Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Revolting Inquisition of K.T. McFarland
In her brief but agonizing stint as Deputy National Security Advisor under General Michael Flynn, K.T. McFarland played a key role in helping the new Trump team get organized following the 2016 election. I wrote a post a few weeks ago about the efforts of the FBI to destroy Gen. Michael Flynn and McFarland, who had never participated in these types of interviews, and I was horrified at the methods of the FBI. Besides the fact that they really had no legitimate reason to investigate Gen. Flynn, they had even less reason to entrap McFarland. While many of us have generally discussed the inappropriate and radical methods of the FBI in their investigations, I had no way of knowing specifically just how insidious and unprofessional they were.
In her new book, McFarland takes us back to the interviews that the FBI conducted with her. Their actions were shocking and, as I said in my original post, could have destroyed her life. Since literally any American could be subject to their methodologies, unless key FBI leaders are discredited and punished, anyone could be victimized in the same way at any time, for any reason. I felt her specific story should be more widely told as a cautionary tale regarding the abuse of power in general, and the unethical and immoral actions of a government agency unchecked.
McFarland describes her first unexpected encounter with FBI agents:
When they arrived, I was at home alone since my husband had left to run some errands right after I walked in the door. (It as only later that I realized the FBI agents had probably already been waiting outside our house, parked out of sight, and only phoned when they saw me drive in and my husband drive out.)
I asked the agents if I needed to have a lawyer present, or have someone with me to take notes. They said while they couldn’t tell me not to have a lawyer present, the only thing they wanted from me was to get a sense of what happened during the transition and at Trump Tower. I naively took them at their word. Nevertheless, I called my husband and asked that he come home . . .
The FBI ended up scheduling three more interviews with her over several hours. Each time when she asked about her status, they insisted she was only a fact witness. She realized fairly early in the process they were setting her up for a perjury trap. Here’s her description of the methodology:
As with the three previous FBI interviews, I found the challenge was in following their format. They would ask rapid fire questions, switching back and forth from one topic to another, and one time period to another, and then circle back to the same questions again, but worded slightly differently. I forced myself to remain on high alert for hours on end, knowing that one slip-up might prove fatal.
After these general topics they zeroed in on what I had done hour by hour, sometimes minute by minute, during four specific days—the day before Obama imposed sanctions, the day the White House officially sanctioned Russia, the day Putin announced the Russian response, and the day afterward when Flynn called me after I returned home to Long Island to say the Russian Ambassador told him their call had made a difference in Russia’s response. Who did I talk to at Mar-a-Lago? On the Transition team? On the outside? What did we discuss? Why did I call them?
Since she had volunteered to cooperate, the actions of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence “took the cake”:
They subpoenaed me to appear before their staffers in February 2019, the week my husband was scheduled for surgery for aggressive prostate cancer in New York. Only after my lawyers provided them with signed letters from doctors and surgeons did they agree to a three-week delay. When my husband’s post-surgical recovery developed complications, Giuffra [her attorney] asked if we could delay the interview again. They refused. Giuffra asked if we could conduct the interview in New York, which they had originally offered to do. They refused. We offered to have the interview conducted via video conference, or with written questions—all under oath—so I could remain in New York with my husband during this period. They again refused.
McFarland had to fly to Washington with her attorneys to comply. Prior to that interview, the FBI confirmed that she was no longer just a fact witness and recommended she get legal counsel. Once they charged Gen. Flynn, they lost interest in her. She was never accused of anything.
* * * *
Keep in mind that McFarland was no novice to the workings of government; she had served in four administrations. Also, there was no crime involved with either Flynn or McFarland. For the FBI to use its investigatory tools against political enemies, without “serious or verified grounds” was unconscionable. There were many more manipulative and deceptive actions taken by the FBI that McFarland describes in her book.
McFarland is appearing on TV once again. She is offering commentary about the events of the day. Her comments are always professional, direct, and insightful. She appears to have found her bearings, and is still very supportive of Trump and his populist approach to governance (although like many, she wishes he would be less extreme in his actions and rhetoric). But she knows that we, as a people, must persist. One concluding statement she made:
If anything, I am now more convinced than ever that what we are experiencing now is not just a group of Democrats, Never-Trumpers, and the liberal media who have made common cause in their efforts to get rid of Trump. It is an entrenched self-perpetuating Washington Establishment locked into a battle with the American people over who is sovereign. Is it the American electorate who voted for populism and nationalism with Donald Trump as their flagbearer? Or does the ultimate power rest in the hands of the entrenched Administrative State and the governing class who are using the system to get rid of Trump and everything he stands for?
It is time, against at all levels of government, for us to take back our country!
Published in Politics
Imagine how easy it would be to trap someone who wasn’t experienced, but had expertise in a particular area and was brought in to assist an administration. Lesson learned: never go into any interview with law enforcement without an attorney.
Susan, this Flynn matter is very confusing to me. Thank you for helping to make it clearer.
I dont’ want to think that the FBI has been corrupted, but I’m beginning to think that it is so.
At least the upper levels are corrupted, Kent. I feel so bad for the rest of the staff who are tainted by the disgusting behavior of their superiors.
Kent, I think a simple way to explain the way they went after Flynn was because he knew where the bodies were buried, e.g., he knew much of the ugliness that had been going on through the FBI and CIA, and even said he planned to clean things up. As a result, he would have endangered the careers of too many people, and they couldn’t let him do that. So they wanted him out, and obviously wanted Trump out too.
Another interesting point that McFarland made is that in spite of his many lauded successes in the military, Flynn knew very little about the political workings of government or how to work with the media. She did her best to help him along, but he kept shooting himself in the foot. (She was actually quite kind and supportive toward him, but couldn’t figure out any other ways to help him.)
Without an attorney who is acting for you and doesn’t have another agenda.
What would have happened to Flynn if Covington had stood behind its own work on the FARA declarations?
Upper levels, yes. Like the old saying goes, “A fish rots from the head down.”
I’ve been interviewed by the FBI before for security clearances.
I think that from now on I might insist on recording the proceedings so as to not be reliant on their notes. They have displayed a distressing tendency to misplace their paperwork.
I’ve watched K.T. McFarland interviewed on several occasions in the last month. She deserves a medal for enduring this abuse by DOJ/FBI. The use of these powerful agencies against political opponents or for political purposes is despicable. However, it’s not unusual behavior for many Deep State agencies. I’m still shocked that nothing was done to Lois Lerner or the unbelievably arrogant John Koskinen. Like all the other Obama scandals, the files and emails of Lerner and other major players “disappeared” somehow, always attributed to technical problems.
Another sad aspect–CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS have no interest in what was done to K.T. The “media bias virus” has done much more damage to our Republic than Covid-19.
Thanks for this post, Susie Q.
I agree with all you’ve said, @michaelhenry! Especially with Lerner and Koskinen. Unbelievable. Thanks!
The posts by “Jack Dunphy” over the years at National Review and elsewhere on his experiences working for the Los Angeles Police Department noted that most of the people in the department, you also had your upward strivers, who were willing to advance their careers by saying and doing what the politicians in office at the moment wanted them to say or do, even if they knew it would be detrimental to the overall functioning of the department.
That’s likely the same situation at the federal level. The people wanting to be the bosses are willing to tuck whatever ideas they had about law enforcement when they first began safely away in the back of their minds to make their political bosses happy, while probably figuring out way to rationalize to themselves that they’re on the side of the ‘higher good’ by going outside the bounds of the rules to make something happen (it’s the same as the ‘higher truth’ rule the left always employs, where it’s OK to lie about the small things, if you need to lie to get at the overall higher truth of the situation. That way you never consider yourself as evil for lying, but the truth is only important when you say it is).
If there are no orange jump suits at the end of this Obamagate investigation I will be beyond my limits.
No, the lesson learned should be never go into any interview with law enforcement period. If it is compelled testimony in a judicial setting, then go with an attorney, and insofar as it is possible, restrict your responses to yes or no without further elaboration. On factual matters, “I don’t recall” worked pretty for… Secretary wozzername I don’t recall.. started with letter H maybe?
As a former strong supporter of law enforcement, tt truly pains me to say this, but with clear evidence of corruption at the most senior levels of the DOJ and FBI, why would anyone trust them.. any of them? Particularly the FBI, whose procedures forbid recordings of interviews in favour of contemporaneous agent notes (the infamous Form 302s) wherein in General Flynn’s case, well Shazam!! the originals have gone strangely missing? Hey, no big deal right? According to Judge Emmet Sullivan, critical evidence goes missing all the time, so just chill wilya!
And remember, the words of the Miranda warning that “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law” . Not that your words can be used against or for you. My understanding is that exculpatory statements made in the context of an interview with law enforcement are by themselves excluded under hearsay rules. Ricochet lawyers, am I wrong on this?
The justice system will need a lot of reforms, and have a lot of law enforcement bad actors in prison before I will start to trust them again. Weissman, Comey, Strzok, Page, Brennan, Clapper, Yates.. a good and visible first step.
OK. Here endeth the rant.
K.T. McFarland has only recently reappeared on the public scene with her story. If there were at least four separate interviews with FBI agents, how many different individual agents were there? Does she indicate these were the same agents? The description provided by K.T. of the interview process indicates that any agent participating would recognize the setup. Did I miss that she named these agents? Could this then be an indicator of why FBI Director Wray has now finally called for an internal review of the Flynn investigation? There are likely a number of individuals yet working at the FBI who were possibly complicit in this process.
This thinking is so repulsive to me, @jon1979. Next thing you know they’ll decide they need to kill someone to meet their higher truth. Sorry–didn’t mean to get carried away . . . your point makes sense, unfortunately.
Just because it’s a rant doesn’t mean it isn’t true, @limestonecowboy. I think you speak for many of us, sadly. It is all so outrageous. To think I could give up on believing any of them is just difficult to imagine.
@bobthompson, she did name several of the agents, and sometimes the same ones showed up. I just had to make choices about the level of detail to include.
Wray has lost any credibility with me. He has been in a reactive mode from the beginning, and only responds when it gets really hot. Where was he two years ago?? John Durham, we’re counting on you . . .
Similar to what happens with elected members of Congress only the advantages they have available yield bigger prizes. That is why after a decade or so in Congress almost all have sold out. No real reason to think career bureaucrats in large numbers won’t do the same. Another reason why we absolutely avoid ever electing to the presidency anyone who has been corrupted by serving in Congress. There are tells.
I take it then that some of these people are still working at the FBI since we know those who are gone were in senior positions.
I didn’t recognize any of their names, so as far as I know, they are still there. They were acting on order from the Mueller team.
I’ll go one further. Don’t go voluntarily. If they arrest you and you are innocent you have grounds for false arrest.
I fear you will be very, very, very disappointed.
If they thought the effort would bring down the President, remember the daily media ‘bombshells’, then they may have thought they needed to go along with bad behaviors to protect their careers. Now, since Trump is still President and those in charge of the illicit activities are banished (we think or hope), maybe John Durham should really question these agents since that might be fertile ground for some truth.
If the lower levels tolerate the corruption they are just as guilty.
I’m surprised it’s permitted. This is 2020, not 1920.
Has this technique ever been challenged in court?
As long it doesn’t drag out getting a final report; nothing stops them from continuing an investigation after the report comes out (assuming there will be a report for public consumption. Also, keep in mind that these guys were probably foot soldiers, doing what they were told. I doubt those kinds of folks will get into trouble–just doin’ their jobs.
I agree, @phcheese, but whether they will be punished for taking orders, I doubt it.
It has been. I think Trump should get reelected and fire them all. Every last agent. They are all guilty. Anyone working for the FBI who has not resigned in protest is part of the problem.
John Durham doesn’t need to file a report, it’s a criminal investigation and should result in indictments. That will be the report and it could include facts like there were no ‘whistleblowers’ in the Bureau and why.
Susan did you pick up on the fact that K. T got out of the country and had been living very quietly in Scotland.
A person of honesty and conviction refuses an illegal order. If they don’t they are as guilty as the person issuing the order. This was the foundation of the Nurenberg trials.