Author: Daria Novak

Earlier this week, President Biden reversed his 2022 decision, authorizing the provision of antipersonnel land mines to the Ukrainian government. It follows an earlier Administration authorization to allow the use of an advanced American missile system capable of striking as deep as 100 miles inside Russian territory. The US election season may be ending, but both Russia and the West show no indication of stepping down the conflict. Russian propaganda continues to swell as the Kremlin increases its threats to use nuclear weapons against the West. 

Last week Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the pro-Kremlin think tank Valdai Discussion Club (VDC), published an article on growing nuclear tensions in the region. Official Russian language in the last few years has been threatening. Since the US election, rhetoric like that in the Sushentsov article, has approached the level of nuclear blackmail.

The VDC article’s main theme centers on Russia’s intent to directly confront the West militarily if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) becomes involved in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. “On the one hand, these threats are intended to frighten the West, but on the other, Russian propagandists themselves are starting to believe in the inevitability of escalation,” according to Ksenia Kirillova of the Jamestown Foundation.

On November 11, Sushentsov wrote that “The conflict will reach a completely new level, with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the entire world.” Kirillova points out that Putin’s distorted image of the world is divorced from reality and is causing the Kremlin to issue demands that are impossible to fulfill. Financial and other Russian resources needed to support Putin’s war are growing scarcer at the same time. This week the Kremlin announced a reduction of payments to its soldiers. Recently North Korea acknowledged it was sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine as Putin is running out of bodies to use as cannon fire. The war is not going well for Russia. 

One question floating around the Washington intelligence community is whether Putin will act out of desperation before President-elect Trump assumes office. In recent months the Russian propaganda machine is spewing out materials from fairly reputable analytical platforms inside the country. Kirillova says that “Kremlin ‘experts’ do not conceal that such threats are only intended to break the West psychologically, as they themselves are not prepared for full-scale nuclear war.” Despite Russia’s lack of preparation for an all-out war with the West, the expanding nuclear rhetoric carries with it an increase in the threat of a full-scale war in multiple theaters of operation. 

In June 2023 a founder of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, called for “delivering a pre-emptive strike of retaliation” on Poland to force the West to surrender. In the previous month, Dmitry Suslov, a direct of research programs at the policy center proposed organizing “a demonstration nuclear explosion” aimed at intimidating the West. In September, President Putin announced a reappraisal of Russian nuclear doctrine after speaking earlier in the year at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and jokingly calling Suslov a “scary person.” 

Pavel Baev, writing in the European Daily Monitor, says “Putin intends his announcement to mark an escalation of nuclear brinkmanship and influence the proceedings of future Ukrainian peace efforts.” Putin is expanding the list of environmental conditions that are acceptable for using a nuclear weapon and incorporating it into Russian military doctrine. Baev adds that “The ups and downs of Russian brinkmanship are disconnected from the kinetic battles of the war, correlating instead with Ukrainian peace offensives, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s first peace summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland.” Despite the increase in vitriolic language, in a You Tube video published a week before the US presidential election, Karaganov openly assured the West the primary goal of the escalation is to break the American spirit and that of the West, not outright nuclear war. By Election Day in the US, with political prognosticators predicting a win for former president Trump, Karaganov changed his tune and called for an increased role in nuclear deterrence.

Kirillova points out that Western concessions to Russia are unlikely to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation. The distorted reality inside the Kremlin continues to push that President-elect Trump is an adherent of “world government,” that Ukraine will create a nuclear weapon, and Russia must prepare for a nuclear conflagration to achieve its ambitions for a new world order. President-elect Trump has indicated he will not agree to concessions that destabilize Europe, the Middle East or other regions. Going forward a strong US foreign policy may be the most stabilizing course the West can count on to restrain Putin and his intent to rebuild the Russian empire.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

It has become commonplace for the left to defame and slander those on the right.  But it has also become a matter of course for conservatives to fight back.  However, whether or not the right-leaning person is successful in suing the slanderer often depends on whether or not the target of the attack is a private figure, or a public one.

According to Andrew Stebbins and Christina Williams of the law firm Buckingham, Doolittle and Burroughs of Cleveland, “[t]he designation of public versus private figure for a plaintiff in a defamation claim is important because it governs the burden of proof a plaintiff has in proving the mental state of the defendant. A public figure must prove that a Defendant acted with ‘actual malice’ in publishing a false statement about the plaintiff.  Actual malice means that the person either knew the statement was false or showed such reckless disregard for the truth that they should have known the statement was false.  A private figure, however, only has to show that a defendant was negligent in making the false statement.”  

This distinction made an important difference for the cases brought by Nicholas Sandmann, a high school student who was in Washington DC for a Pro-Life Rally in January of 2019.  Sandmann was confronted by a Native-American activist, who banged a drum and chanted directly in front of Sandmann, who stood still with a smile on his face.

Much of the media immediately assumed that Sandmann, wearing a MAGA hat, was a racist.   “A video that shows white high school students in Make America Great Again hats and shirts mocking a Native American elder shocked the country,” according to CNN, “leading to widespread denunciations of the teens’ behavior.” 

Those denunciations of Sandmann came fast and furious. According to Robby Soave, writing for  Reason, “The Detroit Free Press described the video as depicting ‘[the Native-American activist] peacefully drumming and singing, while surrounded by a hostile crowd’ and suggested that this ‘illustrates the nation’s political and racial tensions.’ The Daily Beast‘s story was filed under ‘AWFUL’ and described the video as ‘disturbing.’ Its first several paragraphs quote directly from [the activist]. NPR asserted that the boys had mocked the Native American man.”

These reactions were calm and measured compared with the torrent of abuse directed at Sandmann on social media.  As described by Soave, “Reza Aslan, a scholar and television pundit on CNN, tweeted that Sandmann had a ‘punchable’ face. His CNN colleague Bakari Sellers agreed. BuzzFeed‘s Anne Petersen tweeted that Sandmann’s face reminded her of Brett Kavanaugh’s – and this wasn’t intended as a compliment. Vulture writer Erik Abriss tweeted that he wanted the kids and their parents to die. Kathy Griffin said the high schoolers ought to be doxxed. As a USA Today retrospective noted, ‘comedian Patton Oswalt called the students in the video ‘bland, frightened, forgettable kids who’ll grow up to be bland, frightened, forgotten adult wastes.’…Writer Michael Green, referring to Sandmann’sapparent smirking at the Native American man, wrote: ‘A face like that never changes. This image will define his life. No one need ever forgive him.’…Huffington Post reporter Christopher Mathias explicitly compared the students to violent segregationists.'”

In their rush to judgment, none of these media figures considered that Sandmann had done nothing wrong.  The video shows him merely standing still, with a smile on his face.  He does not speak; he does not threaten; Sandmann doesn’t even move.  “Within 48 hours,” Soave writes, “the truth had emerged. A longer video, which showed [Sandmann’s] prior harassment at the hands of the Black Hebrew Israelites, made it clear that [Sandmann] had not directed racist invectives at [the Native-American activist].”

What these media figures also never considered is that Nicholas Sandmann was a private figure, a high school student, who could easily show that the media companies he eventually sued were negligent in making false statements about him. Many had no choice but to settle with Sandmann and his attorneys – he had them dead to rights. “CNN confirmed…that it has settled for an undisclosed amount with Nick Sandmann…smeared by multiple news outlets after a video of a ‘standoff’ between the teen and a Native-American activist went viral”, reported the National Trial Lawyers  Sandmann had originally sued CNN for $275 million dollars.  The Washington Post also settled with Sandmann for an undisclosed sum  as did NBC. 

Not all of Sandmann’s lawsuits were successful.  In 2023, the Sixth Circuit denied his appeal of the 2022 dismissal of his case against “Gannett, The New York Times, Rolling Stone magazine, ABC News and CBS News…[the lower court], Circuit Judge Jane B. Stranch said…[r]eporting by the media outlets offered multiple accounts of the event and linked to some version of the video…leaving it to readers to decide what Sandmann’s intentions were during his interaction with [the activist].”   But overall, Sandmann prevailed in the majority of the cases he brought because he was a private citizen, and the media had a lower standard of proof applicable to their behavior than would be used in comments involving a public figure.

In March of 2022, we discussed the case brought by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin against The New York Times.  After Republican Congressman Steve Scalise was shot by a deranged gunman, The Times published an Editorial blaming rhetoric from the right for the shooting, and specifically pointed to a political advertisement put out by Palin years before the shooting of Scalise that placed a map of the District of Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords under crosshairs. 

Palin sued, but her case was dismissed during trial by Federal District Court Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, who “ruled that [Palin’s] lawsuit…should be thrown out because her lawyers failed to produce adequate evidence that the newspaper knew what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly toward indications it was false.”  

Judge Rakoff applied the higher standard for public figures which was established in the seminal US Supreme Court case of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 US 256 (1964). There, the Court stated that “(t)o sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.’ In particular, when a statement concerns a public figure, the Court held, it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel. Instead, ‘the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity.”

Thus, a private figure like Nicholas Sandmann need only establish that the published statement was false, and that it was either negligence or reckless disregard of the truth for the news outlet to publish such a statement without a more complete investigation.  For a public figure like Palin, she must show there was actual malice in the publication of the false statement – an intention to publish an untruth.

As we wrote at the time of the dismissal, “[o]bviously, The Times acted in reckless disregard of the truth.  Rather than investigate whether Palin had actually targeted Giffords…and whether Palin’s actions had actually led to Giffords being shot, The Times went ahead and made the comparison in print.  But when it comes to a public figure, reckless disregard is not enough.  A public figure like Sarah Palin must show that the publisher knew the information they published was false, and printed it anyway.  A high bar to pass, indeed.” (Emphasis in original.) 

We also noted that “[t]his has been the legal standard for more than 50 years. However, Palin’s case, and the mainstream media’s treatment of former President Donald Trump has raised questions about whether or not the Times v. Sullivan standard should remain in effect.”

Perhaps the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has been listening – Palin’s case against The Times has been reinstated. In August of 2024, the appellate court stated, “[w]e conclude that the district court’s [dismissal] improperly intruded on the province of the jury by making credibility  determinations, weighing evidence, and ignoring facts or inferences that a reasonable juror could plausibly have found to support Palin’s case.” 

In its reversal, the Second Circuit did not indicate that the Sullivan standard should be revised or discarded.  Instead, the Court pointed to evidence ignored by the District Court that supported Palin’s case. For instance, “Less than an hour after the editorial was published online, Ross Douthat, a Times columnist, emailed [a Times Editor]   to express serious concerns…'[t]here was…no evidence that…[the Gifford shooter] was incited by Sarah Palin or anyone else,  given his extreme mental illness and lack of any tangible connection to th[e] crosshair[s] map…the point is that the map had no link, none at at [sic] all, to Giffords’[attempted] murder. People assumed a link initially…but the investigation debunked it. I think [the Gifford shooter] was instigated by a non-answer she’d given him at a town hall about one of his theories of grammar, or his obsession with lucid dreaming, or something.  His act had nothing to do with the political climate, so far as anyone can tell.”

Based on evidence like this, the Second Circuit ruled that Judge Rakoff was wrong to dismiss the case “after concluding that no reasonable jury could find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.”  

Another result which bodes well for the future involves a case brought by Donald Trump against the Pultizer Prize Committee.  As reported by Carson Hollaway of The Daily Caller, “Trump is suing the Pulitzer board for a 2022 statement reaffirming the board’s earlier decision to award the prize to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their reporting on the story of the 2016 Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russian interference in that year’s presidential election. Trump claims that the statement is legally defamatory because it implies the accuracy of the Times’s and the Post’s reporting, even though Special Counsel Robert Mueller reported that his ‘investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’” 

Florida Circuit Court Judge Robert Pegg has denied the Pulitzer Committee’s motion to dismiss. “The statement at issue in this case was published by Defendants in July 2022 on Pulitzer.org, a website maintained by Defendants,” Judge Pegg writes. “President Trump alleges that at the time of publication Defendants knew that the ‘Awarded Articles,’ and their intended purpose – the advancement of the broader Russia Collusion Hoax, which had dominated media coverage in 2017 – were false and had been discredited by the published results of multiple federal government investigations.” 

The Court stated that “Defendants argue that the Defendants’ Statement is ‘non-actionable pure opinion’ to the extent that it ‘could reasonably read to convey and endorse the alleged implication that Trump colluded with Russia.’”  However,”[d]efendants cannot claim the statement is pure opinion when they withheld information from their audience that would have provided an adequate factual foundation for a common reader to decide whether to agree or disagree with Defendants’ decision to let 2018 Pulitzer Prizes in National Reporting stand, and whether the awarded reporting had in fact been discredited by facts that emerged from the Mueller Report or the other government investigations that had been made public since the conferral of those prizes.”

“In this case,” Judge Pegg concludes, “President Trump has pled that the Defendants’ Statement left readers with the false, defamatory message that the Awarded Articles, which advanced the Russia Collusion Hoax, ‘had been objectively, thoroughly, and independently reviewed for veracity twice, and that the separate conclusions of these had each accredited the accuracy of the award recipients’ reporting’…In other words, President Trump has alleged the Defendants’ Statement conveyed the false, defamatory message that he had colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. At this stage of the litigation, President Trump has sufficiently pled defamation per se.”

Maybe the Sullivan standard should be revisited, and possibly revised.  But more important, what is most needed now are courts like the Second Circuit and the Florida District Court – Courts that are willing to apply the law fairly, impartially, and with an eye toward letting juries resolve these disputes.  Rather than take the decision from a jury, we need Courts willing to give Conservative public figures a shot at proving their cases.

This is the very heart of the concluding phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance – “and justice for all.” 

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

As Iran is on the brink of becoming a nuclear power, The U.S faces a combined atomic weapons threat greater than that endured during the Cold War.

In addition to Russia’s largest in the world nuclear arsenal, and the reality that China now has more land-based ICBMs than America, rogue and unpredictable regimes in North Korea and Iran now pose a serious danger.

In September, Iran Watch warned that “Iran’s nuclear program has reached the point at which, within about one week, Iran might be able to enrich enough uranium for five fission weapons…Intelligence agencies have long been unanimous in one prediction: If Iran makes nuclear weapons, it would do so at secret sites.”

Iran would join North Korea in becoming a pariah nuclear power. The Arms Control Association notes that “North Korea is estimated to have assembled 50 nuclear warheads, as of January 2024, and to have the fissile material for an estimated 70-90 nuclear weapons, as well as advanced chemical and biological weapons programs. In the past several years Pyongyang has accelerated the pace of ballistic missile testing. North Korea has the capability to deliver nuclear weapons on a variety of land-based missile systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles with ranges capable of targeting the continental United States, and is developing submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).”

Earlier this year, General Anthony Cotton, Commander of The U.S. Strategic Command testified before the Senate that China has more land-based ICBM’s than the United States.

Startling as that reality is, it’s only part of Beijing’s comprehensive arsenal.   Overall, General Cotton noted, “The PRC currently has a nuclear triad consisting of bombers, submarines, and land-based missiles. Its H-6N bomber is equipped to carry air-launched ballistic and cruise missiles, and the PRC is actively developing a strategic stealth bomber, the H-20. The PRC also has six JIN-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) equipped with new third-generation JL-3 submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), capable of striking the continental United States from PRC littoral waters. Additionally, the PRC has approximately 1,000 medium and intermediate-range dual-capable conventional or nuclear ballistic missiles capable of inflicting significant damage to U.S., Allied, or partner forces and homelands in the Indo-Pacific. As I reported to Congress in January 2023, the PRC’s arsenal of land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers currently exceeds that of the United States…Our forces and capabilities underpin and enable all other joint forces operations. We do this in the face of challenges unlike anything America has ever encountered. We are confronting not one, but two nuclear peers, the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. This reality, combined by missile developments in North Korea, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the growing relationships amongst those nations, adds new layers of complexity to our strategic calculus. It also raises the possibility of simultaneous conflicts with multiple nuclear armed adversaries. The PRC is surpassing the United States and its number of fixed intercontinental ballistic missile launchers. And projections indicate its nuclear arsenal would encompass approximately 1,000 warheads by 2030.

Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, a result of treaty made with President Obama and Moscow in 2010. As Moscow’s conventional forces face attrition in Ukraine, its reliance on nuclear weapons will only grow larger.

As these threats grow every larger and more diverse, the move to modernize the American nuclear deterrent continues to face obstacles.  The Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that “delays, budget overruns, supply chain issues, and significant workforce and infrastructure constraints across both the defense and national lab sectors are leading to an increasing disconnect between policy debates over what might be needed in the future and the reality of what the existing workforce and infrastructure can support.”

Weakness and delay in modernizing America’s nuclear deterrent accelerates and magnifies the growing danger from China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, who should be seen as a combined threat.

Photo: U.S. B-21 Raider nuclear-capable bomber

From the Caribbean to the Mediterranean to the Pacific, the naval forces of Russia and China have challenged the once-dominant position of the United States.

On July 18, U.S.  Army Gen. Laura J. Richardson, in a speech at the Aspen Institute, warned that Russian warships have been making port visits to Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, and 22 nations in the U.S. Southern Command’s area of responsibility has signed on to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the commander of Southcom told attendees of the Aspen Security Forum.

 Army Gen. Laura J. Richardson said the nations that have signed on to the Chinese initiative don’t see the investments the U.S. has been making in their countries. “All they see are the Chinese cranes,” she said. “These projects are in the billions of dollars. … They are big-time projects.” Richardson said it would be OK with her if those investments were for doing good in the hemisphere. “But it makes me a little suspicious when it’s in the critical infrastructure.” Critical infrastructure, she said, includes deep-water ports, cybersecurity, energy and space. “I worry about the dual use nature of that. These are state-owned enterprises by a communist government. I worry about the flipping of that to a military application,” Richardson said, referring to China. 

Regarding the Russian port visits, Richardson said U.S. vessels have been shadowing those vessels to ensure the safety and security of the United States. Also, the Russians continue to make high-level government visits to Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua with their foreign affairs minister and the head of the Russian legislative body, she said, adding that the U.S. could be doing more in its own government exchanges.

“I really believe that economic security and national security go hand in hand here in this hemisphere, and we have got to work both of them together very, very quickly,” she said. 

In the Mediterranean,  according to the Bulgarian Military A fleet, including the missile cruiser Varyag and the frigate Marshal Shaposhnikov, has successfully navigated the Suez Canal, transitioning from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, as confirmed by the Pacific Fleet [PF] on Wednesday.  

The authoritative GIS Reports   notes that “In the crucial Indo-Pacific, the tide has changed dramatically against America. the balance of naval power in the Western Pacific has been altered in favor of the Chinese Navy. For instance, the U.S. Navy went from having a 76-warship advantage over China in 2005 to having a 39-combatant deficiency in 2023, based on similar ship and submarine comparisons. That is a swing of 115 naval platforms in 23 years. This is a strategic trend that will continue uninterrupted for at least the next decade.”

Rep. Mike Rogers has previously pointed out that The Biden Administration’s 30-year ship-building plan reduces the Navy’s ability to protect its aircraft-carrier strike groups and eliminate enemy minefields, reduces the Marine Corps’ ability to conduct forcible-entry missions, and reduces by almost 10 percent the Navy’s capacity to launch missiles. Public estimates indicate that China will eventually develop a global force of submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles, posing an obvious risk to the U.S.  China’s surface-combatant forces already greatly exceed that of the U.S.

Photo: Vessels attached to a flotilla with the navy under the PLA Southern Theater Command sail toward the designated area during a comprehensive combat training exercise in late June, 2024. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Huang Jiacheng and Wang Jian)

Recently, The New York Times published what can only be described as a “hit piece” against the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts. As described in The New York Post, “[i]n an ugly escalation of the left’s war on the Supreme Court, The New York Times…falsely charg[ed] [Roberts] with ‘deploying his authority to steer rulings that benefited’ Donald Trump in ‘a momentous trio of Jan. 6-related cases.'”  

The opinions at issue were the decision to strike down the Colorado Attorney General’s decision to keep the former President off the ballot in that state due to his allegedly “insurrectionist activities”; the Presidential Immunity decision, Trump v. United States  ; and the reversal of the sentences of numerous “January 6th” defendants, based upon the overcharging of these defendants by prosecutors with the Justice Department.

What was most disturbing to The Post Editorial Board was the fact that “the story relied in part on leaks of confidential court documents – which means court staff, and possibly one of the justices, are actively helping the progressive attack on the institution.” (Emphasis in original.)

According to The Post, “Roberts had made his view of the root issues

crystal-clear in a confidential February memo to his colleagues – a memo that, per [The Times] ‘several people from the court’ later discussed with the reporters.”

The Post describes the problem succulently; “Such leaking is a far larger violation of high-court ethics than any of the lefty complaints of recent years: How can the court even function if the justices can’t communicate frankly with each other?” (Emphasis in original.)

How indeed?

In May of 2022, we discussed the “leak” of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson,  the decision which reversed Roe v. Wade.  At that time, we noted that Chief Justice John Roberts appointed the Court’s Marshal, Gail Curley, to investigate the leak.  We stated that “[t]here are only so many employees of the US Supreme Court who could have access to a draft opinion.  Thus, it shouldn’t be too hard for Marshal Curley to figure out who ‘let the cat out of the bag.’” 

Apparently, the task of figuring out which one of a limited pool of suspects was the guilty party was beyond the skills of Marshal Curley.  In January of 2023, she basically gave up the search, for all intents and purposes.

Her report, dated January 19, 2023, stated that her office used an “investigative team consist[ing] of seasoned attorneys and trained federal investigators with substantial experience conducting criminal, administrative and cyber investigation.”  Yet, despite this wealth of talent, “investigators have been unable to determine…the identity of the person(s) who disclosed the draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. or how the draft opinion was provided to Politico.”

The investigators were able to determine that “[i]t is unlikely that the public disclosure was caused by a hack of the Court’s IT systems. The Court’s IT department did not find any indications of a hack…[t]he investigators have likewise not uncovered any evidence that an employee with elevated IT access privileges accessed or moved the draft opinion.”  However, during the investigators interviews with Court employees,  “[s]ome individuals admitted to investigators that they told their spouse or partner about the draft Dobbs opinion and the vote count, in violation of the Court’s confidentiality rules. Several personnel told investigators they had shared confidential details about their work more generally with their spouses and some indicated they thought it permissible to provide such information to their spouses. Some personnel handled the Dobbs draft in ways that deviated from their standard process for handling draft opinions.” 

Despite these admissions of wrongdoing and ethical breeches, the investigators concluded that “it is not possible to determine the identity of any individual who may have disclosed the document or how the draft opinion ended up with Politico. No one confessed to publicly disclosing the document and none of the available forensic and other evidence provided a basis for identifying any individual as the source of the document.”

Seems impossible that such an extensive and sophisticated investigation into so few people under suspicion would turn up empty.  Unless, of course, the Court didn’t really want to know who leaked the draft opinion, a decision which has now led to the disclosure of Roberts’ confidential memo regarding his views on the issues presented by Trump v. United States. 

“The leak was no mere misguided attempt at protest,” the Justices wrote at the time they released the report. “It was a grave assault on the judicial process…It is no exaggeration to say that the integrity of judicial proceedings depends on the inviolability of internal deliberations.” Yet, according to University of Virginia Law Professor Douglas Laycock, “I don’t think we can assume the leaker is an employee.  It could be a justice.  They would take a big reputational hit if they got caught, but they would not lose their job.”

The report from Marshal Curley describes her investigation into Court employees, not Supreme Court Justices.  Strangely, though, the Report quotes the US Code of Conduct for Judges, which states that “A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”

At the time, do you believe that Chief Justice Roberts really wanted to know if one of his Associate Justices had leaked the draft of the Dobbs decision? What would he do with such information?  What impact would that revelation have on the integrity of the Court?

Now, this failure to seriously pursue the culprit and bring them to justice has led to additional violations of the Court’s confidentiality.

Reportedly, the investigation into the leak of the Dobbs draft decision is on-going.  But we all know that short of a confession from the guilty party, or someone coming forward with new information, whoever provided Politico with a draft the of the Dobbs v. Jackson opinion will never be caught.

Further, almost two years after Marshal Curley’s Report was issued, the failure to expose the person who leaked the draft opinion has become a major headache for the Supreme Court.  Since no one was caught or disciplined for leaking the draft of the Dobbs decision, someone has felt free to leak a confidential memo prepared by Chief Justice Roberts.

These leaks also strongly contribute to the continuing disrespect shown to the US Supreme Court and its Justices by Democrats, who clearly benefit from and capitalize on these unethical and potentially illegal disclosures of confidential Court documents.

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

Photo: Pixabay

The undersecretary of the U.S. Air Force, Melissa Dalton, warns that “With two nuclear-armed peer competitors — Russia and China — and with both advancing their nuclear capability, the U.S. now, more than ever, must move at full speed to modernize its nuclear deterrence capability. That effort is not just for U.S. national security, but as well for partners who depend on the U.S.”

She stressed that the threat from aggressive, unfriendly nuclear armed nations is unprecedented.  “We face for the first time in our nation’s history, two strategic competitors that are nuclear states with large and growing nuclear arsenals. When we look at the [People’s Republic of China] and its breathtaking modernization over the last two decades, we see today they have over 500 operational nuclear warheads, far exceeding prior projections.” 

Some suspect that China’s nuclear force may even be larger than commonly believed. According to recent Pentagon report, “Over the next decade, the PRC will continue to rapidly modernize, diversify, and expand its nuclear forces. Compared to the PLA’s nuclear modernization efforts a decade ago, current efforts dwarf previous attempts in both scale and complexity. The PRC is expanding the number of its land-, sea-, and air-based nuclear delivery platforms while investing in and constructing the infrastructure necessary to support further expansion of its nuclear forces.

The Undersecretary noted that in coming years, the U.S. expects China’s warheads to exceed 1,000. Russia, the worlds preeminent nuclear power, also remains a challenge. 

“We see Russia brandishing its nuclear weapons in the context of the Ukraine conflict and also possessing novel nuclear capabilities that are designed to challenge our escalation calculus.The stakes are incredibly high.” 

Dalton noted that During the Cold War, the U.S. maintained top-notch nuclear deterrence, and the domestic defense industry stood ready to provide whatever was needed. But since the fall of the Soviet Union, and with the U.S. focused on other parts of the world for the past 20-plus years, the U.S. must now up its game. 

“We mortgaged our nuclear modernization for 30 years. We had the post-Cold War peace dividend… But the fact is, the bills are now way past due, and in that time, our competitors went to school on us, and they caught up.” 

With U.S. defense underpinned by its nuclear deterrent, modernization of that capability is a top priority for the Department of Defense, she stressed.

Air Force Gen. Anthony Cotton, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, said that while two-thirds of the nuclear triad, the ground systems and the aircraft-based systems belong to the Air Force — the submarine systems belong to the Navy — modernization is not just an Air Force effort or even just a Navy effort. 

“It is imperative that we understand that it’s not a Department [of Defense] imperative that we maintain the nuclear security and nuclear triad,” he said. “It is a national imperative. It’s national policy that the foundation of what we hold dear, the framework of that is nuclear deterrence. And to add to that, and I’ve seen this in the last 19 months of being in command, our allies and partners are counting on us more than ever.”

Last year, Senator John Kennedy (R-La) warned that “Today, we no longer face just one threat.  Russia still maintains the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, but China’s nuclear stockpile is growing rapidly.  North Korea continues to threaten our allies with its collection of nuclear weapons.  And, thanks to the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, Iran is marching ever closer to developing nuclear weapons of its own. The United States must now counter nuclear superpowers in both China and Russia while also deterring the itchy trigger fingers of unstable dictators like Kim Jong Un and the Ayatollah in Iran.  We should be innovating and preparing our nuclear arsenal for this new global dynamic, but instead, our nuclear stockpile remains stuck in the Cold War. Simply put: America’s nuclear stockpile is old and shrinking.  And while modernizing our nuclear arsenal should be a top priority, our effort to restart nuclear weapon production has been riddled with delays and poor planning.  And we don’t have time to waste.”

Photo: A Titan II missile on display inside the missile silo at Missile Site 8 in Green Valley, Ariz. (DoD)