Month: January 2024

Beijing’s increased aggression against America’s long-term ally Philippines could pit the U.S. Navy directly against its larger Chinese counterpart.

On December 10, State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller noted that “Outside Scarborough Reef on December 9 and again near Second Thomas Shoal on December 10, People’s Republic of China (PRC) ships employed water cannons and reckless maneuvers, including forcing a collision, causing damage to Philippine vessels undertaking official supply missions to those locations, and jeopardizing the safety of the Filipino crew.  The PRC ships at Scarborough Reef also used acoustic devices, incapacitating the Filipino crew members, and drove away Philippine fishing vessels.  By impeding the safe operations of Philippine vessels carrying provisions to Filipino service members stationed at Second Thomas Shoal, the PRC interfered in lawful Philippine maritime operations and in Philippine vessels’ exercise of high seas freedom of navigation.  Obstructing supply lines to this longstanding outpost and interfering with lawful Philippines maritime operations undermines regional stability.

These actions reflect not only reckless disregard for the safety and livelihoods of Filipinos, but also for international law. 

Beijings action are not new. Xi’s naval and coast guard vessels have both assaulted Manila’s vessels with water cannons and even rammed them. Filipino fisherman have been harassed, and energy and mineral exploration craft have been threatened. Beijing believes, based on the precedent set by Obama when its ships incurred on the Philippine exclusive economic zone and the U.S. didn’t even lodge a diplomatic protest, that Washington will do little of substance in response.

In October, The House Foreign Affairs Committee  stressed that “We unequivocally support the Philippines and condemn the unlawful actions by the Chinese Coast Guard in the South China Sea. The Chinese Coast Guard and maritime militia vessels intentionally hit Philippine Coast Guard ships over the weekend and continue to violate international law, endanger Filipino crew members, and obstruct Philippine vessels’ access in their own exclusive economic zone. This incident is part of a larger pattern of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, the Maritime Militia, and the Chinese Coast Guard’s aggressive and provocative behavior in the South China Sea, where it actively intrudes in other states exclusive economic zones. We condemn Beijing’s maritime intimidation and welcome the Biden administration’s announcement to increase joint patrols with the Philippines and other partners in the South China Sea and its reaffirmation to uphold its commitment under the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.”

XI has not been subtle about his intentions. His government has issued a controversial map which contradicts international law by imagining a vast claim, known as the “Nine Dash Line” over areas rightly held by neighboring nations. As noted by the Philippine’s Dept. of Foreign Affairs  following Beijing’s issuance of a the map, “ The latest attempt to legitimize China’s purported sovereignty and jurisdiction over Philippine features and maritime zones has no basis under international law, particularly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The 2016 Arbitral Award invalidated the nine-dashed line. It categorically stated that ‘maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the ‘nine-dash line’ are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention.’”

A Gatestone analysis notes that “The Chinese game plan seems crafted to test the resolve of the US commitment to defend Philippine sovereignty. If the US appears to be unwilling to risk a clash with China over its repeated intrusions into the waters of the Philippines’ EEZ, the CCP will exploit any appeasement by the Biden administration to weaken confidence of other American Pacific-based allies, thereby shredding the integrity of any Indo-Pacific Alliance of democracies to contain China.”

Illustration: Pixabay

To date, the majority of our analysis of the RICO Indictment brought against Donald Trump and much of his 2020 election team has been centered on whether the allegations made are legally and facially sufficient.  We have also examined some of the difficult issues that could face prosecutors who are required by law to establish their case “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  One such matter is the virtual impossibility of showing that Donald Trump did not truly believe that he won the 2020 Presidential election, and that voter suppression and fraud played a big part in his loss.

One tool that prosecutors use to meet their burden is to compel a co-defendant to testify against the “target” defendant.  According to the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University, to “(t)urn state’s evidence…or to “flip” means the defendant chose to reveal valuable evidence to the prosecutor, in exchange for a reduction of the charge or the dismissal of some charges. When the defendant ‘flips’ they are said to have ‘turned state’s evidence.’ This is common in instances of organized crime when a defendant provides information on a co-defendant or other members’ crimes. The defendant tries to flip for a better sentence…” 

In Georgia, several of the former President’s co-defendants have entered guilty pleas to reduced charges, with the understanding that these defendants will cooperate, and probably testify, against Trump and the remaining co-defendants.  One of those is lawyer Sidney Powell.

As reported by the Associated Press, “Powell gained notoriety for threatening in a Fox Business interview in November 2020 to ‘release the Kraken,’ invoking a mythical sea monster when talking about a lawsuit she planned to file to challenge the results of the presidential election. Similar suits she filed in several states were promptly dismissed.”  Then, in October of 2023, “Powell…entered the plea just a day before jury selection was set to start in her trial. She pleaded guilty to six misdemeanors accusing her of conspiring to intentionally interfere with the performance of election duties. As part of the deal, she will serve six years of probation, will be fined $6,000 and will have to write an apology letter to Georgia and its residents. She also recorded a statement for prosecutors and agreed to testify truthfully against her co-defendants at future trials.” 

The usual sources made the usual statements regarding Powell’s plea. “’This is a really big breakthrough for prosecutors,’ CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said…on “News Central. ‘There’s no such thing as halfway cooperation.'”

What is Georgia DA Fani Willis expecting Powell to say in exchange for her plea deal? “The plea documents make clear that she’s expected to testify about her direct involvement in the breach of election systems in Coffee County, Georgia, where a…group of Trump supporters (allegedly) collaborated with a local election official to access sensitive government data as part of their…search for massive voter fraud….Powell was also in touch with the Trump White House and other figures in Trump’s orbit during the frenzied post-election period…Powell ‘can (also) provide firsthand testimony about things (she) saw, things (she) overheard,’ (according to) CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams.”

Soon after Powell entered her guilty plea, another of Donald Trump’s co-defendants entered a guilty plea in Georgia.  “Attorney and prominent conservative media figure Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty…to one felony count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings…She was sentenced to five years of probation along with $5,000 in restitution, 100 hours of community service, writing an apology letter to the people of Georgia and testifying truthfully in trials related to this case.”  

Once more, CNN expressed their belief that Trump was a “dead man walking.” “These…plea deals are a monumental step forward for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who charged the case in August and is preparing for trials against Trump, his former attorney Rudy Giuliani, his chief of staff Mark Meadows and other top figures…Ellis…and Powell…agreed to testify on behalf of the prosecution at future trials. By flipping, these onetime Trump insiders are now on track to become major Trump nemeses. They…can shed light on what was happening behind the scenes in 2020.”

But in discussing Powell’s anticipated cooperation, Williams made an interesting statement –  “(I)f prosecutors aren’t satisfied with the evidence that’s provided, they can just yank this plea deal, and put these folks to trial.” 

Not quite, Elliot.

While both Ellis and Powell have been sentenced, their cases are not legally concluded.  A review of the third page of the plea agreement for Powell in particular states “(t)he Defendant consenting hereto, it is the judgment of the Court that no judgment of guilt be imposed at this time but that further proceedings are deferred…(u)pon fulfillment of the terms of this sentence, or upon release of the Defendant by the Court prior to the termination of this sentence, the Defendant shall stand discharged of said offense without court adjudication of guilt and shall be completely exonerated of guilt of said offense charged.”  

This is known as a “conditional plea.”  Powell has obligated herself to testify in the trial of her co-defendants by her plea, and has agreed to be truthful when she takes the stand (something that is expected of any witness, in any event).  But the conditional nature of this plea agreement gives Powell a very powerful incentive to testify as Willis wants her to testify. 

Inadvertently, in giving Powell this incentive, Willis may have handed Trump and his co-defendants a weapon they can use in their own defense.

In any trial, a jury (or the judge, if he or she is acting as fact-finder without a jury) is charged with the responsibility to assess the credibility of any witness.  “A credible witness is (one) who comes across as competent and worthy of belief. Their testimony is assumed to be more than likely true due to their experience, knowledge, training, and sense of honesty…(a)n attorney can show jurors a witness is not credible by showing: 1) inconsistent statements, 2) reputation for untruthfulness, 3) defects in perception, 4) prior convictions that show dishonesty or untruthfulness, and 5) bias.” “Bias” is defined as “to exhibit a pre-existing inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something. In the context of evidence in criminal law, bias is used to describe the relationship between a party and a witness which might lead the witness to unconsciously or otherwise, give testimony in favor of or against a party.” 

Clearly, whether or not the witness has “turned state’s evidence,” and is awaiting a favorable adjudication of their own charges in exchange for their testimony is an obvious source of bias.

For instance, in the 1984 Rhode Island case of State v. Beaumier, in “a robbery trial…the state’s primary witness was a Providence Police officer and friend of the defendant. According to this officer, defendant admitted to him his participation in the robbery. Defense counsel attempted to cross-examine the officer as to thefts at a lumberyard in which the officer was a suspect and under investigation. Counsel was attempting to show that the officer had a motive to fabricate defendant’s admission in order to ingratiate himself with his superiors. The trial judge precluded this area of inquiry.” 

In reversing the conviction, the Rhode Island appellate court stated that “(t)he right of confrontation is concerned with the proposition that a jury be allowed to evaluate any motive that a witness may have for testifying. That right is especially precious where, as here, the motive may belong to the state’s prime witness. It is clear, therefore, that the evidence concerning the investigation should have been admitted…in the final analysis, it is the jury that should consider the evidence and reach its own conclusion.” 

Spencer Martinez, writing for the Cleveland State Law Review, notes that “(i)n spite of advances in scientific and statistical evidence, the success of a criminal prosecution continues to hinge primarily on witness testimony. Such evidence is difficult to come by, especially in the case of more sophisticated criminals or defendants who commit crimes through syndicates that insulate them from the relevant actus reus. Therefore, prosecutors must often look to other criminals for case-building testimony. Eliciting testimony from such witnesses often requires that a ‘deal’ be struck, whereby the government promises the guilty witness some degree of leniency for his cooperation. ‘Bargaining’ for witness testimony in this fashion has long been recognized as a legitimate, necessary practice. However, the ramifications of such agreements have always caused concern for those involved with defendants’ rights, as the cooperating witness has a strong incentive to commit perjury to reap the full benefit of the ‘contract.’ This is especially true now that agreements are becoming more liberal with respect to what the government may offer the cooperating witness, what the witness is obligated to do in return, and how the witness is to suffer in the event he fails to perform or fails to secure the desired effect. Clearly the most important safeguard against false testimony is the defendant’s right to cross-examine the cooperating witness as to bias. The defendant’s discretion to probe into cooperation agreements, however, is not on par with the government’s increasing discretion in what it may offer a criminal witness in exchange for his testimony.” 

A Georgia jury is free to believe Powell and Ellis.  But they are also free to believe that both have strong incentive to testify as DA Willis wishes them to testify.

Thus, having these co-defendants testify against Trump and the other defendants is not a positive development for the defense.  But is it the “really big breakthrough” CNN commentators hope it to be?

Probably not.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Major wars are fought simultaneously on two fronts – only one is located on a kinetic battlefield. The other looms large at home inside the political arena of domestic politics. Its effects are, perhaps, more costly to nation-states in the long term.

Since Russia’s invasion into Ukraine began in February 2022, the Kremlin has presented a façade of military success abroad and manufactured stories of domestic support at home. It is not unusual for a government to spin war news to support a political leader’s agenda and Russian President Vladimir Putin is no different. The “truth” in stories about the cost of the war to the Russian people, however, does not closely resemble Putin’s public narrative. As the war enters its second year next month, Putin’s pronouncements are becoming less effective. Domestic opposition to Kremlin policy is increasing amid fears the domestic economy is in dire trouble. 

The Kremlin is relying more heavily on support from global pariah states as its traditional allies distance themselves from the post-Soviet state, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He says that “Violent acts committed by Russian veterans of the war in Ukraine and a possible return of Afghan Syndrome have stoked public fear and pushed some Russians to question the Kremlin’s true intentions with its war.” Moscow’s inattention to the second front at home appears to be providing momentum and a fresh impetus to groups inside the country supporting regional independence movements. 

A history of Russian military actions over past two hundred years reveals that in every instance the country was involved in war it both sparked domestic revolution and resulted in the imposition of extremely repressive policies at home intended to prevent further insurrections. The pattern appears to be holding this year. Putin is tightening controls over the population amid fears that his “special military action” in Ukraine is not proceeding as planned despite Kremlin claims. Goble points out that the deterioration in Putin’s support at home and the increased likelihood of radical change in Russia through revolution and disintegration, may push him to seek a quick victory on the battlefield in Ukraine. At a minimum, there is a return to earlier periods of totalitarianism inside what many analysts are beginning to call the “failed state.” 

Putin’s three-pronged strategy since the invasion in Ukraine initially convinced the population Russia was in a good fight against an evil force. The Russian president’s narrative labeled it a cosmic struggle with the collective West and refused to use the term “war.” The fighting, according to Putin, was part of the struggle between traditional Russian values and those of the corrupt West states. Many inside Russia saw this as an opportunity for Russia to regain global status in the post-Soviet era. Second, increased domestic repression prevented those who opposed the war from demonstrating their opposition in the streets and raised the cost of commenting negatively about the war. Many foreign observers assumed the Russian population strongly backed Putin and the war. Some are concluding that due to fear only a complete defeat on the battlefield will alter the domestic situation. However, a recent independent poll by The Russian Field Research Group of more than 1,600 Russians in October indicates cracks may be forming in Putin’s domestic support. “For the first time, more Russians favor talks with Kyiv than continuing the war to a victorious conclusion” with 48% supporting the start of negotiations with Ukraine and only 39% opposing such talks, says Goble. 

Putin’s third strategy is to mobilize the economy to support a war footing. The winners are the oligarchs, in this case, who are taking advantage of Western sanctions and earning high profits. Military spending has boosted Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) but not resulted in an increase in income for the average Russian worker. Unlike investments in human resources or technology, notes Goble, military expenditures are unlikely to support sustained economic growth after the war ends.

The Russian population bears the increased costs of the war, including its significant casualties. As support for Putin’s policies declines the country is experiencing an exodus of hundreds of thousands of young men leaving the country. Analysts estimate less than 25% of them have returned from abroad or plan to in the future. If support for Kremlin policies was strong, there would be no need for repressive policies. The financial cost of the war is draining support for other areas of the economy and severe shortages are spreading, along with inflation. Putin’s war economy is not sustainable. Western states could add pressure on the regime by highlighting what is occurring inside Russia, however, Putin’s stronghold over the country is likely too great to rescue it from a totalitarian future for another generation.   

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

During the leadup to this year’s Christmas, I had the opportunity to speak with folks from one end of the country to the other.  I was struck by the somber mood expressed by so many during a season usually marked by joy and hope. It was not surprising.

There have been numerous times when Christmas was marked by hardship and war, but 2023’s challenges may be among the worst.

 American history is replete with examples. Washington’s astounding victory against the British in Trenton during the Revolution came at a time when the revolt against Britain seemed on the doorstep of failure. Often portrayed in popular films is the plight of U.S. troops surrounded by the German army at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge in World War 2. They were rescued in the nick of time by Patton’s troops.

The plight of 2023, for numerous reasons, seems unusually ominous and desperate across the planet.

Consider first the nightmarish conditions in the Middle East, the very region in which Christ delivered his messages of peace, love, and respect for each soul.  Every shred of humanity seems to have been rejected by Hamas, whose actions against innocent civilians violate both the laws of war and the most elemental concepts of decency. That, of course, is bad enough.  But the shocking lack of response by nations of the world and international organizations makes a terrible situation even worse. Individual Governments and the United Nations, rather than uniting to universally condemn the barbarism on open display, instead find every excuse to criticize the victims’ nation and ignore the corruption and while ignoring Hamas’ savagery. 

A similar intentional blindness afflicts many regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  There is nothing complicated about this situation.  Vladmir Putin, lusting to restore the evil entity known as the Soviet Union, without cause or provocation, sent his military into Ukraine in what has been the most naked act of aggression in Europe since the Second World War.  Again, the appropriate planetary response should be unlimited support for the Ukrainian people. But in far too many cases, a blind eye is turned to the war, and many call for negotiations instead of a worldwide response to punish the aggressors and completely expel them. 

Also ignored are the fundamental legalities of promises and treaties made to the Ukrainian people and nation. In 1991, over 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons were left on its territory. In 1994 an agreement was reached.  In exchange for security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, Ukraine surrendered the atomic arms in return for security guarantees. Despite the existence of that agreement, Russia has stolen the Crimea from Ukraine and is now actively seeking to take over the whole of the nation.

In what may be the gravest threat to America in the nation’s history is China’s astounding arms buildup and unbridled aggression.  In the face of that threat, President Biden appears, in turn, feckless or swayed by his and his family’s financial dealings with the Communist Chinese Party.

His Administration has chosen to ignore, indeed, to encourage a withdrawal of almost all border controls. That bizarre decision has led to the near-bankruptcy of cities and state across the country, as well as laying the groundwork for decades of social issues.

The national mood is dampened further by Biden’s insistence on dividing the population, labelling all that disagreed with him as evil.  His party’s insistence on using the judicial system as a partisan cudgel to harass and weaken opposition is unprecedented.

While there are good reasons for the current misgivings, America has the ability to face its challenges in the coming year.

Photo: Pixabay

As reported by CNN, “Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams defended herself from criticism that she never conceded her loss to Gov. Brian Kemp in 2018…Abrams, in the wake of her 2018 loss to Kemp by 1.4 percentage points, acknowledged that Kemp, who then worked as Georgia secretary of state, would be the governor of Georgia. But she specifically said in her final speech that she (would) not concede due to persistent voter suppression allegations, adding that conceding would mean acknowledging ‘an action is right, true or proper’ and ‘as a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that’…Abrams said Kemp ‘won under the rules of the game at the time, but the game was rigged against the voters of Georgia…we had a system that (Kemp) managed, that he manipulated, hurt Georgia voters and the responsibility of leaders is to challenge systems that are not serving the people.” 

Abrams also asserted that she has a “responsibility… to challenge a system that would rob a single voice from being able to be heard if they are eligible.” And just what did Abrams do to meet her “responsibility” to “challenge systems that are not serving the people?”

“A political organization backed by Democrat Stacey Abrams filed a federal lawsuit…challenging the way Georgia’s elections are run, making good on a promise Abrams made as she ended her bid to become the state’s governor…(the lawsuit) was filed by Fair Fight Action against interim Secretary of State Robyn Crittenden and state election board members in their official capacities…(a)s secretary of state, Abrams’ opponent, Republican Gov.-elect Brian Kemp, was the top elections official until he declared himself the winner and resigned two days after the election…(t)he lawsuit was filed against Crittenden, who was appointed by Gov. Nathan Deal after Kemp stepped down, but it clearly targets Kemp.” 

“Lauren Groh-Wargo, Abrams’ campaign manager who’s now CEO of Fair Fight Action (said) ‘This lawsuit is going to look broadly at all the ways our secretary of suppression, Brian Kemp, suppressed the vote’… (o)n the campaign trail, Abrams repeatedly called Kemp ‘an architect of suppression,’ an allegation that Kemp vehemently denied.”

How did this effort to fight the “architect” of voter suppression in Georgia turn out?

 “A federal judge (in 2022) found that Georgia election practices challenged by a group associated with Democrat Stacey Abrams do not violate the constitutional rights of voters, ruling in favor of the state on all remaining issues in a lawsuit filed nearly four years ago. ‘Although Georgia’s election system is not perfect, the challenged practices violate neither the constitution nor the VRA,’ U.S. District Judge Steve Jones in Atlanta wrote, referring to the Voting Rights Act of 1965… Kemp…applauded the ruling…’Judge Jones’ ruling exposes this legal effort for what it really is: a tool wielded by a politician hoping to wrongfully weaponize the legal system to further her own political goals,’ Kemp said in a statement emailed by his campaign.” 

In fact, “(w)hile Fair Fight collected stories from more than 3,000 voters, they found very few people who were unable to cast a ballot (in 2018) and none during the 2020 election…(i)nstead…the evidence showed that in many cases problems were resolved quickly once state officials were contacted.”

Further, Fair Fight Action “was ordered to repay $231,303.71 in legal fees. $192,628.85 of that is for ‘printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.’ The other $38,674.86 is for making copies to use in the case.” 

In other words, in the 2018 Georgia Governor’s race, Democrat Stacey Abrams refused to concede her loss to Republican Brian Kemp; she claimed Kemp was responsible for “voter suppression”; her campaign manager brought a lawsuit to challenge the results of the election; that lawsuit was ultimately unsuccessful; and despite Abrams’ insistence, there was no “outcome determinative” fraud uncovered that would lead to the reversal of the election results.

How is this different from the actions Trump and his co-defendants are accused of taking to challenge the results of the 2020 Presidential election?  According to Abrams, people should not conflate “her refusal to concede in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race with former President Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen election, calling the latter wrong and dangerous for democracy. ‘I will never ever say that it is OK to claim fraudulent outcomes as a way to give yourself power,’ Abrams said…'(t)he issues that I raised in 2018 were not grounded in making me the governor…(n)ot a single lawsuit filed would have reversed or changed the outcome of the election. My point was that the access to the election was flawed, and I refuse to concede a system that permits citizens to be denied access. That is very different than someone claiming fraudulent outcome.” 

Sure, now it makes sense.  Abrams didn’t think her assertions of voter suppression would change the result of the election she refused to concede – she just thought it was the right thing to do!

But this is exactly what she said in 2018; “Under the watch of the now former Secretary of State, democracy failed Georgians of every political party, every race, every region. Again. The incompetence and mismanagement we witnessed in this election had been on display months before…(b)ut this time, the mistakes clearly altered the outcome…I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election. But to watch an elected official – who claims to represent the people of this state, baldly pin his hopes for election on the suppression of the people’s democratic right to vote – has been truly appalling. So, to be clear, this is not a speech of concession. Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede.” 

So, now it’s clear – Trump asserted that the election was stolen from him, while Abrams claims her opponent suppressed votes, which caused her to lose.  Trump filed a series of lawsuits that were mostly unsuccessful; Abrams’ campaign filed one unsuccessful lawsuit.

But despite the lack of hard evidence to support Abrams’ assertions, no one has claimed that Abrams was lying when she claimed that the suppression of the votes of those who supported her caused her to lose the election.  In fact, as the court ruled in the lawsuit brought by Fair Fight Action, there was no evidence that voting was purposefully suppressed in Georgia – at all.

There are those who would argue that Abrams’ assertions of voter suppression in 2018 were a lie.  But others defend her statements as merely mistaken, and not intended to be untruthful.  There are undoubtedly those who will tell you that Abrams was not lying, since she believed her own assertions of voter fraud.

But there seems to be only one real difference between the “lies” told by Donald Trump, and those told by Stacey Abrams.  Trump’s “lies” are being prosecuted by Fani Willis and Jack Smith.  And Abrams’ are not.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Fulton County Georgia DA Fani Willis’ 100 page indictment of former President Donald Trump, and 18 people involved in Trump’s re-election campaign is all based on one, central allegation; “Defendant Donald John Trump lost the United States presidential election held on November 3, 2020. One of the states he lost was Georgia. Trump and the other Defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined (a) conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.” 

All charges and allegations made in this indictment descend from this key assertion. 

The same can be said for the federal indictment brought in Washington DC by Special Counsel Jack Smith.  That document also states that “(t)he Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020. The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election… (d)espite having lost…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.” 

We have discussed the difficulty in establishing that Trump knew he had actually lost (especially when so many of his fellow citizens also think Trump actually won), and in proving that the former President knew that his complaints of being cheated were false.

Yet, the unswerving position of the majority of the Democratic party and their supporters in the legal and legacy media establishments is that “election denial” is a crime in and of itself.  For instance, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, Smith’s “indictment amounts to another in a series of emphatic rejections of election denial since the 2020 election…(a) federal prosecutor has now weighed in, charging that the actions Trump took under the pretext of election denial were criminal…(o)ver the last two years, election denial has been proven false so many times that another debunking is unremarkable – this one, however, is historic in that it comes with charges against a former president.” 

Then there is the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), “an independent nonprofit think tank that provides rigorous research, insight and communications that help speed equality and opportunity for all,” which has issued a report entitled How Election Denialism Threatens Our Democracy and the Safeguards We Need to Defend It.  The report “measures the level of risk to each state posed by election denialism, (and) the resulting threats when the proper safeguards are not in place…(t)he report includes MAP’s new National Election Denial Risk Index, which shows that more than two in three American voters (157 million voters) live in states with at least a moderate risk of election denialism jeopardizing future elections. Of those, 29 million voters live in high-risk states for election denial.”  MAP asserts that their Index “is a tool for lawmakers, journalists, and the public that can be used to examine the range of ways that election denialism poses a threat to each state and which policies can strengthen a state’s ability to combat these threats.” 

One of MAP’s recommended solutions to the “crime” of election denial?   “(L)imiting partisan involvement in post-election processes, increasing penalties for election subversion, and limiting frivolous recount requests.”

Sure, who needs more free speech and participation in the democratic process?  Certainly not the people at MAP!

And certainly not Jack Smith or Fani Willis.

But both seem to have their sights set on only one particular election denier and his followers.  Aren’t there other targets out there – others who denied they lost their election and refused to concede, causing the “threat” of “election denialism?”

The report concludes tomorrow

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC