Author: Judge John Wilson (ret.)

According to the Washington Post, “(t)he debate over what is to be done with Donald Trump and his alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents has landed in the zone where it was inevitably headed: whataboutism. Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution for using a private email server as secretary of state in 2016, the right argues, so why should Trump be indicted?” 

Indeed.  Many people may remember that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was investigated for the mishandling of government documents, and at the time, there were calls for her prosecution.  “Lock her up!”  was the chant heard during the 2016 Republican convention.

Yet, Clinton was not prosecuted, leading many to ask now what the difference is between the “crimes” each is alleged to have committed.

To answer, let us take a brief trip down the memory hole.

“Clinton’s email troubles started in 2014, when the House Select Committee on Benghazi asked the State Department for all of her emails. The department didn’t have them all because, instead of only using the State Department email system…Clinton used a personal email address…housed on private servers located in her Chappaqua, New York, home. In 2014, Clinton’s lawyers combed through the private server and turned over about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted the rest, which Clinton said involved personal matters, such as her daughter’s wedding plans. Clinton repeatedly said she did not have any classified emails on her server…”

On July 5, 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey held a press conference, and gave a detailed statement regarding a criminal investigation his department had conducted regarding Clinton’s “use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.”  In particular, the investigation “focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.”

“Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department,” then-Director Comey explained, “and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.”  Further, “FBI investigators…also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014… (f)rom (this) group of 30,000 e-mails…110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined…to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”

In other words, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private, unsecured internet server (not a secure government server) to read and transmit various levels of classified documents across the internet.  Further, Secretary Clinton decided which of her emails were relevant to the investigation, and which were not, deleting emails she claimed were not responsive to the request.  

According to Comey, “(a)lthough we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position…should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail…(n)one of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

Was this a criminal act?  Under 18 USC 1924(a), “(w)hoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”

 Nonetheless, Comey claimed his investigation showed that Clinton and her staff did not “intend” to violate the law, and the applicable statute does requires acting “knowingly” and “with intent.”  However, to be found guilty of a violation of this statute, you do not need to have intended to break the law – you need to have intended to retain the classified documents “at an unauthorized location.” As discussed by Anthony Christina in the Penn State Law Review,  “(t)o convict Clinton, it must be shown that she had knowledge that classified emails were contained on her private server. The most recent total by the State Department of their review of 30,000 Clinton emails indicates that at least 671 emails sent or received by Clinton contained classified information. This fact stands in stark contrast to the statement Clinton gave to reporters…when she said, ‘I am confident that I have never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.’”

The conclusion is inescapable – if a “reasonable person” would know that almost 700 emails were classified, and had no place on an unsecured server, it would not be hard to establish that then-Secretary Clinton intended  “to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”

So, was Hillary Clinton arrested and prosecuted for this violation of the law?  In his July 5, 2016 statement, then-FBI Director Comey predicted the outcome; “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case…In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.” 

No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case….we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts…

I guess James Comey missed this one then; “On April 23,(2015, General David) Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924…(i)nstead of turning his journals — so-called ‘black books’ – over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home – an unsecure location – and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence.” (For more detail on the Petraeus case, read here) 

Did Gen. Petraeus “intend to break the law?”  No – but he did intend to retain classified documents at an unsecured location, and fail to keep them secure.

Maybe Comey never heard of the Petraeus case – or maybe he thought the prosecutor was unreasonable.

One fact cannot be disputed – in 2016, Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate for President.  David Petreaus was a Republican, though he ‘stresses his independence and has not voted for years.” 

If you ask David Laufman, “who led the Justice Department’s counterintelligence section until 2018 and is now a partner at the firm Wiggin and Dana…'(p)eople sling these cases around to suit their political agenda but every case has to stand on its own circumstances.”’  While with the Justice Department, Laufman investigated the Clinton case, and managed the investigation of David Petraeus.  Regarding the Trump investigation, Laufman believes that “(f)or the department to pursue a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago tells me that the quantum and quality of the evidence they were reciting — in a search warrant and affidavit that an FBI agent swore to — was likely so pulverizing in its force as to eviscerate any notion that the search warrant and this investigation is politically motivated.”   

Maybe there is sufficient evidence to charge former-President Trump with a crime.  Maybe the investigation of Trump is not politically motivated.  Maybe the cases of Petraeus, Clinton and Trump must each stand on their own merits.

But none of that explains why its reasonable and appropriate to pursue charges against Republicans Petraeus and Trump, but not reasonable to seek the same against the Democrat Clinton.

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

Both Biden and Florida gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist have essentially declared half the nation’s voters as “fascists,” continuing on and expanding a strategy originated by Barack Obama, who described non-leftists as bitter people clinging to their bibles and guns, and Hillary Clinton, who openly called them deplorables, and, during a Democratic primary debate, called them “the enemy.” They are joined by a number of other political leaders and commentators.

To ensure that these oppressive definitions are not challenged, tactics such as censorship, absurd criminal charges, and abusive labelling are freely employed.

Americans, who have openly debated deposing a monarch, ending slavery and segregation, entering into and ending wars, are now informed that merely challenging the demonstratively failed policies of the Biden Administration renders them “fascists.”

This trend of labelling political opponents as “fascists,” “enemies” or other pejorative titles can no longer be downplayed, and certainly not ignored.  In an era when parents who merely seek to have a say in their children’s education are labelled as “Domestic Terrorists,” and when federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service have a history of attacking conservative groups, it is clear that this is no longer politics as usual.

The very institutions that exist to protect the rights of the citizenry, such as the Department of Justice, have not only remained silent, they have at times been a part of this assault on freedom.

The tactics have escalated and are relentless. It should never be forgotten that for over four years, California representative Adam Schiff, aided by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, openly proclaimed that he had clear and convincing evidence of Russian Collusion by Donald Trump.  His charges were so serious and so extreme that they nearly tore the nation apart, dividing supporters and opponents of the former President.  After years of investigation and millions of taxpayer dollars wasted, it is manifestly clear that no evidence ever existed and the charge was false from the very beginning. Despite that reality, the perpetrators of the fraud have never apologized, or been widely criticized by their media allies who aided and abetted the deception.

The irony is extraordinary. The same politicians and media people who continually bring up the “Red Scare” charges by Senator McCarthy in the 1950’s now resort to precisely the same tactics.

Use of these types of language and tactics can only be described as totalitarian. Indeed, it almost is the textbook definition of that word. The  Encyclopedia Britannica notes that to those establishing totalitarian regimes, “Any dissent is branded evil.”

It’s a tactic with a long tradition. One source describes a relevant period in the establishment of the Soviet Union:

“That is why the first priority for all totalitarian regimes was to impose restrictions on freedom of speech. In 1917, the Russian Bolsheviks moved to limit freedom of speech the very day after the October coup-d’état. They adopted the “Decree on the Press,” which shut down any newspapers “sowing discord by libelous distortion of facts.” Lenin wrote that “to tolerate the existence of these newspapers means to cease to be a socialist.” Similarly, only a few months after coming to power in 1933, German National Socialists started to burn books, and the Ministry of Propaganda introduced strict censorship.”

It not a coincidence that under both Presidents Obama and Biden, attempts were made to silence critics. Obama considered withdrawing Fox News’ broadcast license, and sought to implement a scheme allowing the FCC to place “monitors” in newsrooms.

The Biden Administration has attempted to establish a “Disinformation Board” led by a left-wing partisan hack, to attack news the White House disagreed with.  The public rebelled against that dictatorial move. It has been replaced by the attempt to discredit all opposition as “fascist.”

It remains to be seen how the public reacts.

Illustration: Pixabay

Joe Biden has plagiarized speeches several times in the past, most memorably ruining a prior presidential run in 1988. But his September 1 address in Philadelphia will be remembered not for the precise words he stole, but for the harsh and threatening tone he “borrowed” from the Twentieth Century’s worst dictators. Substitute either “capitalist” or “Jew” for MAGA, and the speeches’ tenor is uncomfortably familiar.

While launching numerous pejoratives at his opposition, there was a startling lack of specificity. What policies Is he condemning? He didn’t just criticize Donald Trump. He included all those who identify with policies Biden disagrees with. Yes, January 6 was bad, but it was the work of a few and cannot be blamed on anyone other than the actual participants.  On this, Biden cannot take the high ground.  As groups such as Antifa and BLM burned cities, assaulted innocents, looted businesses, attacked police stations and federal court houses, his campaign not only remained largely silent, but in some cases supported the outrage. His Vice-Presidential candidate assisted in bailing out the perpetrators.

Why would Biden deliver such a divisive address?  You don’t have to be a political genius to figure that out. His policies have failed miserably, at home and abroad. He, and his party which controls the White House, Congress, the federal bureaucracy and, to a great extent, the media, have wreaked havoc on the nation.   He willfully destroyed American energy independence, destroying thousands of union jobs in the process. His actions have resulted in the worst inflation in decades. He has presented inadequate defense budgets at a time of clear national danger. He has inflamed, rather than cooled, internal tensions. He botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, abandoning Americans and Afghanistan individuals who assisted U.S. forces, and allowed billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment to fall into the hands of the enemy.  He stated that he wouldn’t be upset over a “minor” invasion of Ukraine. He has sided with vested interests over the good of the people.  His Department of Justice sought to label parents who merely seek a voice in their children’s education as “domestic terrorists.” He attempted to suppress free speech by establishing a “Disinformation” Board.

It’s more than just poor policy choices. The inappropriate financial relationship of the Biden family with China is a significant concern. The media has attempted to downplay the matter, but the American people have not. Bizarre policy choices Biden has made regarding America’s most serious adversary must be examined in light of that.  Why would the President abandon the existing Department of Justice policy countering the extensive espionage and intellectual theft operations China conducts in the United States?

Consider this warning from the Department of Justice:  “About 80 percent of all economic espionage prosecutions brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) allege conduct that would benefit the Chinese state, and there is at least some nexus to China in around 60 percent of all trade secret theft cases…The Department of Justice’s China Initiative [which Trump initiated] reflects the strategic priority of countering Chinese national security threats.”

Additionally, Biden has moved to undo some of his predecessors’ policies designed to counter Beijing’s unfair trade practices which harm America’s economy and steal jobs from U.S. workers.  

In another China-related issue, Fentanyl deaths increased significantly since Biden took office, a clear result of his refusal to get tough with Beijing on the matter and his “open border” policies.

There are two worrisome aspects of Biden’s de facto open border policy.  The first is his allowing literally millions of individuals to illegally enter the nation, abandoning existing policies that had previously stemmed the flow. This action has resulted not only in vast costs to U.S. taxpayers, but also empowering criminal cartels in their human trafficking and drug dealing activities. The second gets to the heart of the problem with the Biden Administration. Despite clear, convincing, abundant (even televised!) evidence to the contrary, he continuously lies to the American people about his open border policy.

It is an attempt to turn public attention away from all of these failures, self-made disasters, acts of corruption and policy mistakes that prompted Biden’s Philadelphia speech.

Photo: White House

The U.S. Department of Defense has issued a warning about Beijing’s military timetable. It does not, for obvious reasons, take into account, however, political considerations regarding the weakness of the Biden Administration.

According to the DoD, Chinese president Xi Jinping has set a timeline for his nation’s military to be capable of taking Taiwan by 2027 — just five years from now. Recent events in the Taiwan strait have some questioning the strategic situation and prospects of a near-term invasion.  

Colin H. Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, said that while China is very interested in expanding its sphere of political and military influence in the Indo-Pacific region, it’s likely going to be more cautious when it comes to a move as aggressive as an invasion of Taiwan.

According to Kahl, “It’s no mystery that Xi Jinping has given his military until 2027 to develop the military capabilities to forcefully reunify with Taiwan — if he makes the decision to do that.”

His greatest concern is China’s increased aggression in the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, and other areas in the region, and how that increased aggressive action might lead to unintended consequences that could result from misunderstandings. 

“As China becomes increasingly assertive in kind of asserting its prerogatives around Taiwan, … do they take the next step of trying to enforce those changes in the status quo in a way that runs the risk of an incident — an incident with the United States, and incident with one of our allies and partners?” Kahl asked. “We have seen the engage in, over the last year or two, … a trendline of increasingly unsafe and unprofessional encounters — both in … the skies and at sea.”  

Now, Kahl said, the U.S. and its allies must watch out for aggressive actions by the navy and air force of the People’s Liberation Army that could run the risk of causing an international incident.

“We’re not going to change our operating procedures,” he said. “We’re not going to do things that ratchet up tensions. We’re going to do things that assert our continued support for the rules-based international order in the Indo-Pacific and our support for our allies and partners, and not be backed away.”  

After Russia invaded Ukraine in February, the Defense Department identified that nation as an “acute threat,” which Kahl has further clarified as meaning “both immediate and sharp.” But he’s also now identified Russia as being “reckless” as well, considering the actions it’s taken after failing to achieve the goals it set for its invasion of Ukraine.  

“I think that Russia is … a capable military power — perhaps not as capable, frankly, and conventional as some of us may have assessed six or eight months ago …,” he said. “But they’ve also demonstrated that they’re an extraordinarily dangerous and reckless power. And there’s a way in which … a weakened Russia becomes more dangerous on the international stage.” 

In desperation, Kahl said, Russia has aligned itself more with and reached out to both North Korea and Iran for assistance. Moreso, he said, because Russia’s conventional forces are so heavily occupied in Ukraine, he suspects they will be forced to rely more now on unconventional capabilities such as nuclear, cyber and space, as well as misinformation and disinformation campaigns.  

“Russia does not pose the challenge to the United States and the rules-based international order over the long term that China does,” he said. “But in the immediate term, it’s a very dangerous actor.”

While the 2027 timeline seems logical, it does not take into account Beijing’s noticing that the Biden Administration is probably less prepared to respond as forcefully to foreign threats as a successor White House will probably be. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La)     notes that “President Biden’s … lack of foreign policy strategy have crippled the United States’ power and influence on the world stage. Afghanistan has fallen to the Taliban, China has ramped up its aggression against Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Uyghurs, and now, Russia has invaded Ukraine. “

Picture: The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry passes through the Taiwan Strait during a routine transit

In the world of make-believe play, young children hide in plain sight pretending no one can see what they are doing. The communist regime in China acted in such a childish manner for years in an attempt to cover up its horrific human rights record by simply pretending that no one saw anything. It came to an end this week when the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) released a major 48-page report detailing abuses the Chinese government perpetuated on the Uyghur people in western China. 

Increasing allegations by civil society groups that members of the Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minority communities were missing or had disappeared in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China began arriving at the office of the UNHCR five years ago. Four years ago, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances reported a “dramatic” increase in cases from western China “with the introduction of ‘re-education’ camps in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region by the Government of China.” 

Claims of family separations and enforced disappearances were among the first indicators of concern about the situation, it notes, with large numbers of people alleged to be “forcibly disappeared” or “missing” The UNHCR says that approximately two-thirds of the 152 outstanding cases on China of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances pertain to the Uyghur people occurred over the period 2017-2022. It is an ongoing issue with China continuing to threaten and intimate former detainees and disappear those who fail to comply. Some western human rights groups consider China guilty of committing genocide. 

“Numerous research and investigative reports published since that time by a diverse range of non-governmental organizations, think-tanks and media outlets – as well as public accounts by victims – have alleged arbitrary detention on a broad scale in so-called “camps”, as well as claims of torture and other ill-treatment, including sexual violence, and forced labour, among others,” according to this week’s report. 

At first Beijing labeled the camps vocational training centers that existed for people who had committed minor offenses. In later policy papers, it presented the detention centers as part of its strategies to counter terrorism and to prevent or counter “extremism” in the region, while at the same time claiming they contributed to development, job creation and poverty alleviation. The UN requested and looked at official documents, interviewed individuals, and then shared the results with the Chinese government to allow it to respond. The report noted China defiantly responded saying Beijing “…asserted that China’s laws are ‘powerful legal instruments to contain and combat terrorism and extremism’ and that it is upholding ‘the principles of protecting lawful activities, curbing illegal actions, containing extremism, resisting infiltration, and preventing and punishing crimes.’”  

The UNHCR pointed out that China’s definitions of terrorists and terrorist activities is vague and that its claims of “social panic” and “serious social harm” caused by those living in western China are not clearly defined and might potentially encompass a wide range of acts that do not have a “sufficient threshold of seriousness and demonstrable intent to engage in terrorist conduct.” The reports concludes that Beijing committed serious human rights violations in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-“extremism” strategies. The implementation of these strategies, and associated policies in Xinjiang, it says, have led to interlocking patterns of severe and undue restrictions on a wide range of human rights. “These patterns of restrictions are characterized by a discriminatory component, as the underlying acts often directly or indirectly affect Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim communities.” The UNHCR report makes 13 recommendations. Among them the report suggests China locate the people who have disappeared, release arbitrarily held prisoners, review the country’s legal framework surrounding its national security, investigate human rights abuses and allegations of torture in western China, and provide reparations to the victims. Xi Jinping, and the CCP leadership, have no intention of recognizing the legitimacy of the UNHCR findings or adhering to its recommendations. Perhaps, the Chinese are not the only ones playing a make-believe game?  

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

Fear can be a positive motivator driving people to go beyond their comfort zone to achieve great success.

In August 1762, Ben Franklin wrote a letter to Lord Kames in which he said: “…I am going to a Country and a People that I love. I am going from the old World to the new; and I fancy I feel like those who are leaving this World for the next; Grief at the Parting; Fear of the Passage; Hope of the Future….” Franklin had good cause to be concerned about traveling the Atlantic in a small, wooden sailing ship. Fear is not the same as paranoia.

The latter is characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others.

For some, such as Vladimir Putin, paranoia can progress to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts. Today we are witnessing the Russian president, who believes he is performing acts of self-defense or is on a mission for the Russian Motherland, commit crimes against humanity in Ukraine. His excessive suspicion of the motives of others, and of other nation-states, has led him beyond a fear of treacherous waters into a state of true paranoia.

Putin does not trust those around him, and he cannot tolerate criticism, especially when it comes from a renowned  foreign policy analyst such as Janusz Bugajski. Born in 1954 in Cheshire, England, Bugajski has had a long and prestigious career on the BBC and Radio Free Europe, as a military and political analyst, and he has written about two dozen books on Eastern Europe and Russia. Currently he serves as a senior Fellow at the Jamestown Foundation. Bugajski’s latest book, released this spring, caught Putin’s attention. It is entitled: Failed State: A Guide to Russia’s Rupture. 

In August the Russian Defense Ministry’s television channel, Zvezda, dedicated a full 30-minute segment to attacking Bugajski’s book in an attempt to discredit him and reveal his alleged agenda to destroy Russia. In a press release from the Jamestown Foundation this week, it pointed out that “The program even goes so far as to characterize Bugajski’s and other analysts’ work as the latest recurrence of ‘Nazi policies.’” It is not the first attack on a Jamestown Foundation fellow. The Kremlin has targeted a number of other Jamestown commentators. 

Earlier this year, Senior Fellow Margarita Assenova was placed on a sanctions list by the Kremlin. Putin does not support free speech when he believes it threatens him. This week distinguished senior fellow Paul Goble, from the same foundation, was banned by Moscow from staying in Russia. Goble expressed his feelings, saying that “As ‘the real father’ of the League of Free Nations of Russia and its calls for the decolonization of Russia, as well as now being subject, by order of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to a lifetime ban from staying in Russia, I can testify that I take pride in this and have received messages of congratulations from far and near. How could it be otherwise as I received my ban along with distinguished American scholar on Central Asia [and strong supporter of Jamestown], S. Frederick Starr.”

A statement from the Jamestown Foundation released this week said that “Ironically, rather than delegitimize the work of Bugajski and others, Moscow’s assaults on Jamestown’s analysts have backfired in providing free and expanded coverage of their work throughout Russia and its near abroad. With the Zvezda television program, the Russian Defense Ministry in fact attracted far more attention to Failed State than ever before.” Putin’s paranoia must be deepening. Bugajski’s book suggests that paradoxically, “while Vladimir Putin assumed power to prevent Russia’s disintegration, he may be remembered as precipitating the country’s demise. New territorial entities will surface as Moscow’s credibility crisis deepens amidst spreading ungovernability, elite power struggles, political polarization, nationalist radicalism, and regional and ethnic revivals.” He points out that the emerging states will not be uniform in their internal political and administrative structures. Border conflicts and territorial claims are likely between some entities, he argues, while others may develop into new federal or confederal states.

Bugajski concludes that the US must develop an effective strategy for managing Russia’s rupture by supporting regionalism and federalism, acknowledging sovereignty and separation, calibrating the role of other major powers, developing linkages with new state entities, strengthening the security of countries bordering Russia, and promoting trans-Atlanticism or trans-Pacificism among emerging states. Rebekah Koffler, a Russian military analyst and author of Inside Putin’s Mind, says that when cornered, Putin can be expected to “fight to the death like a cornered rat.” As the situation evolves in Ukraine, the world may see a treacherous and paranoid leader taking even more drastic measures if the war in Ukraine goes badly for Russia. To date he has shown no indication that he is willing to negotiate a settlement.

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

Photo: Russian Govt. official site

As surely as the lush, green leaves of summer will soon turn to the colors of Autumn, the media will begin its election year scale-tipping to hide the dire mistakes made by their Left-wing darlings in preparation for November’s coming election. 

Discouraging likely voters and donors by manipulated polling is a tried-and-true election tactic.

Over the next several weeks, expect to see reports that the price of gas is going down.  That won’t last, of course.  As soon as that First Tuesday in the 11^th month concludes, temporary measures such as the dangerous step of releasing fuel from the Strategic Petroleum reserve and other short-lived actions will wear off.  And of course, thanks to the Biden White House’s jihad against fossil fuels, the cost of home heating will be devastating this winter.  But that’s after election day, so don’t expect to see much conversation on that point!

Despite disastrous inflation, foreign policy debacles, massive increases in crime, failing education, and a government that treats thse that dissents from its viewpoint as “domestic terrorists,” expect to see poll after poll proclaiming that Democrats have pulled ahead. 

Inaccurate polling is far too commonplace. noted that “Most preelection polls in 2020 overstated Joe Biden’s lead over Donald Trump in the national vote for president, and in some states incorrectly indicated that Biden would likely win [in that state] or that the race would be close when it was not. These problems led some commentators to argue that ‘polling is irrevocably broken,’ that pollsters should be ignored, or that ‘the polling industry is a wreck, and should be blown up.’”

Objective, non-political sources have described how polling has portrayed inaccurate, non-existent strength for Democrat candidates. Scientific American reported that “In the weeks leading up to the November 2016 election, polls across the country predicted an easy sweep for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. From Vanuatu to Timbuktu, everyone knows what happened…they missed the mark in key swing states that tilted the Electoral College toward Trump.” The study also noted that there is “evidence that people are more likely to pick up the phone if they’re Democrats.”

A Guardian article concurs, citing the same research. “Political polls regarding US elections in 2020 overstated Democratic support “across the board”, US political scientists found, while understating support for Republicans and Donald Trump. The finding, which will alarm Democrats aiming to hold on to their narrow control of the US House and Senate in 2022, is contained in a new study by the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Josh Clinton, a Vanderbilt University professor and AAPOR taskforce member, told the Washington Post: ‘There was a systematic error that was found in terms of the overstatement for Democratic support across the board.’”

Crime has surged under Democrat-supported left-wing District Attorneys have swept into office across the nation. A Fox analysis reports that “Violent crimes have reached unprecedented numbers in the last two years…” As election day draws closer, however, expect to see “get tough” comments from the same legislators, mayors and governors who presided over this dire problem and established the policies that allowed it to occur.  That change in attitude will vanish as soon as the election is over.

And, of course, expect the phony scandal machine to be working overtime. From 2016 on, we heard Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff endlessly proclaim that the Trump Administration was engaged in “Russian collusion.” Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and endless hours of Congressional time were utilized to keep the nonsense charges in the public eye.  All were found to be utterly false. The timing of the latest politically-manipulated raid in the final months before the 2022 election are more of the same.

Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government

Illustration: Pixabay

The death of Mikhail Gorbachev at 91 ends an era of extraordinary leaders who changed the world for the better. Along with the United Kingdom’s Margaret Thatcher, the Vatican’s Pope John XXIII, and, most importantly, one of America’s greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, these visionary and heroic individuals defied conventional thought, ignored critics, and had the morality and courage to do what had to be done to end needless suffering and remove the planet from the brink of Armageddon.

Gorbachev realized that the Soviet Union’s foundation of communism and aggressive opposition to the west had bankrupted his nation and strangled the culture of his people. He measured the determination and strength of President Reagan, whose nation was backed by a capitalist system that left the Kremlin’s socialism in the dust. He understood that Reagan’s bid to build a space defense system would render the USSR’s only real claim to greatness, its vast nuclear arsenal, ineffective. He understood that the Pope’s moral authority, combined with the heroism of Polish labor leader Lech Wałęsa, would make Moscow’s occupation of its enslaved nations untenable.

It would have been easy for Gorbachev to take the path of least resistance, and continue with the same policies that had kept his predecessors in power. He chose to do otherwise. He implemented the concepts of “perestroika,” also known as restructuring, and “glasnost,” meaning openness. He understood the risk he was taking, and while not seeking the dissolution of the Soviet Union, nevertheless did what had to be done for the good of the Russian people, essentially eliminating his own power in the process. 

It is important to understand the environment that existed when Gorbachev assumed power in the 1980s.

An extraordinary change had already occurred in the United States under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, who took office in 1981.  Throughout the prior decade, the debacles of the Vietnam War, the Watergate Scandal, and ruinous inflation had demoralized America. The nation projected weakness abroad, (exemplified by the Iran hostage crisis) a declining military, and an economy that was subpar.  Despite overwhelming criticism from the media, the intelligentsia, and traditional politicians, Reagan projected optimism. He succeeded in reversing the multi-faceted decline. It was fashionable at the time to perceive America and the west as a fading power, losing out to the Kremlin.  It was believed that the nation’s capitalist tradition was no longer working for the majority.

As a presidential candidate, Reagan articulated a different reality.  He proposed rebuilding the nation’s armed forces and confronting expansionist Socialism. He championed the free market, and fought against domestic critics who attempted to knock it down through excessive strikes and leftist ideas. He opposed those academics and pundits who constantly and inaccurately criticized American national traditions.

Inevitably, he was harshly condemned by the political, academic, and media establishments.  It was said that, if elected, he would start World War III, crash the economy, and drive the U.S. into chaos. The result, of course, was the exact opposite.  By reducing taxes, he revived the economy. By fully funding the Pentagon and openly confronting the USSR, he restored American leadership throughout the globe. He praised America’s successes and history, and restored faith in the country.

It is an epic tragedy that the work of both Gorbachev and Reagan has been overturned in our day.  Vladimir Putin has returned Russia to its Stalinist practices, both internally and abroad. He has invested heavily in nuclear weaponry, and clearly seeks to rebuild the Soviet Empire.  His invasion of Ukraine is only the first step in that effort.

In the United States, Joe Biden has projected the weakness Reagan disdained. His feckless foreign policy, his underfunding of the military, and his manifest lack of appreciation for America’s history, along with his extreme partisanship, depresses the national mood.  His tax and spend policies devastate the economy.

Gorbachev and Reagan deserved far better from their successors.

Illustration: Pixabay

When I was the Night Court Judge for Brooklyn, New York, I handled the first court appearance (known as an “arraignment”) for up to 100 people a night. I was responsible for using my discretion to decide whether to set bail on a defendant, or whether they could be trusted to return to court on their own (“release on own recognizance,” or “ROR”).

There were several factors I used in making my decision.  Did the defendant have a history of not returning to court (a defendant’s criminal history, or “rap sheet,” which lists the number of times a “bench warrant” was issued for a defendant’s arrest when that defendant failed to appear for a court appointment)?  Did they have open and pending cases?  Did they have “ties to the community,” that is, a stable residence and family, or a job?

Open and pending cases was always a great concern of mine.  If the majority of us had been arrested for anything, most of us would make sure we did not place ourselves in a position to be rearrested.  The fact that a person has a case pending for drug sales, robbery, or driving while under the influence, and is arrested for another offense while that first case is still open, usually points to a larger problem.  Multiple robberies and drug sales are often an indicator of gang activity; repeated DUI’s or domestic violence arrests can be caused by psychological issues.

In either instance, when a defendant was a repeat offender – a “recidivist” – and especially if that defendant had more than one open and pending cases, I was extremely likely to set bail and stop that defendant’s pattern of criminal activity.

Under the current “no bail” laws, I could no longer follow this basic analysis to its logical conclusion.  The “Bail Elimination Act of 2019”  specifically states that “(w)hen a principal, whose  future  court  attendance  at  a  criminal action  or  proceeding  is or may be required, initially comes under the control of a court, such  court…SHALL…RELEASE THE PRINCIPAL PENDING TRIAL ON THE PRINCIPAL’S  PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE, UNLESS THE COURT FINDS ON THE RECORD THAT RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE WILL NOT REASONABLY ASSURE THE INDIVIDUAL’S COURT ATTENDANCE. IN SUCH INSTANCES, THE COURT WILL RELEASE THE INDIVIDUAL UNDER  NON-MONETARY  CONDITIONS,  SELECTING  THE  LEAST  RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE  THAT  WILL  REASONABLY ASSURE THE PRINCIPAL’S COURT ATTENDANCE. THE COURT WILL SUPPORT ITS CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVE ON THE RECORD.  A PRINCIPAL  SHALL  NOT  BE  REQUIRED  TO  PAY FOR ANY PART OF THE COST OF RELEASE UNDER NON-MONETARY CONDITIONS.” (Caps in original.)

In other words, the Court’s of New York are required to release a defendant, and even if the Court finds a reason to hold a defendant after their arrest, the Court must still “release the individual under non-monetary conditions, selecting the least restrictive alternative” to insure the defendant’s return.

In the two years since this new system took effect, how has the Bail Elimination Act worked for New York?

“10 career criminals (have) rack(ed) up nearly 500 arrests after New York enacted its controversial bail reform law – and most of them are still out on the streets…statistics compiled by the NYPD…show that the city’s alleged ‘worst of the worst’ repeat offenders have been busted a total of 485 times since bail reform went into effect in 2020.  Two of the defendants are actually accused of embarking on lives of crime in the wake of bail reform, with one busted 33 times since 2020 and the other busted 22 times.”

Meanwhile, in June of this year,  “(a) ‘professional booster‘…notched what could be her 100th bust over the weekend – and was released without bail yet again…Michelle McKelley, 42, was arrested…for allegedly pocketing $125 worth of goods from a CVS in Lower Manhattan, and then was freed under the state’s soft-on-crime criminal justice reforms. Prosecutors said in Manhattan Criminal Court…that McKelley has failed to appear in court 27 times on her multitude of past arrests – and has five other pending cases. But the charges do not qualify for bail under the 2019 state reform, which means prosecutors could only ask that she be let go on supervised release while the case is pending.” 

Then there is the 16 year old who was arrested after a wild altercation with a police officer in a New York City subway station.  In July, just days before his fist fight with the police, the youth had been arrested for a violent robbery in which “he and three others jumped a 49-year-old man on a Midtown street, punching the victim and running off with his cellphone. Prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office requested he be released with ‘intensive community monitoring’ at his arraignment, though they could have requested bail on the top robbery charge. A few days later…the boy was arrested for the subway incident, in which he was caught on camera violently attacking a Manhattan cop after allegedly jumping a turnstile at the 125th Street-Lexington Avenue station in East Harlem. The teen was again released without bail …” 

It is any wonder, then, that according to New York Mayor Eric Adams,   “Time and time again, our police officers make an arrest, and then the person who is arrested for assault, felonious assaults, robberies and gun possessions, they’re finding themselves back on the street within days– if not hours — after the arrest…(a)nd they go on to commit more crimes within weeks, if not days…(o)ur criminal justice system is insane.”  

Mayor Adams can expect no help from the District Attorney’s Office.  Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, elected with the help of George Soros, believes that “(r)eversing the effects of mass incarceration is an urgent moral, civil rights, and human rights issue and is one of (his) highest priorities as Manhattan District Attorney…Alvin believes that…prison sentences (are) imposed far too often…for nonviolent cases and others for which prison is not warranted.  These excess prison sentences do not make us safer.  In fact, they make us less safe because they increase the chances of recidivism.”

Would a prison sentence , or at least the threat of jail time, perhaps put an end to the criminal activity of the shoplifter on her 100th arrest, or any of the 10 defendants responsible for almost 500 arrests since 2020?  Common sense would seem to indicate this being the case.  But DA Bragg believes in “(e)xpanding Restorative Justice programming significantly and relying heavily on it…(t)he programming will be community-based and not operated by the DA office or any other law enforcement entity.”   

In other words, DA Bragg believes placing a recidivist in jail will not stop recidivism – but community based programs will.

What if the defendant does not comply with their “Restorative Justice” program? “In any case in which a person allegedly violates the terms of a non-incarceratory sentence,” the Manhattan DA will “seek an incarceratory ‘alternative’…only as a matter of last resort, after repeated opportunities are afforded for a successful completion of the mandate.  Research shows that relapses are part of the road to recovery…”

In other words, rather than place the serial shoplifter in jail, DA Bragg would have her enroll in a program, and if she fails that program, give her an undetermined number of opportunities to complete the program.  What would constitute failure?  Not attending the program – and rearrests.

The repetitive nature of the Manhattan DA’s policies are obvious.  Instead of seeking a jail sentence for a repeat offender, that offender is given another opportunity to reoffend, with the hope that after a certain undetermined number of chances, that offender will “magically” just give up (maybe from exhaustion), and return to law abiding ways.

What could go wrong?

DA Bragg, and the progressives in the New York State Legislature who established the No-bail laws of 2019, rely upon research studies that “shorter sentences would actually reduce future offending.”  However, “much of the academic research regarding the effect of length of incarceration on recidivism suffered from serious methodological flaws, including too-small study sizes and ill-advised attempts to judge the impact of minor differences in incarceration.”

Recently, the United States Sentencing Commission conducted a study to determine if longer jail sentences have an effect on recidivism.  The result was predictable to all but Alvin Bragg and his supporters.  “For defendants receiving a sentence of more than 60 months (five years), the odds of recidivism were 18 percent lower than a matched group of prisoners receiving shorter sentences. For defendants with sentences of more than 120 months (ten years), the odds of recidivism were 29 percent lower…(c)ontrary to current academic thinking, then, the length of a criminal’s sentence matters quite a bit in reducing future offending.” 

It always seemed to be a matter of common sense for me – if someone is offending repeatedly, incarcerating them stops their criminal activity.  Until the Manhattan DA and the New York Legislature learn this simple lesson, the citizens of New York can continue to be subjected to more progressive social science experiments – and more crime.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay