Mar 16, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Michael Bloomberg credited himself as having, through his donations, changed the majority of the House of Representatives to Democrat returning Nancy Pelosi to power. He said: “They talk[ed] about 40 Democrats” needed to return the House to power in 2018, “Twenty-one of those were people they [Bloomberg’s group] spent $100 million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in, put Nancy Pelosi in charge, and gave the Congress the ability to control this President, I boug[ht]… I got them” (Dan Merica, “Bloomberg catches himself from saying he ‘bought’ House races in 2018,” CNN, February 25, 2020). Despite the rhetoric Democrats love the money provided by the rich.
No one should be able to purchase a seat in any election, state or federal. This must never be allowed to happen again. But it will happen again if not blocked by an amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
LibertyUnderFire is the lead advocate for ending outside influences in our nation’s elections and thus offers the following new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “All election funding, outside a candidate’s personal wealth, in all elections shall originate from eligible voters in the district served by the election and donated since the last election for the same office.”
But Bloomberg is not alone in purchasing elections, for some time we have been reporting the influence of the moneyed elite, the billionaire club, notably George Soros and Tom Steyers, in choosing our elected officers from the White House down to local races. This happens when money flows in from outside where the candidate will serve allowing those of wealth, to replace constituent influence thus effectively purchasing the representatives from outside the voting districts. If constituents have lost their power to decide their leaders, how can we pretend any longer that we have a democratic republic?
In 2018 Both George Soros and Tom Steyer bankrolled far left candidate Andrew Gillum’s Florida campaign for governor hoping to flip the state from red to blue anticipating that the resulting electoral count increase could sway the nation for decades. Gillum “courted Soros' organizations and spoke at a number of their gatherings.” When they met at San Francisco, “he promised to back Gillum’s gubernatorial run.” Steyer “funneled about $800,000 into the Get Out the Vote initiative prior to the Gillum run” (Ingraham Angle, August 29, 2018). An activity that was targeted to get Gillum elected; hence would be denied Soros and Steyer with the new amendment, as with most of the $30 million he spent on the midterms. Both Soros and Steyer are California, not Florida, residents.
But what about billionaires buying their own political office, even the presidency, to the tune of half a billion as Bloomberg did? Such buyout is openly known. People do not like anyone purchasing elected office if known. But when Bloomberg purchased 21 House of Representatives seats in 2018 it was hidden until he bragged about it in the February 25, 2020 Democratic Party Presidential debate. If it did happened again we would suggest another constitutional amendment to limit such self funding.
Propositions are a part of most elections and can be considered without attachment to a candidate. This would not stop the funding or creation of ads for or against a candidate, or ballot issues, so long as all monies used in such originates from voters within the district served by the candidate. The word originates is designed to stop donation transfer from outside district sources to inside donors to circumvent the amendment.
Why have we not stopped this? Because both political parties benefit from it. On the congressional level, those holding “safe seats,” as for example Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Kevin McCarthy, can either buildup gigantic arsenals to “nuke” a threatening contender, or worse, handoff their unneeded donations to a like-minded candidate in another state to favorably impact elections often adverse to the will of its citizens. These outside influences have to stop.
As we have seen from Bloomberg, more funding allows more signs and literature to be distributed, and more newspaper, radio and television ads to destroy an opponent or get a message out resulting in a higher probability of winning. Bloomberg flooded the airwaves. Candidates with the most money and publicity usually win and the rich, by their funding, select contenders long before the people vote, therefore they dominate the result. In many cases more money originates from outside a voting district than within. If no candidate could receive money from outside his district, it would stop much influence peddling.
Under this amendment the Clinton Foundation monies could not be used to influence elections as much of that money comes from international contributors. Under this amendment no contribution could be made to influence any contest to which the contributor could not personally vote. This amendment would limit the billionaire class to the “purchase” of only THEIR congressman or senators —not a large group of them.
Congressmen from “safe” districts could not “handoff” their unneeded donations to a like minded candidate in another district. Nor could they holdover funding from previous victories to “nuke” a future opponent. Contributions are a form of voting normally intended for this candidate only, and for this election only, and they could only be accumulated since the last election for that office.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 9, 2020 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
For three years the Democratic Party media outlets: MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS railed against old, white, rich, men. These, represented by Donald Trump, were viewed as the enemies of the people. But look at their presidential contenders, mostly old, white privileged, rich men.
President Trump took office at the age of 70, the oldest president in U.S. History. But on the Democratic stage of February 7, all seven still debating were old or white privileged. Ironically all claiming racial injustice by their own race, something none had personally experienced. Of these: Bernie Sanders 79, Michael Bloomberg 78, Joe Biden 78 and Elizabeth Warren 71, all would be older than Trump when he took office.
What about wealth? In the February 7, presidential debate Mayor Pete Buttigieg announced himself,“As the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire.” This was confirmed by Forbes Business Insider who reported the net worth of those still running, including spouses, as Michael Bloomberg $64.2 billion (the 8th most wealthy individual in the U.S), Tom Steyer $1.6 billion, Elizabeth Warren $12 million, Joe Biden $9 million, Bernie Sanders $2.5 million, Amy Klobuchar $2 million and Pete Buttigieg, $100,000. Mayor Pete’s husband Chasten’s wealth was not included so his total is yet unknown(Grace Panetta, Feb. 29, 2020).
Bloomberg credited himself as having, through his donations, changed the majority of the House of Representatives to Democrat returning Nancy Pelosi to power. He said: “They talk about 40 Democrats” needed to return the House to power in 2018, “Twenty-one of those were people they [Bloomberg’s group] spent $100 million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in, put Nancy Pelosi in charge, and gave the Congress the ability to control this President, I boug[ht]… I got them” (Dan Merica, “Bloomberg catches himself from saying he ‘bought’ House races in 2018,” CNN, February 25, 2020). Despite the rhetoric Democrats love the money of the rich.
So Democratic presidential hopefuls are vastly white, rich, and men, three among the oldest and richest contenders in U.S. History, but are they Socialist? Bernie Sanders is the only one who openly admits he is a socialist. He spent his honeymoon in the USSR (United Soviet Socialist Republics) and has demonstrated a long history of favoring communists countries, notably Cuba and Venezuela. Outside support of violence (excepting Antifa which he does not denounce) to obtain his objectives their is little difference between marxist ideology and his. This is why Democratic moderates do not want him representing their party.
Even Pete Buttigieg in his February 7 debate said respecting Sanders, ”It's true that I was into Bernie before it was cool,” emitting a chuckle from Sanders and the crowd. “The qualities I admired then are qualities I still respect a great deal,” His primary criticism of Sanders was how he was going to pay for Medicare for All, not the program itself. Elizabeth Warren is the most ideologically comparable with Sanders. But aren’t they all socialists?
“We Are All Socialists Now” said the front cover of liberal magazine Newsweek, Feb. 16, 2009, eleven years ago. Editors Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas wrote, “Whether we want to admit it or not, the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state,” toward socialism, they observed, “even before Barack Obama’s largest fiscal bill in our history.” The magazine cover had a red hand (Republican) shaking a blue hand (Democrat) in favor of socialism. Both parties accepted the “growing role of government in the economy,” they observed. “The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries.” Moreover, “it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly.” The “sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today’s world,” they noted.
Newsweek associated the “growing role in government” as the most accurate measure of socialism. Under Barack Obama and Joe Biden such accelerated dramatically as the federal government obtained a controlling interest in General Motors, absorbed 1/7th of the economy under Obamacare, and expanded the power of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to oversee most homes in America. This does not count the controlling influence over all businesses by the Obama administration’s eighty thousand new pages of bureaucratic rules and regulations descending upon businesses annually that effectively managed most everything else.
None of the remaining contenders on stage would disavow any of the above. All would expand the role of government in our lives, as for example, the Green New Deal and Medicare for All—even for those coming into our country illegally. Thus there are no moderate Democratic Party Presidential contenders remaining. They may not openly embrace socialism but they also do not openly oppose it. Bernie Sanders is just the most honest socialist running.
Today the four remaining Democratic Party candidates are still what the Democratic Party media’s said for three years they most hated—the oldest in U.S. History (average age 76.5), white, socialist, rich, and mostly men. Except for socialism, which the Republicans under Trump vigorously oppose, they are in these variables worse than the Republican Party they oppose.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 27, 2020 | Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Voters might be confused by the difference between a caucus and a primary, each state offering one or the other to find the right contenders for the general election in November. We treat both.
In a caucus state such as Utah there is protection from the “drive-by” voter. Neighbors gather and select from themselves those who have earned their respect. These spend whatever time is necessary at candidate activities, visiting with candidates and reading their literature to decipher between the candidates before voting. Citizens accept that all voters cannot devote such time and energy in the effort. Each of 2,235 precincts in Utah choose from one to five state delegates to differentiate between state candidates and thousands more to do the same for county candidates. Thousands of state delegates, at their own expense, meet in the Salt Lake City area and county delegates somewhere in their county the following month.
In that 30-day time period before a vote is cast candidates seek to impress these selected delegates with their credentials for the office wanted and delegates can meet with and ask probing questions. This is a far better vetting process than voting based on sound-bytes and hunches.
With respect to issues, caucus delegate voters are far more informed than the general public because the public selected them to probe. There exists no public acclaim for delegates. They have to take off work with no compensation for meals and/or travel for a weekend. They do it to ensure liberty.
In a primary state the overriding principle is that everyone should vote regardless of how informed or ill-informed one is. Candidates get on the ballot by collecting signatures. Television is the major—often the only—source of information for older voters and social media for younger voters. On the ballot candidates can submit a word statement, often a paragraph, promoting themselves, but rarely is enough given for voters to make an intelligent choice. This is the only free coverage allowed a candidate. Candidates seeking the office of judge rarely leave any information on the ballot from which to evaluate them. Many voters just guess.
In a primary voting choice may be but a whim. There exists nothing to protect us from the uninformed. One giving only 10 seconds of forethought may erase the vote of someone spending six months studying an issue or candidate. The whole system is an ignorance paradise.
In a primary the candidate “buys” the office. Serious candidates know that they must hire a campaign manager who develops campaign strategies, never gives specifics (if the campaign slogan cannot fit on a postage stamp it is too complex) and spends tens of thousands of dollars on media ads mostly defining the opponent as unfit. Of course, those who give large contributions expect access to the winner after the election so he/she mostly represents them.
In primary elections it is not a matter of how well informed, experienced or qualified one is. What is absolutely critical to winning is whom you hire to promote you. Money, not knowledge, is most important. The rest of the campaign you become a professional beggar asking everyone, always and endlessly to contribute to your campaign. Today candidates deliver their messages to special interest groups who can deliver votes and money. Far more time is spent asking for money than explaining views. Regular voters only know of a candidate by way of television, print or social media.
The following is representative. In the greater Bakersfield, CA area where I once resided, manager Mark Abernathy was the “king maker.” In a conversation with him he named virtually everyone holding public office in the area as his and boasted of his winning at least 90% of all elections the previous ten years. He usually ran several candidates for different offices simultaneously. Those he brought to power were expected to endorse his future candidates. Rarely did anyone beat the “Abernathy machine.” He is certainly a pleasant fellow, dedicated to his philosophy, and skilled and ruthless in the art of getting someone elected but at a hefty price. In a phone conversation with me he said, “I perceive that you do not have money,” meaning $100,000 or more. I agreed and he selected another candidate to support. Thus in 2010, I failed to secure a seat in the California State Legislature before a single vote was cast.
In a caucus no one “buys” the office as in primaries. Since candidates do not have to appeal to the less informed, only to delegates, much more interested in details over generalities, they normally do not have the vast expenditures of money needed in a primary election. A candidate with modest means can compete for any state or federal office, which is far more democratic than in a state utilizing the primary system for selecting candidates. The representatives of the people choose their leaders rather than “king makers” as in primaries. Candidates can put priority on issues rather than on fund raising and appealing to the moneyed class.
Unfortunately many seek to replace the caucus with a “drive- by” California-type primary bypassing the caucus and getting on the ballot by signatures. If your state is fortunate enough to have one do not sign any petition to place any candidate on a ballot. It destroys the caucus.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 25, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Most hold that since Richard M. Nixon resigned from office as President before the full House of Representatives could vote on the articles of impeachment, he therefore was not impeached. But they omit the House vote 12 days after he resigned.
There were two votes on impeachment by the full House of Representatives. The first on February 6, 1974, was a vote 410 for and 4 against, authorizing impeachment proceedings against Nixon which allowed the House Judiciary Committee to begin the formal inquiry. Talk of such had preceded this vote for several months. Thereafter, following six months of House inquiry that did not go well for Nixon, he resigned August 8, 1974 before the full House voted to actually impeach him based on the findings of their Judiciary Committee. So technically Nixon was not impeached. Although accused, which is what impeachment is, in the public mind there was no reason to proceed as removal from office was accomplished by Nixon’s resignation
But wait, that was not the view of the House of Representatives as a second vote was cast TO GIVE FINALITY TO THE LONG INQUIRY PROCESS. It followed twelve days later complete with a 528-paged report. Wikipedia reports: “On August 20, the House voted to accept the final Judiciary Committee report by a vote of 412 to 3, with Republican Earl Landgrebe, plus Democrats Otto Passman and Sonny Montgomery casting the only no votes. The 528‐page report, published on August 22, laid out in detail what it called the "clear and convincing evidence" against Nixon. It also contained a statement from the committee's Republican members who had originally opposed impeachment, stating for the record that Nixon had not been ‘hounded from office’ but rather had destroyed his own presidency through his patterns of deceit."
The second vote occurred after the months-long House inquiry and was the final vote of the House of Representatives—no different than any other House vote on impeachment except that Nixon had already resigned. So Richard Nixon was impeached, meaning charged, just as Andrew Johnson before him and those after.
Donald Trump, was not impeached by the House for a month after their vote as they refused to give finality to their work by passing their demand for a trial to the Senate. They had, in effect, dropped the charges. This, of course, subsequently changed when House Managers took their charges to the Senate and Trump, now impeached by the House, was acquitted by the Senate.
With Nixon they had not finished their work because the full House had not voted, that happened August 20, 1974 after his resignation. In this case, there was no need to try Nixon on the accusations in the Senate as he had already accomplished what a Senate conviction would, his removal from office.
So why are so many still ignorant of the Nixon impeachment vote—even college professors? Primarily because with Nixon removing himself the issue went away and the nation, so hurt by the Watergate Scandal, wanted to forget. Consequently The New York Times covered (buried) this previously headlined story on page 22.
It read: “Without a trace of fanfare or drama and without a word of debate, the impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives formally ended today. It ended as it had begun 10 months ago. First, there was a private agreement among leaders of both parties about how to proceed. Then, the action was taken in the tried and true parliamentary language that the House uses day after day to conduct routine business.
“At 1:50 P.M., Representative Peter W. Rodino Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, rose on the House floor and announced, ‘Mr. Speaker, I submit a privileged report pursuant to House Resolution 803.’ That resolution had given the committee the right to act as an agent of the House, with all of the House's constitutional authority, in investigating whether. former, President Richard M. Nixon should be impeached. The Speaker of the House, Representative Carl Albert, responded in the same words and the same barely audible voice that he has used hundreds of other times when committee chairmen filed routine reports….
“But this report is not routine,” The NY Times continued, “Running about 200,000 words, it sets out the evidence that the Judiciary Committee found warranted Mr. Nixon's impeachment, and removal from office. Had Mr. Nixon not resigned, this document would have formed the basis for the first House impeachment debate in more than a century….
“It is Important,” Representative Robert W. Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, a ranking Democrat on the committee, said afterward, and this is a major point, that “the impeachment matter not seem unresolved. Representative Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. of Massachusetts, the Democratic leader, offered a resolution commending the judiciary committee for its work and accepting its report.
“Representative John J. Rhodes of Arizona, the, Republican leader, took the necessary parliamentary step of demanding a second, and, without debate, the resolution was approved by a vote of 412 to 3” (House Formally Concludes Inquiry Into Impeachment,” by David E. Rosenbaum, New York Times,Aug. 21, 1974, p. 22).
So Nixon was impeached by a vote of 412 to 3. The populous can be excused for their ignorance but college professors, facts checking services, news reporters, journalists and historians cannot.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 17, 2020 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
For over a century and a half, until 1934, the Indian account of George Washington’s divine protection in the Battle of Monongahela in the French and Indian War was standard in our history textbooks until removed, presumably by those skeptical or dismissive of God’s intervention in the affairs of man. Today few Americans know of it as those in the above category and the enemies of the Republic seek to belittle our Founders. We celebrate the birthday of George Washington February 22, by returning our attention to this miraculous event.
In the French and Indian War 1,400 British troops marched over the Appalachian Mountains to seize French Fort Duquesne, near present-day Pittsburgh. Col. George Washington, then 23, took the rear of General Edward Braddock’s army mostly because he considered American soldiers inferior. Problem was, the European style of warfare was to march into a clearing facing an opponent who did the same: stop, load and fire never breaking rank—the British in bright red uniforms, made perfect targets. Hiding behind trees or rocks was considered cowardly.
Both Indians and Americans considered this warfare style suicidal but Washington, who had warned the general of this, had to obey orders. On July 9, 1755, the Battle of Monongahela began when Braddock passed through a ravine and an army half his size, hiding behind boulders and trees, annihilated him. Officers were mounted targets. Washington rode back and forth on the line through a hail storm of musket balls delivering Braddock’s orders as he was the only officer still on horseback. He could not take command until the wounded Braddock was carried from the field. Unfortunately the three-hour ambush left 976 casualties before Washington could save what was left. A British soldier recorded, “I expected every moment to see him fall. Nothing but the superintending care of Providence could have saved him” (David Barton The Bulletproof George Washington, WallBuilders Press, 2003).
Surrounded by slaughter, the British Regulars “broke and run as Sheep pursued by dogs,” Washington later wrote. His Virginia Militia continued to die attempting to aid the fleeing British. The pursuing Indians were slowed only by their thirst for battlefield scalps and booty. Of his approximately 100 volunteers “their is scarce 30 Men left alive.” Washington was angry, “the dastardly behaviour of thos⟨e⟩ they call regular’s, exposd all other’s that were inclind to do their duty to almost certain death.”
The first miracle of the battle was that Washington was everywhere in it although extremely ill. “I was scarcely able to do, as I was not half recovered from a violent illness that had, confin’d me to my Bed, and a Waggon, for about 10 Days; I am still in a weak and Feeble condn,” he later wrote his mother Mary telling her that he needed another two or three days to recover a “little Strength” just to start his journey home but expected many weeks yet to recuperate fully (Mackellar maps in Pargellis, Military Affairs in North America, pp. 114–15).
When safely at Fort Cumberland, Washington wrote his younger brother John Augustine Washington, July 18, 1755, “By the All-Powerful Dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me!” Washington wrote the same to his mother Mary Ball Washington.
Fifteen years later, Washington and Dr. Craik, a personal physician and close friend, were traveling through those same woods near the Ohio river and Great Kanawha river. They were met by an old Indian chief, who addressed Washington through an interpreter with the following story.
"I am a chief and ruler over my tribes. My influence extends to the waters of the great lakes and to the far blue mountains. I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle. It was on the day when the white man's blood mixed with the streams of our forests that I first beheld this Chief. I called to my young men and said, mark yon tall and daring warrior? He is not of the red-coat tribe – he hath an Indian's wisdom, and his warriors fight as we do – himself alone exposed. Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, knew not how to miss – `twas all in vain, a power mightier far than we, shielded you.” One warrior declared: "I had seventeen fair fires at him with my rifle and after all could not bring him to the ground! Seeing you were under the special guardianship of the Great Spirit, we immediately ceased to fire at you.”
Then his prophecy: “I am old and soon shall be gathered to the great council fire of my fathers in the land of shades, but ere I go, there is something bids me speak in the voice of prophecy: Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man and guides his destinies – he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle” (“The man who could not be killed,” George Washington Parke Curtis, Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington, Philadelphia, J.W. Bradley, 1859).
The Chief’s prophecy came true. Perhaps it is time to be less dismissive and more inclusive of the hand of God in the affairs of this nation.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Feb 10, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Senator Rand Paul’s question to the House Managers in the impeachment question and answer phase of the proceedings against Donald Trump follows. “Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware, and how do you respond to, reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.”
Why is this the most important question of the about 100 asked? The campaign to impeach Donald Trump began “at the moment he was sworn in” (Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2017). Hoax followed hoax until the present Ukrainian debacle resulting in the Senate impeachment trial and acquittal of President Trump. But the hoax perpetuators always walk away without consequence despite two notable victims—the Constitution and Donald Trump.
Nancy Pelosi knew what she was doing when she said, “He will be impeached forever.” Trump’s name will be listed forever in the history books with Johnson, Nixon and Clinton as having been impeached—all associated with wrong doing. When a very large segment of the population was so ignorant of the Constitution that they wondered why Trump was still president the day after being impeached by the House, the same will be so in the future. Ignorance rules. Impeachment means accused, not tried. Pelosi could not have done anything more harmful to Trump’s reputation with generations yet unborn and she knew it. Her name will be forgotten in the dust heap of history but Trump’s never will, primarily because of her.
Trump’s name has been defamed although no crime can actually be identified and certainly not one listed in the Constitution as impeachable. Trump can’t sue to recover it. He can never remove this defamation— acquittal only partially helps. This may be the best case in American history when the accused was not allowed to face his accuser in direct violation of the 5th Amendment requiring it.
Yet the individual most responsible for having placed this stain on Donald Trump walks the streets having irreparably hurt another but himself protected from disclosure because he called himself a whistleblower, although in no way does he fit the definition of the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act, and thus is not entitled to special protection. Without his complaint, based entirely upon hearsay as were 16 of the 18 House witnesses, the impeachment would have never resulted. He was billed by Adam Schiff as their strongest case but was disarmed when Trump declassified and published his conversation with the Ukrainian President.
Notice Senator Paul’s question did not use the term whistleblower. Said differently, “Congressman Schiff, how do you respond to reports that your employee and his friend Ciaramella, from a shared previous post in the NSC, worked together to plot the whistleblower leak to push the House into this impeachment charade before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?” And, “In refusing to identify the person you first brought to the public’s attention as key to the need of impeachment are you not hiding your connection as a fact witness in this plot to unseat an elected president?”
Chief Justice John Roberts without explanation, announced: "The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.” He did the same with a second and similar Paul question the next day. A presumption is that it contained the name of the so-called whistleblower. But how could he assume this—not from the question—unless this name was already DC common knowledge. In a town known for leaking like a sieve, it was. Only the public is denied knowing.
So John Roberts, by refusing only this question of a hundred, indirectly gave credence that one of the two names Senator Paul was asking Schiff about was the whistle-leaker. Since everyone already knew Shawn Misdo as a Schiff employee, then Eric Ciaramella is the man most responsible for the impeachment of Trump and the name forbidden by the Democratic Party media machine to name.
No other name is mentioned as being the infamous whistle leaker. The Internet is full of references to him some more credible than others. Real Clear Investigations observes that Ciaramella’s name has been an open secret in Washington D.C. His lawyers Mark S. Zaid and Andrew P. Bakaj refuse to confirm or deny that he is. According to The Washington Post, the whistleblower is still working at the CIA, but has been provided security. Q followers identified him last September. He has been named by Rush Limbaugh, Eric Trump, and Rand Paul.
The Washington Examiner established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the NSC at the White House during the Obama administration working as point man on Ukraine issues with Vice President Joe Biden traveling with him to Ukraine on Air Force Two at least one of the six visits Biden made to Ukraine. Ciaramella also worked under leaker James Clapper.
It is time to reveal the name outside the DC beltway, of the one person that started the most recent of several impeachment parades, Eric Ciaramella. We insist that he be investigated thoroughly as an accomplice in the Biden Quid Pro Quo and as an accomplice with Adam Schiff in the Ukranian Hoax Coup to replace a president of the United States.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
