Let’s play a game of make-believe. Imagine if CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella is NOT the Ukraine whistleblower. If you’ve been following the stories and connecting the dots, it’s a stretch of the imagination to believe such a ludicrous scenario, but give it a try. Think of it as a thought experiment. Are you there yet? Okay, now let’s consider the whole impeachment debacle in those terms.
If Ciaramella is not the whistleblower, then his testimony before the Senate is still extremely relevant. He was Ukraine Director on the National Security Council during the end of the Obama administration. In that capacity, he often traveled with Vice President Joe Biden to Kyiv and met with senior Ukrainian officials regularly. He continued this role through the first few months of the Trump administration until it because clear his overt “resistance” stance and accusations of covert activity to subvert President Trump’s foreign policy (and in some cases, his presidency itself) prevented him from doing his job.
The information he has, including first-hand accounts of what went on in Ukraine during the Burisma investigation by former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, is important to the impeachment trial. It gives a perspective on the narrative that Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin and end the corruption investigation into the company for which Biden’s son, Hunter, was previously on the board. If there is no reason to suspect Biden’s quid pro quo was to protect his son, Ciaramella would be the person who can shed the most light on it other than those directly involved.
If he’s not the whistleblower, he should be begging to testify on behalf of his former boss. Biden claims the order to force Shokin out was an administration policy that wanted corrupt prosecutors out of allied nations’ government’s. Of course, there was no pressure applied to any other country in the entire history of the United States to remove a prosecutor, but as the story goes, Shokin was corrupt and it had nothing to do with the Burisma investigation. Remember, we’re still playing make-believe.
If he’s not the whistleblower, then he can debunk the conspiracy theories that he met with his former buddies at the NSC who happen to be working for House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff. One of the most popular tales being told by those in the vast right-wing conspiracy is that the whistleblower met with Sean Misko and Abigail Grace from Schiff’s office and formerly with Ciaramella at the NSC.
He can tell us how the whistleblower, which is totally not him, met with his friends. And his friends totally didn’t tell Schiff who they met with, because Schiff has denied even knowing who the whistleblower is. That way, he can wipe away the Pinocchio’s even progressive Washington Post gave Schiff for claiming they never met with the whistleblower before someone at the office slipped and revealed it. It’s Ciaramella’s debunking frenzy if he’d simply testify in this make-believe scenario.
The impeachment is obviously a complete dud for Democrats–dead on arrival in the senate. But I still want to hear Eric Ciaramella testify about his dealings w Adam Schiff. When you conspire against the president, it doesn't "go away" because your coup failed.
They are traitors.
— thebradfordfile™ (@thebradfordfile) January 7, 2020
But arguably the most important reason Ciaramella should testify is to debunk my conspiracy theory that he blew the whistle in an effort to protect himself, not Biden. Helping Biden was a positive in his book, as was locking the President in a distracting impeachment battle, but in reality, he may have been looking out for #1.
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) December 30, 2019
In the real world, Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower. But even if he isn’t, his testimony before the Senate, whether for the impeachment debacle or an investigation into Adam Schiff’s lies, would still be relevant.