Ciaramella’s Lawyer Sends ‘Cease And Desist’ Letter To White House, But The Law Is On The President’s Side
When the whistleblower’s lead counsel starts sending cease and desist letters to the White House, I suppose we can safely assume that Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower.
CNN reports that Ciaramella’s attorney, Andrew Bakaj, wrote a letter to White House counsel Pat Cipollone on Wednesday asking that “his client,” President Trump, stop attacking their client. CNN’s Anderson Cooper obtained a copy of the letter which can be viewed here.
Here are some excerpts from Bakaj’s letter:
I am writing out of deep concern that your client, the President of the United States, is engaging in rhetoric and activity that places my client, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower, and their family in physical danger.
I am writing to respectfully request that you counsel your client on the legal and ethical peril in which he is placing himself should anyone be physically harmed as a result of his, or his surrogates’, behavior.
These are not words of an individual with a firm grasp of the significance of the office which he occupies, nor a fundamental understanding of the significance of each word he articulates by virtue of occupying that office.
Should anyone be physically harmed, my co-counsel, Mark Zaid, and I will not hesitate to take any and all appropriate action against your client. Those who are complicit in this vindictive campaign against my client, whether through action or inaction, shall also be responsible, be that legally or morally.
Bakaj also cites some lofty quotations from Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Lincoln and writes that the President’s “rhetoric and behavior fall well beneath the dignity of the office.”
Democrats say and do the most egregious things to the President and then claim how shocked they are by his responses.
The bottom line is that just because it serves the Democrats’ agenda to say that Eric Ciaramella is a whistleblower does not make him a whistleblower. He is anything but a whistleblower.
The CNN article states that “Zaid and House Democrats have argued that the whistleblower’s identity is irrelevant at this stage in the proceedings due to testimony from several witnesses corroborating and expanding on allegations contained in the initial complaint.”
I would argue that the whistleblower’s identity is paramount in this case.
First, Ciaramella’s work history and connections prove he is not a whistleblower, but part of a group which coordinated this latest charade to trigger exactly what it did trigger, an impeachment inquiry. (I posted about this here and here.)
Second, as people have a chance to digest the transcripts which have begun to be released this week, we are discovering discrepancies between reality and witness testimony.
Third, virtually all of the testimony so far is witness interpretation and opinion. There is no solid evidence.
Mark Levin, my favorite conservative commentator, explained on “Hannity” last night, that the law is actually on the President’s side.
Mark Levin: I want to explain to the American people, in a way that that even Joe Scarborough can understand what the law is here. Because you’re hearing a lot of lies from Schiff, the Democrats and these phony legal analysts.
The whistleblower statute DOES NOT apply to the President of the United States. It does not apply to conversations the President of the United States has with leaders of other countries. And it does not apply to foreign policy. So the whistleblower statute does not apply to the President or this phone call. Number one. I hope Richard Burr is listening – the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee which is really not a very intelligent committee.
Number two, the so-called whistleblower does not have statutory protections. He doesn’t meet the statutory elements.
Number three the law does not guarantee anonymity to a whistleblower. Only the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community is to keep it confidential with certain exceptions. The President can release the name, Congress can, the media’s not bound. Interestingly enough, the intelligence community did release his name. Adam Schiff did release his name by accident last night. (I posted about that here.)
How can you impeach a president, a process that was triggered by this guy, who is a political hack, without the House, the Senate, the President, scrutinizing his motives, his credibility and his veracity.
Adam Schiff, like a good mobster, decided that you can’t call this guy as a witness, you can’t call me [Schiff] as a witness because I [Schiff] won’t give you approval. So the head mobster decides, “I’m in charge of who the witnesses can be.” So it’s a grand cover-up.
The law is on the President’s side. The facts are on the President’s side.
We do need the whistleblower to testify, Shiff to testify because the whole house of cards will collapse because the American people will see what this was – an outrageous unconscionable attack by them on the President!
NPR asked four “legal experts” if Trump can legally out the whistleblower. All agreed that it would not violate any laws.
In remark’s to “The War Room” on Friday morning, President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani said he would like to interview both Ciaramella and Adam Schiff. He said:
I’d like to ask Schiff how this all came about. Then I’d like to ask that lawyer who said there was going to be a coup, how they were going to take them out. The anonymous source also turns out to be a political activist.
You cannot be convicted by anonymous accusers without facing your accuser in any place but the former Soviet Union… Just because you’re a whistleblower doesn’t mean you’re a saint. It’s in the 6th Amendment in the Constitution. Schiff has completely trashed the Constitution. They are going after the president’s lawyers… They are conducting at least 20 investigations of me. .. He (Trump) is entitled to a defense. Otherwise we’re not America.
(The audio recording of Giuliani’s remarks can be accessed here.)
It is surreal that Democrats are concerned about the whistleblowers rights to safety and anonymity (which are by no means guaranteed under the law), when they are trampling all over the most fundamental constitutional rights of the President with football cleats.