The "whistleblowers" lawyer called for a coup against Trump in 2017

#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers https://t.co/FiNBQo6v0S

— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) January 31, 2017

We know that the "whistleblower" had no first hand knowledge of anything he was complaining about.

We know the "whistleblower" worked with Joe Biden and John Brennen.

We know he's a registered Democrat.

We know he was kicked out of the White House for deliberately leaking distorted information to hurt Trump.

Now we know that his lawyer is a traitor who called for a coup against the President to nullify the 2016 election.

That's the sort of thing Third World militaries do.

What's interesting is that the traitorous lawyer used as his justification Sally Yates being fired for refusing to do her job. Her job was to enforce the rules defined by the President.  Her job was not to decide on the Constitutionality of his rules.

But even if that had been her job she failed miserably since the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the rule that she refused to enforce because she personally didn't like it.

So the traitorous "whistleblower" was calling for a coup, an illegal transfer of power, not because Trump had done anything wrong but because Trump had dared to do something that the lawyer didn't like.

That's the overall attitude of Democrat leaders these days; anything we don't like is a crime, anything we like is objectively good.

Interestingly to date all of the "blockbuster" witnesses that the Democrats are using to justify their coup by pretending it's an impeachment are the same in that they lack first hand knowledge but they work hard to imply that they do.

Similarly they all confuse Trump doing something they don't like with Trump doing something illegal.

If you doubt that ask yourself this: Do you think that if President Biden asked Ukraine to investigate possible corruption by Trump and Trump Jr any of the Democrats or their witnesses would object?

Of course not. All they care about is power and they're currently desperately trying to cover up Joe and Hunter Biden's obvious corruption in Ukraine and China.

If a witness has a reason to lie it's good to doubt their testimony. But in the case of the "whistleblower" it's even worse. Not only does he have several reasons to lie but he admits that he is only reporting on rumors and has not a shred of first hand knowledge.

That sort of testimony would be tossed out of any court in America.