Month: December 2023

A newly declassified US intelligence assessment this week indicates that Russia has lost 315,000 troops to injuries or death out of its 360,000 ground troops since invading Ukraine. Despite the huge blow, which also includes the loss of 2,200 of its 3,500 tanks, Moscow is pushing forward on another front.

As the cold of winter sets in across the northern hemisphere, analysts in Washington are reexamining Russia’s ambitious plans in the Arctic. In recent years President Vladimir Putin has set his sights on claiming large swaths of Artic territory. With the US failing to ratify the Law of the Sea (LOS) treaty, Washington has had no seat at the table, and little say over Russia’s actions. Due to the lack of American push back, the international community is beginning to recognize Russia’s territorial claims. This should give Western nations great concern even as Russia temporarily constrains some of its Arctic activities.

There is some short-term, good news from the Far North. Putin’s war in Ukraine is forcing him to increasingly shift financial resources away from his Arctic goals. The strain is hampering the pace of the Kremlin’s future political and economic plans in the region, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He says, “The Russian government can no longer afford the land-or sea-based infrastructure it needs to strengthen its territorial claims and struggles to source critical components for Arctic shipping and the development of natural resources there.” All of the Arctic littoral states are now members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and no longer neutral nations.

Beijing is not a dependent source of resources for Moscow this year, as Xi Jinping and the CCP are facing their own domestic economic challenges. The Chinese leadership also recognizes that aiding Russia will further alienate the West at a time of historically high tensions since 1948.

Moscow appears to be increasingly concerned that other states may also challenge its position in the Arctic. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin has attempted to shore up Russia’s territorial claims in the High North, especially to the Arctic seabed. The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental shelf (CLCS) reviewed and accepted most of Moscow’s claims and acknowledged the Arctic states can use existing technology to claim the seabed, almost two weeks before Putin’s February 2022 invasion.

“The new reality,” according to Goble, is that it allows “Canada, Denmark, and Greenland to make similar submissions and means that a final decision on Artic territorial claims remains a distant dream.”

The US -Russian border along the Arctic Ocean and the underlying seabed are guided by a 1990 agreement since the US has signed, but not ratified, the more recent LOS treaty.

In mid-April 2021, the Kremlin reported Putin gave two speeches, one to the Russian parliament and another to the influential Russian Geographical Society, in which he called for the launch of Russian development of the High North. In them he noted that new Arctic transportation networks were needed to support the Northern Sea Route. Goble says this is a key policy goal for the Russian president as he intends to develop the region’s expansive oil and gas reserves. While Moscow’s Arctic energy plan has slowed due to the war in Ukraine, it is not entirely dead although some programs including several military-related projects, are on hold as many Russians are leaving the High North. Goble points out, “these obstacles have pushed some in Moscow to argue that Russia must press its case in the Arctic by acting unilaterally and militarily rather than prioritizing economic development and adhering to international law.”

In June 2022, after increased international isolation from the West and Putin’s failed attempt to create an alternative Arctic grouping of states, Moscow found it also lost its steady backing from Beijing. The Eurasian Daily Monitor’s Ksenia Kirillova reports that China is the dominant partner and in a strong bargaining position now. It is insisting on, and getting, substantial discounts for Russian gas.

Western governments need to evaluate, be guided by, and respond to Russian actions and future plans with due consideration to how Moscow views adherence to international law and conventions. The Russian Fund for the Defense of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States argues that Putin doesn’t need UN approval for its claims. According to the Fund, Russia simply must declare its ownership and employ its military to defend the claims to the Arctic seabed and lands.

The Fund was established by Putin as part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to defend Russia’s Arctic claims explicitly and unilaterally. In the future, as the Northern Passage opens to year-round oceanic commercial traffic and new seabed resources are discovered, Putin could use this body to justify conflict in the Arctic against other states staking claims. A former DIA analyst, interviewed on the Vernuccio-Novak Report radio show, noted that when Putin is backed into a corner, as appears to be the case in the Arctic, he is capable of striking out like a cornered snake. The financial and military constraints of the war in Ukraine today may, in the end, make the Russian president a deadlier future opponent in the Arctic.

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

Each American President has committed serious policy mistakes. Many have overstepped constitutional limits on their power. More than one has engaged in activities that skirt the lines of corruption.

Never before, however, has an administration had such a near-total record of deadly serious policy failures at home and abroad, combined with stunning acts of sleaze and dishonesty, as that of the current White House.

 At this moment, the planet is enduring wars in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The Biden response to each situation has made matters far worse. His decision to depart Afghanistan abandoning billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and not leaving behind a residual force at Bagram Air Force Base essentially rang the dinner bell for rapacious dictators in Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing. His defense spending proposals added to the impression that his Administration was not serious about security issues. Its pursuit of a worthless nuclear deal with Iran, his comments that he wouldn’t respond to a “minor incursion” in Ukraine defied common sense. The White House refusal to shoot down China’s spy balloon until it completed its mission over continental USA baffled and worried observers. The bizarre decision to end the existing program to root out Beijing’s intense espionage remains a frightening mystery.

As the threat of global terrorism grows exponentially, Biden clings to his open border policy. Millions enter the United States without background checks and minus any means of tracking their whereabouts.  Border patrol agents have warned about finding Islamic prayer rugs along the border. Military age Chinese nationals are crossing into the United States,

In addition to the national safety implications, this has led to great financial distress of city and state governments. It can’t even be justified on naïve sympathy grounds for illegal immigrants, who find themselves subject to rape, trafficking, and exploitation. Their overwhelming numbers leave them in many cases on the streets, without any legal means of providing for themselves. They are deeply vulnerable to becoming pawns for criminal cartels, and the influence of foreign powers who seek to construct a fifth column within the nation.  

Despite all that, Biden keeps doubling down on his border disaster. The New York Post reports that “’Asylum seekers’” arriving in New York City just set a new record: nearly 4,000 in a single week. And the routine inflow is double what it was a year ago. It’s getting worse, not better…Team Biden hasn’t done a thing to slow the tide at the border [it has] opened various new paths for illegal migrants to enter ‘legally’ — with each fresh ‘pathway’ adding to the ’come on in!’ signal.”

A bizarre energy policy that destroyed related America’s self-sufficiency and dramatically benefitted unsavory regimes in Iran, Russia, and Venezuela served both to enrich aggressor states and imperil the U.S. economy. Energy is the bedrock of a modern economy, and despite all the bluster, there is no “alternative energy” yet developed that is capable of meeting demand. The impact on the economy is clear. The House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (MO-R) recently showed prices rising 17.7 percent since President Biden took the Oath of Office.

It would be almost comforting to believe that these were all acts of incompetence, but the evidence of corruption surrounding the President and his family is disturbing. The House Oversight Committee states that “There is mounting evidence that Joe Biden was involved in his family’s influence peddling schemes, including while he served as Vice President.”  Considering the strange and politically suicidal nature of Biden’s decisions regarding China in particular, it is not inappropriate to ask what influence did the funds foreign sources have on Administration policies.

The disparate treatment of similar acts is a key indicator of a legal system that is moving into the dangerous territory of being an attack dog against enemies of the ruling party.  Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden removed documents from the White House following their tenures in office (Biden served as vice president during the Obama Administration.) Trump has been pursued vigorously. Biden has not, despite the fact that Biden’s offense was more severe for two vital reasons. First, Biden did not have the authority, as VP, to declassify. Second, a portion of Biden’s documents were held at a location that made them open to Chinese agents.

The bias extends to more than just officials. During the Black Lives/Antifa riots that lasted an entire summer, buildings were burned, people died, shops were looted, federal courthouses were attacked, police stations were invaded, and so-called independent zones were established.  Not much was done to punish the perpetrators. Indeed, some Democrat leaders even help raise funds for the few who were prosecuted.  On the other hand, protestors who engaged in a one-day incident in which they trespassed into the Capitol building causing little damage have been prosecuted extensively and given draconian sentences.

A particularly serious example can be seen in the treatment of parents who protest the bizarre concepts advocated and supported by Democrats in public schools.  When the practice of allowing boys into girl’s bathrooms (because they happened to “feel like a girl on any particular day”) resulted in the rape of a young female student, the father of the girl objected vigorously.  He was later prosecuted for his actions, and parents who stood up for their children’s safety have been labelled “domestic terrorists.”  It is a central tenet of authoritarian regimes that the state, not the parent, has authority over a child.

The Second Amendment allows Americans to possess weapons, a concept hated by totalitarians.  Attacks on it and on institutions that defend that right have been under consistent attack. New Mexico’s Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) used a public health order to ban firearms in Albuquerque.  President Biden has created an agency supposedly to prevent gun violence, but there can be little doubt that his goal is the reduction of gun ownership. On the other hand, he seeks to dramatically increase the number of armed individuals loyal to his Administration, under the guise of IRS agents.

The current White House has repeatedly ignored Constitutional limits on its power.  Biden has attempted to spend billions of dollars on a student loan forgiveness program that ignores the role of Congress in budget matters.  He has willfully and knowingly wholly ignored federal law on immigration by letting in over three million illegals, again rejecting limits on his authority.

Which brings up the next step on the road to reducing freedom: diluting the concept of citizenry. Biden’s refusal to immigration law has allowed three million illegals to enter the U.S. Border patrol agents and others have warned that Chinese agents, drug cartel members, human traffickers, and terrorists have infiltrated that number as well as those seeking economic benefits.  As the crisis has grown to the point where mayors, governors, and law enforcement personnel have begged for change, the White House has doubled down by promising work permits for the illegals. The concept of being a citizen protected by borders and a commonly acknowledged Constitution and a Bill of Rights, is an obstacle to ultimate power.  Bringing in individuals or groups without that understanding eases the way for unchecked authority.

Corrupt politicians have existed on both sides of the political aisle.  But never before has a major party engaged in a so determined and skillful assault on freedom. Mark Levin warns that “The Democrat Party stands for the relentless pursuit of power and control. America was founded on the principle of individual and human liberty…If the Democrat Party succeeds, the American experiment will have failed.”

Frank Vernuccio, Jr. J.D. serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government

Photo: Pixabay

There is a worrisome and growing resemblance to authoritarian regimes evident in portions of American government.

Dictatorial regimes have much in common. Freedom of speech and journalistic independence are restricted. Judicial systems are used as weapons of the ruling party.  Weapons are kept out of the hands of the general population. Elections are subjected to conditions that reduce their validity. The concept of citizenry is diluted. A particular group is scapegoated. The importance of basic national documents and traditions are downplayed. Through taxation or regulation, the financial independence of individuals and small businesses are limited.

Disturbingly, each of those characteristics is clearly present in both the Biden Administration and Democratic jurisdictions throughout America. That’s not a partisan allegation. It is solidly substantiated through verifiable facts.

The First Amendment was long considered untouchable, but that began to change during the Obama White House. In an attempt to silence opposition, concepts such as “Disinformation,” and the attempt to create an entire related agency, were commenced. The move was widely criticized, but the Biden Administration has sought to engage in a similar move.

 Groups that do not follow the progressive-Democrat line are subjected to recrimination. The IRS harassment of the Tea Party was a prime example. Over the years, the leadership of the Democrat Party has furthered the concept.  The senior Senator from New York, Charles Schumer, argued that “The First Amendment is not absolute.”

Ben Shapiro notes that the establishment media, which does the bidding of the Democrat Party, “…broadly promoted that idea of deplatforming mainstream conservatives and conservative outlets…Max Boot suggested in the pages of the Washington Post that Fox News be removed from Comcast, or even that the Federal Communications Commission be empowered to to censor cable networks,,,”

Over the decades, Democrats steadily gained control of the federal bureaucracy, a pace that wasn’t even disturbed during periods when the GOP held the presidency. That bureaucracy, particularly in the Department of Justice and the Intelligence services (remember that John Brennan, former CIA chief, was once a registered member of the Communist Party) used their immense power and influence to assist Democrats.

Americans may argue forever whether the 2020 election was fair, but the reality is partisan federal bureaucracies clearly and undeniably used their power to lean on media outlets to censor news facts, such as the Hunter Biden laptop, that would have swayed many voters to reject Biden’s candidacy. This was similar to how those same organizations conspired (I employ that term in the full legal sense) to create a false narrative about “Russian collusion” of the prior GOP president.

Totalitarian regimes do not view the judicial system as an objective arbiter of the law. Rather, it is viewed as a means of enforcing control. Judges that do not tow the party line do so at their own peril.  When several Supreme Court justices disagreed with Democrat positions on abortion, they were threatened both physically and institutionally.  Senator Schumer warned that they would “reap the whirlwind” for their decision. When protestors jeopardized their homes and families, the Department of Justice failed to live up to its obligation to provide timely protection. The Washington Examiner noted that “By failing to arrest and prosecute people who harass Supreme Court justices, Attorney General Merrick Garland is dangerously, almost criminally guilty of supreme dereliction of duty.”

Discussions were circulated to “pack” the Supreme Court to ensure a majority that would agree with Democrats. False allegations of impropriety were levelled against justices who disagreed with the White House. In one instance, as noted by National Review, internal Facebook emails obtained by the House Judiciary Committee revealed that  the White House pressured Facebook to remove posts differing from thew Democrat Party line on Covid, and Facebook felt forced to comply.

Frank V. Vernuccio Jr., J.D. serves as the editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Governement.

The Reports Concludes Tomorrow.

Photo: Pixabay

War and politics are complex environments entangled in history, culture, and often leaders’ visions of grandeur. Vladimir Putin’s dream of creating a 21st century version of the former Russian Empire is complicated but not dead, despite the prolonged war in Ukraine. He continues to strategize how best to extend Russian influence throughout the region and retain former satellite states inside Russia’s orbit. In response to recent Moldovan moves to distance itself from Moscow, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a threatening statement opposing Moldova joining the European Union’s (EU) sanctions against the Russian Federation. 

In the late November press release, Maria Zakharova, Press Secretary of MOFA, says that “the Moldovan decision will not go unanswered. Measures will be reported later….” This reflects Moscow’s two-pronged approach to block Moldova from breaking away from Russia, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. Moldovan President Maia Sandu had earlier angered Russia in May 2022 when she told the European Pariament “Crimea is Ukraine, the Donbas is Ukraine, Kyiv is Ukraine, and they always will be Ukraine.” Since that time Putin has increased economic pressure on Moldova to punish it for potentially following Georgia and Ukraine in leaving Russia’s Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). A year prior, Sandu had suspended Moldova’s participation in CIS bodies, leading Russia to .

Putin appears concerned that Moldova’s break from Moscow and other Russian-dominated organizations could lead it to pursue membership in the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). A year ago, the European Daily Monitor reported that the Kremlin has actively sought to stop Moldovan integration with the West. Putin supported the breakaway republic of Transnistria and the Gagauz minority in opposing the government in Chisinau. Second, Moscow supported Moldovan pro-Russian parties and organizations, including the Russian Orthodox Church, says Goble. More recently, Putin is adding pressure by interfering with the country’s use of natural gas supplies. Moscow ordered that only the breakaway regions that voted for pro-Russian parties be given a reduced price on natural gas. By rewarding loyalists to Russia, Putin hopes to stop Moldova’s Western movement.

The move may not be successful, however, as it is generating a new wave of opposition to Putin, according to Goble, and increasing support for Sandu and her policies. He adds that this is especially so “if she can point to palpable benefits of increased Western support for her government and the country as a whole.” The country is facing natural gas supply prices that are 700% higher since Sandu assumed office. The cost of energy generated by the use of natural gas has risen 300%, and inflation, in general by 34%, according to RITM Eurasia. The population is completely dependent on the use of natural gas imports to heat homes and produce products. It appears Moscow’s strategy is working as pro-Russian politicians are gaining support this fall in several regional campaigns. The Russian-backed candidates are campaigning on their ability to get Moscow to lower energy prices.

“Sandu went so far as to say that she would take any “cheap gas” that came to Moldova as a result of the deal, transfer it to the government’s Energocom, and then distribute it not just to Gagauzia and the pro-Shor regions but throughout Moldova,” says Goble. It is an ongoing battle between Sandu and the Kremlin going into the winter months.

If the cheaper gas does not stay in the breakaway regions of the country, the Moldovan government can expect domestic conflict to occur exactly as hoped for by Moscow. With the government weakened, the Kremlin will be able to force Sandu to slow down her gestures toward the West. In the best-case scenario, Moldova moves back into Russia’s camp and breaks ties with the West to prevent total chaos in Moldova. Another option analysts in Washington are discussing this week is the possibility of the West providing natural gas supplies to the country to replace those sold to it by Russia. Putin will continue to stir up trouble in regions he sees as belonging inside the Russian sphere of influence. The political ambitions of Kremlin insiders are filled with twists and turns. It is not as simple as seizing Ukraine to provide Russia with a border region. Putin’s long-term, end goal is more grand than restoring the Soviet Union to its former status. The Russian ruler, like those before him, it an empire builder unwilling to give up on his vision.
  Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

There is a tendency to see the various military crises across the globe as separate threats. In reality, they are deeply interconnected. The latest example can be seen in an Associated Press report revealing that Iran-backed Hamas used North Korean weapons in its brutal assault on Israel.

The free world secured its interests following the Second World War by developing a series of powerful global alliances.  NATO accomplished this in Europe, and relations, some formal and some not, between the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and the Philippines did the same in Asia.

Now, however, the opponents of democracy and capitalism are combining to challenge the sovereignty of nations, the rights of individuals, and the avoidance of conflict with an alliance of their own. President George Bush (43) coined the term, “Axis of Evil,” and the description was highly appropriate.

Iran and North Korea provide weapons and ammunition for Putin’s Ukrainian war effort. Moscow provides missile technology to Tehran. China and Russia have become virtually inseparable, engaging in joint military exercises across the globe and extensive trade. Iran and North Korea have formed a significant relationship, particularly in arms development. The four axis powers combine to assist each other in avoiding penalties and sanctions for their ongoing misdeeds.

As noted by the Rand Corporation, “Over the past few decades, China and Iran have developed a broad and deep partnership centered on China’s energy needs and Iran’s abundant resources as well as significant non-energy economic ties, arms sales and defense cooperation, and geostrategic balancing against the United States. This partnership presents a unique challenge to U.S. interests and objectives. In particular, China’s policies have hampered U.S. and international efforts to dissuade Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability…”

The global affairs website 38north adds another example, noting that “Four decades after the Iranian Revolution, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) maintains a close partnership with Iran. On June 20, 2021, North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un congratulated Ebrahim Raisi on his presidential election victory and wished him success in “building a powerful Iran.” This rhetoric coincided with evidence of growing security cooperation between the two countries. A recent United Nations (UN) report revealed that North Korea and Iran are cooperating on long-term missile development projects, which included the shipment of parts in 2020. North Korea’s hypersonic missile tests have also raised concerns about technology transfers to Iran, which developed a testing facility for hypersonic weapons in 2014.”

In August, Iran Primer Reported that “In…2022, Iran’s supply of lethal drones to Russia sparked international interest and alarm. By December, Iran had reportedly supplied more than 1,700 drones capable of suicide bombings, surveillance and intelligence, and combat, according to Ukrainian military intelligence. By early 2023, Tehran and Moscow had reportedly developed plans to produce some 6,000 Iranian models at a new facility in Russia. The following is a timeline of Iran’s exports to Russia and Russia’s usage of Iranian drones.

In return for Iranian assistance in prosecuting the Ukraine invasion, notes Reuters “Russia said it need no longer obey U.N. Security Council restrictions on giving missile technology to its ally Iran once they expire on Wednesday, without saying whether it now planned to support Tehran’s missile development.”

Recently, Putin met with his Chinese counterpart, Xi. As described by The Daily Mail, “A gleeful Putin has declared that China is ‘in tune with Russian ideas’ as President Xi has praised the two countries’ ‘continually deepening mutual trust’…Putin also stressed that close political coordination was ‘necessary in current difficult times’.”

Flashpoints in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific each carry the risk of developing into worldwide conflicts due to the connections between the Axis powers.

Illustration: Pixabay

According to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s “January 6th” indictment, Donald Trump “pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”  He allegedly did so by organizing “fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), (and) attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors.” 

While Smith uses the word “fraudulent” to describe the gathering of these alternate electors, the heart of these allegations lead to a fundamental question – is it illegal to organize alternate electors?

According to Constitutional Law Professor Ed Foley, “(a) key component of the effort to negate Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory…was the submission for congressional consideration of purported electoral votes cast for Trump from seven battleground states…Joe Biden won the popular vote in all these states…(t)he actual electors appointed in these states pursuant to state law, based on the outcome of the state’s popular vote, were those pledged to support Biden, and these electors dutifully cast their ballots for Biden and properly proceeded to send their votes to Congress to be counted on January 6, 2021, as required by the Constitution’s Twelfth Amendment. In contrast, the supposed electoral votes cast for Trump had no official status in any of the states because no institution of state government recognized Trump rather than Biden as having won the popular vote in that state. Mike Pence, as Senate President, would not even let these pro-Trump submissions be opened in the joint session of Congress because, without any claim of any backing from any part of their state’s government, they could not be acknowledged as even asserting to be official electoral votes entitled to be considered by Congress.” 

Foley continues; “Since then, the question has arisen whether anyone should be criminally prosecuted in connection with these submissions of groundless pro-Trump electoral votes… there are reasons to be wary of prosecuting any claimed electoral votes sent to Congress… the better course seemingly would be to reject frivolous claims as unworthy of serious consideration…rather than by endeavoring to imprison these frivolous claimants for asserting their preposterous arguments.”

Foley notes that there have been other instances of alternate Elector votes being submitted to Congress.  “In 1876, South Carolina was one of three southern states that quickly became disputed after the popular vote had been cast in November. Florida and Louisiana were the other two. The Republican candidate, Rutherford Hayes, needed all three of these states for an Electoral College victory, whereas Samuel Tilden needed just one…In South Carolina…there was no one with any colorable claim of official authority in a position to certify Tilden the winner. Still, Democrats there were claiming that he had won…Tilden’s electors met and voted for him on the congressional designated day for Electoral College balloting. They submitted their spurious electoral votes to the Senate President pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment as though they rather than the Hayes electors were entitled to cast the state’s official Electoral College votes…

“Whatever else was contested during the entire Hayes-Tilden dispute, there was no doubt that the South Carolina electoral votes cast for Tilden were not valid because the individuals who cast them clearly had not been, despite any claims to the contrary, appointed as the state’s electors. The Electoral Commission that Congress created to settle the Hayes-Tilden dispute…agreed unanimously…that the individuals in South Carolina who purported to cast electoral votes for Tilden ‘were not the lawful electors for the State of South Carolina, and that their votes are not the votes provided for by the Constitution of the United States, and should not be counted.’”

Most important to our current analysis, “(d)espite this unanimity, reflecting the patent invalidity of (the alternate South Carolina electors’) claim to be the state’s ‘duly and legally appointed’ electors, none of these South Carolina individuals…were criminally investigated or prosecuted for making this assertion.”  In fact, “a couple of years later, during a congressional investigation, evidence emerged that top participants in the Tilden campaign, including Tilden’s own nephew, had engaged in an effort to bribe local election officials in the disputed Southern states, including South Carolina, to alter the election returns. But even this apparent criminality did not result in prosecutions and convictions of the perpetrators, but instead caused Tilden’s political disgrace, preventing him from returning as the Democratic party’s presidential nominee in 1880 as had been his plan immediately after Hayes was inaugurated.”

Then, there is this more recent example; “In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million

votes, but lost the Electoral College to Donald Trump. Prior to the Electoral College vote, which Trump was expected to win 306-232, some progressive Democrats proposed getting Republican electors to switch their votes to Clinton or another Republican on the grounds Trump was unfit for office. The effort ultimately failed, as expected, with Trump winning 304-227 after five Clinton electors and two Trump electors switched votes and took on the mantle of ‘faithless electors’ – electors who cast a vote for someone other than their party’s nominee. The effort cost Clinton more electoral votes than it did Trump.”  

Under the procedures enacted by the states, for the most part, these Electors were duty-bound to cast their vote for the candidate they were nominated to elect.  Yet, contrary to the law, “progressive Democrats” made an effort, in some cases successfully, to convince those Electors to violate the law and their oaths.  Were any of these “progressive Democrats” prosecuted for using “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results?”

Of course not.  Most federal prosecutors have better things to do than become involved in a political process, and prosecute “invalid electors” who’s votes have been rejected by Congress, or those who encouraged the submission of those alternate votes.

Thus, if its not necessarily illegal to submit alternate elector votes, were the means Trump used to gather these alternate Electors “fraudulent?”  According to Smith’s “January 6” indictment,  “(s)ome fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did.”  In particular, Smith cites to Arizona, where Trump “falsely asserted…that a substantial number of non-citizens, non-residents, and dead people had voted fraudulently in Arizona.”  Based on this belief, the former President “asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing based on their claims of election fraud. The Arizona House Speaker refused.” 

According to Smith’s indictment, “(o)n the morning of January 4, 2021, (one of Trump’s attorneys) called the Arizona House Speaker to urge him to use a majority of the legislature to decertify the state’s legitimate electors. Arizona’s validly ascertained electors had voted three weeks earlier and sent their votes to Congress, which was scheduled to count those votes in Biden’s favor in just two days’ time at the January 6 certification proceeding…the Arizona House Speaker explained that state investigations had uncovered no evidence of substantial fraud in the state..(t)he Arizona House Speaker refused (decertification), stating that he would not ‘play with the oath’ he had taken to uphold the United States Constitution and Arizona law.”

Yet, where exactly is the “fraudulent” activity on the part of Trump here? 

It is true that the Arizona Attorney General conducted an audit of mail-in ballots and determined that a “hand recount of ballots showed Joe Biden won the election in Maricopa County, cementing his win in Arizona.”  However, that audit also showed “issues with duplicate ballots and chain of custody identified by Senate liaison and former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett as matters the AG should take up.”  These included problems “found with Maricopa County’s voter rolls, such as 5,047 voters who may have cast ballots in more than one county; voters with incomplete names, and 198 people who registered to vote after the Oct. 15 cutoff date but nonetheless cast a ballot.”

In fact, in September of this year, Arizona Superior Court Judge John Napper ruled that “state law requires county recorders to match mail-ballot signatures with signatures in the voter’s ‘registration record,’ the Secretary instructed them to use a broader and less reliable universe of comparison signatures. That means the Secretary was requiring ballots to be counted despite using a signature that did not match anything in the voter’s registration record. This was a clear violation of state law.” 

In other words, Arizona “is conducting signature matching in an unlawful manner,” which would tend to support former President Trump’s assertion that “a substantial number of non-citizens, non-residents, and dead people had voted fraudulently in Arizona.”

Is the fact that Arizona was using an illegal method of verifying the signatures of mail-in voters conclusive proof of election fraud at a substantial enough level to have altered the results of the 2020 Presidential election?  Not in and of itself.  But would such evidence provide some basis for a reasonable belief that a further investigation is necessary, and that the certification of the election results by Arizona was premature?

Of course it would.  But despite this evidence, Jack Smith asserts that Trump’s actions were “fraudulent” and intended to “subvert” the results of the 2020 Presidential election.

Let us give the last word on this issue to Hugh Hewitt, writing in the Washington Post; “Smith might have a much harder time proving his case than he and Trump’s many and most vociferous detractors realize… When the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard is applied, I don’t see a conviction on any of the charges Smith leveled.” 

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Pixabay