This should never happen to another president again, this hoax,” President Trump repeatedly says, referring to the Russia collusion hoax that very nearly destroyed his presidency. It’s unlikely that there are enough turncoats and Obama holdovers to mount another effort against a reelected President Trump. But how vulnerable would a new President Biden be to such an effort?
Kamala Harris, former prosecutor of innocent people with different priorities and allies than Joe Biden, is uniquely positioned to lead a reprise of the same playbook used against President Trump. Only this time, Joe Biden would be far more vulnerable to such an attack.
Last month marked the semi-official fourth anniversary of the beginning of the attempt to stymie or reverse the peaceful transfer of power from the Obama Administration. While the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Justice all seemed confident that Hilary Clinton would win, the Clinton-financed Russia collusion hoax served as an insurance policy in case she didn’t.
Months before Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would appoint Robert Mueller’s far-flung taxpayer-financed lawyer insurrection against the Trump administration, key figures such as Andrew Weisman, Bruce Ohr, Kevin Clinesmith, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, and FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka had already begun the groundwork to remove the incoming president if Hillary Clinton failed to defeat him in the election.
Many of the details remain hidden thanks to rearguard deep-staters like current FBI Director Christopher Wray, who obstructed and slowed accountability while the perpetrators transitioned to lucrative private-sector gigs.
But we know enough to be concerned that a similar effort would succeed against a weaker president.
It’s worth remembering that in the spring of 2017, immediately after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein participated in the firing of James Comey, he met with Andrew McCabe, the acting director of the FBI, to discuss having Trump removed. According to the New York Times, Rosenstein proposed creating a secret audio recording of Trump saying something that could be used to persuade other cabinet members to participate in a removal process under the 25th Amendment of the Constitution. Everybody seemed to agree that Trump was crazy and he said enough crazy things that the plan might work.
Rosenstein believed he already had Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly on board. The 25th Amendment provides, “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments . . . transmit to the . . . Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”
In the end, this plan to remove Trump stalled when either Rosenstein or McCabe (or both) realized that the risk of failure outweighed the chances of getting enough Cabinet members to betray Trump. The second problem with the plan was that Vice President Mike Pence was perceived as loyal to President Trump and he likely would not have willingly played along with the coup or submitted to the control of the plotters if it were successful.
But how would an identical plan work against a President Joe Biden? Imagine cabinet members loyal to Kamala Harris taking audio of everything Joe Biden said when he thought he was off the record. He makes astonishing gaffes even when his handlers rehearse and script his short appearances. It would be child’s play to amass a montage of secretly-recorded remarks making it clear that Biden is not up to the task of running the country.
Plan B, against President Trump, was the Russia collusion hoax. If the plotters couldn’t get a quick kill with a “Trump-is-crazy” coup, then they would have to resort to the “Trump-is-a-Russian-stooge” coup.
Here again, Biden coup plotters would have far more raw material against a Biden presidency than they did against President Trump. The plotters could simply substitute “China” for “Russia” and they would be off to the races showing financial entanglements between China and the Biden family.
Even the Left-leaning Politifact acknowledged that the China-Biden relationship looks highly suspicious, writing, “It would have been more prudent to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest. If Hunter Biden is providing some specific value to these companies other than the possibility of access to his father, it would be helpful to know exactly what that was, or is.” Add to that Biden’s history of mollycoddling China, and the public could be easily persuaded that Biden was using his office to do favors for China in return for financial rewards to the Biden family.
Does anyone doubt that Kamala Harris might find herself thinking that she could do a better job than Joe Biden? She would think that on day one and so would many of the sycophants hitching their star to her.
As for the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, they would love to be owed a favor by the new boss they helped install. The first run almost worked against President Trump. A similar attempt led by Harris against Biden would have far better chances. And if the attempt against Trump serves as an analogue for the new and improved effort against Biden, that planning has already started. Biden wouldn’t survive his first 100 days.