Friday, February 21, 2020

Our Broken Criminal Justice System

There have been a variety of articles lately about our broken criminal justice system--how it often doesn't serve justice at all. There's a lot that could be said, and has been said. In recent comments I pointed out the role that the terrible expense of defending oneself can play--not an original thought! K. T. McFarland gave an interview recently that, by recounting her experience with the Team Mueller Witchhunt, encapsulates much of what others have said. Here is a fairly lengthy excerpt--mostly just a transcript--of her remarks on WMAL radio. In the interview McFarland describes her experience with the FBI and the prosecutors, the long hours of questioning without the benefit of access to the documentation that she had herself created. I like this example from another interview she gave to Fox:

... she was questioned about a 90-minute period spent in the president's Mar-a-Lago Club in which she didn't have any recorded correspondence or conversation in her phone records. That's when, McFarland said, they asked her whether that was the time she met with Trump to get marching orders.
"I looked at them and I said, 'No, that was actually when I was having lunch with my husband and I put my cell phone away,' she recalled. "Look, they had absolutely targeted me for a perjury crime or to link Trump and until I got the best lawyer in the country to come along with me, they really thought they had me."

In addition, in the longer interview, she goes into the nature of the Deep State establishment and its attitude toward the subject population of this country.

To set the stage for the rest of this, McFarland was Deputy National Security Adviser from January 20, 2017 to about May 19, 2017--when the Mueller Witchhunt began. She had been brought in by Michael Flynn and then was bounced by Deep State operative McMaster. When she left, she of course left all official documentation and equipment behind--phones, etc. Mueller's thugs had all that, transcripts of emails, texts, etc., etc. She didn't. So:

“When the Mueller people came knocking at my door, they started quizzing me on stuff that I didn’t have access to and didn’t remember 100 percent accurately, and it allowed them to say, ‘well you must be lying then,’” McFarland told WMAL hosts Vince Coglianese and Mary Walter. 
“They gave me the distinct impression after … 20, 30, 40 hours of hell that they wanted me to either plead guilty to a crime I didn’t feel I committed, or to talk about other people having done things that I didn’t think they had done,” she explained. 
The former Trump aide told the hosts that the Mueller interrogators didn’t come right out and say they wanted her to cop a plea, but that “was the impression they conveyed.” 
“At one point, I turned to my lawyer and said, ‘just tell me what they want me to say and I’ll say it!’” she recalled. 
McFarland told the hosts that she just wanted the ordeal—which cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees—to be over with. 
“My husband, God bless him, said ‘you can’t do that. Even if we go bankrupt,” she continued. So McFarland decided to stand her ground. 
“I finally said, no, you’re going to have to charge me with a crime,” she said. “At that point, they went away because I couldn’t give them what they needed to spin their web. ... 
“This tool, which we had given the intelligence community—which is a good thing for them to have if they’re tracking down mass murderers and terrorists—they were using it for political purposes to go after political enemies,” McFarland lamented. 
After her “time in the wilderness,” she said she realized that the country was going through a “revolution” that was way bigger than the anti-Trump Washington establishment. 
“They’re a certain group of people who have gotten used to governing and they think it is their divine right,” she explained. “And even if the American voter votes for someone who wants to get rid of them or change their policies, they feel they have the patriotic duty to overrule election results.” 
Because of these unanswerable bureaucrats, the United States is now in “a very dangerous place,” McFarland warned. 
“We Americans have the constitutional right to have political revolutions at the ballot box and we go through this every four years because government by its nature, digs in, becomes status-quo,” she explained. “They want to protect their privileges and policies and so whenever somebody comes along and says, ‘lets do something differently,’ they reisist, they fight.” 
She described this struggle as “a fight between the governed and the people who are doing the governing” and declared: “We the people think we should be in charge.” 
McFarland said this power-hungry Washington establishment was made up of “permanent, professional politicians at the administrative state” and people in the bureaucratic state “who can’t be fired from government,” as well as “think tanks, the mainstream media.” 
“They’re all part of the same group and they think they’re the ones in charge,” she said.


  1. Great post!

    Contrast with how the Democrats protect their own:
    Awan Brothers

    Hillary’s it guys lawyer:

    Republicans don’t support their own people. Flynn is a prime exhibit.

    1. Not only do they not support their own, they oftentimes undermine their own.

    2. Are you sure? Who are "their own"?
      The sides are not as obvious as the Cold War. Think Smileyesque on a global scale.
      Tom S.

    3. Michael Caputo is another example of the cost of being associated with Trump, and being investigated.

  2. I just read at the federal debt limit has been suspended until 2021-July-31. So there can be no government shutdown until then.

    I believe there's no chance Democrat partisans in D.C. will ever stop abusing their power. And I've been told there's no practical way to remove them from power. So the ONLY course of action is to stop issuing paychecks, stop all spending for all government agencies, other than "critical" agencies.

    July 31. Will that be our new Independence Day?

  3. If DJT outright closes these D.S. depts., does this then mean, that all of these slime get laid off?
    What legal recourse would they have?

    If they jump you, can they charge you, if you just keep saying "I don't recall"?

    1. That's not gonna happen. Departments/Agencies are set up and funded by acts of Congress.

    2. What if, in a gov't shutdown, Congress stops the funding?

    3. People get, in effect, laid off for as long as the shutdown lasts--except that the agencies that are essential (and the ones you probably most want to see closed) continue operating. I've been through that.

    4. The point is, there's no magic bullet. The Constitution is what it is.

    5. aNanyMouse--In my recollection (this century), every time there has been a gov't shut down, with people temporarily laid-off, furloughed and sent home, they all have been paid for the "missed" time, even thought they didn't do any work.

      Congress has no backbone when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

  4. FYI: She's on live on Hannity radio right now...

  5. After reading the horror story that KT tells about the FBI trying to set her up for a perjury trap when she had not committed any crime at all, read this post by Paul Sperry from a few days ago:

    >>Paul Sperry
    BREAKING: Durham has interviewed several of the FBI investigators who worked on Mueller's team during his 2017-2018 inquiry, further suggesting Durham's probe may be expanding into the activities of the Special Counsel's office
    9:42 PM · Feb 18, 2020<<

    I'm imagining the first question that Durham's investigators are going to put to the FBI agents who worked over KT McFarland is: "who directed you to target her, and to try to set her up for a perjury trap, and pressure her to 'compose' testimony about others?"

    If they flip one or more of these agents, Durham is on his way up the food chain inside the corrupt Mueller Political Jihad.

    Question for MW: is anything KT describes about what the FBI agents did to her constitute a crime? Denial of civil rights under color of law?

    1. EZ--Prosecutors have absolute immunity for anything done in the course of their duties--including intentional misconduct. Law enforcement has slightly less, known as qualified immunity.

      Or so I learn from the Powell and Silverglate book "Conviction Machine."

    2. In fairness you have to understand that judges are lawyers, too. So, when they saw that 42 USC. 1983 stated that “every person” acting under color of law who violates the rights of another “shall be liable to the party injured,” they realized that Congress couldn't possibly have meant that to apply to lawyers and judges.

      Nice system, eh?

    3. Well, technically, my question was about what the FBI agents did to KT.

      Right off the bat, I'd argue whatever immunity they have, it doesn't include violating laws; FBI agents can't murder people for the fun of it and hide behind some sort of immunity to get away with it -- if the violation occurs because they are acting outside their authority, I believe the immunity doesn't apply.

      Thus, the act of trying to get KT to "compose" false statements against others would be attempted subornation of perjury, and I'm pretty sure that isn't in their job description. So I don't see how Durham can be stopped from using that as leverage to get one or more agents to flip and proffer testimony against whomever sent them on that illegal errand.

    4. FBI agents don't have that kind of immunity. I've found a forum discussion on this issue that I hope to publish soon. It covers a variety of issues with regard to prosecutorial immunity, including at least one that could be very relevant to Team Mueller's activities.

  6. This anecdote represents the seminal dilemma for Barr.

    If he is either unable (or possibly unwilling) to fully and successfully prosecute the ringleaders of the coup, then a large majority of the American people will come to believe that DOJ/FBI have become hopelessly and irretrievably corrupt, and should no longer be trusted. And this will manifest in at least two ways that are disastrous for our democracy and system of governance.

    The first is that most adults with this mindset will quietly and internally disdain every member and representative of these organizations and then play dumb or go mute in their presence.

    Second, most parents will quietly, but forthrightly, train their children to view these people as potential enemies who should never be trusted.

    Unfortunately, the people occupying DC will never understand the depths of animosity that a betrayal of trust can inspire, nor the long term damage this can do. Folklore will arise to help spread the word and prepare people in the event they have an encounter with this enemies. The term FBI will become synonymous with Gestapo.

    If Barr loses this battle, it will be no small thing.

    1. You have to wonder whether at this point in his life Barr has been immersed in the legal world to such a degree that he doesn't fully grasp the perceptions of the man on the street. His interviews and addresses are generally excellent in presenting some of the serious issues we face as a society, and yet calling the Stone prosecution 'righteous' seems rather tonedeaf in the overall political context. Hopefully he's received a bit of a wake up call. He's a very talented and dedicated guy, and I'd hate for Trump to lose him.

  7. FWIW, Joe DiGenova, who has known Barr for years, has repeatedly stated he has absolute confidence that Barr will get to the bottom of this conspiracy.