Four and a half months after President Trump’s inauguration, Democratic congressman Al Green announced plans to impeach him. He cited as justification the president’s perfectly legal firing of FBI director James Comey — ironically one of Trump’s most popular decisions on both sides of the aisle — but Green later admitted the real motivation behind impeachment. “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected,” Green confessed.
When that resolution failed, Democrats tried to impeach Trump for conspiring with the Russian government during the 2016 election, which sent special counsel Robert Mueller on a two-year, $32 million-dollar wild goose chase that ended in the exoneration of the president. Next, the Democrats sought to oust Trump for paying hush money to a porn star — a morally dubious exchange but hardly worthy of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
When that failed, Democrats claimed Trump colluded with Ukraine, presently at war with Russia, the previous object of their collusion narrative. Specifically, Democrats allege that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo by asking the Ukrainian government to investigate the quid pro quo that Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden admitted on camera to having negotiated while vice president. As evidence, they cite the official complaint of the [alleged whistleblower], a career CIA analyst who just so happens to have served as Bide’s lackey on Ukraine policy when the former vice president’s quid pro quo took place.
The whistleblower complaint itself fails to offer any firsthand account of wrongdoing, citing instead secondhand “information from multiple U.S. Government officials” alleging that the president acted inappropriately during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a charge the White House considers so outlandish that it took the rare step of releasing the transcript of the call to the public. The next-best evidence of wrongdoing the “whistleblower” mentioned in his complaint is a television interview the president gave to George Stephanopoulos and a tweet from Rudy Giuliani, both of which are matters of public record and neither of which require whistleblowing.
But then the “whistleblower” isn’t a whistleblower. He’s a political operative with “an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate,” according to the intelligence community inspector general. He coordinated with the office of Democratic congressman and impeachment inquiry leader Adam Schiff before filing his complaint. And this latest impeachment attempt, like all the others before it, isn’t a legitimate exercise of congressional oversight; it’s an attempted coup. The impeachment instigator’s own lawyer admitted as much just days after President Trump’s inauguration.
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) January 31, 2017
“#coup has started,” tweeted Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the “whistleblower.” “First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #laywers.” Regarding Trump’s firing of Obama holdover Sally Yates as acting attorney general, the hashtag-happy lawyer reiterated his point. “#coup has started. As one falls, two more will take their place. #rebellion #impeachment.” Six months later, he predicted, “[CNN] will play a key role in [Trump] not finishing out his full term as president.” If CNN fails, it won’t be for lack of trying.
We now know that elected Democrats colluded with federal bureaucrats, known also as the “deep state,” to oust the duly elected president in a “coup” — so described by the bureaucrat impeachment instigator’s own lawyer, who himself admits the whole affair relies upon the complicity of a corrupt press. Lies pervade the entire plot, and we ought to distrust every person pushing it, except in one regard: When conspirators confess their treachery, believe them.