Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

The House Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Committee on the Judiciary released a report on the impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden, finding he committed impeachable offenses. The report details evidence to establish President Biden abused his office and violated his oaths of office as Vice President by engaging in a conspiracy to peddle influence to enrich his family. As President, Joe Biden and the Biden-Harris Administration obstructed the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry and the criminal investigation of President Biden’s son.       These are key findings from the impeachment inquiry report. From 2014 to the present, as part of a conspiracy to monetize Joe Biden’s office of public trust to enrich the Biden family, Biden family members and their associates received over $27 million from foreign individuals or entities. In order to obscure the source of these funds, the Biden family and their associates set up shell companies to conceal these payments from scrutiny. The Biden family used proceeds from these business activities to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to Joe Biden—including thousands of dollars that are directly traceable to China. While Jim Biden claimed he gave this money to Joe Biden to repay personal loans, Jim Biden did not provide any evidence to support this claim. The Biden family’s receipt of millions of dollars required Joe Biden’s knowing participation in this conspiracy, including while he served as Vice President. Joe Biden used his status as Vice President to garner favorable outcomes for his son’s and his business partners’ foreign business dealings. Witnesses acknowledged that Hunter Biden involved Vice President Biden in many of his business dealings with Russian, Romanian, Chinese, Kazakhstani, and Ukrainian individuals and companies.Then-Vice President Biden met or spoke with nearly every one of the Biden family’s foreign business associates, including those from Ukraine, China, Russia, and Kazakhstan. As a result, the Biden family has received millions of dollars from these foreign entities.  The Biden family leveraged Joe Biden’s positions of public trust to obtain over $8 million in loans from Democratic benefactors. Millions of dollars in loans have not been repaid and the paperwork supporting many of the loans does not exist and has not been produced to the Committees. This raises serious questions about whether these funds were provided as gifts disguised as loans.Under the Biden Administration, the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) afforded special treatment to President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.Several witnesses acknowledged the delicate approach used during the Hunter Biden case, describing the investigation as “sensitive” or “significant.” Evidence shows that Department officials slow-walked the investigation, informed defense counsel of future investigative actions, prevented line investigators from taking otherwise ordinary investigative steps, and allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the most serious felony charges. These unusual—and oftentimes in the view of witnesses, unprecedented—tactics conflicted with standard operating procedures and ultimately had the effect of benefiting Hunter Biden. The Biden Justice Department misled Congress about the independence of law enforcement entities in the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden. Biden Administration political appointees exercised significant oversight and control over the investigation of the President’s son. Witnesses described how U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware and now-Special Counsel David Weiss, who oversaw the investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden, had to seek (1) agreement from other U.S. Attorneys to bring cases in a district geographically distinct from his own and (2) approval from the Biden Justice Department’s Tax Division to bring specific charges or take investigative actions against Hunter Biden. Despite the clear conflict of interest, Weiss was only afforded special counsel status after the investigation came under congressional scrutiny.The White House has obstructed the Committees’ impeachment inquiry by withholding key documents and witnesses. The White House has impeded the Committees’ investigation of President Biden’s unlawful retention of classified documents, by refusing to make relevant witnesses available for interviews and by erroneously asserting executive privilege over audio recordings from Special Counsel Hur’s interviews with President Biden. In addition, the White House is preventing the National Archives from turning over documents that are material to the Committees’ inquiry.

We present part 2 of a major report on the vulnerability of American forces to attacks by China.

Chairman John Moolenaar and.Senator Marco Rubio stated that in order to complement active defenses and strengthen our bases, we must invest in “passive defenses,” like hardened aircraft shelters and underground bunkers, dispersal of forces across both within a base and across multiple bases, redundant logistical facilities, and rapid runway repair capabilities.

They note that Robust passive defenses can help minimize the damage of missile attacks by increasing our forces’ ability to withstand strikes, recover quickly, and effectively continue operations.

 The U.S. Air Force has commendably incorporated many of the core tenets of passive defense into its doctrine of “Agile Combat Employment” (ACE). The concept emphasizes increasing survivability of forces through dispersal of teams to operate in a “hub-and-spoke” manner. 8 Concepts such as ACE should be expanded upon and prioritized to harden bases against the Chinese threat, as Secretary Kendall has stated.9 Yet, as explained below, it is apparent that the Pentagon is not urgently pursuing needed passive defenses. Hardened Aircraft Shelters Ongoing research by Thomas Shugart and Timothy A. Walton, analysts associated with the Center for a New American Security and Hudson Institute, respectively, paints a troubling picture of U.S. efforts to strengthen bases through the construction of hardened aircraft shelters.

According to preliminary information provided by Shugart and Walton, the difference between the number of hardened aircraft shelters being built by China and the United States is staggering.10 Despite the grave threat to U.S. bases described above, over the last decade, it is China, not the United States, that has built more than 400 hardened aircraft shelters. During the same period, the United States built only twenty-two additional hardened shelters in the region, on U.S. bases in Japan and South Korea. Notably, there are no hardened aircraft shelters in Guam or CNMI. While hardened aircraft shelters do not provide complete protection from missile attacks, they do offer significantly more protection against submunitions than expedient shelters (relocatable steel shelters). They would also force China to use more force to destroy each aircraft, thereby increasing the resources required to attack our forces and, in turn, the survivability of our valuable air assets.12 Constructing hardened shelters for all our air assets may not be economically feasible or tactically sensible, but the fact that the number of such shelters on U.S. bases in the region has barely changed over a decade is deeply troubling.

Base Resilience Construction The limited investment into hardened aircraft shelters is a symptom of a broader problem within the DoD: we are spending hardly any money on military construction to improve base resilience in the Indo-Pacific. In FY 2024, the Pentagon will spend approximately $15.7 billion on military construction projects worldwide. 13 Of the total, DoD will spend below 2 percent on base resilience projects in the region, less than what it spent on such projects in 2023. According to the 2024 Military Construction Appropriations Act, the Pentagon will spend $136 million on the construction of an aircraft parking ramp and aerial port facility in Guam. In CNMI, the Air Force will spend $78 million on airfield development and fuel tanks. In the Philippines, DoD will spend $35 million on an airfield development project at Basa Air Base. 14 There appear to be no projects dedicated to base hardening for the entire region as part of FY24 funding.

Meanwhile, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command has identified $11 billion in priorities that were “unfunded” by the President’s Budget Request for FY25, including $3.3 billion in military construction. 15 The size and nature of the unfunded priorities reflect a profound lack of seriousness in strengthening the U.S. bases closest to China and thus most vulnerable to Chinese strikes. If our bases in the Indo-Pacific lack the resilience to survive attacks and continue operating, our ability to deter China and respond quickly in the Taiwan Strait will be greatly diminished. It is essential that budget requests provided to Congress accurately reflect what our forces will need to deter and, if needed, defeat any threats against U.S. personnel.

China’s extraordinary aggression makes the protection of American troops and weaponry an urgent priority.  The Congressional Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party reports that this is not being done.  We present their report.

In an urgent letter to Air Force and Navy leaders, Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and colleagues have expressed deep concerns that U.S. military bases may not be able to defend against growing Chinese military threats. In the letter, the lawmakers highlight preliminary research showing that over the past decade, China built more than 400 hardened aircraft shelters while the United States built just 22 in the Indo-Pacific.

 Hardened aircraft shelters are reinforced hangars used to protect military aircraft and will be critical as the United States looks to safeguard its assets in the Indo-Pacific.

 The lawmakers identified shortcomings in DoD military construction priorities and note that the United States spends hardly any money on base resilience military construction projects in the Indo-Pacific at the very moment China is undergoing one of the most rapid military buildups in history. They also call attention to an onerous DoD regulation that is significantly delaying critical construction projects and adversely affecting U.S. military posture in the region.

 The lawmakers requested that the Pentagon respond to the following questions:

 What steps have you taken to incorporate and enhance passive defenses to protect our bases and forces in the Indo-Pacific, including in Alaska, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Hawaii, Minor Outlying Islands, and allied and partner territory?

 What plans do you have to create hardened aircraft shelters, underground bunkers, and other hardened facilities to protect aircraft, equipment, and forces operating out of U.S. bases in the Indo-Pacific?

 What additional hardened infrastructure, reconstitution, camouflage, concealment, and deception projects and programs could enhance the passive defenses of U.S. critical assets and forces in the Indo-Pacific?

 Do you plan to request additional funding for base resilience construction projects, including hardened aircraft shelters, underground bunkers, and dispersed and/or redundant facilities? If so, please explain.

 Has the Department assessed options to increase efficiency and speed for executing military construction so that such critical projects do not take years to complete?

 Will you grant the Joint Region Marianas an exemption from following “Munitions and Explosives of Concern” procedures for military construction?

Will you implement “Recognize, Retreat, Report” procedures as the baseline for military construction throughout the Indo-Pacific?

They note that while the Pentagon accurately classified the PRC as the “pacing challenge,” why does the Department’s budget not reflect its rhetoric on the PRC?  

 The lawmakers warned that with its current strike capabilities, China can attack all U.S. bases in the region, targeting U.S. service members from Okinawa to those on U.S. territories of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

 In fact, unclassified analysis suggests China has enough weapons to overwhelm our air and missile defenses protecting those bases.1 Strikes on U.S. bases could immobilize vital air assets, disrupt logistical chains, and significantly weaken our ability to respond in a conflict. Passive defenses, such as hardened aircraft shelters and dispersal of forces, may offer the most cost-effective way of strengthening our bases and improving their resilience.

They expressed deep concern over the alarming lack of urgency by the Department of Defense (DoD) in adopting such defensive measures. U.S. bases in the region have almost no hardened aircraft shelters compared to Chinese military bases. In addition, a DoD regulation involving World War II-era munitions is substantially delaying and driving up the costs of construction projects in Guam and CNMI aimed at building a more resilient posture for our forces to withstand Chinese attacks and continue operations.

According to members of the Select Committee, “The result is that critical U.S. air assets are highly vulnerable to Chinese strikes. Unsurprisingly, in recent war games simulating a conflict with China over Taiwan, 90 percent of U.S. aircraft losses occurred on the ground, rather than from air combat.

They note that “While active defenses such as air and missile defense systems are an important part of base and force protection, their high cost and limited numbers mean the U.S. will not be able to deploy enough of them to fully protect our bases.

The Report concludes tomorrow

“Ideas have consequences.” At least that is what American philosopher Richard Weaver wrote in 1948. Little did the West know, that in following coming years, Communist China’s political ideas would have an immense impact on the real-world issues we face today.

The National Association of Scholars recently released a report entitled, “China and Our Children.” Its author, Ian Oxnevad, says that over the last two decades China has exerted a strong and vigorous influence over America’s school children under a program designed to shift the American public’s perception of the communist state.

It began with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) developing language study programs. It then turned them into a tool of political warfare and deployed the programs to the United States as part of its overseas active measures operations.

China’s influence operations today are endemic in its so-called academic exchange and language programs. In reality, they are directed by the CCP with the goal of employing groups such as its Confucius Institutes (CI) in an effort to undermine US democracy. An American advocacy group, Parents Defending Education (PDE), found that the CI’s and
its rebranded programs are used to co-opt American universities, and at an even deeper level infiltrate the fabric of our K-12 school systems.

In an earlier report released in July 2023, PDE found over 143 active or defunct CI’s, now called Confucius classrooms (CCs) across 34 US states, including 20 located on US military bases!

Some of the CCs had direct links to the China People’s Liberation Army (PLA). PDE identified $17,967,565 in Chinese government funds that flowed into the CCs between 2009 and 2023. Although the US forced the closure of many of the CI K-12 programs, today Chinese influence operations are rebranded, alive, and prospering on American
university campuses.

The CCs are less well known than the original Confucius Institute programs but just as dangerous. There are over 164 documented CC programs operating in the United States. “We discovered CCs in the public schools of major metropolitan areas, in rural school districts, elite private schools, and across entire states. When host schools were
categorized by public or private education, 79 percent of these Confucius Classrooms were discovered in public school districts” says Oxnevad. Today Beijing hides its active measures programs behind nonprofit intermediaries to improve its ability to infiltrate the
United States. It coincides with CCP efforts to build strategic economic and diplomatic partnerships with state officials in places such as North Carolina and Minnesota (in the Minnetonka Public Schools, Sisters School District, and St. Cloud Area Schools ) where they were welcomed. In particular, the report cites efforts to establish bilateral programs
by the governor of Minnesota and city officials in Chicago, Seattle, and Portland, Oregon.

China’s CC strategy in American K-12 schools is a gradual, long-term effort to influence policymakers and society at the state and local levels. It typically begins with a bilateral initiative at the local and state level and evolves into agreements, partnerships, and memos of understanding between state level departments of education, governors and
local mayors.

The strategic planning for CCs parallels CCP efforts to engage local businesses in the US. Geographically the CCs are often located “in close proximity to significant Chinese investments,” says Oxnevad. Local nonprofit organizations in many states act at facilitators and sustainers of the programs while schools develop “sister school” relationships. They represent, according to Oxnevad, a point of interest among high-
profile Chinese officials involved with China’s United Front Work Department (UFWD). They help provide books with a Chinese political slant and other funding.

Yet more disturbing is the report’s finding that “nonprofits such as the 100,000 Strong Foundation, Go Global NC, BG Education Management Solutions, IL Texas Global, the Alliance for Education, and the Asia Society played roles in opening American K-12
schools to the Chinese Communist Party. Many of the founders and board members of these nonprofits are high-profile figures from American politics and business.”

Congress needs to revitalize the Foreign Agents Registration Act to eliminate exemption in business, science and educational pursuits. Oxnevad suggests that the US also
establish Ratio Funding Restrictions on universities to curtail them from taking foreign funding that competes with the interest of American taxpayers. It will act like a tax on the school if they accept Chinese funding.

US policy makers need to be aware that through the CCP’s infiltration of the American educational system, China is using its soft
power to successfully influence the United States to accept Beijing’s world view.

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

On July 9, 2024, our own Judge John H. Wilson (ret.) testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the the Trump trial before Judge Juan Merchan. We present his testimony here.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, held before Judge Juan Merchan, Acting Supreme Court Justice, New York County Supreme Court, Criminal Term earlier this year.

As you may be aware, I served as a Criminal Court Judge in and for both Kings County and Bronx County, New York City, from 2005 to 2014.  For five years of my term, I served as the Night Court Arraignment Judge in Kings County, where I was designated an Acting Supreme Court Justice.  Before my election to the bench in 2004, I served as an Assistant District Attorney in Bronx County, and as a criminal defense attorney. Although I never tried a felony case as a judge, I tried a number of felony cases as defense counsel, including homicides, child molestation, drug sales, etc.

I was involved in all phases of criminal litigation for approximately 30 years.  I have sat in all three seats – prosecutor, defense counsel, and judge.  As all three, I have selected juries, opened, introduced evidence, directed and cross-examined witnesses, closed, and taken verdicts.  I have prepared jury instructions as a judge, and I have drafted and argued appeals of criminal convictions for both felonies and misdemeanors.

I do not personally know Judge Juan Merchan, but I am intimately familiar with New York County Supreme and Criminal Court, having spent most of my career in those courtrooms.

Based on my experience, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that former President Trump did not receive a fair trial from Judge Juan Merchan.  In fact, if the Court of Appeals is fair (and I believe that Court will be fair based upon the reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s illegal conviction), Donald Trump’s conviction is assured reversal, a reversal that will be premised upon the fundamental errors committed by Judge Juan Merchan.

If I may be blunt – Donald Trump was railroaded, and Juan Merchan was the driver of that train.

There is a plethora of appellate issues available in this case.  But for the purposes of this statement, I would like to concentrate on the most glaring problems presented by Judge Merchan’s conduct of this trial.

1. The Indictment was Legally Insufficient and Should have been Dismissed.

The first issue involves the charging document, the indictment, which should have been dismissed by Judge Merchan, with leave to represent the case to another Grand Jury.

In my book, The Making of a Marty, An Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump,  Chapters 5 thru 7 discuss the legal insufficiency of the New York County indictment.  I  noted that under 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 wrote that my “review of the New York County indictment revealed that Donald Trump was 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?”

There is a wealth of case law addressing this issue, but on balance, the principle is the same across all cases – a defendant has the absolute right to know what he is being charged with, so that he may prepare a defense.

That did not happen in the case of Donald Trump.  Judge Merchan was obligated to dismiss an indictment that failed to identify the underlying crime.  How is former President Trump to prepare a defense, if he didn’t know what underlying crime he was allegedly concealing by falsifying his business records?

Some have pointed to the Statement of Facts provided by the New York County District Attorney’s Office, but that is not the Indictment.  Under the law, a Defendant is entitled to know what he is charged with in the charging document itself, not in a supplemental document such as a Bill of Particulars or a Statement of Facts.

Further, that Statement of Facts does not identify what crime underlies the felony falsifying business records charge – it just recounts the actions Donald Trump allegedly took without any expression of what laws were allegedly violated.

Therefore, the Indictment was legally insufficient from its inception, and any competent judge would have dismissed an indictment with these deficiencies.

2. The Failure to Dismiss the Indictment Led Directly to a Violation of Donald Trump’s Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial, and to Judge Merchan’s Illegal Jury Instructions.

The 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 was described by George Washington Law Professor Jonathan 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 occurred but the verdict was still treated as unanimous by Merchan to convict Trump.”

To reiterate, I believe the failure to dismiss a clearly facially insufficient indictment was Judge Merchan’s first major error.  This error then led to the second error – allowing the prosecutor to add charges during the trial, charges which were then incorrectly and illegally described to the jury in Judge Merchan’s jury instructions.

Judge Merchan’s instructions stated that “under [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 in so far as it goes, however, the “other crime” the former President intended to conceal was 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…”

How did Donald Trump intend to violate New York State’s Election Law?  In one of three ways, “in 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 “Although 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.”

There are several levels of error presented by these confusing jury instructions.  First, as a basic matter, the defendant was never informed of what he was charged with until the trial, a violation of the Constitutional right to fundamental fairness, and notice. Second, when he was informed of these charges, he was not given the opportunity to prepare a defense to these charges because he was already engaged in trial. But the most egregious error was Judge Merchan giving the jurors the option of returning a verdict which was not unanimous regarding the third level of charges.

Regarding both the first and second of these points, that is the addition of charges during trial and the inability to present a defense, it is stated in the Criminal Resource Manual of the United States Department of Justice, “if 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 illegally presented charges to the jury that were not included in the indictment. In doing so, former President Donald Trump was not given a fair chance to prepare a defense to these added charges.

Regarding the third point, that is the lack of unanimity permitted to the jury, it is unheard of in New York State jurisprudence to instruct a criminal jury that they need not be unanimous in their verdict. I am unaware of any case in New York, or any other American jurisdiction, state or federal, in which a criminal jury has been allowed to come to a verdict that was not unanimous in any felony trial.

In fact, on June 21 of this year, the Supreme Court decided the case of Erlinger v. United States, (Slip Opinion No. 23-370), in which the necessity for a verdict to be unanimous under both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution was reiterated.  Both of those amendments require a jury to be unanimous when rendering its verdict.   

Judge Merchan’s erroneous instructions led directly to our not knowing which jurors went with which theory of the case.  Did some think Donald Trump falsified his business records in order to hide the fact that he was falsifying his business records?  Did some think was he falsifying his business records to conceal some unspecified violation of either the Tax Code or Federal Election law?

Returning again to the issue of fundamental fairness – how can any defendant prepare a defense against such an ever-shifting series of charges?

Clearly, Judge Merchan violated Donald Trump’s right to notice of the charges prior to trial, his right to a fair trial, and his right to a unanimous verdict.

3. Judge Merchan’s Decision to Allow the Prosecution to Use Civil Penalties Against Donald Trump Should he Choose to Testify Violated the Former President’s Right to a Fair Trial.

As a third appellate issue, I refer again to the reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s conviction.

 In Harvey Weinstein’s case, the New York Court of Appeals stated the following: “the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The court compounded that error when it ruled that the defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless. The only evidence against defendant was the complainants’ testimony, and the result of the court’s rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant’s character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant’s right to testify. The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

In other words, several witnesses were allowed to testify against Weinstein as to sexual assaults with which Weinstein was not charged.  These witnesses portrayed Weinstein as a sexual predator and made it more likely that the jury would believe the victims, even if there were weaknesses and inconsistencies in the victims’ own testimony.  Moreover, the prosecution could question Weinstein about these uncharged assaults, were he to testify in his own defense.

Certainly, it is understandable for some to believe that Weinstein was, in fact, a loathsome person who deserved his conviction and sentence.  Be that as it may, according to the Court of Appeals; “the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality.”

In the trial of Donald Trump, as described in Politico, “if Donald Trump takes the stand, prosecutors will be allowed to grill him under oath about several adverse rulings in his past civil cases, Justice Juan Merchan ruled…Prosecutors will be allowed to elicit testimony about Trump being found liable for fraudulently inflating his business assets in a suit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. They will also be allowed to question him about defamatory statements he made about writer E. Jean Carroll. In a civil case last year, a federal jury determined that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a department store in the 1990s, and in two civil cases, Trump was found liable for defaming Carroll. Merchan also ruled that, if Trump testifies, prosecutors can ask him about fines he received for violating a gag order in the business fraud case when he verbally attacked the law clerk of the judge overseeing that case.”

At the time, even Politico had to concede that this was “a significant loss for the former president that will complicate his self-declared plan to testify in his own defense.”

Former President Trump did not testify at his own trial at least partially based on this ruling.  This is the very eventuality the Weinstein decision warns about, and that the Court finds to be an unconstitutional violation of the defendant’s rights; again, quoting the New York Court of Appeals, “Every person accused of a crime is constitutionally presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial and the opportunity to present a defense. Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality… It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict.”

Based on the ruling in the Weinstein case, Judge Merchan’s decision to allow the use of prior civil verdicts against Donald Trump were he to choose to testify was a violation of the former President’s right to a fair trial and deprived the former President of the opportunity to present a defense.

4. Judge Merchan Should Have Recused Himself from Hearing the Case of Donald Trump based upon the Overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety.

The fourth appellate issue involves the failure of Judge Juan Merchan to recuse himself from presiding over this case. According to the New York Post, Judge Merchan “donated $35 to Democratic causes in 2020, including $15 to President Biden’s campaign and $10 to a group dedicated to ‘resisting … Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.’ Federal Election Commission records show Merchan made three small-dollar donations within the span of two days in July 2020 through ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s preferred online fundraising platform. The veteran judge contributed $15 earmarked for the ‘Biden for President’ campaign on July 26, 2020, and then the following day made $10 contributions to the Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans.”

Under Rule 100.5(A)(1) of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York,  “Neither a sitting judge nor a candidate for public election to judicial office shall directly or indirectly engage in any political activity except (i) as otherwise authorized by this section or by law, (ii) to vote and to identify himself or herself as a member of a political party, and (iii) on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. Prohibited political activity shall include…soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate.”

This means that despite the modest sums donated by Judge Merchan, he is strictly prohibited from making ANY contribution, in ANY amount, to any political organization or candidate.

It is important to note that Judge Merchan did receive an opinion from the New York State Judicial Ethics Committee which absolved the Judge from any wrongdoing, citing to the minimal amount of the contributions.  Under New York law, a Judge is entitled to rely upon such an opinion as per se evidence of the propriety of his actions.

Under Rule 100.3(E)(1); “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where…the judge knows that the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person…has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.”

Loren Merchan, who is Judge Juan Merchan’s daughter, (a first degree of relationship to the judge), is the president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm.  According to The New York Post, Authentic Campaigns top clients include Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), “who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, and the Senate Majority PAC, a major party fundraiser…Schiff’s campaign for US Senate scored…$20 million in aid since he began soliciting donations off the presumptive GOP presidential front-runner’s unprecedented 34-count indictment last April, according to Federal Election Commission records…The Senate Majority political action committee, which supports Democratic Senate campaigns, pocketed $73.6 million since it also began firing off fundraising emails following the ex-president’s indictment…The super PAC has done more than $15 million in business with Authentic since 2019, including email fundraising and branding assistance, while Schiff’s Senate campaign paid Authentic more than $10 million for digital advertising and other consulting services over the past year.”

This would be an obvious basis for recusal in most cases, but Judge Merchan again sought an opinion on the matter from the Judicial Ethics Committee.  Judge Merchan quotes this opinion in his denial of the motion to recuse himself as follows; “On the specific issue of the employment of this Court’s daughter, the Committee wrote ‘the matter currently before the judge does not involve either the judge’s relative or the relative’s business, whether directly or indirectly. They are not parties or likely witnesses in the matter, and none of the parties or counsel before the judge are clients in the business. We see nothing in the inquiry to suggest that the outcome of the case could have any effect on the judge’s relative, the relative’s business, or any of their interests.’ Defendant has failed to demonstrate that there exists concrete, or even realistic reasons for recusal to be appropriate, much less required on these grounds. The speculative and hypothetical scenarios offered by Defendant fall well short of the legal standard.”

When a judge’s daughter raised tens of millions of dollars based on a case before her father, it would seem very narrow of the Judicial Ethics Committee to believe that the outcome of the case would have no impact on her business. It would also seem very arbitrary for the Ethics Committee to make an exception to the rule against political contributions by Judges based upon the amount of those contributions. 

It is fair to say that under New York law, Judge Merchan had a right to rely upon these opinions of the Judicial Ethics Committee. However, his failure to recuse himself was a clear and absolute violation of Rule 100.2 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York, which states that “a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities” (Emphasis added.) This includes an admonishment that “a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Hearing the criminal case brought against the Republican candidate for President while your own daughter runs a company that makes millions of dollars working with Democrats and their candidates for office certainly has the appearance of impropriety and does not promote public confidence in the impartiality of Judge Merchan. Nor does the fact that the Judge gave money to the Biden campaign, Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans encourage public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

To engage in these actions clearly had the appearance of impropriety, and any ethical judge would have recused himself under these circumstances, no matter what cover that judge was provided by a conveniently favorable series of opinions from the New York State Judicial Ethics Committee.

To summarize my points, I believe the following:

1. The indictment was legally insufficient, and Judge Merchan should have dismissed the indictment before trial.

2. The failure to dismiss the indictment led to charges being added during trial, a violation of Donald Trump’s right to fundamental fairness and notice of the charges he faced prior to trial. This deprived Donald Trump of the right to prepare a defense. The jury instructions given by Judge Merchan were illegal in that they included these additional charges and allowed for a non-unanimous verdict.

3. Judge Juan Merchan made unconstitutional and prejudicial rulings that impacted Donald Trump’s ability to present a defense, and

4. Judge Juan Merchan should have recused himself from presiding over this matter, based upon the appearance of impropriety in having contributed to political campaigns (regardless of the amounts) and based upon his daughter’s political activities, regardless of the ethics opinions he received.

There are, of course, other appellate issues which exist in this case; allowing the prosecution to claim federal election law violations without presenting any evidence to support those allegations; not allowing the defense to present a witness regarding federal election law, after allowing the prosecution to make the aforementioned statements; and allowing Stormy Daniels to testify, knowing that the prejudicial effect of her testimony outweighed any probative value are several.  It is my belief, however, that the ones I have outlined are what I believe to be the strongest issues to be presented on appeal.

Therefore, it is my considered opinion, based upon my years of legal training and experience, that former President Donald Trump did not receive a fair trial.  That Judge Juan Merchan failed in his obligation to be fair and impartial.  That Judge Merchan committed a series of errors that necessitate reversal of this conviction.  And further, I defy anyone of either good conscience or sound mental facilities to say otherwise.

To be direct, I do not believe anyone can reasonably state that former President Trump received a fair trial in New York County Supreme Court from Judge Juan Merchan.

  Faithfully Submitted,    John H. Wilson,                                                     Judge, Civil Court, Bronx County (ret)

The disappointing July Jobs Report revealed that unemployment rose to 4.3.%

House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith  (R-MO) outlined how the situation is even worse than the numbers indicate.

Since the start of the Biden-Harris Administration in January 2021, 1.8 million more Americans have had to take multiple jobs. In July, another 33,000 Americans took on second or third jobs. Over the last year, 508,000 full-time jobs have been replaced with 548,000 part-time jobs. 

Of the relatively few full time jobs that were actually created, (particularly considering that the nation’s economy was coming out of Covid) many were government positions which draw from, rather than add to, the national economy. Since the Biden-Harris Administration began, 30 percent of new jobs have come from hiring for government salaries. In July, government agencies added 17,000 to taxpayer-funded payrolls. 

Chairman Smith examined the type of jobs that ar essential to the U.S. middle class, and found depressing results. In the last year, American manufacturers have added only 14,000 total jobs. In July, manufacturers added just 1,000 jobs following an 8,000 cut in June.

The Jobs Report was just one analysis of an economy in distress. The Ways and Means committee chair added the following indicators:

Families Falling Behind on Bills: Over one-third of families (37 percent) paid a late fee in the past year.

Everything Costs More: Prices have increased 20.1 percent since the beginning of the Biden-Harris Administration. 

Americans Making Less: Real wages and benefits have fallen 3.6 percent since the beginning of the Biden-Harris Administration.

Inflation Above Fed’s Target: For 39 straight months, inflation has been above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target.

Inflation Higher Than Wages: Inflation outpaced wages for 26 straight months under the Biden-Harris Administration.  

Historic Interest Rates: Under the Biden-Harris Administration, interest rates hit their highest levels in 23 years.

Nearly Doubled Mortgage Costs: The monthly mortgage payment for a median priced new home has increased by $1,027 and is 91 percent higher than when President Biden and Vice President Harris took office in January 2021.

$1 Trillion+ Credit Card Debt: Credit card interest rates are at the highest level in more than three decades, while consumer credit debt has exceeded $1 trillion for the second calendar quarter and the number of Americans struggling to pay credit card bills has increased to the highest level in 12 years.

Shrinking Savings: Thanks to higher prices, families have spent the entirety of their pandemic savings by 2024, and they are able to save less of their income. At 3.4 percent, the personal savings rate is near its historic lows. 

Families Falling Behind on Bills: Over one-third of families (37 percent) paid a late fee in the past year.

An Investopedia analysis also provided a worrisome outlook. “Three separate reports delivered downbeat surprises. Construction spending fell in June for the second month in a row, dropping 0.3%, the Census Bureau said. Forecasters had expected a 0.2% increase instead, according to a survey of economists by Dow Jones Newswires and the Wall Street Journal.”

In terms of the overall American economy, The Congressional Budget Office has published worrisome data. the federal budget deficit in fiscal year 2024 is $1.9 trillion. Adjusted to exclude the effects of shifts in the timing of certain payments, the deficit amounts to $2.0 trillion in 2024 and grows to $2.8 trillion by 2034. With such adjustments, deficits equal 7.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024 and 6.5 percent of GDP in 2025. … By 2034, the adjusted deficit equals 6.9 percent of GDP—significantly more than the 3.7 percent that deficits have averaged over the past 50 year.

Illustration: Pixabay

The United States is not prepared to fight a significant war. That’s the well-researched opinion of the RAND corporation-organized report

of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, which noted that America hasn’t been prepared for a major conflict since the end of the Cold War nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It reports that the U.S. “is not prepared today. China and Russia are major powers that seek to undermine U.S. influence.”

The Commission found that The United States confronts the most serious and the most challenging threats since the end of World War II. “China and Russia’s “no-limits” partnership, formed in February 2022 just days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has only deepened and broadened to include a military and economic partnership with Iran and North Korea, each of which presents its own significant threat to U.S. interests. This new alignment of nations opposed to U.S. interests creates a real risk, if not likelihood, that conflict anywhere could become a multitheater or global war.”

The threat of a multi-theater conflict was deeply sharpened by the decision of the Obama Administration to eliminate the capability to fight in two areas simultaneously.

The United States could in short order be drawn into a war across multiple theaters with peer and near-peer adversaries, and it could lose. The current National Defense Strategy (NDS), written in 2022, does not account for ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East and the possibility of a larger war in Asia. Continuing with the current strategy, bureaucratic approach, and level of resources will weaken the United States’ relative position against the gathering, and partnering, threats it faces.

To address the crisis, representing a dire threat to American national security, the Commission “recommends a sharp break with the way the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does business and embraces an “all elements of national power” approach to national security. It recommends spending smarter and spending more across the national security agencies of government.”

The Commission warned that “The United States was slow to recognize the threat of terrorism before 2001 and late to understand the rising strength of China and the renewed menace posed by Russia.”  It urged that “the time to make urgent and major change is now. That change will mean fundamental alterations to the way DoD operates, the strategic focus of other government agencies, and the functionality of Congress, as well as closer U.S. engagement with allies and mobilization of the public and private sectors.” 

According to research, the problem is actually getting worse.

China’s dramatic increase in military strength and aggressiveness is a key concern. The Report notes that “…in many ways, China is outpacing the United States and has largely negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific through two decades of focused military investment. Without significant change by the United States, the balance of power will continue to shift in China’s favor. China’s overall annual spending on defense is estimated at as much as $711 billion,2 and the Chinese government in March 2024 announced an increase in annual defense spending of 7.2 percent.”

 Combined with its power ally in Moscow, the danger to the U.S. is clear. The Commission states that “Russia will devote 29 percent of its federal budget this year on national defense as it continues to reconstitute its military and economy after its failed initial invasion of Ukraine in 2022.  Russia possesses considerable strategic, space, and cyber capabilities and under Vladimir Putin seeks a return to its global leadership role of the Cold War.”

The U.S. Defense Department has been criticized for the way it does business. The researchers found that it is overly bureaucratic and slow to respond to the expanding and changing challenges the nation faces.

The problem is deeper than the forces currently existing. The defense budget itself is grossly inadequate. In addition, America’s defense industrial base manufacturing capability, which was the key to the allied victory in World War 2, must be restored to a size and capability sufficient to meet the challenge.

The stunning danger America faces from its shriveled military capability is truly a crisis of the highest order that must be immediately addressed.

Photo: Chinese sailors board the Russian naval corvette Gromkiy for a visit during the China-Russia joint naval exercise coded Exercise Joint Sea-2024 on July 13, 2024. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Luan Cheng)