Month: October 2023

“At its core, the invocation of ‘judicial impartiality’ in political discourse speaks to an ideal of fairness: an impartial judge is a person who acts in a fair manner toward all parties in a case appearing before them.”–Stuart Chinn, University of Oregon School of Law 

One of the basic requirements in our system of justice is the necessity for an impartial judge.  In fact, “Canon 3E/Rule 2.11(A) of the model code of judicial conduct creates a general requirement for disqualification whenever a judge’s ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’”  The model code of judicial conduct even lists “specific examples of circumstances in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”  These include a requirement for disqualification “if the judge has…a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer.”

It would seem that this rule of professional conduct now includes this proviso; “unless the party to be tried is Donald J. Trump.”

Last October, we discussed Federal Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who signed the search warrant for the FBI allowing the raid on Mar A Lago, despite having recused himself from hearing a civil case brought by the former President just months earlier.   We noted then that “(t)he statute…the magistrate cited for his recusal states in part that a judge ‘shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned’ and then describes the various circumstances that could trigger such concerns. They include ‘a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts’ or prior work as a lawyer for a party involved in the case. Reinhart’s order did not specify the conflict or source of his concern for recusal.”

Apparently, Magistrate Reinhart felt he could not be fair in listening to a case brought by former President Trump, but he had no problem with allowing federal agents to search the former First Ladies’ underwear draw, as well as the rest of the Trump’s Florida residence.

Reinhart is not the only clearly biased judge who has been called upon to decide the fate of Donald Trump.  Today we consider the Judge appointed to hear Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Second Federal Indictment of the former President – Washington DC District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan.

According to the DC District Court’s webpage, “Chutkan was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in June 2014.  Born in Kingston, Jamaica, she received her B.A. in Economics from George Washington University and her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.” A former Public Defender, Judge Chutkan specialized in white collar crime and antitrust litigation after she left the Public Defender’s Office.

Coincidentally, she just happens to be the judge who has handled the majority of defendants arrested and prosecuted as a result of the Capitol Riot on January 6, 2021.  As reported by NBC News, “Chutkan, an Obama appointee who has served on the bench for nearly a decade, quickly established a reputation for imposing some of the toughest penalties on rioters who participated in the 2021 attack on the Capitol. In December 2021, Chutkan gave what was then the longest sentence — just over five years — to a Florida man who had been charged with dispensing a fire extinguisher and throwing it at police during the attack. ‘It has to be made clear that trying to violently overthrow the government, trying to stop the peaceful transition of power, and assaulting law enforcement officers in that effort is going to be met with absolutely certain punishment,’ Chutkan said at the time.” 

There is no question that someone who throws a fire extinguisher at police officers deserves a jail sentence.  But notice the language used by Judge Chutkan; she clearly indicates her belief that the Capitol Riot was a violent attempt to overthrow the government, not a demonstration that got out of hand.

However, “(a)ccording to an analysis from NPR’s investigative team, as of July 2023, Chutkan had given prison sentences to all of the 38 Jan. 6 defendants to come before her, even though prosecutors had only recommended 34 of them for prison. That stands in contrast to the other judges in Jan. 6 cases who have tended to be more lenient at sentencing.” 

The report concludes tomorrow

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

We know that Jack Smith favors what are called “talking indictments” – that is, the prosecutor provides a narrative of the criminal acts he alleges form the basis for the criminal charges.  But this indictment reads more like an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times than a legal document.

When we reach the heart of the charges, there are three separate conspiracies the former President is alleged to have engaged in:

“a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371; b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified (“the certification proceeding”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(k);and c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241.”

To achieve these goals, Trump and his un-named and un-indicted co-conspirators are alleged to have “attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results…using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince the Vice President to…reject legitimate electoral votes…(w)hen that failed, on the morning of January 6, the Defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused.”

The indictment further states that “(a)fter it became public on the afternoon of January 6 that the Vice President would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd— including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results— violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.”

Compare these allegations to those made almost two years ago in the Second Trump Impeachment.  Aren’t the allegations brought in the Second Trump federal indictment basically the same as those for which he was impeached? 

Under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, “(n)o person shall be…subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This “prohibition against ‘double jeopardy’ was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. . . .The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.” 

The law of double jeopardy is not absolute.  As OJ Simpson discovered, “if a defendant is tried for a criminal case, double jeopardy does not protect them from also being tried for a related offense in civil court. For instance, if the state brings murder charges against a defendant, the family of the victim may also sue the defendant for punitive damages.”  But pertinent to our analysis, “Double jeopardy does not prevent multiple charges for the same crime from different jurisdictions. If a crime violated the laws of multiple states, then each state may press charges. Likewise, if a crime violated both state and federal law, then it would be allowable to have two criminal suits for the same crime.” 

If the allegations contained in the second federal indictment are substantially the same as those brought in the second impeachment, how can Trump be prosecuted in federal court for actions for which he was acquitted by Congress?

At first blush, it would appear that there is no prohibition to bringing criminal charges against Donald Trump after his second impeachment failed.   “The Senate’s impeachment trial was not a judicial proceeding; the parties are not the same; and…the Senate’s judgment does not have legal effect.”

According to a Justice Department memorandum from 2000, “(t)he Constitution permits a former President to be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.” Their reasoning?

“(I)mpeachment and trial by the Senate, on the one hand, and prosecution in the courts, on the other, ‘serve different ends…those different ends…seem to be protection of our institutions of government from corrupt or incompetent officials…impeachment trials ‘may sometimes be influenced by political passions and interests that would be rigorously excluded from a criminal trial.'”

Further, “if the scope of the Impeachment…were restricted to convicted parties, ‘the failure of the House to vote an impeachment, or the failure of the impeachment in the Senate, would confer upon the civil officer accused complete and – were the statute of limitations permitted to run – permanent immunity from criminal prosecution however plain his guilt’…such a view would give Congress an indirect power of pardon – via impeachment and acquittal – even though the Constitution vests the President alone with the power to pardon.”

The DOJ memorandum references the Impeachment Judgment Clause (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution), which states that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.”  The Justice Department admits that this “clause is ambiguous when it comes to officials who have been impeached and not convicted…(the) failure to mention parties acquitted by the Senate implies that they, unlike convicted parties, are not subject to regular criminal prosecution.”

Nonetheless, DOJ concluded that “the Impeachment Judgment Clause was intended to make sure both that the special legislative court (the Senate) for the largely political offenses justifying impeachment would be able to impose only political, not ordinary criminal punishments and that offenders who also violated regular criminal laws would not stand above the law because they had been officeholders when they committed their misdeeds…James Wilson, a leading figure at the Constitutional Convention… argued, ‘Though they may not be convicted on impeachment before the Senate, they may be tried by their country; and if their criminality is established, the law will punish.’”

In other words, since there are different purposes and penalties, an impeachment does not provide the protections of double jeopardy, whether the impeached federal official is convicted or acquitted – even though the Impeachment Judgment Clause only mentions criminal punishment for convicted federal officials.

At least, that’s the position of the Justice Department.  Breitbart Editor Joel Pollak has another view.

“The Double Jeopardy Clause, contained within the Fifth Amendment, prevents any person from being tried twice in a federal court for the same crime.” Pollak states. “It does not prevent someone from being tried for the same crime in a state court and a federal court,  because state and federal governments are considered to be ‘dual sovereigns.’ But it applies to the federal level — and while an impeachment trial in the Senate is not a formal criminal proceeding, it has many of the same features as a federal criminal trial… the Constitution’s Impeachment Clause…does not say that a person who has been acquitted by the Senate can still be subject to the criminal process.”

Thus, Pollak reasons, “(a)rguably, the Constitution intended to protect an acquitted official. That seems even more convincing when considering that the standard of proof in the Senate is lower than in a criminal court — there is no requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As Alexander Hamilton himself observed in Federalist 65, a Senate trial risks of being decided by political factors. An acquittal there is harder to win than one in court. Therefore Trump is protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The new indictment should be quashed before trial, and the country should be spared the drama.” 

Further support for the application of Double Jeopardy is given by Rodin, writing on the website Ricochet; “the key question is whether the Senate trial constituted a court proceeding. And here, the decision of Chief Justice Roberts to not preside in the second impeachment trial may be critical. It is hard to imagine that a proceeding conducted under the chief judicial officer is not a ‘trial’ for purposes of double jeopardy. But Roberts did not preside, and at the time, his decision not to do so (as no current officer holder was on trial) raised interesting questions about its legitimacy. But the officer who did preside, Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, assured us – ‘When I preside over the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, I will not waver from my constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.’ So, Senator Leahy certainly thought it was a trial.”  

Unfortunately, the view of Senator Pat Leahy does not control this issue – it will be the opinion of the federal judge presiding over the Second Trump indictment that will be determinative.

That is until the inevitable appeal of the judge’s ruling, no matter which way she rules.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

In light of the speed with which events have proceeded, it seems like a review of ancient history to discuss the Second Impeachment of former President Donald Trump.  For those who do not remember, shortly after the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol, Democratic members of the House of Representatives voted an Article of Impeachment against Trump for one count of Incitement of Insurrection.  Specifically,  “by inciting violence against the Government of the United States…President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials.” 

“On January 6, 2021,” the Article of Impeachment states, “pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials.” 

The Article of Impeachment continued; “Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, DC (on January 6). There, he reiterated false claims that ‘we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.’ He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol, such as: ‘if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.’ Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.”

Of course, this impeachment did not accurately summarize Trump’s comments on January 6.  In fact, as we reported shortly after the events of that day, these are Trump’s actual words; “‘Our country has had enough. We will not take it any more and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal… Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you…We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women…You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.’  

“These words occurred towards the beginning of his speech.  Near the end, President Trump said ‘(W)e’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give…our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.'”  

Besides the inaccurate and misleading use of Trump’s words, the Impeachment contained various other misstatements of fact.  For instance, while law enforcement personnel were injured, none were killed on January 6.  In fact, the only person killed that day was an unarmed protestor, Ashli Babbitt, who was shot to death by Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd. (An internal investigation cleared the officer of wrongdoing.) 

Trump did call the 2020 election results into question,  and did call on “Vice President Pence to reject Biden’s win and send the results back to the states… (h)owever, Pence said it is ‘my considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.'” 

The riot at the Capitol followed Trump’s speech, and VP Pence‘s refusal to agree to the former President’s wishes.

Predictably, this Impeachment ended in the same fashion as the first – with an acquittal of President Trump by the Senate – and that had NPR worried. “The verdict closes the book on this Trump presidency, though the Senate, by not convicting and barring him from holding public office in the future, left open the possibility that Trump, a 74-year-old Republican, could run again for president.” 

Sure enough, just as NPR feared, Donald Trump announced his campaign to run for President of the United States in the 2024 election.  “’In order to make America great and glorious again, I am tonight announcing my candidacy for president of the United States,’ Trump told a crowd (in November of 2022) at Mar-a-Lago, his waterfront estate in Florida, where his campaign will be headquartered.”. 

As we all know, in August of 2022, before Trump had even announced his candidacy, the FBI conducted a search of the former President’s home in South Florida in an effort to recover documents Trump was allegedly withholding from the National Archives.  We have argued that this search was illegal, based upon an unconstitutionally overbroad search warrant.  Then, subsequent to Trump’s announcement of his campaign, in the Spring of 2023, Trump was indicted by the New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, for allegedly falsifying business records in an effort to conceal payments made from his 2016 campaign to porno actress Stormy Daniels. 

Once that line had been crossed, and a former President of the United States was indicted for criminal charges, in June of 2023, Special Counsel Jack Smith brought an indictment against Trump in a Florida Federal Court, alleging that the former President violated the Espionage Act by being in possession of classified documents, evidence which was obtained in the August 2022 search of Mar A Lago. 

Not satisfied with his Florida indictment of Trump, Smith then used a Grand Jury in Washington DC to revisit the subject of the second Trump impeachment – the former President’s actions on January 6, 2023.  The result?  Yet another federal indictment of Donald J. Trump.

According to this indictment, filed with the DC District Court on August 1, 2023, “The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election…(d)espite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.” 

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

The Report concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

The recent increase in antisemitism, as well as the drive to remove Christianity from the public square, is a reflection of the incompatibility of the Judeo-Christian ethic with the increasing power of the left.

Throughout the 20^th century, dictators including Stalin, Hitler, and Mao shared a hatred of religion.  The Washington Times notes that “Left-wing antisemitism goes back to Karl Marx. In his 1844 tract ‘“’On the Jewish Question,’ the godfather of progressivism wrote: ‘What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Hucksterism. What is his worldly God? Money.’ Marx was about as subtle as Mein Kampf.”

The rise of socialist politicians in the United States is a clear threat to religious freedom. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Marion Smith argues that “No amount of hope or hermeneutic effort can cleanse communism’s record of blood—especially the blood of religious adherents. Every communist regime has sought to purge the faith of its people. An atheistic ideology, communism is not only irreligious but antireligious. The communist hatred of faith is a feature, not a fault. Karl Marx said so himself. Most are familiar with his line that religion is the “opium of the people.” What follows is even more pointed: “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.”

The reason is clear: any hold on the public conscious other than government is seen as a rival for power, which totalitarian regimes and philosophies cannot abide. The concept of each human being having worth and having rights that come not from government but from God stands squarely opposite to the current push to establish an all-powerful government on the socialist model. 

It is not surprising, then, that updated FBI statistics indicate a 20% increase in antisemitic hate crimes. PBS reports that “Antisemitic hate crimes rose in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, home to the country’s three largest Jewish populations, according to their police departments.”

It is more than just street crime. The New York Post reports that “A group of left-leaning New York City Council members, including Brooklyn’s controversial Charles Barron, failed to back a resolution to establish an ‘End Jew Hatred Day’ in the Big Apple…Four other Democrats from the borough — Rita Joseph, Alexa Avilés, Jennifer Gutiérrez, and Barron — all opted to abstain.”

Nor is it shocking that the recent assault on a Christian school in Nashville is reportedly based on the perpetrators “manifesto” that authorities are reluctant to release, which may indicate the shooter’s hatred of Christianity.

On the national level, Democrats have been reluctant to criticize the anti-Semites in their midst.   In 2019, when Rep. Ilhan Omar made bigoted remarks, the party was hesitant to specifically condemn them, and, eventually only agreed to a watered-down disagreement with “hate speech” in general.

Due to their minority status, Jews are clearly the most vulnerable in the Left’s disdain for religion, but they are the canary in the coal mine.

Leftist elected officials on both the local and national levels are increasingly open in their anti-Semitic perspectives.  Steven Lubet,  a Williams Memorial Professor at the Northwestern University School of Law, stresses that “It is no secret that American progressives have become increasingly unsympathetic – some might say antagonistic or hostile – toward Israel… expressions of anti-Semitism [cannot] be brushed off as only anti-Zionism. Regrettably, there is a demonstrated tendency among American progressives to make excuses when their confreres use overtly anti-Jewish memes or stereotypes directed at Israel, to the point that anti-Semitism is becoming a normalized aspect of liberal discourse in the United States.”

The editorial board of National Review points out that “Anti-Jewish attacks did not spring forth in a vacuum. Increasingly, the American Left has gone beyond mere criticism of the Jewish State (of the sort that is made against other nations) and adopted the kind of virulent strain of anti-Israel rhetoric that was once mercifully relegated to far-left college campuses. In this environment, Squad members Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib can falsely accuse Israel of being an ‘apartheid state’ and of employing U.S. military aid to target civilians and children — a new spin on an old blood libel — and experience almost no rebuke from their own party.”

Antisemitism is the first wave of an attack on individual rights.  Its increase is a warning of further assaults on freedom.

“While the cat’s away, the mice will play….” may be the most apt expression of the week regarding China’s aggressive behavior overseas. With the eyes of the world targeted on the Israeli-Hamas War, Beijing’s bad conduct in the Indo-Pacific is no longer at the center of its attention. Voices of global political leaders that a week ago boisterously condemned Beijing’s incursions into neighboring states’ territories, are almost unheard above the cacophony of missiles flying above Israel. For many months intelligence analysts have considered the coming winter a highly likely period when China might act against Taiwan and other island nation-states in the Indo-Pacific. 

Throughout September and into October, China has taken an increasingly assertive stance to affirm its territorial claims across what Beijing now labels the ten-dash line and the “Line of Actual Control” along the Himalayan-Indian border. China’s mountainous border with India is 2,100 miles long. With the distraction of the war in the Middle East, the likelihood of China making some type of move to asset its claims becomes greater.

Two weeks ago the Philippine Coast Guard cut apart a Chinese-installed floating barrier in the Scarborough Shoal at Huangyan Dao (黄岩岛). When questioned about the incident, PRC Foreign Ministry Spokesman Wang Wenbin (王文斌) stated that “China Coast Guard did what was necessary to block and drive away the Philippine vessel” while also repeating the false narrative that the area always belonged to China. Some analysts are suggesting that Beijing may be signaling preparations for an increased Chinese Navy presence in the area. 

What is significant about this incident in contrast to earlier ones is that reports indicate there was interaction between a Chinese “Coast Guard” ship and Philippine “Navy warship.” In the past contact was between the two countries coast guards. In this latest incident China blamed the Philippines, despite the earlier finding by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the UNCLOS. This sets up a situation in which China can play victim to a domestic audience and increase pressure on the PLA and CCP to respond to the incident. What happens next near either the Scarborough Shoal or Second Thomas Shoal may be indicative of China’s longer-term intentions. China’s cartographic expansion in the Himalayas and along the ten-dash line in the South China Sea occurred within four weeks of each other. 

These incidents have increased both the security threat to and solidarity among China’s neighbors as Beijing has clearly stated it will not back down. The most recent incident prompted India and the Philippines to explore various forms of mutual defense cooperation. It is likely China will respond with additional economic coercion, influence operations and requests to Russia to increase pressure on India, according to Peter Chalk of the Jamestown Foundation.

Last June, at the fifth session of the Joint Commission on Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC) in New Delhi, Enrique Manalo, the Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs and India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr. Suhrahmanyam Jaishankar, issued a joint communique calling for adherence to the 2016 Arbitral Award on the South China Sea. This was India’s first explicit endorsement of the Permanent Court’s ruling in favor of Manila. Previously, India held a neutral position. “The June 2023 statement is…a highly symbolic diplomatic gesture,” says Chalk, “indicating a burgeoning bilateral relationship between New Delhi and Manila to promote an open, rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific.”

Chinese leader Xi Jinping counted on Indian prime minister Modi not to oppose its actions in the South China Sea to avoid provoking Beijing into expanding its South China Sea presence. Such expansion could not only impact India’s economic development but also the regional balance of power and political stability in the Indo-Pacific. In August,  The Economic Times reported that the Philippine and Indian Coast Guards signed a memorandum of understanding to expand professional maritime linkages involved in law enforcement, search and rescue, and pollution response, as well as exploring addition areas for future joint exercises and training collaboration. As Modi takes on a more active role in the Indo-Pacific, he is also courting the United States. During his June visit to Washington, DC, to meet with President Biden, the two leaders declared themselves to be “among the closest partners in the world” and to counter Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. India’s Quad membership has also reinforced its determination to oppose China’s rising influence in the Indo-Pacific. 

Although short of an official Indian-Philippine alliance, this latest incident may also open the door for the sale of Indian advanced military technologies to the Philippines, including a number of MK III multi-role light helicopters and other advanced weapon platforms. In turn, China will likely view event as an attempt by Washington to unjustifiably contain China in its own geostrategic backyard and use economic coercion against other Southeast Asian states to distance them from the Indo-Philippine partnership. The coming months will be revealing if the CCP decides its needs Russia’s assistance with New Delhi. India still relies heavily on Moscow for about 45 percent of its arms imports. The turbulence in the Middle East may provide China the cover its needs to move its Indo-Pacific agenda forward, while the world watches wars further West.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Chinese 45th Fleet naval exercises (China Ministry of Defense photo)

Hotspots are popping up around the world this week. Some are more dramatic than others. The Hamas-led terrorist attack against the Israeli civilian population, including murders, kidnappings, beheadings of infants, and rape leads the headlines, along with images of physical destruction across Israel. There appears to be little respite this year from terrorists and regimes threatening to destroy freedom and kill their enemies. The war in the Middle East is intense and has pushed news on Russia’s protracted war in Ukraine aside. That is not an indication, however, that Putin has retreated or changed his position on reclaiming the land of the Tzarist Russian empire. In recent weeks there is a new hotspot emerging from the shadows on a narrow strip of strategic land inside Armenia. Although war is uncertain, the area has the potential to ignite in a major conflict.

The Zangezur Corridor, also known as the Syunik Oblast, is set to trigger a larger and more broad conflict that could lead to global power involvement. Paul Goble, of the Jamestown Foundation, says thatbfollowing Azerbaijan’s re-assertion of control over the Karabakh region in the South Caucasus, the balance put in place by Joseph Stalin is now in serious jeopardy. The situation, he adds, “is explosive.”

Vladimir Prokhvatilov, a Russian commentator, compared the environment there today to the Danzig Corridor crisis that contributed to the outbreak of World War II. The land in question lies between Azerbaijan and Nakhchevan, an area of non-contiguous autonomy.

With the ethnic Armenian community leaving Karabakh, it appears ripe for Azerbaijan to occupy the Syunik Oblast using force. Prokhvatilov suggests that while the situation is not certain, “the road through Zangezur to Turkey is like air to both countries; and for the achievement of their goals, they can apply a classical operation under a false flag or by force.” He points out that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev already has spoken publicly about the possibility.

Analysts in Washington indicate that the situation appears ready to deteriorate quickly as the de facto enclave of Nagorno-Karalakh is experiencing a rapid escalation of tension, according to Goble. This could draw in Moscow, with Putin likely to attempt to divide and rule the region as he has done elsewhere. On September 25, Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan met with the Azerbaijani president to discuss the expansion of ties with the region and the possible expansion of a transit corridor through Iran, although Tehran is unlikely to agree to it.

Almost a century ago, Stalin forced an asymmetrical position to ensure Moscow’s position and to deprive Turkey of a land bridge linking Turkic Central Asia to Azerbaijan. It also provided Armenia with an external Soviet border to Iran, says Goble. Although the name is unfamiliar to many in the West, the Zangezur Corridor is getting noticed by officials in both Turkey and Azerbaijan. Goble says “Armenia has lost Karabakh and may be threatened in Zangezur with the two Turkic countries in a position to potentially sweep the board.” Russia is supporting Armenia’s position publicly, along with Iran. There is talk in both countries of moving forward in the corridor despite Armenia’s dragging its feet.

Analysts are concerned that since Putin is occupied with the war in Ukraine and the use of force was successful recently in Karabakh, Baku and Ankara may decide to take the Zangezur Corridor. Iran is watching the situation closely as such a move would expand Turkish influence across the country’s northern border while reducing its ability to influence events in the South Caucasus. Russia would prefer to stay out of a war in the region but any shift there could impact its border area with Georgia and that country’s links to the outside world. Putin is unlikely to sit on the sidelines.

Russia is also concerned that if the Central Asian states form more complex links with Turkey, it would support Erdogan’s goal of the creation of a Turkic world. Goble says that such a shift in Zangezur could “affect the wider geopolitics of Central Asian and the South Caucasus…[and] have an impact on the regional influence of China, the European Union, and the West.” China does not favor Turkey garnering additional strength and influence in the region as it could constrain Beijing’s position. While the United States would welcome Russia having less regional influence, Washington might be compelled to consider protecting Armenia from new Turkic advances. Although not the hottest of hot spots in the world this week, wars have ignited over less significant events.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

America’s space assets, so vital for both defense and civilian infrastructure, are deeply threatened by China and Russia

Space is integral to the way the United States military fights, according to John F. Plumb, the assistant secretary of defense for space policy. He spoke at the Aspen Security Conference in Colorado, carefully discussing the still classified Space Strategic Review. That document looked at the national security environment for space.

The Pentagon considers China as the key challenge. China has already fielded ground-based counterspace weapons and it continues to seek new methods to hold U.S. satellites at risk. China is building a space architecture that enables its military to execute long-range precision strikes. 

“China ultimately seeks to challenge our ability to conduct joint operations in the Indo-Pacific,” Plumb said. “They are fielding and developing increasingly complex capabilities to deny space missions to the U.S. joint force. Over just the last few years, the quantity and quality of counterspace threats have increased significantly. China has already fielded ground-based counterspace weapons and it continues to seek new methods to hold U.S. satellites at risk. China is building a space architecture that enables its military to execute long-range precision strikes. …China ultimately seeks to challenge our ability to conduct joint operations in the Indo-Pacific.”

As China (as well as Russia) becomes more capable of attacking U.S. satellites, the military DOD is moving from having a few very large and expensive satellites, in geostationary orbits to a proliferated architecture in low-Earth orbit. According to Plumb, that has several advantages, the first being it makes attacking the target harder, and it means the U.S. can capitalize on the so-called “refresh rate.” The large “exquisite” satellites are very expensive and designed to last 20 years. The low-Earth orbit satellites last three to five years and “provide an ability to innovate at speed and not have to look out for my requirements 20 years from now.”  

In previous testimony to the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Plumb described the importance of space to America’s defense. “It provides us with a missile warning and missile tracking critical to defending our homeland. It provides position navigation and timing to strike targets with precision. And it provides communication in austere environments to support global command and control. To put it simply, space-based missions are essential to the U.S. way of war.”

The U.S. Space Command assumed responsibility for missile defense this year. “In the increasingly complex global threat environment, missile defense is critical to defending the homeland,” said U.S. Air Force Gen. Anthony Cotton, USSTRATCOM commander. “I am confident that this…better supports our integrated deterrence framework in safeguarding our nation.”

President Trump created the Space Force in 2019.

An Atlantic Council study noted that  “the proliferation of counterspace capabilities creates ongoing threats to space security that the United States must prioritize addressing in order to ensure the continuance of its space activity. The United States is reliant on space for all manner of things critical to its security, including positioning and navigation; civil and military communications; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and tracking, assessing, and communicating military commands. China and Russia understand the asymmetric nature of the United States’ reliance on space for defense and security purposes and thus are increasingly developing counterspace capabilities to place US space and terrestrial assets at risk. China’s and Russia’s development and testing of direct-ascent ASAT capabilities and soft-kill satellite attacks such as dazzling and lasing should be carefully studied.”

During the summer, U.S. Space Force Deputy Chief of Space Operations, Strategy, Plans, Programs, and Requirements, Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant made history by leading the first-ever Space Engagement Talks with Japan, aiming to enhance combined space operations and establish a bilateral roadmap for future collaboration.

Photo: DoD

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (IEA), the principal U.S. agency providing energy information, notes that the critical minerals market relied on for clean energy is facing significant challenges.

In a recently released report, the IEA has found that the market for minerals that help power electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels and other technologies has doubled in size over the past five years. Electric car sales increased by 60% in 2022, exceeding 10 million units. Energy storage systems experienced even more rapid growth, with capacity additions doubling in 2022. Solar PV installations continue to shatter previous records, and wind power is set to resume its upward march after two subdued years. This has led to a significant increase in demand for critical minerals. From 2017 to 2022, demand from the energy sector was the main factor behind a tripling in overall demand for lithium, a 70% jump in demand for cobalt, and a 40% rise in demand for nickel. In 2022, the share of clean energy applications in total demand reached 56% for lithium, 40% for cobalt and 16% for nickel, up from 30% for lithium, 17% for cobalt and 6% for nickel five years ago.

The market for energy transition minerals reached USD 320 billion in 2022 and is set for continued rapid growth, moving it increasingly to centre stage for the global mining industry.

In response, investment in critical mineral development rose 30% last year, following a 20% increase in 2021. Among the different minerals, lithium saw the sharpest increase in investment, a jump of 50%, followed by copper and nickel. The strong growth in spending by companies on developing mineral supplies supports the affordability and speed of clean energy transitions, which will be heavily influenced by the availability of critical minerals.

IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol outlined major challenges. “Much more needs to be done to ensure supply chains for critical minerals are secure and sustainable.”

Along with sufficient resources, diversity of supply also remains a concern, with many new project announcements coming from already dominant countries.

An analysis by Canary Media notes that “the extraction and processing of these materials are highly concentrated in a small number of countries, leaving supplies vulnerable to disruptions that could threaten the ramp-up of clean energy technologies… China dominates in processing of key minerals…[F]or some key minerals, a single country is responsible for more than half of extraction — China for rare earths, Australia for lithium and the Democratic Republic of the Congo for cobalt… Our overreliance on China to both extract and process minerals is particularly problematic. For example, the U.S. has just begun banning imports of products from China’s Xinjiang province because some factories there use the forced labor of Uyghurs, a persecuted ethnic minority. Xinjiang currently produces much of the world’s polysilicon, an essential ingredient in solar panels. U.S. solar companies now must demonstrate that the panels they’re importing don’t include any of that Xinjiang polysilicon, as Canary Media has reported. Chinese companies operating in Xinjiang also produce many of the minerals and metals needed for lithium-ion batteries.”

In addition to economic dangers posed by Beijing’s domination of this field, security risks abound as well. Writing for The International Center for Defence and Securit, Andrea Bonelli reports that “China has quickly become a world leader in the production, extraction and refining of rare-earth elements. With the geopolitical uncertainties stemming from China’s rise, plus the inevitable increase in the use of these elements due to the energy transition and the IT sector, the procurement of these critical materials is increasingly becoming a security issue… [there are] increasing security risks the Western countries are facing from China. The geopolitical ambitions of the Asian giant, now extended on a global scale, have long since replaced the myth of non-interference with activities…”

Photo: Pixabay

The Iranian-financed Hamas attack on Israel is the latest overwhelming evidence of the utter failure of Democrat/progressive foreign policy.

Before Obama’s presidency, the U.S. was far more feared and respected. But he began his tenure with an embarrassing “apology tour” that signaled a far less assertive America. 

Barack signaled exceptional weakness in 2014 when he, without explanation or justification, withdrew U.S. tanks from Europe. Russia invaded Crimea that same year.

Despite that, in 2015, the U.S. Army’s cut 40,000 active-duty soldiers, a result of fulfilling the long-held Democrat goal of slashing defense spending.  It was performed using the tactic of a budgetary sequestration maneuver.

 How was that accomplished? As the Wall Street Journal noted at the time,  “(C)ompulsory spending caps that would take effect if the two sides failed to agree on an alternative plan to reduce the deficit—was first proposed by the Obama White House. The allocation of half the sequestration cuts to defense, was …President Obama’s handiwork… Mr. Obama stipulated that half of the $1.2 trillion in sequestration cuts come from defense. In 2013…White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest [said] the force reductions were ‘consistent with the view of our civilian and uniform military leadership about the threats that the country faces…Few in the Defense Department ever held that view. In 2012 Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that if sequestration went into effect, ‘we would no longer be a global power.’ A year later Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, testified that Mr. Hagel’s review involved ‘rosy assumptions’ that ‘were really put in there so we could say we need a smaller Army.’ He warned that sequestration cuts would “put at substantial risk our ability to conduct even one sustained major combat operation.’ While many bear blame for this military decline, the person most culpable is also the one most capable of reversing it. President Obama.”

Obama’s pacifist world view led him to directly attack attempts to protect the U.S. mainland from missile attacks.

 A contemporaneous Heritage analysis reported that “As a candidate, Barack Obama called ballistic missile defense programs ‘unproven’ and vowed to cut them…Obama …initially cancelled some of the most important missile defense programs that were started after the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. The Obama White House has been proven wrong on its missile defense policies time and again over the past seven and a half years.”

The pacifism betrayed one of America’s long-term allies, the Philippines. During the Obama Administration, China invaded the Philippines exclusive economic zone. The President didn’t even issue a diplomatic protest.

Furthering the alteration to U.S. foreign policy, Obama sent a plane filled with cash to Tehran. According to the Wall Street Journal “The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward. Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials….”

Biden followed the footsteps of the Obama Administration, in which he served as vice president.

As 2021 drew to a close, massive Russian forces were placed on the Ukrainian border, and China made every preparation necessary for an invasion of Taiwan. Both Beijing and Moscow had recently unveiled massive new advanced strategic nuclear weapons that neither the United States nor its allies possessed. The two nations had already tested space weapons designed to destroy American defense satellites, leaving the U.S. deaf, dumb, and blind in the event of an attack. Russian and Chinese forces trained and patrolled together, engaging in incursions near U.S. and NATO airspace and sea lanes.  Putin threatened U.S. forces in the Black Sea.

With all this clearly evident, the Biden Administration sent a defense budget to Congress that would reduce the Pentagon’s spending power by about 3%, even though America’s armed forces were already overused and exhausted from fighting wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. As China’s navy expands, the Biden Administration’s budget results in America’s maritime force to shrink.

Add to all that the bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Iran, as has Russia and China, got the message that the U.S. was weak on foreign affairs. As Aljazeera reported, “US Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed off on the sanctions waivers … US and Iranian officials said an agreement in principle was in place. Congress was not informed of the waiver decision until later, according to the notification, which was obtained by The Associated Press…The waiver drew criticism from Republicans and others who say the deal will boost the Iranian economy at a time when that country poses a growing threat to US troops and allies in the Middle East.”

Iran funds terrorist organizations around the world, and relief from sanctions and cash from America gives it the ability to support Hamas and similar groups. 

Hamas has acquired sophisticated weaponry thanks to Iran, and has used them to attack Israel.