederation of interests--both within the government as well as outside (but very much connected with) the government--that view America as an empire. These interests are broadly bi-partisan--think: Uniparty, as sundance at CTH famously says. They are also broadly "progressive," even among the non-Dem members. Their focus on Empire is designed to "fundamentally transform" the world in the interests of a global order of their making, just as the progressive project on the domestic front is to transform American society in fundamental ways. The two projects are, of course, closely related, as we see in the growing effort to bind American domestic life to globalist norms, regulations, and laws. This effort even enjoys significant support within the progressive wing of our legal establishment and judiciary.

In these terms, Impeachment Theater is all about waging a scorched earth war against the enemies of the progressive transformation of America. Those enemies are personified in Donald Trump. Because Trump's rise and governance has been strictly in conformity with our recognized constitutional order, the forces of progressivism have obtained little traction in their "resistance" to Trump and to his conservative vision. Thus, we have--in contrast to all previous impeachments--the remarkable spectacle of serial coup attempts being run against a president, based in foreign policy rather than in domestic politics. This dynamic is what has forced this confederation of globalist interests to emerge into the open.

Oh No! Does This Mean Schiff's Been Lying All Along?

The idea that Eric Ciaramella has been receiving death threats has always been absurd, thus requiring that his identity remain The Biggest Secret Ever. Well, maybe not absurd, if the death threats came from Dems who are clearly desperate that he not be cross examined. But absurd if we're to suppose the threats came from GOPers, who would like nothing better than to cross examine Ciaramella and would gladly provide him with round the clock security in order to have that opportunity.

This is funny, and shows what happens when you deal with nut cases like Mark Zaid and Ciaramella--they go off narrative and expose your game:

BREAKING: The "whistleblower's" attorney has privately informed HPSCI staff that his client, a CIA officer, has not received credible threats, as Schiff has suggested;and he is not at personal risk since he nonetheless has been assigned a government security detail for protection

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 15, 2019

No credible threats, but government security detail provided nevertheless? Who knew obtaining a government security detail was seemingly so easy? Hmmm. Could it be that the security detail is to shield Ciaramella from any inquisitive reporters? It's all a lot of nonsense:

Schiff says can't reveal name of "whistleblower" & can't let him testify b/c it would expose him to dire threats. So why aren't you shielding the identities of the witnesses who've echoed the info in his complaint? His pal Vindman is PUBLICLY testifying next week. #RedHerring

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 15, 2019

Sadly, this sounds about right:

Republicans r aiding & abetting Schiff's coverup of his role in #Whistlegate by allowing selves to be intimidated by Schiff into silence re "whistleblower's" identity & continuing to self-censor over name.His partisan motivations continue to hide w him in the shadows of anonymity

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 15, 2019

UPDATED: Impeachment Theater #1

I give in. As long as I can keep these brief--because everyone and their brother is commenting about Schiff's absurd Impeachment Theater--I'll provide updates if the news seems noteworthy.

First off, when Jeffrey Toobin, liberal legal gadfly, thinks the Dems have a problem, I think you can take that to the bank:

Adam Schiff has lost CNN:

CNN’s Toobin: neither witness “had direct contact with the president…that’s a problem” pic.twitter.com/4mpgk6fDhS

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) November 13, 2019

It sounds like Bill Taylor, the former ambassador, put everyone to sleep right off the bat by delivering a 41 MINUTE opening statement. The idea behind it, as far as could be discerned, seemed to be that Trump is disrespecting the career foreign service by not doing their bidding--so ... he needs to be impeached?

But more interesting is that Mitch McConnell repeated today that if the House sends the Senate articles of impeachment there will be a big ass long trial. Of course McConnell saying this doesn't commit him to a thing, but you may recall that a full scale trial was one of the two approaches that Hugh Hewitt favored: What's The Principled Way For The Senate To Handle An "Impeachment".

McConnell has in the past said that in the case of an impeachment there would be a trial. At that time I suggested this might be be a warning shot across the Dem bow. You might think a Senate trial would be all about Trump, but I'm not sure you should bet on that. We might well find an inordinate amount of time--weeks, in fact--devoted to a defense centered around the Bidens, father and son, and the need to investigate their corrupt dealings. The Bidens might well be called to testify, and then we might be treated to the spectacle of a presidential aspirant and his son both taking the Fifth. If the Dems really prefer Biden as a candidate to Warren, Sanders, or Alfred E. Neumann--or, God help us, Hillary!--they might want to reconsider impeachment altogether. And that may be the message McConnell is sending. 

We've seen the Dem case, and it's pathetic. But impeachment could well turn into a sword that cuts both ways, and most decidedly more in one direction than the other.

To finish up, here's what seems to me a very well informed interview--Jack Posobiec talking to former CIA officer Brad Johnson:

They can't hide Ciaramella from the Senate. They'll track him down in the wilds of Dupont Circle and put him up before the country.

UPDATE: WaPo seems to agree with me on McConnell's strategery (from FR):

Republicans discuss a longer Senate impeachment trial to scramble Democratic primaries

Washington Post ^ | Nov 13, 2019 | By Robert Costa, Michael Scherer and Seung Min Kim 

Some Republican senators and their advisers are privately discussing whether to pressure GOP leaders to stage a lengthy impeachment trial beginning in January to scramble the Democratic presidential race — potentially keeping six contenders in Washington until the eve of the Iowa caucuses or longer. 

Those conversations about the timing and framework for a trial remain fluid and closely held, according to more than a dozen participants in the discussions. But the deliberations come as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) faces pressure from conservative activists to swat back at Democrats as public impeachment hearings began this week in the House...

(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...

Stalin Would Be Proud of Schiff

"Stalin Would Be Proud" is the title of a very good post at The Gateway Pundit. What TGP is referring to is Adam Schiff's 6 page memo on proper decorum in a Kangaroo Court. Specifically, Schiff is obliquely demanding that Eric Ciaramella not be mentioned by name, under pain of an ethics violation complaint. Here's the relevant portion of the memo:

Whistleblower Protection and Confidentiality. The Committee has a long, proud, and bipartisan history of protecting whistleblowers—including from efforts to threaten, intimidate, retaliate against, or undermine the confidentiality of whistleblowers. 

Among other authorities, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010 and the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act include procedures for Intelligence Community personnel to make protected disclosures to inspectors general across the Intelligence Community and to the congressional intelligence committees. Among other things, Intelligence Community personnel are shielded from any action constituting reprisal or the threat of reprisal for making disclosures in accordance with these procedures. 

The statutory framework also prevents obstruction of lawful communications by federal employees with Congress, and of congressional proceedings. And, as mentioned above, the Code of Official Conduct for Members of Congress requires that every Member “shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.” The Committee on Ethics has historically viewed this provision as “encompassing violations of law and abuses of one’s official position.”

Notice two things.

In the first paragraph Schiff attempts to put across the idea that it's somehow a bad thing to "undermine the confidentiality of whistleblowers"--on a par with threatening, intimidating, or retaliating against them.

But in the very next paragraph he, um, undermines that attempted subterfuge by plainly and accurately stating that the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010 and the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act only shields whistleblowers from "any action constituting reprisal or the threat of reprisal for making disclosures."

Is mentioning a whistleblowers name a reprisal or threat? No. It's not. And Schiff doesn't dare make that bald assertion.

And, in fact, Eric Ciaramella isn't even a whistleblower, as defined by statute. As TGP concludes:

Stalin would sure be proud of Adam Schiff and his Soviet-style impeachment coup against Trump.

If the Republican members have even a single hair on their collective ass, each and every one of them will repeatedly mention Eric Ciaramella by name. Repeatedly and insistently. Every single one of them.

Is the USA now a banana republic or what?

Sean Davis Slam Dunks The Intel Community IG

UPDATE: As commenter Yancey promptly pointed out, this article is a month old--October 1, 2019. I got it from a link and failed to note the date. But it's good stuff, so I'm leaving it up.

------------------------------

Sean Davis of The Federalist has an outstanding take down of the whole process whereby Eric Ciaramella's bogus complaint was peddled to the public as "whistleblower" evidence of Trump wrongdoing:

Intel Community Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions

In a press release issued late Monday, the intelligence community inspector general admitted it changed its policy and its whistleblower form after an anti-Trump complainant alleged that Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president.

It's pretty dense, so to do justice to it I'd have to paste in the whole thing. I'll simply select what are "theme sentences" (with a few exceptions) to show the overall trajectory of Davis' reporting.

On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. ... 

The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. ... 

... 

The ICIG’s claim that it would have been incorrect to perceive a requirement for firsthand information is bizarre considering the previous version of the form clearly stated in unambiguous language that firsthand evidence was required in order for “urgent concern” whistleblower complaints to be deemed credible. It said, in bold, underlined, all-caps text, “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED”:

Because the complaint did not allege wrongdoing against a member of the intelligence community (the president of the United States is an elected constitutional officer, not an employee of a statutory agency), did not allege wrongdoing with regard to an intelligence activity (a phone call between two elected world leaders is basic diplomacy, not the execution of a statutorily required intelligence activity), and relied primarily on hearsay rather than firsthand evidence, both the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the anti-Trump complaint was not an “urgent concern” under the law and was therefore not required to be transmitted to the relevant congressional committees. In spite of those determinations, the ICIG on its own and after revising its internal guidance and policies regarding firsthand evidence decided the complaint did qualify as an “urgent concern” and forwarded the anti-Trump complaint to Congress. 

Uniparty Deep State

Paul Sperry has been tweeting up a storm today. Three pretty self explanatory tweets:

BREAKING: What was former RNC chief and Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus doing meeting Clinton operative Paul Begala for lunch in September? pic.twitter.com/8eF2nSxk7A

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 8, 2019

BREAKING: On pp 176-177 of just-released transcript, Fiona Hill asked to name NSC analysts who worked under her heading Ukraine desk & she names Vindman, then Catherine Croft before suddenly forgetting "who was before her." The person she conveniently "can't remember" is Ciaramella pic.twitter.com/YtXnfQssTR

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 8, 2019

BREAKING: Newly released transcripts show ex-Trump NSC official and Democrat Fiona Hill acknowledged in impeachment testimony she not only had a prior close working relationship with dossier author Christopher Steele, but had contacts with Steele during the 2016 campaign pic.twitter.com/2JCXQTBVWF

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 8, 2019

Ciaramella Scrubbed Social Media In Prep For Starring Role

Paul Sperry notes today that Eric Ciaramella, the Deep State operative posing as a "whistleblower," scrubbed his social media in preparation for his role in Adam Schiff's ongoing Impeachment Theater:

BREAKING: Eric Ciaramella's Internet footprint--including photos & bios--began to be scrubbed beginning in early Sept, after the National Intelligence director transmitted whistleblower letter to Congress,like the digital tracks of Dems' other"whistleblower" Christine Blasey Ford

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 7, 2019

Monica Showalter has a nice discussion of this scrubbing phenomenon among public spirited leftists:

These things take time and organization. They also signal that far-left radicals know that their Internet past stinks. They're loaded with things that would discredit them if they were found out - things such as talk of violence, talk of Trump-hate, and crazy socialist dictator worship. They want to portray themselves as Little Miss Muffets, so scrub a dub dub... 

One wonders if Congress is ever going to get a chance to ask young Eric why those social media posts disappeared and who told him to do it. 

One suspects the answer would be interesting. One also notes that suddenly, Ciaramella doesn't want to testify to Congress.

I have no idea why Showalter brings up "Little Miss Muffets" in connection with social media scrubbing. However OANN recently attempted, unsuccessfully, to contact Ciaramella, both at his parents' home in CT as well as at Ciaramella's digs in Dupont Circle. So, no luck getting an explanation for the scrubbing from the horse's mouth.

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:

Briefly Noted: Eric Ciaramella, Tashina Gauhar, Dana Boente

A few brief, but nevertheless important, stories today.

First, Larry Johnson makes a compelling case that, given Eric Ciaramella's known contacts, it's highly probably that Ciaramella was part of the John Brennan's "Task Force" that ultimately produced the Intelligence Assessment that was so instrumental in launching Team Mueller and maintaining the Big Lie of the Russia Hoax: Growing Indicators of Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force. Peter Strzok, of course, was the FBI rep on that Task Force and did further duty running back and forth, to and fro, and amongst and between Brennan, Comey, and Clapper. That Task Force is also a central focus of the Barr/Durham investigation--as it should be. Presume that Durham has had his eye on Ciaramella for some time now.

Next, CTH relays rumors of a possibly significant personnel move at DoJ: Tashina Gauhar is said to have left. Gauhar worked on FISA applications during all relevant periods of the Russia Hoax. And what's especially significant about her move is the timing:

Rumor in the DC grapevine is that a few weeks ago Tashina Guahar [sic] was quietly removed from her position as lawyer for the DOJ National Security Division (in charge of FISA applications).  This removal happened immediately after IG Michael Horowitz submitted his first draft report to Attorney General Bill Barr for classification review.   Ms. Gauhar now reportedly works for Boeing.

If confirmed, Guahar’s [sic] exit in advance of the IG report could indicate helpful participation, or DOJ Main Justice may be providing cover to protect Tash Guahar [sic] as they did with SSCI Security Director James Wolfe.

Sundance is absolutely correct that the timing of Gauhar's departure most likely indicates that she has been kept on while cooperating with internal investigations related to her duties. Which is to say, the Russia Hoax, especially from the FISA standpoint. Gauhar would have had contact with anybody who touched a FISA application at DoJ, and with many at the FBI.

Bearing in mind that another DoJ/FBI attorney who worked in that field, Trisha Anderson, testified that the Carter Page FISA was pretty much pushed through over the heads of everyone else by Andy McCabe and Sally Yates, it's interesting to go over a list of people we know that Gauhar would have interacted with on a regular basis and concerning whom she would have been questioned:

Sally Yates, David Laufman, John Carlin, Trisha Anderson, James Baker, Andy McCabe, Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page.

We also know that Gauhar was among the DoJ attorneys who persuaded Jeff Sessions to recuse himself, so we can add two more names to that list:

Rod Rosenstein and Dana Boente. 

Dana Boente, of course, is the top in house counsel at the FBI for Chris Wray, but before he did that he was at DoJ as Acting AG and Acting DAG. He also signed off on a renewal of the Carter Page FISA.  No doubt Boente has also had long, interesting conversations with DoJ investigators.

You can imagine that both OIG and the Durham team have been very busy.

Will Eric Ciaramella Be Implicated In The FISA Report?

Gregg Jarrett has a pretty shrewd article up today. It might not be immediately obvious how a GS-13 CIA and NSC analyst like Ciaramella could possibly be implicated in the FBI's FISA abuse, but Jarrett connects some dots, and the possibility is there. That possibility would also suggest an explanation for why Ciaramella--who is represented by top "whistleblower" DC lawyers, recommended to him by Adam Schiff--has developed an acute case of cold feet about testifying. Impeachment 3.0 looks like it wasn't thought out too well. 

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:

[468] 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.

Outstanding: A Prosecutor's Insights

Sean Davis spoke with Rep. John Ratcliffe today. The result is a must read article that's pretty much in the nature of a monologue by Ratcliffe: Adam Schiff’s Problem Isn’t That He’s Biased, It’s That He’s Running A Corrupt Process. I've called this post "A Prosecutor's Insights" because what Ratcliffe, a former prosecutor, presents are the insights that jump out at a professional prosecutor but might not occur to others.

The importance I see in Ratcliffe's presentation has to do with what could happen when, presumably, this hoax impeachment reaches the Senate. What Ratcliffe presents constitutes powerful grounds for dismissing any articles based on the fact that the House has deprived President Trump of Due Process--inflicting harm upon him without regard to fundamental fairness under our Constitution.

In a very real sense the issue of predication arises as part of this lack of due process--exactly how and on what basis was this "inquiry" instituted? No wrongdoing or offense has actually been alleged that would fall under the Constitutional standard of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Moreover, there are strong grounds to suspect that President Trump has been for his entire presidency the target of groundless investigation and even illegal leaks of classified information derived from organized spying. In other words, the entire operation was so lacking in predication--may actually involve fabricated "evidence"--as to constitute a concerted conspiracy precisely designed to deprive President Trump of due process and of his Constitutional rights as President and head of the Executive Branch.

With those considerations in mind, read what Ratcliffe had to say to The Federalist. He contends that Schiff's problem goes far beyond his well known bias against Trump and extends to real corruption that strikes at the validity of the inquiry. In other words, Ratcliffe is questioning not only the process that has been followed, but the character of its leader, who has compared himself to a prosecutor leading a grand jury.

Confirmed: Eric Ciaramella Is The "Whistleblower"

In an article at Real Clear Investigations, long time White House reporter Paul Sperry has confirmed what everyone has long known. Eric Ciaramella, former NSC staffer, is the Dem operative whose narrative started the current Impeachment Theater. In the article, How 'Whistleblower' May Be Outed: Ties to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's Staff, Etc., Sperry discloses further details, including some that tie Ciaramella to the Russia Hoax's origins. Sperry confirms what was believed about the circumstances in which Ciaramella left the White House:

Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. 

“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. 

Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. (Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.)

However, what to me is an explosive revelation has to do with Ciaramella's ties to a Ukrainian and political operative who is a US citizen and was an oppo researcher for the Hillary Clinton campaign: Alexandra Chalupa:

Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. 

Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015.  She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.

In line with those connections Sperry reveals that Ciaramella also attempted to spin anti-Trump fantasies: