Identity of whistleblower is already widely known

During one of his droning and repetitive presentations to the Senate, House Manager – otherwise known as House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff – said that he never spoke to the whistleblower and does not know who he or she is.  I will give low-credibility Schiff with the benefit of doubt regarding whether he actually spoke to the young man.  (Yeah, it is not a “she.”)  But to say he does not know the name of the guy is beyond belief.  Methinks, Schiff is … lying (again).

We do know that the whistleblower had conversations with Schiff’s staff – and that they at least coached him to file a formal whistleblower report.  To accept the Schiff disclaimer, we would have to believe that some stranger walked into the office and told the secretary that he had damaging information on President Trump and wanted Schiff to know about it.  And then she referred him to the Office of the Department of Justice Inspector General to file a whistleblower report – without telling anyone on the staff.

You Might Like

To be honest, it is more likely that she referred him to one or more of the senior staffers, who interviewed him and they, in turn, laid out the whistleblower strategy – again without telling the boss or getting his approval on such a critical issue.

It is also possible – maybe even likely – that the whistleblower was already a Democrat operative known to members of the staff.  Maybe they even hatched the plot over drinks before he arrived at Schiff’s office.  In saying these things, I admit to engaging in gross speculation without a scintilla of absolute knowledge.  That is not usually my custom but it seems to be the character of so much of the Democrats accusations and the biased media’s reporting.  I shall try to refrain in the future.

While Schiff – who has the most access to secret information – denies knowing the name of the whistleblower, many other members of Congress claim to know the name but have not revealed it publicly.  Even Trump knows the name and he retweeted it to millions of Americans – and we know that Schiff pays close attention to Trump tweets.

It is not easy – or even wise – to believe Schiff.  After all he got caught in a monumental lie when he claimed that he had seen hard evidence – not circumstantial – that the Trump campaign criminally colluded with the Russians.  That lie was exposed when Special Counsel Mueller said that there was no such evidence.

Schiff lied when he entered into the Congressional Record a made-up conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  He did the same on the Floor of the Senate in fraudulently re-characterizing facts.

As evidence that the elitist press reads off the Democrats fictional narratives, CNN’s Jake Tapper echoed Schiff by saying that he, too, did not know who the whistleblower is.  That is hard to believe since the name of the whistleblower has been widely circulated months ago.  I discovered his name in several reports.  In fact, I wrote a column about him by name – and, so far, no one has corrected me.

Tapper’s dubious denial is particularly interesting since the tradition of the news media is to dig out information – even when there are attempts to maintain secrecy.  They will even expose facts that hurt our national security in order to politicize a story.


Schiff and the Democrats do not want the whistleblower to testify.  They say it is because it could endanger his safety.  Balderdash!  They do not want him under oath being asked about his political motivations and the level of his coordination with Schiff & Co.

There is no law against me or Tapper from naming him.  The law only prevents officials within the Department from revealing the name.  It is just an insult to the public for Schiff, Tapper and others to claim that they do not know the name of the whistleblower.

By the way, does the name Eric Ciaramella ring a bell?  Just asking.

So, there ‘tis.