Why Do People Plead Guilty To Imaginary Crimes? (Part 2)

In 2002, Banks was a 16 year old living in sunny California and looking forward to a promising career as a football player. He also had an interest in a fellow student. Wanetta Gibson was a year younger, and in his words the two were “making out”, in reality, canoodling when, for some unfathomable reason, Gibson accused him of rape. Banks was arrested. There was no forensic evidence because there had been no sex, consensual or otherwise, but he was still charged, and as the case was about to go to trial, the prosecutor offered him a deal: plead guilty, because if you don’t I will ask for a sentence of 41 years to life when you are convicted.

Banks was told by his own lawyer he had better take the deal because all the jury would see was a 6 foot 4 black thug who had brutalised an innocent young girl. He had literally minutes to decide, and with great reluctance pleaded no contest – which is as good as an admission of guilt. He was sentenced to five years in prison followed by five years of probation.

His life in ruins, he served his time, then went back to live with his mother. He also joined Facebook, and was astounded to receive a message ostensibly from Wanetta Gibson asking if they could take up where they left off. His skepticism soon evaporated when he realised this message really was from the young woman who had not only landed him on the sex offender registry but stolen his future. Gibson is clearly a bit simple, but she retracted, and his honour was restored along with a delayed footballing career.

While Gibson is the main villain of this piece, there is another one. In the United States, prosecutors have the power to threaten defendants with Draconian sentences if they go to trial and are convicted. Here is Alan Dershowitz explaining how this iniquitous power is abused, and that brings us to Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (pictured above), the victim of a powerful group of conspirators intent on taking down not him but President Trump by attacking his political allies and trusted confidants. Even after the disclosure of classified documents revealing the true extent of the conspiracy and the moronic James Comey boasting about the entrapment of Flynn to a live audience, the mainstream media is still portraying this brazen plot as a “conspiracy theory”.

Flynn was charged with lying to FBI agents, and after defending himself initially, threw in the towel with a guilty plea. Take a gander at this indictment then consider the context. To begin with, Flynn was not obliged to answer any questions, and the suggestion that anything he said materially affected this (totally contrived) investigation does not hold water. We know now that the purpose of this so-called interview was to entrap Flynn, if not by catching him lying then to misrepresent his answers to make it appear he had lied, as his lawyer Sidney Powell points out in the above Dershowitz video. Clearly the entire system of using three o two’s instead of properly taped questions and answers needs to be reformed. As Donald Trump has said many times, if people like General Flynn can be treated so shabbily, what can they do to ordinary people? What have they done to them?

It is clear also that the Deep State conspirators pressurised Flynn in other ways, including by threatening to go after his son. Anyone who is the least bit skeptical about these claims should compare the heavy-handed way the people close to Trump have been treated with the free pass given to Hillary Clinton and her gang. While Trump allies have been hounded and prosecuted vindictively for process crimes, it is a matter of record that Mrs Clinton used a private server to circumvent freedom of information laws, that she or her underlings destroyed documents under subpoena, that she used a Blackberry after being repeatedly warned not to do so, and that somehow she found a way to transfer top secret information from SCIFs onto the regular Internet. To date, she, Joe Biden, and many others have been given a free pass for their real crimes while the President’s allies have been witch-hunted for imaginary ones, but that will soon be changing, as Donald Trump has himself pointed out.

Back to Part 1.