'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment

  
Via:  1stwarrior  •  6 days ago  •  34 comments

'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the intelligence community whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president." Also that month, Zaid tweeted, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters."

Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid assured his Twitter followers that "as one falls, two more will take their place," apparently referring to Trump administration employees who defy the White House. Zaid promised that the "coup" would occur in "many steps."

The tweets, which came shortly after President Trump fired then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates for failing to defend federal laws in court, are likely to fuel Republican concerns that the anonymous whistleblower's complaint is tainted with partisanship. Trump's call with Ukraine's leader, which is the subject of the complaint, occurred in July 2019.

“The whistleblower’s lawyer gave away the game," the Trump campaign's communications director, Tim Murtaugh, told Fox News. "It was always the Democrats’ plan to stage a coup and impeach President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now they’ve settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from the beginning.”

Added House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy: "We should take [Zaid] at his word that this is a coordinated, premeditated plot to overturn the election."

Trump has repeatedly accused Democrats and partisans in the intelligence community of effectively plotting a coup against him, through selective leaks and lengthy investigations.

"45 years from now we might be recalling stories regarding the impeachment of @realDonaldTrump. I'll be old, but will be worth the wait," Zaid wrote in June 2017.

He emphasized his interest in impeachment in a variety of other posts.

"Johnson (1868), Nixon (1973), Clinton (1998) impeachment hearings. Next up @realDonaldTrump (2017)," he said in May.

In a statement to Fox News on Wednesday, Zaid defended his posts as common sentiments.

“Those tweets were reflective and repeated the sentiments of millions of people," Zaid said. "I was referring to a completely lawful process of what President Trump would likely face as a result of stepping over the line, and that particularly whatever would happen would come about as a result of lawyers. The coup comment referred to those working inside the Administration who were already, just a week into office, standing up to him to enforce recognized rules of law.“

Fox News has previously reported on social media posts by Zaid that highlighted what appeared to be open animus toward the president.

Although Zaid described Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as a "mature professional," and circulated articles that touted the reliability of the largely discredited Steele dossier used by the FBI to surveil a former member of Trump's campaign, Zaid has repeatedly unloaded on the president in no uncertain terms.

"I'm not a Trump fan," Zaid said on a podcast last year. "I go out of my way on Twitter to say '#Resistance.' It's not a resistance against the GOP or a Republican -- I don't think [Trump] is a Republican, quite frankly." (Zaid also boasted that he has sued "every" president since 1993, and pursues "them all," regardless of party affiliation.)

Also in the podcast, Zaid acknowledged that he had been fishing for plaintiffs to launch a lawsuit concerning the Trump hotel in Washington, D.C., alleging unfair competition by the president and his associates.

"The unfair competition becomes, when Donald Trump became president, he has exploited his use of the presidency, of the Oval Office. ... to send business to the hotel. ... We identified this as a cause of action, and we were looking for a plaintiff, and we finally found this one restaurant that was willing," Zaid admitted. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit last year.

Zaid also had something of an open casting call for whistleblowers on Twitter as Trump took office, writing that CIA employees should "come to" his law firm "to lawfully challenge" the new president.

Zaid publicly requested that celebrities Debra Messing, Nancy Sinatra, Cher and Rob Reiner help promote his whistleblower law firm.

"@cher please check out our new whistleblower page," Zaid wrote in one tweet, which garnered no response from the famed singer.

In February, Zaid escalated his pitch to Reiner, asserting that "we have a chance to depose" Trump in court. At one point last year, Zaid even pitched his services to Michael Avenatti, after the now-embattled attorney mentioned that he was "now representing whistleblowers within ICE."

Another of the whistleblower's attorneys, Andrew Bakaj, tweeted in August 2017 that Trump should be removed under the 25th Amendment, which applies to incapacitated presidents.

The posts have surfaced as Republicans demand that the anonymous whistleblower come forward and testify. On Sunday, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, rejected an offer from Zaid for the whistleblower to anonymously provide written answers to GOP questions.

"Written answers will not provide a sufficient opportunity to probe all the relevant facts and cross-examine the so-called whistleblower," Jordan said. "You don't get to ignite an impeachment effort and never account for your actions and role in orchestrating it."

Zaid acknowledged in a statement in October that his client "has come into contact with presidential candidates from both parties" -- but insisted that the contact involved the politicians' roles as "elected officials – not as candidates."

His abrupt disclosure came shortly after The Washington Examiner reported that Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson told lawmakers the whistleblower worked “or had some type of professional relationship” with one of the Democratic presidential candidates, citing three sources familiar with Atkinson’s interview with lawmakers last month.

Zaid and the other whistleblower attorneys did assert that the whistleblower "has never worked for or advised a political candidate, campaign or party" -- leaving open the possibility that the whistleblower did advise a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate prior to his or her run for office.

"The whistleblower is not the story," the attorneys said. "To date, virtually every substantive allegation has been confirmed by other sources. For that reason, the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant."

But Republicans have challenged that claim, noting that various statements in the whistleblower claim have seemingly proved inaccurate. For example, the whistleblower complaint stated that Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike" -- a request that does not appear in the declassified transcript of the call released by the Trump administration. Trump mentioned CrowdStrike, but did not demand the server.

Meanwhile, Democrats on Wednesday released a transcript of testimony from U.S. diplomat Bill Taylor in which he claimed to have a “clear understanding” that  Trump wanted to leverage military aid to Ukraine in return for investigations that could benefit him politically -- while acknowledging he didn't have firsthand knowledge of "what was in the president's mind."

“That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation,” Taylor said.

Taylor is a top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine who has emerged as a key figure of interest in the Trump impeachment inquiry, having alleged a quid pro quo was at play despite White House denials.

The transcript shows that Taylor testified he had been told by other officials that the White House was willing to hold up both military aid and a prospective White House meeting with Ukraine's president to extract a public announcement from Kiev that probes related to election interference and a company linked to former Vice President Joe Biden's son were underway.

"That's what Ambassador Sondland said," Taylor said, referring to E.U. ambassador Gordon Sondland. "He said that they were linked. They were linked."

But Republicans have countered that Taylor did not have primary knowledge regarding the key events in question, but rather based his testimony off conversations with others.

In one exchange between GOP Rep. Lee Zeldin and Taylor during his deposition, Taylor was asked whether he had any firsthand knowledge of Trump conditioning an investigation into the 2016 election and the Bidens on military aid.

Taylor said he did not speak to the president, or have any direct communication with the president regarding the requests for investigations. Instead, he said he was basing much of his testimony on what former United States Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker and Sondland told him.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
1stwarrior
1  seeder  1stwarrior    6 days ago

Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the intelligence community whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."

Trump took office in January 2017 and Zaid said the "coup has started" in January 2017 and that impeachment will follow.

Oh yeah - this makes you really admire and trust your political parties and Washington DC.  A man can't even get into office and the opposing party wants to impeach him because THEIR CANDIDATE didn't win.

Gawd - what friggin' children.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1  Heartland American  replied to  1stwarrior @1    6 days ago

You are right.  Good luck with the seed.  I seeded this very article a couple days ago via We The People and no progressives commented on it.  They have much to fear here.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Heartland American @1.1    6 days ago

Someone who has lied to the people thousands of times does not belong in office. To make matters  worse, his cult followers want him to run for re-election next year. 

I'm glad there is a resistance . It shows there still are some people in this country who havent lost their minds. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    6 days ago
Someone who has lied to the people thousands of times

Starting when? When did you come to this conclusion? Because this impeachment talk predates his time in office. That's why declaring in October or November of 2019 that he has finally done something to warrant impeachment sounds like the 4000th time the boy has cried wolf.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.3  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    6 days ago

Not only do we want him to run again next year, we are going to do, donate, volunteer, say all that we can in order to re elect him for 4 more years!  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.3    6 days ago

Not only do we want him to run again next year, we are going to do, donate, volunteer, say all that we can in order to re elect him for 4 more years!  

i want him to run.

Run around like the pantless uncle running round the nursing home away from home.

.

This 'man' is a walking abomination of the office he holds.

He, is why there is impeachment action, not some Whistle blowers attorney

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    6 days ago
Someone who has lied to the people thousands of times does not belong in office.

This coming from somebody who has supported the Democrats who have done nothing but lie. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.4    6 days ago

Then the Democrats have nothing to fear. They should want Trump to run so they can defeat him in an open and fair election. So why are they foisting this bullshit? 

The Democrats are scared shitless the economy will stay strong, unemployment low, and people will follow their wallets and re-elect Trump. Their snake oil salesmen candidates offer nothing but destroying a strong economy.  They stand no chance unless Trump is gone.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  1stwarrior @1    6 days ago
Trump took office in January 2017 and Zaid said the "coup has started" in January 2017 and that impeachment will follow.

The only one responsible for the irresponsibility known as Trump, is Trumpp.

he, and he alone, are responsible for N E N ALL Impeachment talk and actions.

Whistle blower has been proven dead right, by a potUS,

that's been Dead Wrong, time after time after time, 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2    6 days ago

The only one responsible for the Democrats "impeach at all costs for Trump winning an election" are the Democrats. They need to be held responsible for their actions. 

4 more years of leftist tears seems like a good reward.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.1    6 days ago

Did the Democrats force Trump on that call to the Ukraine leader..?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.3  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.2    6 days ago

What's your point?  What was ILLEGAL/AGAINST THE LAW on his call?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.3    6 days ago

What's your point?  What was ILLEGAL/AGAINST THE LAW on his call?

R u being deliberately obtuse, or just attempting to be acute, as you know the call was not

Wrong...?

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.5  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.4    6 days ago

What was wrong about it? Please point out in the transcript that shows illegality. Hell, show something in the transcript that is impeachable

Please make your answer coherent so that a discussion can ensue.

Thanks and toodles......

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.6  lib50  replied to  bugsy @1.2.5    6 days ago
What was wrong about it? Please point out in the transcript that shows illegality. Hell, show something in the transcript that is impeachable

First of all, the 'transcript' is NOT A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT.  Its what Trump decided to release.  Second, impeachment is a political process to remove a corrupt or incompetent president, the ONLY way to check presidential malfeasance when one party decides to protect the perp instead of doing their constitutional duties.  Trump's actions are extortion and bribery, and not for the country, for his personal business and to the detriment of the US.  He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors for congress to investigate and judge.  Meantime, conservatives are trying to defend and protect this anti-American behavior. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.7  bugsy  replied to  lib50 @1.2.6    6 days ago
Trump's actions are extortion and bribery

You don't know for sure how much may or may not be missing. You are just repeating talking points.

I do see also that you have tightly latched onto the 'extortion and bribery" talking points you have been told to parrot. You do realize you are taking the same failed path you did during the Russia hoax. First it was collusion, then when you realized collusion was not a crime or could not be found, it was conspiracy because then you can latch a legitimate crime to it. When that failed, you went to obstruction, which Mueller's handlers proved there was none.

Here it was quid pro quo, then when that failed, it is now "bribery and extortion".

What is it going to be next week when the open hearing pan zero for you?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @1.2.6    6 days ago
Trump's actions are extortion and bribery

Let’s say one of those is true. It would mean Ukraine or its president is the victim. When you think about the framers writing the Constitution, do you think they were concerned about the president extorting or bribing the leader of another country? Isn’t it more likely they were concerned about him extorting an American citizen or taking a bribe from someone himself?

Getting tough with the leader of another country seems like a totally different kind of thing, doesn’t it? Why should we be worried about the president of Ukraine or Ukraine as a country?

 
 
 
bbl-1
2  bbl-1    6 days ago

The 'coup' has started.

Yeah.  Sure did.  When Trump at Helsinki stated that he believed Putin and not US INTEL.  That is very strange.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  bbl-1 @2    6 days ago

You don't remember my response to you on this very same question/statement of a few days ago???

The meeting was held in July 2018 - kinda like 18 months after the election.  Why do you NEED to know what was discussed?  You don't and neither do I.  Two heads of state discussing European policy and it doesn't concern us.

 
 
 
bbl-1
2.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1    6 days ago

Honestly?  You are there?

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
2.1.2  NV-Robin6  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.1    6 days ago

As far as I can see the coup started in Putin's office to Trump's office many moons before. 

 
 
 
sixpick
2.1.3  sixpick  replied to  NV-Robin6 @2.1.2    6 days ago

If anyone has any proof or can show us where the Mueller Report says there was collusion between Russia and Trump, then provide it.  Well there was a dab of propaganda in this video.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  sixpick @2.1.3    6 days ago

It's probably more likely at this point than not  that the Steele dossier was actually Russian disinformation.  Even impeachment witness Fiona Hill says so.

Talk about doing Putin's work for him.....

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.5  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.1    6 days ago

C'mon - I know you can read better than that.  Show me where I even implied that I was there.

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.6  lib50  replied to  sixpick @2.1.3    6 days ago
What was wrong about it? Please point out in the transcript that shows illegality. Hell, show something in the transcript that is impeachable

If you can't read and comprehend the entire report, why bother?  Just like Trumpers are wearing 'read the transcripts' t-shirts, and obviously they haven't even read that since they don't know what is in it.  (Hint:  its NOT what Trump is saying)

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.7  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  lib50 @2.1.6    5 days ago

What report?  All that was released was a two page "copy" of a telephone conversation.

Show us that famous report.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.2  Heartland American  replied to  bbl-1 @2    6 days ago

One can see why now with the deep state control of the top of the various intelligence agencies why he might not trust our so called intelligence.  Clapper, Comey, Brennan, and others were exposed by our former head of DNI, admiral Rogers as Trump took office.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    6 days ago

Loony democrats are really a gift to Trump. They got him elected and are doing everything they can to get him reelected. 

Starting a political process with two representatives of the batshit crazy wing of the Democratic Party as the instigators couldn't workout better for Trump.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1  Heartland American  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    6 days ago

And now it’s time for Schiff face to testify 

 
 
 
sixpick
3.1.1  sixpick  replied to  Heartland American @3.1    6 days ago

I believe they are full of Schiff.  It is kind of synonymous, isn't it?

 
 
 
lib50
3.2  lib50  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    6 days ago

Oh, man, you are trying to paint Schiff and Pelosi as batshit crazy?   LOL, have fun with that one, supporter of Trump.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.2.1  r.t..b...  replied to  lib50 @3.2    6 days ago
...Pelosi as batshit crazy?

The one who understands the workings inside the beltway better than anyone? The GOP should be careful what they wish for. The inevitable walk-back from demanding public testimony will be forthcoming.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.2.2  bbl-1  replied to  r.t..b... @3.2.1    6 days ago

Walk-back from the GOP?  Nah.  It'll be like, "Who?  What?  I didn't know them."

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.3  Ronin2  replied to  r.t..b... @3.2.1    6 days ago

You should have learned something from the Kavanaugh hearings; witnesses can be ripped apart just as easily as the accused. Especially the ones that are full of complete bullshit.

The Democratic "witnesses" will need to prove every last thing they say. Not "hearsay" bullshit either. Have fun getting members of the Trump administration to testify to back their BS up. The Democrats are hoping they refuse just as much as the Republicans. That way they can have their "witnesses" complete the narrative the Democrats want.

You know the Dems are desperate when they are hanging their hats on getting Bolton to testify. They hate each other. The only thing they both might both hate more is Trump. Is Bolton willing to kill his career to take down Trump? His waiting for the court decision if Trump administration officials can be forced to testify says all the Democrats need to know.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Kathleen
FLYNAVY1


40 visitors