Author: Judge John Wilson (ret.)

In June of 2024, Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, was convicted of three federal felony charges after a jury trial in a Federal District Court in Wilmington, Delaware.  According to the Associated Press, “Jurors found Hunter Biden guilty of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally having the gun for 11 days.” 

At that time, the AP also noted that “President Joe Biden said in a statement issued shortly after the verdict that he would accept the outcome and ‘continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal.’”

In September, the President’s son plead guilty to three felony tax charges, as well as six misdemeanor charges in a Los Angeles federal court.  The US Attorney’s Office stated that “Hunter Biden engaged in a four-year scheme in which he chose not to pay at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019 and to evade the assessment of taxes for tax year 2018 when he filed false returns.”  

Since this second conviction, President Biden has stated, either through his Press Secretary or in person, that he would not use his Presidential power to issue a pardon for his son.  For instance, “[i]n July [of 2023], Fox News’ Mark Meredith asked Jean-Pierre if there was any possibility Biden would end up pardoning his son as Hunter was facing two counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax. ‘No,’ Jean-Pierre simply said. She also interrupted an attempted following up question saying, ‘I just said no,’ before moving on to another reporter.”  

In June of 2024, “President Joe Biden said he would not pardon his son Hunter amid an ongoing felony gun trial during a[n]…exclusive interview with ABC News anchor David Muir at the Normandy American Cemetery on the 80th anniversary of D-Day. Muir asked Biden…if he would accept the outcome of his son’s trial in Wilmington, Delaware, to which the president said, ‘Yes.’ Biden also said ‘yes’ when asked by Muir if he would rule out a pardon for Hunter.” 

Many in the media took Biden at his word.  As described by the Daily Mail, “MSNBC host and Biden’s former press secretary Jen Psaki described the President’s decision as evidence of his principled honor and character. ‘[T]he justice system that convicted his only surviving son is the same justice system he vowed to protect,’ Psaki said in June. ‘If that doesn’t tell you who Joe Biden is, I don’t really know what does.’ MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski cited Biden’s decision as evidence that he was a more respectful president than former President Donald Trump. ‘The current president of the United States has so much respect for the law that he has said he would not pardon his son, again, it’s all about the contrast,’ she said.” 

A man who has “vowed to protect” the justice system.  A man with “respect for the law.”  A man who said, in no uncertain words that he would “accept the outcome” of his son’s trial and “continue to respect the judicial process.” This is the man Psaki, Brzezinski and Jean-Pierre would have you believe is the real Joseph Biden.

But most of us know better.  Most of us who have followed the corrupt history of the Biden crime family know better. And knowing better, are any of us really surprised that Joe Biden lied through his teeth to the American people about pardoning his son before his term as President expires?

“President Joe Biden announced Sunday [December 1] that he has pardoned his son Hunter Biden, who faced sentencing this month for federal tax and gun convictions…’Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter,’ the president said in a statement. It is a ‘full and unconditional pardon,’ according to a copy of the executive grant of clemency…The pardon means Hunter Biden won’t be sentenced for his crimes, and it eliminates any chance that he’ll be sent to prison, which was a possibility…The broadly crafted pardon explicitly grants clemency for the tax and gun offenses from his existing cases, plus any potential federal crimes that Hunter Biden may have committed ‘from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.’ This time frame, importantly, covers his entire tenure on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and much of his other overseas work, including in China.”

Yes, we on the right knew Biden was nothing more than a liar, but the outrage expressed by Republican members of Congress, while predictable, was still necessary to highlight Biden’s hypocricy. As reported by Fox News, “[o]n the heels of President Joe Biden’s move to pardon his son Hunter Biden, several Republican lawmakers highlighted a post on X from earlier this year in which the president had asserted, ‘No one is above the law.’ Reps. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., and Eli Crane, R-Ariz., both shared Biden’s post and commented, ‘Unless your last name is Biden’…’You’ve been lied to every step of the way by this Administration and the corrupt Biden family. This is just the latest in their long coverup scheme. They never play by the same rules they force on everyone else. Disgraceful,’ Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., declared in response to the old Biden tweet.” 

The sweeping nature of the pardon gave rise to the inevitable comparisons with Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.  According to Politico, “’I have never seen language like this in a pardon document that purports to pardon offenses that have not apparently even been charged, with the exception of the Nixon pardon,’ said Margaret Love, who served from 1990 to 1997 as the U.S. pardon attorney, a Justice Department position devoted to assisting the president on clemency issues…rather than merely pardoning his son for the gun crimes for which he was convicted and the tax crimes for which he pleaded guilty, the president’s pardon covers all ‘offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in’ from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024. That language mirrors the language in Ford’s pardon of Nixon, which did not merely cover the Watergate scandal but extended to ‘all offenses against the United States’ that Nixon ‘has committed or may have committed’ between Jan. 20, 1969, and Aug. 9, 1974 – the exact span of Nixon’s presidency.” 

Republican Ford’s pardon of Republican Nixon is not the only controversial pardon to have occurred before this one.  As described by Time, “[i]n 1983, financier Marc Rich was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, as well as running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis. During his last week in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned Rich, who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution and was residing in Switzerland. Clinton’s eleventh-hour move…outraged Republicans and Democrats alike. The Rich pardon sparked an investigation into whether it was bought by the hefty donations Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had given to the Clintons and the Democrats. In the end, investigators did not find enough evidence to indict Clinton.” 

Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne spoke with one of the original Rich prosecutors, Martin Auerbach. “’I voted for Clinton three times,’ said Auerbach, who…was referring to his presidential votes in 1992 and 1996, and his ballot for Hillary Clinton in [2000’s] Senate contest. ‘I’ve defended Clinton for years. I always felt that the rules had changed around him. But this creates a whole different question in my mind.’ The problem with Rich is that ‘he thumbed his nose at the law every single time the country responded to a crisis,’ whether the matter was the energy crisis or the hostage crisis in Iran. ‘You may think tax rates are too high,’ Auerbach said. ‘But to unilaterally evade taxes on $100 million is not the way to go.’ Auerbach, still a political progressive, offers what should be a very troubling observation for liberals. ‘Think of all the kids who hot-wire cars and go to jail. They don’t get to choose between going behind bars or spending a rather comfortable exile.’ And he adds: ‘I sure would like an explanation from the former president: What was he thinking?’” 

Its pretty obvious, given the donations made by Rich’s wife to Team Clinton, what Bill was thinking.  Its also just as obvious what “Big Guy” Biden was thinking when he pardoned his son (and bagman) Hunter.  According to the woman he hired to lie for him, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, “‘One of the reasons the president did the pardon is because they didn’t seem like his political opponents would let go of it. It didn’t seem like they would move on,’ she told reporters on Air Force One during a trip to Angola. ‘They would continue to go after his son. That’s what he believed.'”

This effort to protect his son may have been yet another miscalculation by President Biden. According to the Denver Gazette, “Hunter Biden may no longer have the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent if called to testify under oath for his actions over the past 11 years after President Joe Biden pardoned the first son, legal experts say…[u]nder the Fifth Amendment, people can refuse to answer questions if their responses might incriminate them in criminal cases. However, with all criminal liability now erased by the pardon, Hunter Biden could face contempt charges if he refuses to testify before congressional panels. ‘Well, this now makes it much easier for a GOP Senate/House to call Hunter as a witness about his and his dad’s connections to Ukraine, etc. because the pardon prevents Hunter from asserting the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself,’ Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and host of the Four Boxes Diner legal analysis show, wrote on X.” 

Of course, this theory is predicated on Congressional investigations of the Biden Presidency continuing under a Trump Presidency, something many of us expect to occur.  There is also a chance that Donald Trump will concentrate on the economy, controlling illegal immigration, preventing a spread of the wars in the Ukraine and Israel, and not have time to encourage Congressional action against his Democrat enemies.   

Regardless, there is one concept involved here that is no theory – the President of the United States does have the power to grant this pardon to anyone, including his son. 

Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, “[t]he President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” As described at Constitution Annotated, “[t]he power, which has historical roots in early English law, has been recognized by the Supreme Court as quite broad. In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. Much later, the Court wrote that the broad power conferred in the Constitution gives the President plenary authority to ‘forgive’ [a] convicted person in part or entirely, to reduce a penalty in terms of a specified number of years, or to alter it with certain conditions.” 

Constitution Annotated does note that besides a Presidential pardon not being available for those who have been impeached, “clemency may only be granted for Offenses against the United States, meaning that state criminal offenses and federal or state civil claims are not covered.” Further, “the [Supreme] Court has indicated that the power may be exercised at any time after [an offense’s] commission, reflecting that the President may not preemptively immunize future criminal conduct.”

Thus, President Biden has the authority to give his son immunity for any crimes committed between 2014 and 2024, but not for any future federal crimes.  Biden also cannot pardon Hunter for any State level criminal charges.  This interpretation is also supported by the US Attorney’s Office, Office of the Pardon Attorney, who state clearly that “the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses…[a]n offense that violates a state law is not an offense against the United States.” 

This does tend to raise a question.  While Biden’s pardon of Hunter should cover any state charges predicated on violations of federal law, many federal crimes have state law counterparts.  For instance, in violating federal income tax reporting laws, Hunter Biden probably also violated Delaware state tax reporting laws.  Could then a Delaware State Prosecutor bring charges against Hunter Biden for these violations of state tax law?

Based upon the limitations placed upon the Presidential Pardon Power described above, the answer should be yes, so long as the Statute of Limitations has not expired for these charges.  But in reality, the local prosecutor in Wilmington, Delaware, Jack Stollsteimer, is a Democrat who has reportedly received funding for his campaign from George Soros.   How likely would Stollsteimer be to prosecute the son of soon to be former President Joe Biden?

Thus, while we acknowledge that Joe Biden has the authority to give his son clemency, we are left with the uncomfortable feeling that this pardon is an abuse of that authority, especially after telling the American people he would do no such thing.  We are left with the same feeling that Martin Auerbach had after watching his political idol, Bill Clinton, pardon a man who “thumbed his nose” at the law while “kids who hot wire cars go to jail.”  The same unhappy feeling those on the left had watching Ford pardon Nixon.

But at the same time, we who have studied the career of Joe Biden are not surprised.  We know Joe Biden to be a disreputable criminal who had no business being President of the United States.  We know that his son is also a criminal who has enjoyed the protection of his powerful father for years. 

The only surprise here is that Joe Biden cares so little for his legacy, that he is willing to go down in history as a abject liar, with a word that’s worth less than that of his Press Secretary, and a hypocrite, who dared to claim no one is above the law, while placing his son…beyond the reach of justice.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

On September 12, the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, led by Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI), House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Mark E. Green, MD (R-TN), and Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security Chairman and Select Committee Member Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) unveiled a joint investigative report exposing a rising threat to U.S. economic and national security posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). 

In June 2023, the House Committee on Homeland Security and the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party launched a joint investigation into the cybersecurity risks, foreign intelligence threats, and supply chain vulnerabilities at U.S. ports. The investigation focused on the widespread use of foreign equipment and technology, specifically assessing the risks, threats, and vulnerabilities associated with ship-to-shore cranes and related components produced, manufactured, assembled, or installed by Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. (ZPMC), a state-owned enterprise (SOE) controlled by the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

The report reveals how Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries (ZPMC)––a company owned and operated in the People’s Republic of China (PRC)––dominates the global market share of ship-to-shore (STS) port cranes, and how the PRC’s broader maritime infrastructure dominance creates significant cybersecurity and national security vulnerabilities for both the United States and our allies. ZPMC currently accounts for nearly 80 percent of the STS cranes in operation at U.S. ports. The report also outlines strategies for how the United States can lead the way in addressing the risks posed by the CCP’s maritime activities and promote a more secure global maritime infrastructure. In addition, a classified annex is available to members and appropriately cleared staff. The lawmakers issued the following statement upon releasing the investigation’s findings.

“The evidence gathered during our joint investigation indicates that ZPMC could, if desired, serve as a Trojan horse capable of helping the CCP and the PRC military exploit and manipulate U.S. maritime equipment and technology at their request. This vulnerability in our critical infrastructure has the potential to affect Americans from coast to coast.  By potentially sacrificing long-term economic security for short-term financial gain, we have given the CCP the ability to track the movement of goods through our ports or even halt port activity at the drop of a hat. Amid China’s aggression in the Indo-Pacific, our greatest geopolitical adversary could wield this power to influence global military and commercial activity in the event of escalation. Unfortunately, solutions are not always simple. China maintains unprecedented malign influence over competitors and suppliers. During our investigation, the Committees requested that ABB, a Swedish-Swiss company, take concrete steps to remedy significant vulnerabilities in its China-based supply chains involving US-bound cranes. Sadly, ABB refused and, by doing so, put dollars ahead of the security of the American people. … our investigation proves immense damage may have already been done. This report must be a wake-up call for maritime sector stakeholders and the federal government to address this threat with far more urgency. Our homeland security depends on it.”  

According to an AI search, review, China has a stake in five ports in the United States: Miami, Houston, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Seattle. China’s investment in ports is part of its Belt and Road Initiative, which involves investing in foreign markets and infrastructure. China’s growing role in ports has raised concerns in the United States and other countries. Some of the concerns include:  Espionage: China’s ships are increasingly visible at ports where Chinese companies have a stake. Economic coercion: China’s investments in ports could give it economic leverage. Military expansion: China could use its commercial relationships at ports to establish military sites. 

 It’s not just within continental United States. The House Foreign Affairs Committee has warned that China has invested heavily in the Panama Canal, which is vital to American maritime defense.

Photo: Pixabay

On September 19, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Lisa M. Franchetti, America’s top admiral underscored the imperative for the Navy to meet the demands of an evolving technology and national security landscape.

She did so in the context of the release of the “Navigation Plan for America’s Warfighting Navy 2024,” during a discussion hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a public policy think tank in Washington.  The plan outlines two overarching strategic ends: readiness for the possibility of war with China by 2027 and enhancement of the Navy’s long-term advantage.  

“China is clearly the pacing challenge,” she said. “They are on a wartime footing.” Franchetti added that China presents a multidomain challenge encompassing not only military, but also economic competition.” She emphasized China’s lack of transparency about its actions around the globe, and its affinity for use of dual-use technologies to accomplish its aims.

The Admiral discussed the changing nature of war and the imperative to adopt robotic and autonomous technology and the reach and lethality of the fleet as key guide rails for the strategy going forward.  

The plan includes seven, core fleet readiness that include: 

Ready the force by eliminating ship, submarine and aircraft maintenance delays; Scale robotic and autonomous systems to integrate more platforms at speed; Create the command centers the fleets need to win on a distributed battlefield; Recruit and retain the force need to get more players on the field; Deliver a quality of service commensurate with the sacrifices of American sailors; Train for combat as the U.S. plans to fight, in the real world and virtually; and Restore the critical infrastructure that sustains and projects the fight from shore. 

Franchetti said the navigation plan captures how the Navy can think, act and operate differently with the resources it has to make the most gains in the shortest time possible.

 “If you look at the ways we’re trying to do that, which are really seven areas that as I worked with my team, with our four-star fleet commanders, these are areas that I can put my thumb on the scale,” she said. “We could make a difference in those areas, and it will make a meaningful contribution to our ability to be more ready by 2027. 

The plan also lays out the Navy’s plan to expand its contribution to the joint warfighting ecosystem, building upon the implementation framework for fielding key capabilities outlined in the 2022 Navigation Plan, with an additional focus on scaling robotic autonomous systems.  The implementation framework focuses on five capabilities ranging from long-range fires to contested logistics. It also focuses on four key enablers ranging from artificial intelligence to robotic and autonomous systems.  

She diplomatically noted that domestic fiscal and industrial base constraints add to the Navy’s challenge, she said, as the service recognizes the need to grow its fleet. That’s a politically polite way to state that the American service is outnumbered drastically by China.  It also tacitly recognizes that combat with China, and perhaps with its adversaries combined against the U.S., is becoming a near certainty by 2027.

Defense expert Mackenzie Eagleton warns that “When it comes to putting hulls in the water, Beijing is far and away ahead of the United States. China has continuously outpaced the U.S. in shipbuilding capabilities and shipyard capacity. Indeed, the shipbuilding divide between China and the United States is vast. A recently declassified intelligence slide from the Office of Naval Intelligence estimates that China has 232 times the shipbuilding capability of the United States, owing to its much larger shipbuilding manufacturing industry. 

Stunningly, in the face of an almost certain war in the next few years, the lack of investment in the U.S. Navy by the Biden-Harris Administration has received almost no attention in the media.  

Photo: Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Jonathan Salazar and Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Charles Reece manually fire the Mark 38 Mod 3 25 mm machine gun system during a pre-action calibration firing exercise aboard the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bulkeley (U.S. Navy photo)

China’s aggression and coercion in the Indo-Pacific region is bringing together nations that were once enemies.

The U.S. State Department notes that “Across much of the Indo-Pacific region, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is using military and economic coercion to bully its neighbors, advance unlawful maritime claims, threaten maritime shipping lanes, and destabilize territory along the periphery of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)…As the PRC’s overseas economic and security interests expand under its One Belt One Road initiative (BRI or OBOR), it seeks to expand its overseas military footprint to protect those interests.  Specifically, the PRC seeks to establish global logistics and basing infrastructure to allow the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to project and sustain military power at greater distances.  [there are] secret military agreements between China and Cambodia.  A Chinese military presence in Cambodia could threaten…regional stability. Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across much of the South China Sea are widely denounced as unlawful.  Beijing uses intimidation to undermine the sovereign rights of Southeast Asian coastal states in the South China Sea, bully them out of offshore resources, threaten them out of shipping lanes, assert unilateral dominion, and deprive fishermen of access to their livelihoods. “

Among those nations coming together are the United States and Vietnam.

 At a meeting with Hanoi’s Defense Minister General Phan Van Giang,  Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated that America is committed to strengthening ties with Vietnam. Among the measures taken are boosting the southeast Asian nation’s  industrial base resilience and strengthening its maritime awareness and defense capabilities.

The moves come at a time when Hanoi has expressed concern about China’s aggression towards Vietnamese fisherman, reports the Voice of America,  which noting that Hanoi has formally protested China’s reported behavior toward fishermen near the disputed Paracel Islands. “The Vietnamese Foreign Ministry …blamed Chinese law enforcement personnel for the attack, saying they had ‘seriously violated Vietnam’s sovereignty in the Paracel Islands,’ in addition to international law and an agreement by the leaders of the rival claimant countries to better handle their territorial disputes.”

Vietnam shares being on the receiving end of Beijing’s aggression with the Philippines, which has been victimized by China for decades. DW reports that “Vietnam and the Philippines are both at odds with China over its sweeping territorial claims and growing military presence in the South China Sea.” Both nations agreed this summer  Vietnam and the Philippines to enhance their defense links  and work more closely together on maritime security.

The U.S. military is enhancing its own defense ties with the Philippines. Last July, Eli Ratner, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs, stated that “We have elevated the U.S.-Philippines alliance to stand among our most vital defense partnerships in the world. We have raised the profile of alliance engagements.” According to the Pentagon,  part of this is the agreement for U.S. rotational presence in the Philippines. The two nations have also taken major steps to increase interoperability, and the U.S. military is working closely with the Philippines’ armed forces on force modernization. “… we have pursued new opportunities together with the Philippines to cooperate multilaterally with like-minded partners across the Indo-Pacific in support of a shared vision for a free and open region,” Ratner noted.

In May, Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles, Japanese Minister of Defense Kihara Minoru, and U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III convened a Trilateral Defense Ministerial Meeting in Hawaii. The three nations expressed strong opposition to any attempts by China to unilaterally change the status quo by force or coercion in the South and East China Seas. This includes concerning and destabilizing actions in the South China Sea, such as unsafe encounters at sea and in the air, the militarization of disputed features, and the dangerous use of coast guard vessels and maritime militia, including interference with routine maritime operations, and efforts to disrupt other countries’ offshore resource exploration.

Photo: U.S. and Vietnam Defense officials meet to discuss China (DoD photo)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illustration: Pixabay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay