Author: Judge John Wilson (ret.)

In the past, Elon Musk was never considered a member of the political right, or even a Conservative thinker.  For instance, “Musk has repeatedly warned about the risks of climate change to humanity. In 2015, he made a head-turning speech on the subject at Paris-Sorbonne University. ‘If we wait and delay the change (away from fossil fuels), the best case is simply delaying the inevitable transition from sustainable energy. This is the best case if we don’t take action now..(t)he worst case, however, is more displacement and destruction than all the wars in history combined.”  Not exactly a viewpoint expressed by most Republicans, is it?

In fact, according to The Independent, “(o)ver his many years of fame as the chief executive of Tesla, SpaceX, and now Twitter, the South African-born tycoon has…carefully triangulated between left and right and donated to both Democrats and Republicans while variously declaring himself a ‘moderate’, a ‘socialist,’ and ‘socially liberal and fiscally conservative.'”

All of that changed after Musk bought Twitter. “Musk appears deeply committed to the right’s culture war against progressivism in most forms,” according to The Atlantic. “His purchase of Twitter was an explicitly political act couched in the notion of preserving free speech. But Musk’s notion of free speech is a broad course correction that involves amplifying and advancing the interests of right-wing reactionaries while trolling the left. Musk might argue that this is restoring balance to the system, but if we are judging based only on actions and outcomes, it is very hard to see his tenure at Twitter as anything other than a series of policies intended to benefit a particular ideology.” 

And just how has Musk “amplified and advanced the interests of right wing reactionaries?” Perhaps it was by releasing internal Twitter files to the public after his purchase of the social media platform, information which revealed the efforts made by the Biden Administration to censor generally right-leaning critics of the government’s edicts and politics.  As Matt Taibbi, one of the Journalists to whom Musk released the “Twitter Files,” stated to the House Judiciary Committee in March, “(t)he original promise of the Internet was that it might democratize the exchange of information globally. A free internet would overwhelm all attempts to control information flow…(w)hat we found in the Files was a sweeping effort to reverse that promise, and use machine learning and other tools to turn the internet into an instrument of censorship and social control.

Unfortunately, our own government appears to be playing a lead role…(w)e learned Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other companies developed a formal system for taking in moderation ‘requests’ from every corner of government: the FBI, DHS, HHS, DOD, the Global Engagement Center at State, even the CIA… (u)ndeniably, the making of such lists is a form of digital McCarthyism.” 

As we discussed in July, these efforts at censorship led to a lawsuit brought against the Biden Administration by several States, and a ruling in Missouri v. Biden which detailed the extensive efforts made to censor the views of the American public in general, and Conservative thinkers in particular. “The opinion is 155 pages long, and more than 80 pages…details the factual basis for (an) injunction.  These facts are a stunning indictment of the efforts members of the Biden Administration have made to suppress free speech, calling even the truth ‘misinformation’ if it did not suit the narrative the government wished to impose on the American public.” 

Musk’s purchase of Twitter was accomplished in October of 2022.   The “Twitter Files” were released to the public in December.  Taibbi then testified before Congress regarding those files in March of this year. 

It was then that the Biden Administration began its harassment of Elon Musk.

Not long after his purchase of the company, Musk laid off more than 6,000 people, or approximately 80% of Twitter’s staff. In March of 2023, it was announced that “(t)he Federal Trade Commission is investigating Elon Musk’s mass layoffs at Twitter and trying to obtain his internal communications…(t)he Republican-led House Judiciary Committee published excerpts from the FTC’s letters…alleging that the agency was overreaching ‘to harass Elon Musk’s Twitter’…(t)he House said the requests amounted to a deluge of ‘demands about its personnel decisions in each of the company’s departments, every internal communication relating to Elon Musk and even Twitter’s interactions with journalists’ who Musk’s team allowed to see certain employee emails and messages. Those documents were dubbed ‘The Twitter Files’ and were meant to show how the company made decisions to moderate content before Musk took over.” 

In other words, the FTC demanded that Musk reveal the discussions he had with Matt Taibbi and other journalists about the release of Twitter’s internal documents (documents which Musk owned at that point, and had every right to release) on the pretext of “investigating layoffs.”

 Then, in May, The Federal Trade Commission struck again. “(FTC) is reviewing Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk’s $44 billion takeover of Twitter Inc..(t)he agency will decide…whether it will do an in-depth antitrust probe of the proposed transaction…(s)uch a probe would delay the deal’s closing by months.”  This probe was conducted even though “Antitrust experts have said there is little likelihood the agency will find any evidence that Musk’s purchase of Twitter is illegal under antitrust law.”  

In a court filing in July, Musk asked a Federal Court in California to end the FTC’s harassment of himself and Twitter.  “In the filing, Twitter asks the court to ‘rein in an investigation that has spiraled out of control and become tainted by bias’…The filing states that the FTC has issued 16 demand letters to (Twitter) since Musk’s takeover of Twitter, in comparison to approximately 28 demand letters it issued in the decade (prior to Musk’s purchase of the company).” 

But the Federal Trade Commission is only one tool being used by the government to punish Musk for his commitment to free speech.

Recently, “(t)he Biden administration sued Elon Musk-owned rocket and satellite company SpaceX…for allegedly discriminating against asylees and refugees in hiring… US Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, who heads the Justice Department’s Office of Civil Rights, brought the SpaceX suit following an investigation by the division’s Immigration and Employee Rights Section…’Our investigation found that SpaceX failed to fairly consider or hire asylees and refugees because of their citizenship status and imposed what amounted to a ban on their hire regardless of their qualification, in violation of federal law,’ Clarke said.” 

SpaceX is in the business of making and flying rockets and other spacecraft.  “SpaceX won a slice of a billion-dollar agreement to launch new rockets for the Space Force. Two months later, it secured a $149 million Pentagon contract to make satellites that can track missiles. Then, less than a week later…the US military said it was teaming up with SpaceX to build a rocket capable of delivering weapons around the world at 7,500 mph.”  Further, “SpaceX’s launch services have already become an invaluable resource for the U.S. government, but the company is now jumping into the deep end of the pool…Starshield, a new vertical within SpaceX, will provide ‘government entities’ (think three-letter agencies) with secure communications and bespoke satellite designs…on the Starshield page…(t)he tagline is ‘supporting national security’…Satellite-sourced data — particularly live imagery — is of enormous importance to the military.” 

It is clear, therefore, that SpaceX is a defense contractor, involved in some sensitive and confidential work that benefits the United States Military, as well as our Space Force.

DOJ’s case against SpaceX is brought pursuant to 8 USC Sec. 1324b., which states that “(i)t is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual…(A) because of such individual’s national origin, or (B) in the case of a protected individual…because of such individual’s citizenship status.”  A “protected individual” is described as “an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence…is admitted as a refugee…or is granted asylum…”  

According to the lawsuit filed by the Justice Department, “(f)rom at least September 2018 to at least May 2022, SpaceX discriminated against asylees and refugees throughout its hiring process, including during recruiting, screening, and selection, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Because of their citizenship status, asylees and refugees had virtually no chance of being fairly considered for or hired for a job at SpaceX.” 

The DOJ complaint goes on to state that “(i)n online postings and statements by SpaceX’s CEO and other SpaceX officials and recruiters, SpaceX discouraged asylees and refugees from applying to the company by wrongly stating that SpaceX can only hire U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents .SpaceX officials have repeatedly said publicly that they can only hire U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents because of export control laws and regulations.”  Further, the complaint alleges that “SpaceX’s CEO (Elon Musk)…posted (that), ‘U.S. law requires at least a green card to be hired at SpaceX, as rockets are advanced weapons technology.'”

The complaint alleges that “export control laws and regulations do not prohibit or restrict employers from hiring asylees and refugees; those laws treat asylees and refugees just like U.S. citizens,” and that Musk’s statements are false.

Are these allegations true?  Must SpaceX hire refugees and asylum seekers?

Not under 8 USC 1324b(a)(4), which states that “(n)otwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is not an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to prefer to hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.”  Certainly, given the nature of SpaceX’s work for the US military, there would be a natural preference to hire citizens of the United States – a perfectly legal position, under this provision of the law.

Further, under paragraph 2 of 8 USC 1324b, an exception is made for “discrimination because of citizenship status which is otherwise required in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by Federal, State, or local government contract.”  In fact, some contracts with the US government require that “(e)ach individual employed under the contract shall be a citizen of the United States of America, or an alien who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence as evidenced by a Permanent Resident Card,” and that “(a)ny exceptions must be approved by the Department’s Chief Security Officer or designee.” 

Thus, some of the contracts between SpaceX, Starshield, and the US military most likely require Musk’s company to hire only US citizens for reasons of national security.

Of course, this is irrelevant to the US Attorney who brought the case against SpaceX.  In a post on Twitter, Clarke wrote that  “Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla & SpaceX saw his wealth surge 413%, spiking from $24.6B to $126.2 billion between March 18 to November 24. 50.4M Americans are food insecure up from 37.2M in 2018. Growing wealth inequality in the U.S. is NOT sustainable.”  At the time of her appointment to lead the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Clarke was the subject of much Congressional scrutiny.  “Clarke also has a history of making highly controversial statements, including a 2020 Newsweek op-ed headlined: ‘I Prosecuted Police Killings. Defund the Police—But Be Strategic.’ Clarke said in a hearing before the Judiciary Committee that she did not actually mean to say police should be defunded in that op-ed, despite the fact the text of the op-ed said, ‘We must invest less in police’ three separate times.” Perhaps Clarke is just following her own star, and believes SpaceX should hire refugees and asylum seekers to perform highly confidential work on rockets, regardless of whether or not the company’s contracts with the US government and military say otherwise, and regardless of national security requirements.

Or perhaps, Clarke has joined the government pile-on, and is engaged in the systemic harassment of the man who opened up Twitter to free discourse, and revealed the extent of the Biden Administration’s efforts to censor you and I.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

North Korea’s threat to the United States is expanding, both in its increasing nuclear and missile prowess and its growing closeness to Russia.

In a statement issued in June, the White House stated that “The existence and risk of the proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. “ 

Events in July have highlighted the increased danger.  In July, Pyongyang launched a Hwasong-18 intercontinental missile.  The test flight was the third ICBM test this year, following others in March and April. The Congressional Research Service warns that Recent ballistic missile tests and military parades suggest that North Korea is continuing to build a nuclear warfighting capability designed to evade regional ballistic missile defenses

The July launch occurred in the same month as a visit by Russia’s Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigu, to the nation.  Shoigu and Kim Jong jointly attended a military expo in Pyongyang. A Chinese Communist Party politburo member joined the two. According to the North Korean government, “Kim Jong Un expressed thanks to Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and members of the Russian military delegation for visiting Pyongyang with militant comradeship and friendly feelings…The outcome of the talks was the adoption of the DPRK-Russia Joint Declaration. The Joint Declaration confirmed that the further development of cooperation and collaboration between the DPRK and the Russian Federation accords with the fundamental interests of the two peoples and contributes to the establishment of the fair and reasonable international order based on the principles of equality and mutual respect.  It also affirmed that the DPRK and Russia recognize the sovereign rights of each state to choose its own road of political, economic, and social development, and support each other’s efforts to oppose interference in other countries’ internal affairs and to safeguard independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.

A Bloomberg analysis reported that “Secret Deals With Russia Help Kim Jong Un Fund Nuclear Program. [The] economic rebound means the regime can weather sanctions and continue its nuclear build-up.”

Pyonyang’s realtions with Moscow expanded in recent years, following Putin’s Ukrainian invasion. North Korea is one of the few governments that recognizes the alleged independence of the breakaway states of Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in Eastern Ukraine. Additionally, North Korea volunteered 100,000 of their own troops to help Donbas. Moscow as reportedly  purchased millions of shells and rockets from North Korea for its attempted conquest of Ukraine.

The enhanced axis of Russia, China and North Korea was illustrated at a United Nations Security Council meeting, where the two nations joined together to veto a draft resolution which would have strengthened sanctions against Pyongyang. The Nikkei publication notes that “It was the first time the council had done that after unanimously adopting all 10 previous resolutions since 2006, the year Pyongyang conducted its first nuclear test.”

A Foreign Policy analysis points out that “North Korea’s decision to draw closer to both countries [comes] as Pyongyang categorically rules out negotiating with Washington over its nuclear weapons program. … North Korean leader Kim Jong Un [has]sent a message to Putin to mark the anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. Kim hailed what he described as the growing ‘strategic and tactical cooperation, support and solidarity’ between the two nations.”

There is a fourth member of the North Korea, Russia, Chinese axis. Iran and North Korea have worked together in missile development. A Diplomat study emphasizes that “Cooperation between North Korea and Iran has been a critical — yet under examined — enabler of the recent success. What started as a transactional relationship, where Iran provided much-needed cash to North Korea in return for missile parts and technology, has evolved into an increasingly effective partnership. The time has come to view their previously independent ballistic missile programs as two sides of the same coin.”

Illustration: Pixabay

China’s two million uniformed military personnel form a large and powerful force, but there is an overlooked aspect of China’s defense system that dwarfs its regular forces and should be giving Asian nations concern. China’s reserve auxiliary force is estimated to contain as many as eight million additional personnel, according to Western analysts. During the 1960’s Cultural Revolution period, barefoot soldiers were ill-trained and ill-equipped. Today, China’s war planners are leaning more heavily on a better equipped reserve auxiliary force composed largely of former uniformed soldiers and others with specialized skills and training.  

Where the leadership in Beijing once relied on its militia to play only a supplementary support role, it is now assigning those personnel new responsibilities. This summer, reserve force exercises conducted in Hunan Province included training in piloting drones, driving assault boats, and manning command-and-control vehicles, says Thomas Corbett and Peter Singer of Defense One. It represents a change from the militia’s indirect involvement in warfare to an active and direct role working with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).    

Official documents indicate that China began integrating its militia force capabilities into the PLA when it created the National Defense Mobilization Department (NDMD) in 2016. Beijing used joint-cooperation agreements to combine civilian and military personnel and provide the PLA with easily accessible human resources. Blue Path Labs recently produced a report for the China Aerospace Studies Institute with two key findings. The reserve forces are providing expanded support to the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). Secondly, in the case of a protracted war in Asia, senior military leaders intend to use civilian assets in the reserve force in critical front-line roles. Reserve units provide different specialized skills to the uniformed forces. A PLAAF airfield might rely on a local militia to excavate and resurface a runway, while another provides medical treatment, meteorological assistance, and help with surveying, says Corbett and Singer. 

China also counts on its civilian businesses near PLA bases to support the uniformed military. They might provide access to transportation facilities, airport terminals, and local fuel supplies that could be needed during a PLA operation. In the event of a protracted conflict, the assistance might include in-house support capabilities as a cost-saving measure. By doing so, the regular forces would not need to maintain as many vehicles. In one recent case, civilian support allowed one regiment to cut its support force by 50% and reduce transportation requirements by 200 vehicles, according to Defense One.  

As China prepares for potential war in Asia, these joint-cooperation agreements are becoming more common and increasing in importance. Many PLA units this summer invited local reserve forces to military bases to work within PLA units. The intention is to provide China additional options during a conflict. In one case this summer a PLAAF base conducted a two-week support exercise that included the reserves acting out their potential roles in wartime.  

Over 150 personnel at an air base in Xuzhou performed emergency response activities, provided medical support, and repaired a damaged airfield. Beijing is starting to assign reserve forces increasingly complex tasks and more important missions this year. The political leadership is moving beyond using these forces for pre-combat support on a regular basis. The PLA itself is also improving interoperability and blurring the line between support and front-line combat. According to Defense One, “Several airfields have begun tasking their militias with setting up anti-aircraft platforms and building field communication facilities.” One analyst familiar with Chinese naval operations compared it to preparations conducted by Japan for WWII military operations and the implementation of its Co-Prosperity Sphere in East Asia. The reserve forces today are cross-training to fill in technical gaps that exist within the uniformed forces.

Although some reserve troops complain about the time demands and being taken away from the day jobs, the integration program is working. One remaining major issue is that Chinese forces are not battle-tested, have not worked together under pressure, and the reserves may not have sufficient training and discipline to act in a high-stress environment.  

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

For many years Russia’s Caspian Flotilla dominated this inland sea and was the region’s most important navy. That is evolving today as outside powers, including Turkey, expand their national navies and assume a larger role. The Caspian littoral states, previously focused on deploying their Coast Guards, are this summer constructing naval vessels in Kazakhstan capable of challenging the Russian Caspian Flotilla and enabling Turkey to project power throughout the region.  

Located east of the Black Sea the often overlooked, large body of water contains a wealth of oil and gas reserves. It can be accessed only through canals connecting it to the Black Sea, Azov Sea, the Baltic, and Russia’s Volga River. No saltwater reaches its shores. While some describe it simply as the world’s largest lake, it contributes an estimated 10% to the GDP of the countries along its shores and accounts for about 40% of their exports. It also serves as a link between east and west with competing powers vying for dominance. 

Central Asian governments view it as more valuable than a freshwater lake and now Turkey is planning a genuine navy in the Caspian Sea, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He points out that Astana has signed agreements with Turkey to construct large naval vessels for Ankara in Kazakhstan. They will be capable of challenging Moscow’s regional influence once deployed in the Caspian. The deals inked this summer will enable the Turkish government to be the “naval contractor of first resort or even use the ships it builds under the flags of others to promote Turkish goals,” says Goble. 

Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan were not allotted ships from the former Soviet Caspian fleet upon the dissolution of the USSR. As a result, Kazakhstan recently refocused its approach to sea corridors through shallow waters and is building additional coastal defenses. Today Astana has the largest naval inventory of any of the Caspian littorals states, including Russia. It developed a two-prong approach, both purchasing ships from foreign states and by increasing domestic production in cooperation with foreign shipbuilders.  

The Russian publicationSovsekretno, on August 29, reported that Moscow officials will be paying closer attention to Kazakhstan’s naval plans this fall. The Kremlin suggests that Astana is deliberately allowing Turkey to project power beyond the Turkish world in a move aimed at placing it into the dominant geopolitical position once held by Russia. If this summer’s announced plans are fully carried out, Turkey could dominate the entire southern port of the post-Soviet space to the border with China. That could force Putin’s hand, compelling him to respond militarily or lose status in the Caspian Sea and in the nearby Central Asian states.  

Five years ago, Moscow had the shipbuilding market cornered using bilateral agreements with the littoral states. The Central Asian states, including Kazakhstan, leaned toward the Russian Federation for shipbuilding, according to Goble. They used the provisions in the 2018 accord on the delimitation of the Caspian to end conflict among states in the region that had been on the rise since 1991. Despite Moscow’s efforts, the states later turned to South Korea and now Turkey for the construction of its ships. 

According to at least one Russian analyst, “Ankara has found a way around the restrictions about the introduction of foreign navies on the Caspian,” says Goble. Yury Lyamin, a senior researcher at Moscow’s Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, is quoted in Sovershenno Sekretno, as suggesting that “in order to control the oil and gas wealth of the Caspian Sea, and at the same time support their ally Azerbaijan, which is arguing for huge reserves of blue fuel with Turkmenistan, the Turks have come up with the idea of ​​deploying their naval forces here under the flags of their kindred “Turkic” countries, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan.”  

Despite the 2018 Convention prohibiting the use of non-Caspian armed forces, Baku and Astana are prepared to circumvent the restrictions imposed by Iran and Russia. Turkey is projecting power in the region and also aiding its closest ally, Azerbaijan, to ensure Ankara can access Caspian oil and gas. This will allow it to emerge potentially as the predominant geoeconomic power over all of Central Asia. One analyst suggests that Turkey has an additional goal of exerting its influence within the current borders of the Russian Federation as Ankara considers “…the representatives of peoples living in Russia, certain republics of the Caucasus, the Middle Volga, Kalmykia, parts of the Urals and Siberia” as properly within their sphere of influence.  

The concept of a Turkish world is an old, but not a forgotten one in Ankara. An expanded and more powerful Turkish fleet can bypass Russian trade routes and limit Moscow’s ability to trade with the Indian Ocean states and Iran. The question analysts are asking this month is can the West fend off the Turkish challenge in Central Asia and, especially, inside Kazakhstan. For Russia, these developments represent yet another southeastern state than may leave Moscow’s fold. It could force Russia to align more closely with its competitive ally China and possibly Iran. A once backwater region is emerging as a new flashpoint for serious conflict and with far-reaching consequences for the great powers. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Pixabay

In 2019, candidate Joe Biden stated emphatically that  “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”  Biden also said, “I have never discussed, with my son or my brother or with anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses. Period…And what I will do is the same thing we did in our (Obama) administration. There will be an absolute wall between personal and private [business interests] and the government. There wasn’t any hint of scandal at all when we were there. And I’m going to propose the same kind of strict, strict rules. That’s why I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else — even distant family — about their business interests. Period.” 

These words could be interpreted as being technically true – in those 20 phone calls and even the dinner with a representative from Burisma, the then Vice President did not need to be involved in any discussion of business.  As Archer testified, his presence alone, and Hunter’s ability to get him on the phone so easily, proved that Hunter had his father’s ear.

In the words of Lilo Galente, “(a) smart boss finds the sweet spot between being remote enough from street level associates/soldiers who do the dirty work so that he’s not easily caught up in law enforcement investigations and being close enough to the hoodlums so that they know that he knows what they’re doing or not doing…(t)he boss takes a healthy piece of all of the activities, businesses, or rackets in which the organization is involved. Usually the boss has enough experience to know what most people are doing and how much money they should be earning.” 

All this comparison between the behavior of Biden and the average crime boss is facetious at best without evidence of actual criminal or unethical activity.  So far, the bulk of the hard evidence points toward a pattern of tax evasion and other criminal conduct by the President’s son – enough to merit the appointment of a Special Counsel to conduct an investigation of Hunter Biden’s business affairs.    What evidence is there of a pattern of criminal and or unethical behavior by the President, and other members of his family?

In May of 2023 (as the New York Times was claiming that there was “no proof of misconduct”), the House Oversight Committee released a Memorandum detailing some of their findings.  “The Committee has subpoenaed four different banks and received thousands of records in response,” according to the Memo.  “The Committee’s bank subpoenas were tailored to specific individuals and companies that engaged in business activities with Biden family members and their business associates.” 

The Committee reports that “(w)hen President Biden ran as a presidential candidate, he assured the American people his family received no money from China. President Biden recently claimed the Committee’s bank records regarding his family’s receipt of funds from China are ‘not true.’” Yet, “Biden family members and business associates created a web of over 20 companies—most were limited liability companies formed during Joe Biden’s vice presidency…Bank records show the Biden family, their business associates, and their companies received over $10 million from foreign nationals’ companies. The Committee has identified payments to Biden family members from foreign companies while Joe Biden served as Vice President and after he left public office…Chinese nationals and companies with significant ties to Chinese intelligence and the Chinese Communist Party hid the source of the funds by layering domestic limited liability companies.”

Further, “(t)o date, President Biden has continued to deny that his family received money from China—despite bank records proving otherwise. In 2017 alone, bank records show President Biden’s family and their related companies received millions of dollars from Chinese foreign nationals’ companies…(b)ecause President Biden is not required to file financial disclosures for immediate family members (other than a spouse or dependents), this gaping legislative hole has allowed President Biden to make misleading statements about the source of his family’s income, act willfully blind about their finances notwithstanding potential conflicts of interest, and use federal government resources and personnel—including White House spokespersons—to conceal influence peddling.”

The established facts are these; while Joe Biden was Vice President, Hunter Biden engaged in a series of meetings with Chinese, and other foreign nationals.  He reportedly “made millions” from these activities.  Hunter showed his foreign contacts that he had ready access to his father by calling him during meetings with these overseas associates.  The rest of the Biden family then received “millions of dollars” from foreign nationals, including the Chinese, money which was spread between 20 different “shell” companies.

Much of the media will not believe that this “web” of payments does not constitute influence peddling by Joe Biden himself.  They would rather view the then Vice President as just an innocent bystander to his son’s activities.  But the Oversight Committee thinks differently.

“The amount of money involved in these financial transactions is significant. The wires and money transfers range from approximately $5,000 to at least $3 million,” the Committee states. “Many of the relevant wire transfers involve Owasco PC, a professional corporation formed in Washington, D.C. Hunter Biden was the owner of Owasco PC…(t)he transactions in Romania and China show related but separate issues identified by the Committee that raise serious questions about financial disclosures and risks to national security…(t)he Committee is releasing a selection of bank records that shows the Biden family’s receipt of money from a foreign company reportedly controlled by Gabriel Popoviciu, the subject of a criminal probe and prosecution for corruption in Romania…(t)hen Vice President Biden delivered speeches and met with Romanian leaders in 2014 and 2015 regarding corruption in the country…(t)he Committee is concerned about the Biden family’s pattern of courting business in regions of the world in which the then Vice President had an outsize role and influenced U.S. policy.”

Let us take the position that these are mere allegations.  But are these allegations, involving the current President of the United States, serious enough to require a full investigation, and the appointment of a Special Counsel?

If you ask Attorney General Merrick Garland, he has already appointed a Special Counsel, and his name is David Weiss.  “Mr. Weiss, in his capacity as U.S. Attorney and along with federal law enforcement partners, began investigating allegations of certain criminal conduct by, among others, Robert Hunter Biden,” Garland stated when he appointed Weiss as Special Counsel on August 11, 2023.   “As Special Counsel, he will continue to have the authority and responsibility that he has previously exercised to oversee the investigation and decide where, when, and whether to file charges.” (Emphasis added.)

It is argued that the “among others” referenced above includes the President himself.  but significantly, no where is it stated that David Weiss is involved in any investigation beyond that of Hunter Biden’s activities.

In fact, as reported by Newsweek, “(t)he GOP-led House Oversight Committee wrote on X that Garland’s move is part of a cover up aimed to discredit the ‘Committee’s mounting evidence of President Joe Biden’s role in his family’s schemes selling ‘the brand’ for millions of dollars to foreign nationals.'” 

Is this assertion true?  Judge for yourself.  As we stated in August, “rather than select someone from outside the Justice Department, Attorney General Merrick Garland chose the current US Attorney for Delaware, David Weiss, to serve as his Special Counsel – the same David Weiss who has conducted an investigation into Hunter Biden for five years, failed to bring felony charges against Hunter Biden in a timely manner, failed to bring a routine felony gun charge against the President’s son, offered Hunter a plea to two misdemeanors and a diversion program, and then watched that agreement blow up under questioning by a federal judge.” 

It is therefore safe to conclude that even if David Weiss is conducting an investigation of Joe Biden and the rest of his family for the unethical and potentially criminal activities outlined by the House Oversight Committee, we can expect the same incompetent and “slow-walked” investigation we have witnessed Weiss conduct regarding the President’s son.

Let us be honest here – given the evidence uncovered by the House Oversight Committee, the American people deserve better than David Weiss to look into these serious allegations.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

If you listen to the legacy media, or read the majority of what are generally considered mainstream news sources, and are trying to get information about the Congressional investigation into the Biden Family business, maybe you experience the same feeling as when you come upon a traffic accident, or a crime scene.  Usually, there is a police officer waving you away, telling you “Move along citizen, nothing to see here.”

Here, it’s the media telling you to be on your way, and ignore the carnage that’s plain to see.

For instance, Politico stated in April that “House Republicans charged into the majority vowing an investigative onslaught against President Joe Biden and Democrats. But they’ve gotten almost nowhere so far.”  Then, in May, according to the New York Times, “(a)fter months of investigation and many public accusations of corruption against Mr. Biden and his family, the first report of the premier House GOP inquiry showed no proof of such misconduct.” 

These reports are from earlier this year, before the testimony of Devon Archer to the House Oversight Committee in July.  “Archer said…Hunter Biden (made) millions in business deals with…foreign companies, including Burisma and CEFC China Energy,” as reported by Yahoo! News. “after Burisma added Hunter Biden to its board in 2014, that helped the company survive because it was associated with what Archer called ‘the Biden brand…I think Burisma would have gone out of business if it didn’t have the brand attached to it,’ Archer said. ‘People would be intimidated to mess with them.’” 

Did this dramatic testimony by Hunter Biden’s former business partner change the minds of the media? 

No.  According to PBS. “The Republican-led House Oversight Committee conducted a more than-five hour interview with Devon Archer as part of its expanding congressional inquiry into the Biden family businesses…(b)oth Republican and Democratic lawmakers inside the closed-door interview said Archer testified that over the span of 10 years, Hunter Biden put his father on the phone around 20 times while in the company of associates but ‘never once spoke about any business dealings.’” 

What did President Obama talk with his son about during those business calls?  If you ask New York Democratic Representative Dan Goldman, who was present for Archer’s testimony,  “The witness was unequivocal and stated very clearly that they never discussed any business on [those] phone conversations…There were niceties. And there was a hello. And [they] talked about the weather or whatever it was…but it was never any business.” 

The weather?  No business discussed?  20 calls, all while Hunter was “in the company of associates?”  Frankly, this doesn’t pass the smell test.  As the Oversight Committee Republicans asked “Who dials their father into 20 business phone calls?” 

What did Archer actually say? “’You have to understand that there was no business conversation about…a fee or anything like that,’ Archer told Congress. ‘It was, you know, just general niceties and…conversation in general, you know, about the geography, about the weather, whatever it may be.’ Hunter was selling what Archer called an ‘illusion of access’ to Joe Biden’s decision-making power. ‘People send signals and those signals are basically used as currency. And that’s kind of how a lot of D.C. operators and foreign tycoons and businessmen work,’ Archer said.”

Besides the 20 phone calls, “Archer also asserted that then-Vice President Joe Biden met a Burisma executive in 2015 at a dinner with Hunter Biden and others in Washington, D.C.”   

Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer (R-KY), put the issue of Biden’s corruption in its proper perspective; “Devon Archer’s testimony confirms Joe Biden 𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐃 when he said he had no knowledge about his son’s business dealings and was not involved. Joe Biden was ‘the brand’ & he joined Hunter’s dinners with his foreign associates in person or by phone over 20 times.” (Emphasis in original.) 

The article concludes tomorrow

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

In August of 2022, we discussed whether or not the Biden Administration has the authority to forgive outstanding student loans.  At that time, we detailed a series of instances where the Courts had determined that various Biden initiatives were in excess of the authority granted the Executive Branch by the Congress, and therefore unconstitutional.  We predicted that this measure would also be found illegal. 

We also discussed the Biden Administration’s belief that the HEROES Act of 2003 authorized the Secretary of Education to engage in a wholesale amnesty of student loan debt.  In that regard, we quoted Jonathan Turley, a Law Professor at George Washington University, who said, “President Biden has been a constitutional recidivist in executive overreach in a series of major court losses.  The authority cited is highly challengeable. To assume such a massive power to excuse as much as $500 billion, that authority should be both express and clear. It is not.”

Well, you know how much we hate to say, “I told you so.”  But…we told you so.

On June 30, 2023 the US Supreme Court decided the case of Biden v Nebraska, one of two cases brought in challenge of the government’s student loan forgiveness plan,    and as we predicted, the Supreme Court thought little of the use of the HEROES Act to justify this scheme.

But before we delve into the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s latest effort to protect the Constitution’s separation of powers, one issue should be clarified.  

When we discussed the state of the litigation on student loan forgiveness in November of 2022, we noted that there were two cases headed to the Supreme Court; Biden v. Nebraska, brought by six states, and Department of Education v. Brown, brought by individual borrowers. Both of these cases turned on the legal issue of standing – that is, who has “suffered an injury,” and therefore has the right to bring a case.

In Biden v. Nebraska, six states complained of a loss of tax revenue as a result of student loan forgiveness.  The lower court called these losses “speculative,” and found that the states did not have standing to bring their case.  Conversely, in Department of Education v. Brown, the lower court found that two individuals who would not be eligible for benefits under the student loan forgiveness plan had standing since “‘Plaintiffs have a concrete interest in having their debts forgiven.’  Thus, these Plaintiffs ‘inability to obtain the full benefit of debt forgiveness under the Program flows directly from the Program’s eligibility requirements.’”

Ironically, the Supreme Court reversed each lower court opinion.  In Brown, Justice Alito found “that (Plaintiffs) fail to establish that any injury they suffer from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the (student loan forgiveness) Plan.”   Meanwhile, in Biden v. Nebraska, Chief Justice Roberts found that the State of Missouri, through  “the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a public corporation that holds and services student loans,” had standing to sue.  “Under the Secretary’s plan,’ Roberts writes, “roughly half of all federal borrowers would have their loans completely discharged…MOHELA could no longer service those closed accounts, costing it, by Missouri’s estimate, $44 million a year in fees that it otherwise would have earned under its contract with the Department of Education…(t)his financial harm is an injury in fact directly traceable to the Secretary’s plan.”

In his opinion, Roberts gave some background on the HEROES Act. “Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress became concerned that borrowers affected by the crisis—particularly those who served in the military—would need additional assistance. As a result, it enacted the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2001. That law provided the Secretary of Education, for a limited period of time, with ‘specific waiver authority to respond to conditions in the national emergency’ caused by the September 11 attacks…Rather than allow this grant of authority to expire by its terms at the end of September 2003, Congress passed the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act)…That Act extended the coverage of the 2001 statute to include any war or national emergency— not just the September 11 attacks. By its terms, the Secretary ‘may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the [Education Act] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.’”

During the pandemic, “then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced that she was suspending loan repayments and interest accrual for all federally held student loans,” a necessary emergency measure, given that many borrowers were out of work and unable to make their payments.  “But in August 2022, a few weeks before President Biden stated that ‘the pandemic is over,’ the Department of Education announced that it was once again issuing ‘waivers and modifications’ under the Act—this time to reduce and eliminate student debts directly.”

Chief Justice Roberts states his ruling in clear and plain language; “The Secretary (of Education) asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not. We hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to ‘waive or modify’ existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the ground up… statutory permission to ‘modify’ does not authorize ‘basic and fundamental changes in the scheme’ designed by Congress…(t)he Secretary’s…’modifications’…were not ‘moderate’ or ‘minor.’ Instead, they created a novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program…(f)rom a few narrowly delineated situations specified by Congress, the Secretary has expanded forgiveness to nearly every borrower in the country.”

As Robert’s puts it bluntly, “(t)he Secretary’s plan has ‘modified’ the (HEROES Act) only in the same sense that ‘the French Revolution ‘modified’ the status of the French nobility’—it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely…the Secretary’s plan…in essence (allows) the Secretary unfettered discretion to cancel student loans. It is ‘highly unlikely that Congress’ authorized such a sweeping loan cancellation program ‘through such a subtle device as permission to ‘modify.’”

The Biden Administration tried to justify its power grab by stating that “(t)he whole point of the HEROES Act…is to ensure that in the face of a national emergency that is causing financial harm to borrowers, the Secretary can do something,” and that “the unprecedented nature of the Secretary’s debt cancellation plan only ‘reflects the pandemic’s unparalleled scope.’”  But Roberts disposes of this argument quickly.  

“The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it,” the Chief Justice writes.  “(T)he Secretary of Education claims the authority, on his own, to release 43 million borrowers from their obligations to repay $430 billion in student loans. The Secretary has never previously claimed powers of this magnitude under the HEROES Act… Under the Government’s reading of the HEROES Act, the Secretary would enjoy virtually unlimited power to rewrite the Education Act… (t)he ‘economic and political significance’ of the Secretary’s action is staggering by any measure…(a) budget model issued by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania estimates that the program will cost taxpayers ‘between $469 billion and $519 billion,’ depending on the total number of borrowers ultimately covered…It amounts to nearly one-third of the Government’s $1.7 trillion in annual discretionary spending.”  

Therefore, if this use of the HEROES Act were found legal, “the Secretary (of Education could then claim) the authority to exercise control over ‘a significant portion of the American economy.’”  In essence, then “(t)he Secretary’s assertion of administrative authority has ‘conveniently enabled [him] to enact a program’ that Congress has chosen not to enact itself…Congress did not unanimously pass the HEROES Act with such power in mind. ‘A decision of such magnitude and consequence’ on a matter of ‘earnest and profound debate across the country’ must ‘res[t] with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.’”

Thus, Roberts reaches the same conclusion the Supreme Court has reached in a number of decisions involving efforts by the Biden Administration to seize power from Congress; “’The basic and consequential tradeoffs’ inherent in a mass debt cancellation program ‘are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself’…In such circumstances, we have required the Secretary to ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify the challenged program…And as we have already shown, the HEROES Act provides no authorization for the Secretary’s plan even when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation—let alone ‘clear congressional authorization’ for such a program.”

But will President Biden cease his efforts to unconstitutionally seize power from Congress?  Don’t bet on it.

According to Caleb Kruckenberg of the Pacific Legal Foundation, writing in the New York Post, “(w)hile everyone’s focus has been on the administration’s outrageous cancellation stunt, the DOE has been working tirelessly to accomplish an even more disastrous policy: a new Income-Driven Repayment rule… (u)nder the new plan, in a variety of formulations, the secretary proposes to dramatically reduce the monthly payments of most borrowers, with millions looking at payments of $0, while also reducing the time to forgiveness to as short as 10 years. In other words, while styled as a rule that simply tinkers with the details of existing income-based repayment programs, it effectively does the same work as the cancellation effort: It writes off the debts of millions of college-educated borrowers. And it does so permanently – applying to future borrowers…(t)he rule itself claims it would cost taxpayers at least $138 billion… The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated that the actual program costs between $333 billion and $361 billion over 10 years.  Estimates that account for tuition inflation and future borrowing costs put government expenditures as high as $1 trillion. The old cancellation policy’s $500 billion price tag now almost seems quaint.”

Unfortunately, this scheme might be more successful than the effort to cancel student loans.  This measure is based on the Higher Education Act of 1965, and as we discussed last August,  “one would think the Biden Administration would argue that over the course of 50 years, Congress has granted the Secretary of Education increased power over student loans, including control over loan extensions and forgiveness, and that this latest initiative is nothing new in the increasing burden the Department of Education has placed on the American taxpayer.”

In other words, stayed tuned.  Biden v. Nebraska may prove to be a short-lived victory against executive overreach, while the real war was lost by Congress when it gave its authority away to the Secretary of Education in 1965.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

China may be facing growing domestic economic and political issues, but it remains a major global concern to nations attempting to protect their intellectual property (IP) and state secrets. Academic institutions in advanced Western nations, such as Germany, are only recently beginning to recognize the extent of the threat and act, by suspending some Chinese government-funded researchers over concerns of industrial espionage and academic freedom. It may be too little, too late, according to military analysts in Washington. In June, one of Germany’s leading academic institutions, the Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU), announced the formal suspension of its Chinese government-funded researchers. Earlier this week the school admitted it “feared” these individuals were utilizing government funding supplied through the China Scholarship Council (CSC) for spying. 

Joseph Fitsanakis, writing in IntelNews.org, says that the Swish-based Dagens Nyheter reported that, to receive a CSC scholarship, Chinese citizens are now required to pledge “support [to] the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party… and to have a correct world view, outlook on life, and values system.” This week the FAU sent an internal email to university officials expressing concerns that Beijing could force its CSC researchers to spy on FAU advanced scientific and industrial research and compromise its data security and IP practices as allowed under Chinese law. All Chinese citizens, whether residing inside China or working or studying abroad are compelled to spy under China’s nèibù (内部) regulations when asked by the government.

Bettina Stark-Watzinger, Germany’s Minister of Education, this week supported FAU’s decision saying that research organizations have “a responsibility to safeguard themselves against espionage activities conducted by students receiving scholarships from the Chinese government.” It appears other schools in Western Europe are considering similar actions with intelligence analysts in Washington calling it “long overdue” and “too late” in many cases. China often sends military officers to study Western advanced technologies without declaring their status. Their sheer numbers overwhelm the capabilities of foreign intelligence agencies to identify or track them. At the same time universities are often uncooperative as they vie for the money tied to these students and often overlook or minimize the threat they pose.

The Chinese have an extensive history of industrial spying in modern Germany. As early as 2009, the German Association for Security in Industry and Commerce (ASW), a corporate security group, echoed warnings from the German government over its concern in increases in foreign industrial and commercial espionage. At the time, the German newspaper Mitteldeutsche Zeitung reported that the General Manager of the ASW, Dr. Berthold Stoppelkamp, said the “targeting of German research and commercial enterprises by mainly Chinese and Russian agents is so extensive that it usually costs the German economy over €20 billion per year, and it may be costing as high as €50 billion per year since 2007.”

According to Dr. Stoppelkamp, although these covert activities are government-managed, they “aim to assist individual Chinese or Russian firms competing against German companies for international contracts.” ASW reports point out that most of the espionage activities involve “sensitive information […] siphoned from trade shows and business meetings”, or the covert utilization of Chinese and Russian students working in German universities and research firms. 

China is known for planting of informants with extensive fabricated identities and advanced technological skills. The Germany Ministry of the Interior almost two decades ago warned that “science, engineering, renewable energy, materials research, pharmaceuticals and manufacturing businesses are becoming popular places to imbed foreign spies.”

Industrial espionage in Europe is not limited to Germany. In 2019, after the director of the Belgian intelligence and security agency, the Veiligheid van de Staat  – Surete de L‘Etat (VSSE), accused the director of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), one of Belgium’s leading higher-education institutions, of spying for Beijing, the university shut down the research institute. It had been in operation on the campus for over 13 years. Ian Allen, of IntelNews, says that Beijing tried to stifle Belgian research critical of China and that “In Europe alone, the University of Lyon in France, Stockholm University in Sweden, and Holland’s University of Leiden have all recently terminated their cooperation” with various Chinese government-linked organizations. 

In the United States, Ivy League schools appear worried they may lose up to $14 billion in tuition and other fees spent annually by more than 350,000 Chinese nationals studying in the US. These prestigious institutions regularly share strategies to thwart plans by counter-intelligence officials in Washington to address the problem. Harvard University has in recent years explicitly refused to allow FBI Special Agents to train research professors in the advanced technologies how to recognize the Chinese threat. 

It extends to the US commercial sector, too. It is becoming so blatant that this week investigative reporter Philip Lenczycki reported on a video depicting American employees at the Chinese parent company of US-based Gotion, Inc. (which intends to build two electric battery plants in Michigan), pledging Chinese Communist Party oaths and dressed as Red Army soldiers during company field trips. The footage is openly posted on the Chinese battery manufacturer’s website. If officials in Western governments, academia, and the corporate world fail to develop and implement stronger policies, Beijing will continue to make inroads and threaten the international rules-based system.

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