Coup first, invent justification later

By Paul Ackerman | Nov 14, 2019

Sometimes it is the haughty smugness of today’s Democrats/Progressives that is most amazing. They say very revealing things, actually telling people what they are really planning to do to the country and all the voters by extension. They are such paragons of virtue-signaling and non-constitutional scholars.

Recent examples revealed in tweets from current “whistleblower” attorney Mark S.  Zaid highlight the faulty historical memory and arrogance of such partisan hacks (claiming, of course, to be nonpartisan), to wit, in January 2017 as President Trump took office, Zaid tweeted, “#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers.

This is from an attorney who trolls for clients to sue the president, tweets requests to leftist celebrities to refer clients who would like to sue Trump (to his law firm), and proudly defines his use of the term “coup” as perfectly legal, ultimately involving CNN and lawyers as primary accelerants.

Let’s be clear on this one, since Mr. Zaid is not being honest here, the dictionary defines a “coup” as follows: a sudden illegal, often violent, taking of government power, especially by part of an army

In ways this is a breathtakingly honest explanation of what the leftists in the deep state apparatus and media were actively engaged in then, and for the last few years, one hoax after another to throw out the results of the 2016 election.

Naturally, for the past two years they have been denying that there is any orchestrated effort, while huffing and puffing that they are the defenders of the Constitution. Of course they are not; any fool can see that, but the media goes to endless contortions to slant everything they can to support this canard.

Secret hearings, transcripts, and testimony sequestered until Schiff decides otherwise? Anonymous whistleblowers cannot be questioned in person, only in writing, even though they have had numerous contacts already with Schiff and his staff? Sound fair to you? The only fact pattern I see here is one of consistent partisan dishonesty on the part of Pelosi and Schiff et al.

The hooting and hollering over this Ukraine phone call transcript makes the media’s role explicitly clear. They are Pravda (the old Soviet Union’s propaganda newspaper) for the corrupt House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff. He leaks selected, out-of-context portions of “secret” testimony, that no one in Congress is allowed to reveal, to spin his drama-laden narrative of an imaginary Godfather-like quid pro quo demanded in the call.

Any person who reads the transcript of the call and examines the available information on the review of the “whistleblower” complaint ought to ― if they are honest ― recognize this is a sham, another Steele Dossier/Russian Collusion mud-slinging fest.

The few Republicans on the committee, such as Reps. Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise, have soundly rejected the news spin on Schiff’s calculated leaks, pointing out the duplicity of the process where Schiff instructs witnesses to not answer questions from certain Republicans, in effect censoring the answers before they can be given.

To paraphrase another recipient of similar legal malfeasance by Democratic prosecutors, you don’t shoot the arrow and then draw the target around what it hits, but that is what they are trying to do yet again. Josef Stalin would be so proud of Adam Schiff.

As to the assertions that the president has no authority to conduct “foreign policy” without the approval of the deep-staters, who are now loudly wailing about this on the mainstream news, one only has to examine the double standard they held so firmly to during Barack Obama’s terms to see how specious this current claim really is.

President Obama, who was caught on a hot mike with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during a Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea in March 2012, discussing contentious missile defense issues, asks Medvedev to convey to Vladimir Putin that he needs “space…this is my last election, after my election I’ll have more flexibility.”

Where was the rush to condemn President Obama for arrogantly designing his own foreign policy based on the political considerations of a foreign leader not causing any difficulty for him before his assumed reelection? Where was the demand for a transcript of all of their discussions?

Another marvelous example of double standards is the secret discussions that presidential adviser (and lawyer) Valerie Jarret had with Iranian government officials prior to President Obama ordering the cargo planeload of $1.7 billion in cash sent to Tehran. Where are the transcripts of those “foreign policy” discussions?

Oddly, the media gave all these things a good leaving alone.

So if a Democratic president does things involving quid pro quo such as “give me some space to assure my reelection goes according to plan, and I’ll have more flexibility to negotiate with you afterwards,” or, I’ll send you a planeload of cash if you release a few hostages and sign on to an agreement about your nuclear programs that I will never put before Congress (because they’d never ratify it as a treaty), why is it somehow not examined by the same hyperventilating Congress and media?

Did anyone ask Mark S. Zaid if he tweeted back then that a coup would be started to depose Barack Obama? Did CNN start a hash tag campaign to get him removed from office?

Another View is a Maine Press Association award-winning column written by Midcoast conservative citizens/writers Jan Dolcater, Ken Frederic, Paul Ackerman, Ralph “Doc” Wallace and Dale Landrith Sr.

If you appreciated reading this news story and want to support local journalism, consider subscribing today.
Call (207) 594-4401 or join online at
Donate directly to keeping quality journalism alive at
Comments (3)
Posted by: John E Marshall | Nov 17, 2019 11:04

The big question is "What will Susan Collins do" when the process gets to the Senate? My guess is that she will publically agonize then vote the wrong way.

Posted by: Kevin Riley | Nov 17, 2019 08:38

So many myths lies and conspiracy theories, so little time.

Public Service Announcement:
5 easy ways to know that you may not fully understand the Impeachment Proceedings.

1. You think this is the trial. It is not. That will be in the Senate. These hearings in the House of Representatives are akin to Grand Jury proceedings. (If you don’t know the difference between the two houses, you should stop running your mouth about impeachment and immediately repeat the 5th grade or tour your State Capital).

2. You think it’s spelled “here say.” It’s not. It’s “hearsay.”

3. You didn’t know that there are exceptions to allowing “hearsay.” There certainly are. They’re in a book called the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearsay gets admitted ALL the time.

4. You didn’t know that hearsay is allowed ... especially in Grand Jury proceedings. It certainly is. (See #s 1 & 3 above)

5. You don’t know the difference between a trial and a Grand Jury proceeding. They’re different. Watch Law & Order, pick any season (but not SVU - don’t do that to yourself) or you can ask a criminal or constitutional lawyer. Ask any other kind and you’ll likely get a lawyer who spells it as “here say”.

That is all

Posted by: Paul Sheridan | Nov 16, 2019 16:21

Mr. Ackerman:

No one needs to "indict" nor "conspire" against the Stable Genius.  He does it all by himself, bragging about his crimes, and adding new ones in the midst of the hearings--twitting his intimidation of witnesses as they are actually speaking before the Congressional committee, Republicans and Democrats! !  You cannot write a funnier satire than the one he plays out daily...

BTW, I am not a Democrat, simply a person committed to the rule of law. Remember that concept?




If you wish to comment, please login.