Undercover Huber shared an FYI about why the media is really trying to protect the identity of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella. Wait, we’re not supposed to say his name … our bad, Eric Ciaramella. We’ll work on that in the future, Eric Ciaramella.
Just FYI the reason most of the media are playing coy about naming the whistleblower is that they’ve used them as an anon source long before the Ukraine call ?
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) November 9, 2019
Huh, sounds like ‘John W Huber’ is onto something to us. What do you guys think?
Once a leaker always a leaker we always say.
And gross, that’s such a horrible and disgusting visual.
Somebody in one of those newsrooms is gonna leak all this someday & it will be glorious.
— The Cheese (@thecheesefeed) November 10, 2019
Let’s hope they warn us ahead of time so we can make an adequate amount of popcorn.
There's no friggin' "whistleblowers." That's just a way to start a distractive rumor and attribute it to a real person. There's nothing there. There is no there, there. The real question everyone should be asking themselves is, "What are my Dems trying so hard to hide?"
— Home Team Crowd (@DarylPoe3) November 10, 2019
Calling a dirty leaker a whistleblower doesn’t make him any more honorable or just.
Great question to ask the whistleblower is how many times has he leaked information to a journalist.
— DeLoss McKnight (@DeLossMcKnight) November 9, 2019
He might need a calculator to come up with an actual total.
Right. And that’s also why he can’t be allowed to testify. He’d have to plead the Fifth when they ask him reasonable follow up questions about whether he’s ever been a source for leaks to the media of NSC information.
— Paul David Bauer (@pbauer1959) November 9, 2019
That’s why they want him to write down his answers, yup.
Which is why he MUST testify in person and under oath.
B
I
N
G
O— Scott A Richardson (@quack4du) November 10, 2019
The Dems endless hoaxs based on "anonymous" sources…
— Mark ⬛⬛⬛⬛ (@MarkAir77) November 10, 2019
Or their other favorite, ‘a source close to/informed about the situation.’
Yup.
Related: