Category: Quick Analysis

It is long past time for a fresh look at the role of the Democratic Party.

Democrats have engaged in suppression of news they found inconvenient.

They wholly made-up false claims about “Russian Collusion.” Despite the result of intensive investigation indicating that the whole allegation was an intentional fraud by a Democrat campaign, neither the originators of the fraud nor those in Congress who dragged the nonsense on, virtually tearing the nation apart, have ever been punished.

Despite the extreme nature of the moves against the White House since President Trump took office, Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-California 28^th District), Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, crossed a new line when he knowingly uttered blatantly false statements regarding the White House conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  When confronted, Schiff attempted to justify the false statements by calling them “a parody.”

The evidence is now undeniable and clear.  The machinery of the federal government has been hijacked for partisan political purposes by Democrats. The leaders of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI are not elected officials. They are answerable to them. They have done everything possible to stonewall investigations embarrassing to Democrats.

The DOJ as well as its subdivision the Federal Bureau of Investigation, now operates in part as a wing of the Democratic Party. The refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her wanton destruction of federal evidence, the lack of interest in Biden influence peddling, ignoring Senator Schumer’s threats against justices of the United States Supreme Court (as well as the reluctance to provide adequate protection to physically threatened conservative justices), the bizarre tarmac meeting between then-attorney general Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton regarding the Hillary misdeeds,  the extreme measures taken against Trump campaign officials, and more are all overt hits against the concept of an impartial DOJ.

That is just one part of the federal government. While in her position, the Internal Revenue Service’s former Lois Lerner used her office to discriminate and discourage conservatives.  Because of DOJ’s lack of interest, the matter was eventually settled in a civil law suit by discouraged victims.

The financial ties between China and the Biden Administration are well known. The relationship appears to have begun when Hunter Biden flew to China with then-Vice President Joe Biden aboard Air Force 2, and returned home with a vast financial gain, in return for no discernable commercial service.

As described by Sean Hannity of Fox News, “Let’s start with the obvious. We know Chinese nationals, why were they spending millions of dollars and giving private equity deals to Hunter Biden? No expertise that we can find. Nothing on his resume that stood out to us … these Chinese nationals, what were they looking for? They were buying access, meaning buying influence. The question… is, just how much access did they get?” 

Since then, Joe Biden has downplayed Beijing’s rapidly growing military and economic misdeeds and threats. Just one example: during an Iowa campaign stop, he stated, against all contrary evidence, “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man. I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us.”

Chinese communists have already made extensive use of the California Democratic Party to conduct surveillance on American political activity.  Senator Dianne Feinstein’s chauffeur, who according to CBS News, ”also served as a gofer in her Bay Area office and was a liaison to the Asian-American community (who) even attended Chinese consulate functions for the senator” was a Chinese spy, reporting to the Chinese government about local California politics for 20 years. 

The Democratic Party has punished the political opponents. They unlawfully allowed in millions of people from across the world, and in some states issued drivers licenses to many of them which could allow them to register to vote.

 In a recent published article, they discussed putting Trump in a “Bullseye.”

 In Congress, they recently voted against basic legislation that simply sought to ensure that only registered voters could cast ballots.

Democrat leaders hid Biden’s incapacity from the public.

Their leadership rigged the primary system.

They have been hesitant to fully condemn antisemitism.

 They have repeatedly disparaged the Supreme Court.

Americans and in  particular, those who support the Democratic Party in 2024, must examine their conscience and decide whether they must change course.

Illustration: Pixabay

After President Joseph Biden retrieved his hat from the ring and decided not to run for a second term, Vice President Kamala Harris, now the candidate,  selected her running mate – Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. CNN reports that “[i]n a remarkable two-week period, Walz ascended from a third-tier candidate to a final contender in the view of Harris and her vetting team. He was propelled by support from across the Democratic Party, progressive and moderate groups alike.” 

Of course, such a quick vetting period could miss certain liabilities in a Walz candidacy.  For instance, according to Breitbart, Walz “has listed on his official biography a higher military rank than the one he ultimately retired with, drawing criticism from some veterans and accusations of stolen valor. Walz served in the Minnesota Army National Guard and retired at the rank of master sergeant, or an E-8. However, on his official website bio, he lists a higher rank that he served at for a short period that ultimately was rescinded, as he did not complete all the requirements to serve at that rank. However, his bio implies that he retired at the rank of command sergeant major, or an E-9.” 

More disturbing are the statements reported by Breitbart which are made by  retired Army Command Sergeant Majors Thomas Behrends and Paul Herr, both of whom served with Walz.  In a letter co-authored by the two, they write that “[i]n early 2005, a warning order was issued to the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion, which included the position [Walz] was serving in, to prepare to be mobilized for active duty for a deployment to Iraq. On May 16th, 2005 [Walz] quit, leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging; without its senior Non-Commissioned Officer, as the battalion prepared for war. His excuse to other leaders was that he needed to retire in order to run for congress.” 

This allegation is far more serious than the issue of Stolen Valor. According to Sergeant Major Behrends  “'[a]s soon as the shots were fired in Iraq, [Walz] turned and ran the other way and hung his hat up and quit’…Behrends, [who] replaced Walz on the deployment to Iraq after he quit,” also said, “The public needs to know how pathetic his leadership was as a National Guardsman…He abandoned us. What the hell kind of leader does that?”

Indeed.  Just what kind of a leader is Tim Walz?

Perhaps the best way to determine the man’s qualifications to be Vice President is to review his record as Governor of Minnesota.  First elected in 2018, Walz was in his first term when petty thief George Floyd met his demise while being placed under arrest by Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin.

As the riots that followed the death of Floyd are described by left leaning Vox, “[a]t least two people died during the violence in Minnesota’s Twin Cities, more than 600 arrests were made in the initial days of unrest, and the whole span of rioting and law enforcement response made it one of the most costly and destructive periods of civil unrest in US history. Minneapolis and Saint Paul sustained hundreds of millions of dollars in damage during those riots, and hundreds of buildings were heavily damaged.”  While “Walz wasn’t the main authority in charge of responding to the unrest – that was the task of local officials, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey…[t]he main line of criticism of Walz’s response to the…riots hinges on the time it took for him to deploy the Minnesota National Guard and coordinate with other state and local officials in restoring order.” 

According to Vox, it took Walz several days to authorize the use of the National Guard to control the increasingly violent protests. “Walz…did not sign an executive order authorizing National Guard deployments until…much of the city had shut down, businesses were closed and boarded up to prevent looting, and buildings were smoldering after overnight arsons. [The] night [before Walz sent in the National Guard] saw some of the worst rioting, violence, and arson, as well as one of the indelible scenes of the protests: the breach and burning of the Minneapolis police’s Third Precinct police station. A few hundred National Guard and Minnesota State Patrol officers had been deployed to Minneapolis by then, but were charged with protecting federal buildings and downtown areas of the city, as well as escorting first responders, instead of immediately going to hot spots.”

Even Walz knew his delay in sending in troops was a mistake. “At a press conference…Walz would take responsibility for the state patrol’s mishandling of the [situation], saying, ‘There is absolutely no reason something like this should happen. Calls [for assistance] were made immediately … I failed you last night in that.’”

So far, Tim Walz’ record reveals a leader who failed to act decisively, except when it came to avoiding a call to arms on behalf of his country.  But for those concerned with whether or not a candidate for Vice President of the United States will be respectful of the civil liberties of the American people, the worst aspects of Governor Walz’ history are cause for much trepidation on this score.

In my book, Not Wasting a Crisis, The Lawless Biden Administration,   we describe the extreme responses of mostly-Democrat local and state officials to the Covid-19 pandemic. “[W]e discussed multiple violations of the Constitutional Rights of US citizens and residents by state and local authorities, all under the guise of guarding the health and welfare of their residents…too many state and local governments did not know where the powers of the state end and the rights of the individual begin.  Various ‘stay at home’ orders were promulgated, along with orders to close businesses and churches as ‘nonessential entities,’ as we discussed at length…”

In addition to being governor during the George Floyd riots, Tim Walz was also in charge of Minnesota during the pandemic, and as governor, Walz showed no respect for the freedoms and the basic civil rights of the residents of his state.

In March of 2020, Walz issued a series of Executive Orders which he describes in Emergency Executive Order 20-20; “On March 13, 2020, I issued Executive Order 20-01 and declared a peacetime emergency because this pandemic…threatens the lives of Minnesotans, and local resources are inadequate to address the threat. On March 15, 2020, I issued Executive Order 20-02 ordering the temporary closure of public schools. On March 16, 2020, I issued Executive Order 20-04 ordering the closure of bars, restaurants, and other places of public accommodation.” 

He then went on to order that “[b]eginning on Friday, March 27, 2020 at 11:59 pm through Friday, April 10, 2020 at 5:00 pm, all persons currently living within the State of Minnesota are ordered to stay at home or in their place of residence except to engage in the Activities and Critical Sector work set forth below…[a]llowed activities and work performed in the above Critical Sectors should, to the maximum extent possible, be conducted in a manner that adheres to Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Standards and the Minnesota Department of Health and CDC Guidelines related to COVID-19, including social distancing and hygiene…a person who willfully violates this Executive Order is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 90 days.”

These orders, originally intended as temporary measures to “stop the spread,” turned into years of lock downs, mask mandates and other restrictions placed on the freedoms and civil rights of Minnesotans.  As late as May of 2021, in Executive Order 21-22, Walz continued to extend his “Emergency” Orders from March of 2020. “Even as we end public health restrictions across our State, the need for emergency response remains…the pandemic is not over and our work to protect our communities continues…I have determined that the COVID-19 pandemic…continues to endanger life and property in Minnesota, and local resources are inadequate to address the threat. The COVID-19 Peacetime Emergency must therefore continue.” 

As Governor Walz’ handling of the pandemic is described in Reason, “Walz’s coronavirus policies were extremely heavy-handed and restrictive; under his leadership, the state endured the pandemic in a fundamentally anti-libertarian fashion.”  His Executive Orders and multiple restrictions led to “one of the stupidest COVID-19 rules: Diners at restaurants had to wear masks while walking to their table and moving about the establishment but were allowed to go maskless as long as they were eating and drinking… in November and December of 2020, Walz issued and extended orders for restaurants, gyms, and other businesses to shut down. This included outdoor dining service for eating establishments. Over 150 businesses formed the Reopen Minnesota Coalition and urged the governor to relent, but Walz was unmoved.” 

In addition to his draconian Covid restrictions, the governor of Minnesota is best known for his “snitch line,” that is, “[a] hotline set up by Gov. Tim Walz’s administration to monitor compliance with his 2020 stay-at-home order [which] generated thousands of reports from Minnesotans who snitched on their neighbors for things like playing basketball in a park, walking their dogs, and throwing small parties.”  The hotline was “launched in March 2020 and law enforcement continued to monitor it until November, well after the stay-at-home order ended. In October 2020, it was used to alert authorities to a church service that didn’t fit with the governor’s ‘legal requirements.’ This type of complaint was not uncommon.” 

This hot line was not halted until the middle of 2022, long after almost all pandemic restrictions had been lifted. According to Hot Air, “[w]hy did [the snitch line] apparently stop in 2022? Walz faced voters in a re-election campaign, which probably prompted the state to quietly shut down its COVID snitch operations.” 

The use of such a hotline is particularly troubling from a civil liberties standpoint.  Hot Air continues: “If you think the comparison to the Stasi [the East German Secret Police} is overwrought, read the linked 2015 article from Der Speigel. It describes just how the Stasi managed to impose such an effective police state by deputizing everyone to rat each other out. The Stasi understood that they could manipulate slights and grudges between neighbors, co-workers, and even family members to gain leverage over practically anyone and everyone. And it didn’t cost the state a dime to employ most of its subjects as domestic spies.”

In 2023, Walz revealed a certain level of hypocrisy regarding his use of the “snitch line.”  As reported by The Daily Wire, “[t]he hotline flew in the face of the message Gov. Walz sent in 2023 regarding LGBT issues; ‘In Minnesota, we mind our own damn business. We don’t need you in the exam room. We don’t need you telling us who we can love. And we sure don’t need you attacking our teachers, students, and schools.'” 

This hypocrisy continues to the present day; consider these comments made by now-Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Walz in the context of “reproductive freedom”:  “Some of us are old enough to remember when it was Republicans who were talking about freedom. It turns out now what they meant was that the government should be free to invade your doctor’s office. In Minnesota, we respect our neighbors and their personal choices that they make. Even if we wouldn’t make the same choice for ourselves, there’s a golden rule, ‘Mind your own damn business.’” 

The final evidence of Tim Walz’ disdain for the rights and civil liberties of the American people comes during an interview he gave to MSNBC in December of 2022; “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy,” he stated. 

Infowars puts this comment in perspective: “if the COVID pandemic taught us anything, it’s that the establishment cannot be trusted to dictate what is and isn’t ‘misinformation,’ and that their covert power-hungry motives guide their censorship efforts.” 

If we are to judge Tim Walz by his actions and words, we are left with a portrait of a cowardly, hypocritical totalitarian, someone who will use the power of the state to trample the rights and liberties of those unlucky enough to reside within his jurisdiction. Someone who will cry “freedom” and “mind your own business” when it comes to leftist causes like abortion and LBGTQ rights, but encourage Minnesotans to inform on their neighbors when Walz’ draconian Executive Orders are violated.   We are also left with the impression of someone who cannot be relied upon to either protect the lives and property of these same Minnesota residents, nor to answer the call when his country (and his fellow soldiers) require his service.

Under these circumstances, Kamala Harris has made the right choice of running mate.  She has managed to pick someone for her Vice President who will fit right in with a government that, if elected, would undoubtedly continue the lawless and repressive activities of the Biden Administration.

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

The House Judiciary Committee, its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a joint interim staff report titled, “The Intelligence Community 51: How CIA Contractors Colluded with The Biden Campaign to Mislead American Voters.”

We provided Part 1 of the text of the report yesterday, and conclude the report today.

In the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials coordinated with the Biden campaign to discredit serious allegations about Biden family influence peddling.1 In issuing a public statement using their official titles, these former intelligence officials sought to cast an explosive New York Post story and Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop as “Russian disinformation.”2 President Biden even cited to the statement in a televised debate with President Trump shortly before the election to accuse President Trump of leveling false accusations. 3 As a result, the explosive allegations about Biden family misconduct were buried and millions of Americans cast their votes for president without a full set of facts. The 51 former intelligence officials’ Hunter Biden statement was a blatant political operation from the start. It originated with a call from top Biden campaign official—and now Secretary of State—Antony Blinken to former Deputy Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Michael Morell. The Committees’ investigation revealed that without this outreach from Blinken, Morell would not have written the statement.4 Indeed, Morell told the Committees that the Blinken phone call “triggered” his intent to write the statement.5 The statement’s drafters were open about the goal of the project: “[W]e think Trump will attack Biden on the issue at this week’s debate”6 and “we want to give the [Vice President] a talking point to use in response.”7 The details as revealed by the Committees to date are concerning enough, but as the Committees have continued to investigate the origins of the Hunter Biden statement, new information has come to light. Through newly obtained internal CIA emails and testimonial evidence, the Committees have uncovered more information on the extent to which the intelligence community was involved in the statement. Specifically, the evidence shows:

High ranking CIA officials, up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the Hunter Biden statement prior to its approval and publication.8 Because several former senior intelligence officials signed the statement, the PCRB sent the draft statement to the CIA’s then-Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis, who said he subsequently informed then-Director Haspel or thenDeputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop that the statement would be published soon.9 Senior CIA leadership had an opportunity at that time to slow down the CIA’s process for reviewing publication submissions and ensure that such an extraordinary statement was properly vetted.10

Some of the statement’s signatories, including Michael Morell, were on active contract with the CIA at the time of the Hunter Biden statement’s publication. 11 Throughout the course of the Committees’ investigation, the signatories claimed to not have had access to any classified information when asserting that the allegations surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop had “all the hallmarks” of Russian disinformation.12 However, at the time of the statement’s publication, at least two signatories—Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley—were on the CIA’s payroll as contractors. Due to purported operational concerns, the CIA declined to declassify the entire universe of signatories who were on active contract. In addition, some signatories to the Hunter Biden statement also had special “Green Card” access to the CIA at the time of the statement’s publication, allowing them to gain entry to secure CIA facilities.

After publication of the Hunter Biden statement, CIA employees internally expressed concern about the statement’s politicized content, acknowledging it was not “helpful to the Agency in the long run.”13 At least one employee found it “[i]nteresting to see what was submitted and approved” when discussing media talking points that the statement’s co-author, former Senior Intelligence Service Officer Marc Polymeropoulos, submitted related to the statement.14 When discussing Polymeropoulos’s talking points, another CIA official stated, “It appears [Polymeropoulos] is actively involved in a pro-Biden campaign and may be disclosing classified information in his efforts.”15 The CIA’s internal review board, known as the Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB), determined that Polymeropoulos’s talking points contained classified information that had to be removed prior to publication.16

The new information included in this report, based on new testimony and declassified documents, shows the potential dangers of a politicized intelligence community. In the waning days before the 2020 presidential election, 51 intelligence community officials rushed to draft and release a statement using their official titles, presumably to convey access to specialized information unavailable to other Americans. The statement was conceived following a conversation with a senior Biden campaign official and designed explicitly to provide talking points to the Biden campaign to discredit politically damaging allegations. Some of the signatories of the statement were on the CIA payroll at the time as contractors and others had special access to CIA facilities. Even Michael Morell—before the Committees learned of his contract with the CIA—acknowledged, “It’s inappropriate for a currently serving staff officer or contractor to be involved in the political process.”

The infamous Hunter Biden statement had all the hallmarks of an intelligence community influence operation. But rather than carrying it out against our adversaries on foreign soil, this operation was directed at the American people and our democratic processes. It is impossible to know for certain how events would have played out differently if these 51 intelligence community officials never sought to influence the 2020 election. All the Committees may do now is present the facts as known to inform legislative reforms to protect our democratic ideals and prevent future abuse of the intelligence community for partisan political benefit.

The House Judiciary Committee, its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have released a joint interim staff report titled, “The Intelligence Community 51: How CIA Contractors Colluded with The Biden Campaign to Mislead American Voters.”

We provide the text of the report:

The report reveals new information detailing how the highest levels of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails” by 51 former intelligence officials prior to its approval and publication. The report reveals important new facts, such as how some of the statement’s signatories, including former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell, were on active contract with the CIA at the time they issued the Hunter Biden statement to discredit damaging allegations about Biden family influence peddling just weeks before the 2020 presidential election.

“We knew that the rushed statement from the 51 former intelligence officials was a political maneuver between the Biden campaign and the intelligence community. Now with this interim report, we reveal how officials at the highest levels of the CIA were aware of the statement and CIA employees knew that several of the so-called former officials were on active contract with the CIA. The report underscores the risks posed by a weaponized federal government,” said Chairman Jim Jordan.

“The House Intelligence Committee’s work provided us with solid direct evidence that in the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials coordinated with the Biden campaign to falsely cast doubt on an explosive New York Post story and label Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop as ‘Russian disinformation.’ The Committee worked to obtain classified documents from the CIA, including emails, and fought to include evidence of these materials in our report,” said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner.

BACKGROUND:

On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published a report detailing how Hunter Biden used the position and influence of his father, now-President Joe Biden, for personal gain with the apparent awareness of President Biden. Five days later, on October 19, 2020, 51 former intelligence officials signed on to a public statement that stated that the Hunter Biden laptop story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” in an attempt to discredit the New York Post’s reporting.
 
Since April 2022—and renewed in January 2023, when Republicans resumed control of the House of Representatives—the Committees have been conducting oversight into the origins of this statement. The Committees wrote to all 51 former officials requesting relevant documents and testimony.

The Committees’ first joint interim staff report revealed how the now-infamous and discredited Hunter Biden statement originated with a call from top Biden campaign official—and now Secretary of State—Antony Blinken to former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell to provide talking points and cover for the Biden campaign to discredit serious allegations about the Biden family’s influence peddling. Morell’s testimony also exposed that the goal of the statement was to aid President Biden in the final debate of the 2020 presidential campaign.

NEW INFORMATION:

The highest officials within the CIA were aware of the statement prior to its publication. CIA’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis testified that he informed Director Gina Haspel or Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop about its impending release. This sequence of events suggests that senior CIA leadership had ample opportunity to assess the validity of the statement’s claims. Furthermore, the COO’s office appeared to signal approval of the statement in a move that departed from standard Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) protocols.

Additionally, some of the statement’s signatories were on active contract with the CIA at the time they issued the statement to discredit damaging allegations about Biden family influence peddling. Despite claiming they lacked access to classified information at the time, at least two signatories—Michael Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley—were actively working for the CIA as contractors. This revelation raises concerns that these officials may have abused their positions to expedite the statement’s approval and may have been earning taxpayer dollars while they did it.

Furthermore, officials within the CIA recognized at the time that the Hunter Biden statement was political and would hurt the Agency. The signatories’ decision to leverage their former intelligence community titles to promote a narrative about foreign election interference improperly embroiled the Agency in domestic politics. This report underscores the potential dangers of a politicized intelligence community.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Vice President Harris gave a vacuous, vapid acceptance speech that was almost wholly devoid of substance. She attempted to portray herself as a moderate, when in fact she has governed, through five years in the senate and almost four years as vice president, as an extreme radical. Indeed, she was designated, in 2019, as the most liberal senator, even more so than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Ignoring the fact that Democrats have controlled the White House the past four years and twelve of the past sixteen years, she blamed Donald Trump for all the nations ills.  The fact that the media gushed about the speech which was, in essence, an insult to the American people’s ability to remember recent events, is a searing indictment of the biased mainstream news establishment.

The pretension that Trump is the incumbent and she is the challenger was a staple throughout the convention, as was the repeated statements that the GOP sought to ban all abortions.  Add to that the absurd claim that Trump endorses Project 2025, which he has repeatedly and vehemently criticized. As has been widely reported, “Trump said in a Truth Social post he has ‘no idea who is behind’ Project 2025, adding he disagrees with some of the project’s proposals for the next GOP administration and ‘some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.’” There is nothing vague about that comment. The fact that shameless reporters refused to comment on the obvious falsehoods uttered throughout the four days in Chicago is despicable.

Harris alleged that she would keep America safe. How? By voting against adequate military budgets, as she has throughout her career? She pledged to secure the border. Really? As border czar, she presided over the largest influx of illegal immigrants in U.S. history.

There was barely any mention of the incongruity of her comments. 

Similarly, much was made of how Barack Obama gave a great speech.  Which part? When he made references to the penis size of the Republican candidate? Laughably, the former president exclaimed that “Our politics have become so polarized these days that all of us across the political spectrum seem so quick to assume the worst in others unless they agree with us on every single issue.” How did they get so polarized? Could it be the result of the false charges, commenced during the Obama presidency and extended for years, about “Russian collusion” that has been conclusively proven to be completely false? Or, perhaps, the charges levied against him when he sought to research the international corruption of Joe Biden?

Michelle Obama continued her tradition of bitterness and lies. Keep in mind that she is the woman who exclaimed that she was “never proud of her country” until they elected her husband President.  At the convention, she said that Trump was “Doubling down on ugly, misogynistic, racist lies as a substitute for real ideas and solutions that will actually make people’s lives better.” Trump’s record on black employment was one of the best in history. She also seems to have forgotten that In both 1998 and 1999, Trump was an honored guest at the annual Wall Street Conference hosted by the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Jesse Jackson’ DC-based “multi-racial, multi-issue, progressive, international membership organization fighting for social change.”

A convention is the perfect time to layout the goals a presidential candidate seeks to implement, and the way they will be achieved.  That was completely missing. All that was provided was a denial of all that Harris has done and has stood for in the past. In that sense, the four day session was a complete failure, a failure that has gone wholly unreported by most of the media.

Photo: Pixabay

The House Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Committee on the Judiciary released a report on the impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden, finding he committed impeachable offenses. The report details evidence to establish President Biden abused his office and violated his oaths of office as Vice President by engaging in a conspiracy to peddle influence to enrich his family. As President, Joe Biden and the Biden-Harris Administration obstructed the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry and the criminal investigation of President Biden’s son.       These are key findings from the impeachment inquiry report. From 2014 to the present, as part of a conspiracy to monetize Joe Biden’s office of public trust to enrich the Biden family, Biden family members and their associates received over $27 million from foreign individuals or entities. In order to obscure the source of these funds, the Biden family and their associates set up shell companies to conceal these payments from scrutiny. The Biden family used proceeds from these business activities to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to Joe Biden—including thousands of dollars that are directly traceable to China. While Jim Biden claimed he gave this money to Joe Biden to repay personal loans, Jim Biden did not provide any evidence to support this claim. The Biden family’s receipt of millions of dollars required Joe Biden’s knowing participation in this conspiracy, including while he served as Vice President. Joe Biden used his status as Vice President to garner favorable outcomes for his son’s and his business partners’ foreign business dealings. Witnesses acknowledged that Hunter Biden involved Vice President Biden in many of his business dealings with Russian, Romanian, Chinese, Kazakhstani, and Ukrainian individuals and companies.Then-Vice President Biden met or spoke with nearly every one of the Biden family’s foreign business associates, including those from Ukraine, China, Russia, and Kazakhstan. As a result, the Biden family has received millions of dollars from these foreign entities.  The Biden family leveraged Joe Biden’s positions of public trust to obtain over $8 million in loans from Democratic benefactors. Millions of dollars in loans have not been repaid and the paperwork supporting many of the loans does not exist and has not been produced to the Committees. This raises serious questions about whether these funds were provided as gifts disguised as loans.Under the Biden Administration, the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) afforded special treatment to President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.Several witnesses acknowledged the delicate approach used during the Hunter Biden case, describing the investigation as “sensitive” or “significant.” Evidence shows that Department officials slow-walked the investigation, informed defense counsel of future investigative actions, prevented line investigators from taking otherwise ordinary investigative steps, and allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the most serious felony charges. These unusual—and oftentimes in the view of witnesses, unprecedented—tactics conflicted with standard operating procedures and ultimately had the effect of benefiting Hunter Biden. The Biden Justice Department misled Congress about the independence of law enforcement entities in the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden. Biden Administration political appointees exercised significant oversight and control over the investigation of the President’s son. Witnesses described how U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware and now-Special Counsel David Weiss, who oversaw the investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden, had to seek (1) agreement from other U.S. Attorneys to bring cases in a district geographically distinct from his own and (2) approval from the Biden Justice Department’s Tax Division to bring specific charges or take investigative actions against Hunter Biden. Despite the clear conflict of interest, Weiss was only afforded special counsel status after the investigation came under congressional scrutiny.The White House has obstructed the Committees’ impeachment inquiry by withholding key documents and witnesses. The White House has impeded the Committees’ investigation of President Biden’s unlawful retention of classified documents, by refusing to make relevant witnesses available for interviews and by erroneously asserting executive privilege over audio recordings from Special Counsel Hur’s interviews with President Biden. In addition, the White House is preventing the National Archives from turning over documents that are material to the Committees’ inquiry.

We present part 2 of a major report on the vulnerability of American forces to attacks by China.

Chairman John Moolenaar and.Senator Marco Rubio stated that in order to complement active defenses and strengthen our bases, we must invest in “passive defenses,” like hardened aircraft shelters and underground bunkers, dispersal of forces across both within a base and across multiple bases, redundant logistical facilities, and rapid runway repair capabilities.

They note that Robust passive defenses can help minimize the damage of missile attacks by increasing our forces’ ability to withstand strikes, recover quickly, and effectively continue operations.

 The U.S. Air Force has commendably incorporated many of the core tenets of passive defense into its doctrine of “Agile Combat Employment” (ACE). The concept emphasizes increasing survivability of forces through dispersal of teams to operate in a “hub-and-spoke” manner. 8 Concepts such as ACE should be expanded upon and prioritized to harden bases against the Chinese threat, as Secretary Kendall has stated.9 Yet, as explained below, it is apparent that the Pentagon is not urgently pursuing needed passive defenses. Hardened Aircraft Shelters Ongoing research by Thomas Shugart and Timothy A. Walton, analysts associated with the Center for a New American Security and Hudson Institute, respectively, paints a troubling picture of U.S. efforts to strengthen bases through the construction of hardened aircraft shelters.

According to preliminary information provided by Shugart and Walton, the difference between the number of hardened aircraft shelters being built by China and the United States is staggering.10 Despite the grave threat to U.S. bases described above, over the last decade, it is China, not the United States, that has built more than 400 hardened aircraft shelters. During the same period, the United States built only twenty-two additional hardened shelters in the region, on U.S. bases in Japan and South Korea. Notably, there are no hardened aircraft shelters in Guam or CNMI. While hardened aircraft shelters do not provide complete protection from missile attacks, they do offer significantly more protection against submunitions than expedient shelters (relocatable steel shelters). They would also force China to use more force to destroy each aircraft, thereby increasing the resources required to attack our forces and, in turn, the survivability of our valuable air assets.12 Constructing hardened shelters for all our air assets may not be economically feasible or tactically sensible, but the fact that the number of such shelters on U.S. bases in the region has barely changed over a decade is deeply troubling.

Base Resilience Construction The limited investment into hardened aircraft shelters is a symptom of a broader problem within the DoD: we are spending hardly any money on military construction to improve base resilience in the Indo-Pacific. In FY 2024, the Pentagon will spend approximately $15.7 billion on military construction projects worldwide. 13 Of the total, DoD will spend below 2 percent on base resilience projects in the region, less than what it spent on such projects in 2023. According to the 2024 Military Construction Appropriations Act, the Pentagon will spend $136 million on the construction of an aircraft parking ramp and aerial port facility in Guam. In CNMI, the Air Force will spend $78 million on airfield development and fuel tanks. In the Philippines, DoD will spend $35 million on an airfield development project at Basa Air Base. 14 There appear to be no projects dedicated to base hardening for the entire region as part of FY24 funding.

Meanwhile, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command has identified $11 billion in priorities that were “unfunded” by the President’s Budget Request for FY25, including $3.3 billion in military construction. 15 The size and nature of the unfunded priorities reflect a profound lack of seriousness in strengthening the U.S. bases closest to China and thus most vulnerable to Chinese strikes. If our bases in the Indo-Pacific lack the resilience to survive attacks and continue operating, our ability to deter China and respond quickly in the Taiwan Strait will be greatly diminished. It is essential that budget requests provided to Congress accurately reflect what our forces will need to deter and, if needed, defeat any threats against U.S. personnel.

China’s extraordinary aggression makes the protection of American troops and weaponry an urgent priority.  The Congressional Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party reports that this is not being done.  We present their report.

In an urgent letter to Air Force and Navy leaders, Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and colleagues have expressed deep concerns that U.S. military bases may not be able to defend against growing Chinese military threats. In the letter, the lawmakers highlight preliminary research showing that over the past decade, China built more than 400 hardened aircraft shelters while the United States built just 22 in the Indo-Pacific.

 Hardened aircraft shelters are reinforced hangars used to protect military aircraft and will be critical as the United States looks to safeguard its assets in the Indo-Pacific.

 The lawmakers identified shortcomings in DoD military construction priorities and note that the United States spends hardly any money on base resilience military construction projects in the Indo-Pacific at the very moment China is undergoing one of the most rapid military buildups in history. They also call attention to an onerous DoD regulation that is significantly delaying critical construction projects and adversely affecting U.S. military posture in the region.

 The lawmakers requested that the Pentagon respond to the following questions:

 What steps have you taken to incorporate and enhance passive defenses to protect our bases and forces in the Indo-Pacific, including in Alaska, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Hawaii, Minor Outlying Islands, and allied and partner territory?

 What plans do you have to create hardened aircraft shelters, underground bunkers, and other hardened facilities to protect aircraft, equipment, and forces operating out of U.S. bases in the Indo-Pacific?

 What additional hardened infrastructure, reconstitution, camouflage, concealment, and deception projects and programs could enhance the passive defenses of U.S. critical assets and forces in the Indo-Pacific?

 Do you plan to request additional funding for base resilience construction projects, including hardened aircraft shelters, underground bunkers, and dispersed and/or redundant facilities? If so, please explain.

 Has the Department assessed options to increase efficiency and speed for executing military construction so that such critical projects do not take years to complete?

 Will you grant the Joint Region Marianas an exemption from following “Munitions and Explosives of Concern” procedures for military construction?

Will you implement “Recognize, Retreat, Report” procedures as the baseline for military construction throughout the Indo-Pacific?

They note that while the Pentagon accurately classified the PRC as the “pacing challenge,” why does the Department’s budget not reflect its rhetoric on the PRC?  

 The lawmakers warned that with its current strike capabilities, China can attack all U.S. bases in the region, targeting U.S. service members from Okinawa to those on U.S. territories of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

 In fact, unclassified analysis suggests China has enough weapons to overwhelm our air and missile defenses protecting those bases.1 Strikes on U.S. bases could immobilize vital air assets, disrupt logistical chains, and significantly weaken our ability to respond in a conflict. Passive defenses, such as hardened aircraft shelters and dispersal of forces, may offer the most cost-effective way of strengthening our bases and improving their resilience.

They expressed deep concern over the alarming lack of urgency by the Department of Defense (DoD) in adopting such defensive measures. U.S. bases in the region have almost no hardened aircraft shelters compared to Chinese military bases. In addition, a DoD regulation involving World War II-era munitions is substantially delaying and driving up the costs of construction projects in Guam and CNMI aimed at building a more resilient posture for our forces to withstand Chinese attacks and continue operations.

According to members of the Select Committee, “The result is that critical U.S. air assets are highly vulnerable to Chinese strikes. Unsurprisingly, in recent war games simulating a conflict with China over Taiwan, 90 percent of U.S. aircraft losses occurred on the ground, rather than from air combat.

They note that “While active defenses such as air and missile defense systems are an important part of base and force protection, their high cost and limited numbers mean the U.S. will not be able to deploy enough of them to fully protect our bases.

The Report concludes tomorrow

“Ideas have consequences.” At least that is what American philosopher Richard Weaver wrote in 1948. Little did the West know, that in following coming years, Communist China’s political ideas would have an immense impact on the real-world issues we face today.

The National Association of Scholars recently released a report entitled, “China and Our Children.” Its author, Ian Oxnevad, says that over the last two decades China has exerted a strong and vigorous influence over America’s school children under a program designed to shift the American public’s perception of the communist state.

It began with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) developing language study programs. It then turned them into a tool of political warfare and deployed the programs to the United States as part of its overseas active measures operations.

China’s influence operations today are endemic in its so-called academic exchange and language programs. In reality, they are directed by the CCP with the goal of employing groups such as its Confucius Institutes (CI) in an effort to undermine US democracy. An American advocacy group, Parents Defending Education (PDE), found that the CI’s and
its rebranded programs are used to co-opt American universities, and at an even deeper level infiltrate the fabric of our K-12 school systems.

In an earlier report released in July 2023, PDE found over 143 active or defunct CI’s, now called Confucius classrooms (CCs) across 34 US states, including 20 located on US military bases!

Some of the CCs had direct links to the China People’s Liberation Army (PLA). PDE identified $17,967,565 in Chinese government funds that flowed into the CCs between 2009 and 2023. Although the US forced the closure of many of the CI K-12 programs, today Chinese influence operations are rebranded, alive, and prospering on American
university campuses.

The CCs are less well known than the original Confucius Institute programs but just as dangerous. There are over 164 documented CC programs operating in the United States. “We discovered CCs in the public schools of major metropolitan areas, in rural school districts, elite private schools, and across entire states. When host schools were
categorized by public or private education, 79 percent of these Confucius Classrooms were discovered in public school districts” says Oxnevad. Today Beijing hides its active measures programs behind nonprofit intermediaries to improve its ability to infiltrate the
United States. It coincides with CCP efforts to build strategic economic and diplomatic partnerships with state officials in places such as North Carolina and Minnesota (in the Minnetonka Public Schools, Sisters School District, and St. Cloud Area Schools ) where they were welcomed. In particular, the report cites efforts to establish bilateral programs
by the governor of Minnesota and city officials in Chicago, Seattle, and Portland, Oregon.

China’s CC strategy in American K-12 schools is a gradual, long-term effort to influence policymakers and society at the state and local levels. It typically begins with a bilateral initiative at the local and state level and evolves into agreements, partnerships, and memos of understanding between state level departments of education, governors and
local mayors.

The strategic planning for CCs parallels CCP efforts to engage local businesses in the US. Geographically the CCs are often located “in close proximity to significant Chinese investments,” says Oxnevad. Local nonprofit organizations in many states act at facilitators and sustainers of the programs while schools develop “sister school” relationships. They represent, according to Oxnevad, a point of interest among high-
profile Chinese officials involved with China’s United Front Work Department (UFWD). They help provide books with a Chinese political slant and other funding.

Yet more disturbing is the report’s finding that “nonprofits such as the 100,000 Strong Foundation, Go Global NC, BG Education Management Solutions, IL Texas Global, the Alliance for Education, and the Asia Society played roles in opening American K-12
schools to the Chinese Communist Party. Many of the founders and board members of these nonprofits are high-profile figures from American politics and business.”

Congress needs to revitalize the Foreign Agents Registration Act to eliminate exemption in business, science and educational pursuits. Oxnevad suggests that the US also
establish Ratio Funding Restrictions on universities to curtail them from taking foreign funding that competes with the interest of American taxpayers. It will act like a tax on the school if they accept Chinese funding.

US policy makers need to be aware that through the CCP’s infiltration of the American educational system, China is using its soft
power to successfully influence the United States to accept Beijing’s world view.

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

On July 9, 2024, our own Judge John H. Wilson (ret.) testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the the Trump trial before Judge Juan Merchan. We present his testimony here.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, held before Judge Juan Merchan, Acting Supreme Court Justice, New York County Supreme Court, Criminal Term earlier this year.

As you may be aware, I served as a Criminal Court Judge in and for both Kings County and Bronx County, New York City, from 2005 to 2014.  For five years of my term, I served as the Night Court Arraignment Judge in Kings County, where I was designated an Acting Supreme Court Justice.  Before my election to the bench in 2004, I served as an Assistant District Attorney in Bronx County, and as a criminal defense attorney. Although I never tried a felony case as a judge, I tried a number of felony cases as defense counsel, including homicides, child molestation, drug sales, etc.

I was involved in all phases of criminal litigation for approximately 30 years.  I have sat in all three seats – prosecutor, defense counsel, and judge.  As all three, I have selected juries, opened, introduced evidence, directed and cross-examined witnesses, closed, and taken verdicts.  I have prepared jury instructions as a judge, and I have drafted and argued appeals of criminal convictions for both felonies and misdemeanors.

I do not personally know Judge Juan Merchan, but I am intimately familiar with New York County Supreme and Criminal Court, having spent most of my career in those courtrooms.

Based on my experience, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that former President Trump did not receive a fair trial from Judge Juan Merchan.  In fact, if the Court of Appeals is fair (and I believe that Court will be fair based upon the reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s illegal conviction), Donald Trump’s conviction is assured reversal, a reversal that will be premised upon the fundamental errors committed by Judge Juan Merchan.

If I may be blunt – Donald Trump was railroaded, and Juan Merchan was the driver of that train.

There is a plethora of appellate issues available in this case.  But for the purposes of this statement, I would like to concentrate on the most glaring problems presented by Judge Merchan’s conduct of this trial.

1. The Indictment was Legally Insufficient and Should have been Dismissed.

The first issue involves the charging document, the indictment, which should have been dismissed by Judge Merchan, with leave to represent the case to another Grand Jury.

In my book, The Making of a Marty, An Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump,  Chapters 5 thru 7 discuss the legal insufficiency of the New York County indictment.  I  noted that under 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 wrote that my “review of the New York County indictment revealed that Donald Trump was 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?”

There is a wealth of case law addressing this issue, but on balance, the principle is the same across all cases – a defendant has the absolute right to know what he is being charged with, so that he may prepare a defense.

That did not happen in the case of Donald Trump.  Judge Merchan was obligated to dismiss an indictment that failed to identify the underlying crime.  How is former President Trump to prepare a defense, if he didn’t know what underlying crime he was allegedly concealing by falsifying his business records?

Some have pointed to the Statement of Facts provided by the New York County District Attorney’s Office, but that is not the Indictment.  Under the law, a Defendant is entitled to know what he is charged with in the charging document itself, not in a supplemental document such as a Bill of Particulars or a Statement of Facts.

Further, that Statement of Facts does not identify what crime underlies the felony falsifying business records charge – it just recounts the actions Donald Trump allegedly took without any expression of what laws were allegedly violated.

Therefore, the Indictment was legally insufficient from its inception, and any competent judge would have dismissed an indictment with these deficiencies.

2. The Failure to Dismiss the Indictment Led Directly to a Violation of Donald Trump’s Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial, and to Judge Merchan’s Illegal Jury Instructions.

The 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 was described by George Washington Law Professor Jonathan 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 occurred but the verdict was still treated as unanimous by Merchan to convict Trump.”

To reiterate, I believe the failure to dismiss a clearly facially insufficient indictment was Judge Merchan’s first major error.  This error then led to the second error – allowing the prosecutor to add charges during the trial, charges which were then incorrectly and illegally described to the jury in Judge Merchan’s jury instructions.

Judge Merchan’s instructions stated that “under [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 in so far as it goes, however, the “other crime” the former President intended to conceal was 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…”

How did Donald Trump intend to violate New York State’s Election Law?  In one of three ways, “in 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 “Although 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.”

There are several levels of error presented by these confusing jury instructions.  First, as a basic matter, the defendant was never informed of what he was charged with until the trial, a violation of the Constitutional right to fundamental fairness, and notice. Second, when he was informed of these charges, he was not given the opportunity to prepare a defense to these charges because he was already engaged in trial. But the most egregious error was Judge Merchan giving the jurors the option of returning a verdict which was not unanimous regarding the third level of charges.

Regarding both the first and second of these points, that is the addition of charges during trial and the inability to present a defense, it is stated in the Criminal Resource Manual of the United States Department of Justice, “if 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 illegally presented charges to the jury that were not included in the indictment. In doing so, former President Donald Trump was not given a fair chance to prepare a defense to these added charges.

Regarding the third point, that is the lack of unanimity permitted to the jury, it is unheard of in New York State jurisprudence to instruct a criminal jury that they need not be unanimous in their verdict. I am unaware of any case in New York, or any other American jurisdiction, state or federal, in which a criminal jury has been allowed to come to a verdict that was not unanimous in any felony trial.

In fact, on June 21 of this year, the Supreme Court decided the case of Erlinger v. United States, (Slip Opinion No. 23-370), in which the necessity for a verdict to be unanimous under both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution was reiterated.  Both of those amendments require a jury to be unanimous when rendering its verdict.   

Judge Merchan’s erroneous instructions led directly to our not knowing which jurors went with which theory of the case.  Did some think Donald Trump falsified his business records in order to hide the fact that he was falsifying his business records?  Did some think was he falsifying his business records to conceal some unspecified violation of either the Tax Code or Federal Election law?

Returning again to the issue of fundamental fairness – how can any defendant prepare a defense against such an ever-shifting series of charges?

Clearly, Judge Merchan violated Donald Trump’s right to notice of the charges prior to trial, his right to a fair trial, and his right to a unanimous verdict.

3. Judge Merchan’s Decision to Allow the Prosecution to Use Civil Penalties Against Donald Trump Should he Choose to Testify Violated the Former President’s Right to a Fair Trial.

As a third appellate issue, I refer again to the reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s conviction.

 In Harvey Weinstein’s case, the New York Court of Appeals stated the following: “the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The court compounded that error when it ruled that the defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless. The only evidence against defendant was the complainants’ testimony, and the result of the court’s rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant’s character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant’s right to testify. The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

In other words, several witnesses were allowed to testify against Weinstein as to sexual assaults with which Weinstein was not charged.  These witnesses portrayed Weinstein as a sexual predator and made it more likely that the jury would believe the victims, even if there were weaknesses and inconsistencies in the victims’ own testimony.  Moreover, the prosecution could question Weinstein about these uncharged assaults, were he to testify in his own defense.

Certainly, it is understandable for some to believe that Weinstein was, in fact, a loathsome person who deserved his conviction and sentence.  Be that as it may, according to the Court of Appeals; “the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality.”

In the trial of Donald Trump, as described in Politico, “if Donald Trump takes the stand, prosecutors will be allowed to grill him under oath about several adverse rulings in his past civil cases, Justice Juan Merchan ruled…Prosecutors will be allowed to elicit testimony about Trump being found liable for fraudulently inflating his business assets in a suit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. They will also be allowed to question him about defamatory statements he made about writer E. Jean Carroll. In a civil case last year, a federal jury determined that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a department store in the 1990s, and in two civil cases, Trump was found liable for defaming Carroll. Merchan also ruled that, if Trump testifies, prosecutors can ask him about fines he received for violating a gag order in the business fraud case when he verbally attacked the law clerk of the judge overseeing that case.”

At the time, even Politico had to concede that this was “a significant loss for the former president that will complicate his self-declared plan to testify in his own defense.”

Former President Trump did not testify at his own trial at least partially based on this ruling.  This is the very eventuality the Weinstein decision warns about, and that the Court finds to be an unconstitutional violation of the defendant’s rights; again, quoting the New York Court of Appeals, “Every person accused of a crime is constitutionally presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial and the opportunity to present a defense. Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality… It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict.”

Based on the ruling in the Weinstein case, Judge Merchan’s decision to allow the use of prior civil verdicts against Donald Trump were he to choose to testify was a violation of the former President’s right to a fair trial and deprived the former President of the opportunity to present a defense.

4. Judge Merchan Should Have Recused Himself from Hearing the Case of Donald Trump based upon the Overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety.

The fourth appellate issue involves the failure of Judge Juan Merchan to recuse himself from presiding over this case. According to the New York Post, Judge Merchan “donated $35 to Democratic causes in 2020, including $15 to President Biden’s campaign and $10 to a group dedicated to ‘resisting … Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.’ Federal Election Commission records show Merchan made three small-dollar donations within the span of two days in July 2020 through ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s preferred online fundraising platform. The veteran judge contributed $15 earmarked for the ‘Biden for President’ campaign on July 26, 2020, and then the following day made $10 contributions to the Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans.”

Under Rule 100.5(A)(1) of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York,  “Neither a sitting judge nor a candidate for public election to judicial office shall directly or indirectly engage in any political activity except (i) as otherwise authorized by this section or by law, (ii) to vote and to identify himself or herself as a member of a political party, and (iii) on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. Prohibited political activity shall include…soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate.”

This means that despite the modest sums donated by Judge Merchan, he is strictly prohibited from making ANY contribution, in ANY amount, to any political organization or candidate.

It is important to note that Judge Merchan did receive an opinion from the New York State Judicial Ethics Committee which absolved the Judge from any wrongdoing, citing to the minimal amount of the contributions.  Under New York law, a Judge is entitled to rely upon such an opinion as per se evidence of the propriety of his actions.

Under Rule 100.3(E)(1); “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where…the judge knows that the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person…has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.”

Loren Merchan, who is Judge Juan Merchan’s daughter, (a first degree of relationship to the judge), is the president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm.  According to The New York Post, Authentic Campaigns top clients include Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), “who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, and the Senate Majority PAC, a major party fundraiser…Schiff’s campaign for US Senate scored…$20 million in aid since he began soliciting donations off the presumptive GOP presidential front-runner’s unprecedented 34-count indictment last April, according to Federal Election Commission records…The Senate Majority political action committee, which supports Democratic Senate campaigns, pocketed $73.6 million since it also began firing off fundraising emails following the ex-president’s indictment…The super PAC has done more than $15 million in business with Authentic since 2019, including email fundraising and branding assistance, while Schiff’s Senate campaign paid Authentic more than $10 million for digital advertising and other consulting services over the past year.”

This would be an obvious basis for recusal in most cases, but Judge Merchan again sought an opinion on the matter from the Judicial Ethics Committee.  Judge Merchan quotes this opinion in his denial of the motion to recuse himself as follows; “On the specific issue of the employment of this Court’s daughter, the Committee wrote ‘the matter currently before the judge does not involve either the judge’s relative or the relative’s business, whether directly or indirectly. They are not parties or likely witnesses in the matter, and none of the parties or counsel before the judge are clients in the business. We see nothing in the inquiry to suggest that the outcome of the case could have any effect on the judge’s relative, the relative’s business, or any of their interests.’ Defendant has failed to demonstrate that there exists concrete, or even realistic reasons for recusal to be appropriate, much less required on these grounds. The speculative and hypothetical scenarios offered by Defendant fall well short of the legal standard.”

When a judge’s daughter raised tens of millions of dollars based on a case before her father, it would seem very narrow of the Judicial Ethics Committee to believe that the outcome of the case would have no impact on her business. It would also seem very arbitrary for the Ethics Committee to make an exception to the rule against political contributions by Judges based upon the amount of those contributions. 

It is fair to say that under New York law, Judge Merchan had a right to rely upon these opinions of the Judicial Ethics Committee. However, his failure to recuse himself was a clear and absolute violation of Rule 100.2 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York, which states that “a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities” (Emphasis added.) This includes an admonishment that “a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Hearing the criminal case brought against the Republican candidate for President while your own daughter runs a company that makes millions of dollars working with Democrats and their candidates for office certainly has the appearance of impropriety and does not promote public confidence in the impartiality of Judge Merchan. Nor does the fact that the Judge gave money to the Biden campaign, Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans encourage public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

To engage in these actions clearly had the appearance of impropriety, and any ethical judge would have recused himself under these circumstances, no matter what cover that judge was provided by a conveniently favorable series of opinions from the New York State Judicial Ethics Committee.

To summarize my points, I believe the following:

1. The indictment was legally insufficient, and Judge Merchan should have dismissed the indictment before trial.

2. The failure to dismiss the indictment led to charges being added during trial, a violation of Donald Trump’s right to fundamental fairness and notice of the charges he faced prior to trial. This deprived Donald Trump of the right to prepare a defense. The jury instructions given by Judge Merchan were illegal in that they included these additional charges and allowed for a non-unanimous verdict.

3. Judge Juan Merchan made unconstitutional and prejudicial rulings that impacted Donald Trump’s ability to present a defense, and

4. Judge Juan Merchan should have recused himself from presiding over this matter, based upon the appearance of impropriety in having contributed to political campaigns (regardless of the amounts) and based upon his daughter’s political activities, regardless of the ethics opinions he received.

There are, of course, other appellate issues which exist in this case; allowing the prosecution to claim federal election law violations without presenting any evidence to support those allegations; not allowing the defense to present a witness regarding federal election law, after allowing the prosecution to make the aforementioned statements; and allowing Stormy Daniels to testify, knowing that the prejudicial effect of her testimony outweighed any probative value are several.  It is my belief, however, that the ones I have outlined are what I believe to be the strongest issues to be presented on appeal.

Therefore, it is my considered opinion, based upon my years of legal training and experience, that former President Donald Trump did not receive a fair trial.  That Judge Juan Merchan failed in his obligation to be fair and impartial.  That Judge Merchan committed a series of errors that necessitate reversal of this conviction.  And further, I defy anyone of either good conscience or sound mental facilities to say otherwise.

To be direct, I do not believe anyone can reasonably state that former President Trump received a fair trial in New York County Supreme Court from Judge Juan Merchan.

  Faithfully Submitted,    John H. Wilson,                                                     Judge, Civil Court, Bronx County (ret)