Category: Quick Analysis

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government provides key excerpts from the State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism .

Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the United States established a strong and sophisticated counterterrorism enterprise to reduce the threat of large-scale terrorist attacks on the homeland.  More than 20 years later, the terrorist threats we currently face are more ideologically and geographically diffuse.  At the same time, the United States is confronting a diverse and dynamic range of other national security challenges, including strategic competition, cybersecurity threats, and climate change.  To tackle evolving and emerging terrorist threats within the context of broader national security priorities, the United States inaugurated a new counterterrorism policy, shifting from a U.S.-led, military-centric approach to one that prioritizes diplomacy, partner capacity building, and prevention.  Striking a new balance between military and civilian counterterrorism efforts recognizes the need to deploy the full range of counterterrorism (CT) tools and ensures a more sustainable whole-of-government and whole-of-society CT approach with allies and partners around the world.

In 2022, under this new framework, the United States and its partners continued to succeed against terrorist organizations, bolstering diplomatic and multilateral engagements and partner capacity building efforts.  Through U.S. leadership, the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS (Defeat-ISIS) raised more than $440 million in stabilization pledges – including a U.S. pledge of $107 million – to support infrastructure and other critical projects in Iraq and northeastern Syria.  In November the United States and the United Kingdom co-hosted a donors’ conference with 14 governments, and with numerous UN and humanitarian organizations, to discuss steps to improve the security and humanitarian conditions at the al-Hol displaced persons camp in northeast Syria.  

The Department of State led Defeat-ISIS’s renewed focus on countering ISIS branches across Africa.  In 2022 the Coalition welcomed Benin as its 85th member and 13th member from sub-Saharan Africa.  In March, Defeat-ISIS’s Africa Focus Group (AFFG), established in 2021 to address the growing ISIS threat in sub-Saharan Africa, convened its first working-level meeting in Rome and met again in May on the margins of the Defeat-ISIS ministerial.  In October the AFFG co-chairs of Morocco, Niger, Italy, and the United States met in Niamey to identify programmatic gaps and deconflict existing partner efforts in the region.  The AFFG will continue to utilize existing coordination mechanisms and enhance African members’ counterterrorism capacities.

In May the Department of State, in partnership with the Department of Justice, launched the first-ever Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Forum (CTLEF) to improve information sharing and international coordination to counter racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism (REMVE).  The CTLEF, which was co-hosted by the United States and the Government of Germany, brought more than 100 criminal justice practitioners, financial regulators, and security professionals from over 30 countries and multilateral organizations to Berlin.  The inaugural meeting increased the United States and our partners’ collective understanding of REMVE networks, groups, and individuals, including transnational links between and among REMVE actors.

Despite key counterterrorism successes, terrorist groups remained resilient and determined to attack.  ISIS maintained an enduring global enterprise, promoting a large-scale terrorism campaign across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.  While the death of ISIS leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi in February marked an important milestone against the terrorist group, ISIS remained capable of conducting large-scale attacks.  In 2022, ISIS maintained a significant underground operational structure and conducted terrorist operations throughout Iraq and Syria.  An estimated 10,000 ISIS fighters, including 1,800 Iraqis and 2,000 ISIS fighters from outside Syria and Iraq, also remained in detention facilities controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces.  Additionally, 18,000 Syrians, 26,000 Iraqis, and roughly 10,000 third-country nationals from more than 60 countries remain in al-Hol and Roj displaced persons camps in northeast Syria.  In West Africa, ISIS affiliates increasingly expanded across borders and coordinated asymmetric attacks, including a July prison break near the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria.  ISIS expanded its recruitment and operations across key locales, growing its global network to approximately 20 branches and affiliates.

In 2022, al-Qa’ida and its affiliates remained resilient and determined, even following the death of leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in July.  Senior al-Qa’ida leaders continued to oversee a global network to target the United States and U.S. interests, particularly in Africa and the Middle East.  In East Africa, al-Shabaab (AS) sustained de facto control over significant portions of south-central Somalia.  AS also maintained its capability to conduct high-profile attacks in the region, including against U.S. citizens and infrastructure, and aspired to coordinate attacks against the U.S. homeland and Europe.  In West Africa, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) intensified attacks in the Sahel, increasingly threatening capital cities and U.S. embassies in the region, and expanded operations in the northern border regions of Coastal West Africa.

The Report concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

In a bizarre way, the repulsive antisemitic “Gaza” protests have had one good result. They have exposed the actual character and malevolent goals of those responsible for the variety of disruptions that have plagued the nation across recent years.

Over the past decade or so, the same hard-left activists who are now in the streets purportedly for Gaza have terrorized cities and college campuses with threatening events that were miscast by biased media outlets as “peaceful.” They all had at least one thing in common, whether they were portrayed as Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Climate Change, or supporting Gaza (actually Hamas.)

The stated purpose of these gatherings was not and is not the true motivation for the organizers. Rather, the ultimate goal is an assault on Western Civilization, free markets, and individual rights.

Despite the reality that the greatest era of prosperity and human freedom is a direct and specific result of the rise of Western Civilization over the past several hundred years, there is a subset of people who insist that it was a turn for the worse. They dislike the fact that, despite the general hike in standards of living, some have prospered more than others, and that repulses them. In their perspective, it would be better for everyone to be equally poor. Capitalism, the engine of that rise, is their target. They ignore the utter failures of rival concepts such as socialism and communism over the past century because at least everyone was equally miserable. Hence, occupy Wall Street and its numerous spinoffs.

But not everyone should be equal, as history shows..  A tiny percentage of elites, whether called Communist commissars or National Socialist fascists, carved out a privileged life for themselves. That role is now taken by powerful politicians, the Davos crowd, and shadowy Soros-style billionaires.

The United States in the 21^st century is the most successful heterogenous society that has ever existed, with equal rights and opportunities for all. That fact infuriates those who seek to produce ethnic and racial division as a means to dissemble the melting pot that produced American society, for the purpose of disrupting and attacking the country from within.

The hard left’s most successful and widespread strategy has been the rise of environmental extremism. Progressives seek to use highly exaggerated or utterly falsified studies to insist that America’s milieu of a free market and individual rights must be overthrown to “save the planet.” Once again, facts are ignored. The centralized planning societies they want to institute have a far worse record of conservation and good stewardship than their capitalist counterparts. Governments that have followed their advice have succumbed to food shortages and economic pain, with no commensurate environmental improvement. In order to dismantle free societies across the world, they seek to eliminate property rights and constitutional safeguards to allow elitists to dictate how goods and foods are produced and distributed. The end result, of course is that those elites are free to travel the globe in private jets and dine on champagne and steak while insisting that you eat bugs and take the bus. 

So, what does all have to do with the Gaza protests?  Hamas is a socialist-oriented terrorist group that cares nothing for individual rights. They have committed some of the worst human rights violations since the Nazis ruled Germany. Their immediate enemy is Israel, a nation which allows personal freedom and has a free market, the twin enemies of the protestors. But every nation that allows personal freedom and each society that produces prosperity through free markets is in their long-range crosshairs.

Supporting a group so loathsome opened the eyes of those who were so willing to blind themselves to the lies and evil intentions of the hard left, and to the reality that the causes they allegedly support are nothing but camouflage for their ultimate, wicked goals.

Photo: Pixabay

Finding Waldo is easy compared to uncovering all the locations where China is operating covertly in the world. With so many “hot spots” ready to erupt into armed conflict and others already experiencing kinetic warfare, China’s misdirected misadventures often receive little attention from overworked military analysts, and far less from the mainstream media… especially Chinese efforts inside our borders.

In a filth-ridden building filled with blood samples, Environmental Protection Agency hazmat contractors collected 800 containers of genetically altered mice and potentially lethal infectious agents. The California biolab, called Universal Meditech, appears connected to the Chinese military. Some of the reputed deadly agents and parasites there included Ebola, HIV, Malaria, Dengue fever, and hepatitis. Jia Bei Zhu, a Chinese national using several names and labeled a flight risk by US officials, is now sitting in a US prison after lying to federal agents and selling fraudulent COVID-19 and pregnancy tests. Although Jia received significant payments from China, simply possessing these deadly agents may not be prosecutable under US law. 

How is the US responding to this ongoing threat? According to one source in Washington, the Biden Administration determined that the biolab and its deadly contents did not constitute an apparent “activated” threat. Fox News reported that it had not received an official response from the Department of Homeland Security when it inquired recently if its BioWatch Program, National Biosurveillance Integration Center or the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center were activated. 

Last November the House Select Committee on China issued a 40-page report on the Reedley, California biolab calling the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) response “inadequate.” The report says CDC failed to actually test the vial to make their determinations and that “Despite the probability that the unlabeled or coded vials contained additional unknown and dangerous pathogens, CDC official refused to take any further investigative steps,” and failed to take any “meaningful actions” when provided classified evidence that Ebola was present. No one appears to be investigating the lab or why everyone from federal to California EPA, to local health agencies did not want to get involved. 

Worse yet, the lab was able to move last October although officials knew of the plan ahead of time. When a Fresno official, according to Fox News, reached out to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for emergency assistance, the state agency said it would not get involved. In an email to other DTSC colleagues, Fox News reports that the senior environmental scientist wrote that he was “Glad it won’t be added to our workload… but not so sure what will happen to it.” One local Reedley, California official said the investigation could take years.

The suspected Chinese biolab in California is only one known case of the Chinese government operating inside US borders. American intelligence officials, who asked to remain anonymous, stated this week that they know the Wuhan lab that produced the COVID-19 virus had military connections and was working on other deadly pathogens. That same analyst also says that US Government tests indicate the virus was manipulated into its deadly form by humans, not nature. Perhaps worse, is that there are indications the Chinese lab was working on a deadly agent that could be spread through aerosol delivery systems onto crops. Some government analysts suggest that the Chinese weather balloons may have been a test case for China to determine a US response. Others in the Biden Administration this week say that there is no need for concern and that it is simply a conspiracy theory. That does not explain the 800 containers collected by the hazmat team in Reedley, a town often referred to locally as America’s “bread basket.”  

Last fall Scripps News reporters investigated the case and found the address where the lab had moved.  “When we arrived, we found a modern building in stark contrast to the run-down warehouse in Reedley. It was surrounded by security cameras made by a Chinese surveillance technology firm called Hikvision, which is now banned from selling its products in the US for national security reasons,” notes Sasha Ingber.

We know about high-flying balloons and some of the illegal biolabs, what else is China hiding in plain sight inside our borders? Give the country’s open attitude under the Biden Administration, it is easy for China to operate in small American towns. Anna Puglisi, a former U. national counterintelligence officer for East Asia, told Scripps News that China goes way beyond traditional espionage and [activities] are deliberately carried out in more remote parts of this country… China looks beyond the national and they do look to the state and local. It’s easier to operate,” she said. “We’re not used to dealing with issues like this at the state and local level. And so, it really requires a raising of awareness of how China is targeting different parts of our society.” Finding Waldo needs to become “finding Chinese espionage programs” inside the United States before we become the world’s newest “hot spot.”

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

The world has turned upside down so many times in the last few years that many political analysts studying Russia say they have lost track of which way is up. There is one area, however, in which there does appear to be consensus in Washington. The war in Ukraine appears to be approaching a significant turning point as Putin faces mounting domestic problems along with an extended stalemate on the battlefield. Although the Russian president boasts about victories on the frontlines, the current state of the war against Ukraine belies a different reality. 

Recent Russian military actions in Avdiivka, in the Donbas region, suggest a level of Kremlin desperation not previously seen in the war. The Biden Administration released a declassified intelligence assessment last week that estimated Russian troops killed and wounded in the attacks on the Ukrainian garrison in Avdiivka stand at around 13,000 personnel. Pavel Baev, of the Jamestown Foundation, says that despite the challenges of war Putin remains “defiantly confident” that his forces are making progress. 

The Rossiiskaya Gazeta reports that Putin made his first campaign trip in 2024 to the Far East to boast about what he labels as his military successes and to highlight economic improvement in a very depressed area of Chukotka, in easternmost Russia. Many cities in the region remain without electricity or heating in subzero temperatures common at this time of year. Moscow also lacks adequate heating and electricity as the war continues to disrupt life in the capital city.  

The Siberian paper suggests openly that the local population was “not assured” by Putin’s statement that Moscow residents were also suffering from the cold without access to heating and electricity. Another local publication says the administration’s attempt to show that candidate Putin was physically strong enough to brave the cold simply “failed.” Political cartoons appeared in Russia media soon after the trip showing local agricultural products, including tomatoes and cucumbers, with Putin’s surname after them. Commenters mocked the Russian president saying a “Viagra formula” was used on the greenhouse cucumbers due to the 12 below zero temperatures so that when Putin touched them, they came to life. “Moscow’s struggle with providing adequate heating and electricity for its population points to Putin’s increasingly dubious attempts to pretend that his war in not coming home to ordinary Russian and disrupting their everyday lives,” according to Paul Goble in the Eurasian Daily Monitor.

Putin’s messaging is contradictory, says Baev. The failed attacks on Avdiivka proved that time is not on Russia’s side. Similarly, missile attacks aimed to prove its air superiority had limited success. Most were intercepted and none caused any critical military or economic damage. 

Ukrainian president Zelensky is addressing a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week. He is expected to discuss his propositions for a “peace formula” to rehabilitate the European security system. The Kremlin says there is no point to talk peace without Russia’s input. Baev says a shift in the balance of power is coming and it will be determined by three key changes. The first he points to is the European Union’s (EU) decision on additional aid for Ukraine (estimated to be $54.53 billion) and maintaining investment to increase the production of artillery shells. Second, the US Congress still faces a controversial vote on a complex aid package that amounts to $61.4 billion in military support. Finally, it appears more time may be required to channel frozen Russian financial assets, estimated at around $300 billion, to support and reconstruct Ukraine. Sources in Moscow suggest that Putin is increasingly nervous as he has little control over whether the US will move forward with confiscating and repurposing the funds, although most of the money resides in European banks. The EU will most likely decide how to proceed after its June parliamentary elections.

Putin’s strategy to date is to create a deep chasm among Western states to reduce their support for Ukraine. Kremlin propaganda teams are working overtime this month advocating for a reduction in Western funding, while also attempting to hide the depth of economic stress in Russia during a period when its military already is operating at full capacity.

“Each of Putin’s strategic designs for crushing Ukraine has failed, and it is highly probable that, as the war nears it three-year-mark, the Kremlin will miscalculate the degree of Western fatigue and discord,” says Baev. Ukraine remains determines and the West is standing behind Zelensky. The combination could spell major trouble for Putin’s war effort this spring at home and on the battlefront.
  
 Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

As described by NBC News, “(e)very day it seems there’s another violent attack on a subway or bus in New York City, a crime wave that has set many residents on edge…(w)hether it’s a mass shooting on a train… or a string of random knife attacks…transit crime has been at the forefront of many people’s minds. In fact, statistics show that crime on subways and buses is up more than 41 percent in 2022 compared to the same time period in 2021.” 

Probably the  most frustrating aspect of the crime increase, is the overt discouragement of acting in defense of self or others – the punishment of a “good deed.”  As Bob McManus, writing in the New York Post states,  “(h)ere’s the thing about self-defense in the big city: You can be damned if you do, but maybe dead if you don’t – and you can never know which in advance. Do you risk it? Think of this as Daniel Penny’s dilemma – and New York City’s into the foreseeable future. Penny chose to defend himself and other F-train passengers…(w)hen it was over, a career criminal with a long history of violent behavior was dead — and the former Marine Corps sergeant was ­under arrest.”  

Now, yet another subway incident has occurred to remind would-be Good Samaritans of the price to be paid in New York for making any effort to halt a crime.

“A vigilante gunman was arrested,” according to the New York Post, “as wild surveillance video emerged showing him brazenly opening fire in a Manhattan subway station in what officials called an ‘outrageous’ and ‘reckless’ attempt to thwart a robbery. John Rote, 43, of Astoria was taken into custody at his Manhattan job shortly after 2 p.m. after he was recognized by someone who saw the footage of him allegedly opening fire on the homeless man who was trying to rob a woman on the platform of the Times Square station…Rote, who has no prior arrests, was charged with criminal possession of a weapon, criminal possession of a firearm, reckless endangerment and menacing, the NYPD said.” 

Sure enough, Rote can be seen on video, standing on the train platform, pointing his gun down the platform.  As reported by Fox5, “inside the N-R-W subway station at West 49th and 7th Avenue, a panhandler had opened the emergency gate and threatened to steal the purse of a woman if she didn’t give him money. According to police, Rote told officers he was watching and pulled out a gun he was carrying and fired warning shots in an attempt to stop the mugging.” 

Of course, there are drastic differences between the charges Rote is faced with and the case brought against Penny.  Penny did not use a weapon; Rote did, but his actions did not result in physical harm to anyone.  In fact, the person threatening the female subway rider, 49 year old homeless repeat offender Matthew Roesch “was arrested at the scene…charged with attempted robbery and was given supervised release.”  Meanwhile, Rote was eventually released after posting $10,000 bond. h

Another difference involves the reaction of those each tried to protect.  While his fellow subway riders praised Penny and thanked him for protecting their lives, Rote’s victim has a different view.  “Of course, I am happy that that man tried to help me and that nobody was injured during this incident, but it’s scary to think that people are carrying guns around the city,” the 40 year old unidentified woman told the New York Post.  “The gun was pointed in my direction, and that’s all I saw. It was a feeling of pure terror that I don’t wish on anyone.” 

Remember the explanation given earlier of the proverb, “no good deed goes unpunished?” “You try to help someone, then they respond by hurting or betraying you.”

Nonetheless, as the victim points out, the discharge of the firearm is the most significant difference between the two cases.  “Straphangers like Rocket Clayman are now making their own statements about this kind of intervention. ‘I think that we need stronger gun control across the board in this country. So I certainly would not be in favor of somebody firing a shot,’ Clayman said.”  Meanwhile, “71-year-old Hell’s Kitchen resident Percy Palmer is supportive of Rote’s alleged actions. ‘I don’t think it was too much, though, because you don’t know what that person had that’s attacking that woman instead of asking her, may I have a dollar or something like that,’ Palmer said.” 

It’s clear that the authorities take a very dim view of Rote’s actions. According to NYC Mayor Eric Adams, “this is not a Charles Bronson era with ‘Death Wish’…(l)et the police do their job – don’t think you can do their job without the proper training that comes from law enforcement.” Then there is this statement from Richard Davey, the President of NYC Transit; “I want to be clear: we don’t tolerate this kind of conduct in NYC Transit, period…Once again cameras recorded a perpetrator, and we are grateful the NYPD made an arrest within hours. Thank goodness nobody was hurt here – but what occurred was outrageous, reckless, and unacceptable.” 

Of course, these comments ignore the fact that there were no police in the vicinity.  In fact, since the “defund the police” movement in the wake of the death of George Floyd, “New York has seen record departures by police for each of the past three years…(i)n 2022, about 3,700 departed (an increase of 32 percent over the previous year), and fewer than 2,000 were hired. And it wasn’t only uniformed officers exiting. According to the Detectives Endowment Association, in June 2022 alone, more than 100 detectives left the job. Based on the first two months of 2023, the NYPD is likely to continue bleeding blue. In January and February, 239 officers left—almost 40 percent more than in the same period in 2022, and a 117 percent jump over 2021. If the pace keeps up, the department could lose more than 5,000 officers this year.” 

Less police officers overall means less police officers available to patrol the subways.  Yet, the Mayor and Police Department leadership have tried to put a positive face on their dwindling available police resources. “New York City has a new strategy to make riders feel safer on the subway: Alerting people at certain stops that police are stationed there in case they want to get off the train and report a crime,” according to Bloomberg.  Which means after you’ve been menaced, robbed or assaulted on the train, you can report the crime once you get to a station where a police officer is present.  How comforting!

The sad fact is that “(i)ncreased policing on the subway has not led to increased safety on the subway,” according to Ileana Mendez-Peñate, a program director with Communities United for Police Reform.  

It is not unreasonable to express some level of concern over a firearm being fired in a subway station.  However, much like Daniel Penny, John Rote might also be facing more serious charges than are warranted.

At Rote’s arraignment, his public defender claimed that Rote had bought the gun he fired legally.     But this ambiguous description could mean several things.  It remains unknown if Rote had any valid handgun license, whether it be for concealed carry, or if his license allowed him to transport his pistol to and from a firing range. 

Whatever “legal status” Rote may claim in his possession of the gun he fired also does not change the fact that New York’s restrictions on the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution are overly burdensome.  As we noted in June, the statutes used by Bragg are unconstitutionally inspecific and overbroad; “(U)nder New York Penal Law Section 265.01(1), a person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if “(h)e or she possesses any firearm,” which is defined at 265.00(3)(a) as “any pistol or revolver.”     Then there is the more onerous PL Section 265.01-b, enacted under former Governor Andrew Cuomo, which makes it a Class E felony to possess “any firearm.”  There is no qualitative difference between the language used in the felony charge or the misdemeanor quoted above…how is one to know whether one will be charged with the felony, or the misdemeanor, if one is found in possession of a pistol in a public place in New York City? Your guess is as good as mine – and I was a Criminal Lawyer for 20 years, and a Criminal Court Judge for 10 more.” 

The issue at the heart of both Penny and Rote’s cases is New York’s open and obvious policy of discouragement of the exercise of the right of self defense, or the defense of others. This is no secret; just ask anyone on X, formerly known as Twitter.   “So, NY keeps showing us that if you see something, do nothing,” one poster writes. “They wonder why crime continues to rise.” Another writes, “So basically. Don’t try save someone… cause NYC will arrest you and charge you. Awesome. If you wanted to put people Off from helping people NYC, you just did it.”  Yet another states, “So, this is how you’re rewarded for being a model citizen in New York? What a dump it’s turned into. When did it become detrimental to help someone being robbed?!” In other words, both Daniel Penny and John Rote have discovered the same truth – in New York, no good deed goes unpunished.

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

Photo: Pixabay

According to the website for the Grammarist, the proverb we have quoted for the title of today’s column “is a cynical twist on the idea that good people are rewarded for being good (when) in real life, this is often not the case. Many don’t understand that the ‘punishment’ may come from the person to whom you’ve done the good deed. You try to help someone, then they respond by hurting or betraying you.”  This phrase “has been variously attributed to Walter Winchell, John P. Grier, Oscar Wilde, Andrew Mellon, and Clare Boothe Luce. One of the earliest known uses was during the 12th century, when Walter Map wrote the phrase, “left no good deed unpunished, no bad one unrewarded,” in his work ‘De nugis curialium.'” 

No where has this fatalistic statement been proven to be more true, than in the cases of several individuals who have tried to stop crime in the New York City Subway system.

In May, we discussed the case of Daniel Penny, who was arrested and indicted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Homicide.   What did Penny do to deserve these charges?  As CNN describes the incident, “Penny held 30-year-old Jordan Neely in a chokehold during a May incident when Neely entered a subway car and began shouting at passengers. Neely died soon after, and the medical examiner ruled his death a homicide.” 

Of course, there is far more to Neely’s actions than entering a subway car and shouting at passengers.  In fact, eyewitness “Juan Alberto Vazquez said he was riding the subway when he saw a man, later identified as Neely, enter the car just as the doors were closing. Neely immediately launched into an aggressive rant about being ‘fed up and hungry’ and ‘tired of having nothing’…Vazquez quoted Neely as saying: ‘I don’t care if I die. I don’t care if I go to jail. I don’t have any food … I’m done.’ Neely then took off his coat and threw it on the floor and said he was ready to go to jail and get a life sentence…(m)any passengers became visibly uncomfortable and moved to other parts of the train car…(Penny) then approached Neely from behind and put him in a chokehold, Vazquez said.” 

In October, Penny’s defense lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the charges based upon Neely’s violent and provocative behavior, and Penny’s justifiable efforts to stop Neely before he could hurt the other passengers on the train.  How Penny could have been indicted in the first place is a mystery, given that “grand jury testimony from witnesses riding the subway during the incident (include) one of whom believed they were ‘going to die’…(t)hat unnamed witness, who said they have ridden the New York subway for six years, described the moment as ‘absolutely traumatizing,’ court documents say. . Another witness, a mother, said she took cover behind her stroller with her son to shield themselves from Neely, who was making ‘half-lunge movements’ and within ‘half a foot of people,’ the documents say.”

Several possible explanations for Bragg’s indictment of Penny are provided by the New York Times, “(t)he case has been politically volatile, involving issues that have polarized New Yorkers: violent incidents on the subway and the vulnerability of homeless and mentally ill people struggling through a crisis of affordability in an unequal city. It was also understood through the prism of race relations: Mr. Neely was Black and Mr. Penny is white.” 

In any event, as of this writing, the motion to dismiss has not yet been decided by the New York State Supreme Court.  But all the issues cited by the Times as contributing to the interest in the case still exist – particularly the problem of violence on the New York City subways.

Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) report concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

An overall examination of America’s descending fortunes is startling. The crisis is not restricted to any one area. It extends to a broad range of the most important aspects of national life. This turn of events was neither inevitable nor due to any external events.

In early November, Moody’s Investor Service let it be known that it was considering downgrading the U.S. Sovereign Credit Rating Outlook from neutral to negative. This follows the August downgrade by Fitch Ratings from AAA to AA+. An Atlantic Council review noted that “The downgrading decision is another warning sign, and the only question is why it took twelve years for Fitch to follow the move by S&P to remove the AAA rating on US long-term debt. Neither the complacency of markets nor the forced optimism of officials reflects the seriousness of the rating agencies’ concerns.”

Beyond government debt, which has risen from $10.3 trillion in 2008 to $33 trillion today, with no appreciable gain in infrastructure, military strength, education, or any other aspect in the national life, individual Americans are dealing with massive inflation.

The U.S. had achieved energy independence, but this extraordinary accomplishment was thrown away. Now, Washington begs for supplies from nations hostile to it.

American education is failing. A Fortune study found that “American students are in trouble. About a third of students in the youngest grades are behind on reading. Only 36% of fourth graders are proficient at grade-level math. The newest National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP)–the nation’s report card–shows eighth-graders’ history scores are the lowest on record since the assessment began in 1994. And what’s more, every single state experienced teacher shortages in at least one subject in 2022.”

73.654 people died as a result of Fentanyl last year, notes usafacts. FBI Statistics indicate that property crimes and carjacking’s have increased sharply. Random violence haunts major cities.

The United States is functioning as a nation without borders. At least 2.8 million persons have entered the U.S. illegally this year. This will produce a massive increase in human trafficking, foreign agents, and terrorists. Additionally, state and local governments are experiencing massive financial difficulties in dealing with the housing, medical, educational, and food needs of the influx.

Race relations have descended dramatically, not due to any actual reason but due to the political posturing of a very vocal progressive pressure group, the same people who have introduced antisemitism into American universities and politics.

Through the early part of the 21^st century, America was seen as the predominate superpower. However, as a result of underinvestment in defense, the discouragement of enlistment, and bad treaties, that is no longer true. Military recruiting is dismally short of what is needed. Both the Army and the Air Force are about 10,000 short each of their goals, and the Navy will be about 6,000 below necessary numbers.

Russia has a more powerful nuclear force, and China has a larger navy. A wholly botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, leaving billions of dollars to the very terrorists that were responsible for the 9/111 attacks, signaled Washington’s adversaries that incompetence existed in the White House. 

The basic underpinnings of American democracy have been directly challenged.  Biased federal agencies interfered in the 2020 presidential election by seeking to pressure media sources to not publish news stories that were detrimental to one side. It also assisted that side by aiding in the propagation of an utterly false allegation about the candidate of the other side.

These outcomes are the direct result of terrible policy decisions and the subjugation of the national good to partisan politics. A desperate attempt to buy votes led to spending far beyond what the nation can afford. Appeasing environmental extremists who operate on questionable and falsely alarming studies irrationally destroyed energy production, which directly led to massive inflation. Limiting defense spending to have more dollars to buy votes has weakened national security.

The educational establishment has turned away from using schools to teach objective facts and now commits resources for frankly partisan purposes. In service to those partisan objectives, it spreads false teachings on the environment, race relations, and American history.

The President and his family have been significantly enriched by the Chinese Communist Party. This discourages his Administration from confronting Beijing on its outrageous actions in fentanyl chemical exports, massive arms buildup, Latin American military buildup, human rights violations, international aggression, extensive espionage,  intellectual property theft, and more.

The good news is that this course of events can be stopped and eventually reversed with a change in leadership.

Illustration: Pixabay

In the unfortunate political climate of the day, partisanship tends to overshadow common sense and common decency.

Over the decades, both Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of putting their party’s interest above that of the public.  Never before, however, has partisanship risen to its current level. Blatant abuse by elected officials and the heads of governmental agencies of their official positions has become the new normal.

It would be disingenuous to state that both parties are equally guilty.  There is no past precedent or current equivalent for the extent and manner in which Democrats, since the election of Barack Obama, have exploited their official powers for partisan purposes.

Presidents have previously used the IRS to inappropriately surveil opponents. But the Obama Administration went far beyond that. As The Cato Institute notes,

“…the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (‘BOLO’) list to identify organizations engaged in [opposition] political activities. The list included words such as ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots,’ and ‘Israel’; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt‐​organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover‐​ups.“

Obama also initiated overbearing federal measures to silence opponents, using the concept of “disinformation” to censor critics. Fox and others have noted  how  a Obama-era interagency organization ‘blacklisted’ Americans in attempt to curb ‘foreign disinformation’

The abuse of power and censorship legacy has been expanded upon by Biden. As Townhall notes, the current  “administration [engages in] blatant and hostile partisanship. When Biden does happen to think clearly on a given day, he immediately turns to vilifying and scapegoating Republicans like they are enemies of the state and not just fellow Americans. Biden’s fleeting moments of lucidity merely serve to score political points with his left-wing base, treating the Republican Party like it’s some rogue state or terrorist group.If you check the record, Biden’s rhetoric is deeply disturbing in a way that even his mental decline could never be. It is vitriolic and hateful, dividing a nation that he claimed to be unifying. Lest we forget: Biden’s inauguration address referenced “unity” nearly 10 times, and yet he’s governing as a divider of political parties. Even Barack Obama was less divisive.”

Even seasoned political observers have been stunned by the extent to which Biden has used his official position to attack his opponents. Most presidents have periodically criticized their opponents in their various remarks.  For the Biden Administration, it has been the central focus.

The Wall Street Journal notes that Biden has already revealed that the White House strong-armed platforms into more censorship than they considered justified—prompting the judge in one case to declare that the administration had made “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

The Federalist presents the issue succinctly.  “Democrats have arrested, prosecuted, and raided their enemies. the Democratic Congress and administration have written a vicious battle plan… The Biden administration has made clear they’ll prosecute their political opponents every chance they get. That means that despite Republican … Kevin McCarthy’s threat to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland accountable … he will only be empowered to hold Garland accountable under a Republican administration (unless he complies with Republican congressional oversight, which he won’t)…. Arresting an administration official after he’s left office is a dangerous precedent, but it’s one Democrats gleefully set this past year.”

The historical context is frightening.  Biden is following a playbook used by other leaders during the 20^th century. Replace his phrase “Maga” with Hitler’s “Jew,” or Lenin’s “bourgeoise,” add to it the penchant of those dictators to censor and arrest their opponents, and the danger of the current President’s partisanship becomes clear.

Beijing’s increased aggression against America’s long-term ally Philippines could pit the U.S. Navy directly against its larger Chinese counterpart.

On December 10, State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller noted that “Outside Scarborough Reef on December 9 and again near Second Thomas Shoal on December 10, People’s Republic of China (PRC) ships employed water cannons and reckless maneuvers, including forcing a collision, causing damage to Philippine vessels undertaking official supply missions to those locations, and jeopardizing the safety of the Filipino crew.  The PRC ships at Scarborough Reef also used acoustic devices, incapacitating the Filipino crew members, and drove away Philippine fishing vessels.  By impeding the safe operations of Philippine vessels carrying provisions to Filipino service members stationed at Second Thomas Shoal, the PRC interfered in lawful Philippine maritime operations and in Philippine vessels’ exercise of high seas freedom of navigation.  Obstructing supply lines to this longstanding outpost and interfering with lawful Philippines maritime operations undermines regional stability.

These actions reflect not only reckless disregard for the safety and livelihoods of Filipinos, but also for international law. 

Beijings action are not new. Xi’s naval and coast guard vessels have both assaulted Manila’s vessels with water cannons and even rammed them. Filipino fisherman have been harassed, and energy and mineral exploration craft have been threatened. Beijing believes, based on the precedent set by Obama when its ships incurred on the Philippine exclusive economic zone and the U.S. didn’t even lodge a diplomatic protest, that Washington will do little of substance in response.

In October, The House Foreign Affairs Committee  stressed that “We unequivocally support the Philippines and condemn the unlawful actions by the Chinese Coast Guard in the South China Sea. The Chinese Coast Guard and maritime militia vessels intentionally hit Philippine Coast Guard ships over the weekend and continue to violate international law, endanger Filipino crew members, and obstruct Philippine vessels’ access in their own exclusive economic zone. This incident is part of a larger pattern of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, the Maritime Militia, and the Chinese Coast Guard’s aggressive and provocative behavior in the South China Sea, where it actively intrudes in other states exclusive economic zones. We condemn Beijing’s maritime intimidation and welcome the Biden administration’s announcement to increase joint patrols with the Philippines and other partners in the South China Sea and its reaffirmation to uphold its commitment under the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.”

XI has not been subtle about his intentions. His government has issued a controversial map which contradicts international law by imagining a vast claim, known as the “Nine Dash Line” over areas rightly held by neighboring nations. As noted by the Philippine’s Dept. of Foreign Affairs  following Beijing’s issuance of a the map, “ The latest attempt to legitimize China’s purported sovereignty and jurisdiction over Philippine features and maritime zones has no basis under international law, particularly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The 2016 Arbitral Award invalidated the nine-dashed line. It categorically stated that ‘maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the ‘nine-dash line’ are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention.’”

A Gatestone analysis notes that “The Chinese game plan seems crafted to test the resolve of the US commitment to defend Philippine sovereignty. If the US appears to be unwilling to risk a clash with China over its repeated intrusions into the waters of the Philippines’ EEZ, the CCP will exploit any appeasement by the Biden administration to weaken confidence of other American Pacific-based allies, thereby shredding the integrity of any Indo-Pacific Alliance of democracies to contain China.”

Illustration: Pixabay

To date, the majority of our analysis of the RICO Indictment brought against Donald Trump and much of his 2020 election team has been centered on whether the allegations made are legally and facially sufficient.  We have also examined some of the difficult issues that could face prosecutors who are required by law to establish their case “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  One such matter is the virtual impossibility of showing that Donald Trump did not truly believe that he won the 2020 Presidential election, and that voter suppression and fraud played a big part in his loss.

One tool that prosecutors use to meet their burden is to compel a co-defendant to testify against the “target” defendant.  According to the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University, to “(t)urn state’s evidence…or to “flip” means the defendant chose to reveal valuable evidence to the prosecutor, in exchange for a reduction of the charge or the dismissal of some charges. When the defendant ‘flips’ they are said to have ‘turned state’s evidence.’ This is common in instances of organized crime when a defendant provides information on a co-defendant or other members’ crimes. The defendant tries to flip for a better sentence…” 

In Georgia, several of the former President’s co-defendants have entered guilty pleas to reduced charges, with the understanding that these defendants will cooperate, and probably testify, against Trump and the remaining co-defendants.  One of those is lawyer Sidney Powell.

As reported by the Associated Press, “Powell gained notoriety for threatening in a Fox Business interview in November 2020 to ‘release the Kraken,’ invoking a mythical sea monster when talking about a lawsuit she planned to file to challenge the results of the presidential election. Similar suits she filed in several states were promptly dismissed.”  Then, in October of 2023, “Powell…entered the plea just a day before jury selection was set to start in her trial. She pleaded guilty to six misdemeanors accusing her of conspiring to intentionally interfere with the performance of election duties. As part of the deal, she will serve six years of probation, will be fined $6,000 and will have to write an apology letter to Georgia and its residents. She also recorded a statement for prosecutors and agreed to testify truthfully against her co-defendants at future trials.” 

The usual sources made the usual statements regarding Powell’s plea. “’This is a really big breakthrough for prosecutors,’ CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said…on “News Central. ‘There’s no such thing as halfway cooperation.'”

What is Georgia DA Fani Willis expecting Powell to say in exchange for her plea deal? “The plea documents make clear that she’s expected to testify about her direct involvement in the breach of election systems in Coffee County, Georgia, where a…group of Trump supporters (allegedly) collaborated with a local election official to access sensitive government data as part of their…search for massive voter fraud….Powell was also in touch with the Trump White House and other figures in Trump’s orbit during the frenzied post-election period…Powell ‘can (also) provide firsthand testimony about things (she) saw, things (she) overheard,’ (according to) CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams.”

Soon after Powell entered her guilty plea, another of Donald Trump’s co-defendants entered a guilty plea in Georgia.  “Attorney and prominent conservative media figure Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty…to one felony count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings…She was sentenced to five years of probation along with $5,000 in restitution, 100 hours of community service, writing an apology letter to the people of Georgia and testifying truthfully in trials related to this case.”  

Once more, CNN expressed their belief that Trump was a “dead man walking.” “These…plea deals are a monumental step forward for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who charged the case in August and is preparing for trials against Trump, his former attorney Rudy Giuliani, his chief of staff Mark Meadows and other top figures…Ellis…and Powell…agreed to testify on behalf of the prosecution at future trials. By flipping, these onetime Trump insiders are now on track to become major Trump nemeses. They…can shed light on what was happening behind the scenes in 2020.”

But in discussing Powell’s anticipated cooperation, Williams made an interesting statement –  “(I)f prosecutors aren’t satisfied with the evidence that’s provided, they can just yank this plea deal, and put these folks to trial.” 

Not quite, Elliot.

While both Ellis and Powell have been sentenced, their cases are not legally concluded.  A review of the third page of the plea agreement for Powell in particular states “(t)he Defendant consenting hereto, it is the judgment of the Court that no judgment of guilt be imposed at this time but that further proceedings are deferred…(u)pon fulfillment of the terms of this sentence, or upon release of the Defendant by the Court prior to the termination of this sentence, the Defendant shall stand discharged of said offense without court adjudication of guilt and shall be completely exonerated of guilt of said offense charged.”  

This is known as a “conditional plea.”  Powell has obligated herself to testify in the trial of her co-defendants by her plea, and has agreed to be truthful when she takes the stand (something that is expected of any witness, in any event).  But the conditional nature of this plea agreement gives Powell a very powerful incentive to testify as Willis wants her to testify. 

Inadvertently, in giving Powell this incentive, Willis may have handed Trump and his co-defendants a weapon they can use in their own defense.

In any trial, a jury (or the judge, if he or she is acting as fact-finder without a jury) is charged with the responsibility to assess the credibility of any witness.  “A credible witness is (one) who comes across as competent and worthy of belief. Their testimony is assumed to be more than likely true due to their experience, knowledge, training, and sense of honesty…(a)n attorney can show jurors a witness is not credible by showing: 1) inconsistent statements, 2) reputation for untruthfulness, 3) defects in perception, 4) prior convictions that show dishonesty or untruthfulness, and 5) bias.” “Bias” is defined as “to exhibit a pre-existing inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something. In the context of evidence in criminal law, bias is used to describe the relationship between a party and a witness which might lead the witness to unconsciously or otherwise, give testimony in favor of or against a party.” 

Clearly, whether or not the witness has “turned state’s evidence,” and is awaiting a favorable adjudication of their own charges in exchange for their testimony is an obvious source of bias.

For instance, in the 1984 Rhode Island case of State v. Beaumier, in “a robbery trial…the state’s primary witness was a Providence Police officer and friend of the defendant. According to this officer, defendant admitted to him his participation in the robbery. Defense counsel attempted to cross-examine the officer as to thefts at a lumberyard in which the officer was a suspect and under investigation. Counsel was attempting to show that the officer had a motive to fabricate defendant’s admission in order to ingratiate himself with his superiors. The trial judge precluded this area of inquiry.” 

In reversing the conviction, the Rhode Island appellate court stated that “(t)he right of confrontation is concerned with the proposition that a jury be allowed to evaluate any motive that a witness may have for testifying. That right is especially precious where, as here, the motive may belong to the state’s prime witness. It is clear, therefore, that the evidence concerning the investigation should have been admitted…in the final analysis, it is the jury that should consider the evidence and reach its own conclusion.” 

Spencer Martinez, writing for the Cleveland State Law Review, notes that “(i)n spite of advances in scientific and statistical evidence, the success of a criminal prosecution continues to hinge primarily on witness testimony. Such evidence is difficult to come by, especially in the case of more sophisticated criminals or defendants who commit crimes through syndicates that insulate them from the relevant actus reus. Therefore, prosecutors must often look to other criminals for case-building testimony. Eliciting testimony from such witnesses often requires that a ‘deal’ be struck, whereby the government promises the guilty witness some degree of leniency for his cooperation. ‘Bargaining’ for witness testimony in this fashion has long been recognized as a legitimate, necessary practice. However, the ramifications of such agreements have always caused concern for those involved with defendants’ rights, as the cooperating witness has a strong incentive to commit perjury to reap the full benefit of the ‘contract.’ This is especially true now that agreements are becoming more liberal with respect to what the government may offer the cooperating witness, what the witness is obligated to do in return, and how the witness is to suffer in the event he fails to perform or fails to secure the desired effect. Clearly the most important safeguard against false testimony is the defendant’s right to cross-examine the cooperating witness as to bias. The defendant’s discretion to probe into cooperation agreements, however, is not on par with the government’s increasing discretion in what it may offer a criminal witness in exchange for his testimony.” 

A Georgia jury is free to believe Powell and Ellis.  But they are also free to believe that both have strong incentive to testify as DA Willis wishes them to testify.

Thus, having these co-defendants testify against Trump and the other defendants is not a positive development for the defense.  But is it the “really big breakthrough” CNN commentators hope it to be?

Probably not.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC