Opinion
By Jeff Childers
03-15-24
Good morning, C&C, it’s Friday! Your roundup includes: Steve Garvey continues overperforming in California Senate race against Adam Schiff; more good news in Argentina as the country shows a surprise surplus; a deep analysis of all the recent Proxy War brinksmanship; the NYT covers a Putin speech, which is news by itself; negotiating using flesh and iron; and Judge McAfee’s quietly brilliant Fani Willis decision dropped and I have a lot of thoughts about it.
🗞💬 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 💬🗞
🔥 The California Globe ran an astounding story yesterday headlined, “Steve Garvey Moves Ahead of Adam Schiff in California’s U.S. Senate Primary.” The news is astounding for two reasons. First, and least surprising, it’s been nine days since the election and they are still counting the votes — in one single state. Third-world countries with same-day voting can easily calculate the results in a few hours. What’s the problem, California? Is it DEI?
Second — most surprising of all — Garvey is running a competitive primary race against liberal darling and unhinged madman Adam Schiff, who was so confident of winning he resigned from his safe House seat so he could upgrade himself to the Senate. As of mid-morning yesterday, Garvey was four points ahead. (As counting continued, Schiff edged back into first place yesterday afternoon, after the results shown above were published. The latest I could find shows 32% Schiff vs 31.7% Garvey. In other words, it’s neck and neck.)
It’s a surprisingly strong showing for Republicans in California. It looks like hope.
In California’s ‘Top 2’ primary election system, called the “Jungle Primary,” only the top two vote-getters advance to the General Election. Since democrats always run a Jungle Book-style field of talking jungle critters like Adam Schiff, the ‘Top 2’ have almost always been democrats, leaving unenthusiastic Republicans facing a ‘dumb and dumber’ choice.
The last time a California Republican got elected to Senate was in 1983, when Pete Wilson won the first of only two terms.
The numbers remain difficult for Garvey, since third-ranked progressive Katie Porter (D) currently holds about 15% of the vote. Together, Schiff’s votes combined with Porter’s handily beat Garvey. But how many Porter voters — democrats who clearly dislike Schiff — would hold their noses and cross the aisle to vote for Republican Garvey, an unashamed Trump supporter?
Either way, it’s a lot of surprising progress for California.
🔥 Argentina’s curly-haired conservative economist and new president Javier Milei got some good news late last month. We didn’t hear about it till now, since the story was broadly treated like it was something gooey that stank to high heaven stuck to corporate media’s shoe. They couldn’t scrape it off fast enough. The Foundation for Economic Education ran the story under the headline, “Javier Milei Delivers Argentina’s First Surplus in Over a Decade—and US Media Is Silent.”
After only three months, despite widely-advertised predictions by liberals that Milei’s “shock therapy” economic plan would explode on the launch pad, after deeply cutting social programs and axing goofy DEI-style sinecures, the South American country’s budget is now running lean and mean. It’s projected to produce a shocking and unexpected surplus— nearly $600 million dollars to the good.
Argentina is not out of the woods yet. But, as Milei always says, it’s going to be painful curing the country’s socialist-fascist disaster.
🚀 There’s a lot happening behind the scenes in the Proxy War this week — and I am cautiously optimistic it is good news. Corporate media wasn’t sure what to make of Putin’s interview two days ago — although we are obviously in a new stage where media is allowed to report things that Putins says.
Anyway, here’s how Reuters headlined the story, typically casting the Russian president as a warmongering madman:
But the New York Times took a more nuanced tone, a tone that almost made Putin look somewhat reasonable, if you can imagine that, like the firm-but-fair kind of dictator one can work with:
A remarkable article in many ways, the story ran outside the Times’ paywall. The first surprise was it quoted and linked to a popular pro-Russian Telegram channel, which might be the first time its readers have discovered that such alternative sources of information exist.
Second, the article widely quoted Putin’s comments, actually allowing the Russian president to make his case. For instance, instead of just burbling that the only reason Russia invaded Ukraine was to recreate a Czarian empire, the Times honestly reported Putin’s explanation: “For us, this is a question of life and death, whereas for (the West) it’s a question of improving their tactical position.”
Third, the New York Times — using Putin’s voice — pitched the Russian-version peace plan:
Mr. Putin described his end goal in Ukraine as a deal with the United States akin to the “security guarantees” that Russia proposed in 2021, on the eve of the invasion, which would have given Moscow a new sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and which the West rejected as unacceptable. He also indicated that he saw Russia’s negotiating position as improving, given its military’s advances on the battlefield.
“We are ready, nevertheless, for a serious conversation,” Mr. Putin said. “But we need to plainly and clearly understand for ourselves that this is not a pause that the enemy wants to take to rearm, but that this is a serious conversation with security guarantees for the Russian Federation.”
Eureka! Where has this deal been hiding all this time? It almost sounds like something on which everyone can agree. The Russians need security guarantees, obviously. The Ukrainians need a permanent “pause” in the fighting. For once, the New York Times conveniently forgot all about the controversial disputed territories, which never made an appearance in the article.
Finally, it must have driven the Ukraine-flag-in-bio people crazy that the Times respectfully reported a Putin speech without once calling him a war criminal. In fact, maybe it’s my imagination, but ever since the CIA coughed up its private Ukrainian army in that historic Times exclusive a few weeks back, it seems like our own local C&C comments Ukrainian cheerleading team has been strangely restrained.
The part of his speech the Times left out is when Putin said Russia had already been approached by some Western negotiators trying to convince Russia to “pause” the fighting to allow room for peace negotiations. Putin reasonably said they won’t pause, why would they, right when Ukraine is running out of ammunition? Putin also said he trusts “none of them” — meaning the West. Why should he?
Assuming Putin was telling the truth about being approached for peace talks (and why would he lie about that?), this is the first public confirmation that the West has blinked. As it should have. It’s the first confirmation that, despite Biden’s crazy escalatory rhetoric, the West is trying to make a deal. The problem is the West wants a deal that will allows it to claim a political victory. Like Putin said, the Proxy War was always more about politics. But it’s about survival for Russia.
Now let’s consider whether all the recent, terrifying stakes-raising is real or not.
🚀 Last week, another wild story broke — I covered it — involving a leaked Teams conference between a pack of German generals who were secretly scheming how to blow up Russian’s Crimean bridge and even attack Russia’s military HQ — inside of Russia. We all marveled at how dumb the German generals were and thought the bizarre call must have been monitored and leaked by the Russians.
But now I am thinking NATO leaked it, on purpose.
This would require levels of stupidity and incompetence surpassing all previous record-setting levels, but it seems to me the leaked call may have been intended to influence the behind-the-scenes peace negotiations with the Russians. The message was, you might be winning in Ukraine right now, but there are things in the works that will make Ukraine look like a two-man, nudist paddleboarding trip on Obama’s lake. So you’d better settle before things get real.
It was a week of escalation. Earlier in the week, loopy French President Emmanuel Macron advertised a major speech on Thursday, to declare a new scheme of sending armed French troops to Ukraine. The game was, the French troops would not be sent to the front lines, but would relieve Ukrainian troops behind the lines (like those on defensive duty in Kiev), so those unlucky Ukrainian troops could be marshaled into General Sirsky’s meat grinder.
But then yesterday, with the entire world on edge, Macron gave his epic speech … and completely backed down. He saved face by belligerently vowing to send troops to Ukraine in the future, if and when he feels like starting World War III, but for today, he just doesn’t think Ukraine needs the help right now.
Again, reading between the lines, I would bet a trip to Martha’s Vineyard that the Western negotiators were using Macron’s insane rhetoric and fears of what he might say to pressure the Russians into settling earlier this week. But then the clock ran out, and Macron had to back down.
The bottom line is, don’t freak out watching all this brinksmanship. It’s not real. It’s just an end-stage negotiating ploy. They might do it accidentally but they’re not really trying to start a nuclear apocalypse. And Putin knows it. After all, nuclear war would end the elite’s fancy WEF junkets tout suite, and would curtail the taxpayer funded champagne, cocaine, and caviar-topped dates from flowing.
They’ve built themselves some pretty fancy caves and hidey-holes, it’s true, but they still don’t want to live down there.
🚀 This week, the warbloggers were profoundly confused by recent Ukrainian military tactics. First, there was the shakeup at the top, where General “the Butcher” Sirsky oddly replaced Ukraine’s long-standing, beloved, previous top commander. Next, Ukraine is throwing men and machines at the Russians, with unaccountable abandon, for no obvious military purpose, simply to hold an indefensible line.
The Ukrainians aren’t acting like they are low on supplies. The Ukrainians are spending men and weapons faster than Hunter Biden buying ladies and liquor after a profitable morning at the casino.
According to credible reports, just in the last two weeks, the Russians have bombed to smithereens four of the Ukrainians’ Patriot missile systems (retail value, $25 billion). Warbloggers say the Patriots were never intended to be used on the line of conflict, but that is exactly what the Ukrainians are doing with them. Also credibly reported destroyed were up to four U.S.-supplied top-line M1 Abrams tanks (retail value $68 million).
Warbloggers are confused by this profligate wasting of hard-to-get weaponry. The crazy-expensive, ultra-high-tech Abrams tanks were supposed to be held in reserve, until all other types of tanks were destroyed, or for the last defense of the capitol city of Kiev, or something like that. But now the Ukrainians are tossing the M1s around the battlefield willy-nilly. And the rapid losses of the rolling fortresses suggest the drivers were poorly trained.
And that’s just the beginning. The Russians have recently reported killing between 400 and 500 Ukrainian soldiers every day, a figure many times the previous bloodiest days. It all seems very hasty and desperate.
So what’s going on? Why are the Ukrainians acting like they are making a last stand?
I am not qualified to evaluate military strategy. But as a lawyer, I think I can see exactly what is going on. Politicians, not generals, are driving the Proxy War’s tank now. And most politicians are lawyers. So it seems pretty clear to me.
My guess is the Ukrainians are acting like they are making a last stand because they are making a last stand. It’s a last push for politics, a gambit of excess to gain advantage in the settlement negotiations. They might be losing, but the NATO war planners want to show Russia how expensive victory will be.
If I’m right, it even explains why they brought in General Sirsky — “the Butcher” — because they knew General Zaluzhny would never do what needed to be done, which is to treat exhausted fighting men and irreplaceable weaponry like disposable checker pieces in bulk shipping bags.
In other words, they’d better go ahead and use those M1 tanks now, to at least help get a little more negotiating leverage, because before long the M1s won’t be of any use at all.
In the big picture, it’s good news. Maybe it’s not good news for the poor Ukrainians, who’ve been victimized by every other involved country, and have been force-fed countless lies and numberless false promises. But it’s good news for the world, because it means the Proxy War could be over soon.
🔥 While were waiting impatiently for Judge McAfee to enter his order on Trump’s motion to disqualify Fulton County’s gangsta’ DA Fani Willis, lots of other wheels were spinning. One wheel that spun Wednesday was reported by local WUGA, headlined “Kemp Signs Law Clearing Way for Prosecutorial Oversight Commission to Begin Operating.”
On Wednesday afternoon, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed Senate Bill 332 into law. The new law added razor-sharp teeth to existing laws governing Georgia’s state attorneys, like Fani Willis.
One commonsense provision forbids DAs from refusing to prosecute entire categories of crimes like shoplifting. Now they must evaluate each case standing alone. Another widely-cited provision allows the state’s “Prosecutorial Oversight Commission” to launch investigations of suspect DAs by a majority vote. Previously the commission, which was just created by a new law last year, could only recommend an investigation to the Georgia Supreme Court.
And after the law passed last year, Georgia’s Supreme Court shivved it in the exercise yard by refusing to create disciplinary rules required by the statute, effectively killing the new oversight committee in its crib. This new law takes the Supreme Court out of the picture.
At the signing ceremony, Governor Kemp quipped, “When out of touch prosecutors put politics over public safety, the community suffers, and people and property are put at risk.”
Democrats complained loudly about how the new bill obviously targets Fani Willis. As it should. But House Speaker Jon Burns (R-Newington) denied the legislation was about any one particular person, but instead seeks to ensure that all Georgia’s prosecutors can be held accountable. Commenters expect a lawsuit challenging the new law to be filed soon.
Meanwhile, Fani now has one more thing to worry about.
🔥 The Fani Willis decision dropped this morning while I was writing my post, and I had to stop, read, then delete and restart this section. I just couldn’t make you guys wait, you’ve been so patient with the vacation schedule already.
In an exhaustive 23-page decision that included the welcome words, “stench of dishonesty,” disappointingly the judge went with something closer to my second proposed option from yesterday, and did not outright disqualify Fulton County’s gangsta DA Fani Willis. But the decision wasn’t exactly like either of my predictions, either, except that I did say there was a chance the judge would surprise us all and play 4-D chess.
He did.
Georgia’s local WTOP ran the story headlined, “Fulton County DA Fani Willis must step aside or remove special prosecutor in Trump case, judge says.”
This morning, Judge Scott McAfee entered his order explaining he found the “allegations and evidence legally insufficient to support a finding of an actual conflict of interest,” but said there remains an “appearance of impropriety.” Here is a link to the judge’s 23-page order on my dropbox server.
The order was as fine a bit of judicial baby-splitting as I can recall. While the order let Fani off the hook, sort of, it also created another difficult dilemma for her, and provided everything the court of appeals needs to overrule him and toss Fani out on her plump backside if it wants.
This is important. The decision revolved around the difference between an actual conflict of interest versus just an appearance of impropriety. The former requires dismissal, the latter requires the judge to try to cure the problem and not dismiss the case, if possible.
Here’s the paragraph that was remarkably similar to my prediction from yesterday, where the judge found that Defendants hadn’t met their burden of proving an actual conflict of interest:
After receiving two and a half days of testimony, during which the Defendants were provided an opportunity to subpoena and introduce whatever relevant and material evidence they could muster, the Court finds that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the District Attorney acquired an actual conflict of interest in this case through her personal relationship and recurring travels with her lead prosecutor. The other alleged grounds for disqualification, including forensic misconduct, are also denied.
The judge noted the Defendants’ evidence only showed a minimal actual conflict of interest. For instance, he pointed out that, despite having access to Nathan Wade’s credit card statements, the Defendants only found about $15,000 in potential gifts. While he seemed properly skeptical of Fani’s silly “cash horde” excuse, he also noted the Defendants didn’t disprove that ridiculous story either. Since Fani’s cash horde story wasn’t completely implausible, he had to accept it as evidence.
I should stop and say the lack of evidence wasn’t the Defendants’ fault. While I could always quibble at their choices, and while hindsight is always 20-20, the Defendants’ lawyers weren’t given time to take depositions. Depositions would have made a huge difference at the hearing. Fighting one handed, they did the best they could with what they had.
But the second half of the split judicial baby was the appearance of conflict. Because Judge McAfee found an appearance of impropriety existed, the judge can force Fani to make a difficult choice: quit, or fire her love puppy Nathan.
However, the established record now highlights a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team – an appearance that must be removed through the State’s selection of one of two options.
The prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the State selects one of two options. The District Attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment. Alternatively, SADA Nathan Wade can withdraw, allowing the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case.
The judge scrupulously avoided wading into the tumultuous waters of deciding whether the District Attorney herself committed any crimes, such as perjury over when the physical relationship began. He said it ultimately didn’t matter. “Even if the romantic relationship began after Nathan Wade’s initial contract in November 2021, the District Attorney chose to continue supervising and paying Wade while maintaining such a relationship. She further allowed the regular and loose exchange of money between them without any exact or verifiable measure of reconciliation,” the judge wrote.
Overall, I found the decision well-written and well-reasoned, even if I disagreed with how the judge weighted certain things. (At one point, I noted the judge cited the Federalist papers, a sign of intelligence.) His baby-splitting remedy was driven by the legal distinction between the lack of an actual conflict of interest while finding the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The case law provides different, less severe, remedies under the “appearance” standard. Most importantly, the judge cited a Georgia Supreme Court case saying he was required to consider a “range” of remedies, reserving disqualification or dismissal for only the most extreme cases where no other remedy will fix the problem.
Having done that much, the judge didn’t do Fani any other favors. After reiterating that his hands were tied because he couldn’t find an actual conflict on the presented evidence, he commented rather extensively on Fani’s repeated bad choices and the ethical issues. He stopped short of accusing Fani and Nathan of lying, but said it sure smelled like lying to him:
This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices – even repeatedly – and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it. Other forums or sources of authority such as the General Assembly, the Georgia State Ethics Commission, the State Bar of Georgia, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, or the voters of Fulton County may offer feedback on any unanswered questions that linger.
Wade’s patently unpersuasive explanation for the inaccurate interrogatories he submitted in his pending divorce indicates a willingness on his part to wrongly conceal his relationship with the District Attorney.
An odor of mendacity remains. The Court is not under an obligation to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness or defendant ever presented in open court. Such an expectation would mean an end to the efficient disposition of criminal and civil proceedings. Yet reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it.
Both sides will appeal this ruling. By forcing Fani to quit or fire Nathan — which he knows she won’t do until she completes the appeal — the judge just deadlocked and effectively stayed the case until all appellate options have been exhausted. And once that process completes, assuming Fani survives all the other attacks coming her way outside the courtroom, then she will still have to deal with the dismissal of six key counts that the Judge entered two days ago.
Thus, there is now zero chance of a trial before the November elections. And Trump still has a pending presidential immunity defense percolating through the Supreme Court that could knock the case out in the meantime while it sits idle.
So I will go out on a limb and say, in my opinion, this very smart judge was playing four-D chess. This decision, though disappointing in the short term, might be much better in the long term than an outright disqualification would have been. Disqualification and dismissal are extreme remedies that would have been vulnerable to reversal by the wrong appellate panel. And it leaves a badly-injured DA floundering around the case.
Judge McAfee is heading for an appellate court appointment regardless of what happens in his election.
Have a fabulous Friday! Don’t worry, in spite of the fact we’ll be traveling today and tomorrow. See you back here tomorrow!
We can’t do it without you. Consider joining with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠
Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com
© 2022, Jeff Childers, all rights reserved
The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal Florida
