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
Not guilty, just as corrupt. It’s turtles all the way down.
There is a lot to learn from the FBI. They were the first national police like force and they have always been corrupt. At times and occasionally useful, but corrupt which is the nature of central government in a country of over 300 million of the most diverse bunch of people and the biggest most diverse economy on earth.
You bring up an excellent point, @functionary. Should everyone be held responsible who participated? Couldn’t any of the agents have spoken up (although I don’t know to whom they would have reported!) That is also a good question: if the corruption went all the way to the top, where do you go? It’s pretty ugly all around, and we should all feel betrayed by what was supposed to be the finest law enforcement organization in the world.
If there is one person that should be punished, it’s Andrew Weismann. The man is a monster.
Indeed. They were all complicit. The degree to which they will pay is in question.
The unfortunate answer is that it really takes integrity and courage, because there are not a lot of places to go. Whistle blowers who expose corruption in the FBI are in for a tough time:
If AG Barr and his team do not make the guilty pay in this case, then the slide will continue and gain momentum. Even if he does succeed in bringing some justice here, the larger battle is all uphill.
Glad to hear it :-) Didn’t see your earlier expanded comment before posting mine. Former administration officials, avid fans/supporters, and the press en masse (with a few exceptions) are making every effort to squash factual reporting of their misdeeds. Often by misdirection, such as referring to the current administration’s efforts to get at the truth — which I would include KT’s efforts in — as carrying water for Trump in order to demonize Obama.
While I know Ricochet members support or dislike POTUS in varying degrees for various reasons, I haven’t seen alot of support for that type of misdirection here. To my mind, Americans are not dealing with a partisan issue; we’re dealing with a genuine Constitutional issue.
Word is Joseph Pientka, the agent who went with Strzok to question Mike Flynn, was reassigned out of DC. Recently I ran across one brief reference (only one and I can’t recall where I read it) that indicated he’s thought to have complained to the IG of undue pressure from McCabe to alter his 302 account of the Flynn interview. If so, that would make one who didn’t like the way things were being handled and got shipped out for his efforts.
You guys keep baffling me with your outrage over this very normal way our country does law enforcement. All I can think is you have not been on or close to the wrong side of “the law”.
Maybe it baffles you because you think this normal way is acceptable and those expressing outrage here don’t. It may be the common way that can be made better. At least the effort of those here who are outraged has a scent of integrity. Those like Adam Schiff who constantly mouth ‘no one is above the law’ have the odor of corruption. Do you think that’s okay?
That it is normal is the outrage. It’s outrageous when it happens to ordinary folks, and it’s outrageous when it happens to people with power and influence. It’s outrageous when it happens to lawbreakers and it’s outrageous when it happens to the law abiding. It’s normal garbage, but it’s still garbage. What part of that is baffling to you?
This stuff happens everyday to many people. Where is the outrage? There is none. So why this case? Why now? That is my bafflement.
I think you’re just poking at us, @fakejohnjanegalt. There are some people who do the right thing in spite of following the sheep. And when they do, against all odds, some of us want to celebrate their courage. Just because you’ve given in to the dregs doesn’t mean the rest of us should.
Well obviously it’s because:
By the way, I object to your handle. Are you a Fake John, or a fake Jane, or a fake John and/or a fake Jane? Seems very slippery.
I’m sure that’s the case. It takes a case with the right exposure and visibility to get attention. The perpetrators work hard, by all possible means, to prevent that. And since we have a RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, it should be applied to all who participated in this case which was an organizational conspiracy. Why do you think Susan Rice wrote that memo to file about ‘by the book’. Obama won’t be indicted but this should flush his legacy. You are correct, most of us who haven’t had the occasion to get on the wrong side haven’t experienced it directly. The President has dealt with some on a direct basis of those incarcerated for long periods for minor non-violent drug offenses. It’s not easy to correct. You can see when the bureaucracy gets to a certain critical mass its interests coincide with statist politics so you get more of this type of corruption. Government unions really gave this a boost. Hard to undo. Now it is looking as if much of the Judiciary has been co-opted as well.
Then you should read my bio
Most of us know about the 1/5/2017 meeting in the White House that Susan Rice documented on 1/20/2017. There were people in that meeting who knew the Flynn investigation had been essentially closed by the investigating officers with no criminal probable cause uncovered. But James Comey was there to brief all attending of plans to interrogate Flynn regarding his phone call with the Russian Ambassador to U.S. So the note questioning that plan asking are we trying to get Flynn to lie or get him fired.
Do we think some of these people involved have moved to a level where they actually don’t recognize the process they are involved in as criminal. I mean they are trying to frame or setup a high-level government official to be indicted for crimes they know don’t yet exist. That’s a lot of high-level people with nobody stepping up. Looks very conspiratorial and criminal to me and at a top organizational level. RICO.
I should not have, but I did. Seems insincere.
Maybe, but maybe I am trying to get you folk to understand what happened to Flynn, to McFarland is not outrageous. It is the way our government works. Sure they trapped Flynn this way. They also catch the lowest folk on the street in such ways. And everybody in between. We do not live in a land of the free with justice for all. We live in a tyrannical state ran by government bureaucrats that lock up who they want as they want. If you don’t know this it is because you are not significant enough to get their attention. But if you do get their attention this is just what they do and you support.
I generally agree with you, although you go too far (and I don’t support it when the process is abused). The process is abused far and wide. When something like 97% of cases are plead out, it stinks to high heaven. In many cases, I believe, the pleas are for lesser crimes than were actually committed. In other cases (I think far fewer) the innocent are railroaded. Either way, it’s wrong, wrong, wrong.
I have thought the pleas for lesser crimes was a useful approach when using RICO as the prosecution approach. That would not come close to 97% though and I don’t think should be applied in typical prosecutions involving individuals. Maybe a defendant could plead voluntarily but not under pressure like applied in the Flynn case. I mean shouldn’t the government prove the crime they are charging. I know they will claim it extends the costs of the justice system but they sure don’t hesitate when it suits their cause. Think the Mueller investigation. I’ll be happy if they could get a lot of the culprits from that White House group to plead down as long as they plead to felonies and any lawyers are disbarred and they can never get a security clearance.
No, the pleas are for lesser charges than charged. Not that they have anything to do with the truth of it. The method is to charge as heavy and diverse as possible then plea down. So let’s say somebody was in a boating accident. Charge murder, DWI, intoxication, illegal operation of a boat, improper paperwork, resisting arrest, etc. spend millions on investigations that the victim has to match, in the investigation it is best to find issues like unpaid taxes, kids on drugs or other leverage. Threaten with a 30 year possible jail sentence, where you may go free if you had $500,000 to defend or take a manslaughter charge and 3 years. If you take the 3 then we will overlook your kids issues but if you make us prosecute you will get the full 30 and we will get your kid for 3 years aiding and abetting. That is our system. No truth, no justice, just law twisted to fit those in powers needs.
Those two statements contradict each other. No wonder we don’t understand.
Absolutely, and always in the interests of justice not political gain or revenge (see the Left for examples of where that leads). Justice can be hard to achieve and is often in the eye of the beholder, so I’ll settle for the law to be followed, no more and no less. It’s not hyperbole (understatement if anything) to declare that Weissman and those like him are literally a danger to the continuation of our Republic as we knew and continue to love it.
The fact that Weissman not only continued in and out of federal positions, but advanced, speaks to the state of our government; and the individuals (Robert Mueller) who made it possible should be judged as though the corrupt actions of their out of bounds subordinates were their own.
Good post and discussion, @susanquinn.
I’ll only take credit for the “post” part; you folks have made it a valuable discussion–thanks!