When hiring a defense team for a whistleblower in a presidential impeachment case, it makes sense to assign the best and brightest. It would be unwise to hire a rabidly anti-Trump attorney who has a penchant for, say, young Disney actresses and dark palace intrigue tweets. Right?
They wouldn't thrust someone who brags on Twitter about gaining security clearances for his clients who were busted with child porn. Right?
And the CIA, party to the ruse, would be sure to avoid obvious meddling such as changing their definition of what constitutes a whistleblower the same month a complaint about a sitting president was filed. And they'd make sure the whistleblower isn't rabidly partisan. Nor would they use an actual CIA agent who worked as a Ukraine expert for Obama in the sunset of his administration. Right?
Because that would be as asinine as hiring activist attorney Debra Katz to represent Christine Blasey Ford. We know that the attempt to derail Brett Kavanaugh's SCOTUS nomination was founded on uncorroborated, decades-cold accusations made by a woman who had scrubbed her social media and coached a friend on how to beat a lie-detector test. Recently, Katz coughed up the canary and admitted that the whole case was designed to put an asterisk next to Kavanaugh's name. In the leftist fantasy world, such a mark might weigh on the outcome of an imagined Roe v. Wade-altering case. Or something.
It would be as monumentally transparent as having Tina Tchen, former assistant to Barack Obama, chief of staff for Michelle Obama, and “leading voice in the national conversation on fighting sexual harassment, gender equality and discrimination" seek to influence the Jussie Smollet case. But that's what happened. From behind the scenes, the Obamas sought to save Jussie, placing a proxy finger on the scales of justice.
We know what drives these people to craven, desperate acts, attempts to tear down the lives of good people. Thank goodness they're so lazy and sloppy.
So it should come as no surprise to anyone that with everything on the line, perhaps the credibility of the entire Democrat Party in this, their second attempt at nullifying an election, the masterminds behind the ginned-up impeachment effort hired attorney Mark Zaid.
Zaid has emerged as a maybe-pedo and for-sure-coup-supporter. The following four tweets will show the trajectory of his coming out party, and his brazen attempt at (standard Alinskyite) deflection. First, a "coup has started" tweet was unearthed, posted just days after Trump took office, followed by revelations about his fascination with Disney. Next, his sketchy web history was exposed. His weak retort? You guessed it, claims of death threats.
These Democrats just can't seem to find a lawyer to defend a good, honest, hearsay-inspired, Ukraine operative CIA agent "whistleblower" who doesn't reek of pedophilia and deep state chicanery.
The left's Karl Marx/Saul Alinsky dictum of "Accuse your opponent of what only you are doing, as you are doing it, to create confusion" is practically household knowledge now. It's surprising that Democratic Party leaders still maintain this course, as it is becoming less of a smoke screen and more of a decoder map for conservatives: what they said Trump did this week = what they did six months ago.
Heck, Hillary Clinton's latest joking-not-joking accusation that "aliens have seized" Rudy Giuliani's brain may well be a confession. Once Giuliani regularly loses control of his facial features and falls down, we'll bite. Until then, look for little green men in Hillary's orbit, not Rudy's.
Today, the Daily Caller reported that Zaid also bragged last year about wrangling security clearances for clients who "had child porn issues."
It's one thing to represent odious people. It can be, in a way, a solemn duty. We are guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the right to a fair trial, and attorneys are hired or provided to defend those who have committed even the most heinous acts.
But this isn't that. This is a lawyer who has gone out of his way to get security clearances for individuals who have already been convicted on child pornography charges. And he's proud of it. We already had creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti...
...Zaid is the creepy child porn lawyer.
Without this piece of the puzzle, it was easier for the left to write off his solo Disney trips and obsession with preteen starlets as merely eccentric. Now it's clear that Zaid embraced the "do what you love and you'll never work" dictum.
Subscribe to our evening newsletter to stay informed during these challenging times!!
Irrelevant. Either the whistleblower's claims are borne out, or they're not. Sadly, based on all the testimony made under oath, the claims have so far been spot on. The whistleblower and his/her lawyer are no longer needed or relevant so bother focusing on them?
We think your first statement is extremely disingenuous but we agree, let's wait and see...but the attorney and the CIA spy in The White House is certainly worth discussing..nice try
Yes, a CIA spy in the White House IS definitely worth discussing, as is the topic of ANYONE being a pedophile. However, if tweets and liking Disney (admittedly weird) brands this guy as a pedophile, then we can't complain when a liberal butterfly uses the #metoo in response to a us asking for a girls phone number.
"Not sure being a 'little known lawyer' is good thing or bad, although associated with Epstein probably good."
That is what Mark Zaid tweeted.
The garbage tweet you put in your article in response?
"He...thinks being associated with Jeffrey Epstein is a 'good thing'.
Why would you post anything spewed on twitter much less a tweet from someone who either lacks basic reading comprehension or is intentionally dishonest?
By extension, are you yourself being intentionally dishonest by posting an obviously false tweet or are you just being incompetent?
Why is it necessary for these Trump era Whatfinger types to stoop so low as to be just as bad as the globalist media on a regular basis?
"Conservative internet media is now plagued by this garbage. Incompetents using random twitter comments in place of any shred of journalism or ideologues playing fast and loose with the facts.
"The right" in a general sense really is on the side of truth and wisdom so why is it necessary to be lazy and dishonest to fight back?
Hi Scipio. I appreciate your question, i think it comes from a good place. I also think you're underestimating other readers and assuming I'm attempting to mislead them. I'm not.
If I were acting dishonestly, I would have claimed that Epstein was associated with Zaid. I felt it was clear enough that he was merely commenting on another lawyer (Epstein's lawyer Darren Indyke). Clearly it would be front page news if anyone associated with the whistleblower case was tied directly to Epstein, I didn't think that needed stating.
As I said, "the following four tweets will show the trajectory" of the case. I didn't say they covered every aspect of the weird explosion of Zaid onto the scene. It's painting a picture with broad strokes, but nothing I said is misleading.
I share your disdain for the fast and loose on certain sites. We're on the same team. That said, it's okay to get angry about having these creeps protecting other creeps. The degeneracy of the far left is cause for real anger. I'm not fighting dirty, but I'm not dispassionate either. This is a national emergency, and you're worried about the evidentiary strength of a tweet? Take that energy and call your senators every day.
As for your last sentiment, I think that's naive. I agree that people who espouse conservatism tend to be good people, and the leftists are making fools out of themselves lately, sometimes violently, but that's reductive in a way that doesn't bear scrutiny. It's the right's version of #OrangeManBad.
Sounds like your typical Democrat scumbag.
That YouTube list is practically an admission of pedophilia. I hope all these dirt bags rot in hell. I'll gladly send them there myself.