Contemplating the Deep-State Coup D'Etat to Take Down Trump
Eight days in May — the government conspiracy to remove Donald Trump from office.
This week, after the Senate concluded its Trump/Russia collusion investigation determining there is not a shred of evidence of any collusion, there was a new bright light shed on the Clinton/DoJ/FBI conspiracy to entrap Donald Trump and expel him from office.
Despite all the MSM hyperbole — Left and Right — over the last two years, the latest evidence of a DoJ/FBI conspiracy against Trump illuminates a very dangerous episode in American political history — much more ominous than Richard Nixon’s concealment of the DNC/Watergate burglary.
In fact, Watergate was a wading pool compared to the deep, dark depths of the collusion between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama operatives within the Department of Justice — all Democrat Party partisans — who contemplated two vectors for removing Trump from office.
First, they considered using the 25th Amendment provision for removing a president who is completely incapacitated. When that consideration was discarded, the same FBI and DoJ conspirators implemented a different tack to severely disable Trump and his administration — hobbling him with endless and baseless investigations. To be clear, this was not the typical obstructionist investigations fronted by opposing factions in Congress — this was a secret conspiracy by high-level government officials to oust a president.
We have covered the FBI/DoJ tactical charade in depth over the last two years, most notably in our analysis of former FBI Director James Comey’s higher loyalty to Clinton, the firing of then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, the “Mueller/Comey/Clinton Collusion to Take Down Trump,” and the Department of Justice IG report on Brennan, Comey, and Clinton as corrupt co-conspirators.
Until this week, discussions about the “25th Amendment” option had been largely dismissed as facetious, but enter Andrew McCabe again, teeing up his book tour, and now declaring in a CBS interview that those discussions were serious.
While the full interview has not been released, his interviewer, CBS’s Scott Pelley, says, “The most illuminating and surprising thing in the interview to me were these eight days in May when all of these things were happening behind the scenes. … There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment. These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.”
Regarding consideration of the 25th Amendment option, McCabe told CBS this was not facetious but in fact a repeated and serious consideration — so much so that McCabe consulted lawyers to discuss if it could be done. He also said that then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s suggestion about recording conversations with Trump to set him up for a 25th takedown was not sarcastic, as it has been portrayed.
Regarding what amounts to a brazen coup d'etat attempt, former Harvard constitutional law professor and noted liberal Alan Dershowitz observed: “The 25th Amendment is about Woodrow Wilson having a stroke. It’s about a president being shot and not being able to perform his office. It’s not about the most fundamental disagreements. It’s not about impeachable offenses. Any Justice Department official who even mentioned the 25th Amendment in the context of President Trump has committed a grievous offense against the Constitution. … To use the 25th Amendment to circumvent the impeachment provisions or to circumvent an election is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing. … I challenge any left-wing person to … defend the use of the 25th Amendment. I challenge any of my colleagues who are in the ‘get Trump at any cost’ camp to … justify the use of the 25th Amendment other than for physical or psychiatric incapacity.”