Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

An overall examination of America’s descending fortunes is startling. The crisis is not restricted to any one area. It extends to a broad range of the most important aspects of national life. This turn of events was neither inevitable nor due to any external events.

In early November, Moody’s Investor Service let it be known that it was considering downgrading the U.S. Sovereign Credit Rating Outlook from neutral to negative. This follows the August downgrade by Fitch Ratings from AAA to AA+. An Atlantic Council review noted that “The downgrading decision is another warning sign, and the only question is why it took twelve years for Fitch to follow the move by S&P to remove the AAA rating on US long-term debt. Neither the complacency of markets nor the forced optimism of officials reflects the seriousness of the rating agencies’ concerns.”

Beyond government debt, which has risen from $10.3 trillion in 2008 to $33 trillion today, with no appreciable gain in infrastructure, military strength, education, or any other aspect in the national life, individual Americans are dealing with massive inflation.

The U.S. had achieved energy independence, but this extraordinary accomplishment was thrown away. Now, Washington begs for supplies from nations hostile to it.

American education is failing. A Fortune study found that “American students are in trouble. About a third of students in the youngest grades are behind on reading. Only 36% of fourth graders are proficient at grade-level math. The newest National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP)–the nation’s report card–shows eighth-graders’ history scores are the lowest on record since the assessment began in 1994. And what’s more, every single state experienced teacher shortages in at least one subject in 2022.”

73.654 people died as a result of Fentanyl last year, notes usafacts. FBI Statistics indicate that property crimes and carjacking’s have increased sharply. Random violence haunts major cities.

The United States is functioning as a nation without borders. At least 2.8 million persons have entered the U.S. illegally this year. This will produce a massive increase in human trafficking, foreign agents, and terrorists. Additionally, state and local governments are experiencing massive financial difficulties in dealing with the housing, medical, educational, and food needs of the influx.

Race relations have descended dramatically, not due to any actual reason but due to the political posturing of a very vocal progressive pressure group, the same people who have introduced antisemitism into American universities and politics.

Through the early part of the 21^st century, America was seen as the predominate superpower. However, as a result of underinvestment in defense, the discouragement of enlistment, and bad treaties, that is no longer true. Military recruiting is dismally short of what is needed. Both the Army and the Air Force are about 10,000 short each of their goals, and the Navy will be about 6,000 below necessary numbers.

Russia has a more powerful nuclear force, and China has a larger navy. A wholly botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, leaving billions of dollars to the very terrorists that were responsible for the 9/111 attacks, signaled Washington’s adversaries that incompetence existed in the White House. 

The basic underpinnings of American democracy have been directly challenged.  Biased federal agencies interfered in the 2020 presidential election by seeking to pressure media sources to not publish news stories that were detrimental to one side. It also assisted that side by aiding in the propagation of an utterly false allegation about the candidate of the other side.

These outcomes are the direct result of terrible policy decisions and the subjugation of the national good to partisan politics. A desperate attempt to buy votes led to spending far beyond what the nation can afford. Appeasing environmental extremists who operate on questionable and falsely alarming studies irrationally destroyed energy production, which directly led to massive inflation. Limiting defense spending to have more dollars to buy votes has weakened national security.

The educational establishment has turned away from using schools to teach objective facts and now commits resources for frankly partisan purposes. In service to those partisan objectives, it spreads false teachings on the environment, race relations, and American history.

The President and his family have been significantly enriched by the Chinese Communist Party. This discourages his Administration from confronting Beijing on its outrageous actions in fentanyl chemical exports, massive arms buildup, Latin American military buildup, human rights violations, international aggression, extensive espionage,  intellectual property theft, and more.

The good news is that this course of events can be stopped and eventually reversed with a change in leadership.

Illustration: Pixabay

In the unfortunate political climate of the day, partisanship tends to overshadow common sense and common decency.

Over the decades, both Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of putting their party’s interest above that of the public.  Never before, however, has partisanship risen to its current level. Blatant abuse by elected officials and the heads of governmental agencies of their official positions has become the new normal.

It would be disingenuous to state that both parties are equally guilty.  There is no past precedent or current equivalent for the extent and manner in which Democrats, since the election of Barack Obama, have exploited their official powers for partisan purposes.

Presidents have previously used the IRS to inappropriately surveil opponents. But the Obama Administration went far beyond that. As The Cato Institute notes,

“…the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (‘BOLO’) list to identify organizations engaged in [opposition] political activities. The list included words such as ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots,’ and ‘Israel’; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt‐​organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover‐​ups.“

Obama also initiated overbearing federal measures to silence opponents, using the concept of “disinformation” to censor critics. Fox and others have noted  how  a Obama-era interagency organization ‘blacklisted’ Americans in attempt to curb ‘foreign disinformation’

The abuse of power and censorship legacy has been expanded upon by Biden. As Townhall notes, the current  “administration [engages in] blatant and hostile partisanship. When Biden does happen to think clearly on a given day, he immediately turns to vilifying and scapegoating Republicans like they are enemies of the state and not just fellow Americans. Biden’s fleeting moments of lucidity merely serve to score political points with his left-wing base, treating the Republican Party like it’s some rogue state or terrorist group.If you check the record, Biden’s rhetoric is deeply disturbing in a way that even his mental decline could never be. It is vitriolic and hateful, dividing a nation that he claimed to be unifying. Lest we forget: Biden’s inauguration address referenced “unity” nearly 10 times, and yet he’s governing as a divider of political parties. Even Barack Obama was less divisive.”

Even seasoned political observers have been stunned by the extent to which Biden has used his official position to attack his opponents. Most presidents have periodically criticized their opponents in their various remarks.  For the Biden Administration, it has been the central focus.

The Wall Street Journal notes that Biden has already revealed that the White House strong-armed platforms into more censorship than they considered justified—prompting the judge in one case to declare that the administration had made “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

The Federalist presents the issue succinctly.  “Democrats have arrested, prosecuted, and raided their enemies. the Democratic Congress and administration have written a vicious battle plan… The Biden administration has made clear they’ll prosecute their political opponents every chance they get. That means that despite Republican … Kevin McCarthy’s threat to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland accountable … he will only be empowered to hold Garland accountable under a Republican administration (unless he complies with Republican congressional oversight, which he won’t)…. Arresting an administration official after he’s left office is a dangerous precedent, but it’s one Democrats gleefully set this past year.”

The historical context is frightening.  Biden is following a playbook used by other leaders during the 20^th century. Replace his phrase “Maga” with Hitler’s “Jew,” or Lenin’s “bourgeoise,” add to it the penchant of those dictators to censor and arrest their opponents, and the danger of the current President’s partisanship becomes clear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illustration: Pixabay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not quite, Elliot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably not.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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