Month: June 2024

Over the last few decades China has solidified its role as a powerful force in global politics. It operates the world’s second largest economy and commands a modern, world-class military. President Xi Jinping employs a multipronged approach toward global governance by supporting international goals that are in line with China’s interests and undermining those that diverge from the ideal communist model. He continues to support Putin’s war effort while also advancing Beijing’s agenda throughout Europe despite increasing domestic economic issues at home. Recently, the Chinese state won a tender in Russia’s back yard to construct a deep-sea port which could alter the power structure throughout the Black Sea region.

The Georgian Dream government announced that a Chinese-led consortium working with a Singaporean company will construct and manage the strategic Anaklia deep-water port. This latest Chinese geopolitical project, according to Giorgi Menabde of the Jamestown Foundation, “could drastically change the geoeconomic and geopolitical situation in the region, providing China more economic power and influence, and turning Tbilisi closer to Moscow through Beijing’s alliance with the Kremlin.” Western influence in Georgia, which had been growing stronger since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is starting to wane. Beijing is filling the gap once held by the West politically and economically. It is emerging as Georgia’s primary strategic partner while also strengthening its position in the South Caucasus. The strategic implications are enormous as China is outpacing Russia influence in the region. 

China and Georgia declared a “strategic partnership” last year that led to the May 29 announcement of the new port agreement. The consortium includes two major Chinese companies and two Chinese subcontractors. The “Anaklia Deep Sea Port” company, a Georgian-owned state company, retains a 51-percent share with the consortium  holding a 49-percent share. “The deep-sea port will reportedly be constructed based on Chinese cargo needs and looks to become a critical node in Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative,” according to Menabde. 

The Chinese company involved in the deal was blacklisted by the US Government in August 2020 for building artificial islands in the South China Sea for military use, according to the US Department of Commerce. In response to criticism over the move, the government in Tbilisi issued a statement saying that “blacklisted” doesn’t mean Washington sanctioned the firm. According to political analysts in Washington, this is a clear indication that Georgia is turning away from the West when it comes to what companies are acceptable as partners. Menabde says it is also a signal  of an “increase of influence [by China] on Tbilisi’s decision-making.”

Former President of the Georgian National Bank Roman Gotsiridze stated in his May 31 interview with this author that “the Anaklia deep-sea port project is not only an economic project. It directly concerns issues of Georgia’s strategic security.” Menabde adds he argued, “China’s dominance at the Port of Anaklia will have economic and political consequences for the security of the entire Black Sea region and in the context of a real alliance between China and Russia on the issue of Russian aggression against Ukraine.” At the same time as China is developing a significant port facility in the country, Russia is also building a naval base a few miles away at the Port of Ochamchire in the occupied Abkhazia region of Georgia. Some analysts suggest this is to hide the Russian navy’s warships that “escaped” from Crimea and that it will benefit Russia.  

A Georgian historian and political scientist Paata Chekurishvili, an advocate of the Georgian-Chinese partnership, told the Jamestown Foundation that “The case concerns the moving of the ‘Middle Corridor’ to the south toward the so-called Zangezur transport and energy corridor, which can be launched under the same patronage of the United States and the European Union.” … This is only in the interests of Georgia’s northern neighbor—Russia.” This deal cements China’s geopolitical involvement in the region and adds another notch in China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

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

Photo: Naval vessels attached to a destroyer flotilla under the PLA Eastern Theater Command sail towards the designated waters during a training exercise on May 14,2024. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Wan Haichao)

Exaggeration, as well as inaccurate statements and skirting the law are an unfortunate standard in politics.  The White House has recently admitted that the President made 148 verbal mistakes this year.

However, the issue is not the verbal gaffes made by Mr. Biden.  It is the outright lies, sheer nonsense, and refusal to ignore blatant abuses of federal and local power and funds currently being engaged in by the Democratic Party and its media allies, unlike anything previously seen.

Consider the lies.

The President continues to announce that he is cancelling portions of student debt, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the move was unconstitutional.

The Administration has insisted, even under oath, that the border is under control.  That, of course, is sheer nonsense. It’s wide open and an economic, crime, and social disaster for cities and states across the nation. The Biden Administration adamantly refuses to enforce existing law and regulations, and punishes state officials that seek to protect their citizens from this White House manufactured crisis. In defiance of the law, the current White House has not only violated its obligation to protect the borders, it has actually encouraged illegal immigration, even flying aliens to the U.S.

Despite statements by blue state attorneys general and local district attorneys, Crime is not under control.  Our streets and urban transit systems are deeply dangerous. Defunded police departments have been hit hard.  The fabrication that U.S. law enforcement is racist is sheer nonsense. Race-baiting leftist district attorneys and state attornies general ignore the blatant failure of their get out of jail free policies.

Biden alleges that he supports Israel.  However, he constantly undercuts most moves the nation makes in its own self-defense.

The Administration insists it is serious about national security, but its inadequate defense budgets, morale-busting personnel policies, and appeasement policies paint a different picture. The U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force are all on track to be smaller at the end of Biden’s first term than at the beginning. Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, his comment that he wouldn’t respond to “a little” invasion of Ukraine, his refusal to take steps to shoot down China’s spy balloon, and his morale-busting woke policies within the armed forces demonstrate his lack of interest in defense matters.

The President proudly touts support for infrastructure, but will the cash from recent legislation actually be spent as advertised?

The Heritage Foundation reports that “While the plan relies on the moderate and uncontroversial term “infrastructure,” less than 5% would actually go toward traditional road infrastructure projects. Rather, it will be spent on corporate welfare, tax credits, and the left’s radical ‘green’ agenda.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute notes that “Billions fill the coffers of trade unions and other special interests, who dutifully kick back a portion to their political benefactors in the form of campaign contributions. Investment and Jobs Act, and in addition much of the spending decisions will be distorted by climate policy considerations. All of this waste will also be seen with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and in addition much of the spending decisions will be distorted by climate policy considerations.”

The Brookings Institute notes that “On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law another large expenditure bill, the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill (“The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act”). This legislation authorized $550 billion in new funding for projects involving roads and bridges, improvements in water infrastructure, rail improvements, broadband internet and cybersecurity enhancements, replacement of hazardous lead pipes, port improvements, environmental projects, electric vehicle charging stations, and other infrastructure projects……the bill did not focus on the potential for fraud, and “the word fraud appeared only seven times in the 2000-page bill.”

Questionable assertions have become a standard in politics on both sides of the aisle, but the degree to which the Biden Administration engages in this tawdry practice is unprecedented.

Illustration: Pixabay

The worrisome revelations about America’s ability to arm itself and its allies were a key topic for the Pentagon this Spring. A study by the Texas National Security Review reported that the Defense Department has acknowledged the urgency of strengthening the linkages between a healthy defense industrial base and U.S. military power. Despite this, the views of defense-tech companies are often overlooked.

 President Biden, while signing vitally needed legislation aimed at providing $1 billion of vitally needed supplies to Ukraine, noted that items already in the U.S. defense arsenal would be utilized, and replaced as quickly as possible. Whether that can be done quickly enough is an important concern.

 There has been some improvement in manufacturing.  In the U.S., defense officials have said that production of 155 mm artillery ammunition recently surpassed 30,000 rounds per month. Through the opening of a new production facility in Mesquite, Texas, in May and other expansion efforts, output is expected to reach nearly 70,000 rounds per month by the end of year.

  But in the event of a major confrontation with Russia, China, or both, would the nation be able to produce the weapons needed?

The Department of Defense reports that “The events of recent years dramatically exposed serious shortfalls in both domestic manufacturing and international supply chains. The COVID-19 crisis demonstrated America’s near wholesale dependency on other nations for many products and materials crucial to modern life.4 Longstanding mobilization authorities, such as the Defense Production Act, were needed in the first months of the crisis to prevent expected shortages in medical equipment and other crucial items. The Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, followed the next year by attacks by Hamas on Israel, uncovered a different set of industrial demands and corresponding risks. The U.S. defense industry has been called on to surge production of military equipment in large quantities, especially munitions – from 155mm military artillery shells, a staple of armies since the First World War, to the most sophisticated missile defense systems.”

The Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that “In a major regional conflict—such as a war with China in the Taiwan Strait—the U.S. use of munitions would likely exceed the current stockpiles of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). … the United States would likely run out of some munitions—such as long-range, precision-guided munitions.This would occur in less than one week in a Taiwan Strait conflict….These shortfalls would make it difficult for the United States to sustain a protracted conflict.These problems are particularly concerning since the rate at which China has been acquiring high-end weapons systems and equipment is five to six times faster than the United States, according to some U.S. government estimates.”

Despite these findings, the Heritage Foundation has found that leaders in Congress and the executive branch have not yet chosen either to increase federal funding for defense or to make the difficult trade-offs (such as cutting entitlement spending) that would be necessary under such an increase to enable a restoration of this key capability. The global threat environment is growing more hostile as the economic and cultural factors that historically have supported U.S. military strength decline. Not only have manufacturing and key industrial processes moved overseas, but—even worse—they have moved to China, America’s chief rival. The U.S. is in a ‘new Cold War’ with China even as the two countries’ economies are deeply intertwined.”

The expected rapid pace of warfare on the horizon means that any delay in producing the weaponry and ammunition the U.S. and allied nations will require would prove fatal.

Some may wonder why Progressives adhere to a philosophy that has failed miserably.

The answer is that failure is the whole point.  As President Obama urged, America must be fundamentally transformed. To do that in a nation that was, at the time he took office, the most powerful and prosperous nation on Earth, that that success be dismantled, faith in its institutions and way of life be destroyed, and its citizenry be divided against each other. In this effort, both he and his fellow progressives have succeeded.

Consider the economic moves Progressives seek to implement in America.  Excess taxes and burdensome regulations reduce business success, a success that is desperately needed to fund the vast and frequently irrational spending programs Progressives require to buy support. They claim to do so to assist the poor, but it only increases the number of those impoverished. Their socialist philosophy has failed miserably whenever and wherever it has been attempted.

Progressive ideas in criminal justice have proven disastrous. Exploiting very isolated instances of extremely rare occasions of police using excess force, they have turned common sense on its head and portrayed murders, rapists, rioters and looters as heroes fighting for justice. In cities run by Progressives, civic disorder rules the streets. There is no indication that they care. They don’t care because disorder and chaos are what they require to achieve that “fundamental transformation” they deeply desire.

Recently, New York City Police Officer Jonathon Diller was killed by Guy Rivera, a career criminal with 21 prior arrests who was not in jail thanks to Progressive policies that favor keeping criminals on the street rather than incarcerate them not just because of a warped belief that American justice was biased, but because disorder and the breakdown of normal authority serves their purpose.

On the day of Officer Diller’s wake, President Biden, and former presidents Clinton and Obama were in town for a fundraiser.  They chose not to attend the wake, a clear indication of the support of the leadership of the Democrat Party for the Progressive program. (in contrast, former President Trump not only attended, but paid off, through a contribution to Tunnels to Towers, the mortgage of the home where Officer Dillers’ wife and infant child reside.   

In that same city, Progressive Councilwoman Carlina Rivera demanded that firefighters remove a 911 commemorative flag from their vehicle, calling it “a fascist symbol.” It would not do to agree to honor anything about a system they are seeking to destroy.  Similarly, Obama, during his tenure in the White House attempted to forbid the U.S. Navy from flying the Revolutionary-era “Don’t Tread on Me” flag.

Presidents have always honored the various religions that have graced the U.S. population. Tolerance of different faiths has been a tradition.  However, this year, Biden declared Easter “Transgender Visibility Day.”

To succeed, Progressives have heavily influenced two key twin pillars of information, education and the media.

 America spends more than almost all other nations on education, yet its students are falling further and further behind (even before Covid.)  The infuriating reality is that resources meant for reading, writing, math and other basic subjects have been diverted, some might say embezzled, to propaganda.

Since an objective recitation of facts portrays the fallacy and failure of Progressive concepts, control of media is an essential element of their efforts.  To that end, they have pursued censorship. Covering up reporting of Biden scandals, calling violent riots as “peaceful protests,” omitting contrary data on search engines, and labelling accurate facts they don’t like as “disinformation have all been cornerstones of their efforts.

Progressives allege that they seek to help the poor, address inequality, and engage in other helpful actions. Their actions don’t work, and they don’t care.  Their only objective is to gain power.

Illustration: Pixabay

The environment in Moscow is changing – literally. Putin’s growing need to find funds to support his war effort in Ukraine may lead to an ecological crisis for the country and a political challenge for the president  himself. He is counting on Chinese firms to develop mines and mineral processing facilities inside the Moscow Oblast. “Putin’s ‘turn to the east’ and his need for Chinese support have pushed Moscow to allow Beijing to develop extractive industries near the Russian capital, making protests against both the Kremlin and China more likely,” according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. The spillover of environmental issues into political ones is an unwanted challenge the regime must now address. Local officials in the capital city expect the move will spark protests from the general population living around Moscow and in the Moscow Oblast region adjacent to it.  

Previously, the Kremlin sought to avoid controversial infrastructure projects near Moscow that could morph into a political protest movement capable of spreading quickly across the country. Five years ago, the start of a few smaller mining projects on the edge of the capital city initiated protests in a number of smaller areas remote to Moscow, including Shiyes, Siberia, and Bashkortostan. They were easily contained, far from the Kremlin, and did not draw much media attention. It did, however, begin the “not in my backyard” protest movement. 

Goble says the transformation of the environmental issue into a politically volatile one is “especially serious when foreigners are involved and [Putin] shows little concern for the ecological worries of the surrounding population.” Putin’s acceptance of the increased risk to his regime and citizenry is an indication of how desperate the government is to fund the war effort. The Kremlin’s need to pay for  advanced weapons to combat Ukraine’s arsenal is more acute this year, as the Russian military has been unable to take down the majority of Ukraine’s military drones operating inside Russian territory.

Although the Chinese have a long-standing request with Moscow to develop the mines, Putin held off until recently due to the problematic optics of Chinese involvement, the risk that the exploitation of the mines and related processing industries could spark unrest close to the Kremlin, and environmental concerns over expanding the extractive process itself. Russia has a history of allowing China to mine in other parts of its territory. Although it was never implemented, in 1953 the two countries signed an agreement that allowed China to develop mines and mineral process facilities near Moscow. By early 2023, the Kremlin relented and allowed the Moscow Oblast to sign an agreement with Chinese firms. 

Mines were reopened after environmentalists were pushed aside, according to a January report in the Eurasian Daily Monitor. The Chinese firms are involved in oil, coal, phosphorites, and rare earth mining, including titanium and lithium. The Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported on May 19 that the Russian government expects the decision to add 10,000 new jobs this year. According to Goble, “This development will likely stoke problems at home and could ultimately threaten both the Kremlin leader and his alliance with China.” There are strong indications that opening the Moscow Oblast will lead potentially to political protests against Putin for allowing China to take the lead in mining and processing both minerals and chemicals in a region heavily populated by Russians. 

Given China’s long history of environmental abuses in the extractive industries, it is highly likely Putin’s opposition will foment unrest in Russia, given the president signed off on the deal. To reduce the regime’s risk, some political analysts in Washington suggest Putin will increase repression of dissent this summer to prevent an upsurge in popular protest. Goble suggests that this approach may be counterproductive as it increases the likelihood of nationalizing the issue and expanding potential protests. It appears Putin is willing to ally himself with China above the Russian people and risk a long-term political and ecological disaster for the nation ton continue his quest to reconstitute the Russian Empire.

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

President Biden’s national security negligence is stunning. 

As America’s adversaries, including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and terrorist-related criminal cartels increase their power, influence and aggression, the current administration is actually reducing the nation’s military.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, worries that “The defense topline [White House budget] number fails to keep pace with inflation and our adversaries…our defense budget should be built with the goal of deterring the threats facing our nation … I worry about the long-term impact this budget process will have on our national defense.”

A Wall Street Journal analysis notes that President Biden “has again proposed a vastly inadequate Defense Department budget…Adjusted for inflation, it’s about $140 billion below the 2010 budget that many analysts… insufficient in far less challenging times… advantage over potential adversaries has been shrinking rapidly. We must do better if we are to deter our enemies…U.S. defense spending has never returned to that 2010 level…The cumulative funding gap since 2010 totals about $2 trillion in the shortfall has still battered the military’s capabilities… only 70% of combat aircraft are mission-ready. The Navy is retiring a submarine every two years, while China, which already has the world’s largest navy, recently deployed advanced subs that can run silent.”

Collectively and individually, the armed forces are in significant distress.

The Hill reports that “As recently as 2018, Army planners called for growing the force by 2023. Today the service is unable to even maintain current force levels. Last year the Army set an active-duty end strength target of 485,000 troops. Due to recruiting shortfalls, Congress lowered the target by 33,000 for 2023. The Army is saying it will miss this lower goal too.”

According to the Air Force Times, “The Air Force in 2024 plans to shrink its uniformed force, but not by much. In the year ahead, the service hopes to number 502,700 enlisted airmen and officers across the active duty Air Force, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve — about 1,000 fewer uniformed jobs than in 2023…”

While the USAF shrinks, the publication also reports that  “Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, the new head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, warned lawmakers that Chinese warplanes could begin operating near the U.S. Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) as soon as this year…At the same time, Chinese surveillance balloons have entered U.S. airspace five times in recent years, with the Pentagon missing several at the time they occurred…”

Mackenzie Eaglen, in an American Enterprise Institute analysis notes that the U.S. Navy is about half the size it was 40 years ago, and is getting smaller even as China, which already has a larger navy, is expanding its seagoing forces… Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti recently emphasized, Failure to reverse the fleet’s decline is emboldening America’s enemies and will only get more costly the longer they keep at it.”

Business Insider notes the challenge is particularly acute in the Arctic. “US Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, the commander of US Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, said [recently] that the US currently has really only one heavy icebreaker ship for Arctic operations while Russia has approximately 40 available.”

The War Zone website emphasizes that “…there is a “worrisome disparity between Chinese and U.S. capacity to build new naval vessels and total naval force sizes. The data compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence says that a growing gap in fleet sizes is being helped by China’s shipbuilders being more than 200 times more capable of producing surface warships and submarines.”

Photo: China Defence Ministry

And just how did Donald Trump intend to violate New York State’s Election Law?  In one of three ways; “[i]n determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax law.”

Incredibly, when describing these three different laws, each of which represents a different theory of the case, Judge Merchan told the jury that “[a]lthough you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

These instructions form a basis for two different arguments on appeal.

First, returning to the issue I discussed in The Making of a Martyr, a defendant is entitled to know specifically what the charges are with which they are charged, in order for that defendant to be able to prepare a defense against those charges.  How could Donald Trump or his lawyers prepare a defense to charges which were not revealed to him until trial?

As is stated in the Criminal Resource Manual of the United States Department of Justice, “[i]f an essential element of the offense is omitted from the indictment, it cannot, consistent with the principle underlying the Fifth Amendment requirement that prosecution for an infamous crime be instituted by a grand jury, be supplied by the prosecutor or by the courts. As stated in Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 770 (1962): ‘To allow the prosecution, or the court, to make a subsequent guess as to what was in the minds of the grand jury at the time they returned the indictment would deprive the defendant of a basic protection which the guaranty of the intervention of a grand jury was designed to secure. For a defendant could then be convicted on the basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury which indicted him.'” 

There can be no doubt that the illegal action described above is exactly what happened in the case of Donald Trump.  The Grand Jury did not return an indictment describing any violation of New York State’s Election law, nor did it enumerate any violations of Federal Elections Law, falsification of other business records, or violations of any tax laws.  Instead, the Grand Jury only described “other crimes” as the predicate for the felony charge of Falsifying Business Records.

In other words, the New York County District Attorney and Judge Merchan both presented charges to the jury that were not included in the indictment.

Further, Judge Merchan’s instructions regarding the “other crime” of the “falsification of other business records” is described, in truly circular fashion, as acting “with intent to defraud, he or she makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.”  But isn’t that the primary charge?  How does one falsify business records with the intent to commit a crime, by falsifying business records with the intent to commit a crime?

Second, these instructions violate the necessity for a unanimous verdict.  Though Judge Merchan informed the jury that their verdict must be unanimous, at the same time, regarding the “other crimes,” he informed the jury that “you need not be unanimous as to what those [other crimes] were.”

So you don’t have to be unanimous, while reaching a unanimous verdict?

Under the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, “jury verdicts must be unanimous to convict a defendant of a non-petty offense in both federal and state criminal trials. For federal criminal trials, the Supreme Court’s recognition of this unanimity requirement is long-standing, dating back at least as far as the late 1800s. But for state criminal trials, it was not until 2020 that the Court held for the first time, in Ramos v. Louisiana, that the Sixth Amendment unanimity requirement applies by incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment.”  

In fact, New York State Attorney General Letitia James “led a coalition of nine Attorneys General in an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to recognize that the U.S. constitution requires unanimous verdicts by juries for convictions in state felony trials” in Ramos v. Louisiana. “’We have fought hard to guarantee that every American has the right to serve as a juror, and that every jury is drawn from a fair cross-section of our local communities,’ said Attorney General Letitia James. ‘Setting a nationwide standard that requires verdicts to be unanimous will ensure that juries actually consider the diverse views of all their members, rather than ignoring minority viewpoints that may reflect important experiences and varying perspectives.’” 

What did AG James have to say about Judge Merchan’s allowing a non-unanimous  verdict in the former President’s case?  “No one is above the law,” is all she had to say on the issue. 

This is, or course, only one issue (in several parts) that can be argued on behalf of Donald Trump in his appeal of his New York County criminal conviction.  There are also grounds for appeal based upon the failure to allow the defense to present witnesses on their behalf, and on prejudicial statements and rulings made by Judge Merchan throughout the course of the trial.

But even if the appellate courts were to only consider this one issue, the conclusion is inescapable – former President Donald Trump did not have a fair trial, and the violation of his rights began at the very beginning of the case – with an unspecific and unlawful indictment.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Judge Merchan

It may have seemed to many that former President Donald Trump would escape from the traps set by his Democrat enemies.  Jack Smith’s cases are on hold and Fulton County DA Fani Willis in Georgia is involved in an appeal of the decision not to remove her from the RICO case she brought against Donald Trump, delaying that matter as well.

But leave it to New York to succeed where everyone else has failed.

At this point, unless you’ve been away on a camping or fishing trip with no access to media, you know that the former 45th President of the United States has been convicted of all 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records, some of these counts being felonies. 

Naturally, Democrats had a field day, gloating over and celebrating their victory.  “Trump shut your mouth!” California Congressperson Maxine Waters stated on X. “Just shut your mouth, you’re convicted on all counts!” Then there were the reactions of some members of the public; “Vivica Jimenez, who was among a group of anti-Trump protesters at the court [said] she was ‘happy and relieved’ with the guilty verdict. ‘It’s been a long time waiting for this,’ Jimenez said. ‘It’s very emotional.’ Jamie Bauer, another anti-Trump protester, also praised the verdict. ‘Justice is being served and Trump is being held accountable,’ Bauer said.” 

But, as is so often the case, Law Professor and former US Attorney Jonathan Turley states the facts clearly and succinctly:  “Trump was convicted in a trial with a Biden donor judge, who has a daughter who is a major Democratic operative, a lead prosecutor previously paid as a DNC political consultant selected in a…jury district that voted roughly 90% against Trump.”  

In April, we discussed the fact that New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan should have been removed from hearing the case against Donald Trump based upon his contributions (regardless of the amount) to the Biden campaign and several anti-Republican organizations, as well as his daughter’s political activities. This issue will no doubt be one ground for the inevitable appeal of Donald Trump’s conviction.

What other grounds are there for an appeal of this clearly erroneous verdict?

Among the plethora of issues available to the former President, there is one issue in particular that has the most promise – The instructions given to the jury were incorrect, and misstated the law applicable to the case.

These instructions were also the first time that the charges against Donald Trump were made clear, a violation of the former president’s right to a fair trial, and to be informed of the crimes with which he was accused.

In my book, The Making of a Martyr, an Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump, at both Chapters 5 and 7, I discuss the legal insufficiency of the Indictment brought against the former President, the document which formed the basis for his prosecution.    I  noted that “[u]nder Section 200.50 of the New York State Criminal Procedure Law, ‘an indictment must contain…(a) statement in each count that the grand jury…accuses the defendant…of a designated offense,” as well as “(a) plain and concise factual statement in each count which… asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant`s…commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant…of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation.’” 

I also stated that “a review of the New York County indictment revealed that “Donald Trump is accused of causing a false entry to be made in [his] business records…for the purpose of committing another crime…What other crime?  The indictment does not say… Simply put, how is former President Trump to prepare a defense, if he is not informed of the ‘other crime’ he intended to commit or conceal when he allegedly falsified his business records?”

This problem with the indictment was never resolved while the case was pending.  However, at the end of trial, the prosecutors and Judge finally revealed to the defense the theory of their case, which is described by Professor Turley in this way; “Merchan told the jury members that they [could] base their verdict on any one of three vaguely defined crimes of a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations. Thus, the jury could have divided 4-4-4 on what actually occurred but the verdict was still treated as unanimous by Merchan to convict Trump.”  

Sure enough, Judge Merchan’s instructions state  that “[u]nder [New York State] law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.”   This is true so far as it goes, however, the  “other crime” the former President intended to conceal is finally revealed – “a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152 [which] provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means…”

Judge Wilson’s article concludes tomorrow