Axis of Evil – USA Gov Policy

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin held a summit meeting on February 4th, the opening day of the Beijing Olympics, to formally cement a “no limits” partnership between China and Russia. The manifesto that emerged confirms to the world that each country will back the other’s position on issues from Ukraine and Taiwan to NATO enlargement in Eastern Europe. Xi and Putin also vowed to expand their collaboration against the West. In recent years the two leaders have grown closer and expanded the breadth of their economic ties, political policies, and military integration. This week Xi called Putin one of his “closest friends and a great colleague.” There no longer any “forbidden areas” in Russia-China cooperation, according to the two leaders. From Xi’s perspective the relationship is superior to that of the Cold War era as both states have agreed to collaborate on control of the Internet, space, climate change, and artificial intelligence. For Putin, the summit may have secured China’s support of a Ukrainian invasion despite recent tough talk from Washington.

China has a long history of pronouncements about cooperation and strategic partnerships. According to Tony Monroe of Reuters, this most recent meeting is the most detailed and assertive to date. Xi’s goal now publicly stated is to build a new international order based on China’s concept of human rights and democratic values. China doesn’t have many close friends in the international community outside of Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, and a few other minor states. Xi needs Russia at the moment, if only to distract the world from Chinese actions. What is even better for Xi is that the Sino-Russian power roles are reversed from that of the earlier Cold War period, with China the more powerful and rising state today. Daniel Kritenbrink, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, pointed out this week that “If Russia further invades Ukraine and China looks the other way, it suggests that China is willing to tolerate or tacitly support Russia’s efforts to coerce Ukraine, even when they embarrass Beijing, harm European security and risk global peace and economic stability.” Xi may give support over Ukraine but will be certain to maintain balance in the bilateral relationship. The question is what did, or will, Xi ask from Putin in return.

The Beijing Olympics was a missed opportunity for President Xi to help resolve the tensions in Europe. He could have called on Russia to back down from threatening an invasion of Ukraine. Instead, the Chinese leader pledged mutual protection of their core interests – an apparent reference to Russia – Ukraine and China – Taiwan challenges. Perhaps, the Chinese leader exacted a promise of support from Putin if China made moves on Taiwan? Xi deliberately chose to use the Olympic venue to heavily criticize the United States’ resistance to China’s increasing regional power and blasted American moves to shore up its ties in the Indo-Pacific region.

Basically you will need a pill which could stand upright amongst the rest of the medicines was buy brand levitra 100mg. The problem today viagra brand 100mg is that in quest of a true soul mate people fall in the trap of deceiving ads and fake cases. This also leads to some males to continue living in great dissatisfaction with their lives. female viagra uk midwayfire.com He/she will ask about the symptoms experienced, and generico levitra on line buy at store provide valid suggestions.

Despite the intense level of communist rhetoric that typically is discounted in the West, the weight and timing of these statements is significant and directed at an international democratic audience. China is forging stronger and more networked ties with Russia’s military, political and economic leaders in Russia and openly announcing it to the world. Beijing is no longer following their “hide and bide” time policy until they are stronger. The growing geopolitical bilateral alignment remains a relationship based on convenience but, it also is one of increasing concern to democratic nations as they become more intertwined and stiffen their resolve to dismantle the democratic West. Political analysts in Washington are pointing out that China may be using Russia to plug the final holes in its development strategy and that Xi is not unhappy that Putin is high-stakes gambling on the West faltering over its policy toward Ukraine. Fifty years ago this month President Nixon flew to China in what was to become known as the “week that changed the world.” It now appears we may be approaching a new week that could again spark a major change in the rules-based international community and the global balance of power.

Daria Novak previously served in the U.S. State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]