One of the attorneys representing the whistleblower at the heart of the partisan Democratic impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, Mark Zaid, tweeted in 2017 just days after the president took office that a “coup has started,” and that “impeachment will follow ultimately.”
#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers https://t.co/FiNBQo6v0S
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) January 31, 2017
#coup has started. As one falls, two more will take their place. #rebellion #impeachment
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) January 31, 2017
Throughout the first few years of Trump’s presidency, Zaid has reaffirmed his commitment to remove the president from office through impeachment. In July 2017, Zaid wrote, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters,” and later remarked that one day history will be reciting the tales of Trump’s impeachment.
It's very scary. We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) July 2, 2017
And 45 years from now we might be recalling stories regarding the impeachment of @realDonaldTrump. I'll be old, but will be worth the wait https://t.co/x6rvUIJJdL
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) June 20, 2017
#MAGA – get rid of @realDonaldTrump
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) July 23, 2017
I defied the rain to hear my friend @DavidPriess speak at @BNBuzz abt his new book "How to get rid of a President". pic.twitter.com/qexO5oAyz9
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) December 1, 2018
This is the same attorney who once threatened to get his federal intelligence contacts to doxx a random Twitter user and complained about the account’s anonymity.
“Hey ‘Rex’, why don’t you reveal your identity instead of attacking someone while hiding? I’d love to have my intelligence and law enforcement clients see what they can find about your life,” Zaid wrote.
Hey "Rex", why don't you reveal your identity instead of attacking someone while hiding? I'd love to have my intelligence and law enforcement clients see what they can find about your life. We can compare notes on our research efforts. What do you say? Game?
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) May 27, 2018
Zaid’s bias against the president has been well-documented. In a podcast last year, Zaid spoke about how he often goes out of his way just to use the term “resistance,” and bragged about having sued every president since 1993.
On the same podcast, Zaid also discussed fishing for a client to serve as a plaintiff against Trump in a lawsuit alleging unfair business practices stifling competition by the Trump hotel. The attorney also went on Twitter to call for whistleblowers to come forward when Trump took power, welcoming CIA employees to his law firm “to lawfully challenge” the president, according to Fox News.
Andrew Bakaj, another one of the whistleblower’s attorneys, has also shown open animosity towards President Trump. In the summer of 2017, Bakaj argued for the removal of the president through the use of the 25th Amendment. Bakaj once worked for New York Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.
The 25th Amendment concerns @POTUS' inability to discharge the powers and duties of office. Says nothing about mental health. We're there.
— Andrew P. Bakaj (@AndrewBakaj) August 18, 2017
The impeachment investigation lodged against Trump has been rife with partisanship from the very beginning. After having failed at every effort at impeachment over the last three years, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the opening of an inquiry in September allowing House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to run secret hearings on Capitol Hill blocking Republican members’ questions for an entire month before the inquiry was put to the full chamber for a vote.
Schiff, who played a key role in perpetuating the Russia hoax, continued to run hearings in secret even after House Democrats in the majority passed the resolution by a strictly partisan vote, while two Democrats joined all Republicans voting in opposition.
The rules of the resolution are heavily stacked against the president, denying Republicans the power to call witnesses and subpoena evidence without Democratic approval. The minority party was granted these rights in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings.
