Category: Quick Analysis

Some may wonder why Progressives adhere to a philosophy that has failed miserably.

The answer is that failure is the whole point.  As President Obama urged, America must be fundamentally transformed. To do that in a nation that was, at the time he took office, the most powerful and prosperous nation on Earth, that that success be dismantled, faith in its institutions and way of life be destroyed, and its citizenry be divided against each other. In this effort, both he and his fellow progressives have succeeded.

Consider the economic moves Progressives seek to implement in America.  Excess taxes and burdensome regulations reduce business success, a success that is desperately needed to fund the vast and frequently irrational spending programs Progressives require to buy support. They claim to do so to assist the poor, but it only increases the number of those impoverished. Their socialist philosophy has failed miserably whenever and wherever it has been attempted.

Progressive ideas in criminal justice have proven disastrous. Exploiting very isolated instances of extremely rare occasions of police using excess force, they have turned common sense on its head and portrayed murders, rapists, rioters and looters as heroes fighting for justice. In cities run by Progressives, civic disorder rules the streets. There is no indication that they care. They don’t care because disorder and chaos are what they require to achieve that “fundamental transformation” they deeply desire.

Recently, New York City Police Officer Jonathon Diller was killed by Guy Rivera, a career criminal with 21 prior arrests who was not in jail thanks to Progressive policies that favor keeping criminals on the street rather than incarcerate them not just because of a warped belief that American justice was biased, but because disorder and the breakdown of normal authority serves their purpose.

On the day of Officer Diller’s wake, President Biden, and former presidents Clinton and Obama were in town for a fundraiser.  They chose not to attend the wake, a clear indication of the support of the leadership of the Democrat Party for the Progressive program. (in contrast, former President Trump not only attended, but paid off, through a contribution to Tunnels to Towers, the mortgage of the home where Officer Dillers’ wife and infant child reside.   

In that same city, Progressive Councilwoman Carlina Rivera demanded that firefighters remove a 911 commemorative flag from their vehicle, calling it “a fascist symbol.” It would not do to agree to honor anything about a system they are seeking to destroy.  Similarly, Obama, during his tenure in the White House attempted to forbid the U.S. Navy from flying the Revolutionary-era “Don’t Tread on Me” flag.

Presidents have always honored the various religions that have graced the U.S. population. Tolerance of different faiths has been a tradition.  However, this year, Biden declared Easter “Transgender Visibility Day.”

To succeed, Progressives have heavily influenced two key twin pillars of information, education and the media.

 America spends more than almost all other nations on education, yet its students are falling further and further behind (even before Covid.)  The infuriating reality is that resources meant for reading, writing, math and other basic subjects have been diverted, some might say embezzled, to propaganda.

Since an objective recitation of facts portrays the fallacy and failure of Progressive concepts, control of media is an essential element of their efforts.  To that end, they have pursued censorship. Covering up reporting of Biden scandals, calling violent riots as “peaceful protests,” omitting contrary data on search engines, and labelling accurate facts they don’t like as “disinformation have all been cornerstones of their efforts.

Progressives allege that they seek to help the poor, address inequality, and engage in other helpful actions. Their actions don’t work, and they don’t care.  Their only objective is to gain power.

Illustration: Pixabay

The environment in Moscow is changing – literally. Putin’s growing need to find funds to support his war effort in Ukraine may lead to an ecological crisis for the country and a political challenge for the president  himself. He is counting on Chinese firms to develop mines and mineral processing facilities inside the Moscow Oblast. “Putin’s ‘turn to the east’ and his need for Chinese support have pushed Moscow to allow Beijing to develop extractive industries near the Russian capital, making protests against both the Kremlin and China more likely,” according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. The spillover of environmental issues into political ones is an unwanted challenge the regime must now address. Local officials in the capital city expect the move will spark protests from the general population living around Moscow and in the Moscow Oblast region adjacent to it.  

Previously, the Kremlin sought to avoid controversial infrastructure projects near Moscow that could morph into a political protest movement capable of spreading quickly across the country. Five years ago, the start of a few smaller mining projects on the edge of the capital city initiated protests in a number of smaller areas remote to Moscow, including Shiyes, Siberia, and Bashkortostan. They were easily contained, far from the Kremlin, and did not draw much media attention. It did, however, begin the “not in my backyard” protest movement. 

Goble says the transformation of the environmental issue into a politically volatile one is “especially serious when foreigners are involved and [Putin] shows little concern for the ecological worries of the surrounding population.” Putin’s acceptance of the increased risk to his regime and citizenry is an indication of how desperate the government is to fund the war effort. The Kremlin’s need to pay for  advanced weapons to combat Ukraine’s arsenal is more acute this year, as the Russian military has been unable to take down the majority of Ukraine’s military drones operating inside Russian territory.

Although the Chinese have a long-standing request with Moscow to develop the mines, Putin held off until recently due to the problematic optics of Chinese involvement, the risk that the exploitation of the mines and related processing industries could spark unrest close to the Kremlin, and environmental concerns over expanding the extractive process itself. Russia has a history of allowing China to mine in other parts of its territory. Although it was never implemented, in 1953 the two countries signed an agreement that allowed China to develop mines and mineral process facilities near Moscow. By early 2023, the Kremlin relented and allowed the Moscow Oblast to sign an agreement with Chinese firms. 

Mines were reopened after environmentalists were pushed aside, according to a January report in the Eurasian Daily Monitor. The Chinese firms are involved in oil, coal, phosphorites, and rare earth mining, including titanium and lithium. The Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported on May 19 that the Russian government expects the decision to add 10,000 new jobs this year. According to Goble, “This development will likely stoke problems at home and could ultimately threaten both the Kremlin leader and his alliance with China.” There are strong indications that opening the Moscow Oblast will lead potentially to political protests against Putin for allowing China to take the lead in mining and processing both minerals and chemicals in a region heavily populated by Russians. 

Given China’s long history of environmental abuses in the extractive industries, it is highly likely Putin’s opposition will foment unrest in Russia, given the president signed off on the deal. To reduce the regime’s risk, some political analysts in Washington suggest Putin will increase repression of dissent this summer to prevent an upsurge in popular protest. Goble suggests that this approach may be counterproductive as it increases the likelihood of nationalizing the issue and expanding potential protests. It appears Putin is willing to ally himself with China above the Russian people and risk a long-term political and ecological disaster for the nation ton continue his quest to reconstitute the Russian Empire.

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

President Biden’s national security negligence is stunning. 

As America’s adversaries, including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and terrorist-related criminal cartels increase their power, influence and aggression, the current administration is actually reducing the nation’s military.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, worries that “The defense topline [White House budget] number fails to keep pace with inflation and our adversaries…our defense budget should be built with the goal of deterring the threats facing our nation … I worry about the long-term impact this budget process will have on our national defense.”

A Wall Street Journal analysis notes that President Biden “has again proposed a vastly inadequate Defense Department budget…Adjusted for inflation, it’s about $140 billion below the 2010 budget that many analysts… insufficient in far less challenging times… advantage over potential adversaries has been shrinking rapidly. We must do better if we are to deter our enemies…U.S. defense spending has never returned to that 2010 level…The cumulative funding gap since 2010 totals about $2 trillion in the shortfall has still battered the military’s capabilities… only 70% of combat aircraft are mission-ready. The Navy is retiring a submarine every two years, while China, which already has the world’s largest navy, recently deployed advanced subs that can run silent.”

Collectively and individually, the armed forces are in significant distress.

The Hill reports that “As recently as 2018, Army planners called for growing the force by 2023. Today the service is unable to even maintain current force levels. Last year the Army set an active-duty end strength target of 485,000 troops. Due to recruiting shortfalls, Congress lowered the target by 33,000 for 2023. The Army is saying it will miss this lower goal too.”

According to the Air Force Times, “The Air Force in 2024 plans to shrink its uniformed force, but not by much. In the year ahead, the service hopes to number 502,700 enlisted airmen and officers across the active duty Air Force, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve — about 1,000 fewer uniformed jobs than in 2023…”

While the USAF shrinks, the publication also reports that  “Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, the new head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, warned lawmakers that Chinese warplanes could begin operating near the U.S. Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) as soon as this year…At the same time, Chinese surveillance balloons have entered U.S. airspace five times in recent years, with the Pentagon missing several at the time they occurred…”

Mackenzie Eaglen, in an American Enterprise Institute analysis notes that the U.S. Navy is about half the size it was 40 years ago, and is getting smaller even as China, which already has a larger navy, is expanding its seagoing forces… Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti recently emphasized, Failure to reverse the fleet’s decline is emboldening America’s enemies and will only get more costly the longer they keep at it.”

Business Insider notes the challenge is particularly acute in the Arctic. “US Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, the commander of US Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, said [recently] that the US currently has really only one heavy icebreaker ship for Arctic operations while Russia has approximately 40 available.”

The War Zone website emphasizes that “…there is a “worrisome disparity between Chinese and U.S. capacity to build new naval vessels and total naval force sizes. The data compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence says that a growing gap in fleet sizes is being helped by China’s shipbuilders being more than 200 times more capable of producing surface warships and submarines.”

Photo: China Defence Ministry

And just how did Donald Trump intend to violate New York State’s Election Law?  In one of three ways; “[i]n determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax law.”

Incredibly, when describing these three different laws, each of which represents a different theory of the case, Judge Merchan told the jury that “[a]lthough you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

These instructions form a basis for two different arguments on appeal.

First, returning to the issue I discussed in The Making of a Martyr, a defendant is entitled to know specifically what the charges are with which they are charged, in order for that defendant to be able to prepare a defense against those charges.  How could Donald Trump or his lawyers prepare a defense to charges which were not revealed to him until trial?

As is stated in the Criminal Resource Manual of the United States Department of Justice, “[i]f an essential element of the offense is omitted from the indictment, it cannot, consistent with the principle underlying the Fifth Amendment requirement that prosecution for an infamous crime be instituted by a grand jury, be supplied by the prosecutor or by the courts. As stated in Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 770 (1962): ‘To allow the prosecution, or the court, to make a subsequent guess as to what was in the minds of the grand jury at the time they returned the indictment would deprive the defendant of a basic protection which the guaranty of the intervention of a grand jury was designed to secure. For a defendant could then be convicted on the basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury which indicted him.'” 

There can be no doubt that the illegal action described above is exactly what happened in the case of Donald Trump.  The Grand Jury did not return an indictment describing any violation of New York State’s Election law, nor did it enumerate any violations of Federal Elections Law, falsification of other business records, or violations of any tax laws.  Instead, the Grand Jury only described “other crimes” as the predicate for the felony charge of Falsifying Business Records.

In other words, the New York County District Attorney and Judge Merchan both presented charges to the jury that were not included in the indictment.

Further, Judge Merchan’s instructions regarding the “other crime” of the “falsification of other business records” is described, in truly circular fashion, as acting “with intent to defraud, he or she makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.”  But isn’t that the primary charge?  How does one falsify business records with the intent to commit a crime, by falsifying business records with the intent to commit a crime?

Second, these instructions violate the necessity for a unanimous verdict.  Though Judge Merchan informed the jury that their verdict must be unanimous, at the same time, regarding the “other crimes,” he informed the jury that “you need not be unanimous as to what those [other crimes] were.”

So you don’t have to be unanimous, while reaching a unanimous verdict?

Under the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, “jury verdicts must be unanimous to convict a defendant of a non-petty offense in both federal and state criminal trials. For federal criminal trials, the Supreme Court’s recognition of this unanimity requirement is long-standing, dating back at least as far as the late 1800s. But for state criminal trials, it was not until 2020 that the Court held for the first time, in Ramos v. Louisiana, that the Sixth Amendment unanimity requirement applies by incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment.”  

In fact, New York State Attorney General Letitia James “led a coalition of nine Attorneys General in an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to recognize that the U.S. constitution requires unanimous verdicts by juries for convictions in state felony trials” in Ramos v. Louisiana. “’We have fought hard to guarantee that every American has the right to serve as a juror, and that every jury is drawn from a fair cross-section of our local communities,’ said Attorney General Letitia James. ‘Setting a nationwide standard that requires verdicts to be unanimous will ensure that juries actually consider the diverse views of all their members, rather than ignoring minority viewpoints that may reflect important experiences and varying perspectives.’” 

What did AG James have to say about Judge Merchan’s allowing a non-unanimous  verdict in the former President’s case?  “No one is above the law,” is all she had to say on the issue. 

This is, or course, only one issue (in several parts) that can be argued on behalf of Donald Trump in his appeal of his New York County criminal conviction.  There are also grounds for appeal based upon the failure to allow the defense to present witnesses on their behalf, and on prejudicial statements and rulings made by Judge Merchan throughout the course of the trial.

But even if the appellate courts were to only consider this one issue, the conclusion is inescapable – former President Donald Trump did not have a fair trial, and the violation of his rights began at the very beginning of the case – with an unspecific and unlawful indictment.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Judge Merchan

It may have seemed to many that former President Donald Trump would escape from the traps set by his Democrat enemies.  Jack Smith’s cases are on hold and Fulton County DA Fani Willis in Georgia is involved in an appeal of the decision not to remove her from the RICO case she brought against Donald Trump, delaying that matter as well.

But leave it to New York to succeed where everyone else has failed.

At this point, unless you’ve been away on a camping or fishing trip with no access to media, you know that the former 45th President of the United States has been convicted of all 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records, some of these counts being felonies. 

Naturally, Democrats had a field day, gloating over and celebrating their victory.  “Trump shut your mouth!” California Congressperson Maxine Waters stated on X. “Just shut your mouth, you’re convicted on all counts!” Then there were the reactions of some members of the public; “Vivica Jimenez, who was among a group of anti-Trump protesters at the court [said] she was ‘happy and relieved’ with the guilty verdict. ‘It’s been a long time waiting for this,’ Jimenez said. ‘It’s very emotional.’ Jamie Bauer, another anti-Trump protester, also praised the verdict. ‘Justice is being served and Trump is being held accountable,’ Bauer said.” 

But, as is so often the case, Law Professor and former US Attorney Jonathan Turley states the facts clearly and succinctly:  “Trump was convicted in a trial with a Biden donor judge, who has a daughter who is a major Democratic operative, a lead prosecutor previously paid as a DNC political consultant selected in a…jury district that voted roughly 90% against Trump.”  

In April, we discussed the fact that New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan should have been removed from hearing the case against Donald Trump based upon his contributions (regardless of the amount) to the Biden campaign and several anti-Republican organizations, as well as his daughter’s political activities. This issue will no doubt be one ground for the inevitable appeal of Donald Trump’s conviction.

What other grounds are there for an appeal of this clearly erroneous verdict?

Among the plethora of issues available to the former President, there is one issue in particular that has the most promise – The instructions given to the jury were incorrect, and misstated the law applicable to the case.

These instructions were also the first time that the charges against Donald Trump were made clear, a violation of the former president’s right to a fair trial, and to be informed of the crimes with which he was accused.

In my book, The Making of a Martyr, an Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump, at both Chapters 5 and 7, I discuss the legal insufficiency of the Indictment brought against the former President, the document which formed the basis for his prosecution.    I  noted that “[u]nder Section 200.50 of the New York State Criminal Procedure Law, ‘an indictment must contain…(a) statement in each count that the grand jury…accuses the defendant…of a designated offense,” as well as “(a) plain and concise factual statement in each count which… asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant`s…commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant…of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation.’” 

I also stated that “a review of the New York County indictment revealed that “Donald Trump is accused of causing a false entry to be made in [his] business records…for the purpose of committing another crime…What other crime?  The indictment does not say… Simply put, how is former President Trump to prepare a defense, if he is not informed of the ‘other crime’ he intended to commit or conceal when he allegedly falsified his business records?”

This problem with the indictment was never resolved while the case was pending.  However, at the end of trial, the prosecutors and Judge finally revealed to the defense the theory of their case, which is described by Professor Turley in this way; “Merchan told the jury members that they [could] base their verdict on any one of three vaguely defined crimes of a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations. Thus, the jury could have divided 4-4-4 on what actually occurred but the verdict was still treated as unanimous by Merchan to convict Trump.”  

Sure enough, Judge Merchan’s instructions state  that “[u]nder [New York State] law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.”   This is true so far as it goes, however, the  “other crime” the former President intended to conceal is finally revealed – “a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152 [which] provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means…”

Judge Wilson’s article concludes tomorrow

The Kremlin this week released a series of “leaks” intended to signal the West that Russia is ready to freeze hostilities in Ukraine. It is far from the truth and belies the more dire long-term outlook planned for Ukraine by Russian President Vladmir Putin. He is fighting two major wars. One battlefield is located in Ukraine. The second struggle is more strategic and global. In that war Russia is allied with China, North Korea, and Iran in a lightly veiled effort to destroy the United States. Putin’s grand ideological vision shapes his perspectives. He yearns for the return of the days of glory and predominance of the Russian Empire over Europe. He uses misinformation, misdirection, disinformation, and propaganda as tools to aide him in his quest.

Putin’s long-term goal dictates that conspiracists in the Kremlin play a critical policy role today as well as prepare for roles in the future. Since 2014 leaders in the Russian government are following an increasingly “paranoid style” in how they view the West. Despite the recent reshuffling of many senior positions in the government, western analysts suggest that Putin’s confidants are simply becoming more public in their beliefs than in earlier days, when they talked quietly about reviving the Russian motherland to its former glory. It is important western leaders recognize that Putin’s strategic war against the West continues despite the latest offer of negotiations or the reshuffling inside the Kremlin.

The recent transfer of Nikolai Patrushev from head of the Russian Security Council to a less broad position as presidential aide should not be interpreted as a predictor that Putin is backing off his strategic and military objectives. It may be, in fact, an indication of the opposite… Putin appears to be garnering more power for himself by fulfilling multiple leadership roles. Ilya Matveev, writing in Moscow Times, says that the conspiratorial thinking of Kremlin insiders under Putin is not a new phenomenon and that the recent reshuffling in the leadership is not an indicator that Putin is backing off from his goals. He points out that “Putin fully assimilated Patrushev’s thinking into his own rhetoric. His recent speeches on the “centuries-old Russophobia of Western elites” are indistinguishable from Patrushev’s interviews.” The latest twist may be that the Russian leadership is becoming more open in advancing its goals.

Putin recently offered preconditions for halting its war in Ukraine. They were refused by Kyiv in the spring of 2022 and again today, along with the Kremlin’s additional demand for acceptance of Russian territorial gains since its invasion in February 2022. Vladimir Socor, of the Jamestown Foundation, says that Russia is not demanding Ukraine’s unconditional surrender to end the war, but, instead, is aiming to use the sham negotiations to create the appearance of Ukrainian and Russian consent to Russian-imposed conditions. “The terms, as currently outlined, would not end the war but rather enable Moscow to proceed to the next stage of the same open-ended war from stronger positions,” according to Socor.

The “ground truth” in Ukraine is vastly different than in the spring of 2022 when Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky felt compelled to participate in negotiations to gain time to strengthen his military forces. Today Putin is negotiating to have direct influence in Ukraine’s domestic affairs, as turn the nation-state into a permanently neutral, nonaligned, and nonnuclear country that is barred from entering into alliances with other states through a revision in its constitution. Putin knows these terms are unacceptable to Ukraine.  The limits of the treaty would leave Ukraine permanently vulnerable to Russian military blackmail, according to Socor. “In parallel,” he adds, “the Kremlin seeks to foster divisive debates in the West and within Ukrainian society by offering political conditions for ‘ending the war’ or a ‘freeze.’ Acceptance of Russia’s conditions would only cement its territorial gains, which would, in turn, create new threats to a rump Ukraine and its Western neighbors.” Putin may not obtain his goal of restoring the Russian Empire. He may, however, be a part of a globally disruptive alliance that will bring chaos to the world for many more years.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Parents who do not seem concerned by their child’s deteriorating  mental health status, and buy that same child a gun, which that child then proceeds to use on his fellow students, should probably expect to face either civil charges or criminal charges of neglect in one form or another.  This is particularly true when those parents had been warned by the school that their child had expressed a desire to use a gun to harm his classmates.  But did either Jennifer or James “cause death” by their neglect of Ethan?  Did the Crumbley’s breach their duty as parents to control their child and prevent him from harming others?

Both juries believed so.  “[A] juror told NBC News that the fact that Jennifer Crumbley had been the last known person to handle the 9 mm handgun after she took her son to the gun range helped solidify that she had a responsibility to prevent the shooting, even if she didn’t know specifically that he was planning the rampage…in James Crumbley’s case, the evidence was more glaring… [he] told investigators that he was the last person to handle the weapon by hiding it in an armoire and placing the ammunition underneath jeans in another drawer…[t]he evidence showed that James Crumbley understood how to safely secure a firearm because he owned two others, and investigators found in the home a gun safe for his weapons, a cable lock for the 9 mm handgun and a pamphlet about gun safety around juveniles.” 

Thus, we have the epitome of a “hard case”; a case that cries out, “somebody’s gotta pay!”  And pay the Crumbley’s did.

“Ethan Crumbley’s parents were sentenced to between 10 and 15 years behind bars…for their son’s 2021 massacre that left four students dead — the first time parents have been sentenced in a US mass school shooting. James and Jennifer Crumbley were handed down the prison time by Judge Cheryl Matthews in a Pontiac, Michigan courtroom after they were found guilty on involuntary manslaughter charges at separate trials…’These convictions are not about poor parenting, these convictions confirm repeated acts or lack of acts that could have halted an oncoming runaway train, about repeatedly ignoring things that would make a reasonable person feel the hair on the back of their neck stand up,’ Matthews said before announcing the sentences.” 

10 to 15 years incarceration – for involuntary manslaughter?

Certainly, the parents of the murdered schoolmates of Ethan Crumbley agreed with the verdict and sentence.  “Jill Soave, the mother of…slain student, Justin Shilling, 17, said the parents’ inaction on the day of the shooting ‘failed their son and failed us all.’ Justin’s father, Craig Shilling, said he was troubled by Jennifer Crumbley’s testimony during her trial in which she said she would not have done anything differently, even today. ‘The blood of our children is on your hands, too,’ Craig Shilling said.” 

But, if we remove ourselves from the obviously justifiable strong emotions of the case, we might see the problems presented by the “bad law” resulting from this “hard case.”

Recall that the Michigan prosecutor who brought the case “openly expressed her frustration with Michigan’s firearms laws.”  What is to stop her from bringing charges against any parent who legally buys their teenager a gun, anytime that young person uses that gun in a situation the prosecutor believes to be criminal?  Suppose the teenager shoots a duck or buck out of season – will the parents of that child be charged, especially if the youngster told his parents he was going hunting that afternoon with his friends?

Let us extrapolate further; what about parents who do not agree to “gender-affirming care” for their child?  Suppose that child acts out, and hurts themselves or others.  Could the parents be held criminally responsible for the actions of a child when those parents would not consent to their transition? Could they also be held responsible if the child does transition with their consent, but continues to exhibit suicidal or homicidal ideations, eventually acting upon those obsessions?

Consider that in March of 2023, Michigan expanded its civil rights law to include rights for gay and transgender peoples.  “The signing was heralded as a historic advancement in civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Michiganders by activists and policymakers. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer thanked the Democratic legislative majorities even as she worked to maintain her composure in a venue that was filled with emotion. ‘Their tears of happiness are coming down, I’m trying to hold it together — can’t look at them too much,’ she joked.”

“’Instead of being a hateful state, we are a state that shows love, and not only acceptance, but support of a beautiful and diverse community of folks who now know Michigan is a great place for not wanting to live, but thrive as who they are,’ S’Niayh Tate, a Black trans activist, said. Whitmer has coined the slogan, ‘bigotry is bad for business’ and is striving to brand Michigan as a state with an expansive view of civil rights.” 

In fact, “[u]nder Whitmer’s administration, the state has made significant updates to better serve trans and genderfluid people. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson changed the department’s policy in November 2021 to allow for the ‘X’ gender indicator on state IDs and driver’s licenses. That same year, Attorney General Dana Nessel said a state law that required trans residents to undergo sex-reassignment surgery before changing their gender on legal documents is likely unconstitutional.” 

“Gender-affirming healthcare has come a long way in Michigan,”  according to PrideSource. “Kalamazoo County is taking the lead when it comes to gender-affirming healthcare. YWCA Kalamazoo recently asked the county commission to allocate $100,000 for its Reproductive Health Fund. This fund covers things like childcare services and travel expenses for clients needing HRT, abortion care, PEP, doula services and the like…[t]he reproductive health fund does not use public county dollars to pay for direct abortion care. However, the fund does pay for abortion and gender-affirming care —both direct and practical support care — from alternative funding sources… of all the reproductive health services YWCA Kalamazoo provides, they’ve seen the greatest increase in demand for gender-affirming care.” 

Thus, with the support and encouragement of their Governor, Michigan is becoming more accepting of the “right” to gender-affirming care for its citizens.  Organizations like the YMCA can expect to receive funding from the government to support their efforts to provide that care.  And the civil rights law in Michigan will prevent someone from failing to provide or denying that same care – including, potentially, a parent who does not consent to the transitioning of their child.

Maybe it seems like a long way from a conviction for involuntary manslaughter for the parents of a school shooter, who did not seek mental health services for their child, by a prosecutor who does not favor the Second Amendment rights of the parents, to a conviction for that same crime for a parent who doesn’t consent to the gender-transitioning of their child who then commits an act of violence, for a charge brought by a prosecutor who favors expanded civil rights for t.

But is it? 

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

Photo: Pixabay

There is an old adage among lawyers that goes, “hard cases make bad law.”  As explained by former Law School Professor Alice Baker, “a ‘hard’ case is a case that involves extreme unfairness. It’s a case that seems to cry out for a remedy so strongly that judges may be motivated by sympathy for the plaintiff’s plight, check their brains at the door, and fail to think through the logical implications of the legal rule they are creating. Whenever you find yourself saying, ‘Somebody’s gotta pay!’ that’s an indication that you’ve fallen into the world of ‘hard cases make bad law.’ It’s a warning signal that you need to be extra careful to think through the logical implications of every legal rule you adopt, so you don’t inadvertently create legal rules that do not work well when they’re generalized to other cases.” 

Recently, a very hard case in Michigan has made some extremely bad law – law that could easily become a major problem for parents across the country.

“On Tuesday, Nov. 30, [2021] police say [15 year old] student Ethan Crumbley opened fire at Oxford High School, fatally striking four teenage students and wounding six students and one teacher. The shooting only lasted minutes, according to law enforcement, who arrived on the scene quickly after receiving more than 100 calls to 911 due to the active shooter. Deputies with the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office apprehended the shooter, who reportedly surrendered to them without incident.”

Tragic as these events are, this would appear to be just one mass school shooting out of the hundred or so which have occurred across the world in the past few years.  Another disaffected young person who gained access to a weapon, and took out his frustrations on his fellow students.

Despite his young age, two years after the shooting, Crumbley was sentenced to life without parole. “Dismissing last-minute defense pleas that Crumbley’s life is salvageable, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Kwamé Rowe noted that the ‘defendant in his own words’ told the court ‘this is nobody’s fault but his own.’ Rowe said victim Justin Shilling, 17, was shot at point-blank range after being told by the defendant to get on his knees. Hana St. Juliana, 14, was shot a second time after she was down…[Judge Rowe stated] ‘That is an execution. That is torture. He shot most people multiple times. And, as he wrote, he did this for notoriety. And he wanted to go down … as the biggest school shooter in Michigan history.’” 

We can debate whether someone as young as 17 years old at the time of his sentencing should receive incarceration for life without the possibility of parole.  But there can be no reasonable doubt that a crime of this magnitude richly deserves a very severe punishment.

No, the issue here does not involve the arrest, prosecution and conviction of Ethan Crumbley.  Instead, we are concerned with the fate of his parents, James and Jennifer Crumbley.

In December of 2021, “Oakland County, Michigan prosecutor Karen McDonald filed four counts of involuntary manslaughter against James and Jennifer Crumbley… [a]t the press conference announcing the charges, McDonald openly expressed her frustration with Michigan’s firearms laws. Like many midwestern states, Michigan has a strong hunting tradition, and fully anticipates its minor children will handle firearms…[t]hat’s likely why McDonald kept stressing the importance of ‘responsible’ gun ownership. She’s acknowledging to her constituents — and voters — that teens can have access to firearms in Michigan if done responsibly. This is in contrast to what the state alleges the Crumbleys did: allow their son access to a gun despite repeated warnings that he might use the weapon to hurt others.” 

According to attorney Samuel Strom, “Involuntary manslaughter (also called criminally negligent manslaughter) occurs when one person kills another resulting from an accident or gross negligence. It also occurs when someone intends to cause bodily harm to another person but without the intent to kill them. Unlike a murder charge, involuntary manslaughter means that a person had no intention of killing another but, due to their careless or reckless actions, caused the death of a human being.”  

Before trial, the Crumbley’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that “the charges have no legal justification and that they should not be held responsible for their son’s killings.”  However, the Michigan appellate court disagreed; “We share defendants’ concern about the potential for this decision to be applied in the future to parents whose situation viz-a-viz their child’s intentional conduct is not as closely tied together, and/or the warning signs and evidence were not as substantial as they are here,” the Court wrote. In justifying these charges in this case, “the judges cited text messages from the months before the massacre in which Crumbley told his parents about experiencing paranoia and hallucinations, including his belief that a demon was throwing objects around the house. When his mother didn’t reply, he sent her another message asking, ‘can you at least text back.’ His mother did not text back that day and was riding horses with James at the time, according to the opinion. Crumbley also told a friend that he believed he was having a mental breakdown and asked his parents for medical help but that his father told him to ‘suck it up’ and his mother laughed, according to the opinion.” 

At the trial of Ethan’s mother Jennifer, the “[t]he prosecution had to prove one of two theories beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.       That Jennifer ’caused death’ due to her grossly negligent actions, or

2.       That Jennifer breached her duty as a parent to ‘exercise reasonable care to control their minor child so as to prevent the minor child from intentionally harming others or prevent the minor child from conducting themselves in a way that creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others.’”

As described by attorney Strom, “the prosecution argued that Ethan asked his parents for mental health help from a professional, which they ignored…[Ethan’s father James] bought Ethan a gun on November 26, 2021. On November 30, 2021, a teacher found a drawing Ethan left on his desk. The drawing depicted a handgun, a person appearing to have been shot, and a message saying, ‘The thoughts won’t stop,’ and ‘Help me.’ A concerned school staff member reported the note to the administration. The school called Ethan’s parents, who met with school staff about the drawing and notes that day. The prosecution asserted that the parents decided to leave Ethan in school that day rather than take him home. Neither parent told the school about Ethan’s mental health issues or that they had bought him a gun recently. Shortly after the meeting, Ethan committed the mass shooting with the gun his parents bought just days earlier.”

Judge Wilson’s analysis concludes tomorrow

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

Photo: Pixabay

NATO  Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently released the organization’s annual status report

We present his summary:

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine rages on, there is a new war in the Middle East, and Allies face greater competition from authoritarian states, including China. In addition, we still face a range of other threats to our security, including terrorism, cyber attacks and climate change. The world has become more dangerous, but NATO is stronger.

In 2023, NATO grew bigger and more capable. Finland became a NATO Ally, and we have just welcomed Sweden as well. We continued to strengthen our defences. At our Summit in Vilnius, we agreed robust new plans to defend every inch of Alliance territory. These plans are backed by hundreds of thousands of troops and highly capable air and naval forces at a high state of readiness – and with eight battlegroups on our eastern flank, stretching from the Baltic to the Mediterranean Sea, scalable to brigade size.

In 2023, defence spending increased by an unprecedented 11% across Europe and Canada. Since we agreed the Defence Investment Pledge in 2014, European Allies and Canada will have spent more than USD 600 billion extra on defence. In 2024, we expect two-thirds of Allies to meet or exceed the target of investing 2% of Gross Domestic Product in defence. At the Vilnius Summit, we agreed the Defence Production Action Plan, to ramp up production and replenish our stocks of weapons and ammunition. Billions of dollars of contracts have already been signed with defence industry. This will mean more security for Allies, more supplies for Ukraine, and more highly skilled jobs across Europe and North America.

In addition to strengthening our own collective defence, NATO continues to support Ukraine. Ukraine must prevail as an independent, sovereign nation. If Putin wins, this would send a dangerous message to authoritarian leaders around the world that they can achieve their objectives through war and violence. Supporting Ukraine is not charity, it is in our own security interest.

At the Vilnius Summit, we brought Ukraine closer to NATO than ever before. We established the NATOUkraine Council where we meet to discuss and take decisions on our common security interests, as equals. We are helping to transition Ukraine from Soviet-era to NATO equipment and standards. We have also removed the requirement for a Membership Action Plan, significantly shortening Ukraine’s path to membership. All Allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of NATO.

China is watching our actions closely. China does not share our values, it challenges our interests, and Beijing is increasingly aligned with Moscow. We will continue to trade and engage with China, but we must manage the risks and prepare for enduring competition.

NATO is a regional alliance that faces global challenges, so our partnerships around the world are essential for our security. We continue to work closely with the European Union on a wide range of security issues. We are also deepening our cooperation with our partners in the Indo-Pacific – Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea – and I have appointed a group of experts to review NATO’s approach to our southern neighbourhood.

2024 marks the 75th anniversary of the NATO Alliance. In all those years, the bond between Europe and North America has kept our nations secure and our people safe. At the Washington Summit in July, we will send a powerful message of unity, solidarity and resolve – to prevent war and preserve peace.

Shattered Peace: Responding to Russia’s Aggression

NATO tried to build a partnership with Russia for decades. Over the past decade, however, Russia has continuously violated the norms and principles that have contributed to a stable and predictable European security order. Russia’s brutal and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, launched in February 2022, has shattered the hard-earned peace in Europe.

As NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept makes clear, the Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security, and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. Russia seeks to establish spheres of influence and direct control through coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation. It uses conventional, cyber and hybrid means against NATO and its partners. Its coercive military posture, rhetoric and proven willingness to use force to pursue its political goals undermine the rules-based international order. The Russian Federation is modernising its nuclear forces and expanding its novel and disruptive dual-capable delivery systems, while employing coercive nuclear signalling. It aims to destabilise countries to our East and South. In the High North, its capability to disrupt Allied reinforcements and freedom of navigation across the North Atlantic is a strategic challenge to the Alliance. Moscow’s military build-up, including in the Baltic, Black and Mediterranean Sea regions, along with its military integration with Belarus, challenge the Alliance’s security and interests.

 In light of its hostile policies and actions, NATO cannot consider Russia to be a partner. Any change in the relationship depends on Russia halting its aggressive behaviour and fully complying with international law. NATO remains willing to keep open channels of communication with Moscow to manage and mitigate risks, prevent escalation and increase transparency. NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia.

At the Vilnius Summit in July, Allies agreed to continue to consult on and assess the implications of Russia’s policies and actions for Allied security, and respond to Russian threats and hostile actions in a united and responsible way.

Photo: Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Foreign Ministers’ Session (NATO)

Chinese ships, planes, and military personnel are congregating around Taiwan this week as Beijing launches one of its most aggressive military drills in recent years. Its goal is to increase pressure on the island’s newly inaugurated president, Lai Ching-Te. Each year China holds military drills from June to November. This year Beijing is ratcheting up pressure on Taiwan as well as effectively normalizing increased military activity in and around the island. “Hide and bide” is long dead and buried — it’s now “shout and flout.”

Chinese Coast Guard ships sailed within four nautical miles of Taiwanese waters near Kinmen Island four times this month and for the first time were joined by other Chinese government agencies. Kinmen is considered Taiwan’s strategic frontline island. China maintains three well-situated and supplied PLA Air bases as well along its coast opposite Taiwan with its maritime resources located nearby. According to Ian Ellis, a military analyst studying Chinese military strategy, “Throughout February, March, and April, Chinese Coast Guard vessels frequently entered Kinmen’s restricted waters and contiguous zone. On 29 April, Beijing announced it had ‘normalized’ regular patrols.”

Ray Powell, a maritime security analyst at the Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation at Stanford University, adds that China’s “open and heavily publicized characterization of its military exercises as ‘punishment’ and a ‘warning’ feels like a calculated rhetorical escalation. It wants the whole world to take note.” Since Lai assumed power this week, China “has launched two days of large-scale military drills surrounding Taiwan … days after the self-ruling island swore in a new democratically elected leader who called on Beijing to cease its intimidation tactics,” according to Shannon Brandao, an attorney who follows Chinese legal and military affairs. PLA Naval Colonel Li Xi, spokesperson for the command, called the exercises “a strong punishment for the separatist acts of Taiwan independence forces and a serious warning against interference and provocation by external forces.”

A CCN report on Thursday said a senior official responsible for Taiwan’s security affairs pointed out that the military detected about 30 Chinese aircraft, most of which crossed the Median Line into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ).  China also deployed about a dozen Chinese warships and another dozen Coast Guard vessels near Taiwan’s outlying islands, according to the official. President Lai, who is labeled a “dangerous separatist” by Beijing, responded to the provocation by deploying Taiwan’s warships to monitor the situation. “While other countries treat maritime incidents as crises to be deescalated, Beijing seizes upon them as pretext for calculated escalations, by which it means to reset the board in its favor,” writes Ray Powell.

China’s state broadcaster CCTV is reporting that dozens of Chinese fighter jets carrying live ammunition conducted mock strikes against “high-value military targets” of the “enemy” alongside destroyers, frigates, and missile speedboats. To the north, two massive civil-military ferries that are part of the PLA-associated Bohai Ferry Group diverted from normal operating routes in the Yellow Sea and are heading south. The exercises, which started on Thursday, will encircle all of Taiwan and pose President Lai’s first challenge as he attempts to balance its relationship with Beijing. Chinese aggression is not limited to the waters around Taiwan. Last week China positioned five coast guard ships and six maritime militia vessels near the shoal belonging to the Philippines and had another 25 or so maritime militia vessels sitting roughly 60 miles further out, according to Powell. 

As the number and intensity of incidents increases, so does the likelihood of an accident or deliberate act. The US operates about 200 ships and 150,000 sailors and civilians in its Pacific fleet. They make up 60 percent of the entire US Navy. Despite America’s advanced military technologies, Beijing has an advantage in a cross-Strait war with Taiwan. Its geographic location ensures short supply lines. The US Navy also is constraints by requirements that it patrol and protect wide swaths of the Pacific. This week the full Armed Services Committee in Congress is marking up the National Defense Authorization Act 2025 budget request. Even if Congress allots funding for additional ships and planes, it will be many years before they are operational in the Pacific. Beijing knows they have a window of opportunity that may not last long if President Biden is not re-elected. This year’s drills are more important than ever for Beijing.

Photo: Missile boats attached to a missile boat group with the navy under the PLA Southern Theater Command sail in formation. Photo by Wan Songtao)