Author: Judge John Wilson (ret.)

We discussed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Donald Trump.   Then we dissected Special Counsel Jack Smith’s first federal indictment of the former President. We also reviewed the facts and charges Smith added to this first federal indictment.  Next, we analyzed Smith’s second federal indictment of the 45th President.  

Two federal indictments, one in Florida and another in Washington DC, as well as a New York City indictment would all be a heavy burden for any defendant, especially one who is running for President of the United States. 

But wait – there’s more.

On August 14, 2023,  “(f)ormer President Donald Trump was indicted…on racketeering, conspiracy and other charges by a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, the result of a more than two-year investigation…into potential 2020 election interference in that state. Eighteen other people, including Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, were also indicted, accused of joining Trump in efforts to unlawfully change the outcome of the election.” 

 The indictment can be viewed here. Specifically, Trump and his co-defendants are alleged to have “unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in…a pattern of racketeering activity” while “associated with an enterprise” that allegedly violated Georgia law…Trump and the other defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump had lost (the 2020 Presidential election), and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.”

 As described by PBS, “(t)he nearly 100-page indictment details dozens of acts by Trump or his allies to undo his defeat, including beseeching Georgia’s Republican secretary of state to find enough votes for him to win the battleground state; harassing an election worker who faced false claims of fraud; and attempting to persuade Georgia lawmakers to ignore the will of voters and appoint a new slate of electoral college electors favorable to Trump.” 

 “The yearslong probe of former President Donald Trump and his allies by Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis may prove to be Trump’s toughest legal challenge yet,” ABC News breathlessly reports.  Yet, despite their obvious glee at yet another Trump indictment, the mainstream media seems to recognize that the shine is off the apple here.  “What was once unprecedented — a former president facing criminal charges — has fallen into a familiar cadence…Trump and his campaign will decry the charges. His campaign will likely fundraise off of these charges. Trump and his campaign continue to conflate his personal legal problems with the cause of his political movement, using the charges as a tool to gin up his base. It has been working. Numerous charges haven’t slowed his campaign yet.” 

You can hear the disappointment loud and clear – “Darn it!  Won’t anything stop this man?”

Donald Trump is a human being, not a relentless Juggernaut.  Certainly, something, or some event (such as several losses in upcoming primaries) could potentially “stop him.” But this indictment by another local prosecutor, this time in Fulton County, Georgia, isn’t likely to cause the derailment of the runaway Trump train.

Who has brought this latest Indictment against the former President? According to the BBC, Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis was born “in Inglewood, California in 1971 (and) was raised primarily by her father, a criminal defense lawyer and member of the Black Panthers, the radical political party which championed black rights…(s)he graduated from the historically black college Howard University in 1993, before receiving a law degree from Emory University in Georgia in 1996…Ms Willis joined the Fulton County District Attorney’s office, where she served in several different divisions until 2018..(a)fter her time in the office ended, Ms Willis spent several years in private practice. Then, in 2020, she decided to go head-to-head with her former boss, six-term Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard. She won in a runoff election with 73% of the votes, becoming the first black woman to serve as Fulton County’s top prosecutor.”

 Unlike the Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, who “received more than $1 million in support from the Color Of Change PAC, a racial justice group which receives funding from (George) Soros” during his campaign, there isn’t any clear evidence  that Willis is yet another “progressive DA.”  Her office’s website includes a pledge to “provide an environment of mutual respect, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age, disability or gender identity,” however, there is also a statement of integrity, which reads “this office will now show a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values.”   

 Further, unlike Bragg, who specifically campaigned on his plan “to personally focus on the high-profile probe into former President Donald Trump’s business practices,”  there is scant evidence that Willis made similar overt promises during her race. 

 What Willis does bring to this prosecution, is a willingness to use racketeering charges indiscriminately against any and all defendants.  In fact, it would seem that Willis only carries one hammer, which makes every criminal case look like a nail to her.

 Similar to the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) law, under Georgia Code Section 16-14-4, “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or proceeds derived therefrom, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise, real property, or personal property of any nature, including money. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section.” 

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

The article concludes tomorrow

The Pentagon has released its annual analysis of China’s military power and strategy. The report should deeply concern America and its allies.

A senior defense official, speaking on background, noted that “The People’s Republic of China is continuing its efforts to overturn the international rules-based order and is building an increasingly effective military to further these aims…Communist leaders seek “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” by 2049 – the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party’s takeover of the world’s largest country.”

The report discusses the lack of contacts between U.S. and Chinese defense officials. “The PLA’s refusal to engage in military-to-military communications with the United States, combined with the PLA’s increasingly coercive and risky operational behavior, raises the risk of an operational incident or miscalculation spiraling into crisis or conflict,” according to the Pentagon.

Particularly troubling is China’s deepening security ties with Russia. Recently, China’s dictator Xi met with Putin, and the two emphasized their strong alliance and intertwined foreign policies.

China is engaging in growing military coercion, according to the official. One specific example is the increasing numbers of unsafe intercepts of U.S., allied and partner vessels and aircraft operating in international air and seaways of the Indo-Pacific region. “Between the fall of 2021 and the fall of 2023, the United States documented over 180 instances of coercive and risky air intercepts against U.S. aircraft in the region,” the official said. When allies and partners are included, this jumps to more than 300 instances.”

China is intensifying its pressure campaign against Taiwan, including Chinese ballistic missile overflights of Taiwan, increased flights into Taiwan’s self-declared air defense identification zone and the large-scale simulated joint blockade and simulated joint firepower strike operations done after a visit to the island by a U.S. congressional delegation. 

The focus of the report is China’s military’s vast and rapidly growing nuclear, space and cyberspace capabilities. “We see the PRC continuing to quite rapidly modernize and diversify and expand its nuclear forces…They are expanding and investing in their land, sea and air-based nuclear delivery platforms, as well as the infrastructure that’s required to support this” the Department official said.

China now has more than 500 operational nuclear warheads, a rate of growth greater than anticipated by Western observers.

China is developing new intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Beijing has the capability of reaching any American homeland target.  

On the land, the PLA continues to modernize its equipment and focus on combined arms and joint training, the official said. The Chinese military is still a conscript force with two intakes a year. The military is working to field long-range fires and incorporate the capability into their doctrine. 

At sea, China has the world’s largest navy with a battle force of more than 370 ships and submarines. The Chinese launched their third aircraft carrier in the past year and commissioned their third amphibious assault ship. 

The PLA Air Force “is rapidly catching up to western air forces,” the official said. The air force continues to build up manned and unmanned aircraft and the Chinese announced the fielding of the H-6N – its first nuclear-capable, air-to-air refueled bomber. 

The Chinese military has not been involved in a shooting war since 1979 and “this actually is one of the shortcomings that the PRC highlights and a lot of their own self assessments,” the official said. “They tried to address that, I think, by attempting to make their training and their exercises more realistic, to more closely approximate … actual combat type conditions.  

“I think they tried to address it as well, by learning whatever lessons they can from other countries’ involvement in military conflicts,” he continued.  

Chinese military leaders carefully studied military conflicts involving U.S. forces, Russian forces and others over the years. That is one of the key sources they draw upon to better understand how they need to prepare themselves for future combat operations. “Certainly, they’re watching very closely Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine,” the official said. 

The Chinese military is looking for bases overseas and looking to develop the resources needed to be a globally relevant force. They have established an overall logistics command and they are working hand-in-glove with the Belt and Road Initiative to gain access.

Photo: Chinese warship undergoing at-sea resupply, an indication of the increasingly global reach of Beijing’s massive military might. (China Defence Ministry)

Recent Chinese actions toward Russia recall the lessons learned by Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol. In that story Mr. Scrooge is visited by ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future. Unlike its ending, however, China is not expected to morph into a kinder and gentler nation. In late November China media reports emerged discussing Beijing’s outright refusal to invest in the construction of the Power of Siberia-2 natural gas pipeline while also insisting it be granted sizable energy discounts. Xi Jinping recognizes he has the upper hand in bargaining with Vladimir Putin and is demanding that its ally fully cover 100% of the costs of the multibillion-dollar project. China is capitalizing on Russia’s weak financial status further strained by costs related to its lengthy war in Ukraine to support its critical energy needs. 

At one time Moscow was the dominant partner in the bilateral relationship. In recent decades the balance has shifted in favor of Beijing. The war in Ukraine weakened Putin’s geopolitical leverage and exacerbated the country’s critical need for financial resources. Ksenia Kirillova, of the Jamestown Foundation, says that Western economic sanctions have made it possible for China to increase its Russian energy imports and obtain cheaper gas prices since Moscow can’t fully compensate for losses after Gazprom withdrew from the European markets. Kirillova adds that gas supplies from the Power of Siberia-1 pipeline cost China about 50% of rates for the European Union and Turkey. He points out that “Russian oil and gas analyst Mikhail Krutikhin emphasizes that Beijing has little interest in the construction of the Power of Siberia-2 pipeline, as China does not require large quantities of natural gas.” As of December, the rates do not cover Russia’s cost of production and transportation. China knows this and is taking advantage of the Kremlin’s lack of financial resources.

Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party support its interests without regard to the critical needs of its long-time ally. Recently, Beijing’s propaganda apparatchik began treating Siberia as a “resource colony” for China. The two states today remain in competition for influence in the Central Asian region. Marina Rudyak, a professor of Sinology at Heidelberg University, argues that China still fears Russia could win in Ukraine and elevate its status in Central Asia and beyond. That could thwart Chinese plans in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and other regions.

At 70 years of age, Xi is beginning to consider how he will be remembered in history. Early on in office, he indicated his intent to reclaim Taiwan before leaving office. Despite a signed agreement with Russia permanently ceding one million square miles of Siberian territory Russia had seized from it at the end of WWII, Xi has shown indications he plans reacquire the region. It may be possible for Xi to accomplish his goals without the use of military troops if he can economically take over Siberia. He is using sophisticated influence operations to Taiwanese domestic politics. Military analysts in Washington are uncertain if Xi will use force there in the coming years. 

China and Russia, two important communist states, continue in an uneasy collaboration in other areas such as censorship and control over the Internet. Radio Free Europe last spring reported that China has shared its insights on the functions and capabilities of its “Great Firewall” with Moscow since 2015. The direction of the bilateral relationship in recent years, however, does not portend a positive future for either country. China must keep Moscow, one of its few allies, at a distance to avoid being pulled into the Western sanction’s regime. Russia’s financial status forces it to rely heavily on supplying its strategic resources at deeply discounted prices to obtain minimal levels of political support from Beijing. It is unlikely that Xi Jinping willingly will risk China’s future to save Russia, or to provide it enough financial or political support to strengthen it. To do so would threaten Xi’s global ambitions. It appears he will continue in the role of Mr. Scrooge and not share China’s wealth or influence with the Kremlin, its oldest ally.
Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

A newly declassified US intelligence assessment this week indicates that Russia has lost 315,000 troops to injuries or death out of its 360,000 ground troops since invading Ukraine. Despite the huge blow, which also includes the loss of 2,200 of its 3,500 tanks, Moscow is pushing forward on another front.

As the cold of winter sets in across the northern hemisphere, analysts in Washington are reexamining Russia’s ambitious plans in the Arctic. In recent years President Vladimir Putin has set his sights on claiming large swaths of Artic territory. With the US failing to ratify the Law of the Sea (LOS) treaty, Washington has had no seat at the table, and little say over Russia’s actions. Due to the lack of American push back, the international community is beginning to recognize Russia’s territorial claims. This should give Western nations great concern even as Russia temporarily constrains some of its Arctic activities.

There is some short-term, good news from the Far North. Putin’s war in Ukraine is forcing him to increasingly shift financial resources away from his Arctic goals. The strain is hampering the pace of the Kremlin’s future political and economic plans in the region, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He says, “The Russian government can no longer afford the land-or sea-based infrastructure it needs to strengthen its territorial claims and struggles to source critical components for Arctic shipping and the development of natural resources there.” All of the Arctic littoral states are now members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and no longer neutral nations.

Beijing is not a dependent source of resources for Moscow this year, as Xi Jinping and the CCP are facing their own domestic economic challenges. The Chinese leadership also recognizes that aiding Russia will further alienate the West at a time of historically high tensions since 1948.

Moscow appears to be increasingly concerned that other states may also challenge its position in the Arctic. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin has attempted to shore up Russia’s territorial claims in the High North, especially to the Arctic seabed. The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental shelf (CLCS) reviewed and accepted most of Moscow’s claims and acknowledged the Arctic states can use existing technology to claim the seabed, almost two weeks before Putin’s February 2022 invasion.

“The new reality,” according to Goble, is that it allows “Canada, Denmark, and Greenland to make similar submissions and means that a final decision on Artic territorial claims remains a distant dream.”

The US -Russian border along the Arctic Ocean and the underlying seabed are guided by a 1990 agreement since the US has signed, but not ratified, the more recent LOS treaty.

In mid-April 2021, the Kremlin reported Putin gave two speeches, one to the Russian parliament and another to the influential Russian Geographical Society, in which he called for the launch of Russian development of the High North. In them he noted that new Arctic transportation networks were needed to support the Northern Sea Route. Goble says this is a key policy goal for the Russian president as he intends to develop the region’s expansive oil and gas reserves. While Moscow’s Arctic energy plan has slowed due to the war in Ukraine, it is not entirely dead although some programs including several military-related projects, are on hold as many Russians are leaving the High North. Goble points out, “these obstacles have pushed some in Moscow to argue that Russia must press its case in the Arctic by acting unilaterally and militarily rather than prioritizing economic development and adhering to international law.”

In June 2022, after increased international isolation from the West and Putin’s failed attempt to create an alternative Arctic grouping of states, Moscow found it also lost its steady backing from Beijing. The Eurasian Daily Monitor’s Ksenia Kirillova reports that China is the dominant partner and in a strong bargaining position now. It is insisting on, and getting, substantial discounts for Russian gas.

Western governments need to evaluate, be guided by, and respond to Russian actions and future plans with due consideration to how Moscow views adherence to international law and conventions. The Russian Fund for the Defense of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States argues that Putin doesn’t need UN approval for its claims. According to the Fund, Russia simply must declare its ownership and employ its military to defend the claims to the Arctic seabed and lands.

The Fund was established by Putin as part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to defend Russia’s Arctic claims explicitly and unilaterally. In the future, as the Northern Passage opens to year-round oceanic commercial traffic and new seabed resources are discovered, Putin could use this body to justify conflict in the Arctic against other states staking claims. A former DIA analyst, interviewed on the Vernuccio-Novak Report radio show, noted that when Putin is backed into a corner, as appears to be the case in the Arctic, he is capable of striking out like a cornered snake. The financial and military constraints of the war in Ukraine today may, in the end, make the Russian president a deadlier future opponent in the Arctic.

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

Each American President has committed serious policy mistakes. Many have overstepped constitutional limits on their power. More than one has engaged in activities that skirt the lines of corruption.

Never before, however, has an administration had such a near-total record of deadly serious policy failures at home and abroad, combined with stunning acts of sleaze and dishonesty, as that of the current White House.

 At this moment, the planet is enduring wars in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The Biden response to each situation has made matters far worse. His decision to depart Afghanistan abandoning billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and not leaving behind a residual force at Bagram Air Force Base essentially rang the dinner bell for rapacious dictators in Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing. His defense spending proposals added to the impression that his Administration was not serious about security issues. Its pursuit of a worthless nuclear deal with Iran, his comments that he wouldn’t respond to a “minor incursion” in Ukraine defied common sense. The White House refusal to shoot down China’s spy balloon until it completed its mission over continental USA baffled and worried observers. The bizarre decision to end the existing program to root out Beijing’s intense espionage remains a frightening mystery.

As the threat of global terrorism grows exponentially, Biden clings to his open border policy. Millions enter the United States without background checks and minus any means of tracking their whereabouts.  Border patrol agents have warned about finding Islamic prayer rugs along the border. Military age Chinese nationals are crossing into the United States,

In addition to the national safety implications, this has led to great financial distress of city and state governments. It can’t even be justified on naïve sympathy grounds for illegal immigrants, who find themselves subject to rape, trafficking, and exploitation. Their overwhelming numbers leave them in many cases on the streets, without any legal means of providing for themselves. They are deeply vulnerable to becoming pawns for criminal cartels, and the influence of foreign powers who seek to construct a fifth column within the nation.  

Despite all that, Biden keeps doubling down on his border disaster. The New York Post reports that “’Asylum seekers’” arriving in New York City just set a new record: nearly 4,000 in a single week. And the routine inflow is double what it was a year ago. It’s getting worse, not better…Team Biden hasn’t done a thing to slow the tide at the border [it has] opened various new paths for illegal migrants to enter ‘legally’ — with each fresh ‘pathway’ adding to the ’come on in!’ signal.”

A bizarre energy policy that destroyed related America’s self-sufficiency and dramatically benefitted unsavory regimes in Iran, Russia, and Venezuela served both to enrich aggressor states and imperil the U.S. economy. Energy is the bedrock of a modern economy, and despite all the bluster, there is no “alternative energy” yet developed that is capable of meeting demand. The impact on the economy is clear. The House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (MO-R) recently showed prices rising 17.7 percent since President Biden took the Oath of Office.

It would be almost comforting to believe that these were all acts of incompetence, but the evidence of corruption surrounding the President and his family is disturbing. The House Oversight Committee states that “There is mounting evidence that Joe Biden was involved in his family’s influence peddling schemes, including while he served as Vice President.”  Considering the strange and politically suicidal nature of Biden’s decisions regarding China in particular, it is not inappropriate to ask what influence did the funds foreign sources have on Administration policies.

The disparate treatment of similar acts is a key indicator of a legal system that is moving into the dangerous territory of being an attack dog against enemies of the ruling party.  Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden removed documents from the White House following their tenures in office (Biden served as vice president during the Obama Administration.) Trump has been pursued vigorously. Biden has not, despite the fact that Biden’s offense was more severe for two vital reasons. First, Biden did not have the authority, as VP, to declassify. Second, a portion of Biden’s documents were held at a location that made them open to Chinese agents.

The bias extends to more than just officials. During the Black Lives/Antifa riots that lasted an entire summer, buildings were burned, people died, shops were looted, federal courthouses were attacked, police stations were invaded, and so-called independent zones were established.  Not much was done to punish the perpetrators. Indeed, some Democrat leaders even help raise funds for the few who were prosecuted.  On the other hand, protestors who engaged in a one-day incident in which they trespassed into the Capitol building causing little damage have been prosecuted extensively and given draconian sentences.

A particularly serious example can be seen in the treatment of parents who protest the bizarre concepts advocated and supported by Democrats in public schools.  When the practice of allowing boys into girl’s bathrooms (because they happened to “feel like a girl on any particular day”) resulted in the rape of a young female student, the father of the girl objected vigorously.  He was later prosecuted for his actions, and parents who stood up for their children’s safety have been labelled “domestic terrorists.”  It is a central tenet of authoritarian regimes that the state, not the parent, has authority over a child.

The Second Amendment allows Americans to possess weapons, a concept hated by totalitarians.  Attacks on it and on institutions that defend that right have been under consistent attack. New Mexico’s Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) used a public health order to ban firearms in Albuquerque.  President Biden has created an agency supposedly to prevent gun violence, but there can be little doubt that his goal is the reduction of gun ownership. On the other hand, he seeks to dramatically increase the number of armed individuals loyal to his Administration, under the guise of IRS agents.

The current White House has repeatedly ignored Constitutional limits on its power.  Biden has attempted to spend billions of dollars on a student loan forgiveness program that ignores the role of Congress in budget matters.  He has willfully and knowingly wholly ignored federal law on immigration by letting in over three million illegals, again rejecting limits on his authority.

Which brings up the next step on the road to reducing freedom: diluting the concept of citizenry. Biden’s refusal to immigration law has allowed three million illegals to enter the U.S. Border patrol agents and others have warned that Chinese agents, drug cartel members, human traffickers, and terrorists have infiltrated that number as well as those seeking economic benefits.  As the crisis has grown to the point where mayors, governors, and law enforcement personnel have begged for change, the White House has doubled down by promising work permits for the illegals. The concept of being a citizen protected by borders and a commonly acknowledged Constitution and a Bill of Rights, is an obstacle to ultimate power.  Bringing in individuals or groups without that understanding eases the way for unchecked authority.

Corrupt politicians have existed on both sides of the political aisle.  But never before has a major party engaged in a so determined and skillful assault on freedom. Mark Levin warns that “The Democrat Party stands for the relentless pursuit of power and control. America was founded on the principle of individual and human liberty…If the Democrat Party succeeds, the American experiment will have failed.”

Frank Vernuccio, Jr. J.D. serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government

Photo: Pixabay

There is a worrisome and growing resemblance to authoritarian regimes evident in portions of American government.

Dictatorial regimes have much in common. Freedom of speech and journalistic independence are restricted. Judicial systems are used as weapons of the ruling party.  Weapons are kept out of the hands of the general population. Elections are subjected to conditions that reduce their validity. The concept of citizenry is diluted. A particular group is scapegoated. The importance of basic national documents and traditions are downplayed. Through taxation or regulation, the financial independence of individuals and small businesses are limited.

Disturbingly, each of those characteristics is clearly present in both the Biden Administration and Democratic jurisdictions throughout America. That’s not a partisan allegation. It is solidly substantiated through verifiable facts.

The First Amendment was long considered untouchable, but that began to change during the Obama White House. In an attempt to silence opposition, concepts such as “Disinformation,” and the attempt to create an entire related agency, were commenced. The move was widely criticized, but the Biden Administration has sought to engage in a similar move.

 Groups that do not follow the progressive-Democrat line are subjected to recrimination. The IRS harassment of the Tea Party was a prime example. Over the years, the leadership of the Democrat Party has furthered the concept.  The senior Senator from New York, Charles Schumer, argued that “The First Amendment is not absolute.”

Ben Shapiro notes that the establishment media, which does the bidding of the Democrat Party, “…broadly promoted that idea of deplatforming mainstream conservatives and conservative outlets…Max Boot suggested in the pages of the Washington Post that Fox News be removed from Comcast, or even that the Federal Communications Commission be empowered to to censor cable networks,,,”

Over the decades, Democrats steadily gained control of the federal bureaucracy, a pace that wasn’t even disturbed during periods when the GOP held the presidency. That bureaucracy, particularly in the Department of Justice and the Intelligence services (remember that John Brennan, former CIA chief, was once a registered member of the Communist Party) used their immense power and influence to assist Democrats.

Americans may argue forever whether the 2020 election was fair, but the reality is partisan federal bureaucracies clearly and undeniably used their power to lean on media outlets to censor news facts, such as the Hunter Biden laptop, that would have swayed many voters to reject Biden’s candidacy. This was similar to how those same organizations conspired (I employ that term in the full legal sense) to create a false narrative about “Russian collusion” of the prior GOP president.

Totalitarian regimes do not view the judicial system as an objective arbiter of the law. Rather, it is viewed as a means of enforcing control. Judges that do not tow the party line do so at their own peril.  When several Supreme Court justices disagreed with Democrat positions on abortion, they were threatened both physically and institutionally.  Senator Schumer warned that they would “reap the whirlwind” for their decision. When protestors jeopardized their homes and families, the Department of Justice failed to live up to its obligation to provide timely protection. The Washington Examiner noted that “By failing to arrest and prosecute people who harass Supreme Court justices, Attorney General Merrick Garland is dangerously, almost criminally guilty of supreme dereliction of duty.”

Discussions were circulated to “pack” the Supreme Court to ensure a majority that would agree with Democrats. False allegations of impropriety were levelled against justices who disagreed with the White House. In one instance, as noted by National Review, internal Facebook emails obtained by the House Judiciary Committee revealed that  the White House pressured Facebook to remove posts differing from thew Democrat Party line on Covid, and Facebook felt forced to comply.

Frank V. Vernuccio Jr., J.D. serves as the editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Governement.

The Reports Concludes Tomorrow.

Photo: Pixabay