Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

Major wars are fought simultaneously on two fronts – only one is located on a kinetic battlefield. The other looms large at home inside the political arena of domestic politics. Its effects are, perhaps, more costly to nation-states in the long term.

Since Russia’s invasion into Ukraine began in February 2022, the Kremlin has presented a façade of military success abroad and manufactured stories of domestic support at home. It is not unusual for a government to spin war news to support a political leader’s agenda and Russian President Vladimir Putin is no different. The “truth” in stories about the cost of the war to the Russian people, however, does not closely resemble Putin’s public narrative. As the war enters its second year next month, Putin’s pronouncements are becoming less effective. Domestic opposition to Kremlin policy is increasing amid fears the domestic economy is in dire trouble. 

The Kremlin is relying more heavily on support from global pariah states as its traditional allies distance themselves from the post-Soviet state, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He says that “Violent acts committed by Russian veterans of the war in Ukraine and a possible return of Afghan Syndrome have stoked public fear and pushed some Russians to question the Kremlin’s true intentions with its war.” Moscow’s inattention to the second front at home appears to be providing momentum and a fresh impetus to groups inside the country supporting regional independence movements. 

A history of Russian military actions over past two hundred years reveals that in every instance the country was involved in war it both sparked domestic revolution and resulted in the imposition of extremely repressive policies at home intended to prevent further insurrections. The pattern appears to be holding this year. Putin is tightening controls over the population amid fears that his “special military action” in Ukraine is not proceeding as planned despite Kremlin claims. Goble points out that the deterioration in Putin’s support at home and the increased likelihood of radical change in Russia through revolution and disintegration, may push him to seek a quick victory on the battlefield in Ukraine. At a minimum, there is a return to earlier periods of totalitarianism inside what many analysts are beginning to call the “failed state.” 

Putin’s three-pronged strategy since the invasion in Ukraine initially convinced the population Russia was in a good fight against an evil force. The Russian president’s narrative labeled it a cosmic struggle with the collective West and refused to use the term “war.” The fighting, according to Putin, was part of the struggle between traditional Russian values and those of the corrupt West states. Many inside Russia saw this as an opportunity for Russia to regain global status in the post-Soviet era. Second, increased domestic repression prevented those who opposed the war from demonstrating their opposition in the streets and raised the cost of commenting negatively about the war. Many foreign observers assumed the Russian population strongly backed Putin and the war. Some are concluding that due to fear only a complete defeat on the battlefield will alter the domestic situation. However, a recent independent poll by The Russian Field Research Group of more than 1,600 Russians in October indicates cracks may be forming in Putin’s domestic support. “For the first time, more Russians favor talks with Kyiv than continuing the war to a victorious conclusion” with 48% supporting the start of negotiations with Ukraine and only 39% opposing such talks, says Goble. 

Putin’s third strategy is to mobilize the economy to support a war footing. The winners are the oligarchs, in this case, who are taking advantage of Western sanctions and earning high profits. Military spending has boosted Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) but not resulted in an increase in income for the average Russian worker. Unlike investments in human resources or technology, notes Goble, military expenditures are unlikely to support sustained economic growth after the war ends.

The Russian population bears the increased costs of the war, including its significant casualties. As support for Putin’s policies declines the country is experiencing an exodus of hundreds of thousands of young men leaving the country. Analysts estimate less than 25% of them have returned from abroad or plan to in the future. If support for Kremlin policies was strong, there would be no need for repressive policies. The financial cost of the war is draining support for other areas of the economy and severe shortages are spreading, along with inflation. Putin’s war economy is not sustainable. Western states could add pressure on the regime by highlighting what is occurring inside Russia, however, Putin’s stronghold over the country is likely too great to rescue it from a totalitarian future for another generation.   

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

During the leadup to this year’s Christmas, I had the opportunity to speak with folks from one end of the country to the other.  I was struck by the somber mood expressed by so many during a season usually marked by joy and hope. It was not surprising.

There have been numerous times when Christmas was marked by hardship and war, but 2023’s challenges may be among the worst.

 American history is replete with examples. Washington’s astounding victory against the British in Trenton during the Revolution came at a time when the revolt against Britain seemed on the doorstep of failure. Often portrayed in popular films is the plight of U.S. troops surrounded by the German army at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge in World War 2. They were rescued in the nick of time by Patton’s troops.

The plight of 2023, for numerous reasons, seems unusually ominous and desperate across the planet.

Consider first the nightmarish conditions in the Middle East, the very region in which Christ delivered his messages of peace, love, and respect for each soul.  Every shred of humanity seems to have been rejected by Hamas, whose actions against innocent civilians violate both the laws of war and the most elemental concepts of decency. That, of course, is bad enough.  But the shocking lack of response by nations of the world and international organizations makes a terrible situation even worse. Individual Governments and the United Nations, rather than uniting to universally condemn the barbarism on open display, instead find every excuse to criticize the victims’ nation and ignore the corruption and while ignoring Hamas’ savagery. 

A similar intentional blindness afflicts many regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  There is nothing complicated about this situation.  Vladmir Putin, lusting to restore the evil entity known as the Soviet Union, without cause or provocation, sent his military into Ukraine in what has been the most naked act of aggression in Europe since the Second World War.  Again, the appropriate planetary response should be unlimited support for the Ukrainian people. But in far too many cases, a blind eye is turned to the war, and many call for negotiations instead of a worldwide response to punish the aggressors and completely expel them. 

Also ignored are the fundamental legalities of promises and treaties made to the Ukrainian people and nation. In 1991, over 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons were left on its territory. In 1994 an agreement was reached.  In exchange for security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, Ukraine surrendered the atomic arms in return for security guarantees. Despite the existence of that agreement, Russia has stolen the Crimea from Ukraine and is now actively seeking to take over the whole of the nation.

In what may be the gravest threat to America in the nation’s history is China’s astounding arms buildup and unbridled aggression.  In the face of that threat, President Biden appears, in turn, feckless or swayed by his and his family’s financial dealings with the Communist Chinese Party.

His Administration has chosen to ignore, indeed, to encourage a withdrawal of almost all border controls. That bizarre decision has led to the near-bankruptcy of cities and state across the country, as well as laying the groundwork for decades of social issues.

The national mood is dampened further by Biden’s insistence on dividing the population, labelling all that disagreed with him as evil.  His party’s insistence on using the judicial system as a partisan cudgel to harass and weaken opposition is unprecedented.

While there are good reasons for the current misgivings, America has the ability to face its challenges in the coming year.

Photo: Pixabay

As reported by CNN, “Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams defended herself from criticism that she never conceded her loss to Gov. Brian Kemp in 2018…Abrams, in the wake of her 2018 loss to Kemp by 1.4 percentage points, acknowledged that Kemp, who then worked as Georgia secretary of state, would be the governor of Georgia. But she specifically said in her final speech that she (would) not concede due to persistent voter suppression allegations, adding that conceding would mean acknowledging ‘an action is right, true or proper’ and ‘as a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that’…Abrams said Kemp ‘won under the rules of the game at the time, but the game was rigged against the voters of Georgia…we had a system that (Kemp) managed, that he manipulated, hurt Georgia voters and the responsibility of leaders is to challenge systems that are not serving the people.” 

Abrams also asserted that she has a “responsibility… to challenge a system that would rob a single voice from being able to be heard if they are eligible.” And just what did Abrams do to meet her “responsibility” to “challenge systems that are not serving the people?”

“A political organization backed by Democrat Stacey Abrams filed a federal lawsuit…challenging the way Georgia’s elections are run, making good on a promise Abrams made as she ended her bid to become the state’s governor…(the lawsuit) was filed by Fair Fight Action against interim Secretary of State Robyn Crittenden and state election board members in their official capacities…(a)s secretary of state, Abrams’ opponent, Republican Gov.-elect Brian Kemp, was the top elections official until he declared himself the winner and resigned two days after the election…(t)he lawsuit was filed against Crittenden, who was appointed by Gov. Nathan Deal after Kemp stepped down, but it clearly targets Kemp.” 

“Lauren Groh-Wargo, Abrams’ campaign manager who’s now CEO of Fair Fight Action (said) ‘This lawsuit is going to look broadly at all the ways our secretary of suppression, Brian Kemp, suppressed the vote’… (o)n the campaign trail, Abrams repeatedly called Kemp ‘an architect of suppression,’ an allegation that Kemp vehemently denied.”

How did this effort to fight the “architect” of voter suppression in Georgia turn out?

 “A federal judge (in 2022) found that Georgia election practices challenged by a group associated with Democrat Stacey Abrams do not violate the constitutional rights of voters, ruling in favor of the state on all remaining issues in a lawsuit filed nearly four years ago. ‘Although Georgia’s election system is not perfect, the challenged practices violate neither the constitution nor the VRA,’ U.S. District Judge Steve Jones in Atlanta wrote, referring to the Voting Rights Act of 1965… Kemp…applauded the ruling…’Judge Jones’ ruling exposes this legal effort for what it really is: a tool wielded by a politician hoping to wrongfully weaponize the legal system to further her own political goals,’ Kemp said in a statement emailed by his campaign.” 

In fact, “(w)hile Fair Fight collected stories from more than 3,000 voters, they found very few people who were unable to cast a ballot (in 2018) and none during the 2020 election…(i)nstead…the evidence showed that in many cases problems were resolved quickly once state officials were contacted.”

Further, Fair Fight Action “was ordered to repay $231,303.71 in legal fees. $192,628.85 of that is for ‘printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.’ The other $38,674.86 is for making copies to use in the case.” 

In other words, in the 2018 Georgia Governor’s race, Democrat Stacey Abrams refused to concede her loss to Republican Brian Kemp; she claimed Kemp was responsible for “voter suppression”; her campaign manager brought a lawsuit to challenge the results of the election; that lawsuit was ultimately unsuccessful; and despite Abrams’ insistence, there was no “outcome determinative” fraud uncovered that would lead to the reversal of the election results.

How is this different from the actions Trump and his co-defendants are accused of taking to challenge the results of the 2020 Presidential election?  According to Abrams, people should not conflate “her refusal to concede in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race with former President Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen election, calling the latter wrong and dangerous for democracy. ‘I will never ever say that it is OK to claim fraudulent outcomes as a way to give yourself power,’ Abrams said…'(t)he issues that I raised in 2018 were not grounded in making me the governor…(n)ot a single lawsuit filed would have reversed or changed the outcome of the election. My point was that the access to the election was flawed, and I refuse to concede a system that permits citizens to be denied access. That is very different than someone claiming fraudulent outcome.” 

Sure, now it makes sense.  Abrams didn’t think her assertions of voter suppression would change the result of the election she refused to concede – she just thought it was the right thing to do!

But this is exactly what she said in 2018; “Under the watch of the now former Secretary of State, democracy failed Georgians of every political party, every race, every region. Again. The incompetence and mismanagement we witnessed in this election had been on display months before…(b)ut this time, the mistakes clearly altered the outcome…I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election. But to watch an elected official – who claims to represent the people of this state, baldly pin his hopes for election on the suppression of the people’s democratic right to vote – has been truly appalling. So, to be clear, this is not a speech of concession. Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede.” 

So, now it’s clear – Trump asserted that the election was stolen from him, while Abrams claims her opponent suppressed votes, which caused her to lose.  Trump filed a series of lawsuits that were mostly unsuccessful; Abrams’ campaign filed one unsuccessful lawsuit.

But despite the lack of hard evidence to support Abrams’ assertions, no one has claimed that Abrams was lying when she claimed that the suppression of the votes of those who supported her caused her to lose the election.  In fact, as the court ruled in the lawsuit brought by Fair Fight Action, there was no evidence that voting was purposefully suppressed in Georgia – at all.

There are those who would argue that Abrams’ assertions of voter suppression in 2018 were a lie.  But others defend her statements as merely mistaken, and not intended to be untruthful.  There are undoubtedly those who will tell you that Abrams was not lying, since she believed her own assertions of voter fraud.

But there seems to be only one real difference between the “lies” told by Donald Trump, and those told by Stacey Abrams.  Trump’s “lies” are being prosecuted by Fani Willis and Jack Smith.  And Abrams’ are not.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Fulton County Georgia DA Fani Willis’ 100 page indictment of former President Donald Trump, and 18 people involved in Trump’s re-election campaign is all based on one, central allegation; “Defendant Donald John Trump lost the United States presidential election held on November 3, 2020. One of the states he lost was Georgia. Trump and the other Defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined (a) conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.” 

All charges and allegations made in this indictment descend from this key assertion. 

The same can be said for the federal indictment brought in Washington DC by Special Counsel Jack Smith.  That document also states that “(t)he Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020. The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election… (d)espite having lost…for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.” 

We have discussed the difficulty in establishing that Trump knew he had actually lost (especially when so many of his fellow citizens also think Trump actually won), and in proving that the former President knew that his complaints of being cheated were false.

Yet, the unswerving position of the majority of the Democratic party and their supporters in the legal and legacy media establishments is that “election denial” is a crime in and of itself.  For instance, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, Smith’s “indictment amounts to another in a series of emphatic rejections of election denial since the 2020 election…(a) federal prosecutor has now weighed in, charging that the actions Trump took under the pretext of election denial were criminal…(o)ver the last two years, election denial has been proven false so many times that another debunking is unremarkable – this one, however, is historic in that it comes with charges against a former president.” 

Then there is the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), “an independent nonprofit think tank that provides rigorous research, insight and communications that help speed equality and opportunity for all,” which has issued a report entitled How Election Denialism Threatens Our Democracy and the Safeguards We Need to Defend It.  The report “measures the level of risk to each state posed by election denialism, (and) the resulting threats when the proper safeguards are not in place…(t)he report includes MAP’s new National Election Denial Risk Index, which shows that more than two in three American voters (157 million voters) live in states with at least a moderate risk of election denialism jeopardizing future elections. Of those, 29 million voters live in high-risk states for election denial.”  MAP asserts that their Index “is a tool for lawmakers, journalists, and the public that can be used to examine the range of ways that election denialism poses a threat to each state and which policies can strengthen a state’s ability to combat these threats.” 

One of MAP’s recommended solutions to the “crime” of election denial?   “(L)imiting partisan involvement in post-election processes, increasing penalties for election subversion, and limiting frivolous recount requests.”

Sure, who needs more free speech and participation in the democratic process?  Certainly not the people at MAP!

And certainly not Jack Smith or Fani Willis.

But both seem to have their sights set on only one particular election denier and his followers.  Aren’t there other targets out there – others who denied they lost their election and refused to concede, causing the “threat” of “election denialism?”

The report concludes tomorrow

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

What acts committed by Donald Trump are alleged to have been done in furtherance of the conspiracy?

First and foremost is Trump’s claim that he won the 2020 Presidential election.  Allegedly, he made this claim knowing that he had not won.   “On or about the 4th day of November 2020,” the Georgia Indictment reads, “DONALD JOHN TRUMP made (a) nationally televised speech falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election.”  How do the prosecutors know this statement to have been false? “Approximately four days earlier, on or about October 31, 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP discussed (a) draft speech with unindicted coconspirator Individual l, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud. The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

In other words, it is alleged that Trump gave his speech on November 4, knowing that his claims of victory were false.  Yet, there is no proof offered for this assertion.  The reference to the “unindicted co-conspirator” is either a “red herring” or a misstatement – just because Trump discussed his proposed election night speech with someone days before he gave it doesn’t mean Trump was going to falsely claim he won.  It could just as easily mean that the former President anticipated victory.

What exactly did Trump say that night?    “It’s…clear that we have won Georgia. We’re up by 2.5% or 117,000 votes with only 7% left. They’re never going to catch us. They can’t catch us…We also, if you look and you see Arizona, we have a lot of life in that. And somebody declared that it was a victory for… And maybe it will be. I mean, that’s possible…certainly there were a lot of votes out there that we could get because we’re now just coming into what they call Trump territory. I don’t know what you call it. But these were friendly Trump voters. And that could be overturned.” 

Of course, these predictions turned out to be incorrect.  But Willis’ charges seem more focused on this part of the speech; “(A)ll of a sudden everything just stopped… This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election. So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation. This is a very big moment. This is a major fraud in our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we’ll be going to the US Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at four o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. Okay? It’s a very sad moment. To me this is a very sad moment and we will win this. And as far as I’m concerned, we already have won it.”

Allegations regarding this speech are also made in Smith’s second federal indictment; “Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power…following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.”

Of course, it is unclear how either prosecutor expects to prove that Donald Trump was not truthful when he made these allegations of fraud.  As described by the Christian Science Monitor, “Mr. Trump’s defense against these…charges will likely rely at least in part on the insistence that he continued to believe these claims, notwithstanding others’ objections, and that his actions were thus not corrupt at heart. The outcome of crucial parts of the case could thus depend on a jury’s belief about Mr. Trump’s state of mind – a difficult judgment when it comes to a man whose career has often involved bombast, stubbornness, and, at the least, a fondness for exaggeration.”

Another focus of both indictments is the attempt by the Trump campaign to seek alternate electors for appointment to the Electoral College.  According to Smith, the former President and his “co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), 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.”

According to Willis, three members of the Trump “organization and a group of unindicted co-conspirators “committed the felony offense of IMPERSONATING PUBLIC OFFICER…in Fulton County, Georgia, by unlawfully falsely holding themselves out as the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the State of Georgia, public officers, with intent to mislead the President of the United States Senate…into believing that they actually were such officers by placing in the United States mail to said persons document titled “CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA.” This was an act of racketeering activity…and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

We have previously discussed the difficulty of criminalizing the political effort to seat alternate electors.  In particular we quoted Constitutional Law Professor Ed Foley, who stated that “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.” 

Then there are the events of January 2, 2021, when Trump famously spoke by telephone with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and “repeatedly asked (him) to ‘find’ more than 11,000 ballots needed to overcome the gap between Trump and Biden in the state, thereby flipping the state in his favor. ‘The people of Georgia are angry, the people in the country are angry. And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated,’ Trump told Raffensperger before questioning the secretary about a ‘rumor’ that ballots for him were ‘shredded’ in Fulton County, which is home to Atlanta, the state’s largest city and a major Democratic bastion. ‘All I want to do is this,’ the president continued. ‘I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.'” 

This phone call is charged in the Georgia indictment as Act #112 in furtherance of the “criminal enterprise.” Trump is alleged to have engaged in “unlawfully soliciting, requesting, and importuning Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, public officer, to engage in conduct constituting the felony offense of Violation of Oath by Public Officer…by unlawfully altering, unlawfully adjusting, and otherwise unlawfully influencing the certified returns for presidential electors for the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia, in willful and intentional violation of the terms of the oath of said person as prescribed by law, with intent that said person engage in said conduct.”

This phone call is also described in Smith’s indictment as follows: “(F)our days before Congress’s certification proceeding, the Defendant and others called Georgia’s Secretary of State. During the call, the Defendant lied to the Georgia Secretary of State to induce him to alter Georgia’s popular vote count and call into question the validity of the Biden electors’ vote…(t)he Defendant said that he needed to ‘find’ 11,780 votes, and insinuated that the Georgia Secretary of State and his Counsel could be subject to criminal prosecution if they failed to find election fraud as he demanded.”

Yet, there is a more innocent explanation for the January 2 call offered by former federal prosecutor and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley; “The call Trump participated in was a settlement discussion over election challenges with a variety of lawyers present, not some backroom at the Bada Bing club. The entire stated purpose of the challenges was to count what the Trump campaign alleged were uncounted votes that far surpassed the 11,780 deficit. Trump repeatedly asserted that he won the election and continued to return to the fact that officials only needed to confirm 11,780 of those hundreds of thousands of allegedly uncounted ballots…He was discussing what he viewed as uncounted votes that far exceeded the margin of roughly 12,000 and noting, as part of the request for access to data, that they do not need to find much to overturn the result. In any criminal case, Trump would simply argue that he was restating the point of the pending cases in a settlement negotiation: that the election was not fair and that a review could easily flip the result given the margin.”

As to whether or not Trump threatened the Georgia Secretary of State, as Smith asserts, Turley notes that “experts like Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, declared that Trump’s ‘only demand is to have votes tossed or invented to fabricate a win’ and that ‘there’s no way to read this other than a blatant attempt to pressure Georgia officials to lie and alter legitimate election results with a wink and a nod to a looming consequence.’ But Trump did not actually say that…(any) fraud prosecution would be based on a statement that could be easily defended as part of a settlement discussion without any clear threat or benefit discussed…Trump was seeking access to data and his belief that fraudulent, and possible criminal, conduct marred the results. One can reject those claims (as I have) without converting the matter into a faux criminal case.”

Turley also reiterates the central issue of both Smith’s second federal indictment, and Willis’ charges; “A prosecutor would have to show that Trump clearly knew his theories were bogus and that he did not believe there were sufficient ballots to reach that number.”  

In general, then, much of Trump’s defense will be the same in both of these cases.  Trump will assert that he truly believed he won the election, and that he believed there to be widespread voter fraud in Georgia, and other states, fraud that has continued to be uncovered as time goes on.  

There is support for this position.  In February of 2021, “Georgia election officials (referred) for possible criminal prosecution a potential voter fraud case involving a group recently linked to (U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock) – The New Georgia Project… (i(t’s among 35 cases involving potential violations of election law being sent from the State Election Board to the attorney general or local prosecutors…(t)he New Georgia Project, which bills itself as a nonpartisan effort to register voters, is accused of submitting 1,268 voter registration applications after the 10-day deadline to do so.” 

Perhaps instances of voter fraud like this changed the outcome of the election – perhaps they did not.  But in either case, the same problem remains; How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump did not believe his own assertions that he was cheated, and that he really won the 2020 Presidential election?

You can be sure that the former President will continue to make these assertions to anyone who will listen – which calls to mind another famous phrase by Yogi Berra – “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

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

Illustration: Pixabay