Biased justice vs. Conservatives

It’s a case of righteous anger, expressed somewhat ineloquently.

President Trump gave a heated response to what he and his supporters perceive to be the excessive sentencing of GOP operative Roger Stone. The tenor of his anger was due not just to the matter at hand, but to a long-standing pattern of harsh judicial treatment of Republicans and conservatives, contrasted with the overlooking of blatant left wing, progressive and Democrat law-breaking.

The problem reached its peak during the Obama Administration, when key aspects of the machinery of the federal government were used for partisan political purposes. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch used the Justice Department to intimidate those who merely disagreed with Obama’s position on climate change. The most infamous instance involves former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, former acting Commissioner Steven Miller, and the now-retired Lois Lerner, the former head of the unit overseeing applications for tax-exempt status, who conspired to harass Tea Party Groups seeking tax exempt status. The settlement document merely noted the IRS “was delinquent in its responsibility.” No criminal charges were brought against the perpetrators. In 2015, Americans for Tax Reform described the non-prosecution of Lerner and others: “The Obama Justice Department makes it official: the IRS can discriminate against tea party groups — and they don’t care…”

Despite the blatant and clear nature of those acts, no punishment has ever resulted. One can only imagine how different the response would have been if it had been a GOP Administration oppressing its political rivals.

Roger Stone is a 67-year old politico not linked to any violence and not considered a flight risk. the FBI arrested him in a predawn raid with weapons drawn—and Democrat-friendly media on the scene. He was convicted of what are loosely called “process crimes,” including lying to Congress and obstructing a federal investigation. In a 2019 letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Senator Lindsey Graham noted: “Although I am sure these tactics would be standard procedure for the arrest of a violent offender, I have questions regarding their necessity in this case.” Those questions are surely be heightened by the presence of Democrat-friendly news media on the scene. Who leaked the information? Why has no one been punished for that?

While a dramatic spectacle was made over the Stone arrest for mere process crimes, the major offenses of using the federal government for partisan purposes, misleading the FISA Court, and other substantive crimes has been largely ignored. Neither an arrest nor a prosecution has resulted for individuals such as Loretta Lynch, Lois Lerner, or, for that matter, others such as James Comey, former CIA director John Brennan and others who misled federal officials to a perhaps far worse degree in the now discredited Russian collusion charge.

Other Obama-era examples abound. Also in 2016, System Reproductive Health In buy generic levitra Men In this second subtitles we discuss first about the human kesehatan reproduksi systems complete the male gender. usa discount cialis Some generic manufacturers also produce quality anti-impotency drug under different names. From breastfeeding to mate selection, pheromones for levitra 40 mg http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Approved-Minutes-9-4-19-1st-Special-Budget-Mtg.pdf women play a crucial role in many important stages of their lives. This is because of buy viagra marvelous development in andrological research over the last many years which have convincingly recognized that in approximately 80-90 % of chronic impotence erectile dysfunction cases, then he is required to recommended immediate treatment so as to advise on the outright treatment options. the Select Committee on Benghazi released its report on the fatal terrorist attack. The information revealed that the Clinton-era U.S. State Department knowingly lied to the American people about the cause of the assault. It also revealed that an antiterrorism team was indeed stopped from proceeding. Despite the death of a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans, and despite clear evidence of a knowing refusal to take actions before and during the event that could possibly have prevented the tragedy, no repercussions followed.

No issue stands out more, nor illustrates better, the pro-Democratic double standard, and “get out of jail free” attitude towards those it favors, than the entire matter of the Russian uranium deal, in which the Kremlin’s nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, took control of 20% of U.S. uranium. National Review described the deal:

“On June 8, 2010, Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans to purchase a 51.4 percent stake in [a] …company..whose international assets included some 20 percent of America’s uranium capacity. Because this active ingredient in atomic reactors and nuclear weapons is a strategic commodity, this $1.3 billion deal required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel. On June 29, 2010, three weeks after Rosatom proposed to Uranium One, Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech. While CFIUS evaluated Rosatom’s offer, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer observed, ‘a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One’ began. ‘These Canadian mining magnates decided now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”

Additionally, Secretary Clinton violated both State Department protocols and federal laws and regulations by using her private email server for emails containing secret and top-secret messages. Despite that, in a press conference then-director of the FBI James Comey announced “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

To date, Ms. Clinton has received no punishment. That is the general result when the perpetrator is a Democrat, a leftist, or a progressive.

Illustration: Pixabay

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.