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 non-partisan), 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 House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam 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 Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schiff, et. al. 

The hooting and hollering over this Ukraine phone call transcript makes the media’s roll explicitly clear. They are Pravda (the old Soviet Union’s propaganda newspaper) for 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 Rep. 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 Democrat 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 mic 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 re-election? 

Where was the demand for a transcript of all their discussions? 

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

So if a Democrat 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 afterward,” 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 weekly column written collaboratively by Dale Landrith of Camden, Ken Frederic of Bristol, Paul Ackerman of Martinsville, Jan Dolcater of Rockport and Ralph “Doc” Wallace of Rockport.

Copy the Story Link