President Trump Should Appeal Hush Money Case To Supreme Court By A Writ Of Habeas Corpus, A Rarely Used Judicial Remedy That Can Potentially Fast-Track The Reversal Of Merchan’s Horrible Decision

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

President Trump’s sentencing is scheduled for July 11th, less than a month away.  Of course, it is no secret why Judge Merchan decided on this particular date: it takes place four days before the Republican National Convention is set to begin, on July 15th.

The hope, naturally, is that Judge Merchan – in collusion with District Attorney Bragg and Joe Biden’s Justice Department – will sentence President Trump, either by putting him behind bars or at the very least, on house arrest – thus denying him the opportunity to appear at the RNC in-person.

Historically, political conventions have given candidates of both parties a boost in their overall ratings.  This year that expectation still remains true.  But in a year where the incumbent has historically low approval ratings, and where most reputable polls have Biden losing to Trump in all key six battleground states, obviously Team Biden is now willing to do anything to prevent giving their opponent, President Trump, an additional ratings boost.

What is more, President Trump is careening down what looks to be an unstoppable trajectory, in part fueled by the political support he has garnered in recent weeks from the news of his unprecedented conviction.  Millions of Americans, of all partisan stripes, rightly feel outraged by the bald-faced political prosecution of the leading candidate to become the 47th President – which has never been done in America, once the world’s beacon of freedom, before.

This sense of a weaponized, two-tier justice system has only been further emboldened with the political prosecutions of Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Dan Scavino, Rudy Giuliani, Christina Bobb, Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, and countless other loyalists of the 45th President (to say nothing of the overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrators who appeared at the Capitol on January 6th), many of whom have been severe casualties of Leftist lawfare against them and the movement, which is sanctioned by Joe Biden and his apparatchiks in the Justice Department and various state agencies across the country, now with shameless abandon.

By attempting to take President Trump, Steve Bannon, and others out of the picture – the objective is to thwart their message of America First early enough in its tracks.  Bannon is a perfect example: his popular show, War Room, is watched by tens of millions of viewers each month – a figure that should only increase even more as we move closer to November.  His influence and voice can impact voting behaviors, and so the need to clamp down on him now becomes especially critical for a deeply fractured Left, who sees its message of managed decline failing to resonate, and its messenger, the geriatric Biden, doddering his way to the finish line.

The flagrantly unconstitutional gag order Judge Merchan imposed on President Trump is another example of how rogue Leftists are weaponizing the justice system, bucking every convention in the books, to give them an unfair advantage in a critical election year, by quashing freedom of speech.  The idea that Merchan would so brazenly trample over President Trump’s free speech rights is a telltale that he would also be willing to resort to other unprecedented – and downright unlawful – methods to attempt to sabotage President Trump in his tracks.

This is something that should distress every single American.  However one might feel personally about President Trump, the damage a power-hungry and vindictive judge can do to the rule of law is unquantifiable – and should not be taken for granted.  Indeed, already, Judge Merchan – in having allowed this baseless case to be brought in his courtroom in the first place – has already done tremendous (and potentially irreparable) damage to the integrity of New York’s criminal justice system, which in turn sets an ominous precedent – one that gives the green light to prosecuting anyone on the basis of their political views – for the rest of the justice system.

We observed Merchan run roughshod over the rules of evidence; he admitted hearsay and prejudicial evidence of purported prior bad acts committed by President Trump for no other reason than to smear his reputation in the eyes of jurors.  He prevented testimony from election experts, such as Bradley A. Smith, former FEC Commissioner, even though his court had absolutely no knowledge of – and arguably no jurisdiction over – prosecuting federal election law, or FECA, cases.  He allowed Stormy Daniels to spread salacious gossip that served no purpose other than to besmirch President Trump’s image, with no bearing whatsoever over the underlying charge.

At the same time, Judge Merchan admonished President Trump’s only witness and veteran of the New York State criminal court system, Robert Costello, from the stand – lashing out at him in an unhinged tantrum because Costello was not a Merchan sycophant.  The disrespect shown against Costello, as well as President Trump’s entire legal team, in particular Todd Blanche, was completely out of line for any judge, let alone a judge tasked with presiding over a case implicating the man most likely to be the next leader of the free world.

Finally, the jury verdict was plainly riven with reversible errors: no jury verdict, but especially on a felony charge, is allowed to mix-and-match a smorgasbord of crimes (which is exactly what occurred here), to tamper with the evidentiary threshold needed to arrive at a guilty verdict.  The Supreme Court has been crystal clear, in its decision Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), that non-unanimous jury verdicts violate the Sixth Amendment (while also raising a slew of attendant due process concerns), and are therefore unconstitutional.

In the Ramos case, Justice Gorsuch remarked: “So if the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a conviction in federal court, it requires no less in state court.”  What Merchan permitted in his courtroom: a sampling of at least three crimes – all of which were only vaguely defined and, with some controversy, felonious – and let the jury pick-and-choose amongst themselves which of the three they individually felt met the burden of proof, is plainly a violation of well-settled law.

The jury instructions, which have been hidden under a cloak of anonymity, to protect the court from further scrutiny – can serve as adequate grounds for an emergency appeal.  There are many advantages to President Trump’s attorneys filing, what is called “a writ of habeas corpus,” a rarely used judicial remedy that was recently proposed by John Eastman in Newsweek, to appeal directly to the Supreme Court before the July 11th sentencing.

The first advantage is that by fast-tracking this appeal directly to the Supreme Court, President Trump is likely to receive the kind of relief he seeks without the additional delays of appealing via traditional procedures through New York’s appellate system.  A direct appeal to the Supreme Court can lead to it being overturned in one fell swoop based on the countless reversible errors all over this decision.  Moreover, the Supreme Court is a much more politically amiable venue for President Trump, with the 6-3 conservative majority, who will no longer be at the mercy of a Democratic appointed judge and district attorney, marching out the vindictive orders of a malicious president.   Since this is a case that is fundamentally about politics, it is best to cut to the chase and get to a more politically favorable courtroom as quickly as possible.

Another advantage in a direct appeal via a writ of habeas corpus is that it would take the wind out of the sails of Judge Merchan, who has clear animus towards the defendant, enough that should normally serve as a basis for a recusal.  By appealing the traditional way through the appellate division, Judge Merchan still would have a lot of discretion in managing the details of President Trump’s sentencing; in particular, there may be a risk of Judge Merchan imprisoning President Trump while the appeal is pending.

As has been the case with many J6 defendants, judges have seen fit to make up rules as they go.  In the case of J6 defendant Ryan Nichols, who was recently sentenced, his judge forced him to be detained in the three or so months prior to sentencing, even though that measure is as clear a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights as one can get.  As such, there is a real possibility that Judge Merchan might want to impose something like a house arrest order on President Trump, even while the appeal is ongoing, which the Judge might say is within his discretion under New York law.

Which leads to the third advantage of sidestepping all the state appeals nonsense and expediting this case to the Supreme Court directly: President Trump is not much more likely to get a fair hearing in any of the appellate courts in New York than he did in Judge Merchan’s courtroom.  These judge panels are for the most part cut from the same cloth: liberal Democrats with a personal vendetta against Donald Trump.  They are all pretty much in lockstep with Letitia James, New York’s rogue Attorney General, who memorably campaigned for her office on “getting” Donald Trump.

In short, as currently structured, the New York State criminal court system is basically like an election interference boobytrap to catch Joe Biden and Merrick Garland’s political enemies.  Rather than waste time appealing over and over again only to eventually wind up in federal court anyway, President Trump’s attorneys would be well-advised by petitioning the Supreme Court directly, through a writ of habeas corpus or some other emergency motion.

While rare, the timing for such an extraordinary measure could not be better. President Trump is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, now less than a month away from the RNC, in what is already unfolding to be one of the most consequential and historic presidential races in modern history.  He is being prosecuted – persecuted – by a Justice Department acting extra-constitutionally and unlawfully, which is an unprecedented move and threatens bedrock principles America has already stood for – including the integrity of the justice system and the expectation of free and uncorrupted elections. All those things are now in jeopardy.

If there was ever a concern for election interference, this would be it.  It is foreseeable how, if President Trump were sentenced to prison, Democrats in Congress might change the laws to strip President Trump of secret service protection, or jerry-rig a last-minute law that prohibits “convicted felons” from being their party’s nominee.

On the other side of the coin, establishment RINOs who still harbor deep-seated resentment towards President Trump may try an eleventh-hour subversion of the RNC.  Responding to their Democratic friends’ calls to outlaw “convicted felons” from being party nominees, they may attempt a bait-and-switch of sorts to swap out President Trump for Nikki Haley, or somebody of that ilk, at the last minute, denying the American people their right to choose their candidate. It is no secret that many Republican politicians, still to this day with the nomination basically locked up, are vying for an opportunity to derail President Trump’s candidacy for good.  While unlikely, any kind of sentence that would prevent President Trump from appearing at the RNC in-person will give these nefarious types needless fodder for subversion.

Thus, it is best for the Supreme Court to intervene now, while there is still time, and do as much damage control as possible.  Obviously, tossing out the case in toto would be the best-case scenario.  But at the bare minimum, in consideration of the limited time we have until July 11th, a stay on the sentencing until after the election, or a procedural ruling of the kind that would stall any and all lawfare until after Election Day – as to mitigate the prospects of (at least this kind of) election interference – would be a nice consolation.

The bottom line is neither President Trump, nor the country, deserve this during an all too important election season.  It would wreck untold havoc upon our democratic institutions if President Trump were sentenced, in any capacity, but especially in light of how egregiously flawed Judge Merchan’s kangaroo courthouse was all throughout this charade of a trial. A writ of habeas corpus, as an emergency judicial remedy, is one that President Trump’s lawyers should thus seriously consider, and one that could potentially save the President, and the rest of the country, from a needlessly lengthy appeals process. One that risks empowering all the bad actors – from Merchan to Bragg to James to Biden – who make no secret about their TDS biases and prejudices, and desire to keep President Trump out of the White House, over and above the sacred will of the American people.

The post President Trump Should Appeal Hush Money Case To Supreme Court By A Writ Of Habeas Corpus, A Rarely Used Judicial Remedy That Can Potentially Fast-Track The Reversal Of Merchan’s Horrible Decision appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Ex-Trump Adviser Kash Patel Asserts House Has Authority to Arrest and Detain AG Garland for Subpoena Noncompliance

Credit: Gage Skidmore/Flicker

Kash Patel, a former federal prosecutor and adviser to former President Donald Trump, has asserted that Congress has the authority to arrest and detain U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland for refusing to comply with a subpoena.

Patel’s statement stems from Garland’s refusal to turn over embarrassing audio recordings of Joe Biden’s classified documents interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, which were subpoenaed by Congress.

Last week, the House of Representatives voted to hold Merrick Garland in criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena.

Two GOP-led House committees passed resolutions in May recommending US Attorney General Merrick Garland be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over audio of Biden’s interview with Hur.

Merrick Garland has reportedly “classified at the highest level” the audio tapes of Joe Biden’s embarrassing interview with Special Counsel Hur. The tapes have been locked away in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), according to investigative journalist Paul Sperry.

The White House previously admitted in federal court to altering the transcript of Joe Biden’s testimony with Special Counsel Robert Hur.

The edits were made to artificially inflate Biden’s competence during his five-hour interrogation about his mishandling of stolen classified documents.

Biden has personally invoked Executive Privilege against The Heritage Foundation and Judicial Watch in an attempt to keep his controversial interview with Special Counsel Hur under wraps.

DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) asserted that no administration official has ever faced prosecution for non-compliance with a subpoena when the president has invoked executive privilege. Except if your name is Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, or any other Republican.

The memo, obtained by The Hill, states, “For nearly seven decades and across presidential administrations of both parties, the Executive Branch has taken the position that the criminal contempt of Congress statute… does not apply to Executive Branch officials who do not comply with a congressional subpoena based on a presidential assertion of executive privilege.”

“Consistent with this longstanding position, no U.S. Attorney has pursued criminal contempt charges against an Executive Branch official asserting the President’s claim of executive privilege,” the memo added.

House Oversight Chairman James Comer previously argued that Joe Biden cannot assert executive privilege over the audio of his interview with Robert Hur because the transcript has already been publicly released.

Following the House’s decision on contempt charges, the Justice Department said they won’t prosecute Merrick Garland.

In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday, the department said, “The department has determined that the responses by Attorney General Garland to the subpoenas issued by the committees did not constitute a crime, and accordingly the department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General.”

Patel, who served as chief of staff to Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller during the Trump administration, said that the House of Representatives, under its statutory authority, can instruct the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Garland and hold him in detention until he complies with the subpoena, according to Just the News.

“Merrick Garland said, ‘No, I’m not going to comply [with the subpoena]. I’m going to break the law,’” Patel said on the Just the News show.

“Then Congress under that authority granted to them by statute can have the sergeant at arms go and arrest Merrick Garland, and can hold him in detention until he complies, just like DOJ would do to anyone else who violates a subpoena,” he added.

According to House rules:

To supplement this inherent power, Congress in 1857 adopted an alternative statutory contempt procedure. Sec. 2, infra. Thus, the House may either (1) certify a recalcitrant witness to the appropriate United States Attorney for possible indictment under this statute or (2) exercise its inherent power to commit for contempt by detaining the witness in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Manual Sec. 296. The statutory procedure is the one used in modern practice, but the “inherent power” remains available. In one instance, the House invoked both procedures against a witness. 3 Hinds Sec. 1672.

In contrast, the Senate may invoke its civil contempt statute (2 USC Sec. 288d) to direct the Senate legal counsel to bring an action in Federal court.

This inherent power has not been exercised in a century, according to Lawfare Media.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that GOP Rep. Anna Paulina Luna said she will bring force an inherent contempt vote to the House floor after the DOJ declined to prosecute US Attorney General Merrick Garland.

“The DOJ is not above the law. Garland is not above the law. Inherent contempt will be called up and brought to the floor,” Anna Paulina Luna said.

The DOJ is not above the law.
Garland is not above the law.
Inherent contempt will be called up and brought to the floor. https://t.co/6s0yCFKlBP

— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) June 14, 2024

“I already filed the resolution and I will be calling up the vote,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna said.

pic.twitter.com/FbsR0KFj8V

— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) June 14, 2024

The post Ex-Trump Adviser Kash Patel Asserts House Has Authority to Arrest and Detain AG Garland for Subpoena Noncompliance appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

New US-Ukraine Bilateral Security Agreement: A Path to Escalation and Burden on American Taxpayers

Photo courtesy of US Embassy, Italy, June 13, 2024

By signing the new Bilateral Security Agreement between the United States and Ukraine, Joe Biden has added Ukraine to the long list of countries whose defense the US is obligated to support.

While the agreement is technically bilateral, the specific benefits to the US remain unclear. Unlike NATO’s Article 5, this agreement does not include mutual defense commitments. However, the act of signing it has significantly increased the likelihood of conflict with Russia.

Additionally, the agreement will impose costs on US taxpayers in the short, medium, and long term, and could potentially cost American lives in the not-so-distant future.

The United States and Ukraine signed a 10-year bilateral security agreement on June 13, 2024, during the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Italy. This agreement aims to solidify long-term defense and security cooperation between the two nations.

According to U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, the agreement sends a clear message of resolve to Russia, indicating that the coalition supporting Ukraine remains strong. The pact includes provisions to enhance Ukraine’s defense capabilities and ensure continued U.S. assistance, funded by U.S. taxpayers, in addressing Ukraine’s security needs well into the future.

While the agreement focuses on various aspects such as training Ukraine’s armed forces, enhancing intelligence sharing, and developing military capabilities, it does not include specific monetary pledges.

However, in conjunction with this agreement, the G7 leaders have backed a $50 billion loan package to support Ukraine’s broader economic and defense needs. This financial support is separate from the $60 billion in aid that the US has already approved for Ukraine.

The agreement is not a step toward NATO membership and does not commit US or NATO forces to direct military involvement in the ongoing war with Russia. Consequently, the White House can claim that it does not increase the risk of escalation.

However, Russia has predictably reacted negatively, condemning the signing of the agreement and viewing it as a direct threat and a provocative act that challenges its strategic interests in the region.

The Kremlin has warned that such moves could lead to further tensions and instability, cautioning that any miscalculations could lead to unintended escalations.

Just days later, North Korea and Russia intensified their partnership against the West by signing a mutual defense pact, signaling a significant augmentation in their military cooperation.

This agreement primarily facilitates the exchange of conventional weapons, ammunition, and potentially advanced military technology from Russia to North Korea.

In return, North Korea provides Russia with much-needed ammunition for its ongoing conflict in Ukraine, highlighting a pragmatic and mutually beneficial relationship between the two nations.

The formalized alliance between Russia and North Korea, combined with the US-Ukraine defense agreement, further complicates the Ukraine war and dramatically increases the chances of triggering a global conflict, potentially involving an axis of Russia, North Korea, and China.

China and North Korea already have the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty, signed on July 11, 1961. This treaty is a mutual defense pact that obligates the two countries to defend one another militarily in the event of an attack, similar to the mutual defense obligations found in Article 5 of NATO.

The treaty also includes provisions for economic cooperation and consultation on major international issues, reinforcing the strategic and military alliance between China and North Korea. Additionally, China and Russia maintain a “no limits” partnership. This web of alliances dramatically increases the chance of escalation in the Ukraine War, while solidifying the formation of an anti-Western bloc.

The benefits Ukraine receives from the US-Ukraine defense agreement are tangible, including direct military aid, training for its armed forces, and economic support that strengthens its defense capabilities and stabilizes its economy.

In contrast, the benefits the US receives are intangible, including enhanced geopolitical stability in Eastern Europe, deterrence of further Russian aggression, valuable intelligence on Russian military tactics, reinforced alliances with NATO and other partners, and support for international norms regarding sovereignty and territorial integrity.

However, the costs to the US are very concrete, involving tens of billions of dollars in the long run and the potential for a massive loss of life in a war with China, Russia, and North Korea.

The post New US-Ukraine Bilateral Security Agreement: A Path to Escalation and Burden on American Taxpayers appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Richest Family in the UK, the Billionaire Hindujas Stand Trial in Switzerland for Human Trafficking Charges

The Hinduja family, owners of the multinational conglomerate Hinduja Group, have topped the 2024 Sunday Times Rich List, becoming recognized as the richest family in the UK.

Originally from India, the Hinduja relocated their businesses to London back in 1979, steadily expanding its global presence until they became worth an estimated £37bn ($47bn).

Their business operations span 48 countries across various sectors: oil, chemicals, IT, cyber security, automotive, healthcare, trading, infrastructure, media, property, and power.

So it’s a bit surprising to find some senior members of the family involved in a scandal of alleged exploitation and human trafficking.

Four members of Hinduja family are on trial in Switzerland, amid allegations ‘they spent more money caring for their dog than their servants’.

BBC reported:

“The family own a villa in Geneva’s wealthy neighbourhood of Cologny, and the charges against them all relate to their practice of importing servants from India to look after their children and household.

It’s alleged that Prakash and Kamal Hinduja, together with their son Ajay and his wife Namrata, confiscated staff passports, paid them as little as $8 (£7) for 18-hour days, and allowed them little freedom to leave the house.”

A financial settlement over the exploitation charges was reached last week, but the Hindujas remain on trial for trafficking – a serious criminal offence.

They all deny the charges.

“This week in court, one of Geneva’s most famous prosecutors, Yves Bertossa, compared the almost $10,000 a year he claimed the family had spent on their dog, to the daily amount they were allegedly paying their servants.”

The defense lawyers said the low wages must be understood in context – since staff were also receiving accommodation and food.

“But the allegations that servants’ passports were confiscated, and that they could not even leave the house without permission, are serious, because they could be judged as human trafficking.

Mr Bertossa is calling for prison terms, and millions of dollars in compensation as well as legal fees.”

Read more:

Florida City Discovers Mysterious Network of Tunnels, Experts Believe They Were Used During Prohibition or for Human Trafficking

 

The post Richest Family in the UK, the Billionaire Hindujas Stand Trial in Switzerland for Human Trafficking Charges appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Flaws Present at the Creation

Flaws Present at the Creation

Americans have been exhorting Europeans to do more for NATO since 1949. The need is more pressing than ever.

On April 11, 1949, the “National Affairs” section of TIME led with a story titled “A Simple Document.” The report quoted President Harry Truman’s remarks to the dozen plenipotentiaries gathered in Washington to sign the North Atlantic Treaty. The president observed, “What we do here is a neighborly act. We are like a group of householders, living in the same locality, who decide to express their community of interests by entering into a formal association for their mutual self-protection.”

Below these words ran two political cartoons, the first depicting an anthropomorphized globe resembling Truman’s determined, if bandaged, face. Extending from the rondure, an arm flexed a chiseled bicep reading “Atlantic Pact.” Light beamed from the taut muscle like rays of sunshine. Beside this ran a sketch of national caricatures—the Canadian Mountie and Uncle Sam among their more effete and feminized European counterparts—huddled within a perimeter of barbed wire. Beside them, a gargantuan likeness of Joseph Stalin shrieked “Encirclement! Warmongers!” in the silent scream of ink on paper. 

Not to be missed were the “chipping and chiseling” isolationists who groaned about the North Atlantic Pact and the multibillion-dollar extension of the Economic Cooperation Administration’s dispensation of the Marshall Plan. “Spending in Europe is no longer needed,” exclaimed Senator William Jenner. The story colorfully editorialized the Indianan’s “hoarse echo of the prewar days” as he thundered, “This so-called bipartisan foreign policy … leaves the Republican Party and the American taxpayer holding the bag.”

Seventy five years on, the emotional pageantry of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization carries forth. For many in Washington, the security collective remains the holy sacrament of transatlantic communion, worthy of something akin to religious devotion. A year before Vladimir Putin initiated his war of aggression against Ukraine, President Biden had already projected an “inflection point” in a Manichean clash between democracy and autocracy. He solemnly vowed that advancing democracy’s global standing was his administration’s “galvanizing mission.” The treaty has emerged as a convenient avatar for “our shared democratic values—and our willingness to stand for them.” This, Biden continued in a speech welcoming Sweden to the alliance, “is what makes NATO the greatest military alliance in the history of the world. It is what draws nations to our cause. It is what underpins our unity.”  

These paeans to democracy ring inharmoniously abroad where even casual observers will recall a long and confounding history of support for autocrats both within and outside of the alliance. Consider that Portugal played host to the 1952 Lisbon meeting that welcomed Greece and Turkey into the alliance. At the time, the corporatist Estado Novo regime led by Prime Minister António de Oliveira Salazar was desperate to maintain its colonial holdings in Africa. With its security otherwise subsidized by wealthier Atlantic patrons, Portugal could prosecute its bitter “Overseas Wars” against proto-nationalist movements in Angola, Guinea-Bissau, and Mozambique. 

The added irony of the Lisbon meeting is that those new members have wavered between democracy and authoritarianism in the intervening years. Where does President Recep Erdoğan stand on his American counterpart’s putative commitment to democratic values? This is to say nothing of Jens Stoltenberg’s recent visit to Riyadh—the first such visit by a sitting secretary general—to deepen NATO’s cooperation with Saudi’s absolute monarchy. 

Any close examination of the alliance will reveal deep and persistent fault lines. The putative leader of the GOP, former President Donald Trump, routinely summons his inner William Jenner, warning America’s European allies to pay up. In a recent interview with Brexit figurehead Nigel Farage, Trump served notice: “NATO has to treat the U.S. fairly, because if it’s not for the United States, NATO literally doesn’t even exist.” He continued, “We have an ocean in between some problems… We have a nice, big, beautiful ocean.” Trump added, caustically, “[NATO] is more important for [European countries], they will take an advantage.” 

While the rhetoric may sound similar, the reality looks strikingly different. 

In 1949, Europe lay in ruins. The continent’s collective economy had collapsed with some 70 percent of its industrial infrastructure left smoldering. Aerial bombing and the barrage of artillery had laid waste to its cities and towns. Bridges and railroads were flattened. Farmlands were scorched. For the second time in half a century, the butcher’s bill tallied a staggering toll in both military and civilian lives. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union menaced Western Europe, threatening both an alternative socioeconomic order and military predation of unknown territorial ambition. 

Today, Europe is wealthy, populous, and solidified as a leading supranational political and economic union. By any conceivable standard, the continent and its constituent states rank among the most developed on the planet. The one metric where it falls short is military capability, long content to skimp on defense spending while crouched comfortably behind a shield of American security. 

Conditions in the United States have also changed. The United States emerged from the Second World War as an unparalleled economic powerhouse. America’s booming economy accounted for 50 percent of global GDP. The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement secured the U.S. dollar as the world’s principal reserve currency and Washington held 70 percent of the world’s gold reserves.

These days, the U.S. economy remains the world’s largest. However, its public debt has surged past $34 trillion while its debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 123 percent. So, while flush, it is unlikely the U.S. will ever enjoy the incomparable economic advantage it commanded after World War II. The matter of this relative decline manifests the rhetorical faceoff between Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” and the MAGA politics of his predecessor. It also compels important strategic tradeoffs and will likely determine America’s long-term approach to its European commitments. 

Last August, the Editorial Board of the Washington Post pronounced “How to Safeguard NATO from the Trump Threat.” Perhaps unwittingly, the authors acknowledged, “With U.S. participation, NATO is the most powerful military bloc in human history. Without the United States, it is a leaderless shell.” For all the compass rose bunting lying about the Beltway and Brussels, this statement of fact does not describe an actual military alliance. On the contrary, it illustrates a collective security dependance potentially composed of discrete liabilities rather than net assets. This paradox reveals itself whenever a European leader expounds on the essential value they provide the alliance—an insistence that climaxed after 9/11 when NATO adopted an expeditionary posture in Iraq and Afghanistan—before exhorting the Yanks to stay forever lest the entire arrangement collapse. 

This is not a novel complaint. Rather, it echoes the familiar refrain of every American president of the postwar era: It is time for Europe to step up its commitment to continental defense.  

In January 1951, TIME reported on the “Old Soldier” Dwight D. Eisenhower as he assumed the post of NATO’s first Supreme Allied Commander. While preparing to embark on a preliminary fact-finding trip to Europe, the coverage revealed, Ike “soberly introduced the point that he would have to make time after time in his tour of the NATO capitals: ‘Unless every sacrifice made by America is matched by equal sacrifices, equal sincerity of purpose in the Western European nations, this thing cannot win.’”

Many of the movers and shakers present at the creation of the alliance back in April of 1949 may have been delighted to learn that the treaty is set to celebrate its diamond anniversary. However, one may similarly assume that they would be shaken by the fact that, seven decades on, the treaty still swings in the balance of America’s domestic politics and our willingness to flex military muscle. 

Ike’s admonition no longer applies. After four years of Trump, with another term looming, two years of war on the alliance’s perimeter, and multiplying threats coalescing from the Gaza Strip to the Taiwan Strait, Europe cannot merely match America’s overstressed “sincerity of purpose.” They must do more. And they must do so now. 

Fortunately, opportunities abound for NATO’s European and British members to shoulder additional burdens. This evolution may begin with increased defense spending but ultimately depends upon building additional military capability. At a minimum, NATO-Europe should be encouraged to increase its cooperative and cross-border arms production, expand its Rapid Response Force, and focus its deployments on the defense of Europe’s eastern flank rather than expeditionary missions that take the alliance out of area. 

None of these prescriptions should be received as particularly provocative. However, they do demand the political willpower necessary to achieve some semblance of strategic autonomy commensurate with the continent’s wealth and latent capacity. Only then will the alliance meet the measure of its original intent.  

The post Flaws Present at the Creation appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Biden Administration Has No Definition of Victory in Ukraine

The Biden Administration Has No Definition of Victory in Ukraine

That is just one of the reasons to start negotiations.


Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Russo–Ukrainian war continues. Although Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has indicated an interest in negotiation, the Biden administration has escalated the fighting, most recently by permitting the use of American weapons to strike targets within Russia. Europe’s vocal war party is pushing for even more.

The blame for starting the conflict falls squarely on Putin, who decided to invade his neighbor. Nevertheless, allied officials created the incendiary circumstances which led to the war. Indeed, Western leaders well understood that their aggressive policies after the Cold War made confrontation likely. 

For instance, in 2008 the George W. Bush administration pressed its allies to expand NATO to Georgia and Ukraine. National intelligence officer Fiona Hill, who later served on the Trump National Security Council staff, briefed Bush, predicting “that Mr. Putin would view steps to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO as a provocative move that would likely provoke pre-emptive Russian military action.” William Burns, Bush’s ambassador to Russia and President Joe Biden’s CIA director, sent a famous cable warning the administration that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).” Such a step would “create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

The stakes were evident when Putin expanded military forces along Ukraine’s border in late 2021. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted: “The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade [sic] Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.… So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.” 

In March 2022, even Zelensky acknowledged as much: “Security guarantees and neutrality, the nuclear-free status of our state. We are ready to agree to it. This is the most important point. This was the first fundamental point for the Russian Federation, as far as I remember. And as far as I remember, they started a war because of this.” Yet the U.S. helped torpedo Russo–Ukrainian negotiations.

The continuing war is an obvious disaster for the participants, most importantly Ukraine, since it provides most of the battlefield. Blustery predictions in late 2022 and early 2023 that Ukraine could liberate the Donbass, retake Crimea, push Putin from power, force regime change in Moscow, and perhaps even break up the Russian Federation are now long-discarded fantasies. Wistful hopes that the Zelensky government can rebuild for a renewed offensive next year seem unrealistic in view of Ukraine’s serious manpower shortage, which has led to draconian conscription measures.

Contra Zelensky’s grand claims, Ukraine is fighting for itself, not the West. In security terms, Ukraine never much mattered to America or Europe. The continent suffers economically from the war, but the U.S. has barely been affected. Although the conflict is a humanitarian disaster, it has caused fewer civilian casualties than Washington’s illegal invasion of Iraq and murderous support for Saudi Arabia’s attack on Yemen. 

These days there is much bloviation about the supposed danger of a victorious Putin turning into Hitler reborn. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, Zelensky promotes the most radical vision: “At the moment, it’s us, then Kazakhstan, then Baltic states, then Poland, then Germany. At least half of Germany.” Yet what would Moscow gain from such an attempt? A quarter century into his reign is a little late for Putin to try to amass an empire. He never said he wanted to reconstitute the Soviet Union, instead explicitly rebuffing such claims. Anyway, such a campaign is improbable if not impossible, given the cost of Russia’s war with Ukraine. 

Most importantly, as Stoltenberg admitted, Putin went to war to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO because the alliance offered a security guarantee from the United States. To claim that he would now attack multiple members of the transatlantic alliance is bizarre on its face. Of course, Europe should not take its security for granted, but the Europeans are well able to protect themselves and finally are spending more to do so. 

Some analysts fear that a diminished American presence might lead to a return of intra-European conflict. The unwillingness of the continent’s major powers to rearm even 80 years after the end of World War II demonstrates a lack of will for war. Only now do we see broader, albeit limited, military efforts, with Moscow having unintentionally unified the continent.

Finally, a Russian victory, it is claimed, would encourage China to attack Taiwan and more. Yet aggression is determined by local interests and conditions. In Europe, the US has refused to fight. Washington’s willingness to instead provide arms to Ukraine is unlikely to convince Beijing that Americans are willing to risk nuclear war over Taiwan.

In any case, waging a proxy war is not cheap for Western governments. Moscow’s so far unfulfilled threats of escalation have caused some allies to dismiss the possibility. Nevertheless, numerous NATO governments are active participants in the war, openly if indirectly killing thousands of Russian soldiers and destroying enormous quantities of Russian materiel. American officials have anonymously but publicly claimed credit for killing Russian generals and sinking Russian ships. Only because the Putin government believes it is winning does it have good reason to exercise restraint, accepting the indignity of the West’s indirect participation in the conflict.

But the escalatory risks are constant. The Biden administration has authorized limited Ukrainian use of U.S. weapons to attack within Russia. NATO military personnel are engaged in military operations in Ukraine. France has suggested direct involvement of European troops in combat. Apparently Paris and Kyiv are discussing the dispatch of French trainers to Ukraine, a step which Ukrainian commander Gen. Olexandr Syrskyi said he hoped “will encourage other partners to join this ambitious project.” This step, opined the Washington Post columnist Lee Hockstader, “would represent a quantum escalatory leap—not just heavy metal to buttress Ukraine’s defenses but manpower and the potential for casualties among European troops.” 

Add to that the pressure on Biden to facilitate expanded Ukrainian attacks within Russia, even after Kiev struck part of Moscow’s nuclear early warning system. Zelensky continues to push for much more, including direct allied air support. Although NATO membership will not be offered to Ukraine at the upcoming alliance meeting in Washington, the Biden administration has signed a security treaty making Kiev a de facto ally. 

More broadly, by placing Moscow and the West at increasing odds, the war has turned Russia into an enemy of America’s global interests and pushed Moscow into the arms of the West’s foes. Russia is tightening its embrace of China, trading arms with Iran and North Korea, actively combating U.S. influence in Africa, and building support within the Global South. Moscow also warned that it might arm other adversaries of America, such as Yemen’s Houthis. 

Imagine if Ukraine begins winning. Moscow would then possess the incentive as well as means to escalate, potentially dramatically. The U.S. and USSR emerged from the Cold War without a direct battle, though with a near miss in the Cuban Missile Crisis and another with the Able Archer exercise. It would be utterly reckless to chance a clash today with Russia. 

It is in the interests of the U.S. and Europe, as well as Ukraine and Russia, to end the war as swiftly as possible. That does not mean forcing Kyiv to accept any particular outcome. Rather, allied states should set their policy to advance their interests and allow Ukraine to respond accordingly.

Sober Western officials increasingly acknowledge negotiation will ultimately be necessary, so for many the Western objective has shifted to strengthen Ukrainian negotiating leverage. Indeed, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recently admitted the same in congressional testimony. This objective, however, requires a strategy other than simply continuing the war.

Allied officials insist that Putin must be forced into talking, but he was willing to do so even before invading, as Stoltenberg admitted. Ukrainian officials acknowledge that Kiev and Moscow negotiated in Istanbul shortly after Russia’s invasion in a process undermined by the U.S. and allied governments. And Putin recently reiterated his interest in holding talks, though he insisted that Kiev must recognize “new realities” after two and a half years of war. The only way to learn if Moscow is serious is to test it.

In contrast, Kyiv has ostentatiously refused to consider negotiation, with Zelensky effectively banning such discussions, insisting on what amounts to a Russian surrender first. However, realism increasingly appears to increasingly influence some top Ukrainians, who acknowledge that Crimea and the Donbass are best recognized as lost.

 Another common contention is that Putin cannot be trusted, hence any agreement would be worthless. However, combatants rarely embrace one another even when making peace. And, frankly, the allies have proved they cannot be trusted, having violated multiple pledges against expanding NATO and admitted that they never intended to comply with the Minsk accords. 

Anyway, such objections ignore the state of the war. Kiev is unlikely to be in a stronger position next year. Russia is calling up more troops and producing more weapons than Ukraine. Ukrainian war weariness is evident as draft resistance grows and Zelensky’s popularity falls. Indeed, with his term expired and elections postponed, the government’s legitimacy also is declining.

The allies should lay the groundwork for negotiations today, when Ukraine’s position is strongest. It is still possible to preserve that nation’s independence and sovereignty, while accepting military restrictions and territorial losses. How much would depend on talks.

Washington and Brussels should discuss possible economic and security arrangements with Moscow. For example, Ukraine could be nonaligned militarily—with Russia assured that it would not face a hostile state allied with America on its border—but still free to form economic and political ties with Europe. If Russia makes peace, it could be free to reengage economically and politically with the West. The allies could offer the return of frozen funds and property to Moscow and individual Russians. 

The ongoing war is a human catastrophe. Simply giving more aid in hopes that something good will result is not a strategy. This approach ensures continued death and destruction and risks military escalation and expansion.

Instead, the U.S. and its European allies should focus on ending the Russo–Ukrainian war. That means winding down allied military assistance and creating a stable, peaceful order. Doing so won’t be easy. However, it is the only course that offers hope of a positive future for Ukraine, Russia, and the rest of Europe.

The post The Biden Administration Has No Definition of Victory in Ukraine appeared first on The American Conservative.

Putin’s Peace Offer: Deal or No Deal?

Putin’s Peace Offer: Deal or No Deal?

Putin’s proposal seems designed for rejection. But the U.S. should not reject his peace feelers out of hand.

On Friday, Russian president Vladimir Putin laid out a series of conditions that he said would bring a “final resolution” to the war in Ukraine.

The conditions, Putin said, “are very simple.” Ukraine must “completely” withdraw from the territory of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia and disavow any intention to join NATO. 

“As soon as Kiev announces that it is ready for such a solution and begins the real withdrawal of troops from these regions,” said Putin, “and also officially notifies [us] of the refusal of plans to join NATO, from our side, immediately, literally at that moment, an order will be given to cease fire and begin negotiations. I repeat: We will do this immediately.”

He continued:

Our principled position is as follows—neutral, non-aligned, non-nuclear status of Ukraine, its demilitarization and denazification, especially since these parameters were generally agreed upon during the Istanbul negotiations in 2022. 

While Putin guaranteed the “unhindered and safe withdrawal” of Ukrainian troops he also warned that if Ukraine and the “Western capitals” reject the offer, then they will bear the ultimate “political and moral responsibility for the continuation of the bloodshed.”

As might be expected, the response to Putin’s ukase was not encouraging. 

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin responded by saying, Putin “is not in any position to dictate to Ukraine what they must do to bring about a peace,” while Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni dismissed the overture as mere “propaganda.”

That said, if U.S. foreign policy wasn’t run by megalomaniacs, it would at least consider the plan, given that—as I’ve previously written—the matter of who governs Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia doesn’t concern us in the least.

And given the state of play on the ground in Ukraine—the economic ruin, the millions refugees, the hundreds of thousands of war casualties—Ukraine should consider taking this deal, but they will not for the simple fact that Zelensky would likely not survive if he did. The far-right ultras who, let’s remember, set off this conflagration in February 2014 would seek his (ultimate?) removal. And this is something they could now accomplish with at least a patina of legality since Zelensky has outstayed the length of his constitutional term in office, having refused to hold presidential elections in May. 

Putin’s most recent demands appear to be maximalist: If he is serious, then he is likely going to have to forcibly remove Ukraine’s forces from the territory he formally annexed before gaining total control over them. This will result in a prolonging, perhaps even—if the threats emanating out of Elysee Palace are to be believed—a widening of the war. 

Ideally, Ukrainian neutrality would be enough for Putin; Russia’s point about NATO expansion has been made. A key question is whether there is any room for Putin to moderate his demands? 

Indeed, as the esteemed Russia expert Nicolai N. Petro of the University of Rhode Island tells me, “Russia is offering something that Ukraine is not—a way to end the bloodshed; just withdraw troops. Note that no recognition of territorial concessions is being asked for.”

In the end it may come down to options, as in: Who has more of them? Despite the fulsome rhetoric coming out of last weekend’s “peace conference” near Lucerne, Switzerland, Zelensky seems to be running out of them, while Putin—with yet another six year mandate, a strong economy, the (implicit) backing of China, a larger army and population, and a military industrial complex churning at full blast—has quite a few more.

As professor Petro points out, “Putin’s proposal puts the lie to Western statements that Russia intends to conquer all of Ukraine, and from there will move to conquer all of Europe. He has explicitly limited Russia’s territorial objectives to the four partially occupied regions. Period.”

To some, Putin’s proposal seems designed for rejection, with the aim of laying the groundwork for a longer war. But the U.S. should not reject his peace feelers out of hand. 

The Biden administration, if it had any actual diplomats working for it, might try to use them as a starting point for negotiations. 

The post Putin’s Peace Offer: Deal or No Deal? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Greg Gutfeld Rips Liberal Media for Pushing White House Spin on Biden ‘Cheap Fakes’ (VIDEO)

The liberal media is bending over backwards to defend Joe Biden, pushing the ridiculous White House spin about ‘cheap fake’ videos that make Biden look old and feeble.

Suddenly, the media is concerned about context and the danger of hoaxes.

Today on The Five of FOX News, Greg Gutfeld tore into the media, reminding people of all of the anti-Trump hoaxes the media has pushed in recent years. Where was their concern then?

The Daily Wire has details:

Greg Gutfeld Takes Apart Legacy Media For Gobbling Up ‘Cheap Fakes’ Spin

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld went after legacy media for eagerly gobbling up the White House’s latest narrative — namely that a recent series of unflattering videos of President Joe Biden were “cheap fakes,” deceptively edited to make Biden appear more confused and more frail than he actually is.

On Fox News’ “The Five,” Gutfeld pointed out the fact that many of the same media outlets had also reported almost any story that reflected poorly on former President Donald Trump, even if it was clearly edited or without relevant context.

“Where were these anti-hoaxers when there was the ‘fine people hoax,’ the ‘drinking bleach hoax,’ the ‘koi pond hoax,’ the ‘migrant kids in cages hoax,’ the ‘border patrol whipping migrants hoax,’ the ‘lab leak is a conspiracy theory hoax,’ the ‘Russian collusion hoax,’ the ‘Don’t Say Gay Bill hoax’ … did I leave any — the ‘Pee Tape hoax,” Gutfeld said, nearly running himself out of breath as he tried to list them all. “Where were they?”

Watch the video below:

WATCH: Fox’s @GregGutfeld calls out liberal media over claims from White House that Biden videos are ‘cheap fakes’: “Where were these anti-hoaxers in the ‘fine people hoax’, the ‘drinking bleach hoax’, the ‘koi pond hoax’, the ‘migrant kids in cages hoax’, the ‘border patrol… pic.twitter.com/LmnygWM4kW

— TV News Now (@TVNewsNow) June 18, 2024

Greg is right about all of this. The media lies constantly about Trump. Now they want ‘context’ for Biden. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

The post Greg Gutfeld Rips Liberal Media for Pushing White House Spin on Biden ‘Cheap Fakes’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

THREE YEARS LATER: Biden’s Multi-Billion Dollar Plan to Connect Rural Americans to High Speed Internet Has Connected ZERO People

In 2021, the Biden administration hyped a multi-billion dollar plan to connect rural Americans to high speed internet.

Three years later, ZERO Americans have benefited from this plan.

This could have actually been a popular issue for Biden but his administration completely dropped the ball by miring the program in red tape and regulations.

The FOX Business Network reports:

FCC commissioner hits Biden admin for $42 billion in unspent high speed internet funds

The senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is blaming the Biden administration for a lack of high-speed internet projects that were approved under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, comparing the situation to the dearth of electric vehicle charging stations that were also supposed to be built with the funds.

“In 2021, the Biden Administration got $42.45 billion from Congress to deploy high-speed Internet to millions of Americans,” GOP-appointed Commissioner Brendan Carr wrote on X last week. “Years later, it has not connected even 1 person with those funds. In fact, it now says that no construction projects will even start until 2025 at earliest.”

Commenters on social media noted that the funds were allocated to the states, arguing the Biden administration is not responsible for any delays. But Carr says it is the Biden administration that is holding up progress.

“There’s no question that the 2021 law put some process in place, but the Biden administration decided to layer on top of that a Byzantine additional set of hoops that states have to go through before the administration will approve them to actually get these funds and start completing the builds,” Carr told FOX Business in an interview.

What have they been doing this whole time?

In 2021, the Biden Administration got $42.45 billion from Congress to deploy high-speed Internet to millions of Americans.

Years later, it has not connected even 1 person with those funds. In fact, it now says that no construction projects will even start until 2025 at earliest.

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) June 14, 2024

Meanwhile, the Biden Admin has been layering a partisan political agenda on top of this $42.45B program – a liberal wish list that has nothing to do with connecting Americans.

Climate change mandates, tech biases, DEI requirements, favoring government-run networks + more.

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) June 14, 2024

There’s no better representation of the service (failures) of Bob Casey and Joe Biden than:

1⃣Spending $42B on broadband and high speed internet
2⃣ Passing it with woke DEI/climate regs to keep libs happy
3⃣Taking HUGE victory laps
4⃣ 3 years later finding out it never happened pic.twitter.com/8GMGQrUz8f

— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) June 20, 2024

This will be part of Biden’s failed legacy.

The post THREE YEARS LATER: Biden’s Multi-Billion Dollar Plan to Connect Rural Americans to High Speed Internet Has Connected ZERO People appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Donald Trump Torches Fox News, Suggests They Remove ‘Pathetic’ RINO Paul Ryan From Company Board

The days of Donald Trump’s close relationship with Fox News are well and truly over.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump slammed the company for their establishment-friendly coverage and suggested they remove former Speaker of the House and notorious RINO Paul Ryan from their board.

“Nobody can ever trust Fox News, and I am one of them, with the weak and ineffective RINO, Paul Ryan, on its Board of Directors,” Trump wrote. “He’s a total lightweight, a failed and pathetic Speaker of the House, and a very disloyal person.

“Romney was bad, but Paul Ryan made him look worse. As a team, they never had a chance. Rupert and Lachlan, get that dog off your Board – You don’t need him,” he continued. “ALL YOU NEED IS TRUMP. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Ryan, who was the Republican vice-presidential nominee under Mitt Romney, recently confirmed he would not be supporting Trump’s bid to return to the White House.

In a recent interview with Fox News, Ryan cited the January 6th protests and the Trump’s lack of character as reasons for witholding his vote.

“I think it’s a contribution of factors. I think it really is just character at the end of the day, and the fact that if you’re willing to put yourself above the Constitution ― an oath you swear when you take federal office, whether as president or a member of Congress, you swear an oath to the Constitution ― and you’re willing to suborn it to yourself, I think that makes you unfit for office,” he said at the time.

Ryan also blamed Trump for the Republican Party’s recent lack of electoral success, without making any reference to the voter fraud that has plagued recent elections.

“Trump has cost us a lot of seats. He cost us the Senate twice, he cost us the House…because he is pushing through the primaries people who cannot win general elections, but who pledge fealty to him. Ever since 2016, we’ve been losing.”



The post Donald Trump Torches Fox News, Suggests They Remove ‘Pathetic’ RINO Paul Ryan From Company Board appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.