Over the past month or so, the people have been overwhelmed by the mainstream media pushing a narrative of quid pro quos and impeachment. After researching and waiting for all the details to come out, this is what we think is the most pertinent information to this conundrum.
It all started when President Trump brought back into the light a video of Joe Biden “bragging” about being the guy who strong armed Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating a gas company named Burisma Holdings. Burisma just so happened to have Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden on its board of directors during the investigating into corruption. Trump accused Biden of using his position as then vice-president to protect his son from getting investigated for corruption and gaining profit for himself and his family.
Joe Biden has stood by his actions saying that he didn’t fire the prosecutor for the reasons Trump says. In fact, Biden claims that he has never discussed any of his son’s business dealings whatsoever. Hunter Biden, on the other hand, stated publicly in his interview with Good Morning America that he did talk to his father about his dealings and Joe responded with a “I hope you know what you’re doing.” Unfortunately, with conflicting stories on this front it’s hard to take anything either one has to say for value.
It seems once the pressure started to pick up on the Biden front, a “whistleblower” came out and accused Trump of threatening to withhold military aid from Ukraine, if they didn’t investigate his political opponent Joe Biden. The media ran with the headline for weeks of “Trump’s Quid Pro Quo!” and haven’t looked back since.
You can view the unclassified whistleblower complaint can be viewed here:
The whistleblower’s complaint stated that they had received information that Trump was abusing his authority as President to solicit help from a foreign government to help interfere in the 2020 election, by targeting Joe Biden. He also claimed that Rudy Giuliani as well as Attorney General Bill Barr are complicit in the crimes of Trump. It also notes that the whistleblower himself was not a “direct witness” to the phone calls, but based off of what other colleagues told him, he had to report this misconduct.
In response, President Trump decided to release the transcript of his phone call with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to prove he did not offer a quid pro quo, and that it was Joe Biden who actually had done that along with the blessing of the previous administration.
Here is a link to the unclassified transcript of the phone call President Trump had with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy:
In the phone call with Zelenskyy, Trump does ask the Ukrainian President to look into and investigate the Biden family corruption with Burisma Holdings as well as other potential corruption in Ukraine. There was no offer of goods or services in return for the investigation. If there was it had to have been outside of this conversation, because not one first hand witness of this phone call has directly come out to object to what the transcript shows.
Due to all of the hype surrounding this problem, the Democrat led House of Representatives decided to hold an impeachment inquiry to get to the bottom of this. After a few weeks of not making it official as well as holding numerous witness testimonies behind closed doors, the House held a vote on a resolution to put “rules” into place regarding the impeachment process. The resolution passed along party lines with the exception of two Democrats who voted with Republicans in saying no to the impeachment.
Republicans have been incensed due to the fact that Adam Schiff and mainstream media have gone out of their way to not mention the name of the whistleblower as well as their propensity to only reveal a sentence from a classified testimony that wasn’t supposed to be leaked. As of now the whistleblower’s identity is the worst-kept secret in Washington. All the politicians and media talking-heads seem know who the whistleblower is, but they refuse to state it in an article or on live broadcast. They claim it is to protect the safety of the accuser, but in reality there is no laws preventing us, the American people from seeing who this person is, and if their character would hold up to cross examination. It seems as if Democrats and the media want to hide this person from the light of day and not let us get the truth.
Only a couple of news sources including, RealClear Investigations, The Gateway Pundit, The Federalist, and Breitbart have mentioned the name and connections of the whistleblower. As journalists their job is to give the people the truth and the facts so we can make a proper judgement accordingly. These sources through the threat of being banned on major social media platforms like Facebook have decided that the truth is worth more than bowing to the tech elites, and we thank them for that.
Through their own investigating and deductive reasoning, these sources have come up with the name of the whistleblower, and his name is Eric Ciaramella.
Who is Eric Ciaramella?
According to reports, Ciaramella is a CIA analyst and was also a National Security Council staffer who has been on the Obama and Trump administrations. Apparently he is a Ukraine expert and worked closely with Joe Biden on Ukraine issues during Biden’s time as vice-president. His name was brought up back in 2017, when he was accused of leaking to the media to hurt the Trump administration. All signs seem to point towards this man as the whistleblower, even if the mainstream doesn’t want to say so. There still is no confirmation that this man is indeed the alleged whistleblower, but time will tell.
We live in a country of due process and that includes the right to face our accuser. We understand that whomever the person is, he or she has the right to be protected from negative fallout or retaliation for their actions, but there is nowhere in law that states they must be anonymous. Even if we give the mainstream media as well as social media the wiggle room and believe in good faith they are trying to protect this guy; why don’t they give the same protections to their own employees that blow the whistle on their bad actions?
As we have previously written, Google for example called in the police to raid the house of an employee who leaked documents proving that Google is censoring certain websites from being seen. Most recently, ABC and CBS colluded to find and fire the employee who leaked the Epstein footage. Though they seem to have fired the wrong person, it still shows the glaring hypocrisy we see on a daily basis from these giant tech companies and the mainstream media. They are allowed to have retribution, but we the people aren’t allowed to question the man in the shadows accusing the President of crimes that could get him impeached.
So far during this impeachment inquiry, there have been numerous people who have testified that they felt that Trump did something wrong, but they couldn’t directly lay out Trump’s supposed quid pro quo. Ukraine agreed that the unclassified transcript accurately reflects the discussion between the two presidents. So it can be quite confusing when the media constantly throws headlines out there saying that the next person’s testimony will be the final nail in the coffin, but when the testimony is released we see that the news is just headline grabbing and hoping to sway opinion with more opinion rather than facts.
Read the each released testimony here:
Alexander Vindman – https://www.scribd.com/document/434064258/Vindman-pdf
Marie Yovanovitch – https://www.scribd.com/document/433410139/Yovanovitch-testimony
Michael McKinley – https://www.scribd.com/document/433418704/McKinley
As this circus prolongs it looks like a lot of information will come out. 777 will continue to follow this story and breakdown the details as it comes out.
Author: 777 Media Source