Depending on where you sit, there's new evidence in what some see as an orchestrated campaign against President Trump. It is found in a social media tweet from 2017.
In that January 2017 tweet, Mark Zaid, an attorney now representing an alleged "whistleblower" in the Trump impeachment effort, wrote a "coup has started" and "impeachment will follow ultimately."
A few months later, still in 2017, Zaid tweeted more. "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president" and "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters."
Zaid has been arguing that the alleged whistleblower's identity should be kept secret. There are questions surrounding how that person's information surfaced, and the extent of the cooperation or collusion (depending on your view) between him and Democrats in Congress.
Zaid has stated, in his own defense, that his mention of a "coup" simply referred to what he saw as a lawful attempt by attorneys to remove an unlawful president from office.
Other tweets from Zaid, as reported by Fox News, include "'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'."
RealClearInvestigations and other outlets have identified the alleged whistleblower as a CIA analyst with ties to other prominent Trump adversaries. However, the person has not stepped forward publicly, and Democrats have not asked him to appear to testify in public or behind closed doors.
Part of the information the alleged whistleblower provided anonymously to the Intelligence Community Inspector General claimed President Trump had improperly demanded a "quid pro quo" from Ukraine's new president in a phone call.
Quids pro quo for foreign policy aid are routine; in fact that's the general purpose of forcing aid...to encourage or force other countries to behave a certain way.
But the whistleblower alleged Trump withheld military aid in order for Ukraine to provide "political dirt" on Democrat Joe Biden, who is running against Trump for president.
After this account was leaked to the public, President Trump released the transcript of the actual call. There was no mention of a quid pro quo or political dirt. And there has been no indication that any dirt or information was ever provided by Ukraine to Trump. The President of Ukraine himself told reporters he felt no pressure.
President Trump has addressed the alleged whistleblower's allegations by saying he--Trump--was lawfully seeking Ukraine's cooperation in U.S. efforts to uncover corruption and interference in the 2016 U.S. elections as it relates to Ukraine and possibly Democrats.
Trump defenders suggest the impeachment effort has been drummed up because Trump was getting too close to potentially uncovering serious wrongdoing involving key U.S. figures.
There has been extensive reporting alleging that Ukraine conspired with the Democratic National Committee to help Hillary Clinton win against Trump.
A Politico investigation concluded in 2017:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Politico, January 11, 2017
Still, Trump critics insist the pressure the president exerted on Ukraine, and the desire to receive dirt on Biden for 2020, was implicit.
The same month of Zaid's 2017 "coup" tweet, Sen. Charles Schumer, a leader in the Democrat party, issued a public warning to Trump that if he took on the intelligence community, it has "six ways from Sunday" to "get back at you". MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow asked Schumer, "What would the intelligence community do?" Schumer answered, "I don't know," but went on to say the intel community was very upset with Trump.
On Aug. 15, 2016, after FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and his FBI girlfriend Lisa Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texted Page that they couldn’t take the risk of Trump getting elected without having “an insurance policy” in place.
Another figure, Benjamin Wittes, chose the same phrase. In October 2016, in his Lawfare blog, Wittes wrote: “What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald Trump’s actually winning the Presidency.”
Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey. Wittes spoke to a New York Times reporter about Comey's interactions with President Trump, right after Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel.
In a 2016 blog post, Wittes wrote that his vision of an “insurance policy” against Trump would rely on a “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the courts as a “tool” and Congress as “a partner or tool.” He even mentioned impeachment — two weeks before Trump was elected.
Read more: What would the intelligence community's "insurance policy" against Trump look like? Click the link below.
Thank you for the reporting you do. Everything seems to point that the Democrats I want Trump out at any cost. Keep doing a great job. I'm not happy with a lot of what comes out of Trumps mouth but by God he does not get pushed around either
I am very happy with what comes out of Trumps mouth. Ms Attkisson realizes what is going on and why, very simp[e stuff. She too was screwed with bigly and she knows who is who in the DC zoo and PRAVDA/MSM, their propaganda arm ! Many of you women are absurdly focused on the wrong minutia. Not Attkisson, she knows what is real from first hand experience not the PRAVDA/MSM junk propaganda . Her, Lara Loomer and many others are coming out of the woodwork because they know the truth of many matters and are NOT afraid to speak out ! Time to grow up ladies and face reality ! There are some very serious bad people out there who will harm you ! A few words you tweek on are beyond meaningless and absurd to the overall picture !
So this nitwit says the texts were what he saw as a lawful attempt to remove an unlawful president. 10 days after taking office he is such a good lawyer he can see he was unlawful? Would love to ask him what was done other than beating the cackling canckle that was unlawful
I assume you have read Lee Smith's book by now
Lee has an hour plus long interview with Jan Jeliek up on YouTube that is fantastic if you have not seen it
Jan JEKIELEK.
Spelling matters.
Spelling matters no matter what the ignorant masses say because there wrong.
"they're wrong" - not "there wrong"
Spelling matters.
buckey, I really am hoping that you intended your post to be a joke. Maybe I'm just a bit dense this morning but I don't want to go "their".
Spelling matters. It's they're, not there.
Yes spelling does matters so please take your own advice and review your post. It is they're not there.
They’re wrong...as in the contraction they are...
"They're" not there.
I think that was intentional.
If you did not click on this link in the above article you should, I hope Barr and Durham are following the leads in these articles.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/401116-what-would-the-intelligence-communitys-insurance-policy-against-trump
Keep up the excellent work Sharyl Attkisson, I wish I could work with a real journalist such as yourself.
Not that I trust polls, but it seems that so many of them indicate that many on the Democratic field of idiots would beat President Trump if the election was held today. What I read and hear on TV by Republicans and Trump supporters on his behalf makes such common sense, that these polls defy logic. Sharyl, can you enlighten us. Thank you.
Reporting like this by Sharyl Attkisson demonstrate just how much the public is either kept in the dark or subject to hypocrisy by the rest of the news media. For example, I don't recall a lot of media coverage or outrage about how Ukraine tried to influence the election in support of Hillary Clinton, given all the umbrage about presumed efforts by both Russia and Ukraine to do the exact same thing with Trump. And if anyone doubts there has been no coordinated efforts by the left to undermine Trump, it's because they never knew about things like Mark Zaid's tweets calling for Trump's impeachment weeks after the election - and how CNN's role in making that happen! Thank you Sharyl for your work.
Please be aware that the link to go fund me from your website will NOT come up on my iPhone. The wheel goes round and round...