Month: July 2023

A little-known country in Central Asia may be playing an outsized role in global security. Azerbaijan’s 10 million people live in the transcontinental region spanning Asia and Europe, where the area’s earliest inhabitants date back to the Stone Age. Throughout history the region has been the subject of contests for control over its territory and rich natural resources. During World War II, 80% of the Soviet Union’s oil for their war machine came from the area. Azerbaijan eventually emerged as an independent state in 1991 and now maintains relations with 158 countries and 38 international organizations. Today the Muslim nation is the subject of speculation among the great powers concerning its growing relationship with NATO and moves toward the West. Analysts point to Russian unease with Baku’s policy, despite its balancing policy. 

When President Ilham Aliyev visited NATO headquarters in December 2021, he said “Azerbaijan has proven to be a reliable partner of NATO.” Rusif Huseynov and Samir Hajizad, of the Jamestown Foundation, note that NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg confirmed that Azerbaijan is “a valued partner” and was engaged in strong military cooperation with Turkey. It provides oil and gas supplies through multiple pipelines to several NATO member states and contributes to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. “Baku never sought NATO membership and instead opted for ‘equidistance’ from rivaling blocs,” notes Huseynov and Hajizad. They point out that the country continues to maintain a balancing policy designed to provide it room for maneuvering between Russia and the West and avoid conflict while accepting indirect NATO support. 

Turkey announced plans in 2021 to establish a military base in Azerbaijan under the Shusha Declaration and strengthened their defense partnership despite protestations from Moscow. Baku’s close ties to Turkey helped it modernize its armed forces and move into better alignment with NATO member standards. Over the last year Azerbaijan has increased its cooperation with the West and worked more with NATO on senior level visits and other interactions.

A month ago, Azerbaijan’s foreign policy advisor, Hikmat Hajiyev, joined several meetings with NATO officials in Brussels. In response, NATO secretary general’s special representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, Javier Colomina, has been to Azerbaijan four times since 2021 to discuss practical cooperation as well as joint defense planning and review processes, says Huseynov and Hajizad. NATO’s website now describes the country as a “key partner nation.”  They point out that according to a senior NATO official, “Azerbaijan successfully uses NATO cooperation tools and is among the most active countries in these programs.”

Although the country wants to keep balanced relations, it is drafting away from Russia and expanding military cooperation with Turkey. The Azerbaijani publication Ordu recently noted that several Russian-made Sukhoi Su-25 fighter jets in the Azerbaijani Air Force have been modernized according to NATO standards by Turkey, rather than Russia. NATO indirectly is supporting mediation efforts with the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace negotiations and the Karabakh issue.

One Central Asian publication, Azertag, pointed out recently that the Azerbaijani side is troubled about possible military aid to Armenia, which is a member of the Russian-led CSTO, by individual NATO states, such as France. The security environment in Central Asia remains complex, especially given recent events in Russia. Azerbaijan and several other Central Asian states are re-evaluating their relationship with Moscow and making overtures to NATO and other western states. The situation warrants careful watching as events unfold in the coming months.

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

In the earliest recorded histories of man, the word propaganda was a neutral term used to refer to “human activity,” in general. Later, in its Latin form, the word evolved to mean “to spread.” By the 20^th century, the English form of the word became associated with a negative approach to communication using manipulation to promote certain opinions or ideologies, or to persuade an audience by producing an emotional rather than rational response to information. Today’s Russian propaganda machine is developing such campaigns not only to spread misinformation but using malicious tactics to create an illusory reality. Putin’s bureaucrats are not providing “information support” or developing “strategic communications,” the ground truth is that Moscow is using its so-called “think tanks” to justify Russian actions in Ukraine and elsewhere.

The Valdai Discussion Club, Foreign Policy Research Foundation, and the Russian International Affairs Council, among others, are part of a complex web of propagandist organizations that unlike Western think tanks are tasked with rationalizing Putin’s irrational policies. Ksenia Kirillova, of the Jamestown Foundation, says these centers are often “more dangerous than ordinary propaganda” as they “do not simply take their words from the pages of the Kremlin’s ‘manual’ but create their own theories and ideological principles that then form the basis for Russian policy and serve as further justifications for aggression.”

In a 35-minute-long YouTube video posted June 24, a Belarusian “think tank analyst,” closely linked to Russia, accused the United States of trying to hold back the development of Russia and the rest of the world. This supports the first of three Russian postulates, according to Kirillova, that the US is responsible for instigating the war in Ukraine. It is a dangerous ideological narrative employed by Kremlin authorities to suggest that Washington is losing influence over the world to Moscow, but if Washington does succeed other countries will be too frightened to “stand up to the hegemon.”

As early as May 1, 2022, the Russian publication Global Affairs reported that the Kremlin accused the West saying it “consciously provoked Moscow to adopt a military solution.” This misinformation campaign continued and evolved to openly accuse the West of “attacking” Russia. Kirillova points out that the logical consequence of this postulate is that “support for Ukraine is beneficial only to the United States, but not to Europe, which ‘will not fight with Russia for the sake of the US.’” This line is part of mainstream Russian propaganda echoed by the country’s top officials, including Russian State Duma Chairman Yvacheslav Volodin. Last December he announced on Duma TV that “the United States is trying with all its might to hold back the development of other states in order to preserve its hegemony.”

Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russian foreign intelligence, repeats the narrative regularly in speeches citing how international tensions are caused by “the stubborn resistance of the West, led by the US, to come to grips with the loss of its role as world hegemon.” In June he accused American and British intelligence services of making “greater Eurasia… a priority target for attacks….”

The second postulate Kirillova offers, points to Russian accusations that Western policy is neo-colonial and directed as much against Moscow as the rest of the world. According to Russian ideologues in the publication Global Affairs, the Kremlin today is “at the forefront of this struggle and is a sort of icebreaker that finishes off the residual ice of the neo-colonial system of Western domination.”

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, often proclaims that “the military operation of Russia in Ukraine contributes to freeing the world from the neo-colonial yoke of the West.” On June 16 Putin joined in the campaign saying that “the monstrous neo-colonial system has ceased to exist.”

According to Kirillov, the third postulate argues that, for Moscow, the war in Ukraine is supposedly existential, “where the existence of Russia is at stake.” A Russian YouTube video in late June said for the West, it is only essential to derive maximum benefit from the war, after which it will seek other ways to achieve this goal. It is a battle between ground truth and illusory reality, one that has Putin believing his own propaganda, when Russian officials declare the world is “unconditionally” on Moscow’s side, that Europe is about to negotiate with Russia in an escape from the “dictates of the US.” Kirillov argues that this credo “convinces the Kremlin to continue its aggression believing in the inevitability of victory, which renders the Putin regime incapable of negotiations.” Misinformation and propaganda believed by those creating it may be the most dangerous Russian campaign to date.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

“I’m the most fun, I’m rich, and I’m always in trouble.”

                              Larry Flynt, quoted in The People v. Larry Flynt

Comparing former President Donald Trump with pornographer Larry Flynt (best known for publishing the utterly raunchy Hustler magazine) can lead to certain…misunderstandings.  But both have some attributes in common – and Flynt summed up those similarities in the quote above.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, Flynt was involved in a series of lawsuits, including “(h)is most famous legal case (which) involved (the Reverend) Jerry Falwell, founder of (the) Moral Majority. In 1983, Hustler ran a liquor advertisement parody suggesting that Falwell had lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued, saying he suffered emotional distress. In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), the Supreme Court invalidated a lower court’s $200,000 damage award and ruled that a public figure cannot recover damages stemming from a satirical attack. The decision demonstrated that the adult entertainment industry is frequently in the vanguard of First Amendment free speech court battles that affect the wider culture.” 

Much like Flynt, who died in 2021, Trump is not afraid to use his money to defend himself from various allegations and charges.  In doing so, Trump ends up a leader in protecting the rights of others.  Also similar to Flynt, Trump appears to relish a fight.  As noted by NBC News, “Donald Trump gets up every day ready to face whatever comes at him. He doesn’t think about yesterday and he doesn’t worry about tomorrow. The fight before him is what he is focused on.”    “In a sick way I sort of enjoy it,” Trump said, while speaking at the North Carolina Republican Party’s convention in Greensboro, North Carolina this June.

Still, no matter how much one enjoys a good fight, no one seriously enjoys defending ones’ self against a federal indictment.  Trump had enough trouble on his plate regarding his indictment by the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for allegations involving election fraud.  Now, Special US Attorney Jack Smith has filed a 38 count indictment in the Southern District of Florida against the former President and one of his aides, Waltine Nauta.  The indictment can be viewed in its entirety here: 

The allegations stem from the allegedly classified documents recovered by the FBI after their raid of Mar a Lago in the summer of 2022.  As readers will no doubt remember, “a search warrant was executed by approximately 30 Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Washington DC bureau office at former President Donald Trump’s residence in Florida…(a)ccording to The Guardian, ‘(t)he search warrant (was) approved by Florida federal magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart. The attachment to the warrant, describing the ‘property to be seized’, broadly referred to classified documents and materials responsive to the Presidential Records Act.’”  

At the time, we noted the overbroad nature of the search warrant used by the FBI.   “’Classified documents and materials responsive to the Presidential Records Act,’” could mean any one of a thousand or more categories of material.  Further, such a wide description gives FBI Agents no particular and specific description of the materials subject to the search. Next, the area to be searched appears not to have been specified.  Agents searched all of Mar-A Lago, including the private residence of the former President and his wife; the former President’s office; and even a closed and locked safe.” 

We also discussed the requirements for searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution; “a search warrant must identify a specific place to be searched, and particular items to be seized. ‘The Fourth Amendment…itself identifies the criteria for obtaining a lawful search warrant. A police officer, or other official seeking a warrant…must ‘particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’ A search warrant is invalid if it covers too broad an area or does not identify specific items or persons.’  (Emphasis added).”

Thus, before we begin any discussion of the indictment, it must be clearly understood that the search warrant used to obtain the materials used against the former President is seriously and fatally flawed.

What is the effect of the use of an illegal search warrant on a prosecution?   “You might know that evidence the cops find during an illegal search of you or your belongings is probably inadmissible in criminal court…(g)enerally speaking, the prosecution can’t use evidence that comes directly from police illegality—the seized object or the statement. But oftentimes, it also can’t use evidence that derives from the illegality—something the officers discovered as a result of the object or statement. The latter is commonly referred to as the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.'”

The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine was discussed extensively in the 1963 US Supreme Court case, Wong Sun v. United States.    There Justice William Brennan ruled for the majority that “In order to make effective the fundamental constitutional guarantees of sanctity of the home and inviolability of the person…this Court held nearly half a century ago that evidence seized during an unlawful search could not constitute proof against the victim of the search…The exclusionary prohibition extends as well to the indirect as the direct products of such invasions…(this) exclusionary rule has traditionally barred from trial physical, tangible materials obtained either during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion.” (Citations omitted.)  

Like any other resident of the United States, Donald Trump is entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.  Further, it is undisputed that the warrant used to search his home lacked the specificity required by the Fourth Amendment to that Constitution.  Therefore, that warrant MUST be ruled invalid, and the evidence seized during the search of the former President’s residence MUST be suppressed.

No other result is possible if the Federal Courts follow the law.

A review of the Federal Indictment shows that the first 31 Counts all involve individual charges for 31 separate, allegedly classified documents recovered during the search of Mar a Lago.  If the Court follows the well-established precedent of Wong Sun and applies the exclusionary rule, these documents must be suppressed, and the first 31 counts of the indictment would need to be dismissed as lacking supporting evidence.

Count 32 alleges a Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice by various witnesses who claim that Trump and his co-defendant made untrue statements regarding the location and/or existence of the allegedly classified documents, and caused boxes of these documents to be moved around Mar a Lago. Count 33, (Withholding a document or Record), is also predicated on similar conduct described in Court 32, as are Count 34 (Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record), Count 35 (Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation), Count 36 (Scheme to Conceal), Count 37 and Count 38 (False Statements and Representations).   All seek to use statements and/or actions taken by Trump and his co-defendant to allegedly “hide and conceal documents from a federal grand jury,” “conceal boxes that contained documents with classification markings,” and “make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement and representation…during a grand jury investigation” regarding the existence and/or location of these documents.

As to these counts, the exclusionary rule may or may not be applied.  Returning to the Wong Sun case, the named defendant made statements that the government sought to use against him.  According to Justice Brennan, “Wong Sun’s unsigned confession was not the fruit of that arrest, and was therefore properly admitted at trial. On the evidence that Wong Sun had been released on his own recognizance after a lawful arraignment, and had returned voluntarily several days later to make the statement, we hold that the connection between the arrest and the statement had ‘become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.'” 

Thus, it is entirely possible that some of the statements attributed to Trump and his co-defendant which occurred after the Mar a Lago search, while a grand jury was considering charges, could be seen as “attenuated” from the initial illegality of the search.  However, it is equally possible that the use of these statements and actions against Trump and his co-defendant are all necessarily dependent upon the seized documents being admissible.

After all, it is hard to show a jury that a defendant obstructed an investigation, when you cannot show that jury the subject of that investigation – in other words, how do I know what Trump was trying to hide, if these documents are suppressed, and cannot be used at evidence at the trial? 

This means that even if the evidence is suppressed, and only the first 31 counts of the indictment are dismissed, the prosecution may still have a difficult time proving their case for the remaining charges.

The federal case against Trump has only begun.  We have yet to see the inevitable motion to suppress from the defense.  But have no doubt – Former President Trump will fight for his rights every step of the way.

And in doing so, Trump fights for the rights of all citizens against the government’s use of excessive, inspecific search warrants.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

What has happened to the ideals that inspired America’s founders to sign the Declaration of Independence, 247 years ago today?

What is behind the bizarre actions of government officials who punish innocents who merely seek to defend themselves against criminals? Why does the Biden Administration discourage families who act responsibly to save up to buy a home? Why are homeless veterans behind illegal immigrants in getting shelter? These are not unrelated moves.

Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, but it is during the Biden Administration that the goal has been realized.

The political, philosophical, and financial underpinnings of the nation, so brilliantly expressed in the Constitution and a capitalist economic system have always centered on the rights of the individual. That contrasts sharply with the beliefs of the current White House, which views individuals as mere cogs in the machinery of society.

In a series of abhorrent moves, the Manhattan district attorney has done all in his power to let hardened, violent, repeat offenders return to the streets as quickly as possible, and to prosecute those, like the hero marine who intervened to stop a crazed recidivist from harming yet again, who protect themselves or other innocents. As crime rages in cities where left-wing policies reign, that example repeats itself again and again, from good Samaritans like that marine, to shop owners and their employees protecting their businesses, to people just walking down the street and assaulted by criminals leftists set free. The message is clear, and intentional: citizens don’ t have the basic right of self-defense.

The attempt to impose a fee on house purchasers with good credit and redistribute the funds to those chosen by federal policy repeats that concept in a different form. It does not matter that you did all the right things and made all the right choices. You do not deserve the fruits of your labor. Big Brother government decides who gets the goods. Your choices and actions are irrelevant, because you do not have individual rights.

Even those who sacrificed to protect the nation do not get favored by left-run government.  Homeless veterans are, in some cases, given less priority in getting shelter than illegal immigrants. In upstate New York, reports several sources, homeless veterans have been evicted from temporary shelters to make room for illegals.

There is also a clear and specific purpose to the White House’s policy of opening the border to all, and to the practice of blatantly lying to the electorate about the reality of that self-imposed crisis.  Bringing in a vast number of people who have no affinity to the American tradition of individual rights, and who someday will be eligible to vote, is an important step in the achievement of the “fundamental transformation” of America.

Over the past several decades, a less intentional, but significantly harmful policy to degrade individual rights has arisen. The framework of the Constitution is that citizens elect representatives who enact laws. If the electorate disapproves of those laws, they have the option of voting those representatives out of office at the next election. But that is no longer how the process works. Much of the day-to-day operation of government has been turned over to a faceless and unaccountable bureaucracy that could care less what you think because you cannot vote them out.  In fact, even elected representatives who object have become powerless, as many of these agency employees are protected against dismissal by various devices. Equally troubling is the judicial policy of granting “deference” to those agencies. This concept of “judicial deference” stacks the deck in court against those opposing the application of an agency regulation.

Once again, you do not count.

All of these realities are combining to eliminate the very central concepts of what the U.S. is supposed to about. The concept of a citizenry with individual rights is being rapidly consigned to the dustbin of history.