Month: December 2023

What acts committed by Donald Trump are alleged to have been done in furtherance of the conspiracy?

First and foremost is Trump’s claim that he won the 2020 Presidential election.  Allegedly, he made this claim knowing that he had not won.   “On or about the 4th day of November 2020,” the Georgia Indictment reads, “DONALD JOHN TRUMP made (a) nationally televised speech falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election.”  How do the prosecutors know this statement to have been false? “Approximately four days earlier, on or about October 31, 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP discussed (a) draft speech with unindicted coconspirator Individual l, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud. The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

In other words, it is alleged that Trump gave his speech on November 4, knowing that his claims of victory were false.  Yet, there is no proof offered for this assertion.  The reference to the “unindicted co-conspirator” is either a “red herring” or a misstatement – just because Trump discussed his proposed election night speech with someone days before he gave it doesn’t mean Trump was going to falsely claim he won.  It could just as easily mean that the former President anticipated victory.

What exactly did Trump say that night?    “It’s…clear that we have won Georgia. We’re up by 2.5% or 117,000 votes with only 7% left. They’re never going to catch us. They can’t catch us…We also, if you look and you see Arizona, we have a lot of life in that. And somebody declared that it was a victory for… And maybe it will be. I mean, that’s possible…certainly there were a lot of votes out there that we could get because we’re now just coming into what they call Trump territory. I don’t know what you call it. But these were friendly Trump voters. And that could be overturned.” 

Of course, these predictions turned out to be incorrect.  But Willis’ charges seem more focused on this part of the speech; “(A)ll of a sudden everything just stopped… This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election. So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation. This is a very big moment. This is a major fraud in our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we’ll be going to the US Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at four o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. Okay? It’s a very sad moment. To me this is a very sad moment and we will win this. And as far as I’m concerned, we already have won it.”

Allegations regarding this speech are also made in Smith’s second federal indictment; “Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power…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.”

Of course, it is unclear how either prosecutor expects to prove that Donald Trump was not truthful when he made these allegations of fraud.  As described by the Christian Science Monitor, “Mr. Trump’s defense against these…charges will likely rely at least in part on the insistence that he continued to believe these claims, notwithstanding others’ objections, and that his actions were thus not corrupt at heart. The outcome of crucial parts of the case could thus depend on a jury’s belief about Mr. Trump’s state of mind – a difficult judgment when it comes to a man whose career has often involved bombast, stubbornness, and, at the least, a fondness for exaggeration.”

Another focus of both indictments is the attempt by the Trump campaign to seek alternate electors for appointment to the Electoral College.  According to Smith, the former President and his “co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors.”

According to Willis, three members of the Trump “organization and a group of unindicted co-conspirators “committed the felony offense of IMPERSONATING PUBLIC OFFICER…in Fulton County, Georgia, by unlawfully falsely holding themselves out as the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the State of Georgia, public officers, with intent to mislead the President of the United States Senate…into believing that they actually were such officers by placing in the United States mail to said persons document titled “CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA.” This was an act of racketeering activity…and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

We have previously discussed the difficulty of criminalizing the political effort to seat alternate electors.  In particular we quoted Constitutional Law Professor Ed Foley, who stated that “there are reasons to be wary of prosecuting any claimed electoral votes sent to Congress… the better course seemingly would be to reject frivolous claims as unworthy of serious consideration…rather than by endeavoring to imprison these frivolous claimants for asserting their preposterous arguments.” 

Then there are the events of January 2, 2021, when Trump famously spoke by telephone with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and “repeatedly asked (him) to ‘find’ more than 11,000 ballots needed to overcome the gap between Trump and Biden in the state, thereby flipping the state in his favor. ‘The people of Georgia are angry, the people in the country are angry. And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated,’ Trump told Raffensperger before questioning the secretary about a ‘rumor’ that ballots for him were ‘shredded’ in Fulton County, which is home to Atlanta, the state’s largest city and a major Democratic bastion. ‘All I want to do is this,’ the president continued. ‘I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.'” 

This phone call is charged in the Georgia indictment as Act #112 in furtherance of the “criminal enterprise.” Trump is alleged to have engaged in “unlawfully soliciting, requesting, and importuning Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, public officer, to engage in conduct constituting the felony offense of Violation of Oath by Public Officer…by unlawfully altering, unlawfully adjusting, and otherwise unlawfully influencing the certified returns for presidential electors for the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia, in willful and intentional violation of the terms of the oath of said person as prescribed by law, with intent that said person engage in said conduct.”

This phone call is also described in Smith’s indictment as follows: “(F)our days before Congress’s certification proceeding, the Defendant and others called Georgia’s Secretary of State. During the call, the Defendant lied to the Georgia Secretary of State to induce him to alter Georgia’s popular vote count and call into question the validity of the Biden electors’ vote…(t)he Defendant said that he needed to ‘find’ 11,780 votes, and insinuated that the Georgia Secretary of State and his Counsel could be subject to criminal prosecution if they failed to find election fraud as he demanded.”

Yet, there is a more innocent explanation for the January 2 call offered by former federal prosecutor and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley; “The call Trump participated in was a settlement discussion over election challenges with a variety of lawyers present, not some backroom at the Bada Bing club. The entire stated purpose of the challenges was to count what the Trump campaign alleged were uncounted votes that far surpassed the 11,780 deficit. Trump repeatedly asserted that he won the election and continued to return to the fact that officials only needed to confirm 11,780 of those hundreds of thousands of allegedly uncounted ballots…He was discussing what he viewed as uncounted votes that far exceeded the margin of roughly 12,000 and noting, as part of the request for access to data, that they do not need to find much to overturn the result. In any criminal case, Trump would simply argue that he was restating the point of the pending cases in a settlement negotiation: that the election was not fair and that a review could easily flip the result given the margin.”

As to whether or not Trump threatened the Georgia Secretary of State, as Smith asserts, Turley notes that “experts like Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, declared that Trump’s ‘only demand is to have votes tossed or invented to fabricate a win’ and that ‘there’s no way to read this other than a blatant attempt to pressure Georgia officials to lie and alter legitimate election results with a wink and a nod to a looming consequence.’ But Trump did not actually say that…(any) fraud prosecution would be based on a statement that could be easily defended as part of a settlement discussion without any clear threat or benefit discussed…Trump was seeking access to data and his belief that fraudulent, and possible criminal, conduct marred the results. One can reject those claims (as I have) without converting the matter into a faux criminal case.”

Turley also reiterates the central issue of both Smith’s second federal indictment, and Willis’ charges; “A prosecutor would have to show that Trump clearly knew his theories were bogus and that he did not believe there were sufficient ballots to reach that number.”  

In general, then, much of Trump’s defense will be the same in both of these cases.  Trump will assert that he truly believed he won the election, and that he believed there to be widespread voter fraud in Georgia, and other states, fraud that has continued to be uncovered as time goes on.  

There is support for this position.  In February of 2021, “Georgia election officials (referred) for possible criminal prosecution a potential voter fraud case involving a group recently linked to (U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock) – The New Georgia Project… (i(t’s among 35 cases involving potential violations of election law being sent from the State Election Board to the attorney general or local prosecutors…(t)he New Georgia Project, which bills itself as a nonpartisan effort to register voters, is accused of submitting 1,268 voter registration applications after the 10-day deadline to do so.” 

Perhaps instances of voter fraud like this changed the outcome of the election – perhaps they did not.  But in either case, the same problem remains; How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump did not believe his own assertions that he was cheated, and that he really won the 2020 Presidential election?

You can be sure that the former President will continue to make these assertions to anyone who will listen – which calls to mind another famous phrase by Yogi Berra – “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

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

Illustration: Pixabay

The late Hall of Fame catcher for the New York Yankees, Yogi Berra, was famous for his “unique and witty observations” such as “nobody goes there anymore.  It’s too crowded,” and “when you come to a fork in the road, take it.”   He also claimed, “I didn’t really say everything I said,” however, there is one phrase Yogi coined that applies to the Indictment filed by Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis against former President Donald Trump; “It’s deja vu all over again.”

In October of this year, we discussed the similarity between the second impeachment of the 45th President and the charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith in his second federal indictment of Donald Trump.   A review of the indictment brought by Willis shows a strong identity between many of the “criminal” acts alleged by Smith, and those cited by Willis. 

The Georgia indictment can be viewed here  Meanwhile, Smith’s federal indictment can be viewed here.

Unfortunately, it is perfectly legal for a state prosecutor to bring charges under state law for the same or similar conduct that is the subject of a federal prosecution, or vice versa.  As stated by University of Georgia law professor John Meixner, a former assistant U.S. attorney, “the federal and state are…separate sovereigns where each can do what they choose.” 

Granted, there are also significant differences between the Georgia Indictment and Smith’s federal charges.  While Smith charges Trump, and Trump alone, with several counts of Conspiracy, Willis’ takes the extra step of using  Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute Trump and 18 “co-conspirators.”  Smith notes there are “unindicted co-conspirators,” but he does not name or charge them in his indictment.

Under Georgia Code Section 16-14-4, “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or proceeds derived therefrom, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise, real property, or personal property of any nature, including money. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section.” 

Under Georgia law, “Racketeering is defined as the illegal use of force, violence, or economic or political power to control or extort an enterprise. In the context of Georgia law, it is illegal to engage in a pattern of activity that includes at least two acts of racketeering activity within a 10 year period. The activities may include bribery, extortion, fraud, obstructing justice, counterfeiting, and trafficking in stolen property, among others.” 

There are 41 counts alleged in the Georgia indictment, 13 of which specifically name the former President.  These include the violation of the Georgia RICO statute, “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Official,” “Conspiracy to Commit Impersonating a Public Official,” “Conspiracy to Commit Forgery,” “Conspiracy to Commit False Statements and Writings,” “Filing False Documents,” and making “False Statements and Writings.”  Trump is alleged to have “unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in, directly and indirectly, (an) enterprise through (a) pattern of racketeering activity.”

In defining the “racketeering enterprise,” the Fulton County DA alleges that “(t)he enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members and associates functioned as (a) continuing unit for (the) common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise. The enterprise operated in Fulton County, Georgia, elsewhere in the State of Georgia, in other states, including, but not limited to, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and in the District of Columbia. The enterprise operated for (a) period of time sufficient to permit its members and associates to pursue its objectives.”

This explanation sounds very much like the description for a perfectly legal organization – Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election committee – with a perfectly legal goal; the re-election of the President.

This is one of the issues that brings the most criticism to the overbroad Georgia RICO statute – ANY organization could fit the bill of a “racketeering enterprise.” But under the statute, it is the actions of the members of the enterprise that make it a criminal organization, not its structure alone.

The Report concludes tomorrow

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Unrecognizable America

The shocking demonstrations, on city streets and university campuses, in favor of Hamas’ horrendous terrorist actions illustrates that America is hardly recognizable from the nation it was less than two decades ago. Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally transform” America. He was successful.  The nation has been dramatically altered from what it was before his presidency. 

Consider the dramatic changes. Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives actually had areas of agreement before 2008. The First Amendment was sacrosanct. Almost all agreed that a secure border was necessary. With the election of a black president, the presence of blacks on the Supreme Court and, over the past several years, on many of the highest appointed positions, it was clear that racial animosities of the past were sharply receding. While there was disagreement on spending, the concept of today’s absurd $33 trillion nation debt seemed an unimaginable nightmare; after all, in 2008, it stood as $10.3 trillion.

The United States was the world’s lone military superpower. America’s significant presence in the Middle East deterred aggression. Russia was comparatively peaceful.  China was a growing threat, but it had yet to act out. There were differences of opinion on defense spending, but it was almost universally accepted that U.S. leadership was a good thing.

Through a series of absurd decisions, the nation’s position diminished.

As noted by USAtoday, “The total federal debt increased more under the Obama administration in terms of raw dollars than any other president, according to government data… At the end of fiscal year 2016… the debt was about $19.5 trillion.”

Obama engaged in a virtual jihad against the Pentagon. During his presidency, as reported by the Heritage Foundation, “…in terms of capacity, capability and readiness, the military has been in noticeable decline [during Obama’s tenure]. In the 2017 index, the military’s overall ability to provide the hard power needed to prevail in a multi-conflict scenario was rated as “marginal.” Obama ended America’s ability to fight a two-front war. He further attempted to harm the nation’s ability to produce weapons. One example: there was (and is) only one plant that can produce tanks. Obama fought to close it down.

Russia took note, and invaded and stole Crimea from Ukraine. China invaded the Philippine exclusive economic zone.  Despite condemnation by the World Court at the Hague, Obama didn’t even lodge a diplomatic protest.

He was the most unfriendly president towards Israel. Senator Rubio stated in 2016 that U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) said, concerning regarding the Obama Administration’s decision to abstain from the U.N. Security Council’s vote on an anti-Israel resolution and thereby allow it to pass: “With today’s abstention, President Obama has aided and abetted radical, anti-Semitic forces at the U.N. and cemented his legacy as the most anti-Israel U.S. president in history.” Mysteriously, Obama provide billions in cash to the primary sponsor of international terror, Iran.

As the first black president, Obama had the opportunity to sharply diminish racial animosity and boost black progress. He took the opposite path.  As noted by the Washington Examiner, “…racial resentment has been Obama’s whole schtick. Obama fanned the flames of racial division when the Black Lives Matter movement popped up in 2015. He said that the death of Michael Brown, who had assaulted officer Darren Wilson and attempted to grab Wilson’s gun during a confrontation Brown initiated, was proof of a ‘broken and racially-biased system.’ He also claimed that ‘millions of Americans’ were racists who were ‘spooked’ by his election in 2008.”

Obama’s policies and even some of his advisors guide Biden. Obama’s foreign policy errors, his inflammation of internal division, his national security negligence guide those of the current White House.

Photo: Pixabay

What is “racketeering activity” under Georgia law? “Racketeering is defined as ‚the illegal use of force, violence, or economic or political power to control or extort an enterprise‚. In the context of Georgia law, it is illegal to engage in a pattern of activity that includes at least two acts of racketeering activity within a 10 year period. The activities may include bribery, extortion, fraud, obstructing justice, counterfeiting, and trafficking in stolen property, among others.” Further, “(i)n Georgia, racketeering is a felony charge, and is punishable by significant fines and up to ten years in prison.”  

 The Georgia RICO statute has been a formidable weapon in Fani Willis’ arsenal.  “(I)n 2013, Willis turned heads in one of her first big cases: She helped convene a grand jury that indicted decorated (Atlanta Schools) Superintendent Beverly Hall and nearly three dozen other educators for cheating on state standardized tests…Hall, the Atlanta superintendent, arrived in the district in 1999, eventually leading what she would call a data-driven turnaround… By 2009…the Journal-Constitution published the first of several stories analyzing Atlanta’s results on the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test. The analysis found that scores had risen at rates that were statistically ‘all but impossible.’ It also found that district officials disregarded internal irregularities and retaliated against whistleblowers.”

 As described by Yahoo News, “(c)ritics would soon compare Hall to ‘a Mafia boss who demanded fealty from subordinates while perpetrating a massive, self-serving fraud,’ the city newspaper reported at the time. Willis pursued Hall using the same tools many prosecutors employ against Mafia bosses and drug kingpins. In bringing charges under the state’s RICO Act, Willis alleged that Hall and her colleagues used the ‘legitimate enterprise’ of the school system to carry out an illegitimate act: cheating.”

 Was this use of the RICO statute effective?  Public opinion on the case was sharply divided, with many Black commentators accusing Willis of overreach. But eventually, 34 of Hall’s subordinates faced criminal charges…. While most of the Atlanta educators eventually pleaded guilty to avoid jail time, 12 went to trial in 2014…The jury convicted 11 of the 12 of racketeering and other charges.”

 What of the “Atlanta schools kingpin,” Superintendent Beverly Hall?  “Hall retired in 2011 (and) died of breast cancer in 2015, at age 68.”

 More recently, “(i)n the spring of 2022, (Young Thug) the rapper – full name Jeffrey Lamar Williams – was charged alongside 27 of his alleged affiliates with 56 violations of Georgia’s (RICO) Act. He’s been cast by prosecutors as the criminal mastermind of Young Slime Life, a gang prosecutors claim was active from 2012. It was a shocking development for fans of Thug, a hugely popular artist and one of the most influential rappers of his generation. He faces up to 40 years in prison.” 

One of the more unique features of Willis’ prosecution of Young Thug and his co-defendants is her use of “the Thugger lyrics, ‘I’m prepared to take them down’ and ‘I never killed anybody but I got something to do with that body’…Willis…said she would (also) be leaning on lyrics in another RICO case prosecuting 26 alleged members of the Drug Rich Gang, who are charged with kidnappings, armed robberies, shootings and high-profile home invasions. Among the targeted were singer Mariah Carey, Atlanta Falcons wide receiver Calvin Ridley and Atlanta United goalkeeper Brad Guzan, according to a 220-count indictment. ‘I think if you decide to admit your crimes over a beat, I’m going to use it,’ she said, deflecting criticism. ‘I’m not targeting anyone, but however, you do not get to commit crimes in my county and then decide to brag on it.’” 

These indictments have also received their fair share of criticism. “RICO is most commonly used as a tactic to sweep up entire street gangs,” according to Sidney Madden, the co-host of a podcast for NPR entitled Louder than a Riot. (T)he definition of a street gang gets real spongy when you look at it in Black communities. When prosecutors apply RICO to rap, it’s not just the rappers getting caught up in the system, but it’s their whole crew and their whole entourage. Everyone is being roped in and classified as a gang member. Basically, it allows prosecutors to hold anyone and everyone in an entire group responsible for the worst things someone in their circle has done. So if you’re a rapper and you associate with people engaging in criminal activity — maybe y’all grew up on the same block, maybe you used to run the same streets before you switched into entertainment, maybe you brought them with you out of the streets into entertainment — prosecutors can use all that and use RICO laws to brand y’all as an organized crime syndicate.”

Substitute the word “rapper” for “Trump campaign worker” or “Trump attorney,” and the basis for DA Willis’ RICO charges against Trump and his “entourage” become clear – “everyone is being roped in and classified as a gang member.”

According to Joe Lancaster, writing for Reason, “Willis is unapologetic about her use of the statute, saying in August 2022, ‘I’m a fan of RICO’…(she noted that) her office has pursued 11 RICO cases since she became D.A. in January 2021. She has primarily used it against gangs, bringing RICO charges in 2022 and 2023 over a series of Atlanta shootings and home invasions.” 

But is this necessarily a good thing? “RICO statutes allow prosecutors to bring charges using guilt by association. Kerry Martin wrote in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law that RICO ‘is not supposed to criminalize mere membership in a gang, but it comes dangerously close to doing so.'”

Lancaster continues: “The original federal RICO law was drafted for use against the mafia, allowing prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges based on certain predicate acts. It quickly expanded to include all manner of activity that was already illegal but could now be charged more aggressively. As Reason noted all the way back in 1990, ‘Ambitious federal prosecutors have now discovered RICO’s many uses, and this poses a great danger to civil liberty and free enterprise.’ Georgia’s RICO law is even more expansive than its federal counterpart—for example, it does not require multiple defendants or an extended timeline to establish a conspiracy. Former prosecutor Chris Timmons told ABC News, ‘Somebody could go to JC Penney, shoplift a pair of socks, walk next door to Sears and shoplift a second pair of socks, and they can be charged with RICO.’

In other words, Willis routinely takes advantage of a very broad statute to bring conspiracy charges against large groups, and spends years wearing those accused of being members of those groups down, just as she did with the Atlanta school system, and is currently doing with Young Thug and his associates. “Thug has been in Cobb County Jail since May of last year. He spent his first eight months there awaiting the proposed January 9 start date of his court proceedings, and has remained there for the past eight while Fulton County Superior Court Judge Ural Glanville continues to conduct extensive juror search that’s set to make the YSL trial the longest in Georgia history.” 

With the next Presidential election scheduled to be held in less than a year, can there be any doubt that the Fulton County DA wishes to keep Donald Trump and his campaign “organization” tied up in complex litigation for the foreseeable future?

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

Illustration: Pixabay

We discussed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Donald Trump.   Then we dissected Special Counsel Jack Smith’s first federal indictment of the former President. We also reviewed the facts and charges Smith added to this first federal indictment.  Next, we analyzed Smith’s second federal indictment of the 45th President.  

Two federal indictments, one in Florida and another in Washington DC, as well as a New York City indictment would all be a heavy burden for any defendant, especially one who is running for President of the United States. 

But wait – there’s more.

On August 14, 2023,  “(f)ormer President Donald Trump was indicted…on racketeering, conspiracy and other charges by a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, the result of a more than two-year investigation…into potential 2020 election interference in that state. Eighteen other people, including Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, were also indicted, accused of joining Trump in efforts to unlawfully change the outcome of the election.” 

 The indictment can be viewed here. Specifically, Trump and his co-defendants are alleged to have “unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in…a pattern of racketeering activity” while “associated with an enterprise” that allegedly violated Georgia law…Trump and the other defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump had lost (the 2020 Presidential election), and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.”

 As described by PBS, “(t)he nearly 100-page indictment details dozens of acts by Trump or his allies to undo his defeat, including beseeching Georgia’s Republican secretary of state to find enough votes for him to win the battleground state; harassing an election worker who faced false claims of fraud; and attempting to persuade Georgia lawmakers to ignore the will of voters and appoint a new slate of electoral college electors favorable to Trump.” 

 “The yearslong probe of former President Donald Trump and his allies by Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis may prove to be Trump’s toughest legal challenge yet,” ABC News breathlessly reports.  Yet, despite their obvious glee at yet another Trump indictment, the mainstream media seems to recognize that the shine is off the apple here.  “What was once unprecedented — a former president facing criminal charges — has fallen into a familiar cadence…Trump and his campaign will decry the charges. His campaign will likely fundraise off of these charges. Trump and his campaign continue to conflate his personal legal problems with the cause of his political movement, using the charges as a tool to gin up his base. It has been working. Numerous charges haven’t slowed his campaign yet.” 

You can hear the disappointment loud and clear – “Darn it!  Won’t anything stop this man?”

Donald Trump is a human being, not a relentless Juggernaut.  Certainly, something, or some event (such as several losses in upcoming primaries) could potentially “stop him.” But this indictment by another local prosecutor, this time in Fulton County, Georgia, isn’t likely to cause the derailment of the runaway Trump train.

Who has brought this latest Indictment against the former President? According to the BBC, Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis was born “in Inglewood, California in 1971 (and) was raised primarily by her father, a criminal defense lawyer and member of the Black Panthers, the radical political party which championed black rights…(s)he graduated from the historically black college Howard University in 1993, before receiving a law degree from Emory University in Georgia in 1996…Ms Willis joined the Fulton County District Attorney’s office, where she served in several different divisions until 2018..(a)fter her time in the office ended, Ms Willis spent several years in private practice. Then, in 2020, she decided to go head-to-head with her former boss, six-term Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard. She won in a runoff election with 73% of the votes, becoming the first black woman to serve as Fulton County’s top prosecutor.”

 Unlike the Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, who “received more than $1 million in support from the Color Of Change PAC, a racial justice group which receives funding from (George) Soros” during his campaign, there isn’t any clear evidence  that Willis is yet another “progressive DA.”  Her office’s website includes a pledge to “provide an environment of mutual respect, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age, disability or gender identity,” however, there is also a statement of integrity, which reads “this office will now show a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values.”   

 Further, unlike Bragg, who specifically campaigned on his plan “to personally focus on the high-profile probe into former President Donald Trump’s business practices,”  there is scant evidence that Willis made similar overt promises during her race. 

 What Willis does bring to this prosecution, is a willingness to use racketeering charges indiscriminately against any and all defendants.  In fact, it would seem that Willis only carries one hammer, which makes every criminal case look like a nail to her.

 Similar to the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) law, under Georgia Code Section 16-14-4, “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or proceeds derived therefrom, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise, real property, or personal property of any nature, including money. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section.” 

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

The article concludes tomorrow

The Pentagon has released its annual analysis of China’s military power and strategy. The report should deeply concern America and its allies.

A senior defense official, speaking on background, noted that “The People’s Republic of China is continuing its efforts to overturn the international rules-based order and is building an increasingly effective military to further these aims…Communist leaders seek “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” by 2049 – the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party’s takeover of the world’s largest country.”

The report discusses the lack of contacts between U.S. and Chinese defense officials. “The PLA’s refusal to engage in military-to-military communications with the United States, combined with the PLA’s increasingly coercive and risky operational behavior, raises the risk of an operational incident or miscalculation spiraling into crisis or conflict,” according to the Pentagon.

Particularly troubling is China’s deepening security ties with Russia. Recently, China’s dictator Xi met with Putin, and the two emphasized their strong alliance and intertwined foreign policies.

China is engaging in growing military coercion, according to the official. One specific example is the increasing numbers of unsafe intercepts of U.S., allied and partner vessels and aircraft operating in international air and seaways of the Indo-Pacific region. “Between the fall of 2021 and the fall of 2023, the United States documented over 180 instances of coercive and risky air intercepts against U.S. aircraft in the region,” the official said. When allies and partners are included, this jumps to more than 300 instances.”

China is intensifying its pressure campaign against Taiwan, including Chinese ballistic missile overflights of Taiwan, increased flights into Taiwan’s self-declared air defense identification zone and the large-scale simulated joint blockade and simulated joint firepower strike operations done after a visit to the island by a U.S. congressional delegation. 

The focus of the report is China’s military’s vast and rapidly growing nuclear, space and cyberspace capabilities. “We see the PRC continuing to quite rapidly modernize and diversify and expand its nuclear forces…They are expanding and investing in their land, sea and air-based nuclear delivery platforms, as well as the infrastructure that’s required to support this” the Department official said.

China now has more than 500 operational nuclear warheads, a rate of growth greater than anticipated by Western observers.

China is developing new intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Beijing has the capability of reaching any American homeland target.  

On the land, the PLA continues to modernize its equipment and focus on combined arms and joint training, the official said. The Chinese military is still a conscript force with two intakes a year. The military is working to field long-range fires and incorporate the capability into their doctrine. 

At sea, China has the world’s largest navy with a battle force of more than 370 ships and submarines. The Chinese launched their third aircraft carrier in the past year and commissioned their third amphibious assault ship. 

The PLA Air Force “is rapidly catching up to western air forces,” the official said. The air force continues to build up manned and unmanned aircraft and the Chinese announced the fielding of the H-6N – its first nuclear-capable, air-to-air refueled bomber. 

The Chinese military has not been involved in a shooting war since 1979 and “this actually is one of the shortcomings that the PRC highlights and a lot of their own self assessments,” the official said. “They tried to address that, I think, by attempting to make their training and their exercises more realistic, to more closely approximate … actual combat type conditions.  

“I think they tried to address it as well, by learning whatever lessons they can from other countries’ involvement in military conflicts,” he continued.  

Chinese military leaders carefully studied military conflicts involving U.S. forces, Russian forces and others over the years. That is one of the key sources they draw upon to better understand how they need to prepare themselves for future combat operations. “Certainly, they’re watching very closely Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine,” the official said. 

The Chinese military is looking for bases overseas and looking to develop the resources needed to be a globally relevant force. They have established an overall logistics command and they are working hand-in-glove with the Belt and Road Initiative to gain access.

Photo: Chinese warship undergoing at-sea resupply, an indication of the increasingly global reach of Beijing’s massive military might. (China Defence Ministry)

Recent Chinese actions toward Russia recall the lessons learned by Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol. In that story Mr. Scrooge is visited by ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future. Unlike its ending, however, China is not expected to morph into a kinder and gentler nation. In late November China media reports emerged discussing Beijing’s outright refusal to invest in the construction of the Power of Siberia-2 natural gas pipeline while also insisting it be granted sizable energy discounts. Xi Jinping recognizes he has the upper hand in bargaining with Vladimir Putin and is demanding that its ally fully cover 100% of the costs of the multibillion-dollar project. China is capitalizing on Russia’s weak financial status further strained by costs related to its lengthy war in Ukraine to support its critical energy needs. 

At one time Moscow was the dominant partner in the bilateral relationship. In recent decades the balance has shifted in favor of Beijing. The war in Ukraine weakened Putin’s geopolitical leverage and exacerbated the country’s critical need for financial resources. Ksenia Kirillova, of the Jamestown Foundation, says that Western economic sanctions have made it possible for China to increase its Russian energy imports and obtain cheaper gas prices since Moscow can’t fully compensate for losses after Gazprom withdrew from the European markets. Kirillova adds that gas supplies from the Power of Siberia-1 pipeline cost China about 50% of rates for the European Union and Turkey. He points out that “Russian oil and gas analyst Mikhail Krutikhin emphasizes that Beijing has little interest in the construction of the Power of Siberia-2 pipeline, as China does not require large quantities of natural gas.” As of December, the rates do not cover Russia’s cost of production and transportation. China knows this and is taking advantage of the Kremlin’s lack of financial resources.

Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party support its interests without regard to the critical needs of its long-time ally. Recently, Beijing’s propaganda apparatchik began treating Siberia as a “resource colony” for China. The two states today remain in competition for influence in the Central Asian region. Marina Rudyak, a professor of Sinology at Heidelberg University, argues that China still fears Russia could win in Ukraine and elevate its status in Central Asia and beyond. That could thwart Chinese plans in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and other regions.

At 70 years of age, Xi is beginning to consider how he will be remembered in history. Early on in office, he indicated his intent to reclaim Taiwan before leaving office. Despite a signed agreement with Russia permanently ceding one million square miles of Siberian territory Russia had seized from it at the end of WWII, Xi has shown indications he plans reacquire the region. It may be possible for Xi to accomplish his goals without the use of military troops if he can economically take over Siberia. He is using sophisticated influence operations to Taiwanese domestic politics. Military analysts in Washington are uncertain if Xi will use force there in the coming years. 

China and Russia, two important communist states, continue in an uneasy collaboration in other areas such as censorship and control over the Internet. Radio Free Europe last spring reported that China has shared its insights on the functions and capabilities of its “Great Firewall” with Moscow since 2015. The direction of the bilateral relationship in recent years, however, does not portend a positive future for either country. China must keep Moscow, one of its few allies, at a distance to avoid being pulled into the Western sanction’s regime. Russia’s financial status forces it to rely heavily on supplying its strategic resources at deeply discounted prices to obtain minimal levels of political support from Beijing. It is unlikely that Xi Jinping willingly will risk China’s future to save Russia, or to provide it enough financial or political support to strengthen it. To do so would threaten Xi’s global ambitions. It appears he will continue in the role of Mr. Scrooge and not share China’s wealth or influence with the Kremlin, its oldest ally.
Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.