CIA officer and former NSC staffer Eric Ciaramella has been named as the whistle blower by several outlets. His name was first given to me, although I didn’t run the story because the media would immediately lie about me to protect Ciaramella, as they have done before.
In 2017 I rose to prominence as the most sourced reporter, breaking the Susan Rice unmasking story. During my reporting In uncovered that many leaks were coming from McMaster and his allies.
Then the media hit back. Journalists who were receiving leaks needed to protect their leakers. They smeared Cerno to “kill the messenger.” Here is one example at Foreign Policy:
On June 11, alt-right blogger Mike Cernovich published an article attacking an assistant to National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, claiming the previously low-profile civil servant wanted to “sabotage” President Donald Trump. The piece described Eric Ciaramella as “pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia” and alleged, with no evidence, that he was possibly responsible for high-level leaks. The response to the piece included online threats of violence against Ciaramella, which contributed to his decision to leave his job at the National Security Council a few weeks early, according to two sources familiar with the situation.
I love that “with no evidence” line. I literally had deeply-sourced stores. Multiple stories of mine were confirmed by other outlets and also by current events.
That FP article also falsely claimed Ciaramella was getting threats. No proof of these threats were provided in the article. Ciaramella works in the f-cking CIA, but they couldn’t name one person who made a threat against Ciaramella? Get real. There were no threats. Just lies about Cerno.
It was all a media lie and smear campaign to shut down my reporting.
When I report on someone, It’s harassment! When the media reports on a meme maker, it’s journalism!
- What is the difference between journalism and activism? That’s an essay question right there, and I bet you most haven’t thought deeply about the difference, or whether there is one.
No one can explain this difference in treatment, especially given my proven track record breaking many stories.
I continued reporting aggressively, breaking huge stories that no one else had.
My stories were so deeply-sourced that McMaster held meetings about me:
The leaking threat isn’t necessarily exaggerated. Cernovich appears to have sources within the White House and has broken stories that could only have come from people with direct knowledge of internal proceedings, though he has told me he uses burner phones and encrypted apps, and doesn’t always know his sources’ identities.
McMaster also asked Andrew McCabe to open a counter-espionage investigation into me. McCabe declined to do so. (McMaster also asked McCabe to investigate Tara Palmeri. For some reason no reporter will break this story on McMaster’s excesses, but it’s well-known that McMaster was frustrated by Palmeri’s sourcing.)
Well now it’ alleged that Eric Ciaramella is a whistle blower. Which is a magical way of saying, yes he was leaking.
Cerno’s stories were yet again confirmed.
Trump Channels CNN in Joe Scarborough “Cold Case”
“It’s possible, but I don’t know.” With those words former FBI Director James Comey set a new standard for media coverage of public figures. Even when there is no evidence to substantiate your claim, even when you’re relying on a document that had been discredited within the FBI, even when you’re quoting work product that was the result of Russian disinformation, you give no quarter to your enemies.
I am referencing the infamous pee-pee interview James Comey gave to ABC. Comey’s words were amplified by every media outlet. No context was added (such as the FBI’s knowing the Steele dossier was funded by Democrats and contained hoaxes from Russian pranksters).
"I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether a current host of a major MSNBC show killed a staffer. It’s possible, but I don’t know."
How is that *any* different from this stuff CNN and media did for 3 years? https://t.co/UtFxbLDx8P
— Essential Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 27, 2020
And now Trump is applying these same principles to Joe Scarborough.
Media figures cry foul. What moral authority do they have?
Scarborough’s own colleague Rachel Maddow accuses people of being Russian assets. When called to answer those allegations in court, she claims that her assertions, believed to be statements of fact by her millions of viewers, are “quintessential statements of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false.”
As much as I’m glad to see Joe Scarborough be treated with the same “journalistic ethics” as he treats others, I feel for the Lori Klausutis family, who no doubt do not want these painful memories resurfaced. Scarborough deserves this, but the Klausutis family does not.
But as always the media is treating itself as the real victim here.
The same media figures who recklessly smeared innocent teenagers from Covington High School as racists have much to say about a need for others to measure their words.
The same media figures who obsess over every mean Tweet a conservative posts ignores Scarborough’s on-air recording joking about the tragic death of a staffer.
Feel some empathy for the Klausutis. They are caught in a battle they didn’t start.
Scarborough, however, is getting exactly what he and everyone else on cable news deserves.
Whoa! Did Joe Scarborough really say this? https://t.co/jXz58vz3zn
— Essential Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 27, 2020
Maddow’s “I’m Not a Real Journalist” Defense Prevails in Court
Any belief that Rachel Maddow is a journalist was set to rest in a San Diego federal courtroom on Friday, with a federal judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought against Maddow. The judge concluded that Maddow was far too silly to be taken as a credible news source.
The lawsuit against Maddow was brought by OANN, a news network that Maddow falsely accused on her show as being controlled by the Kremlin.
For the lawsuit to go forward, OANN would had to have shown that Maddow’s show stated facts rather than opinions.
In court Maddow’s lawyer argued that her show was one of “quintessential statements of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false.” John Nolte called Maddow’s lawyer’s claim “the Alex Jones defense,” although comparing Maddow to Jones is an insult to Jones in light of the Russigate and Avenatti hoaxers Maddow perpetrated.
In any event, the court agreed with Maddow’s lawyers. The defamation claim was dismissed because Maddow’s show is one of “opinion and rhetorical hyperbole,” and Maddow engages in an “exaggeration of the facts.”
If you think I’m exaggerating, read the full ruling.
The judge himself seemed to think Maddow is a silly teenager rather than an actual reporter, as he highlights her show uses terms like “sparkly” and “giblet.” The judge also found it compelling that Maddow moved her head in goofy ways.
Maddow’s win is America’s gain.
No one can credibly claim that Maddow’s show is real news.
Defamation Lawsuit Against Maddow DISMISSED? Lawyer Explains – Viva Frei Vlawg
Susan Rice Sent Herself a Cover Your Butt Memo re General Flynn Unmasking
Susan Rice, the former National Security Adviser under Obama, was so unconcerned with the unmasking going on under her watch that she did what all innocent people do. She sent herself a Memo to Self.
This Memo to self contained this hilarious line:
- President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book.”
Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey also suggested withholding information about Russia to the incoming National Security Adviser.
— Brooke Singman (@BrookeSingman) May 19, 2020
CBS reporter Catherine Herridge has the full memo to self here.
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May 19, 2020