Indicting the Indicter – USA Gov Policy

The most startling aspect of the recent Trump indictment has nothing to do with the indictment itself. Rather, it is the fact that Joe Biden has committed exactly the same offense and has not received a similar treatment. Indeed, Biden’s offense is far worse. He was not president when he removed the documents, and had no ability to declassify them. Further, unlike the relatively secure confines of Mar-a-Lago, he stored sensitive materials in a location open to China, further adding to the growing body of evidence that Biden received payment from Beijing to influence policy.

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.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all has been the disclosures from the Durham investigation. The FBI, along with other intelligence agencies, conspired to establish a false charge of “Russian Collusion” against the Trump campaign, virtually tearing the nation apart. Further, government officials pressured legacy and social medial sources to censor news that would be embarrassing to the Democratic presidential candidate and to plant false stories about the Republican incumbent.

Whenever these issues are brought up by those outraged by this unlawful behavior, the matter is deflected by criticism of Trump. Depending on your taste, the prior chief executive might be an outstanding former president or the worse person to ever hold the office. Neither choice is relevant. The insertion of federal agencies in a partisan election to favor one side and produce false narratives and pressure independent media sources to go along with the conspiracy against the other is the most heinous political crime ever committed by appointed officials.

Further, it may well be the most dangerous. Ignoring Biden’s dirty deals with China is a national security risk of the highest magnitude. The only comparable act is the attempted sellout of West Point to the British by Benedict Arnold.

Trump is not the only target. The highly partisan Department of Homeland Security has targeted lesser political opponents as well. The Obama Administration called American military veterans returning from deployment in the Middle East one of the most domestic terrorist threats. The Biden Administration considers parents who disagree with explicit sexual indoctrination of very young children to be domestic terrorists.

Official misconduct at the highest levels is matched by the growing use of violence by the Democrat-sympathizing left against those they disagree with. The recent physical attacks by Antifa against protesting parents is a salient example.

Appointed elected officials and the agencies they administer must return to a tradition of relative nonpartisanship and equal treatment of all under the law. Elected leaders who influence them to be partisan should be punished.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.