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."Sundance at CTH, Eric Ciaramella Attorney, January 2017: “Coup Has Started” – July 2017: “We Will Remove Him”…
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.”
A few people have started looking at the connections behind Mark Zaid, the attorney for CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella. What is starting to emerge is evidence of what CTH outlined yesterday; the current impeachment process is part of a coup continuum, and everything around the whistleblower is part of a long-ago planned and pre-constructed operation. . . .Nice Deb at AmGreat, ‘The Coup Has Started’: Whistleblower Attorney Was Already Tweeting About Impeaching Trump in Jan. of 2017
“Johnson (1868), Nixon (1973), Clinton (1998) impeachment hearings. Next up @realDonaldTrump (2017),” Zaid tweeted in May of 2017. Then, in June of 2017, Zaid wrote: “45 years from now we might be recalling stories regarding the impeachment of @realDonaldTrump. I’ll be old, but will be worth the wait.”Ace, Fake Whistleblower's Lawyer in 2017: "The coup has started," Brags That Deep State Will Impeach Trump and His Friends at CNN Will Play a Key Role "Hmm, I wonder if this guy was talking to Tapper, Clapper, and Brennan."
. . .
Zaid is a frequent Trump critic on Twitter who has a history of playing hardball with those he perceives to be enemies of the deep state. In May of 2018, for instance, he threatened to sic his intelligence community friends on a random Twitter user who irritated him.
Amid calls by the president himself to expose the whistleblower, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted the name of a CIA analyst which has circulated online for weeks, and linked to a Breitbart news article implying the person was pro-Democrat and anti-Trump. AFP could not independently verify the whistleblower's identity and is not publishing the name.NPR, Can Trump Legally Out The Whistleblower? Experts Say It Would Not Violate Any Laws. But it would sure piss off the media. CNN, Fox News brass to network hosts and personalities: Do not identify the whistleblower. Ace, Media Flip-Flops On Whether Whistleblowers are Sacred and Deserve Anonymity as ABC News Launches Dragnet to Find Who Leaked the Robach Tape
The Robach tape, unlike Trump's phone calls to foreign leaders, are not classified national secrets.The rule is protecting whistleblowers is important only when it helps liberals and Democrats.
Nothing in it is sensitive. It is merely embarrassing to ABC News, given that George Stephanopolous is a leading figure there, and he used to work for Clinton, and ABC News spiked an important story that would damage Clinton.
Rick Moran at PJ Media, Rand Paul Wants Media to Name Ukraine Whistleblower (Psssst! His Name is Eric Ciaramella). Brandon Morris at Red State, Rand Paul Explains Why He Can Legally Out The Whistleblower, And Says He Just Might. Rand Paul can say just about anything on the floor of Congress and be legal.
“But I can do [reveal the identity of the whistleblower] right now, if I want. Nothing stops me. There is no law that stops me from doing it, other than that I don’t want to make it about the one individual,” Paul said. “But I would say this: I do think that this individual is a material witness to the potential Biden corruption. He was there under Joe Biden. He was there when Joe Biden was trying to fire the prosecutor that was in — that was investigating Hunter Biden. So, this person was a Ukrainian expert on the desk, at that time. I think he should be interviewed, not as the whistleblower, but as a material witness to the Biden corruption in Ukraine.”Sam Brody at Da Beast, Rand Paul Used to Be a Whistleblower’s Hero. Now He Wants to Out Them. It's hard to call Eric Ciaramella a "whistleblower" when he seems to be a CIA spy. Vanity Fair, “There’s a Real Concern for This Guy’s Safety”: News Outlets Grapple With Unmasking the Whistle-Blower. They never showed similar interest in protecting Nicholas Sandmann's safety.
Rep. Jim Jordan at USA Today, 'Whistleblower' must testify under oath and in person. The Peacock whines Intel officials want CIA Director Gina Haspel to protect Ukraine whistleblower from Trump. I'll bet this is hard for Gina, but it depends on how deep into it she is; she was Brennan's girl, and chances are she's at least touched the plot. How dirty is she?Eric Ciaramella:— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) November 2, 2019
- Sent by @JohnBrennan to
- Worked for
- Advised @JoeBiden on
- Invited @DNC operative
@AlexandraChalup to NSC
- Coordinated illegally with
@RepAdamSchiff as fake
Mickey Kaus, The Relevant in the Room
Mark Zaid, lawyer for the whistleblower (WB) who set off the whole Trump-Zelensky investigation, tells us “the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant.”
The WB’s central allegation about the Zelensky call has been corroborated by the “transcript” of what was said on the call, after all. No need to learn anymore about the whisteblower! His job is done and he should be allowed to remain anonymous, says Zaid.
But the WB’s ID seems highly relevant. We may now know what was said on the phone call, but we still need to decide what to make of it. Was it just unsavory or — at the other end of the scale— bad enough to justify removing a president? In part, that involves asking: Why was it such a big deal to so many foreign policy professionals filling the Trump administration? In answering that question, it matters if the fuss was initiated by, say, an official who was supportive of Trump, and shared his Ukraine skepticism, but was nevertheless horrified by Trump's "ask.” That’d be powerful evidence that Trump might have really screwed up.
But what if the WB is a vehement Ukraine hawk, with strong ties to Joe Biden and Democrats? Let's just say -- hypothetically! -- it's the latter. The point wouldn’t be that the whole thing then smells like a long-hatched anti-Trump conspiracy (though it does). The Lewinsky scandal was a long-hatched anti-Clinton conspiracy. Didn't bother me then. Sometimes conspiracies catch guilty people.
The point is that seemingly everyone in the WB’s network of outrage,, from the person who told the WB about the call to Col. Vindman (the National Security Council Ukraine expert who’s testified before Rep. Schiff’s impeachment panel) to Ambassador William Taylor (who’d written a text calling it “crazy” to hold-up aid to Ukraine “for help in a political campaign”) to the aide in Schiff’s office consulted by the WB may be sincerely, passionately inflating the importance of Trump's sin--and deflating Biden's-- because to them aiding Ukraine is wildly important and Joe Biden is a compatriot, mentor or hero.
Voters and the senators— who will have to determine whether Trump's tactics were a "high crime”— may have a less fraught perspective and discount the offense accordingly. That would be harder to do if the prime accusers weren't all vehement anti-Russia Ukrainiacs.