Radio Recap - Whistleblower’s Attorney in 2017: “Coup Has Started... Impeachment will Follow”

The so-called whistleblower’s attorney, back in 2017 – the same month President Trump took the oath of office – tweeted “Coup Has Started . . . Impeachment will Follow.”

It’s news you cannot make up in this world of witch hunts and fake news, but on today’s Jay Sekulow Live, we discussed Mark Zaid’s, the so-called whistleblower’s attorney, tweets about a coup, impeachment, and rebellion in 2017.

Days after the President took the oath of office, January 30th, Mark Zaid tweets: “Coup has started. First of many steps. Rebellion. Impeachment will follow ultimately.”

So in early 2017, he’s calling for impeachment and a violent overthrow of the U.S. government because that’s what a coup is. Zaid claimed the words he used describe a lawful process. As I read on the show, the Oxford English dictionary defines the word coup as “a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.”

That would be the exact opposite of lawful.

This puts into context who the whistleblower is, and a clear animus. Animus in this case means a clear bias against the President. His lawyer says the words “coup”, “rebellion”, and “impeachment. Interestingly, now, we hardly hear about the “whistleblower” anymore. And whatever happened to that promised second whistleblower?

ACLJ Director of Government Affairs Thann Bennett summed it up perfectly on the broadcast:

Some people use the term resist. Peter Strzok and Lisa Page used the term insurance plan, but Mark Zaid flat out called it a coup. I think it’s really important to take to heart the timeline because next week the House Intelligence Committee is going to make the case that this was all about a call with the President of Ukraine. I’m pretty sure that call was nowhere in the works in January of 2017 when Mark Zaid called for a coup. It’s not about Ukraine. It’s about a coup.

There was an attempt to take the President down over the so-called Russian collusion. Then there was an attempt to take the President down over an obstruction of justice narrative involving Bob Mueller’s investigation and that did not work. What happened there? Bob Mueller ultimately testified. That certainly did not work. Then what happened? Nothing. Now the House Intelligence Committee is holding hearings over a policy disagreement.

You don’t impeach a President over a policy disagreement.

We also discussed our upcoming case before the International Criminal Court, defending the interests of U.S. soldiers.

ACLJ Senior Counsel Skip Ash described the case:

This is significant because this is the first time that a prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is directly including Americans as potential criminals in her investigation. We have had servicemen and women in Afghanistan since shortly after 9/11. They have been there and they have performed admirably. The prosecutor for the International Criminal Court is trying to haul U.S. men and women before her court to try them for potential war crimes, potential crimes against humanity, and so forth.

We are not a member of the treaty as the United States. Therefore that court should have absolutely no influence over any national of the United States.

We’re at the ICC in a month and will keep you updated.

You can listen to the entire episode here.