The Truth About the Leverage of Javelin Missiles

The GOP party platform as created at the Cleveland GOP convention in early July, 2016, was directed to suit the Trump campaign’s point of view. We have forgotten what transpired.

Platform committee members devised to include language to supply Ukraine with more than just “assistance.” They wrote into the platform the need to “provide lethal defense weapons”

From Washington Post article:

I do not know what the entire original language was, The final form is:

“We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning.”

“If warranted” is a subjective analysis of whomever might be in control of the presidency. “Appropriate assistance” is also a subjective outcome and certainly isn’t the exact and meaningful “providing lethal weapons.”

Also, of note:

“We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.”

We have to look at the intention of this wording now. We will not accept territorial change by force, but neither will we provide lethal assistance against it. What we will accept is territorial change after the use of force as agreed by treaty. We will use appropriate “constitutional” measures, which are US-centric, not NATO actions, not global/EU coalition sanctions. And that is exactly where we are in Ukraine right now. That’s what Donny wanted back then, that’s what he is lobbying for now.

Once a treaty is ratified, which a currently weakened Ukraine has little choice but signing, due to the utter bullshit of what it has become to deal with the US -and it’s wavering commitment to global democracy -and Trump led, corruption championing interactions with them, once that treaty is signed, then there is no underlying reason for sanctions against Russia. It’s been resolved you see. Then there is no reason why Russia shouldn’t be restored to the G8.

As far as the inclusion of “assassination,” that mess is another story for another time, but let’s not forget this administration’s attempted inaction and outright apologetic complicity in assassinations as a general rule, and Russia’s as a particular constant. The application of “appropriate constitutional measures” is also entirely subjective.

Bottom line, the Trump campaign did not want to provide what would represent Javelin missiles to Ukraine and had that language removed from the party platform in 2016 before Trump was even elected.

Without getting to far into the weeds, let’s not forget Trump’s vision of a sanction-free Russia existed from the very beginning of his candidacy, as witnessed in his response to a question by the future convicted spy Maria Butina in 2015.

I didn’t realize it’s true, he actually used to be a little more articulate, even if still a complete fucking idiot. I digress.

It’s no wonder that at the time, Ukrainian officials were not jazzed about Trump becoming President. Donny’s agenda regarding Russia-Ukraine were pretty much a foregone conclusion before the election. There was no concerted Ukrainian effort to conspire to hinder Donny’s election, there was an overt , out in the open, dislike of the idea by some Ukrainian officials.

Put on your thinking cap. What is one attribute at which Donny excels? RETRIBUTION. Not only was Donny clearly going to run a pro-Russian administration, he would fold into that the need for retribution against what he perceived as a slight from some Ukrainian leaders.

Aside from stating during his candidacy that Ukraine’s problems weren’t those of the US, but of the EU, and should be “settled” by Russia and Ukraine, he said he “didn’t care” if Ukraine were to join NATO, all he cared about was who was going to pay for our future US mercenary forces. All he cared about was “Islamic extremists” and worldwide population shifts resulting in forced migrations. That was the “real” threat.

When it became clear that the US would in fact supply “Lethal force” in the form of javelins to Ukraine, that plan didn’t come directly from the White House. Those plans came from a Pentagon proposal, Congress, and NATO leaders constant urging.

Trump had zero interest in the protection of Ukraine, but high interest in whatever some Ukrainians may have said about him in the past.

June, 2017:

“Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko may have pulled off a small coup in winning an audience with U.S. President Donald Trump before Russian leader Vladimir Putin could.

Judging from the deafening silence coming from the White House, however, it’s a small coup that the U.S. administration doesn’t seem interested in publicizing.

When Poroshenko meets Trump for the first time, scheduled for June 20, he could have some explaining to do, and even perhaps some groveling.

Members of Poroshenko’s administration, including his ambassador to Washington and Ukrainian lawmakers, were openly critical of Trump and supportive of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 election.”

“While there is bipartisan support in Congress for supplying new weaponry, Trump has not signaled whether he would consider doing so. Poroshenko may try to get a direct answer on that.”

“Poroshenko will also be looking to get a firm commitment from Trump that he won’t roll back the U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia over its annexation of Crimea and military support for separatists, Haran told RFE/RL.

Kyiv received a positive sign last week when the Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation prohibiting Trump from rolling back sanctions without Congress’s approval. But some officials in Kyiv were concerned by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s comments to lawmakers, asking them not to restrict the White House’s ability to negotiate with Russia.”

Funny how Congress seems to have forgotten how they used to be very concerned about Donny’s Russia leaning ideology and were uniformly and overwhelmingly in support of stopping him from fucking around with Ukraine.

Now…when the Javelins finally started arriving in Ukraine, Donny found himself a little useful leverage, didn’t he. The missiles themselves were no large deterrent to Russian aggression, what they were was a symbol of US interests. A symbol which has since been shit away by this administration’s constant signalling that what is really important to Donny is the type of backroom dealing and self-serving interests that Putin really, really enjoys himself.

It’s all good.

Let’s not forget what happened the first time the Trump administration threatened to not send Javelin missiles to Ukraine.

“Conveniently for Trump, there’s no indication that US officials directly told the Ukrainians that shutting down cooperation with Mueller was a condition of getting the anti-tank missiles.”

“Instead, Ukrainians say they were simply working off of their own understanding of what Trump would want them to do:

Volodymyr Ariev, a member of Parliament who is an ally of President Petro O. Poroshenko, readily acknowledged that the intention in Kiev was to put investigations into Mr. Manafort’s activities “in the long-term box.”

“In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials,” Mr. Ariev said in an interview. “We shouldn’t spoil relations with the administration.” “

Donny didn’t directly say so…

Sounds familiar, right?


Finally, it has been reported in several sources and from military leaders in Ukraine, that Ukraine received the Javelins with the condition that they not be deployed on the front line. In other words, they can’t be used against Russians unless the US changes its mind.

Mueller’s Testimony Tomorrow

What do we expect from Robert Mueller’s testimony in front of the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees tomorrow? He’s already said he would not travel outside of the four corners of the Mueller report, and then, was directed by the Trump administration to not to travel outside of the four corners, which is a particularly crappy chess (checkers) move.

For the most part, we shouldn’t expect any more than that. We know that. So those of us whom have already read the report aren’t likely to glean any further insight or explanation as to why Trump is not already in the middle of an impeachment hearing, despite the obvious crimes that would be brought to trial were he not the “president.” And, even though we fully understand that impeachment is a political process and not a legal one, We are left to wonder which “high crimes” or “misdemeanors” must be committed in order to pass into that type of political scrutiny. Must Donny shoot someone on Fifth venue? Is that what it takes?

So what is this? Must we presume the intention of this “read out” or “movie version of the book” is designed to bolster the anemic numbers of registered voters that would prefer to start an impeachment proceeding or continue to investigate, all the way up to a barely lukewarm 50%?

That’s the best we could hope for, short of Mueller throwing out his predetermined boundaries, which he won’t.

Is the plan to slow roll from 50% into impeachment hearings and watch that shitty number melt away due to exhaustion? Do the democrats think starting an impeachment proceeding now, is going to yield building results as compared to when they should have started it, as soon as the report came out, with Mueller being the first fact witness?

Therefore, I think this is little more than just “putting it out there,” and “I’m not saying, I’m just saying,” because, short of a miracle, this is all there is from this very important information source, due to shitting planning. It’s not like there is any plan to immediately build on top of Mueller’s testimony.

The GOP numbers are not going to change a bit. Sure, the truth will be laid out in a live reading, so what? That shit has already been relegated to “not interested.” In fact, the numbers, as far as the GOP are concerned, are more likely to only get worse than 12% total, because the spin team is going to be replaying 24/7 the line of questioning about FISA warrants, Strzok-Page, Carter Page, the 12 angry democrats, and Robert Mueller’s goddamn golf membership. And some of the registered democrats and independents will remember the testimony fondly as they turn their attention to the 2020 election. End of story.

But a majority of the congresspeople need to be convinced in order to start an impeachment proceeding! The political leanings of congresspeople are directly informed by the likeliness of their continued employment. That is all. The only people that ever needed convincing was the electorate and that time has passed.

I had said, until such a time as money is taken out of politics, Nancy Pelosi was as good a speaker as the democrats were going to have for the 116th Congress. I continue to believe that. We have exactly the dysfunctional system we deserve.

We can hope that the GOP in their profound stupidity, will so rile up Mueller, that he decides to snap back and take some particularly pointed questions head on, but we know that isn’t going to happen. We do know for a fact that the GOP will, once again, not be interested in the inconvenient facts outlined in the Mueller report. Their interests will be solely: spin, obfuscation, misdirection, waxing poetic about the “money wasted” and misuse of congressional oversight, and the creation of new conspiracy theories for Hannity and Carlson to discuss for the next 6 months.

Mueller’s Report was Written for the House of Representatives

Attorney General William Barr’s brief report on “The Special Counsel’s report”:

“confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination…” is in parenthesis implying that either this paraphrasing of “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference…” was offered by Mueller as a subtitle of the complete report, or that it is implicit as an interchangeable title. Is the Mueller report entirely about prosecutions and declinations?

I think the art-of-phrasing was intended to have us infer as much even though the regulations concerning Special Counsel’s report do indeed state: “He or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel,” they do not state that the special counsel shall report exclusively these items. Further, the original Special Counsel regulations stated that the counsel shall report to the US House of Representatives: “any substantial and credible information … that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.”

It’s likely this statement, “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination…,” which is in lowercase, was cherry-picked out of the document as an improper label for the whole of the document, even if in substance the whole of the document could casually adhere to that heading. I feel confident that this document was written fully believing it would end up in the hands of the House one way or the other and therefore is a larger document than merely itemized prosecutions and declinations.

This would be the second quotation from the Mueller report. If in fact this report is intended for the House, then there is a rift between the phrase that Barr attributes to the statement, “…did not find..,” and Mueller’s actual statement, “…did not establish.” To “establish” within Mueller’s mandate would mean to be capable of “proving beyond a reasonable doubt.” He is using this word for Congress, pointing to facts that wrongdoing exist, just not in a case Muller could justify. To “not find” implies the matter was already figuratively adjudicated. Realizing there is an issue beyond the court system in the word, “establish,” implies the underlying behavior is meant for a nonjudicial review. The House would not be leading a criminal prosecution. This leads me to believe this document was crafted for Congress.

“…but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment,” followed by the third actual quote from Mueller’s report, “…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” In the following paragraph AG Barr inserts the opinion that clearly Mueller intended for Barr to decide on the matter if Trump committed obstruction of justice. We’ve already come to the understanding that Mueller himself believes it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so why would he ask Barr to come to the same conclusion? No.

Mueller offered positions of guilt and innocence so that it may be determined if Trump’s actions are unbecoming of a president, not to conclude he should or shouldn’t be tried for obstruction. Mueller opted to not make a traditional judgment, not with the intent of leaving it to someone else to make a traditional judgment. Duh. This is meant for the House to examine.

It is clear that AG Barr has a very limited view of what information is pertinent for the public’s understanding, or more likely, what he wants us to understand. Barr has reduced this to that which only could possibly directly affect Donald Trump’s legal standing and inserted the ultimate decision that there is no case to be made against Donald Trump either by Mueller’s own words or the “just” decision that Barr himself has made. End of case, as far as Barr is concerned.

Barr goes on to describe how he shall eventually create a report suitable for public consumption after much redacting. He makes no mention of Congress and how a unredacted version could and should be submitted to a House committee…where it belongs.

No my friends, this report is meant for one of the committees in the House of Representatives. It needs to arrive in it’s whole state; complete in both style and content. Not only is it meant for the House, it is written in the words of Robert Mueller speaking to the House.

Will We See Trump’s Tax Returns? Yes…mostly

I have been hearing some wishy-washy reports on the likelihood that we shall be made aware of Trump’s tax returns…so I went ahead and did a deep dive into the laws pertaining to this event. I am certain we will be made aware of the contents of Donny’s tax returns for the most part.

I had heard that the House Ways and Means Committee could request tax returns from the Secretary of the Treasury only in regards to the operation or observation of the tax law, tax collection or otherwise the mechanics of the IRS and taxation. That is not correct. The committee may request any return from the Secretary without any qualifications (except that they be in closed session), including anyone in the administration up to the President.

Then, why is the administration resisting? Because they can. How long they want to resist is up to them. So they can wait for subpoenas and then force a court date if they like. They will lose. But, if stringing this along is their only interest, I doubt they care.

I would also point out, the reason this statue and tax code exists at all is because Congress wanted to address corruption in the executive branch. That’s why we have this law. The fact that this was never challenged in court before, doesn’t represent legal standing so much as legal adventurism.

In IRS Code:

…and original 1924 Statute:

any tax return.

The original statute also outlines how this information could become public if the committee so chooses, by release to the House at large. It is noted that information should be, “…any relevant or useful information.” Which might seem like it could be made a sticking point except, you’ll be excited to know that this verbiage was entirely eliminated in 1976, while the remainder of the statue was not. So, according to the way it is now written, The committee can examine any tax return and release to the House any information they feel necessary, which would put it on the record and open for the public to read.

…But…according to this expert dude, that would not preclude privacy issues if the Committee did not have just cause to release information and acted in an abundance of caution. Emm, wouldn’t be the first time a congressperson forcibly entered information into the record that they shouldn’t have, however, if there would be a time to do everything with as much deliberate procedure and caution, that shall be the time. That could mean that whatever information they release shall be edited to include only that which is relative to a delineated concern of the House regarding tax returns that the committee needs to address…and that probably will eventually be soooo many topics we could eventually see it all piecemeal over an unknown length of time.

I would also caution that Trump’s tax return information isn’t going to be a treasure trove of info, in and of itself. Really, we would need to see all of Trump’s accountant’s information; take the income statements and balance sheets and match that up with Trump’s tax declarations to really know what the fuck is going on. More likely than not, some of the tax return info is garbage.

Do you think the returns reflect the truth? Nah. That being the likely case, it would take a shit-ton of subpoenas and probably multiple court cases to obtain enough pieces of the puzzle to construct something resembling reality.

The Wall- Tax Reform 2.0

The “wall” debate is similar to the tax reform fiasco, which in no way was a debate, because the GOP steamrolled that shit through congress, but they are similar in that they imply the identification of a problem:

low wages on bottom income scales,”

systemic immigration dysfunction,”

and ascribe a tangentially related topic as solution to the issue:

vast decrease in corporate taxation and more money for the super wealthy

border wall

I use the word “imply” because in neither case is or was the ultimate issue identified, they were merely arrived at in later debate, as in: “exactly what issue are we addressing here?” This results in follow up questions, “So, tax reform would exist to help improve wages for the lower classes?” “So, the border wall is to address the measurable results of systemic immigration dysfunction?”

In neither case does the proposed solution address the “arrived at” issue. The solution exists before the exact problem is identified. The problem is discovered to support the solution. Both of the solutions have an entirely clear source for their original necessity to exist, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the identified “problem”.

Tax reform= So that the rich could be richer. (in support of the donor/dividend class)

The wall=because Mexicans are rapist drug dealer. (in support of anti-immigrant sentiment, racism.)

In both cases, it is supremely important to drive propaganda to induce the average American to believe these actions are for their own well-being.

If the rich are richer, you will become richer.

If immigrants are kept out, you will be safer and richer as they compete for your jobs and drain away your income.

There is no supporting data for either claim. They are awkwardly supported through- “common sense”, non-related examples, voodoo economics, and improper analogies.

There are absolute certainties in the enactment of both solutions:

Tax reform will make the rich, richer. (and in no way guarantee or even remotely address the actual problem and only exacerbates wealth distribution inequality)

A border wall would possibly funnel more people to ports of entry. (where all of the actual southern border problems already exist and do nothing to address the actual overall stated problems)

Neither of these certainties address the agreed upon issue. What kind of law making is that?

But the Democrats supported the Secure Fence Act of 2006! Yes. This was a comprehensive approach to particular issues on the southern border. It included absolutely delineated areas (exact, specific, identified areas) where a multitude of different barrier types would be used in conjunction with extra manpower and modern technologies to assist border control and is mostly successful, but in no way implies by extension, that forcing even more of it is effective, reasonable, or even fucking possible.

This bill was arrived at with proper congressional order, expert witnesses, floor debate, and amendments and as well as supported by multiple studies including by the DHS to:

This act was later amended in a 2008 consolidation act. Less actual border devices were installed than was originally granted as not feasible or necessary. Which brings us to the point: If any more border constructions are necessary at this time, let’s go ahead and use regular fucking order to determine: when, where, how much is needed in conjunction with the previously combined modern technologies to implement what is deemed necessary and helpful change as opposed to creating legislation via idiotic election slogans. How about that? Let us also separate what is necessary to make real change, in this small sliver of immigration reform, from what we want because of our ill-formed beliefs.

The border wall =/= immigration reform and it is the sticking point between what the Democrats would agree to in such an off-hand, half-assed fashion, and what is actually needed to address systemic immigration dysfunction.

If DHS has any real, actual, studied, quantified needs for any type of border wall construction, let’s please see that. Okay? How about fucking submitting some real, documented needs to Congress and let regular order prevail? If DHS does not have such info, then lets commission that with appropriate impact and environmental studies in current legislation. That’s how we ought to compose legislation, right? It will take years and years, as it should as opposed to Tax Reform that came with some crumbs of, “…what we think will happen is…” and what we got was job growth rate exactly similar to what we had nationally and was a clear global trend in modern nations. What we certainly got was a massive federal debt and a stock market on steroids poised for an even bigger fall oh and, by the way, the rich seemed to have gotten richer. A lot richer.

Let’s not pretend for a second what is about to happen is, in any way, going to resemble that proper use of regular order. What we shall have is the GOP’s list of demands generated in part from idiotic campaign promises, without any studies, scientific or otherwise, and insist on a “give and take” compromise to split the difference between insanity and sanity.

Let us not pretend that this administration is not entirely anti-immigrant and employs propaganda at every possible moment to sway public opinion to that way of thinking. Let us not pretend this administration would not desire to have all immigration, legal or otherwise, to approach the more agreeable number of exactly zero as once again visible in the methodical undermining of all immigration by the inclusion of well hidden provisions in their latest kind offer on the subject.

In this regard “Immigration Reform” is “Tax Reform” 2.0- having America buy into legislation whose nefarious origins have nothing to do with the stated purpose and the outcome of which may not address the stated purpose in the least. Legislation that is founded in ideology, disconnected from a democracy, and not fully read, nor understood, nor truly defensible in detail by anyone whom enacts it.

Whereas tax reform handed the gift of more cash to a corporate system and its benefactors, that were already sitting on motherfucking record piles of cash when they enacted it, immigration reform in it’s real, current form, seeks to hand to this anti-immigration administration the “win” of their symbolic hate for the coloring of America.