Month: February 2025

It is time for religious leaders to stick to actual fulfilling their mission to attend to the spiritual needs of the people, and to stop misusing their pulpits to broadcast their often-ill-informed political biases. From Pope Francis to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to local Episcopal bishops in Washington, and hucksters like the “Reverand” Al Sharpton, there seems to be no limits to their ignoring the example Jesus Himself set to distinguish the temporal from the heavenly. Yes, there are also pastors on the Right who cross that line too, but not to the extent of their leftist counterparts.

Famously, despite the deep crises facing the Israel of his era, Jesus himself, the founder of all Christianity, refused to take part in the politics of the time. As noted in one group that discusses the topic, [In Jesus’ time] “the common farmer, fisherman, or craftsman’s family lived through a highly volatile political period. Overbearing religious leaders who despised and oppressed them, wealthy elites who ripped them off, racial and ethnic tension with neighbors, and sporadic violent outbreaks between an oppressive occupying army. So where was Jesus in all of this? Did he align with the religious elites? With the wealthy and powerful? Or did he start an uprising to overthrow them? None of the above.”

Compare that to Church leaders today. The New Statesman writes: The list of issues Justin Welby [Archbishop of Canterbury] has intervened on since becoming Archbishop of Canterbury is long. He has railed in the Church Times against Remainers “whingeing”. He has come out against payday lending sites, Universal Credit and tax avoidance. He has told everyone he thinks Brexit is dividing the country. More recently, he has consistently condemned the government’s plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. In 2022, he said the plans were ‘the opposite of the nature of God.'”

Writing for U.S. News, Michael King reports that “I have read the Bible cover to cover and never once did I see a story of Christ or his disciples getting involved in a political campaign. They were one hundred percent focused on spreading the Gospel. I’m sure that’s true of other religions as well.”

A New York Post story describes one outrageous example: “A Catholic charity that receives billions in government funding has stirred controversy for a video teaching migrants in the country illegally how to evade US immigration law. In the video, distributed by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee’s Refugee & Immigration Services Program, immigration attorney Barbara Graham outlines step-by-step instructions for how migrants can thwart authorities conducting lawful investigations at their workplace.”

Pope Francis has not been shy about his criticism of American border policy, economic system, criminal justice practices, and more. Indeed, he has even been blunt in his criticism of U.S. Catholics. As discussed in YouGov “Shortly after Pope Francis began his papacy in 2013, he was unknown among 44% of Americans. Those with an opinion of him — including roughly equal shares of Democrats and Republicans — were far more likely to hold positive views of the pope than negative ones. Today, Americans continue to view Pope Francis in a positive light, though views of him have become politically polarized: More Democrats than Republicans view him favorably, even as more Republicans than Democrats view the Catholic Church favorably…Pope Francis is thought of favorably by more Americans than the Catholic Church is, though Roman Catholics view him somewhat more negatively than they view the Catholic Church overall. More Americans have a very or somewhat unfavorable view of the Catholic Church (43%) than have a very or somewhat favorable one (38%). But Pope Francis is viewed unfavorably by just 26%, while 43% view him favorably. Majorities of Roman Catholics have a favorable view of the Catholic Church (77%) and of Pope Francis (66%).”

Miranda Devine describes the sabotage of what was supposed to be a unifying Inaugural Prayer Service at Washington’s National Cathedral. “Jaws dropped throughout Washington’s National Cathedral when an egomaniacal female Episcopal bishop sabotaged the Inaugural Prayer Service with a left-wing rant from the pulpit about illegal migrants and LGBT issues, aimed directly at President Trump, who was sitting politely in the front pew. What the Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, 65, was supposed to do Tuesday, at the historical interfaith service, was to bless the incoming administration and pray for God’s guidance and protection for the nation.” Instead, she abandoned this vital task and replaced it with a political tirade.

Illustration: Pixabay

Rep. John Moolenaar, who chairs the Congressional select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, outlined Beijing’s threat in recent remarks at the Wilson Center.

“…the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] poses a military threat to America and our allies, an economic threat to our companies, and an ideological challenge around the world…

“…the CCP understood that Communism can never compete with freedom when it comes to human happiness or prosperity. They knew that the only way they could win was for us to lose. The policies undertaken by the Chinese Communist Party – from poisoning our nation with fentanyl to crippling our economy through abusive trade practices and IP theft – are all aimed at destroying American society. The CCP approaches the United States as an enemy to be harmed rather than as a partner. For the past two years, the Select Committee has demonstrated how the CCP’s aggression in areas like fentanyl, IP theft, transnational repression, Taiwan, and trade are all different fronts in the same war. There is nothing normal about the CCP’s state-led, mercantilist industrial policy that cripples American industry through illegal subsidies, IP theft, and the use of slave labor. There is also nothing normal–let alone, most favored–about our trading relationship with China. It is time for US law to reflect that through new tariff rates that target strategic sectors and boost supply chain resilience. Congress must work with the Administration to reduce the flow of de minimis shipments into the United States, a loophole that this year alone will allow more than a billion shipments to enter the United States – exempt from duties, taxes, and strict scrutiny. We must stem the flow of American capital and tech that is fueling the Chinese military modernization and human rights abuses. American dollars should not finance companies that are developing technology that could someday be used against American service members in a conflict, nor aiding the CCP’s genocide of Uyghur Muslims…”

Some of Moolenaar’s concerns are echoed in research from the Center for Strategic and International Studies “The present period is one of intensifying rivalry, with neither country content with the status quo. Both the United States and China are engaged in a sprawling competition that spans military, economic, technological, diplomatic, and ideational realms, including global governance. Currently, Washington and Beijing do not have any broadly shared purpose that could help the relationship weather shocks and generate resilience.”

The Rand organization,  noting that the incoming Presidential Administration will be tasked with dealing with the dilemma, conducted discussions with experts on how the critical issues, including economic tensions, China’s military aggression, and its growing closeness  with Russia, will be addressed.

Kristen Gunness, a senior policy researcher at RAND, professor of policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School, and former Director of the Navy Asia Pacific Advisory Group at the Pentagon, believes that “Among the most salient issues is China’s support for Russia. It is also crucial to address China’s influence operations and disinformation campaigns and to push back on and deter Chinese military aggression in the Indo-Pacific region.”

Jennifer Bouey, the Tang Chair for China Policy Studies, a senior policy researcher and epidemiologist at RAND, and a professor of policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School, Jennifer Bouey The geopolitical rivalry with China has consumed significant American effort and resources—and remains a work in progress. This is the challenge of our times, not just for the United States and China, but also for the world. warns that “The United States must find ways to compete with China without compromising its own values, economy, and security. The challenge to the United States also includes maintaining channels for high-level meetings to negotiate on new threats (e.g., AI, biosecurity) and avoiding wars.”

China is a unique adversary, unlike any the United States has ever faced in the last two centuries. It has the same advantage in industrial resources that America had in World War II. Its nuclear arsenal is growing rapidly, and it currently possess the world’s largest army and navy, along with an advanced scientific and technological capability.

Photo:  China’s first Type 054B frigate, the Luohe, was commissioned in the People’s Liberation Army Navy recently in a military port in Qingdao, east China’s Shandong Province. (China Defence Ministry photo)

The members of the Axis of Evil are moving significantly closer together. North Korea has supplied troops and China is providing economic and material support. The closest relationship may well be between Moscow and Tehran.

Iran’s provision of drones has been widely discussed, but the relationship goes far beyond that.  According to the semi-official Russian News source RT, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s recent visit to Moscow “…opened up a new chapter in bilateral relations between Russia and Iran that have existed for 400 years.”

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin noted that the two powers will sign “a treaty on comprehensive strategic partnership between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This major new treaty will lay a solid foundation for the development of our cooperation in the long-term perspective. I want to underscore that Russian-Iranian relations, which are based on the principles of friendship, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests, are looking to the future. The Russian Government will ensure that all the decisions made at the highest level are implemented in full.”

Russia’s semi-official news outlet RT has reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed support for the construction of a gas pipeline to Iran which could eventually supply up to 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to the Islamic Republic annually.  “The pipeline project is part of a broader strategic agreement between Russia and Iran signed on Friday, as well as a memorandum signed by Russian state gas major Gazprom and the National Iranian Gas Company in June 2024 and aimed at facilitating Russian gas supplies to the Islamic Republic.

The defense site War on the Rocks From the 1990s to 2022, Russia provided… important military assistance to Iran across the ground, aerospace, and naval domains… In addition to Russian support to Iran’s nuclear program, this assistance included the provision of tanks, armored vehicles, anti-tank missiles, combat aircraft, helicopters, and surface-to-air missiles, among others. Assistance — at least in the 1990s — also entailed unofficial transfers by low-level Russian entities to Iran’s ballistic missile and suspected chemical and biological weapons programs. Since 2022, Russia’s defense relationship with Iran has taken a big leap forward. Cooperation has moved past the previous patron-client dynamic, with Iran emerging as a key enabler of Russia’s air and ground campaign in Ukraine. Military-technical collaboration has intensified in existing areas, while also advancing to new frontiers such as the joint development of novel uncrewed aerial vehicles. Amid a general weakening of past constraints on cooperation, Iran and Russia have also taken steps to further institutionalize their defense relationship. Western capitals should accept an uncomfortable reality: Even if Russia’s war against Ukraine were to end, there is little hope that the Iran-Russia defense relationship will revert to its pre-2022 status quo. Both countries have identified needs for future military contingencies that they can help each other meet — even if Iran will continue to be more reliant on advanced technology from Russia than vice versa. Traditional instruments such as diplomatic pressure or sanctions are unlikely to be effective in checking this cooperation so long as both Iran and Russia view Washington and its allies as their main adversaries. As a result, the best the United States and its partners can do is to disrupt this cooperation on the margins and focus on undermining it in the most sensitive areas. Specifically, Washington should focus on complicating Iran’s and Russia’s procurement of electronics for high-end defense goods and seek to derail or deter impending deals or deliveries through strategic disclosures.

In testimony before Congress, Dana Stroul, Kassen Fellow and Director of Research for the Washington Institute warned that the Moscow-Tehran relationship threatens the United States. “The U.S. view is that the People’s Republic of China is the strategic competitor willing and able to reshape the current global order, and Iran-Russia cooperation is quickly evolving into Iran-Russia-China cooperation. The risk of a Russia-Iran-China revisionist axis challenging the security and sovereignty of the U.S. network of allies and partners is one of the most pressing and urgent security priorities of this century… Iran-Russia cooperation existed before Moscow’s watershed 2015 decision to militarily coordinate with Tehran and intervene in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime. But it has now evolved from tactical cooperation to a full-fledged defense partnership.”

“Motivations and worldviews that drive increasing Iranian-Russian cooperation include:

• Animosity toward “Western” values-based global engagement (including representative governance and rights-based agendas), which is viewed as threatening to regime survival.
• Focus on internal resilience in the face of international pressure through sanctions and economic decoupling.
• Discontent with the current rules-based international order and a shared desire to challenge and reshape it, particularly through proactive engagement in Africa, Latin America, and with China.

“This strategic orientation of “resistance” drives cooperation in the following areas:

• Military coordination: Two-way military transfers and defense technology exchanges that threaten the security of U.S. partners in Europe and the Middle East. Citizens in Ukraine and across the Middle East are suffering from the same Iranian-origin attack drones.
• Nuclear nonproliferation: Russia is unlikely to oppose, and more likely to facilitate, Iran’s continued creep toward nuclear weapons threshold status.
• Sanctions: As the two most sanctioned countries in the world, Tehran and Moscow are actively engaged in activities to circumvent and weaken the potency of Western sanctions.
• Diplomacy: Russia is using its seat on the UN Security Council to shield Iran from accountability for its destabilizing actions and violations of international law.
• Domestic suppression: Iran and Russia are exchanging best practices to crush protests, undermine citizen organization efforts, and maintain mass surveillance programs against their own people.” Photo: Mikhail Mishustin’s meeting with President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian

Change is in the air and not only in Washington. A few decades ago, Russia was the dominant power in the communist world. Beijing relied on Moscow as a child depending on a parent for protection and nurturing. Those roles are reversed today. Western sanctions have limited Russia’s global engagements, especially its activities in the Arctic region. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China has expanded its involvement in the high north. In 2018 it proclaimed itself a “near Arctic state,” despite sitting 930 miles (1,500 km) from that region. Moscow’s unspoken concerns in 2025 are continuing to grow as developments between the two appear to indicate Beijing is expanding its behind-the-scenes activities in a likely attempt to emerge as the dominant Arctic power. 

At first Putin welcomed China’s engagement given the restrictions that sanctions imposed on his country. As Beijing expanded its operations and redefined itself, Kremlin concerns increased and led it to oppose the near Arctic state characterization. “In 2020, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s special envoy in the Arctic Council at the time stated that Russia ‘disagree[d] with’ the characterization of the PRC as a near Arctic state, instead agreeing with then-U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo that ‘there are two groups of countries—Arctic and non-Arctic,’” according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. While he says Kremlin concerns are not the same as an immediate breakdown in relations, it may be possible for the West to exploit these differences in the future. 

With Russia’s resources increasingly consumed by its ongoing war in Ukraine, it is likely that an ambitious China will continue to use the opportunity to move forward in the Arctic. Beijing is constructing new ice breakers and developing infrastructure in and along the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and beyond. Although public statements by the two states continue to be positive, there are indications that their shared interests have limits. Last November, the first meeting of the “Sub-commission on Cooperation on the NSR of the Russian-Chinese Commission for the Preparation of Regular Meetings of Heads of Government” was held in St. Petersburg. Tensions emerged as differences in their perspectives saw Russia concentrating primarily on security issues as in the past while China spoke explicitly about its economic approach on the NSR. Beijing claims economics leads any security interest it has in the region. 

If the West is to combat China’s rise in influence in the Arctic, it needs to understand that the containment of one power may lead to a significant rise in the other. China may have plans to push Russia out of its dominant position in the Arctic. Observers, such as Vasily Koltashov, an expert at the Plehkanov University of Economics in Moscow, is highly skeptical that China will remain an ally of Russia’s. He suggests that China is gaining strength at Russia’s expense, according to Goble. Koltashov says that Moscow will remain allied only if it can control Beijing’s regional involvement. That will mean that China’s investments cannot challenge Putin’s position or exploit its deteriorating circumstances. He points out that Putin may not be able to stop events, and that Russia could be “transformed into the periphery of China.”

Koltashov is not alone in his viewpoint. Goble points out that other Russian analysts, although quieter in their predictions, also see the China challenge as a real concern for the Kremlin. In recent months there are an increasing number of Russian language articles discussing the challenge China poses to Putin and Russia. Discrepancies become evident when examining the level of Russian cargo traffic over the last year on the NSR. Moscow’s planned goals for maritime tonnage do not meet the actual tonnage of reported cargo traffic. Russia also failed to meet its predicted schedule for icebreaker construction, leading some analysts in Washington to call the NSR a “black hole” for the 2025 Russian budget. 

If Putin backs off further, it opens additional opportunities for China’s aggressive Xi Jinping to decide to fill the gap. The Kremlin is unlikely to simply cede control of the Arctic to China. If Beijing continues to quietly and slowly move into a more prominent position, however, it may be able to achieve its long-term strategic gains in the region. Russia, in the end, may not be able to stop the security challenge to its sovereignty over the high north. The Trump Administration and other Western leaders need to consider that China and Russia may publicly speak in friendly terms, they may not always coordinate as allies. It is time to design an approach to containment that works for the free world.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

After Trump’s conviction, there were many who called for the incarceration of the 45th and now 47th President. One typical sentiment was reported by Politico, “'[t]his is not a one-off, ‘Oops, I made a mistake on my business records,’ or even, a one-off scheme,’ said Diana Florence, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office who ran for the DA’s job in 2021 but lost to Alvin Bragg, the lead prosecutor in the Trump case…’Given the entirety of the facts and circumstances that came out during the trial, I believe if convicted, a sentence of incarceration is warranted and justified,’ Florence said. ‘If I were the prosecutor, I would absolutely be asking for state prison,’ she added.” 

Indeed.  Given the extremely serious nature of these offenses, in the interests of justice, what penalty did Donald Trump receive from Judge Merchan?

An Unconditional Discharge.

Say what now?

Yes, after hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in prosecuting this matter; after a jury trial that took weeks out of the lives of the court, its personnel and the jury; after all the statements made by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and every other Democrat who was asked, intoning their solemn belief that no one is above the law, and that a serious matter like this needs a severe punishment, Donald Trump received an Unconditional Discharge?

Under New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 65.05, “[t]he court may impose a sentence of unconditional discharge in any case where…it is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant’s release.” 

This means that Donald Trump received no real penalty for a crime Bragg and his fellow Democrats told us, loudly and repeatedly, was serious enough to warrant a criminal prosecution with the possibility of jail time.

Why would Judge Merchan give now-President Trump nothing but a slap on the wrist after all that effort?

As Reuters reports, Merchan stated at sentencing that “he was imposing the sentence sparing Trump jail, a fine or probation because the U.S. Constitution shields presidents from criminal prosecution. But he said the protections afforded to the office ‘do not reduce the seriousness of a crime or justify its commission in any way…[t]he considerable, indeed extraordinary, legal protection afforded by the office of the chief executive is a factor that overrides all others,”‘ Merchan said. ‘Despite the extraordinary breadth of those protections, one power they do not provide is the power to erase jury verdicts.'” 

In other words, I don’t care if you’re President and have the protection of that high office.  You’re still a convicted felon. So there!

If you voted for Donald Trump, and based upon the results of the 2024 election, it is safe to assume that many people did, the fact that the 47th President is a convicted felon carried absolutely no weight with the majority of people.

While there was much navel gazing in the media regarding the effect such a conviction would have on the 2024 election, the actual feelings of the electorate at large was roundly ignored.  In May of 2024, PBS Newshour held a poll in conjunction with NPR and Marist College. Hardly supporters of Donald Trump, the pollsters must have been dismayed and disheartened by the polls results:

“Overall, 67 percent of voters said a conviction would make no difference for them in November, including 74 percent of independents. That’s a significantly higher number than the percentage of either Republicans or Democrats who said it wouldn’t change their vote. In fact, 25 percent of Republicans said they would be even more likely to vote for Trump if he were found guilty by a jury, while 27 percent of Democrats said they would be less likely to vote for him.”  

PBS chalked these results up to voter disinterest; “Because the Manhattan court proceedings are not televised, Trump’s trial has gone largely unnoticed by many Americans, said [Republican strategist Douglas] Heye, who noted he has traveled extensively around the country in recent weeks. ‘No one is talking about the trial except people in Washington, D.C. and New York City,’ he said.”  But perhaps there is another, deeper reason.

As we discussed in our testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, it was obvious that Judge Merchan did not give Donald Trump a fair trial.  The judge gave the jury instructions which gave them the choice to return a non-unanimous verdict regarding three underlying charges, something strictly prohibited by the law.  Judge Merchan allowed the Manhattan DA to add those charges during the trial, even though those crimes were not part of the indictment – another illegal action.  People who watched the trial also saw Judge Merchan be angry and condescending towards defense arguments and witnesses, while allowing the prosecutors of Alvin Bragg’s office extensive leeway and courtesy at every opportunity.

Many people also knew that Judge Merchan’s daughter was profiting from the trial of Donald Trump, and were shocked at this obvious conflict of interest.

More likely than voter disinterest in the Trump criminal trial was voter disgust at watching such a blatantly unfair trial, perpetrated in an effort to stop one man from running for President.

Now that this goal has failed, and the voters of America have resoundingly spoken, Judge Merchan decided to cut his own losses and give the 47th president a nothingburger of a sentence for a conviction that will no doubt be reversed on appeal.

One criminal case does remain on the docket against Donald Trump; the Georgia State indictment for racketeering brought by Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis.

As we discussed in December of 2023,  Willis’ indictment is based on Georgia’s RICO statute, which gives a very broad definition for a criminal enterprise.  In essence, Willis charged Trump and his 2020 re-election campaign organization with engaging in a pattern of racketeering, conducted in an effort to intimidate Georgia election officials and steal the 2020 election.

We also noted the similarities in the charges brought in Georgia with those brought by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith in his “Jan 6” indictment. 

Unlike the clearly biased Judge Merchan, the Court in Georgia, Judge Scott McAfee, has been more balanced in his handling of this case.  In March of last year, the Court dismissed several counts relating to the alleged efforts by Trump to convince Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger to “find” additional votes. “‘As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited,’ McAfee wrote. ‘They do not give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the Defendants could have violated the Constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways.'” 

Contrast this ruling, which was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals in January of 2025 with the rulings made by Judge Merchan, allowing prosecutors to add charges to their indictment after the case had gone to trial.

Besides understanding the legal necessity for giving a defendant fair notice of the charges he faces prior to trial, Judge McAfee also showed his understanding of the distinction between federal and state jurisdiction. 

In her indictment of Donald Trump,  Willis asserts that “Members of the enterprise…created false Electoral College documents [and] transmitted [these documents] to the President of the United States Senate [and] the Archivist of the United States…[t]he false documents were intended to disrupt and delay the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021 in order to unlawfully change the outcome of the November 3, 2020, presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.”

In September of 2024, Judge McAfee dismissed several charges predicated upon these allegations, ruling that “the southern state did not have the authority to bring the specific charges related to the alleged filing of false documents in federal court.”   As NPR explained, Judge McAfee  “dismissed the three counts based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says state law must yield to federal law when the two conflict.” 

Compare this ruling again with the evidence Judge Merchan allowed to be used against Donald Trump in New York.  Some of the underlying charges in that case related to the filing of allegedly false documents with the Federal Elections Commission.  Judge McAfee understands that federal filings are subject to federal law, and federal law only.  Judge Merchan clearly does not.

Despite these dismissals, charges do remain pending against Donald Trump in Georgia state court.  However, the indictment continues to be stalled by the antics of Fulton County DA Fani Willis.

In March of last year, it was revealed that Willis had an ongoing romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, whom she hired as a Special Prosecutor in her case against Donald Trump.  Questions arose, and a hearing was held regarding this obvious conflict of interest. 

Trump’s attorneys argued that “Willis should be disqualified from the case, claiming that she financially benefited from hiring Wade because of their personal relationship.”  Willis emphatically denied that her and Wade had a romantic relationship before he was hired to work on the Trump case.  Witnesses testified that this was untrue, and that Willis and Wade’s relationship predated her hiring him.  But even more damaging to Willis, it was revealed during the hearing that Willis and Wade took a series of vacations together, “including Caribbean cruises and visiting wine country California.  Both testified that Wade routinely paid for the trips and Willis would reimburse him with cash. When repeatedly pressed about whether any records existed for her withdrawals of the funds, she said she was accustomed and taught by her father to keep 6 months of regular expenses on hand in cash.” 

After the hearing, Judge McAfee ruled that “[t]he district attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment…Alternatively, [special assistant district attorney] Wade can withdraw, allowing the district attorney, the defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case.” 

Wade then resigned, leaving Willis in charge of the case.  Trump’s lawyers appealed.

In December of last year, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that Willis must also be removed.  “Citing an ‘appearance of impropriety’ that might not typically warrant such a removal, [the court] said in a 2-1 ruling that ‘this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings’…The appeals court majority opinion, written by Judge Trenton Brown and joined by Judge Todd Markle, said ‘the remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.'” 

Willis’ office has appealed her removal, further delaying the proceedings against Donald Trump in Georgia.  But the case does remain alive, giving Democrats their one last hope of derailing the Trump Presidency.

The majority of the lawfare criminal charges brought against the President have failed to either prevent his election or cause his incarceration.  Given the lack of progress in the one remaining, it seems highly unlikely that Donald Trump’s enemies will see their wishes granted in the near future.

But the road Donald Trump has travelled thus far still has a few more speed bumps to be navigated by our 47th President.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

It is now one for the history books; only the second President to serve non-consecutive terms, Donald J. Trump, our 45th President, was sworn in as our 47th President on Monday, January 20, 2025. 

“[R]eturning to power with a promise to end America’s decline and to ‘completely and totally reverse’ the actions of the man who drove him from office four years ago,” the Associated Press states, “Trump overcame impeachments, criminal indictments and a pair of assassination attempts to win another term in the White House.” 

This assessment is, of course, an understatement.  As we have detailed here in usagovpolicy.com, as well as in our book, The Making of a Martyr: An Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump,  Donald Trump has overcome opposition to both his first term in office, and his reelection campaign that would have clearly broken a poorer, less determined man.  Two impeachments, four criminal indictments, several civil matters, as well as two assassination attempts would probably have seriously impeded the progress of most of us.

For Donald Trump, however, these roadblocks have served as nothing but speed bumps, sometimes slowing, but never stopping his return trip to the White House.

Both indictments brought by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith are dead letters.  In July of 2024, Federal District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Florida “classified documents” indictment, on the basis that Smith was never legally appointed to serve as a Special Prosecutor by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. Smith had appealed the dismissal; however, upon the election of Donald Trump, the ersatz Special –Counsel withdrew the appeal,  “due to a long-standing Justice Department policy that bars the prosecution of a sitting president.” 

After the US Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States  that Smith’s “January 6” indictment included a series of allegations that could not be legally maintained, Smith made an effort to supersede the indictment.  But this effort met the same fate as the “classified documents” case – Smith withdrew the charges in November of 2024.

Jack Smith then resigned his post, after issuing a report that will likely remain unread by anyone but Trump Justice Department attorneys looking for a good laugh.  

As the 47th President would say, “all this winning…”

But let’s not celebrate too quickly.  While Donald Trump’s federal prosecutions have ended in a decidedly ignoble fashion, there are still two state court criminal matters to be considered.

In June of 2024, Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in New York County Supreme Court, Criminal Term.  We have discussed extensively the blunders committed by Judge Juan Merchan during that trial, including the utterly illegal instructions he gave to the jury; we even testified before the House Judiciary Committee about these reversible errors in July of 2024. 

More recently, we analyzed whether or not Judge Merchan would proceed to sentence the 47th President, or defer sentencing until the conclusion of his presidency. As we noted in December of last year,  “[t]he advantages to his opponents of having a criminal conviction pending sentencing hanging over the head of the President of the United States are obvious.  Just as obvious is the advantage to those same opponents of having Donald Trump unable to appeal his unjust and illegal conviction, since a defendant must be sentenced before he may proceed with an appeal.” 

Rather than proceed with this option, Judge Merchan moved forward with imposing sentence on the 47th President on January 10 of this year.

Judge John Wilson’s (ret.)  article concludes tomorrow

Picture: Pixabay

Back in the 1990’s, I penned my first in a series of articles dealing with the subject matter of  “Fires, Floods, and Fools”, a never-ending cycle in California.  Having lived through the 1969 flood and countless fires, it was a painful but easy column to write.  Now, after revisiting this subject again and again and again over the years, the pain of watching tens of thousands of people lose everything they own is too much to bear.  Nonetheless, will our government recognize this never-ending cycle of fires and floods, including the horrific Montecito debris flow, and begin to address the real problem that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with managing natural resources in a prudent and competent manner?

I am going to digress here a little bit and demonstrate that the rhetoric of climate change is just that, rhetoric.  The fact is the doomsayers themselves claim that climate change will result in greater catastrophes in the future meaning we will experience worse droughts, floods, and fires than ever before.  Yet, what have they done to prepare for the same?  Have they built more dams and reservoirs to alleviate floods and help us through droughts?  No.  Have they built fuel breaks throughout the “wildlands”?  No.  Have they conducted regularly scheduled controlled burns?  No.  Have they thinned the trees and brush and created a significantly wide buffer zone between the urban/rural interface?  No.  Have they deployed thousands of goats and cows into our foothills to help manage the fuels?  No.  Moreover, have they compared the ghg emissions from wildfires to that of the transportation sector to affirm they are focusing on the biggest emission source?  No!

Meanwhile, what has our government done?  Besides spending billions on high-speed rail, tens of billions on the homeless (ironically at least two homeless people in LA were detained by law enforcement as arson suspects!), and millions on charging stations and the like, they set up an impossible scenario for the public at large via what they have done to our utilities and insurance carriers. 

They have prevented our utilities from clear cutting the areas through which our power lines run and then sued the bejesus out of them for the ensuing fire storms.  This leaves the utilities with little choice but to turn off power in the middle of a windstorm or face the threat of bankruptcy from the ensuing lawsuits.  And what good are charging stations that won’t work when people need them most, as when their power is cut off during an emergency? 

Moreover, the state would not allow insurance companies to raise rates in a timely manner to cover the never-ending stream of claims from natural disasters, so they were forced to cancel coverage.  So now, a significant number of the people who lost their homes have no insurance coverage to cover their losses or begin the rebuilding process as you normally can’t get loans to construct without fire insurance.

Of course, since the 1990’s when I first wrote on this subject matter, our government’s failure to adequately safeguard our communities from fires and floods has gotten progressively worse, pun intended.  That is, progressives in city and county governments and our state government have placed undue emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion in their hiring and promotional practices as competence is lower on the list of priorities than ever before.

Specifically, as LA County spent more than a billion on the homeless, millions on electric vehicles, including an electric fire truck and EV charging stations, and hundreds of thousands on various DEI programs, they cut the fire department budget some $17 million this past year!  One expenditure stands out to me.  $14,010 to the “Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles- maybe Nero should have thought of hiring a choir while Rome burned!  See here

Our government needs to come to grips with reality, but that won’t happen until we start electing people with real world experience that breeds competence in managing priorities versus the ability to virtue signal.  There are a myriad of laws, local, state and federal, that prevent us from preventing out-of-control wildfires by reducing fuel loading.  Nobody should have to get a permit to thin trees and brush on their property, or maximize flood control capacities in rivers, streams and ditches, and the government should be required to do the same on an ongoing basis on the property under their control.  California also needs to quit wasting billions of gallons of water on fish and make it a priority that every community in this state has more water than they need including by constructing multiple desal plants throughout the coast, along with a significant number of new dams and reservoirs.

Andy Caldwell is the Executive Director of COLAB Santa Barbara County