Join the fight and contribute to our war chest

Ditch the ads for $5 per month or $49 per year

Lately, it’s become painfully clear that many of our so-called “experts” are more influenced by their political leanings than actual expertise. This was glaringly obvious during the COVID pandemic, when the so-called elite offered advice that seemed more politically motivated than medically sound. They told us to wear masks just to walk into a restaurant, but removing them at the table was a safety measure, or that following one-way signs in grocery aisles was life-saving. Then, they pushed a vaccine that couldn’t even halt the virus’s spread. It’s safe to say our “experts” have lost a lot of credibility. But this trend isn’t limited to healthcare. The legal world’s “brightest minds” are also completely compromised and totally blinded by politics and Stage 5 TDS. Their obsession with seeing President Trump behind bars has led them to abandon professionalism and ignore the facts, all in an attempt to sway public opinion. It’s a clear sign that objectivity is once again taking a back seat to their twisted political agendas.

This seems to be the approach of a legal analyst from MSNBC, Barb McQuade. She’s touted as a legal expert and has even penned a book on how “disinformation” is wreaking havoc across the country. Currently, she’s on a PR blitz for her book. Yet, ironically, while she’s out there talking about the dangers of false information, McQuade herself has been caught spreading quite a bit of her own disinformation online. It all started with this post on X, where Ms. McQuade incorrectly stated that the “right to a speedy trial” also belongs to the public. That was her way of arguing that Jack Smith’s attempts to rush Trump’s case aren’t actually “election interference” after all. Wink, wink.

The issue here is that Ms. McQuade is completely off the mark. The right to a speedy trial puts the pressure on the state and the courts to wrap up cases quickly, not on the defense. It’s concerning that she either doesn’t grasp this basic legal principle or is deliberately twisting the facts, possibly to bolster Jack Smith’s case against President Trump.

Wikipedia:

In criminal law, the right to a speedy trial is a human right under which it is asserted that a government prosecutor may not delay the trial of a criminal suspect arbitrarily and indefinitely. Otherwise, the power to impose such delays would effectively allow prosecutors to send anyone to jail for an arbitrary length of time without trial.

If Ms. McQuade is genuinely interested in aiding those denied a “speedy trial,” she might consider visiting the DC jail to meet with the J6 defendants, who have been waiting for their trials for years.

Wikipedia:

“Justice delayed is justice denied” is a legal maxim. It means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all.

This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal system, because of the unfairness for the injured party who sustained the injury having little hope for timely and effective remedy and resolution. The phrase has become a rallying cry for legal reformers who view courts, tribunals, judges, arbitrators, administrative law judges, commissions[A] or governments as acting too slowly in resolving legal issues — either because the case is too complex, the existing system is too complex or overburdened, or because the issue or party in question lacks political favour. Individual cases may be affected by judicial hesitancy to make a decision. Statutes and court rules have tried to control the tendency; and judges may be subject to oversight and even discipline for persistent failures to decide matters timely, or accurately report their backlog. When a court takes a matter “under advisement” – awaiting the issue of a judicial opinion, order or judgement and forestalls final adjudication of a lawsuit or resolution of a motion – the issue of timeliness of the decision(s) comes into play.

Needless to say, Ms. McQuade was immediately smacked down with a “community notes” correction on her disinformation post:

But that was not the end for Ms. McQuade, who also got an earful from X users online. Here’s what some of them had to say to this very confused so-called “expert.”

“The defendant has that right not the prosecutor. The appeal belongs to Trump not to Jack Smith.”

“How are you an attorney?”

“Pretty scary that this absolute dunce is a lawyer.”

“Tell me you only need a 70 IQ to become a lawyer without telling me”

“Partisan hack Democrat lawyer getting community noted is perfect.”

“An SOL serves to protect the interests of a prospective defendant.”

“Are you seriously this stupid? Whatever law school you attended should rescind your JD. Pathetic lack of knowledge of the rule of law.”

“This is why collectivists are unable to grasp the fundamentals of “justice.” The “public” doesn’t have rights — people do.”

“Oof. Maybe move to threads where your ignorant nonsense won’t get fact checked.”

“This is Lawfare. YOU’RE a FASCIST…and a stupid one.”

“You’re on a publicity tour promoting a book you wrote about disinformation yet here you are spreading it once again.”

“It’s both disgusting and totally fitting that you were a former US Attorney.”

“That’s flat-out false. The Sixth Amendment affords the ACCUSED the right to a speedy trial. Impatient spectators can twiddle their thumbs until the Second Coming.”

McQuade represents a larger group of activist judges and US attorneys engaging in misinformation and manipulation to advance their brand of “justice” against their political adversaries. These crooks and charlatans, who twist facts to suit their political agendas, are the ones truly deserving of investigation. As for McQuade’s book on disinformation, it might be more fitting as kindling than as a guide to truth.

JOIN THE FIGHT — DITCH THE ADS — READ THE NEWSFEED — FOLLOW ON X — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL