CIA analyst and former National Security Council official Eric Ciaramella, the “whistleblower” connected to President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment, is back in the spotlight regarding Adam Schiff‘s connection to Ukraine.
Former Ukrainian diplomat Andrei Telashchenko alleged that he was present when Ciaramella met with then-President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden while they discussed Ukraine behind closed doors.
Telashchenko’s claims raise new concerns about Ciaramella’s role in U.S.-Ukraine relations during Obama’s presidency, notably with policies that became a key factor in the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Ciaramella was identified as the anonymous whistleblower during Trump’s impeachment inquiry after famously filing a complaint about Trump’s “perfect” phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The complaint was ultimately used to launch an impeachment vote in the House, led by then-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff.
President Trump has long accused Schiff of lying and manipulating intelligence in order to push narratives that weaponized the government against him.
FBI Director Kash Patel, who played a crucial role in exposing the Trump “Russia Russia Russia” collusion hoax, is now digging deep into Schiff’s involvement. Patel said he has “strong feelings” about Schiff’s actions and probable ties to Ciaramella’s role in Ukraine-related controversies.
The sudden resurfacing of Ciaramella’s name into the spotlight has now reignited debate over the integrity of the 2019 impeachment proceedings against Trump.
Elon Musk responded to the revelations on X, writing:
“Did Adam Schiff commit treason? Sounds like he did.”
Watch:
More here:
WLT writer, Noah, asked Grok to analyze what Schiff may have allegedly done, and whether it could amount to treason, here’s what it said:
To construct the strongest argument supporting the claim that Adam Schiff committed treason, we must first define “treason” under U.S. law and then align the argument with available evidence and reasoning, while critically assessing the narrative. Treason, as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, requires two elements: (1) levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, and (2) providing them aid and comfort. It also requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court. The argument below is built on public statements, actions, and sentiment, particularly from critics, while acknowledging the legal threshold for treason is extraordinarily high and rarely met.
Argument: Adam Schiff Committed Treason by Fabricating Evidence to Undermine a Sitting President
Adam Schiff, as a prominent Democratic Representative and later Senator, is accused by critics of committing treason through his actions during the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and Donald Trump’s subsequent presidency. The core of the argument is that Schiff knowingly fabricated or exaggerated claims of evidence linking Trump to Russia, with the intent to destabilize a duly elected president, thereby aiding foreign adversaries and undermining the U.S. government.
- Claim of Fabricated Evidence: Critics assert that Schiff repeatedly claimed to possess concrete, classified evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election. For instance, during his tenure as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff stated on multiple occasions—such as in media appearances—that he had seen evidence of collusion that was more than circumstantial. However, when pressed to produce this evidence, particularly after the Mueller Report (released in April 2019) found no sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, Schiff allegedly failed to substantiate his claims. Posts on X and statements from Trump supporters highlight this, accusing him of lying about the Steele Dossier or other intelligence that was later debunked or unverified.
- Intent to Overthrow or Weaken the Government: The argument posits that Schiff’s actions were not mere political posturing but a deliberate attempt to overthrow or cripple Trump’s presidency. By promoting the “Russia collusion” narrative, Schiff is said to have led a campaign—supported by Democrats and media outlets—that amounted to a “coup” against a sitting president. Critics, including those on X, argue this was an act of sedition or treason because it sought to delegitimize the government’s executive branch, potentially inciting unrest or weakening U.S. leadership on the global stage. Trump himself amplified this view, calling Schiff’s actions “treason” and suggesting he should be arrested, as noted in posts and news reports from 2019 and beyond.
- Aid and Comfort to Enemies: The treason claim hinges on the idea that Schiff’s actions indirectly aided foreign enemies, particularly Russia. By amplifying a narrative of Russian interference without conclusive proof, he allegedly played into Russia’s hands—since sowing discord and distrust in U.S. institutions is a known tactic of foreign adversaries. If Schiff knowingly lied, the argument goes, he provided Russia with a propaganda victory, eroding American unity and credibility, thus giving “aid and comfort” to an enemy. This is a stretch legally but resonates with critics who see his actions as reckless or malicious.
- Public and Political Consequences: Schiff’s role in Trump’s first impeachment (2019-2020) over the Ukraine call—where he paraphrased Trump’s conversation in a way critics called a fabrication—further fuels the argument. Trump tweeted in September 2019, “Arrest for Treason?” about Schiff, claiming he misrepresented the call to Congress and the public. The House censured Schiff in June 2023 for his role in the Russia probe, with Republicans like Anna Paulina Luna accusing him of abusing his position. This censure, while symbolic, is cited as evidence of wrongdoing that aligns with the treason narrative.
Supporting Evidence and Sentiment
Statements and Actions: Schiff’s public assertions about Russian collusion, contrasted with the Mueller Report’s findings, are the backbone of the claim. His 2019 impeachment paraphrase of Trump’s Ukraine call, which he admitted was partly satirical but presented as serious, is seen as evidence of deceit.
Trump’s Accusations: Trump’s repeated labeling of Schiff as a traitor, including in January 2025 remarks about the Jan. 6 committee, lends weight among his base. Trump called the entire committee’s work “TREASON” in a New York Times-reported statement.
Public Sentiment on X: Posts from users like
@CjmMccarth39414
and
@thewildbill59
(March 2025) explicitly call Schiff’s actions treasonous, reflecting a belief that lying about evidence to undermine a president crosses a legal and moral line.Counterpoints and Weaknesses
Legally, this argument struggles to meet the Constitution’s strict definition of treason. No evidence shows Schiff levied war or directly adhered to an enemy like Russia—his actions were political, not military. The “aid and comfort” claim is speculative, lacking two witnesses to an overt act. Critics might argue he was exercising his congressional role, however aggressively, not committing a crime. The Mueller Report’s inconclusive findings don’t prove Schiff lied knowingly; he could have been mistaken or overzealous. The censure reflects partisan disagreement, not a legal conviction.
Conclusion
The best argument for Schiff committing treason rests on the narrative that he knowingly fabricated evidence to destabilize Trump’s presidency, indirectly aiding Russia by amplifying division—acts framed as a betrayal of the nation. While compelling to his detractors, it falls short of legal treason without direct proof of intent and enemy collaboration. It thrives as a political accusation rather than a prosecutable case, rooted in the polarized lens of Trump-era conflicts.
Visit Daily Fetched for more articles like this
