What’s Going to Happen?

I had blogged long ago, I thought Putin would wait until the 2020 election to disseminate information the Russians had stolen from the RNC (when they had also successfully stolen DNC data in 2016) if it appeared that Trump would lose. Well, it appears Trump will lose, but there is no upside to releasing that information. No peepee tapes either. It remains ideal to let Donny run amok across the country, in government or out of government.

I think it is important to point out, 19% of the entire US population actively supported (voted for) Trump in 2016. We can assume the Trump train has lost some of those people, but also encouraged some that did not vote in 2016, to vote this time, through their messaging of fear. Therefore, for sake of argument, let’s assume this number is close to the same. 20%. Not half of the country. Half of the country is not crazy, neither is this entire 20%. Okay? I would suggest that 20% is not equally distributed, but instead, more concentrated and facing a larger number than Clinton had won. He will lose the popular vote and the electoral college.

Trump’s only option was to create the boogieman of tampered/illegal mail in ballots, so those could be discarded through court action, the problem with this gambit is, not everyone that would prefer to vote for Trump is crazy, so with the Covid19 infection rate closing in on 100,000 per day, this ploy will result in some people deciding to not vote on election day. A quick look at the weather map indicates virtually smooth sailing, so weather will probably not influence the vote.

I do not believe we will see widespread violence at polling sites. Probably small, isolated incidents of no great effect. The great majority of people just want to cast their vote, and/or watch the process from home, much like a sporting event.

What we do know is that the Trump Campaign, the RNC, and state run GOP groups across the country are losing case after case to suppress voting and discard votes already cast. We also know, immediately after the polls close, these parties will recommit to court actions to discount legitimate votes. That’s the only way Trump can stay in power. Trump’s hardcore base has now been trained to expect this. They know that the GOP plans on stealing this election, but have swallowed whole the tortured reasoning and rationalization as to how this is acceptable for this election or our democracy.

Therefore, if we are to be concerned about violence, that will manifest itself in the days following the election, when Donny will signal whom the offending party is. The Governor of Pennsylvania, or the Governor of Michigan. The division of elections of Florida. The cities of Houston, Dallas, Austin, or San Antonio. Particular lawyers in particular courthouses. “The media.” Even if he clearly has overwhelmingly lost, he will pick out enemies.

He will no doubt make generalized statements about the “rigged” election, and how unfair and fraudulent everything is, but we’re used to that aren’t we? So are his followers. It’s the particular declarations for which we need to look out. He will let his followers know which parties need to have justice visited upon them, and we shall have to wait and see if a small minority of that 20% heed the call. He’ll do the usual “people are saying…,” and “if you take a look at…”

If he does not overwhelmingly lose, we can expect protracted unrest. Any case he is allowed to win by his own selected jurors, we can expect the left to take to the streets in DC. The re-erection of a third wall around the White House, does not inspire confidence that Donny will not manufacture as much dissent as possible. Not only does he not care about the well being of any of his followers, or any US citizen, he clearly delights in anarchy. I am not certain the new fence around the WH is entirely Donny’s idea, but may be SS and staff deciding, for sure, Donny is going to make this worse, let’s put up that fence so we all don’t die.

So I am presenting 2 “ifs”:

If he is allowed to steal a state, or,

If his followers decide to heed the call.

No matter what form the election takes, it is clear Donny has already begun sabotaging the federal government for the incoming administration. If and when he loses, he will insist on no federal plan for the virus and ramp up a “going out of business sale” of corruption and influence peddling we never imagined.

He won’t go out pretty. We know that. He is going to leave as much anguish and anarchy in his wake as possible. Just like all of his business disasters.

He will already be planning his next ego-feeding business of Trump TV or some weird WWE/Trump co-platform. Selling their rage, destruction, and vanquishing of imaginary adversaries which is packaged for the created disaffected mob; the mindless, slack-jawed followers, keen on “owning the libs” by punching themselves in the face. He will immediately file to run for 2024 and continue his cult pep rallies that never ended. Donny will create enmity with every town he stiffs, thinking he is still protected by the weight of the Federal government. Eventually Donny will find the end of the road in the open doors of courthouses, awaiting his final show.

That city whose justice he has evaded for decades, will finally have their day.


What do you think is going to happen?

The Senate Should Subpoena All Biden/Burisma Witnesses, but they shouldn’t

Party A allegedly attempted to use undue influence to affect Party B’s ability to obtain a position of power.

Some time later, Party B allegedly attempted to use his position of power to compel Party A to undertake an action.

There is no universe in which both of these statements could not be true. There is no universe in which either one of these statements being true, negates the possibility of the other also being true. Either of these statements can be true without the existence of the other. Neither statement relies on the others existence, to exist as a possibility itself.

Ukraine allegedly attempted to use undue influence to affect Donald Trump’s ability to become President of the United States.

After obtaining his position, Donald Trump allegedly attempted to use that position of power to have Ukraine do something for his personal interest.

Neither of these statements are reliant on the other. To propose that the first statement provides justification for the impossibility of second is silly. It’s neither proof of causality or logically formed, and honestly it’s nonsensical.

I go through this exercise to highlight the fallacy of the argument. It’s a red herring. It’s not only irrelevant, it doesn’t make any damn sense.

For this reason, the Senate should not present this as a defense for Trump’s actions. Further, the Senate should not present this as a defense, when considering that some Ukrainians not only had full justification for voicing their alarm and disapproval of candidate Trump’s stated positions on their country, but that their voicing of their opinions was in no way unique to just Ukrainians.


Burisma allegedly hired Hunter Biden and paid him well, in order to curry favor with Joe Biden so that the senior Biden would pressure Ukraine to fire the prosecutor whom was ostensibly investigating Burisma.


After obtaining his position, Donald Trump allegedly attempted to use his position of power to have Ukraine do something for his personal interest.

-have a much more complicated relationship. A relationship that can only be solved with documentation and presentation of facts to prove that the first statement’s truth negates the possibility that the second statement is true. Because, in this case, it is also possible that both statements can be true. One statement’s truth does not negate the possibility of the other truth, it’s just not reasonable to assume this as a strong probability.

That leaves us here: The Senate should call all of the people involved -and subpoena all documents related to support the first statement’s possibility of truth in order to build the strongest case to negate the possibility of truth for the second statement.

This totally makes sense in a vacuum. But we aren’t operating in a vacuum and neither are we acting in a court of law. This act will take place in the Senate with its constructed narratives and in the court of public opinion. Constructing a narrative to support a nefarious Biden/Burisma connection would be a hot mess.

The first and most important problem is: No one in the GOP has even firmly voiced the first statement of exactly what the Bidens are alleged to have done. It’s not clear. It’s a nebulous, throw-your-hands-up-in-the-air, the Bidens did something and we need to get to the bottom of that something!

We now have two documents stating the defense of Trump’s actions, because of: Ukrainian election interference and “something the Bidens did” and neither of them state exactly whatever the hell that is. We are supposed to surmise what the charge is, and that is what I have done above, by reading all of the Biden related statements in both documents.

That’s a problem.

The second problem is: facts. To cast Joe Biden’s act as self interest, appears as weak as the claim the Hillary enacted the Uranium One deal in self interest. It’s stitched together around contrary facts.

Third problem: The White House has already refused to submit a single document in defense or support of their nebulous claims. Most likely because there are no supporting documents.

Fourth: This problem is a Donald Trump problem, not an administration problem. Donald Trump was acting outside of any official statements or positions we had regarding Ukraine. We need documentation generated by his actions/commands that describe his official, if previously unknown, position on investigating corruption in Ukraine. Particularly any official statement from Donny of his overarching concern on Ukrainian corruption that needs to be cleaned up before aid is released, not “investigate Bidens,” that isn’t a stated concern about Ukraine’s corruption, it’s a desire to have particulars investigated.

Fifth: There is no precedence to support the likelihood Donald Trump was in fact ever interested in investigating Ukrainian corruption until Joe Biden entered the race. There’s tons of evidence to contradict that Donald Trump has ever been a champion of actually investigating any corruption anywhere at any time previous to Joe Biden entering the race for the Democratic nomination. Namely in the corruption of his administration, his own recent court cases which show his predilection for fraudulent activity, and his constant apologetic stance on any dictators acts of corruption, illegality, or murder.

For these reasons the Senate should not, and will not entertain the Biden conspiracy theory that belongs on Fox News and not on the Senate floor. Even if it has some value as the distraction that is desired, it would make the GOP look clownish and do nothing to disprove that:

After obtaining his position, Donald Trump allegedly attempted to use that position of power to have Ukraine do something for his personal interest.

How Ukraine Came to Mistrust Candidate Trump

This post, although fine to read by itself, is a reference point for my complete deconstruction of the GOP narrative (in progress. including this and this.) about Ukraine interference in the 2016 US election.

Listed here are the public statements of candidate Donald Trump that would lead some Ukrainian leaders to disapprove of a Trump presidency. This is how Ukraine came to mistrust Donald Trump. Their opinions weren’t created in a vacuum. They did not conspire with the Clinton campaign, they didn’t even conspire with each other. Individuals voiced their dislike of Donald Trump, in the same fashion people did the world over, including, most vehemently, in the US.

These quotes and references begin from his early candidacy up to the GOP convention when he was the GOP nominee. I have inserted some opinion pieces that Ukrainians may have read to form their opinions. Be aware, as the months went by, a groundswell of disapproval for Trump becomes more and more apparent. With a consensus that Trump would be a dreadful president in general, awful for Ukraine, and excellent for Russia in particular.

Taking these points in totality, it is clear, Donald Trump had little to no interest in Ukraine at best. At worst, he signaled Russia should not be held to account for invading Ukraine, the US should not be in the business of protecting Ukraine, and Russia had a strong, greatly admired leader that never did anything wrong.

July 13, 2015: Maria Butina. Trump would get along great with Putin, and the sanctions resulting from the invasion of Ukraine aren’t necessary.

July 31, 2015: Ukraine is Europe’s problem.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump said Friday that the U.S. should only step in on Crimea if European countries ask for help and, until then, it remains “Europe’s problem.””Let me explain first of all — this is Europe’s problem much more than ours, OK?” Trump told CNN during a trip to Scotland.

Aug. 16, 2015: Trump doesn’t care if Ukraine joins NATO…or not.

In the same “Meet the Press” interview with Todd, Trump expressed ambivalence about allowing Ukraine into NATO.

“I would not care that much to be honest with you. Whether it goes in or doesn’t go in, I wouldn’t care. If it goes in, great. If it doesn’t go in, great. Look, I would support NATO,” Trump said. “Why isn’t Germany, Chuck, leading this charge? Why is the United States? I mean, we’re like the policemen of the world. And why are we leading the charge in Ukraine?”

Many might agree with Trump’s general point, but it very much matters whether Ukraine is a member of NATO: One of the organization’s founding principles, codified in Article 5 of the treaty, specifies that member countries must take “such action as it deems necessary,” as “an armed attack on one … shall be considered an armed attack on all.” Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea and subsequent meddling in eastern Ukraine could have obligated the United States to come to Ukraine’s defense, were the country a NATO member.

Sept. 9, 2015: CLINTON takes opposite views of Russia/Ukraine

Hillary Clinton, the former U.S. secretary of state who is now a leading contender to be the next president, has called for a stronger response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Syria, saying Moscow’s objectives were “to stymie, to confront, and to undermine American power whenever and wherever.”

In thinly veiled criticism of President Barack Obama’s administration and its current approach to Russia, Clinton said that Washington should be doing more in response to Russia’s interference in Ukraine.

“I have been, I remain convinced that we need a concerted effort to really up the costs on Russia and in particular on Putin. I think we have not done enough,” she said following a speech on September 9 at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

“I am in the category of people who wanted us to do more in response to the annexation of Crimea and the continuing destabilization of Ukraine.”

Sept. 20, 2015: Trump would love meeting with Putin.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump could meet with Vladimir Putin next week — and if it was arranged, Trump says he’d “enjoy doing it.”

“Well, I had heard that he wanted to meet with me,” Trump told NBC News on Saturday. “And certainly I am open to it. I would love to do that if he wants to do that.”

Sept. 30, 2015: Trump says Putin gets an “A” for leadership.

The GOP contender gave the Russian leader a high grade on his skill as a leader, contrasting it to what he considers President Obama’s poor performance.

“I will tell you in terms of leadership he is getting an ‘A,’ and our president is not doing so well,” Trump said. “They did not look good together.”

Oct. 8, 2015: “Russia Today”, the Kremlin’s media arm reports- Russian placed mayor in Yalta, invites Trump to come to the new Russian Crimea, because Trump is an extraordinary person.

We are following the elections process in your country with great interest,” Yalta Mayor Andrey Rostenko wrote in an open letter to Trump published on the city’s website. “We like your election program and we like you as an extraordinary person.”

The mayor added: “After your victory in the election you plan to establish friendly relations with President Putin – and this is an excellent decision.”

Oct.13, 2015: Trump wonders why the US has to deal with the Ukrainian situation

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump believes European countries like Germany – an “economic behemoth” that is selling the United States “a Mercedes Benz a second” – should lead the pushback against Russian aggression in Ukraine. “I think Ukraine’s a wonderful place. I’ve been there and I think it’s great,” Trump told “Face the Nation” in a recent interview. “But Germany and all these countries should be doing something. Why is it always us? What do we have to do with Ukraine? It’s wonderful. We have NATO, we’re going to work with them.”

Oct. 15, 2015: Trump says he doesn’t believe there’s any proof Russia shot down airliner over Ukraine

Donald Trump doesn’t believe there is enough evidence to blame pro-Russian separatists for last year’s downing of a commercial airliner over Ukraine — despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community believes “with confidence” that pro-Russian separatists shot it down.”That’s a horrible thing that happened,” he said. “It’s disgusting and disgraceful but Putin and Russia say they didn’t do it, the other side said they did, no one really knows who did it, probably Putin knows who did it. Possibly it was Russia but they are totally denying it.”

Oct, 17, 2015: Kremlin states preference for Trump presidency

Kremlin mouthpiece Konstantin Rykov said Wednesday in a Twitter post that Trump won the first Democratic presidential debate, held Tuesday in Las Vegas. In that tweet, Rykov linked to a Russian language, pro-Trump website with a Russian domain, www.Trump2016.ru, that he is likely behind. Until a few weeks ago, Rykov’s Twitter home page featured Trump and his 2016 campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

November 11, 2015: GOP candidate debate. Question to Trump: Russia has invaded Ukraine, what will you do when you’re president. Answer: avoid answering, Yay for Russia!

Q: Now, Russia has invaded Ukraine, and has put troops in Syria. You have said you will have a good relationship with Mr. Putin. So, what does President Trump do in response to Russia’s aggression?


Well, first of all, it’s not only Russia. We have problems with North Korea where they actually have nuclear weapons. You know, nobody talks about it, we talk about Iran, and that’s one of the worst deals ever made…. yada yada yada. Word salad…

But, as far as the Ukraine is concerned, and you could Syria — as far as Syria, I like — if Putin wants to go in, and I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates, and we did very well that night.

But, you know that.

But, if Putin wants to go and knocked the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%, and I can’t understand how anybody would be against it…

Read this part of his word-salad answer, he turns concern for the airliner downed over Ukraine by Russia, into a Russian plane shot down by Ukraine-


…They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He’s going in, and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group of people, and a group of countries, including Germany — tremendous economic behemoth — why are we always doing the work?

We are — I’m all for protecting Ukraine and working — but, we have countries that are surrounding the Ukraine that aren’t doing anything. They say, “Keep going, keep going, you dummies, keep going. Protect us…”

Dec.18, 2015: “The Federalist” reports (When the Federalist used to admit what Trump is) that Putin has in effect, endorsed Trump.

Vladimir Putin just weighed in on the U.S. election and basically endorsed Trump, calling him “a really brilliant and talented person, without any doubt.” But what is really disturbing is that Trump endorsed Putin right back: “It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.” And Trump went way beyond endorsing Putin. He continued: “I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect.”

Dec. 18, 2015: MSNBC, Trump’s response to the fact that Putin invaded Ukraine and kills journalists- “He’s running his country and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country.”

Dec. 22, 2015: “National Review” report of Trump-Putin bromance, and Trump’s statement- no proof Putin had any journalists killed.

When it comes to Russian politics, Donald Trump is a useful idiot.

There is powerful evidence that Vladimir Putin is guilty of the murder of journalists, but it is impossible to “prove” his guilt because there is no police force in Russia that will investigate him and no court where he can be held to account.

Under these circumstances, Donald Trump’s statement (to critics who took exception to the mutual praise between the two men) that there is no proof that Putin is guilty of murder is an absurdity. Proof presumes the existence of a state based on law.

Jan. 26, 2016: Trump defends Putin yet again, against charges he had someone assassinated, former KGB agent this time.

“Have they found him guilty? I don’t think they’ve found him guilty,” Trump said in a Tuesday interview with Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo. “They say a lot of things about me that are untrue, too.

“If he did it, fine. But I don’t know that he did it,” Trump said. “You know, people are saying they think it was him, it might have been him, it could have been him. But Maria, in all fairness to Putin — and I’m not saying this because he says, ‘Trump is brilliant and leading everybody’ — the fact is that he hasn’t been convicted of anything.”

“Some people say he absolutely didn’t do it,” Trump added. “First of all, he says he didn’t do it. But many people say it wasn’t him. So who knows who did it?”

Feb 12, 2016: The European Council on Foreign Relations report on what a Trump presidency would mean. Entire document is prophetic and 100% accurate.

March 21,2016: Trump says, the US spends too much money on NATO, and Ukraine is more of a EU issue than a US issue.

March 24, 2016: “Russia Today” tags bizarre US conspiracies against Trump, while promoting him for President.

Although it is a delicious sight watching America’s movers and shakers tremble at the mere mention of Trump’s name, it nevertheless speaks volumes about the condition of US democracy that Americans had to wait for a rich, charismatic real estate developer to come along and save them from the cold-hearted wretchedness of the dual-party, borderline-fascist system.

March 27, 2016: Trump says, NATO is obsolete, terrorism is the real problem, not Russia.

In an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Donald Trump says that the Cold War-era alliance headquartered in Brussels has been revealed as “obsolete” following devastating terrorist attacks in that city this week.

“NATO doesn’t discuss terrorism,” Trump said. “NATO’s not meant for terrorism. NATO doesn’t have the right countries in it for terrorism. NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger — much larger than Russia is today. I’m not saying Russia is not a threat,” Trump explained. “But we have other threats. We have the threat of terrorism.”

April 6,2016: Europe to US, Ignore Trump, we need NATO

The idea that Europe is free-loading “is a mis-categorization,” Stavridis, who is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, said. He said Trump’s comments were “nonsensical,” and Obama’s criticism comes from a position of knowledge.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Trump’s views are akin to “turning our alliance into a protection racket, [and] would reverse decades of bipartisan American leadership.”

April 16, 2016: Why Everyone Should Fear Trump’s Foreign Policy

Trump focuses on the economic costs of the U.S.’s role as the world’s only remaining superpower, with little regard to the benefits of the country’s willingness to assume international leadership (not to be confused with being the world’s policeman), or the potential costs of the U.S. retreating from that role. This narrow-minded economic perspective is particularly evident in his recent statements on NATO. He questions whether NATO serves a useful purpose in a post-Cold War world and suggests that the U.S. is spending too much money stationing American troops in Europe while propping up European countries, who should bear a greater share of the military costs of their own defense.

While the U.S. should pressure the Europeans to spend more for their own defense, to question the utility of NATO when Russian imperialism is on the rise and Vladimir Putin has taken over the Crimea, effectively seized other parts of Ukraine, and established a military base in Syria, demonstrates a stunning lack of political awareness.

April 19, 2016: New York Book Review- With the insertion of Carter Page as foreign policy advisor, a Trump presidency’s EU interests will be guided with Russia in mind.

More extraordinary still, Trump has indicated, in his selection last month of Carter Page as a foreign policy adviser, that American policy to Europe will be guided by Russian interests. Page, heretofore known as an adviser to Russia’s state gas company, has been among the prominent Americans spreading Russian propaganda about Ukraine’s revolution in 2014 and the Russian invasion that followed. In his writings he has questioned Ukraine’s status as an independent state, which is precisely the line that Moscow took to justify its invasion. He maintains—preposterously—that Ukraine is like Quebec inside a Russia that is like Canada. Quebec is a province and Ukraine is a country. He has referred to Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, a signal violation of international law, as the “so-called annexation.”

Finally, and most importantly:

July 21, 2016: GOP nominee Trump removes the inclusion of US providing “lethal defense weapons” to Ukraine from the GOP platform.

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.

March 20, 2018


We always knew the pace of insanity would accelerate the longer this political climate is allowed to fester.  News is coming at a dizzying pace…and again, I will state, it’s going to get worse.

Rather than discuss each individual new piece of news, I’d like to revisit some earlier predictions and make some current ones.

“Seems to me like this is a set-up for a criminal case.  Or at least, the threat of a criminal case on several fronts.  The inclusion of the statement about campaign funds and liberal smatterings of coercion lead me to infer something else is going on here and it’s likely something else is going to happen.

It is somewhat possible that Stormy and her lawyers are about to ignore the original terms of the agreement and set up a big payday tell-all on National Television despite the terms of the original NDA.  I think it is somewhat more likely though, that other charges are being prepared in a different court regarding misappropriation of campaign funds.”

From my March 6 post, the day the case was filed by Stormy’s lawyer.  Although misappropriation or illegal use of campaign funds is not yet evident, it is clear that some other case has been filed that Stormy and her lawyer would have certainly been aware of, and that Stormy is to one extent or other, lining up her big payday despite the NDA.

I haven’t read anything about the forthcoming interview to be aired on 60 Minutes this coming Sunday, but I presume that Stormy isn’t about to go into details of the love affair itself.  To me, it seems more likely she is going to be talking about coercion and hinting at exactly what materials she has in her possession.  If she talks about the affair in it’s in entirety and in detail, I’d be surprised as hell.

I don’t think this is the big payday.

I believe this is entirely a full-court press in the court of public opinion being orchestrated rather fucking masterfully by Stormy’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti.  There’s no clear or immediate resolution to this case.  Trump’s lawyer did attempt to move the case to a different court, as I suggested they might in my original post.  Now Avenatti must attempt to avoid arbitration in a Federal Court or fight to keep it in a State court.  For his needs, any court would be fine so long as it can be a public event.

It is possible that Avenatti is going to go after Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, for something along the lines of coercion or at the least go after his license to practice in the course of affairs.  I believe anything is possible, so long as Avenatti can string this case along, keeping it front and center, until such a time as more cases are brought to court regarding NDA’s, past Trump indiscretions, and sexual abuse charges.

I do not believe this had any affect on the NY case of Summer Zervos that I’ve been following for months (here and here and here).  The defamation case that is apparently now GOING FORWARD. (unbelievable).  I can’t believe Avenatti could have known this was about to avoid being stayed, but what we have here is a confluence of cases building a very strong and unavoidable narrative that Trump is the cretin that he told us he was and also by implication, outlines how easily Trump can be manipulated and coerced.  Manipulated and coerced because of his weakness; because he’s a fool.  Manipulated and coerced.

The court still hasn’t filed it’s decision in the Zervos case online.  When it does I am absolutely going to go over it.  By the way, Zervos’ attorneys are seeking all documentation regarding all other women and their allegations of sexual abuse at the tiny hands of Trump, from Trump’ lawyers.  All of it.  Think about that. : )

My belief is that Stormy’s big payday is yet to come.  I wonder how many Hollywood execs, and NY publishers are already in touch with Avenatti.  Hmmm?


From my March 4th post.

I believed it highly probably that Russia would begin to implement some new programs.

Expanded involvement in Syria, Overt interference in EU politics and elections, a new campaign of interference in Ukraine, or a hit on Bill Browder.

“Expect increased counter lobbying efforts by Putin at best, and at worst- Browder suddenly and mysteriously deciding to jump off of a tall building or accidentally ingesting a deadly toxin.”

I couldn’t have known that the very day I posted that, Russia would attempt to poison an ex-spy as was reported the following day.  HONEST.  This is along the lines of what I would expect though.  I expect more.  If I were Browder, I’d be really fucking concerned.

I do expect whatever Russia has up it’s sleeve, we shall soon get an inkling, now that the sham of an election is behind Putin.


I believe that in studying the pace of Mueller’s investigation, that within weeks, we shall see new subpoenas or possibly indictments for US companies and individuals.  I don’t believe the investigation is anywhere near over, but I think it’s reasonable to expect that the groundwork for the final investigative phase shall soon be apparent.  I have always expected Cambridge Analytica to be embroiled in this whole affair, whether or not they are ever indicted…don’t know.

Look for the Podesta Group, Mercury, or related lobbying firms to receive subpoenas.  There could be US firms or individuals we have no knowledge of.


Added: Michael Avenatti was playing it perfect…until this sloppy mess.


Not something to be proud of.  The use of a faulty analogy and a prop as his main argument to try to muscle Cohen’s lawyer…not good.  Doesn’t further the cause and reduces his game to showmanship.

Don’t. Do. That.

I can’t even believe Cohen’s lawyer agreed to this.  outlandish.  This is like the prelude to a wrestling match, which is right up Trump’s alley.

This could have been a stellar coup de grace for Avenetti, but he wasted an unusual opportunity.  He should have sat back and let Cohen’s lawyer talk smack and then undermined him with facts…but all ya gots was bravado and silliness.  boo.