When House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, first launched the current impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, it was based solely on a complaint filed by a so-called “whistleblower” over the content of a phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Since that time, Democrats and their media allies have gone to great lengths to keep the identity of the whistleblower a secret — including threatening legal retribution for any who out that person — even as the suspected name and details of the individual have been floating around social media for several weeks now.

It would appear, however, that Democrats on Schiff’s committee have proceeded to reveal the identity of the suspected whistleblower themselves in a recently released transcript of testimony, proving they are either ridiculously incompetent or that everyone has focused in on the wrong guy.

On page 236 of the transcript for the deposition of Ambassador William Taylor that took place on Oct. 22, during some back-and-forth discussion about the whistleblower with a questioner by the name of Castor, the suspected name of that individual — Eric Ciaramella — was mentioned and was not redacted, as Schiff had previously vowed to do if the person’s name was uttered.

The questioner asked, “Okay. Does a person by the name of Eric Ciaramella ring a bell for you?” Taylor replied, “It doesn’t.”

“So, to your knowledge, you never had any communications with somebody by that name?” Castor pressed. Taylor said, “Correct.”

As noted in a tweet from Turning Point USA’s Chief Creative Officer Benny Johnson, there are two simple explanations for the inclusion of Ciaramella’s name in the transcript in unredacted form.

Either Ciaramella really isn’t the whistleblower who sparked the entire impeachment charade with a hearsay-based complaint about a phone call, or Democrat staffers on the committee screwed up “big time” and overlooked the name of the very person they are trying to protect.

That means the Democrats and their staffers on the Intelligence Committee are either incredibly incompetent — which really wouldn’t be a surprise — or a lot of independent journalists and online sleuths have been very, very wrong in their research-based presumptions this whole time about the identity of the whistleblower.

It was just about a week ago that Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations laid out in a lengthy article how the identity of Ciaramella as the whistleblower was essentially an “open secret” among Washington D.C., a remarkable occurrence given how much leaking typically occurs inside the Beltway.

Ciaramella is a registered Democrat who is a CIA analyst that was assigned to the National Security Council in the White House in the latter years of the Obama administration. He held-over into the first few months of the Trump administration but was reportedly sent packing back to the CIA after being suspected of leaking to the media, according to Sperry.

He reportedly had close ties to former Vice President Joe Biden during the time Biden took the lead on Ukraine policy, given that he was a purported “expert” on Russia and Ukraine, which makes all of the hoopla over Trump’s remarks to the Ukrainian president about Biden’s alleged corruption all the more suspicious.

Ciaramella also reportedly has close connections to former CIA Director John Brennan — a suspected figurehead of the anti-Trump resistance — as well as a former Democratic operative in Ukraine named Alexandra Chalupa, who is suspected of being involved in alleged Ukrainian interference on behalf of Democrats in the 2016 election.

On top of that, Ciaramella is reportedly close friends with two other Obama holdovers in the NSC who’ve since been recruited to join Schiff’s staff on the committee, one of whom — Sean Misko — was hired by Schiff in August right around the same time that the “whistleblower” met with Schiff’s staff prior to formally filing his complaint, Real Clear Investigations reported.

Those are just a few of several signs that point to Ciaramella being the purported whistleblower, and Sperry made clear in his article that just about everyone in D.C. — from the media to politicians to staffers — is already well-aware of his identity.

If Ciaramella really is the whistleblower, we can only wonder if Schiff will follow through on his vow to punish anybody who outed him — given that the person would be somebody on his own staff or committee. If not, we can all just go back to waiting around until some other name is put forward as the suspected whistleblower, because that individual can’t stay hidden forever.