

Ignoring Zelenskyy; an Impeachment Lark and Contest

Jean-Marc LeBouquin

Author of Throw All the Bums Out Legal;  
Congress Jerks the General; the Citizen too – etc.

Copyright © January 23, 2020 Jean-Marc LeBouquin – illustrations under same copyright.

License Notes:

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return it to your favorite ebook retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for your very kind regard.

This version is currently free to download if you like it – Please do not redistribute, just tell your friends where it can be got free for now. Thank you.

# Table of Contents

### Ignoring Zelenskyy;  
an Impeachment Lark and Contest

Chapter 1 – Arduous Duty; Ambassadors and Ministers

Chapter 2 – Origin of Federal Power Over External Affairs

Chapter 3 – Impeachment Selectivity; Weapons Development and Expansion

Chapter 4 – Weapons Development Expansion Plan: Content Outline

Chapter 5 – The Disappointing Six Month Indefinite

Chapter 6 – Lifting Terror Bans; Assuming a Presidential Prerogative

Chapter 7 – The Defined Character

Chapter 8 – Trumps Original Issue

Chapter 9 – Adjudication and Diktat

Chapter 10 – Predatory, anti-Representation Opportunism

Chapter 11 – of Article I

Chapter 12– Interposing Insubstantial Nullity as Fact

Chapter 13 – of Article II

Chapter 14 – W.M.D. Policy and Congress

Chapter 15 – Appendix 1 – Excerpt of inventory listed on Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex

Chapter 16 – Appendix 2 – The Procurement Working Group and its mandate to expedite Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories

Chapter 17 – Appendix 3 – Excerpt of the contents of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a inventory list. (Nuclear weapons associated inventories Iran is entitled to acquire under Resolution 2231.)

Chapter 18 – Appendix 4 – Secrecy arrangement concerning Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories

Chapter 19 – Appendix 5 – The Procurement Working Group mandate to prohibit the International Atomic Energy Agency from discovering, investigating, or reporting on Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated assets listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a – this in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT); Article III; first clause

Chapter 20 – Appendix 6 – IAEA Statement of Purpose: INFCIRC/254/Rev.##/Part 2

Chapter 21 – Appendix 7 – Official United Nations six-month releases informing of Procurement Working Group activities, noting the quantities of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories acquired by Iran

Chapter 22 – Appendix 8 – Sham Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Ignoring Zelenskyy;  
an Impeachment Lark and Contest

* * * * *

Part I – Predicating Notions

*Chapter 1

– Arduous Duty; Ambassadors and Ministers –

United States President Trump had been accused by a preferring to remain anonymous "whistleblower" of perpetrating the neat trick of pressuring a foreign leader into tampering with the United States National Presidential election of 2020.

Trump's alleged arm-twisting coercion campaign procedure was conducted over a long distance, 25 July 2019 Washington-Kyiv (Kiev) tête-à-tête confidential (protected Diplomatic) phone call between himself and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine.

The "whistle blower" – who admitted to not having been invited to collaborate at the peak stratum call; not to have actually been present to hear and evaluate first hand any of what had gone on over the phone between Zelenskyy and Trump – but who claimed to have spoken to someone who had overheard the 25 July 2019 conversation and thereby – it must be construed – this gossip with the enlightened sense of mission; was capable of an uncanny capacity to visualize at a distance any nuanced gesture or blushing grimace exchanged between the two national leaders;

With that rapture of certainty upon him, the "whistle blower" ably discerned much in the private communication to critically comment on; and so, disdainful of the seemingly unsavory nature of the call, dutifully proceeded to author a personalized representation of what had been discussed between the two leaders of the two countries, and submitted the solemn memorial to the proper authorities; such that this would become the hearsay account catching the eager imaginations of some of our more attentive members of Congress – who were quick to recognize and endorse the "whistle blower's" second hand interpretative criticisms as a definitive exposé of highest period piece literary merit.

Uncanny capacities to visualize and conjure from afar being what they are – the gossip failed to grasp that the joker feeding him the lines had left out an essential mention.

During the 25 July 2019 Trump-Zelenskyy phone call soon to be of infamy, Ukraine President Zelenskyy had asked President Trump openly and directly and of his own volition for United States Government assistance and cooperation in potential Zelenskyy administration investigations of domestic corruption in Ukraine.

One or several of these investigations might involve the Ukraine entity _Burisma Holdings_ , which had previously been convicted of tax evasion in 2016. As it would turn out, some 1.9 million dollars in fines above back taxes were paid out by _Burisma_ to avoid prosecution for tax evasion. Adding necessary political spice to the issue, Burisma as it happened, had somewhat earlier, before settling with the Ukraine Government on that particular account, enlisted former United States vice-President Joe Biden's son Hunter to sit on its Board of Directors.

Burisma, pointedly known as a tax evader and generally corrupt Ukrainian entity – whose owner Mykola Zlochevsky allegedly stole an estimated tens of billions of assets before fleeing the country (as will be reviewed in Chapter 2 under the header of the testimony of George Kent) – did specifically come up in the July 25, 2019 Zelenskyy-Trump eavesdropped conversation.

President Zelenskyy requested of President Trump during the dialogue:

The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.

_On top of that, I would kindly ask you_ [President Trump] _if **you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country**._

That voluntary spontaneous request represented an imposing storyline mess; a request that the impeachment committee would subsequently be careful to never acknowledge or address; as it was so positively disruptive of the accusatory account which those politicians exhibiting personal distaste for, or open hostility towards the U.S. President; were in the process of developing. And again – the gossip spreading the good news to the House of Representatives also hadn't been inclined to mention the unprompted good faith request the Ukraine Government had made of United States President Trump.

* * * * *

Our enthusiastic House of Representatives Congresspersons, honorable recipients of the gossip reported; informed at best by that which could charitably be portrayed as a prejudicial hearsay characterization of some sort of conversation known to have taken place between the United States President and President Mr. Zelenskyy of the Ukraine; got in the game so to speak, and immediately pounced with the tainted account in hand, crying loud about the like of such things as malfeasance, dirty pool, Abuse of Power, Abuse of Office of Trust; etc., &c.;

So in response to Congress Members' theatrical steamy public histrionics which, as indicated, were spawned from the "whistleblower's" now famous hearsay based report; President Trump released an official transcript of the 25 July 2019 conversation between himself and the Ukraine President.

A cabal of Congressional accusers immediately coagulated around that cultural artifact and instrument and began mobbed contemplation of which drummed up accusations borrowed from the "whistleblower" gossip's imaginative and uninformed foreign policy critique they would implacably apply to the evidence the Trump administration injudiciously had placed at the disposal of their tender mercies.

A consuming narrative was invented sure to catch a glimpse of the civilians' attention. President Trump they said: had pressured a reluctant and unwilling Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (known unofficially also as President Vasiliev Goloborodko), coercing him to investigate Trump's political opponent running for election to the 2020 White House; and also to look into the location of the "Crowdstrike Server" (which turns out to be a mythological object or relic which somehow had become fixed in Trump's personal world list of make-believe items to be sought out); "find it and if possible – let me know what's up with this elusive contraption!"...was no doubt the supposed objective of the appeal perhaps.

As to the "Crowdstrike Server:" Trump had no idea what he was talking about; his request in that regard was so vague as to be necessarily dismissed as meaningless.

Crowdstrike, a U.S. firm based in Sunnyvale California, develops anti-virus computer software and provides consultation on protecting computer systems from malware attacks; or provides analysis of systems after an attack. The firm had worked on the previous case of the hacked Democratic National Committee server; and the FBI already has, filed and stowed, the computer imaging and analysis and whatever else...

It's not clear, but it seems that Trump thought there was a nefarious secret server called "Crowdstrike" pulsating in the undisclosed underground lair of the unidentifiable Ukrainian Super Villain; maybe containing sensitive information about 2016 U.S. election tampering: "... _they say Ukraine has it_."

Whatever Trump's vague notion was as to what was bugging him – the President imagined it all started with Ukraine; and he wanted Zelenskyy to look into it:

" _Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible_."

It's not possible. Trump's application to Zelenskyy in this regard just wasn't on the mark and apparently no one in his administration bothered to patiently explain the issue – or maybe they weren't sure either; so Trump was walking around the office with a pen on paper "kick me" sign taped unnoticed on his back and everybody got a good hearty chuckle over that outstanding insider practical joke – Yuck-Yuck – and geez, weren't the subordinates being naughty but...maybe the office practical jokers were one of the good reasons which set Trump off trying for Zelenskyy's opinion in the first place.

IT'S TRUE believe it or not. The smug, self-righteous and the dour residing in the 116th House of Representatives actually have set it out in their articles to impeach Trump for his ignorance and his question about this "Crowdstrike" thing – as though none of our always-expecting-to be-taken oh-so-seriously, unerring and solemn treasury sponges has ever been mistaken about anything in any of their exemplary lives already spent complaining about each other so much more than anyone has time to listen to.

OF NECESSARY NOTE; articles of impeachment are not evidence or even necessarily based on evidence. An article of impeachment is by nature an accusation; and the accusation may be based on something real, or it may be based on complete fabrication.

Impeachment Article I; paragraph 1, 1(B) accuses President Trump of demanding of President Zelenskyy that he publicly announce investigations into the "Crowdstrike Server" affair. This is the accusation:

(1) President Trump-acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government-corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into-

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--rather than Russia-interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

The Impeachment Committee had not produced a single witness testifying to ever having directly heard any discussion between Trump and Zelenskyy – before the impeachment hearings or during – suggesting that Trump ever even hinted at requesting that Zelenskyy make a public announcement to the effect that the Ukraine would be investigating the nebulous "Crowdstrike" affair. Trump, in the notoriously eavesdropped telephone conference just asked what this thing was about – and didn't move beyond that.

The transcript of the phone call shows that Trump asked Zelenskyy only to look into the matter – as the U.S. President didn't know what was going on and maybe he could get a little helpful perspective from the Ukraine Government's point of view if it's not too much to ask without being pilloried to no end by partisan members of the House of Representatives.

**President Trump** : I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. _I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine_ , they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation... I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

In this case; however rambling the blurry the request was; there is certainly no way that anything in there can be construed as Trump demanding Zelenskyy make any public announcement to the world that there'll be this big investigation into the Crowdstrike Server affair. This Impeachment Article I assertion of any such alleged demand is pure fiction drummed up by the gossip infused accusation committee.

Not only is the alleged demand not to be found in the phone call transcript; it also simply wouldn't make sense for Trump to commit himself to having Zelenskyy make a public statement about Crowdstrike.

Trump is clear with Zelenskyy that he's not sure what he's asking. He admits he doesn't really know about this Crowdstrike thing. Trump says stuff like " _they say Crowdstrike_..." or " _I guess one of your wealthy people_..." and " _they say Ukraine has it_..."

Okay; so Trump is alerting Zelenskyy that Trump himself is on a kind of fishing expedition and doesn't know what's going on and he's asking for Zelenskyy's help. Maybe Zelenskyy knows about this or maybe some of his people have some insights...

And Trump doesn't know what, if anything might turn up here. But if the President wants to go chasing phantoms around into a dead-end alley (and that's what investigations can sometimes be about in the end); then it really is his affair whether he pursues the obscure matter or not. It is not for the Congress to tell either the Judicial Branch or the Executive Branch what these separate branches of government can or cannot look in to in this case.

In this case however, the Executive Branch does have grounds to tell the Legislature to keep its hands to itself:

Per the United States Constitution – that bad faith congressional smear campaign shouldn't even be in the room.

SUPREME COURT Justice George Sutherland wrote handing down the Opinion of the Court in the 1936 case of _United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp_.:

... As a nation with all the attributes of sovereignty, the United States is vested with all the powers of government necessary to maintain an effective control of international relations...

Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but **participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited**. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the **President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation**.

He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. **Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it**.

ARTICLE II - _The Executive Branch_ ; Section 3 - _State of the Union, Convening Congress_ , of the _United States Constitution_ stipulates: "... _he_ [the President] _shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers_..."

SUPREME COURT Justice Joseph Story, in his _Commentaries on the Constitution_ (1833 edition); Book III; Chapter XXXVII. _Executive – Powers and Duties_ ; explains on the topic of foreign relations:

**§ 779**....Intelligence may often be obtained, and measures matured in secrecy, which could never be done, unless in the faith and confidence of profound secrecy. No man at all acquainted with diplomacy, but must have felt, that the success of negotiations as often depends upon their being unknown by the public, as upon their justice or their policy. Men will assume responsibility in private, and communicate information, and express opinions, which they would feel the greatest repugnance publicly to avow;

* * * * *

The accusers' committee, having got hold of the transcript, publicized their preferred annotated version of it which, among other things, refused to acknowledge or admit to the fact that Zelenskyy asked for U.S. support in its domestic investigations during the 25 July phone call. And the accusers attacked Ukraine President Zelenskyy for his declaration of the following month, during a 25 September 2019 joint Trump-Zelenskyy press conference in New York; where he denied having been pressured by Trump to perform on Trump's alleged demands:

Q _President Zelenskyy, have you felt any pressure from President Trump to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden?_

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : I think you read everything. So I think you read text. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be involved to democratic, open elections — elections of USA.

No, you heard that we had, I think, good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. And I — so I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed — pushed me.

[The full transcript of the joint press conference is found at:  
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-zelensky-ukraine-bilateral-meeting-new-york-ny]

The declaration didn't fit with the impeachment committee's narrative that Trump was impeachable for having pressured Zelenskyy. And so impeachment cabal members issued their smear campaign platform's official response which litterally asserting that President Zelenskyy is a liar and everybody knows he was pressured and that little foreigner can't fool us. As House Judiciary Chairman Democrat Jerry Nadler told the story:

"We've repeatedly heard that the Democrats are accusing President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak of, of, of, lying because Mr. Zelenskyy said he wasn't pressured.'

'Of course, he said he wasn't pressured! The United States is a powerful nation on which his nation is dependent. He has a gun to his head!'

'The gun is the fact that the president of the United States, upon whom he depends for military aid and help in many different ways, has shown himself willing to withhold that aid and to do other things based on what he says, based on what he says, based on whether he is willing to play along with the president for his personal and political goals."

That is cheap, and that is low, and that trashy characterization and accusation comes straight from the mouth of the High Chairman Bigot's Podium.

It is well-known that the Ukraine – voted by overwhelming People's referendum to emerge as a State independent and apart from the Soviet Union; has had a tough, little over a quarter century start.

Laws had been difficult to enforce and the oligarchic elite hierarchy which surfaced in the vacuum of the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the new State managed to gain and maintain control of important market sectors and resources.

The Ukraine Citizen has been for a little over a generation, and is currently, being squeezed with little hope advancement or relief.

It was inevitable that Zelenskyy would come forward and ask for assistance from the United States in the Ukraine Government's domestic investigations of corruption, and Burisma corruption – given the earlier work done by the FBI under the Obama administration. Again and further with George Kent's testimony:

Rep. Stefanik: (02:58)

You testified also, " _We spent roughly half a million dollars of State Department money in support of the FBI and this investigation, to build capacity and track down stolen assets_." Is that correct?

George Kent: (03:09)

That's correct. It was launched in May 2014 by the Attorney General of the US and UK, in conjunction with the World Bank.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:16)

And in fact, by 2016, you were so concerned about corruption questions related to Burisma that when there was an effort by Burisma to sponsor an essay contest with USAID, you asked USAID to stop it.

George Kent: (03:31)

That's correct.

Reviewing Zelenskyy's request for information during the, and considering it in the light of that above:

On top of that, I would kindly ask you if **you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country**.

If there was a gun to Zelenskyy's head, it wasn't Trump who was holding it. It would have been Zelenskyy's conscience and his well-known feeling for his shared plight with his countrymen. Zelenskyy noted in the cited joint press conference of 25 September 2019:

Thank you for your support, especially now when — you know, when we have two — really, two wars in Ukraine. **The first one is with corruption** , you know. But we'll fight — no, we'll be winner in this fight, I'm sure. And the priority — my priority is to stop the war on Donbass and to get back our territories: Crimea, Donbass, Luhansk.

Thank you for your support in this case. Thank you very much.

And as to the Russian war of attrition against the relatively newly independent Ukraine; Zelenskyy also remarked, taking the opportunity to reiterate his remark before the General Assembly earlier in the day:

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And, you know, now we need — I want to tell you that we now (inaudible) the new country... we thank — thank everybody, thank all of the European countries; they each help us... so only together, **America and EU — only together we can stop the war**...

In many ways the Citizens of Ukraine are faced with much the same problems experienced by the Americans under the dictatorship of His Britannic Majesty George III. Mercantile and military oppression of the foreign potentate is set to destroy possibilities of the Ukraine common citizens' enjoyment of the reward of their toils, and enjoyment of security in their freedom to pursue happiness in their lives. (The major difference however, advantaging the circumstances of present day Ukraine over those of the early United States; being that the abomination of indenture as such, is not a curse which burdens the development of a free Ukraine civil society.)

**That said:** U.S. Citizens might remember the problems faced by the Ukraine People in appreciating the words of Thomas Paine written in the final paragraph of his Introduction to _Common Sense_ :

...Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the

AUTHOR

* * * * *

Zelenskyy had done what he should have – he spoke up for his countrymen; and he asked for U.S. intelligence assistance in the Burisma case, as it was known that the U.S. already has its comprehensive file on Burisma; and as it was therefore, his mandate from the Ukraine electorate to do as he did.

And the President of the Ukraine did not speak to Congress about this – nor did the Congress invite him to speak before that 116th National Assembly when he visited the United States in September 2019; the month following the July 25 Trump-Zelenskyy call. Naturally, so it might seem, because the United States Constitution stipulates that it is the President of the United States who shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.

But also Zelenskyy perhaps wasn't invited to speak before Congress because the impeachment cotillion was already developing its own impeachment rationale tirade and would be formulating perhaps its own version of what it would like public perception of the Ukraine Story to be. If so, then actually inviting the genuine article to explain the Ukraine experience before the Congress might throw a stifling monkey wrench into the creative process.

Given the U.S. Constitution, Zelenskyy couldn't have guessed that he was doing anything wrong with speaking with President Trump over the phone; or meeting with Mr. Trump in New York for a broadcast joint news-maker press availability.

And when the Ukraine President pleaded his nation's case to the U.S. President one of the things they discussed over the phone was more of joint U.S.-E.U. action putting the pressure on Russia to halt its military aggression in eastern Ukraine and restore Ukraine territories per the early Budapest Memorandum agreement. And President Trump didn't seem to mind that or take offense.

President Zelenskyy's request for U.S. cooperation in Ukraine domestic investigations into Ukraine domestic corruption is of a far broader scope then the comparatively minor and incidental request Trump made asking about "Crowdstrike;" which is really a request from the U.S. President for the Ukraine perspective and point of view since Trump evidently is confused by all the weird reviews he's been getting from his own sorry group.

As previously suggested, Zelenskyy's and the Ukraine Citizens' concern with domestic corruption in general and the disreputable tax evader Burisma in particular would inevitably lead to this being a topical point of discussion and agreement between the two Presidents.

It might have represented an enormous boost to the Ukraine general public's morale were it known that the law and order United States Government officially recognized the problem and was willing to cooperate in any way it could.

But as it turns out – the national level membership of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives is stridently antagonistic to the notion of a Ukraine domestic investigation of corruption carried out in areas under the Ukraine Government's own jurisdiction.

The Democrats are so implacably opposed to the Ukraine Government investigation of corruption carried out on its soil that those partisans, as mentioned, submitted the peculiar notion that a foreign government's domestic investigation of corruption carried out in areas under its jurisdiction constitutes foreign intervention in our U.S. elections. It coincidentally being that the _Burisma Holdings_ to be investigated had in the past enlisted front running presidential candidate Joe Biden's son Hunter to sit on its Board of directors. And the fear evidently being in that case that the issue of nepotism possibly coming to the forefront of public attention might put off a few who otherwise should have voted for Biden in a close election.

Of course, it's a little late to put the nepotism issue back in the bag since it was the Democratic Party instigated impeachment inquiry which did the most to so effectively publicize Hunter Biden's very lucrative relationship with Burisma; it was impeachment committee incessant squawking which kept the issue on as front page news for so long.

Nevertheless, the notion stands: Ukraine Government domestic investigations into _Burisma Holdings_ ' malfeasance carried out in areas under Ukraine Government Jurisdiction, as the impeachment committee would have it; is to be construed as the very archetype of foreign interference in our elections and democratic process:

IN A LETTER dated October 3rd, 2019, with an impeachment inquiry already underway; the accusing committee (" _Members of the Intelligence, Oversight and Reform, and Foreign Affairs Committee_ ") penned famous words summarizing parts of their publicized position. Highlights of the letter follow:

"...The President and his aides are engaging in a campaign of misinformation and misdirection in an attempt to normalize the act of **soliciting foreign powers to interfere in our elections**....

... This is not normal or acceptable. It is unethical, unpatriotic, and wrong. American Presidents should never press foreign powers to target their domestic political rivals. Engaging in these stunning abuses in broad daylight does not absolve President Trump of his wrongdoings-or his grave offenses against the Constitution....

... Our investigation will continue in the coming days. But we hope every Member of the House will join us in condemning in the strongest terms the President's now open defiance of our core values as American citizens to guard against **foreign interference in our democratic process**....

The letter was signed by: Eliot L. Engel, Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs; Adam B. Schiff House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and; Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

This assertion that Ukraine domestic investigation of Burisma corruption carried out in areas under Ukraine domestic jurisdiction offends our way of life really is another true display of the kind of peculiar rhetoric the out-of-touch elite of the Washington opportunist class comes up with. Those low-life faux progressives in control of the national level Democratic Party act like it's going to gain them sympathy when they stoop to the tactic seeking to stir public ire against that hated foreigner attacking all that's decent and our way of life.

The 116th Congressional chauvinists deny the Ukraine Citizens' humanity and natural and constitutional rights; the denial of their right to investigate corruption, and to kick criminality or exploitation out of their society; to establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves and their Posterity; you know, that same kind of stuff we would want for ourselves.

RETURNING TO Thomas Paine, this time writing in the _American Crisis_ ; Chapter XIII; _Thoughts on the Peace, and Probable Advantages_ ; written at the conclusion of the Revolution:

[America]...is now descending to the scenes of quiet and domestic life. Not beneath the cypress shade of disappointment, but to enjoy in her own land, and under her own vine, the sweet of her labors, and the reward of her toil.—In this situation, may she never forget that a fair national reputation is of as much importance as independence. That it possesses a charm that wins upon the world, and makes even enemies civil. That it gives a dignity which is often superior to power, and commands reverence where pomp and splendor fail...

...Yet let but a nation conceive rightly of its character, and it will be chastely just in protecting it. None ever began with a fairer than America and none can be under a greater obligation to preserve it.

* * * * *

Can't say I think much of how these national level assembly weasels calling themselves "representatives" conceive of our nation's character.

How very insulting; the throwback crackpot buzzards of Congress seek to persuade the American Citizen we ought resent the Ukraine People's working to gain or exercise the enjoyment of their natural and constitutional rights – as though this would naturally violate our own Constitution;

And as though we should feel threatened by the desire of the Ukraine electorate to rid their society of the burden of ubiquitous corporate tax evasion and corruption – corruption which runs so deep as to be perceived by the average Citizen of Ukraine (election results have shown this) as seriously hampering development of a free and orderly society based on individual rights, inviolability and security et al, as written in the Constitution of Ukraine:

Constitution of Ukraine

Title I – General Principles

Article 3

An individual, his life and health, honour and dignity, inviolability and security shall be recognised in Ukraine as the highest social value.

Human rights and freedoms, and guarantees thereof shall determine the essence and course of activities of the State. The State shall be responsible to the individual for its activities...

It in not nice of the treasury sponges turned provocateur agitators to seek to inflame the U.S. electorate insinuating that when the Ukraine Citizens' Government seeks to investigate corruption carried out in areas under its jurisdiction; at that time the faux progressives, in a display of full-on xenophobic resentment of the foreign citizens' exercise of rights: portray the Ukraine Government's seeking to rid the Country of corruption, as interfering with our "democratic process."

The faux patriot progressives of the Democratic Party of the House of Representatives want we should resent the Ukrainian People's working to gain or exercise the enjoyment of their natural and constitutional rights by doing a little house cleaning regarding corporate corruption in Ukraine.

Adorable posturing political weasels and their vindictive foreigner loathing, fear and resentment revival hate speech item aside; everyone knows it's the other way around. When domestic justice is established for the Ukraine Citizen to enjoy – then this worldly event will only serve to further protect and strengthen our own rights against those U.S. domestic forces that would mislead and twist and confound the premise so that our beliefs may better conform to their peculiar throwback fashions. Reviewing Paine again:

...circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested...

The sewage manifesto issuing out of the 116th House of Representatives doesn't see it that way, and isn't keen on allowing for it either. Before taking a gander at what's been accomplished so far in this impeachment affair; let's briefly introduce ourselves to this Public Persona President Zelenskyy.

* * * * *

Zelenskyy was inaugurated 20 May of 2019; elected by a landslide, 73% the electorate voting for his platform of reform. Previous to his election as Ukraine President, Zelenskyy, a screenwriter and comic, had played the fictional character of President Vasiliev P. Goloborodko in the Ukraine comedy series "Servant of the People." Goloborodko was a senior high school history teacher who had been by fluke elected President of Ukraine – also on a platform of cleaning up corruption. Life would follow art in this case.

These following stills are taken from the opening scene (edited for space) of the third program of the series. On the morning of his second day in office, newly elected President Goloborodko is having a disturbing dream. Plutarch and Hercules are sitting on his bedside discussing the Ukraine experience – and President Goloborodko can't make himself wake up while this is going on:

**Hercules** : "He read of your literature before sleep, and now he's raving..."

**Goloborodko** : *Mumbles in Greek*

**Plutarch** : "This guy is nervous now. The whole country is on his shoulders now."

**Plutarch** : "The country is on the brink of default"

**Hercules** : "I don't understand, how? Where does everything go?"

**President Goloborodko (asleep):** "They steal it." (Next still: President Goloborodko tosses some more in his sleep...)

**Plutarch:** "What are you doing? Keep your hand away from his neck!"...

Corruption in Ukraine is well-known; awareness of it didn't start with Donald Trump; and it provides enough material to have kept the series very popular in Ukraine and going for about at least 51 episodes, if I'm not mistaken.

Much of the series can be viewed free in the United States at:

 https://www.cinemaescapist.com/2017/06/ukraines-servant-people-hidden-gem-political-comedy/

English subtitles occasionally drop out – but it's not a problem. Simply go to the gear shaped settings icon and switch the subtitles to Russian – then go to auto-generate and select English, or other language from the wide selection on the pull down menu. At that point the subtitles jump back in.

* * * * *

The impeachment cabal membership couldn't accept Zelenskyy's denial of his being pressured to instigate investigations into Burisma which, in any event, were already effectively underway as ongoing surveillance accounting for the activities of the known and prominent huge sums tax evader had evidently been determined necessary; and which in any event, as President Zelenskyy publicly explained – under the Constitution of the Ukraine, investigations of this nature are initiated by the Prosecutor General's office which is independent of the Presidency; and is actually perhaps more closely associated with the Parliament, the legislature – as the Prosecutor's office works under the direction of the law. Reviewing relevant Articles of the Ukraine Constitution:

Constitution of Ukraine

Title IV - The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

Article 85

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall have the following powers:

25. to grant consent for the appointment and removal from the office by the President of Ukraine of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine; to declare no confidence in the Prosecutor General of Ukraine resulting in his resignation from the office;

Title VII – Public Prosecution

Article 122

The public prosecution of Ukraine shall be headed by the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, appointed to or removed from the office by the President of Ukraine subject to consent of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine may express the non-confidence in the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, which shall entail his resignation from the office.

The term of powers of the General Prosecutor of Ukraine shall be five years.

Title IV - The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

**Article 92.** The following matters shall be determined exclusively by laws of Ukraine:

14) the judicial system, judiciary, the status of judges, the principles of judicial expertise, the organisation and operation of the prosecutor's office, the bodies of inquisition and investigation, the notary, the bodies and institutions for the enforcement of punishments; the fundamentals of the organisation and activity of advocates;

Zelenskyy's denial of being pressured into conducting investigations of Burisma, rather than being understood as the honest answer that it was; was vindictively treated instead as a hostile political assault on the imperious impeachment committee story-line.

The chosen response then for these petty, picked and jaded politicians, was to retaliate for the imagined slight by attempting to smear the foreign President's integrity – explicitly calling him a liar (exactly from the pulpit of the Democratic Party Chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee); and in so many words, President Trump's pawn and puppet as well.

When the Chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Democrat Jerry Nadler postulated: " _Of course, he said he wasn't pressured! The United States is a powerful nation on which his nation is dependent. He has a gun to his head!_ "...

There the High Pulpit prejudiced bigot asserted that Zelenskyy was placed under duress by Trump and odiously forced by Trump to lie that he was not under any duress. The Bigot Chairman and acolytes can't bring themselves to allow for **the fact** of the plight of the Ukraine Citizen;

And can't allow for or recognize **the fact** of President Zelenskyy's being the Ukraine People's plenary advocate dutifully petitioning on behalf of the rights and well-being of the Ukraine Citizen;

They disparage the Ukraine People's advocate – and purposefully ignore and thereby seek to denigrate and dismiss the justice of the petition he brings.

But the reaction of the Democrats in the House of Representatives to Zelenskyy, although injurious; is incompetent and irrelevant and doesn't matter in a sense because the Congress has neither the Authority [incompetent] or Power [irrelevant] under the Constitution to disregard the petition or to spitefully dismiss the petitioner – in this case the Ukraine President Zelenskyy.

Without constitutional authorization to insinuate themselves into the discussion – House of Representatives partisans chose to base their groundless assault on the persuasive powers of insult, omission and distortion.

PER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION it is, as cited, the President who: "... _shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers_..."

Noting Supreme Court Justice Sutherland's Opinion of the Court cited earlier: "... _the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation_."

And however much the partisans disparage the foreign President – it is under Trump's Constitutional Authority as President to receive foreign dignitaries which gives Trump the power as President of the United States to comply with or disapprove the petition brought by Zelenskyy on behalf of his constituency. Zelenskyy brought his request before the President of the United States during the 25 July 2019 phone call when he said:

The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case...

_On top of that, I would kindly ask you_ [President Trump] _if **you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country**._

There then, is the petition to be addressed – which the Congress mischievously ignores or dismisses the existence of as being inconsequential (obviously it doesn't fit the favored narrative).

But the request on behalf of the Ukraine common Citizen is entirely of consequence and is exactly central and undermining of the impeachment case claiming duress – which is naturally why those in favor of impeachment avoid mentioning it.

Zelenskyy asks of the U.S. President for cooperation in investigations into corruption, including investigation into Burisma which the United States Government presumably has quite a file on already.

Were President Trump to decide to comply with the request – then he would be doing so under his Authority mandated by the Constitution to " _receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers_."

Renown early American Jurist William Rawle, LL.D. – in his (1829) _A View of the Constitution of the United States of America_ ; Chapter XX – _Of Some Arduous Parts of the President's Duties_ – explains the Arduous Duty in this way:

[Regarding a]...full view of the powers and duties of the president, the reader will probably perceive that they are of more importance in respect to foreign relations than to the internal administration of government.

At home his path, though dignified, is narrow. In the tranquillity which we have hitherto in time of peace enjoyed, little more has been requisite, in either his legislative or executive functions, than regularly to pursue the plain mandates of laws, and the certain text of the Constitution.

In his legislative capacity, the power of objecting to acts of congress, has been [so far through 1829] fairly exercised and respectfully submitted to...

But it is in respect to external relations; to transactions with foreign nations, and the events arising from them, that the president has an arduous task. Here he must chiefly act on his own independent judgment...

...The power of receiving foreign ambassadors, carries with it among other things, the right of judging in the case of a revolution in a foreign country, whether the new rulers ought to be recognised. The legislature indeed possesses a superior power, and may declare its dissent from the executive recognition or refusal, but until that sense is declared, the act of the executive is binding...

Rawle here speaks of the extraordinary case, a civil war splitting the country in two; a United States war set a little over a generation in the future from the time he pens those words,

But there are the lesser petitions as well. What of our shared interests – for example: that our two countries won't be exploited by gang smuggling of illicit traffic across borders?

And so President Trump might agree that the United States should cooperate in such investigations – as it is also common for sovereign nations to cooperate with investigations of international crimes such as money laundering and the like; and also because the U.S. had assisted the Ukraine Government in exactly this capacity under the Obama administration.

Although on the other hand: this United States being a government based on representation of the People; as remarked by William Rawle and others: parties opposed have available the opportunity to formulate legitimate arguments repudiating US cooperation with Ukraine authorities' investigations into Burisma and putting these arguments to a legitimate vote in Congress.

But that approach might currently seem to suggest some possible political embarrassment could result. An effort on the part of the Democrats to directly call for a U.S. hold on assisting further investigation of a powerful but corrupt corporate entity exploitative of the nation's resources and hence exploitative of the everyday citizens' limited resources and limited opportunities; might not flatter the image of the faux progressives pretending they're out there for the little people and they're not really the stooges of the worst bad player elements of corporate culture and influence that many of the electorate perceive them to be.

Failing to produce a legitimate argument defending against investigations of Burisma – the partisans distort the scenario by claiming that a Ukraine domestic investigation of Burisma constitutes an investigation of the Biden's and therefore election interference because Joe Biden is a candidate for President in 2020 and this should make his son and Burisma Holdings immune to any scrutiny for Joe's and this nation's sake.

And the whole world must be put on hold – or rather the Ukraine Citizen must to be put on hold. And the promised reform voted for by a landslide has to be put on hold just like it has been all the times before; and the promise of reform has to be discredited for being put on hold indefinitely once again – this time to accommodate the tender feelings and sensibilities of the Bidens, and especially Joe Biden; who needs his Democratic National Machine fund raising device and structure and the loyal assurance that he with his election campaign friends can advance without any further hindrance from this nepotism thing clouding the issues. – Suffice to say for now that although Joe Biden & Sons' names came up in the conversation; the Biden's were never discussed in the context of being the focal point of investigations into Burisma during that 25 July 2019 conversation or anywhere else – as will be shown;

This whole affair of the House of Representatives accusers forum accepting the word of the gossip repeating someone else's annotated information; and then expounding on the suspect material; and then subsequently distorting what's discussed on the official White House release of the phone call transcript; this all is a hearty piece of paranoid very public political mischief.

Nevertheless, the partisans have wanted Trump out by any means – even if it entails impeaching effectively on the basis of the U.S. President's carrying on with his Constitutional mandate to consider the petition of the foreign head of State.

Returning to observation of what the impeachment society has accomplished so far:

In the course of their campaign to rid the world of Donald Trump as President – the congressional national provincialists of the Democratic Party smear committee foreign policy expertise wing; those so resentful of the foreigner Ukraine President – with outraged sensibilities so shaken by the inevitable only honest answer President Zelenskyy could have given; have put foreign leaders the world over on notice that the quick response-time throwback membership of the U.S. Congress will readily recognize the word of any U.S. domestic anonymous lowest echelon gossip of unknown credentials over that of a foreigner regardless of that foreigner's being a head of State; a foreign head of State, by-the-way, who shall henceforth be pilloried and called a liar by the free-wheeling Democratic Party discovery squadron partisans in Congress; whenever that foreign head of State should dare challenge the testament of the any precious anonymous gossip of unknowable credentials that luckily happens by, and;

Very importantly: the impeachment cotillion has put foreign leaders the world over on notice that high level discussions carried on with the United States Government as represented by the President will not be carried on with in a secure and confidential manner; there being plenty of Congressionally endorsed, unleashed freelance competitive uncertified speech-thought bounty hunters wandering the neighborhoods unlicensed and on the foot loose lookout for the sure to surprise news-maker exposé of the long suspected underlying glitch in the social fabric; those just opportunistically wandering and waiting to pick up on some foreign cultural exchange conversation that someone else heard about and which they'll next subsequently feel free to clarify and submit in their own peculiar words; anonymous contribution to be accepted by an abashed committee grateful for the timely alert.

Proceeding with our study supplemented by further observations of our Supreme Court lights of the past.

* * * * *
Chapter 2

– Origin of Federal Power Over External Affairs –

Zelenskyy of the Ukraine turned out to be problematic to the impeachment narrative. It's easier when mainstream accusers can maintain the Ukraine as a distant abstraction; an indistinct wraith entity entirely malleable in appearance, taking on any metamorphosed form a United States Congress agrees to attribute it.

In the case of the far away abstraction remaining at a distance; it is the easiest thing for our insular, provincial elected officials frequenting corridors of power, to equate their positions as epitomizing them as the expert authorities, arbiters of the terrain and social climate of any elsewhere; unchallenged in this self-appointed esteemed status or reckoning by any need to account for or acknowledge the friendly foreign Peoples' perspective. That is the case when the abstract remains at a distance.

But it's different and a nuisance when the President of the distant amorphous abstraction shows up on Manhattan Island speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations, as President Zelenskyy did, explaining his nation's predicament in New York City, on 25 September 2019:

"The war in Donbas has already lasted five years and five years have passed since Russia annexed the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea. Despite the existence of international law and hundreds of organizations designed to defend it, our country defends its own sovereignty and territorial integrity with weapons in its hands and losing its citizens.'

"The end of the war, the return of all the occupied Ukrainian territories and the prevailing of peace are my tasks. But not at the cost of our citizens' lives, not at the cost of freedom or the right of Ukraine to its own choice...'

...That is why we need the support of the world. I understand: everyone present here has their own state concern and other people's problems should not worry you more than your own. But in today's world, where we live, there is no longer someone else's war. None of you can feel safe when there is a war in Ukraine, when there is a war in Europe.'

And it can be fatal to think that this does not concern you and will never affect you. You can't think of the global and close your eyes to the details or, as it may seem, even trifles. Because that's how the foundation for the two world wars was laid. And tens of millions of human lives became the price of inattention, silence, inaction or unwillingness to sacrifice one's ambitions. Have humanity started to forget these dreadful lessons of history?'

Ukraine remembers them. And Ukraine has always demonstrated its willingness to provide peace in a civilized way. And took steps towards international security, for example; when it gave up its nuclear capability, which at the time was larger than in the UK, France and China combined;'

Because it seemed to us that we were all building a different, new world. Where you do not need to have a nuclear weapon to be heard. Where you will be respected for deeds, not for nuclear warheads.'

After all, in this "new" world, our country has lost part of its territories and is losing its citizens almost daily.'

That is why, if not Ukraine than who has the right to speak today about the need to rethink and revise current world rules?"

Rematerializing elsewhere in New York later on that very same day (at the InterContinental New York Barclay); this time with President Trump visibly in tow – President Zelenskyy showed up for a broadcast press availability which began with some cheery back and forth conversational between the two Presidents – this certain to keep the public apprised of some background and to whet also the appetites of attending journalists. That presently done the national leaders shook hands and proceeded then to sate the appetites of the whetted journalists, answering in turn their eager questions patiently waiting:

Q _President Zelenskyy, have you felt any pressure from President Trump to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden?_

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : I think you read everything. So I think you read text. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be involved to democratic, open elections — elections of USA.

No, you heard that we had, I think, good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. And I — so I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed — pushed me.

[The full transcript of the joint press conference is found at:  
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-zelensky-ukraine-bilateral-meeting-new-york-ny]

Here Zelenskyy seemed surprised a little. The transcript of the call was released by the White House earlier that day. He evidently anticipated that the reporters would have duly read it; and he responds: " _So I think you read text. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be involved to democratic, open elections — elections of USA_..."

To Zelenskyy it's self-evident that Trump clearly did not put pressure on him to investigate the Bidens, during the call: " _I'm sorry, but I don't want to be involved to democratic, open elections — elections of USA."_

The Ukraine Government is interested in _Burisma Holdings_ , an energy company which had placed Hunter Biden on its Board of Directors. But that doesn't mean; as the impeachment partisans would have it; that an investigation of Burisma necessarily equates with an investigation of Hunter Biden – or former vice-President Joe Biden for that matter.

As has been noted, Burisma Holdings had previously been convicted of tax evasion in 2016. Some 1.9 million dollars in fines above back taxes were paid out by _Burisma_ to avoid prosecution.

Governments have a tendency to become preoccupied in this area, wondering seriously where potential revenues might want to eventually go into hiding from time to time. Once a discovered tax evader – _Burisma Holdings_ , the second largest energy producer in the Ukraine; was certain to become the object of ongoing Ukrainian Government scrutiny for some time to come.

So tax evasion serves as one powerful incentive for the Ukrainian Government to keep an eye on _Burisma_ ; or to review past examinations of the company with a view towards affirming that previous investigations had been carried on with in due diligence.

The subject of Burisma holdings did come up in the phone call, Burisma being a thorn in the side of anyone interested in cleaning up corruption in Ukraine. Zelenskyy's perception is that he was not pressured to investigate Burisma, which was being held under surveillance anyway.

Zelenskyy clarified a bit; later on in the interview:

Q _President Zelenskyy, in the phone call, you said that you would look into Joe Biden — you would ask your prosecutor to look into the matter. Have you had that conversation —_

**PRESIDENT TRUMP** : Well, I think — no, I haven't. But I think that — I think this —

Q _I'm asking President Zelenskyy._

[PRESIDENT TRUMP interrupts again...]

Q _President Zelenskyy —_

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : I heard your question. Thank you very much. Don't cry.

I mean that we have independent country and independent general security. I can't push anyone, you know? That's it. That is the question — that is the answer. So I didn't call somebody or the new general security. I didn't ask him. I didn't push him. That's it.

As previously noted: the Ukraine Constitution and system is different than that of the U.S. The Prosecutors General Office is not under the Ukraine President's control. The Separation of Powers under the Ukraine Parliamentary System does not fall along the same lines as in the United States. The Office of the Prosecutor General is rather independent of the Executive. Bearing that in mind:

Q _Do you feel obligated to fulfill your promises to President Trump?_

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY: Just — sorry.

Q _(Speaks Ukrainian.)_

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : (Speaks Ukrainian.)

**[AIDE INTERPRETER]** (As interpreted.) _Obligated to do what?_ (Speaks Ukrainian.)

Q _(Speaks Ukrainian.)_

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : (Speaks Ukrainian.)

Q _(Speaks Ukrainian.)_

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : (Speaks Ukrainian.)

**PRESIDENT TRUMP** : You want to just —

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : I'm sorry.

**[AIDE INTERPRETER]** (As interpreted.) Concerning the investigation, actually, I want to underscore that Ukraine is an independent country. We have a new prosecutor general in Ukraine — a highly professional man with a Western education and history to investigate any case he considers and deems appropriate.

While we have many more issues to care about and to tackle, we have (inaudible), we have Maidan, we have corruption cases, as President Trump rightly mentioned about that. So we know what to do, and we know where to go and what to tackle.

* * * * *

ZELENSKYY'S account on the issue of Ukraine Government investigations into corruption in general and Burisma specifically contradicts the impeachment committee narrative; which asserts that _Burisma Holdings_ had been uniquely targeted by the Trump administration specifically because Joe Biden's son was on the Board of Directors.

Witness Testimony also contradicts this accusers' narrative; submitting instead that U.S. concerns over Burisma stretch back to the Obama administration, as explained Under Oath:

Rep. Stefanik: (01:11)

... Shifting gears to corruption, one of the themes here today is that of rooting out corruption, which is an important tool for the president as we provide taxpayer-funded aid to foreign countries. Mr. Kent, you would characterize Ukraine as having longstanding corruption issues, correct?

George Kent: (01:31)

I did.

Rep. Stefanik: (01:32)

And in fact, you testified. " _I would say that corruption is part of the reason why Ukrainians came out to the streets, in both 2004 when somebody tried to steal the election and again in 2014 because of a corrupt kleptocratic pro-Russian government which eventually collapsed. The Ukrainians decided enough was enough_." Is that your testimony?

George Kent: (01:52)

It remains so.

Rep. Stefanik: (01:53)

And you testified that you first came to learn about Burisma in 2015 when you were the senior anti-corruption coordinator, correct?

George Kent: (02:01)

Correct. Detailed to the embassy in Kiev as the acting deputy chief of mission.

Rep. Stefanik: (02:07)

And you testified that the issue of corruption in Burisma was in the US interest because, and this is from your deposition, " _We had made a commitment to the Ukrainian government in 2014 to try to recover an estimated tens of billions of dollars of stolen assets out of the country_." Is that correct?

George Kent: (02:26)

That is stolen assets that were in the name of the owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky. He was the one who we believed had stolen the money.

Rep. Stefanik: (02:34)

Sure. So the first case, this was... the first case that the US, the UK, and Ukraine investigator worked on was against the owner of Burisma.

George Kent: (02:44)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (02:45)

And this was during the Obama administration.

George Kent: (02:48)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (02:48)

So for the millions of Americans viewing, the first investigation against the owner of Burisma was under President Obama's administration.

George Kent: (02:57)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (02:58)

You testified also, " _We spent roughly half a million dollars of State Department money in support of the FBI and this investigation, to build capacity and track down stolen assets_." Is that correct?

George Kent: (03:09)

That's correct. It was launched in May 2014 by the Attorney General of the US and UK, in conjunction with the World Bank.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:16)

And in fact, by 2016, you were so concerned about corruption questions related to Burisma that when there was an effort by Burisma to sponsor an essay contest with USAID, you asked USAID to stop it.

George Kent: (03:31)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:32)

And you testified that it was because " _Burisma had a poor reputation in the business_ ," and that you didn't think it was appropriate for the US government to be co-sponsoring something with a company that had a bad reputation. Correct?

George Kent: (03:45)

Correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:46)

You are also aware, and you testified today, that Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma.

George Kent: (03:52)

Correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:53)

And you also testified that you were indeed concerned about the appearance of conflict of interest.

George Kent: (03:57)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:59)

And broadly, this is very important, you testified in your deposition that when the State Department evaluates for an assistance, it is appropriate for them to look at levels of corruption in countries.

George Kent: (04:11)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (04:11)

And lastly, you also testified that, and this is your quote, " _Issues of corruption have been part of high-level dialogue between US leaders and Ukrainian leaders, regardless of who is the US leader and who is the Ukrainian leader. And that is a normal issue of diplomatic discussion at the highest level_." Is that correct?

George Kent: (04:30)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (04:31)

I will yield 30 seconds. You know what? I will yield back after that. Thank you.

* * * * *

So it's established that the Bidens were not necessarily targeted for investigation. The next question is whether or not they were targeted at all; or whether or not the General Prosecutor has the time or resources to go after non-paying customers such as them; investigation of whom would drain the budget, distract from the program, and wouldn't in the least impact corruption in Ukraine at this point.

There are other aspects and grievances which the accusers' committee airs publicly which will be addressed as well. Before attending to those however; we must arm ourselves with some more of the reading from our Supreme Court Justices; that we might not be entangled in manipulative rhetorical devices tossed about as traps for the unwary.

* * * * *

Proceeding to the Opinion of the Court, handed down by Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland in the case of _United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp_. – Decided: December 21, 1936. _United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp_ ; which we have already taken a peek at early in Chapter 1. The case dealt in one aspect, with the constitutional authority of a United States President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt; in relation to a President's conduct in foreign affairs. The Opinion of the Supreme Court is in this case not unique. The ruling is consistent with many Supreme Court cases decisions in that area. In handing down the Opinion of the Court Justice Sutherland writes:

It will contribute to the elucidation of the question if we first consider the differences between the powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs. That there are differences between them, and that these differences are fundamental, may not be doubted.

The two classes of powers are different both in respect of their origin and their nature. The broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true **only in respect of our internal affairs**. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the states such portions as it was thought desirable to vest in the federal government, leaving those not included in the enumeration still in the states. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 294.

That this doctrine applies only to powers which the states had is self-evident. And **since the states severally never possessed international powers** , **such powers could not have been carved from the mass of state powers, but obviously were transmitted to the United States from some other source**.

During the colonial period, those powers were possessed exclusively by, and were entirely under the control of, the Crown.

By the Declaration of Independence, "the Representatives of the United States of America" declared the United [not the several] Colonies to be free and independent states, and, as such, to have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty **passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally** , **but to the colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America**. Even before the Declaration, the colonies were a unit in foreign affairs, acting through a common agency -- namely the Continental Congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies...

Rulers come and go; governments end, and forms of government change; but sovereignty survives. A political society cannot endure without a supreme will somewhere. Sovereignty is never held in suspense.

When, therefore, the external sovereignty of Great Britain in respect of the colonies ceased, it immediately passed to the Union. ... That fact was given practical application almost at once. The treaty of peace, made on September 23, 1783, was concluded between his Brittanic Majesty and the "United States of America."

The Union existed before the Constitution, which was ordained and established, among other things, to form "a more perfect Union." Prior to that event, it is clear that the Union, declared by the Articles of Confederation to be "perpetual," was the sole possessor of external sovereignty, and in the Union it remained without change save insofar as the Constitution, in express terms, qualified its [the sovereignty of the Union's] exercise. The Framers' Convention was called, and exerted its powers upon the irrefutable postulate that, though the states were several, their people, in respect of foreign affairs, were one...

It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality. Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.

As a member of the family of nations, the right and power of the United States in that field are equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family. Otherwise, the United States is not completely sovereign...

... As a nation with all the attributes of sovereignty, the United States is vested with all the powers of government necessary to maintain an effective control of international relations...

Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but **participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited**. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.

He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; **but he alone negotiates**. **Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude** , and **Congress itself is powerless to invade it**.

As [John] Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations." – Annals, 6th Cong., col. 613.

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, at a very early day in our history (February 15, 1816), reported to the Senate, among other things, as follows:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility, and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch. *****

***** U.S. Senate, Reports, Committee on Foreign Relations, vol. 8, p 24.

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations -- a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress but which, of course, like every other governmental power, **must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution**.

It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations, embarrassment -- perhaps serious embarrassment -- is to be avoided and success for our aims achieved, **congressional legislation which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved**.

Moreover, _he_ , not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials.

Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results.

* * * * *

The 116th Congress had appropriated money from the Treasury to be put at the disposal of the Ukrainian Government for defense expenditures.

Trump was to implement the dispensing of funds allocated by Congress for Ukrainian defense in contending with Russian military aggression being carried out in areas of the eastern portion of the Ukraine.

Incidentally, this military funding aid to allies almost always guarantees a return on the investment in that the money will probably re-enter the U.S. economy in the form of the ally's weapons purchases from domestic U.S. arms suppliers. During the 25 July 2019 call President Zelenskyy mentioned:

I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically **we are almost ready to buy** more Javelins ***** from the United States for defense purposes.

*[The Javelin is a U.S. made portable (primarily) anti-tank missile system.]

THE EAGER BEAVER 116 th House of Representatives was in a hurry to see that money already out the door and in the pipeline ready to be spent by the Ukraine Government – but President Trump had balked on releasing it.

Trump did eventually give the money over to the Zelenskyy administration – after taking his own sweet time about it.

At one point Trump had explained the delay as due to his desire to make sure the money was well-spent and not misdirected into the lining of someone's personal pocket book;

And at another time, the President rationalized publicly that he was holding out, hoping that other countries would put up some funds as well.

Whatever his story might have been – as Justice Sutherland has observed:

... if, in the maintenance of our international relations,... success for our aims [is to be] achieved, **congressional legislation which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry** within the international field **must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved**.

The Congress had legislated that funds be dispensed to the Ukraine – the President took his time debating how best to implement the congressional legislation; or whatever it was he was doing throughout the period of the lapse.

A President is allowed some leeway and benefit of the doubt in implementing legislation when "... _congressional legislation which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry within the international field_..."

Trump wasn't doing anything outlandish by procrastinating in this case. Trump hadn't broken any statute. He dispensed the funds within specified time limits – and Zelenskyy who seemingly hadn't been alarmed, wasn't complaining.

As noted, Zelenskyy specifically denied that any pressure had been put on him to perform certain tasks – hence broadly or generally refuting allegations that funds were being withheld until he agreed to perform as the Congressional accusers alleged. This aggravated the accusers' committee membership – and always handy holding a grudge; they would make their voice heard on the matter later.

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SUTHERLAND in his handing down of the Opinion of the Court in 1936 took note of The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; February 15, 1816 report to the Senate:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, **how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success**.

For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. **They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility, and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety.** The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch.

EARLY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOSEPH STORY, in his _Commentaries on the Constitution_ (1833 edition) observes on the topic of foreign relations and the formulation of treaties and agreements:

**§ 778**. The power of making treaties is indispensable to the due exercise of national sovereignty, and very important, especially as it relates to war, peace, and commerce. That it should belong to the national government would seem to be irresistibly established by every argument deduced from experience, from public policy, and a close survey of the objects of government **. It is difficult to circumscribe the power within any definite limits** , applicable to all times and exigencies, without impairing its efficacy, or defeating its purposes.

The constitution has, therefore, made it general and unqualified. This very circumstance, however, renders it highly important, that it should be delegated in such a mode, and with such precautions, as will afford the highest security, that it will be exercised by men the best qualified for the purpose, and in the manner most conducive to the public good.

With such views, the question was naturally presented in the convention, to what body shall it be delegated ? It might be delegated to congress generally, as it was under the confederation, exclusive of the president, or in conjunction with him. It might be delegated to either branch of the legislature, exclusive of, or in conjunction with him. Or it might be exclusively delegated to the president.

**§ 779**. In the formation of treaties, secrecy and immediate despatch are generally requisite, and sometimes absolutely indispensable. Intelligence may often be obtained, and measures matured in secrecy, which could never be done, unless in the faith and confidence of profound secrecy. No man at all acquainted with diplomacy, but must have felt, that the success of negotiations as often depends upon their being unknown by the public, as upon their justice or their policy. Men will assume responsibility in private, and communicate information, and express opinions, which they would feel the greatest repugnance publicly to avow ;

And measures may be defeated by the intrigues and management of foreign powers, if they suspect them to be in progress, and understand their precise nature and extent. In this view the executive department is a far better depositary of the power, than congress would be.

The delays incident to a large assembly ; the differences of opinion ; the time consumed in debate ; and the utter impossibility of secrecy, all combine to render them unfitted for the purposes of diplomacy. And our own experience during the confederation abundantly demonstrated all the evils, which the theory would lead us to expect.

Besides ; there are tides in national affairs, as well as in the affairs of private life. To discern and profit by them is the part of true political wisdom ; and the loss of a week, or even of a day, may sometimes change the whole aspect of affairs, and render negotiations wholly nugatory, or indecisive. The loss of a battle, the death of a prince, the removal of a minister, the pressure or removal of fiscal embarrassments at the moment, and other circumstances, may change the whole posture of affairs, and ensure success, or defeat the best concerted project.

The executive, having a constant eye upon foreign affairs, can promptly meet, and even anticipate such emergencies, and avail himself of all the advantages accruing from them ; while **a large assembly would be coldly deliberating on the chances of success** , and **the policy of opening negotiations**.

It is manifest, then, that congress would not be a suitable depositary of the power.

* * * * *

The partisans of the current 116th Congress can't bring themselves to accept the features presented in the scholarly analysis and explanation of the very distinguished early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story clarifying the reasoning behind this deplorable independence of action – which the Constitution does bestow on the President in the exercise of the duties of Office.

It must be (as the partisan would have it); that the authors of the Constitution could never have anticipated granting independence of action to such an unlikely future character as Donald Trump; who chaps the hides of every vexed partisan, bruising the sensibilities of the assembly almost entirely throughout, and seemingly at every turn.

Maybe not (although obviously so); but the framers certainly recognized the abuses of argumentative jealousies and competitive resentments bound to arise to a greater extent in the larger body of inflamed passions characterizing a national assembly acting out at its aggravated worst.

Recently, Trump had secretly ordered a rapidly deployed military operation which successfully targeted the terrorist leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – the man who established his self-styled caliphate in parts of Syria and northern Iraq; and who was responsible for his ensuing reign of terror (carrying out _en masse_ beheadings and other atrocities against civilians) perpetrated throughout his areas of control.

In the event, U.S. armed services personnel gave chase to al Baghdadi who fled to a cave wherein he deployed his suicide vest; which killed himself and three children accompanying him.

On learning of the successful raid, jealous partisan members of Congress expressed envy, anger and outrage that they had not been consulted by defiant President Trump first – before the initiative was carried out.

Opposition leader, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi decried the treacherous and sinister nature of Trump's behavior claiming:

"...the Russians but not top congressional leadership were notified of in advance..."

(Russian military counterparts were advised in advance that U.S. service personnel would be conducting business in the area so that soldiers would not be shot at unwittingly as the mission was carried out.)

Minority Senate Leader Charles Schumer declared:

"...according to reports, the Trump administration gave Russia and Turkey some kind of advanced notice of the raid of al-Baghdadi but, seemingly by deliberate choice, neglected to notify the leaders of Congress **as is custom in this case**."

There is no custom in this case where there is no precedent of a U.S. armed forces raid, carried out on a terrorist leader's hide out, occurring during the course of a U.S. impeachment inquiry of a U.S. President.

That aside; poorly schooled Senate Practitioner Chuck Schumer's uninformed opinion of what is customary doesn't near match up. As Justice Joseph Story observes in his _Commentaries_ (Chapter XXXVI: Executive Department – Organization Of):

**§ 725**....Decision, activity, secresy, and despatch will generally characterise the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree, than the proceedings of a greater number ; and in proportion, as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.

And noting again the observation of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; February 15, 1816 report to the Senate:

_...They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations **calculated to diminish that** **responsibility**_ [to the Constitution and what is entailed in a given event] _, and **thereby to impair the best security for the national safety**._

The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch.

That notion of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted in 1816; that "... _interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations_ [is] _calculated to diminish... responsibility_ ," arises from the experiences of failed execution due to time lost in debate. Debate can be used as an excuse to cover hesitancy when quick dispatch is in order. Discussion can be used to prolong indecision past the point of no return. The opportunity lost in the hesitation of large numbers going round and round thrashing out on an issue can always be blamed on someone else.

"Oh well," it might be said for example: "...all things being equal...," or stuff of the kind, might be the sort of explanation or excuse voiced to promote an imbecile lethargy of the moment; or neutralize a motivating sense of responsible and answerable accountability. Hence usage of the word and the phrase: " _calculated_ _to diminish that responsibility_."

Justice Story describes the phenomenon another way:

**§ 779** The delays incident to a large assembly ; the differences of opinion ; the time consumed in debate ; and the utter impossibility of secrecy, all combine to render them [Congress members] unfitted for the purposes of diplomacy. And our own experience during the confederation abundantly demonstrated all the evils, which the theory would lead us to expect.

Senator Schumer naturally, merely makes up his own version of what is to be deemed customary; which he and his partisan comrades just as naturally hold as superior to and superseding Supreme Court Opinion, the observations of esteemed jurists, and the observations of a less partisan and divisive – the observations of an enlightened earlier Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

In this tactic pretending the self-evident superiority of their arbitrary prejudices, the accusers need not bother acknowledging the **fact** of the President's Constitutional mandate; and so make it easier to establish their 24/7 and on holidays too, harangue.

Returning to the sneeringly smearing publicity campaign under discussion: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Wash) of impeachment Chairpersonship fame: had this to say about not having been informed of unfolding events:

"... _the administration and_ [Pentagon] _officials must have open and continuous dialogue with congressional officials so we can fully understand the next steps and the long-term strategy for the region."_

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), of impeachment co-Chairpersonship fame, suggested that:

"[The] _implication that Speaker Pelosi, the elected representative third in line for the Presidency, cannot be trusted with sensitive information is tremendously problematic and insulting."_

What a shame a presumptuous pretender third-in-line for the "Presidency," or her adherents, sense themselves insulted. Perhaps she and acolytes might show a little humility. After all, whereas a President, regardless of for better or for worse, is brought to Office by Nation-Wide plenary election; Pelosi acquired her credentials only by dint of local denizens situated on a small peninsula which is located in northern California and subjected to year-round weirdly fluctuating micro-climate conditions; even less of a recommendation for her entering the White House as President than Trump.

Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) said:

"But to disrespect the Speaker of the House, who is in the direct line of succession to the president, and to not inform bipartisan leaders in Congress, to only inform a few Republicans, I think was just one more important norm of cooperation shattered by this president."

Again with these suddenly appearing important norms and customs indignantly summoned from no where in the Constitution by our beach combing cruisers of the Congress. Justice Story writes (ibid, Book III; Chapter XXXVII.):

The command and application of the public force, to execute the laws, to maintain peace, and to resist foreign invasion, are powers so obviously of an executive nature, and require the exercise of qualities so peculiarly adapted to this department, that a well-organized government can scarcely exist, when they are taken away from it.

Of all the cases and concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities, which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. Unity of plan, promptitude, activity, and decision, are indispensable to success ; and these can scarcely exist, except when a single magistrate is entrusted exclusively with the power.

Even the coupling of the authority of an executive council with him, in the exercise of such powers, enfeebles the system, divides the responsibility, and not unfrequently defeats every energetic measure. Timidity, indecision, obstinacy, and pride of opinion, must mingle in all such councils, and infuse a torpor and sluggishness, destructive of all military operations.

Indeed, there would seem to be little reason to enforce the propriety of giving this power to the executive department, (whatever may be its actual organization,) since it is in exact coincidence with the provisions of our. state constitutions ; and therefore seems to be universally deemed safe, if not vital to the system.

" _Timidity, indecision, obstinacy, and pride of opinion, must mingle in all such councils_...;" there's plenty of that to go around in this case. Extreme antagonism towards the person of the current President Trump is so much the political fashion of the day in the opposition party that for the congressional council of back-seat drivers to fret and malign the most properly conducted execution has become a seemingly imperative inevitability. This is what personal antagonism looks like. Unwilling to recognize the President as pursuing constitutionally mandated duty when it is so; opposition partisans seek after some obscure fashion to acquit themselves as a sort of advisory Judicial Board of Governors Panel empowered and commissioned to evaluate, to construe and decide upon in every case available on-hand to readily disparage; the constitutional validity of any Executive Branch implementation of action. Again with Senator Schumer:

_"..._ [Trump] _...seemingly by deliberate choice, neglected to notify the leaders of Congress **as is custom in this case**."_

The tendency of the current day Lower House national level Democrats to blur the lines of "Separation of Powers;" and through this device indulge in worrisome and injudicious intended harangue over every Executive act; and find in such act the means to develop some new and strange custom, or to deliver on the spot an expediently invented interpretation of the Constitution which no reputable judge has ever heard of – this finding of fault in anything is simply the obvious laying out of the political groundwork in preparation for impeachment.

Often employers set this kind of thing up when they want to get rid of a good employee whom they have no grounds to fire on account of performance – but maybe they'd like someone else in that position; or they have to get rid of the position anyway and don't want to get stuck paying out on unemployment – so they invent phony grounds for dismissal and see if they don't get themselves hauled in front of an Administrative Judge for trying to evade unemployment compensation.

Except for that, regardless if Trump is no prize; he's certainly not the Employee of Congress; and these "representatives" aren't commission by the Constitution to obstruct or disparage on the grounds of any feeble excuse they can think of.

* * * * *

The accusers complain that Trump had threatened U.S. aid would be withheld unless the Bidens were investigated. But the accusers nevertheless can't find a witness to corroborate if the Bidens were ever even on the agenda for investigation by the Ukraine General Prosecutor's Office at all. Despite Donald Trump's allegedly having struck dread of the disappearing dollar deeply into the panicking heart of a shocked team Zelenskyy; the Prosecutor's Office pretended complete indifference.

These turn out to be some cool hand customers this cadre of Ukrainians – shaken to their toenails they still manage to keep it up with the inscrutable poker face. They act as though they'd never even heard mention of the threat.

That's real confidence! – and those are some nerves of steel no doubt; but they ought to remember that lesson Big Joe Biden taught them all Ukrainians over there not so very long ago. Or maybe they think Trump hasn't got it in him. Maybe not, but Joe sure showed them the way we do things over here.

At the "Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden;" held at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement Tuesday, January 23, 2018 – an event presided over by Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations; Joe Biden had a story to tell about how he handled Ukraine politicians in his day. Joe's Story:

...but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee.

And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn't.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I'm not going to—or, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said [referring to preceding Ukraine President Poroshenko] —I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars.

I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

Good ole Joe – now there's a guy who doesn't take shit for an answer. Except it doesn't fit. We've already looked at the Ukraine Constitution and it says it's the Legislature that removes the Prosecutor General from office, if it's going to be done in six hours if such a thing were possible – not the President (although the President can bring the issue up).

And it's well known the Ukraine Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada voted the General Prosecutor (Shokin) out in late March 2016 – Biden claimed to have made the threat in a visit to the Ukraine in December 2015. So there's a little bit of the smell of the big fish story here.

So maybe that's confusing, but for the moment, we're still wandering the halls of the madcap Zelenskyy administration trying to get some reaction out of Zelenskyy himself about this alleged threat that _Trump_ made, and that's what people are fussing with over here. Let's listen in to some of the testimony squeezed from William Taylor, _Chargé d'Affaires ad interim_ of the United States Embassy to the Ukraine, made on November 13, 2019; with House of Representatives Representative Jim Jordan conducting the interview at this point.

Congressperson Jordan is trying to discover how Taylor came under the impression that aid money wasn't coming till an announcement was made about investigations into the Bidens. Chargé d'Affaires Taylor hadn't got it from either one of the horses' mouths so to speak – but he thought he was definitely clear about the aid and the announcement being connected together with each other somehow:

Jim Jordan: (00:00)

-aids held up on July 18th, is that right?

Bill Taylor: (00:02)

That's when I first heard about it.

Jim Jordan: (00:04)

Then it's then it's released, Ambassador Taylor on September 11th, and we know that from your deposition, in those 55 days that aid is delayed you met with president Zelenskyy three times. The first one was July 26th, the day after the famous call now between president Trump and President Zelenskyy. President Zelenskyy meets with you, Ambassador Volker and Ambassador Sondland and again according to your deposition and your testimony, there was no linkage of security assistance dollars to investigating Burisma or the Biden's. Second meeting's August 27th. Again in this 55 day timeframe. Second meeting is August 27th, President Zelensky meets with you and Ambassador Bolton and others and again, there's no linkage of dollars, security assistant dollars to an investigation of the Bidens.

Jim Jordan: (00:48)

Then of course the third meeting is September 5th. President Zelensky meets with you and Senators Johnson and Murphy, and once again there is no linkage of security assistance dollars to an investigation of Burisma or the Bidens. Three meetings with the president of Ukraine, the new president and no linkage. That's accurate.

Bill Taylor: (01:11)

Mr. Jordan it's certainly accurate on the first two meetings because to my knowledge, the Ukrainians were not aware of the hold on assistance until the 29th of August.

Jim Jordan: (01:27)

The Politico article.

Bill Taylor: (01:28)

The Politico article. The third meeting that you mentioned with the senators, Senator Murphy and Senator Johnson, there was discussion of the security assistance, but-

Jim Jordan: (01:39)

No linkage.

Bill Taylor: (01:42)

There was not discussion of linkage.

Jim Jordan: (01:45)

Three meetings face to face with President Zelensky no linkage. Yet in your deposition, you said this and you said it again the first hour of the majority. "My clear understanding was security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to pursue the investigation. My clear understanding was they weren't going to get the money until President Zelensky committed to pursue the investigations."

Jim Jordan: (02:09)

Now, with all due respect, ambassador, your clear understanding was obviously wrong because it didn't happen. President Zelensky didn't announce he was going to investigate Burisma or the Bidens. He didn't do a press conference and say, "I'm going to investigate the Bidens. We're going to investigate Burisma. He didn't tweet about it and you just told the ranking member he didn't do the CNN interview and announce he's going to investigate Burisma or the Bidens.

Jim Jordan: (02:35)

So three face to face meetings, it doesn't come up. No linkage whatsoever. President Zelensky does it announce it before the aid is released on the 11th. And yet you said you have a clear understanding that those two things were going to happen. The money was going to get released, but not until there was an investigation, and that in fact didn't happen. So what I'm wondering is where'd you get this clear understanding?

Bill Taylor: (03:00)

As I testified, Mr. Jordan, this came from Ambassador Sondland.

Jim Jordan: (03:07)

Can you hold one second, ambassador? I'm going to bring you a piece of paper from Ambassador Sondland's statement. And you can take a look at this. Go ahead though. I'm going to let you finish.

Bill Taylor: (03:19)

So, Mr. Jordan, Should I read this?

Jim Jordan: (03:21)

No. I just want you to have it because I'm going to read it.

Bill Taylor: (03:23)

Oh, very good. Very good.

Jim Jordan: (03:24)

But I want you to go on and finish. You said ambassador, you got this from Ambassador Sondland.

Bill Taylor: (03:28)

That is correct. That Ambassador Sondland also said that he'd talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak, and he told them that although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate. That was one point. It was also the case-

Jim Jordan: (03:50)

Mr. Morrison talked to you, right?

Bill Taylor: (03:53)

No, what I was going to say was Ambassador Sondland also told me that he recognized that it was a mistake to have told the Ukrainians that only the meeting with the president in the oval office was held up in order to get these investigations. No, it was not just the meeting, it was also the security assistance. That is everything was. So those two discussions-

Jim Jordan: (04:20)

I understand. All right. So again, just to recap, you had three meetings with President Zelensky, no linkage in those three meetings came up. Ambassador Zelensky didn't announce that he was going to do any investigation of the Bidens or Burisma before the aid was released. He didn't do a tweet, didn't do anything on CNN. Didn't do any of that. President Zelensky, excuse me.

Jim Jordan: (04:38)

And then what you have in front of you is an addendum that Mr. Sondland made to his testimony that we got a couple of weeks ago. It says " _Declaration of Ambassador Gordon Sondland, I Gordon Sondland do hereby swear and affirm as follows_." I want you to look at point number two ,bullet point number two, second sentence. " _Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1st, 2019 in connection with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky_."

Jim Jordan: (05:07)

This is his clarification. Let me read it one more time. " _Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1st, 2019 in connection with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky_."

**(05:21)** We've got six people having four conversations in one sentence and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding. Even though you had three opportunities with President Zelensky, for him to tell you, "You know what, we're going to do these investigations to get the aid." Didn't tell you three different times. Never makes an announcement, never tweets about it. Never does a CNN interview. Ambassador, you weren't on the call, were you? You didn't listen in on President Trump's call and President Zelensky's call.

Bill Taylor: (05:46)

I did not.

Jim Jordan: (05:47)

You never talked with chief of staff Mulvaney.

Bill Taylor: (05:49)

I never did.

Jim Jordan: (05:49)

You never met the president.

Bill Taylor: (05:51)

That's correct.

Jim Jordan: (05:51)

You had three meetings again with Zelensky that didn't come up.

Bill Taylor: (05:53)

And two of those they had never heard about it as far as I know. So there was no reason for it to come up.

Jim Jordan: (05:58)

And President Zelensky never made an announcement. This is what I can't believe. And you're their star witness. You're their first witness, but you're the guy, based on this, based on... I mean,... Ambassador Taylor recalls, and Mr. Morrison told. Now again, this is, I hereby swear and affirm from Gordon Sondland. " _Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1st 20_..." this all happens by the way, this all happens by the way, in Warsaw when Vice President Pence meets with President Zelensky and guess what? They didn't talk about any linkage either.

Adam Schiff: (06:38)

The time of the gentleman's expired. Ambassador Taylor, would you like to respond?

Bill Taylor: (06:41)

The only response... I have two responses. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Mr. Jordan. Glad to take those questions. Let me just say that I don't consider myself a star witness for anything.

Jim Jordan: (06:53)

They do.

Bill Taylor: (06:54)

I don't. I'm responding to your questions.

Adam Schiff: (06:58)

Please don't interrupt the witness.

Bill Taylor: (07:00)

As I think I was clear about, I'm not here to take one side or the other or to advocate any particular outcomes. Let me just restate that. Second thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that I talked to.

Jim Jordan: (07:15)

We got that.

Bill Taylor: (07:15)

We got that, and I think this clarification from Ambassador Sondland was because he said he didn't remember this in his first deposition. So he wanted to kind of clarify. But I think Mr. Jordan, the way I read this, he remembers it the same way I do.

Jim Jordan: (07:35)

And it's real clear, right?

Bill Taylor: (07:37)

It's very clear to me.

Adam Schiff: (07:38)

Thank you, Ambassador Taylor.

**Turn to Mr. Jordan [** resumes on time previously yielded him **].**

Jim Jordan: (00:01)

Mr. Ambassador, thank you. Thank you gentleman for yielding. Ambassador Taylor, the gentleman asked if you could be wrong, were you wrong when you said you had a clear understanding that President Zolinsky had to commit to an investigation of Biden's before the aid got released and the aid got released and he didn't commit to an investigation?

Bill Taylor: (00:21)

Mr., I was not wrong about what I told you, which is what I heard. That's all I've said. I've told you what I heard...

Jim Jordan: (00:27)

And that's the point. What you heard did not happen. It didn't happen. You had three meetings with the guy. He could have told you. He didn't announce he was going to do an investigation before the aid happen. It's not just, could it have been wrong? The fact is it was wrong because it didn't happen. The whole point was you had a clear understanding that aid will not get released unless there's a commitment. Not maybe, not I think the aid might happen, and it's my hunch is going to get released. You used clear language, clear understanding and commitment and those two things didn't happen. So you had to be wrong.

Bill Taylor: (01:03)

Mr. Jordan, the other thing that went on when that assistance who was on hold is we shook the confidence of a close partner in our reliability and that...

Jim Jordan: (01:17)

That's not what this proceedings about Ambassador Taylor. [crosstalk 00:01:20] That's not what this whole thing started on.

Adam Schiff: (01:23)

Time of the gentleman has expired. Ambassador Taylor, did you want to finish your answer?

Jim Jordan: (01:26)

No, that's good, Mr. Chairman.

* * * * *

U.S. Embassy Chief Chargé d'Affaires Taylor really didn't have any direct knowledge of any order or demand coming from the U.S. President regarding investigations into the Bidens;

He didn't have any direct knowledge of U.S. aid to Ukraine would be released on condition of an investigation being initiated or-and, a public announcement being made by the Ukraine Government that investigation of the Biden's in regards to their association with Burisma would be undertaken; or that aid would only be released if an announcement were made that investigation of Hunter Biden in the capacity of his employment or position on the Board of Directors was initiated or underway.

On the gossip's word, and the given intentional distortion of the what was spoken of in the 25 July 2019 phone call (by the accusers – as will be reviewed); the impeachment committee had construed or invented a very complicated compound request, which evidently both Zelenskyy and Trump themselves were having enormous difficulty themselves figuring out how to articulate during the phone call;

The committee found no witness able to testify as to the final format or the phrasing of the rather imposing demand Trump allegedly made of Zelenskyy, or the Ukraine Government rather; or how the Zelenskyy administration intended to respond to this alleged convoluted, complicated demand which neither President articulated to underlings or envoys who couldn't remember exactly where they'd heard about it or what they'd heard.

Per Chargé d'Affaires Taylor's testimony, he had had three face to face meetings with Zelenskyy; and Zelenskyy had failed to even mention anything about what was allegedly demanded of his administration.

Therefore, if Taylor, for one, had been taken in by gossip and for that reason couldn't shed competent light on the matter – then perhaps Ambassador Sondland, recognized and accredited envoy to the European Union, would know something about this since he seemed also to be the primary point of contact between the two administrations and would presumably be a, if not the most, reliable source on this; and so he was called to testify.

* * * * *

In this following Sondland answers questions put by Representative Castor on November 20, 2019. Mr. Castor is trying to separate hearsay overheard – from actual direction or conversation from or with either of the two President's concerning alleged demands made of Zelenskyy attributed to President Trump.

This excerpt of testimony is quite long – I've done some slight trimming where I could – but I felt it necessary to keep almost all of it in. Caster works with Sondland, as mentioned, to separate hearsay from fact.

For those readers preferring to skim; the upshot is that Trump is never found to have been conditioning aid on an announcement of an investigation of the Bidens. The President is quoted by Sondland as saying [Sondland (01:07:11)]:

"I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on"

Castor, at another point reads a letter written by a Senator Johnson who had a conversation with the President on the same topic.

Castor relates the contents of the letter [(01:13:31)]:

Senator Johnson quotes the President saying, " _No_ ," and he prefaced it with a different word. " _No way. I would never do that. Who told you that_?"... I have, Senator Johnson says, " _I have accurately characterize the President's reaction is adamant, vehement and angry_." Senator Johnson's telephone call with the President wasn't a public event. It was capturing a genuine, you know, moment with the President. And he had at this point in time on August 31st he was adamant, vehement and angry that there was no connections to aid. There were no preconditions.

And if the reader is interested in watching how it spins out – it's in print below so you can catch it now, or save it for later. The excerpt follows:

Mr. Castor: (01:01:48)

Welcome back. You're here all day on the 17th, late into the night, so thank you for your cooperation with the investigation. Did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything?

Gordon Sondland: (01:02:00)

No.

Mr. Castor: (01:02:01)

Okay, so the president never told you about any preconditions for the aid to be released?

Gordon Sondland: (01:02:06)

No.

Mr. Castor: (01:02:07)

The president never told you about any preconditions for a White House meeting?

Gordon Sondland: (01:02:11)

Personally, no.

Mr. Castor: (01:02:14)

You said you didn't have your records or your documents from the State Department, but if you did, there wouldn't be any document or record that ties president Trump personally to any of this. Correct?...

Gordon Sondland: (01:02:28)

...I don't recall anything like-

Mr. Castor: (01:02:29)

okay, good heavens. Okay, you testified Mr. Giuliani's requests for a quid pro quo for the White House meeting, and you indicated that you believe that was, he was evincing President Trump's interests, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:02:51)

My contact with Mr. Giuliani began, as I said, very late in the process after August 1st, when I was first introduced to him by a text from Ambassador Volker. So, we had already begun those discussions, I believe, with the Ukrainians prior to August 1st, so everything was being funneled through others, including Mr. Volker.

Mr. Castor: (01:03:12)

Okay, but you testified that Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president. Correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:03:19)

That's our understanding, yes.

Mr. Castor: (01:03:22)

But, how did you know that? Who told you?

Gordon Sondland: (01:03:23)

Well, when the president says, "Talk to my personal attorney," and then Mr. Giuliani, as his personal attorney, makes certain requests or demands, we assume it's coming from the president. I'm not testifying that I heard the president tell Mr. Giuliani to tell us. So, if that's your question...

Mr. Castor: (01:03:42)

Right, but at your deposition, you said the question was at the May 23rd meeting, when the president said, "Go talk to, go talk to Rudy," you responded, "He didn't even say go talk. [inaudible 01:03:55]...talk to Rudy." You subsequently said, "It was sort of like, I don't want to talk about this." So, it wasn't an order or a direction to go talk with...

Gordon Sondland: (01:04:06)

Our conclusion and the conclusion of the three of us was that if we did not talk to Rudy, nothing would move forward on Ukraine.

Mr. Castor: (01:04:13)

Okay. And then that was May 23rd and then you never had any personal communications with Giuliani until August, right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:04:19)

That's correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:04:21)

And Volker was handling, Ambassador Volker was he the primary- [crosstalk 01:04:25].

Gordon Sondland: (01:04:26)

Volker, Perry and others.

Mr. Castor: (01:04:27)

Okay. Ambassador Volker, you testified he's a professional diplomat, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:04:35)

Yes, he is.

Mr. Castor: (01:04:35)

And you said you had a great relationship with him?

Gordon Sondland: (01:04:38)

I do, yes...

Mr. Castor: (01:04:56)

...And so did you hear his testimony yesterday?

Gordon Sondland: (01:04:58)

I did not...

Mr. Castor: (01:05:03)

...He didn't have any, he didn't have any evidence of any of these preconditions. And he was the one most engaged with the Ukrainians, wasn't he?

Gordon Sondland: (01:05:12)

Yes.

Mr. Castor: (01:05:13)

Okay. I mean, you testified and you know this was his full time job, although he was doing it for free.

Gordon Sondland: (01:05:18)

He was the special envoy.

Mr. Castor: (01:05:20)

And you testified you came in and out of the events, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:05:24)

That's correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:05:25)

Okay. All right. Your deposition and we asked you about your communications with the President and we asked you whether there were so many that it would be impossible to chronicle and you said no, it wasn't that many, and we went down the path of building a list of communications you remember with the President, right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:05:49)

Correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:05:50)

And we talked about May 23rd and the Oval Office.

Gordon Sondland: (01:05:53)

Yes.

Mr. Castor: (01:05:54)

You mentioned on July 25th before you went to Ukraine, you called the President, but there was no material information on the 25th call, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:06:03)

Not that I recall.

Mr. Castor: (01:06:04)

Okay. Then the last Friday, Mr. Holmes came in and I guess his testimony refreshed your recollection?

Gordon Sondland: (01:06:12)

Yeah. What refreshed my recollection was when he mentioned ASAP Rocky. Then all of a sudden it came back to me...

Mr. Castor: (01:06:28)

...And then the next time, you know, we tried to unpack this, the next time you talked with the President was on the telephone was September 9th according to your deposition, right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:06:39)

I may have even spoken to him on September 6th but again, I just don't have all the records. I wish I could get them. Then I could answer your questions very easily.

Mr. Castor: (01:06:48)

Okay. But in September 9th at least at your deposition, you were extremely clear, you've called the President, you said he was feeling cranky that day. Right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:06:56)

He seemed very cranky to me.

Mr. Castor: (01:06:57)

And you said in no uncertain terms, and this is on the heels of the Bill Taylor text, right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:07:03)

Right.

Mr. Castor: (01:07:04)

And why don't you tell us, what did the President say to you on September 9th that you remember?

Gordon Sondland: (01:07:11)

Well, words to the effect. I decided to ask the President the question in an open ended fashion because there were so many different scenarios floating around as to what was going on with Ukraine. So rather than ask the President nine different questions, is it this? Is it this? Is it that? I just said, what do you want from Ukraine? I may have even used a four letter word and he said:

"I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on"

or words to that effect. And that gave me the impetus to respond to Ambassador Taylor with the texts that I sent. As I said to Mr. Goldman, it was not an artfully written text. I should've been more specific, put it in quotes, something like that. But basically I wanted Mr. Taylor, Ambassador Taylor to pick up the ball and take it from there. I had gone as far as I could go.

Mr. Castor: (01:08:08)

And you believe the President, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:08:11)

You know what? I'm not going to characterize whether I believed or didn't believe. I was just trying to convey what he said on the phone.

Mr. Castor: (01:08:16)

Okay. And at that point in time the aid was paused for 55 days. There was a news article in Politico on August 28th talking about it. So by that point in time, the President had been receiving calls from senators. He had been getting pressure to lift the aid, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:08:37)

That's what I understand. Yes.

Mr. Castor: (01:08:42)

I want to turn back to your opener on page five under, when you talk about in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:05)

Correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:09:06)

And you acknowledge that this is speculation, right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:11)

It was a presumption.

Mr. Castor: (01:09:13)

Okay. That it was a guess. In fact, I think you even said this morning-

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:18)

Well, I want to say that it goes back to Mr. Goldman's point or Chairman Schiff's two plus two equaled four in my mind at that point.

Mr. Castor: (01:09:27)

Okay. But you didn't have any evidence of that, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:30)

Other than the aid wasn't being released and we weren't getting anywhere with the Ukrainians.

Mr. Castor: (01:09:34)

Okay. But did it Ambassador Volker clue you in that that was the issue? I mean this is a pretty high, I mean this is a pretty serious conclusion you've reached without precise evidence.

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:46)

Well, I sent that email to Secretary Pompeo to set up a potential meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky in Warsaw. And when I referred to the log jam, I referred to the logjam in a very inclusive way. Everything was jammed up at that point. And secretary Pompeo essentially gave me the green light to brief President Zelensky about making those announcements.

Mr. Castor: (01:10:17)

Okay, we can turn to that. And then that was your email dated what date?

Gordon Sondland: (01:10:26)

Do you have the page there?

Mr. Castor: (01:10:29)

Well, your email with secretary Pompeo, is that, was that August 11th? 16th.

Gordon Sondland: (01:10:43)

August 22nd.

Mr. Castor: (01:10:51)

Okay. So you're asking secretary Pompeo whether we should block time and I mean, is there any discussion of specific investigations? Is there any discussion of Biden or Barisma or anything linking to aid in this email that you sent to Pompeo? [crosstalk 01:11:06].

Gordon Sondland: (01:11:04)

This was a proposed briefing that I was going to give President Zelensky and I was going to call President Zelensky and ask him to say what is in this email. And I was asking essentially President Pompeo's permission to do that, which he said yes.

Mr. Castor: (01:11:27)

But at that point in time, we're talking about investigations into the origins of the 2016 election. We're not talking about anything to do with Joe Biden.

Gordon Sondland: (01:11:37)

Joe Biden did not come up.

Mr. Castor: (01:11:38)

Okay. Stepping back a page to your email to the state department on August 11th, you emailed Secretary Pompeo and you say, " _Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two_." And the question I have here is that, I mean that statement never was issued. And in fact, Ambassador Volker has testified that he didn't think it was a good idea and ultimately the Ukrainians didn't think it was a good idea. And so the statement never reached a finalized state.

Gordon Sondland: (01:12:17)

That's correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:12:19)

But even if it had it doesn't talk about Biden's or Barisma or anything insidious.

Gordon Sondland: (01:12:26)

Correct. Well, the statement as I recall, would have mentioned the 2016 election slash DNC server and Barisma.

Mr. Castor: (01:12:35)

Okay.

Gordon Sondland: (01:12:35)

It would not have mentioned the Bidens.

Mr. Castor: (01:12:37)

And have you heard Ambassador Volker how he talks about what might be an investigation into Barisma?

Gordon Sondland: (01:12:43)

No.

Mr. Castor: (01:12:43)

Okay. I mean he has said that if there were Ukrainians engaged in violations of Ukrainian law, then the prosecutor general with the new administration ought to investigate that. Did Ambassador Volker ever relate that to you?

Gordon Sondland: (01:13:03)

No, we just talked in generic terms about quote investigating Barisma.

Mr. Castor: (01:13:08)

Okay. But it had nothing to do with the Vice President Biden.

Gordon Sondland: (01:13:10)

I had never heard Vice President Biden come up until very late in the game.

Mr. Castor: (01:13:15)

When?

Gordon Sondland: (01:13:16)

I don't recall the exact date. But when it all sort of came together, maybe after the transcript of the July 25th call, I don't know. I don't know the exact date when I made the connection.

Mr. Castor: (01:13:26)

Okay.

Gordon Sondland: (01:13:28)

Apparently a lot of people did not make the connection.

Mr. Castor: (01:13:31)

Okay. I want to turn to the letter from Senator Johnson. When he heard about some of these issues in the hold of the aid he wanted, he called the President. He called the President on August 31st it's page six of his letter. Senator Johnson states or he rights, "I asked him, the President whether there was some kind of arrangement where Ukraine would take some action and the hold would be lifted. Without hesitation, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed." And Senator Johnson quotes the President saying, "No," and he prefaced it with a different word. "No way. I would never do that. Who told you that? I have," Senator Johnson says, "I have accurately characterize the President's reaction is adamant, vehement and angry." Senator Johnson's telephone call with the President wasn't a public event. It was capturing a genuine, you know, moment with the President. And he had at this point in time on August 31st he was adamant, vehement and angry that there was no connections to aid. There were no preconditions.

Gordon Sondland: (01:14:48)

Yeah, I had my meeting with Senator Johnson where again, I had made the presumption that I had made to both Mr. Urmach and the email I had sent to secretary Pompeo and we were sort of ruminating about what was going on. Senator Johnson I believe said, "I'm going to call President Trump, you know, and find out." And then he obviously had that phone call. I wasn't involved in that phone call.

Mr. Castor: (01:15:12)

Okay. But you have no reason to disbelieve that wasn't the way it went down, right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:15:17)

No, no reason to disbelieve Senator Johnson.

Mr. Castor: (01:15:20)

And now that you've had some time since your deposition and you submitted an addendum relating to the Warsaw get together with Mr. Urmach, as you sit here today, I mean, are we missing a lot of your communications with the President?

Gordon Sondland: (01:15:38)

I haven't had that many communications with the President. And in fact a bunch of the call records that I have had access to just the short period of time on the call indicates I never got through. In other words, I was put on hold for one or two minutes and the call never connected. So I really can't give you an accurate count of how many conversations plus Mr. Caster, I've had a lot of conversations with the President about completely unrelated matters that have nothing to do with Ukraine.

Mr. Castor: (01:16:05)

But you don't think we're missing any material conversations that you have with the President?

Gordon Sondland: (01:16:10)

I don't recall any material conversations today as I'm sitting here.

Mr. Castor: (01:16:14)

Or with Rudy Giuliani.

Gordon Sondland: (01:16:16)

Yeah. My memory about the conversations with Rudy Giuliani, whether they were direct, whether they were conference calls with Ambassador Volker or Secretary Perry is really vague without seeing the, you know, the call logs.

Mr. Castor: (01:16:34)

Are there any other key fact witnesses that would help us, you know, get to the bottom of whether there was any link to the aid and the-

Gordon Sondland: (01:16:44)

Maybe Brian McCormack, the chief of staff for Secretary Perry who was involved in and out as well.

Mr. Castor: (01:16:50)

Okay. Now the aid was ultimately lifted on September 11th correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:17:00)

I believe that's correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:17:01)

Okay. And Senator Johnson in his letter on page six quotes the President on August 31st, "Ron, I understand your position. We're reviewing it now and you'll probably like my final decision." So even on August 31st and this is before any congressional investigation started, the President was signaling to Senator Johnson that he was going to lift the aid.

Gordon Sondland: (01:17:29)

[crosstalk 01:17:29] It sounds like it. Yeah.

Mr. Castor: (01:17:30)

Okay. And most of the other witnesses we talked to, whether it's from the Department of Defense or OMB or you know, have told us that all along during this 55 day period, they genuinely believed the hold would be lifted. What was that your feeling too at the time?

Gordon Sondland: (01:17:49)

I didn't know because every time I asked about the hold, I was never given a straight answer as to why it had been put in place to begin with.

Mr. Castor: (01:17:57)

Now what do you know about the Ukrainians knowledge of the hold?

Gordon Sondland: (01:18:01)

Oh, that's very vague, I don't know if the Politico article triggered it. I don't know if they were told by Mr. Giuliani, it would be pure, you know, guesswork on my part. Speculation. I don't know.

Mr. Castor: (01:18:14)

I mean during your deposition you testified that you did not believe the Ukrainians were aware of the hold until the Politico article.

Gordon Sondland: (01:18:28)

Yeah. Again, I think I testified that I was not clear on the exact dates of when these things, when the light went on. There were a lot of conversations going on with the Ukrainians by a lot of people. So I don't know who communicated what to them.

Mr. Castor: (01:18:45)

We have testimony from several witnesses that the President was concerned about foreign aid generally. And so he had an appetite to put holds on aid because he was trying to be a good steward of US tax payer dollars. Do you agree with that?

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:01)

I'm aware that that's been his position on aid and other matters. Yes.

Mr. Castor: (01:19:06)

And are you aware that he was also interested in better understanding the contributions of our European allies?

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:12)

That I'm definitely aware of.

Mr. Castor: (01:19:13)

And there was some back and forth between the state department officials trying to better understand that information for the President.

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:20)

Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:19:21)

And how do you know that wasn't the reason for the hold?

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:24)

I don't.

Mr. Castor: (01:19:26)

But yet you speculate that there was, you know, a link to this announcement?

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:34)

I presumed it, yes.

Mr. Castor: (01:19:35)

Okay. I want to turn quickly to the July 10th meeting, the July 10th meeting in Ambassador Bolton's office involving Ambassador Volker, Mr. [Dunnie Luk 00:15:57], Mr. Yara Mark has been the subject of some controversy. Ambassador Volker yesterday testified that it wasn't until the end of the meeting, Mr. Dunnie Luk said it was going through some real detailed information about some of the plans he had, but it wasn't until the end of the meeting, Ambassador Volker recollects that you mentioned something general about investigations. What do you remember from that meeting?

Gordon Sondland: (01:20:26)

Well, again, I'm not going to dispute Ambassador Volker's recollection, particularly if he had notes. I know that the desire to have the 2016 election DNC server and Barisma were already being discussed by then. Again, I had no direct contact with Mr. Giuliani on July 10th but through Ambassador Volker and I probably mentioned that this needs to happen in order to move the process forward. That seemed to be the conventional wisdom at the time. I don't recall any abrupt ending of the meeting or people storming out or anything like that. That would have been very memorable if someone had stormed out of a meeting based on something I said.

Mr. Castor: (01:21:15)

Okay. And nobody accused you at that point in time of being involved with some sort of drug deal?

Gordon Sondland: (01:21:20)

No.

Mr. Castor: (01:21:21)

Did Dr. Hill ever relate to you her concerns about you being involved in a drug deal?

Gordon Sondland: (01:21:25)

Never.

Mr. Castor: (01:21:26)

Okay. So you were surprised when testimony emerged that she thought there was a drug deal going on?

Gordon Sondland: (01:21:33)

I was shocked.

Mr. Castor: (01:21:33)

And in fact after the meeting you went out and you took a picture, right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:21:39)

Yeah, Ambassador Bolton or his assistant indicated that he was out of time, that he needed, he had another meeting to attend and we all walked out of the White House. Everyone was smiling, everyone was happy, and we took a picture on the lawn on a nice sunny day.

Mr. Castor: (01:21:55)

Okay. Then did you retire to the ward room?

Gordon Sondland: (01:22:00)

I think Secretary Perry asked to use the ward room to continue the conversation and the real subject that was under debate, and it wasn't a angry debate, it was a debate, is should the call from President Trump to President Zelensky be made prior to the parliamentary elections in Ukraine or after the parliamentary elections? And there was good reason for both. We felt Ambassador Perry, Ambassador Volker, and I thought it would help Presidents Zelensky to have President Trump speak to him prior to the parliamentary elections because it would give President Zelensky more credibility and ultimately he would do better with his people in the parliamentary elections. Others I believe, pushed back and said, no, it's not appropriate to do it before. It should be done after. And ultimately it was done after.

Mr. Castor: (01:22:56)

There was no mention of Vice President Biden in the ward room?

Gordon Sondland: (01:22:59)

Not that I remember, no.

Mr. Castor: (01:23:01)

Or any specific investigation?

Gordon Sondland: (01:23:04)

Just the generic investigations.

Mr. Castor: (01:23:09)

When again, did the Vice President Biden nexus come to your attention?

Gordon Sondland: (01:23:16)

Very late. Again, I don't, I can't recall the exact date the light bulb went on. It could have been as late as once the transcript was out, but it was always Barisma to me and I didn't know about the connection between Barisma and Biden.

Mr. Castor: (01:23:30)

And to the best of your knowledge, you never understood that anyone was asking Ukrainians to investigate US persons, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:23:38)

Ukrainians to investigate US persons?

Mr. Castor: (01:23:40)

Right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:23:43)

No.

Mr. Castor: (01:23:43)

Okay.

Gordon Sondland: (01:23:44)

No.

Mr. Castor: (01:23:48)

And just to sort of be clear here, ultimately the aid was lifted on September 11th. There was never any announcement by the Ukrainians about any investigations they were going to do, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:24:04)

Correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:24:05)

The Ukrainians never, to your knowledge, started any of these investigations, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:24:09)

Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Castor: (01:24:11)

And consequently, these allegations that there was a quid pro quo that had to be enforced before the aid is released, that never came to fruition, right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:24:28)

I don't believe so.

Mr. Castor: (01:24:40)

I want to just step back a little bit and just verify with you that the President had some deep rooted concerns about corruption in Ukraine, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:24:52)

That's what he expressed to us. Yes.

Mr. Castor: (01:24:53)

Okay. And you believed him, right? Given his business dealings in the region?

Gordon Sondland: (01:24:57)

When we had the conversation, I did.

Mr. Castor: (01:25:00)

And when you first started discussing the concerns the President had with corruption, Barisma wasn't the only company that was mentioned right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:25:11)

It was a generic, as I think I testified to Chairman Schiff, it was a generic corruption, oligarchs, just bad stuff going on in Ukraine.

Mr. Castor: (01:25:23)

But other companies came up, didn't they?

Gordon Sondland: (01:25:28)

I don't know if they were mentioned specifically. It might've been NAFTA gas because we were working on another issue with NAFTA gas. So that might've been one of them.

Mr. Castor: (01:25:39)

At one point in your deposition, I believe you said yeah, NAFTA gas comes up at every conversation. Is that fair?

Gordon Sondland: (01:25:44)

Probably.

Mr. Castor: (01:25:45)

Okay. You had, I guess Dr. Hill at one point, attributed to you the terminology that the President has given you a large remit. You familiar with her assertion of that?

Gordon Sondland: (01:26:03)

I didn't understand what she was talking about.

Mr. Castor: (01:26:04)

Okay. But you have and we got into this a little bit in your deposition, you know, you said that the President gave you a special assignment with regard to Ukraine, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:26:20)

Well, when the President appointed me as the US ambassador of the European Union, Ukraine was part of my portfolio. What made my assignment larger than just being part of my portfolio were the unique circumstances where there was no current sitting ambassador in Ukraine and there was a new President in Ukraine. The discussions that we had, the three amigos, Perry, Volker and I was that Ukraine needed extraordinary as high level support as it could get from the United States during this period, which we cleared with both Ambassador Bolton and with Chief Of Staff Mulvaney to continue working on it. So by extension, yes. If the national security advisor and the chief of staff approve your remit, it really is coming from the President.

Mr. Castor: (01:27:16)

Okay. When we asked you that at the deposition, you said I was spinning a little bit.

Gordon Sondland: (01:27:21)

I was spinning about something else I think in the interview in Kiev.

Mr. Castor: (01:27:26)

Okay, and you further testified, so when I said the President gave me an assignment, it wasn't really the President, it was the secretary through the President and that's where I received my direction. Correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:27:39)

Correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:27:40)

Okay. Did Ambassador Taylor ever bring any concerns to your attention about the so called channel he dubbed the irregular?

Gordon Sondland: (01:27:53)

No, in fact the opposite. When he came to post, I think I know I called him or he called me, I think he spoke with Secretary Perry and Ambassador Volker separately and in the course of the first few weeks he was highly appreciative that a new ambassador coming to post like himself was getting the kind of support he was getting from all three of us. Having a cabinet member, a special envoy, and a fellow ambassador all helping to raise the profile of Ukraine. He was highly appreciative and highly complimentary.

Mr. Castor: (01:28:31)

And you maintained an open line with him, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:28:35)

Correct. I think there are a number of texts, some of which I have and some of which I don't, where he is reaching out constantly to me and to the others for advice and help.

Mr. Castor: (01:28:44)

Okay. We had tried to count them up. There's 215 or something, text messages between you Volker and ambassador Taylor, you know, during the early August timeframe. Does that make sense to you?

Gordon Sondland: (01:29:01)

I think Taylor started in late June or early July was when he first took post and I think we began communicating fairly shortly thereafter.

Mr. Castor: (01:29:09)

Okay. And he never communicated any concerns to you during this timeframe that he had issues with what was going on?

Gordon Sondland: (01:29:17)

What do you mean by what was going on?

Mr. Castor: (01:29:19)

This request for some sort of investigation.

Gordon Sondland: (01:29:25)

Not in the early stages. As time went on, his emails began to be a little more pointed and frantic and that's when we had very little visibility as to what was going on either. I think it had to do more with the aid and as to why the aid was suspended.

Mr. Castor: (01:29:44)

Ultimately you put a period on that issue by having the September 9th communication with the President, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:29:53)

That's correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:29:53)

And when you shared that feedback with ambassador Taylor, was he satisfied that this issue is now behind them?

Gordon Sondland: (01:29:59)

I don't really know because he responded when I said, you know, get ahold of the secretary, he said, I agree. And I never knew whether he reached out to the secretary or not. That was sort of the end of that.

Mr. Castor: (01:30:10)

At one point in your text she said, let's get on the phone. Right. And you said you're an individual that doesn't like to walk through these issues on text when you can talk about it on the telephone, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:30:21)

I say that to everybody when something becomes more substantive than just a few lines of text, I say let's talk.

Mr. Castor: (01:30:28)

Okay. And did you talk with Ambassador Taylor?

Gordon Sondland: (01:30:30)

I don't recall. I mean, I don't recall whether we spoke right after that, whether he called the secretary. Basically, Mr. Caster wanted to get the notion across that I've gone as far as I can go with this, you to pick up the, you're the ambassador. You need to pick up the ball and run with it at this point.

Mr. Castor: (01:30:48)

Okay. And just getting back to the irregular channel, did anyone else express any concerns to you about this so called irregular channel?

Gordon Sondland: (01:30:56)

I'm not sure how someone could characterize something as an irregular channel. When you're talking to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, the Secretary of Energy. I don't know how that's irregular. If a bunch of folks that are not in that channel are aggrieved for some reason for not being included, I don't know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel and they to be the regular channel when it's the leadership that makes the decisions.

Mr. Castor: (01:31:33)

And so the concerns, you know, raised were never brought to a head?

Gordon Sondland: (01:31:40)

Well, they were never raised.

Mr. Castor: (01:31:42)

Okay.

Gordon Sondland: (01:31:42)

They were never raised. No one's said back off of Ukraine, this is dangerous. You're doing something that's untoward. We have concerns. There was a bad phone call on July 25th, there's talk about a drug cocktail or something. No one ever said that to me by phone, by text, by email. I don't remember anybody sounding any alarm bell because of course had someone mentioned it, I would have sat up and taken notice.

Mr. Castor: (01:32:24)

When you talk in your statement about in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe, it was your speculation, it was your guess that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of 2016. I believe you said that at this point you believed everyone knew this. Is that correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:32:50)

I think once that Politico article broke, it started making the rounds that, you know, if you can't get a White House meeting without the statement, what makes you think you're going to get a $400 million check? Again that was my presumption.

Mr. Castor: (01:33:05)

Okay. But you had no evidence to prove that, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:33:10)

That's correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:33:17)

You stated that you haven't been able to access your records, is that correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:33:23)

Not all of them. And there are lots of notes, records, readouts of calls, can't get to them.

Mr. Castor: (01:33:31)

But you've also stated that you don't take notes. Right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:33:35)

I don't take notes, but there are a lot of others out there.

Mr. Castor: (01:33:41)

You freely admit that you, I asked you your deposition, we put together a list of all the times you said you don't recall. It's like two pages long.

Gordon Sondland: (01:33:52)

Is that all?

Mr. Castor: (01:33:53)

So, you know, you don't on a lot of these questions, I mean there's nuance, there are ambiguities and we don't have records, we don't have notes and we don't have recollections, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:34:03)

Right. I mean it's situational things that sort of trigger memory, especially when I'm, you know, I'm dealing with the European Union, I'm dealing with the 28 member countries. I'm dealing with other countries that are not in the European Union that are part of my mandate. I'm dealing with the White House leadership. There's a lot of stuff to juggle. And as I said in my opening statement, a phone call for me with the President of the United States or the President of fill in the blank country, while people who get a call like that, maybe once in a lifetime, a call like that might be very memorable. They might remember every single thing about it. I'm doing that all day long and I'm not saying it in a way of being braggadocio or anything like that, but it's part of my routine day. So all of these calls, these meetings with very important people tend to sort of blend together until I have someone that can show me what we discussed, what the subject was, then all of a sudden it comes back.

Mr. Castor: (01:35:03)

I mean, what we're trying to get to the facts here, we're trying to find out what actually happened, what's reliable, what's accurate. Bill Taylor kept notes. He brought a little notebook in his pocket at his deposition and he held it up and he says, when I'm not at my desk and I'm on the phone, I use this notebook. When I'm at my desk, I use a notebook. George Kent said he wrote just innumerable memos to the file. Catherine Croft, she testified that she didn't believe George Kent's notes would be accurate. And so, you know, we have all this, you know, back and forth, but you know as we get to the end here, you don't have records. You don't have your notes because you didn't take notes. You don't have a lot of recollections. I mean, this is the like the trifecta of unreliability isn't that true?

Gordon Sondland: (01:35:49)

Well, what I'm trying to do today is to use the limited information I have to be as forthcoming as possible with you and the rest of the committee. And as these recollections had been refreshed by-

Gordon Sondland: (01:36:03)

And as these recollections had been refreshed by subsequent testimony by some texts and emails that I've now had access to, I think I filled in a lot of blanks.

Mr. Caster: (01:36:12)

But a lot of it's speculation, a lot of it is your guess and we're talking about an impeachment of the President United States. So the evidence here ought to be pretty darn good.

Gordon Sondland: (01:36:22)

I've been very clear as to when I was presuming and I was presuming on the aid, on the other things, Mr. Caster, I did have some texts that I read from. So when it comes to those, I'll rely on those texts because I don't have any reason to believe that those texts were falsely sent or that there's some subterfuge there. They are what they are. They say what they say.

Mr. Caster: (01:36:45)

Okay, thank you sir.

Gordon Sondland: (01:36:46)

Thank you.

* * * * *

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JORDAN took a few minuters to iron out a few further things with Ambassador Sondland somewhat later in the November 20th hearing:

Rep Jim Jordan: 00:43:28

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ambassador, when did it happen?

Gordon Sondland: 00:43:32

When did what happen?

Rep Jim Jordan: 00:43:34

The announcement. When did President Zelensky announce that the investigation was going to happen? On page 14 you said this, "Was there a quid pro quo?" Your opening statement, "As I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call, White House meeting, the answer is yes." That there needed to be a public statement from President Zelensky. When the chairman asked you about the security assistance dollars, you said there needed to be a public announcement from Zelensky. So I'm asking you a simple question. When did that happen?

Gordon Sondland: 00:44:00

Never did.

Rep Jim Jordan: 00:44:01

Never did. They got the call July 25th, they got the meeting, not in the White House, but in New York on September 25th. They got the money on September 11th. When did the meeting happen again?

Gordon Sondland:00:44:13

Never did.

Rep Jim Jordan: 00:44:14

You don't know who was in the meeting?

Gordon Sondland: 00:44:16

Which meeting are you referring to?

Rep Jim Jordan: 00:44:17

The meeting that never happened. Who was in it? [crosstalk 00:44:22] You know how Zelensky announced it? Did he Tweet it? Did he do a press statement? Did he do a press conference? You know how that happened? I mean, you got all three of them wrong. They get the call, they get the meeting, they get the money. It's not two plus two, it's 0 for three. I've never seen anything like this.

Rep Jim Jordan: 00:44:44

And you told Mr. Castor that the President never told you that the announcement had to happen to get anything. In fact, he didn't just not tell you that, he explicitly said the opposite. The gentleman from Texas just read it. You said to the President of the United States, " _What do you want from Ukraine?_ " The President, " _I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on._ " What did he run on Ambassador Sondland?

Gordon Sondland: 00:45:21

Transparency.

Rep Jim Jordan: 00:45:23

And dealing with corruption, right?

Gordon Sondland: 00:45:25

That's right.

Rep Jim Jordan: 00:45:26

Mr. Castor raised another important point. Why didn't you put that statement in your opening statement? I think you said you couldn't fit it in. Is that right? So we might be here for 46 minutes instead of 45. [crosstalk 00:45:41].

Gordon Sondland: 00:45:41

It wasn't purposeful trust me.

Rep Jim Jordan: 00:45:43

Wasn't purposeful?

Gordon Sondland: 00:45:44

No.

Rep Jim Jordan: 00:45:45

Couldn't fit it in a 23 page opener. The most important statement about the subject matter at hand, the President unites in a direct conversation with you about the issue at hand, and the President says, let me read it one more time. " _What do you want from Ukraine Mr President?_ " " _I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo_." I want this new guy, brand new guy in politics, his party just took over. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to run on and do what he ran on, which is deal with corruption. And you can't find time to fit that in a 23 page opening statement. You know what a quid pro quo is?

Gordon Sondland:00:46:20

I do.

Rep Jim Jordan: 00:46:21

This for that, right? Looks to me like Ukraine got that three times. There was no this. We didn't do anything or excuse me, they didn't have to do anything. I've never seen anything like this. When the call came out, you all remember this? When the call came out, everyone said, we're going to quid pro quo. That was what was in the call. And of course, that didn't happen. That didn't happen. Remember what the complaint said? Remember what the memo said, or the whistleblower? This call was frightening. This call was scary. All those things, none of that materialized. None of that materialized. I yield back.

* * * * *

AS TO THIS BUSINESS of funds being withheld that everybody's talking about. Reviewing ( _United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export_ – previously cited) that the Supreme Court has long since ruled:

It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations, embarrassment -- perhaps serious embarrassment -- is to be avoided and success for our aims achieved, **congressional legislation which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved**.

Moreover, _he_ , not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries...

Representative Chris Stewart speaks to the funds issue during the Taylor-Kent deposition:

Chris Stewart: (04:03)

Are you surprised that there would be questions about corruption in the Ukraine and that it would be discussed withholding some of this aid that's actually **required by law that it be withheld if they can't certify that corruption has been eliminated or is being addressed**?

George Kent: (04:21)

The certification in that case is done by the Secretary of Defense upon advice of his staff, in consultation with the interagency community. We were fully supportive of that conditionality, and the Secretary of Defense had already certified that that conditionality had been met.

Chris Stewart: (04:35)

And so we agree that we should withhold funds if there's questions about corruption that have not been addressed.

Chris Stewart: (04:41)

I'm going to yield my rest of my time to Mr. Jordan.

And in the Sondland deposition, Devin Nunes approached the same issue this way:

Devin Nunes: 00:02:24

Right? When you get directions from the White House when you first became ambassador, probably one of the number one things... I don't want to put words in your mouth, but on the top of the list was making sure countries pay their fair share, especially with NATO.

Gordon Sondland: 00:02:42

Yeah, and we have a very capable ambassador to NATO, so I'm not going to take her lane.

Devin Nunes: 00:02:47

But you work with those countries, it's one of the issues that you bring up in your meetings. Correct?

Gordon Sondland: 00:02:54

It is.

Devin Nunes: 00:02:55

So now I know you weren't on the July 25th phone call, but one of the first things that the President of the United States brings up is Germany's lack of participation. I think he names the president of Germany directly. That they're not participating in helping out Ukraine, who's one of their neighbors? Is that what you read in the transcript?

Gordon Sondland: 00:03:18

I've heard that, yes.

Devin Nunes: 00:03:20

So the whole idea that the president starting out with, he doesn't like foreign aid. He doesn't think countries pay their fair share. That's looking out for the taxpayer. But there's more. And we talked about this in your deposition. We talked about how we have requirements. The Congress writes requirements into the law that require you and all the diplomats to carry out the foreign policy of this country for the President of the United States. **Before the president can certify foreign aid and send foreign aid, there has to be certification that there's no corruption**. You're aware of that now?

Gordon Sondland: 00:04:00

I am now. Yes.

Noting once again Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland's writing of the Opinion of the Court:

...congressional legislation **which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry** within the international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved.

The Congress enacts and the President implements. In this case the Congress had legislated funds earmarked for Ukraine defensive aid – and the President had some leeway in inquiring and negotiating for how best these funds could be relocated.

But the eager beaver Congress was in a hurry to see that money already out the door and in the pipeline ready to be spent by the Ukrainian Government.

For one thing, this military funding aid to allies almost always guarantees a return on the investment in that the money will probably re-enter the U.S. economy in the form of the ally's weapons purchases from domestic U.S. arms suppliers.

Aside from that though – it's another thing to throw out the red flag crying, "Attempted Murder!" That's how it got put during the Taylor-Kent testimonies:

Joaquin Castro: (02:55)

So we have a president who the other side claimed or has defended the president saying that the aid went through, that there was never any investigation, but the president attempted to get those things done, and it looks like there was an initial agreement by the President of the Ukraine to actually do those things.

Joaquin Castro: (03:16)

So, ambassadors, is attempted murder a crime? Is attempted murder a crime?

Bill Taylor: (03:27)

Attempted murder is a crime.

Joaquin Castro: (03:28)

Is attempted robbery a crime?

Bill Taylor: (03:31)

Neither of us is a lawyer, but I-

Joaquin Castro: (03:34)

I think anybody in this room could answer that question.

Bill Taylor: (03:36)

I think that's right, and I'll go out on a limb and say yes it is.

Joaquin Castro: (03:39)

Is attempted extortion and bribery a crime?

Bill Taylor: (03:43)

I don't know, sir.

This is infantile; the delay issuing funds is not a crime and cannot be reasonably characterized as one. The delay was carried out both in conformance with statute, and per the President's Constitutional mandate as explained and endorsed by the Supreme Court. The accusers' forum opportunists suddenly want to criminalize that Constitutional mandate to suit their political fancies and their fabrications; naturally – but the Supreme Court acknowledges and promotes that the President check things out best to assure that congressional legislation will be made effective through negotiation and inquiry in the international field.

Castro isn't buying it. And His Chairpersonship Schiff doesn't take to the idea neither. As far as they're concerned, nobody's going to be suave and pull up something as obscure as a constitutional mandate to consider. Schiff, for his part says:

Adam Schiff: (10:19)

Some have argued in the President's defense that the aid was ultimately released. That is true. But only after Congress began an investigation. Only after the President's lawyers learned of a whistleblower complaint. And only after members of Congress began asking uncomfortable questions about quid pro quos.

Again, the delay and subsequent release of aid was pursued in conformance with statute and Constitutional mandate, there is no deviance and Schiff is only being mischievous. Another opportunity for the grandstander to attach sinister motives to a fictional crime source the better to prolong political theatre and perpetuate baseless disparagement clearly for purposes of promoting the image of agitator turned charlatan practitioner of heroic virtue.

In so many cases, the Supreme Court interprets that the authors and ratifiers (the Peoples of the various United States under the earlier Confederation) of the Constitution had determined that a President is not the flunky of the Congress, but the head of an equal and separate branch of the United States Government. In the carrying out of his various duties he must order the tasks before him while constantly attending to sudden exigencies which might abruptly arise.

Bearing that in mind – he is not required to immediately "snap to" like some deferential, subservient menial with a delivery of that tasty order of caramel coconut latte plus the indispensable side order of Horse-radish on French Fries every time a leader of Congress chooses to indulge some new unusual craving.

Although the impeachment squad refuses to acknowledge it – the Separation of Powers is recognized by the Constitution and the Court as a fundamental defense against despotic, absolutist usurpation of authority such as the current buzzard crackpot social throwback committee in question displays powerful inclination towards. United States Supreme Court Mr. Chief Justice Warren, in the 1965 case of _United States v. Brown_ (1965) – (No. 399) 381 U.S. 437, put it this way:

The Constitution divides the National Government into three branches -- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. [p443] This "separation of powers" was obviously not instituted with the idea that it would promote governmental efficiency. It was, on the contrary, looked to as a bulwark against tyranny. For if governmental power is fractionalized, if a given policy can be implemented only by a combination of legislative enactment, judicial application, and executive implementation, no man or group of men will be able to impose its unchecked will.

And there's plenty more public nuisance Supreme Court Rulings along those lines for the Impeachment Cabal to ignore and keep hidden away in storage up in the backroom resentment file.

The better to maintain some sort of case of their own afloat, the accusers gathering attributed insidious motives; and then from there invented specious notions about what constitutes criminal intent on the part of the Executive; and then from there also resorted to the lowbrow but occasionally reliable – we'll try anything – xenophobic (fear and loathing resentment of the foreigner type) notions about what constitutes foreign interference in our elections.

IN THE CASE of The Schooner _Exchange v. Mcfadden_ , 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812); early Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in writing the Opinion of the Court observes:

The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.

The noxious premise proposed by the imperious troglodyte Impeachment Cabal xenophobe study group collective; that Ukraine Government domestic investigation of domestic corruption carried out in areas under its own jurisdiction, constitutes foreign interference in our elections in that special circumstance of an investigation of a known tax evading entity which had enlisted the son of an elite politician (a front-running candidate for the Presidency no less), to opportunistically serve on the Board of Directors of the foreign entity under investigation;

Any such notion that the Ukraine Government must cede a portion of its exclusive and absolute sovereignty, within the sphere of its own jurisdiction; and refrain from investigation of _Burisma Holdings_ in deference to the Democratic Party; to some special private immunity decreed and doled out by the Democratic Party to the sons of the elite Democratic Party membership; and refrain from investigation in order to preserve from possible political embarrassment a candidate for the Office of U.S. President. The demand on Ukraine sovereignty has no legal merit whatsoever, this having been long since decided and dismissed by the Supreme Court in various cases. Any inconvenience or embarrassment associated with investigation into corruption must be construed as being of the nature of: such are the wages of voluntary association with known capitalist corporate corrupt entities and; such are the wages of enrichment through nepotism when you don't take time enough to hold off a bit and see if you can't find another, more discreet sponsor, or buyer, to pave your way straight into heaven. Returning to Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall in the cited case:

When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.

When, as usual, the Chairpersonships of the current Impeachment Cotillion are not amenable to yet another of these public nuisance Supreme Court Opinions; then it is always worthy of public note to consider that any impeachment tribunal established by Congress to suit a temporary need is considered as a tribunal inferior to the Supreme Court; and whether the tribunal likes it or not – it is just as subject to Supreme Court Ruling as to the Constitution; which is law unto the Congress entire and the individual members themselves – as so ordained and ratified by the People:

United States Constitution

Article III - The Judicial Branch

*Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish..

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP is noted to have responded with an explosion to his Ambassador Sondland's question of what Trump wanted from Ukraine:

"I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on."

By this declaration Trump acknowledged the independent Sovereignty of the Ukraine Government. Trump demanded no investment of any portion of Ukraine sovereignty in himself or the United States (too much responsibility and paper work to think about anyway). The U.S. President expressed instead his strong desire that the Zelenskyy administration's honor its pledge to its People and carry on with its stated course of action. The submission of Trump's appeal in this regard served as an endorsement of Zelenskyy's declared intentions (which the President's Ambassadors should have appreciated and taken into account); and a very high character avowal of the Trump administration's commitment to support Zelenskyy's promised schedule of reform.

Trump repeated the sentiment in his response to Senator Johnson's question – " _I asked him, the President whether there was some kind of arrangement where Ukraine would take some action and the hold would be lifted. Without hesitation, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed_ :"

"No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?

Naturally Trump would expect it of himself that he would do no such squirrelly thing as was suggested by career diplomat underlings and the Senator. In the 25 July 2019 phone call with Zelenskyy, President Trump had fumed indignantly over Joe Biden's allegedly doing exactly that. Trump had evidently been taken in by Biden's previously cited broadcast big smoked fish story performed by blusterin' Joe himself.

Obviously fixed in the belief of what had been claimed at the previously cited 23 January 2018 " _Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden_ ," Trump excoriated:

_"The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that **Biden stopped the prosecution** [_of Burisma _] **and a lot of people want to find out about that** so whatever you can do with the [_U.S. _] Attorney General would be great. **Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it**... It sounds horrible to me."_

Per the documentation previously cited, Joe had indeed publicly boasted his having flattened and humiliated Zelenskyy's predecessor, the foreigner president Poroshenko – intruding on the Ukraine domestic affairs scene ordering the rearrangement of Poroshenko's personnel portfolio (whether the story told was true or no), seeing to it the "son of a bitch" got fired.

And the broadcast shows that Big Joe sure did get a lot of laughs out of that too: – ha, ha; much jocular commiseration from a credulous _Council on Foreign Relations_ audience over the rare and terrifically amusing insight into American flexi muscles foreign policy know-how buggering of a foreign flunky president.

IN HIS INTRODUCTION of Mr. President Zelenskyy to U.S. audiences at the bilateral press conference, 25 July 2019, in New York, President Trump once again, this time publicly, endorsed the Zelenskyy administration's program to fight corruption in Ukraine. President Trump once again committed his administration; again, this time publicly, to supporting Zelenskyy's anti-corruption platform. President Trump speaking:

Well, thank you very much, everybody. We're with the President of Ukraine, and he's made me more famous, and I've made him more famous. (Laughter.) I will say he's got a great reputation. He's very, very strongly looking into all sorts of corruption and some of the problems they've had over the years. I think it's one of the primary reasons he got elected. His reputation is absolutely sterling. And it's an honor to be with you.

In the 25 July 2019 call - Trump diplomatically reassured Zelenskyy he was upset about that: "... _It sounds horrible to me_." And at the same time, all in one, asked if the Zelenskyy administration could look into the case.

"The other thing,... **Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it**... "

Trump asked if Zelenskyy could "look into _it_." Trump did not ask if Zelenskyy could look into _him_. Biden is a _him_ ; Biden is not an _it_. The "it" might have meant the case which had been shut down – or the "it" might have meant the act of shutting down of the case (which Biden could not have taken part in – which is why he would have had to have others fire the Prosecutor General); or "it" might have meant both.

But "it" cannot be construed to refer to the "him" asserted by the accusers desperately looking for something twisted to hang on to; to start up a spurious impeachment proceeding over.

Zelenskyy, even with his not-so-perfect English, understood Trump's meaning. And the translators standing by on both ends in case Zelenskyy's English got tangled understood what Trump meant.

It was the impeachment squad enthusiasts of Congress, and news-media acolyte outlets which deal with in-print English Language published product every day which took the lead in refusing to acknowledge the basic parts of speech distinction between "it" and "him;" as if that terribly obscure usage needs positive affirmation by special and authoritative enhanced literacy competence only to be found in elevated and famous national political party popsicle stand scholarship. And the Political Committee of Public Safety and Surety refused to acknowledge "it;" so by correct party thinking and speculation, Trump assuredly had to have meant "him."

THE COMMITTEE DEPOSITIONS of U.S. envoys were being carried out in some sort of absurdist perceptual time warp. It being the case that it was now November and the events under examination had transpired over the summer through September; the chucklehead high profile U.S. diplomat personnel difficulties were still having trouble swallowing all this; trouble taking it all in, or absorbing it somehow...

Could it possibly be that when this political neophyte*, President Trump had said: " _I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on_ ;" could it be that the surly White House dweller Mr. Trump had uniquely put his finger on a concept which had been a preoccupation in this nation at least since upon its inception and formulation; the notion of respecting the sovereignty of other nations while seeking to internationally establish the sovereignty of this independent nation; which was to be based on the principle of representative government?

* ["Political neophyte is exactly the phrase the Impeachment Committee used in its December 2019 " _The Trump Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report_ " to characterize President Zelenskyy. See § I – _The President's Misconduct_ ; § _The President's Request for a Political Favor_ ; Page 13:

"It had been more than three months since President Zelensky, a **political neophyte** , had been swept into office in a landslide victory on a platform of rooting out corruption and ending the war between his country and Russia."]

Where could Trump possibly have gotten a hold of this idea about appreciating and expressly acknowledging the sovereignty of other nations? And was he indeed referring to it when he impatiently exclaimed to Ambassador Sondland:

"I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on."

Los Tres Amigos, or los Three Amigos, or the Trace Amigos, or however this trio of vaunted high diplomatic rank status U.S. envoys stationed in the Ukraine area came to be referred to as – what could any of them three do to comply with this cryptic (9th of September) declaration coming from the President himself? What practical message should the envoys convey to Zelenskyy concerning announcements to be made and meetings to be held, and whatnot?

Was it possible that Trump was signaling them to please just let that guy and his famous Ukrainian script-writing team figure on how they want to put things together so we can, on our end, finalize hotel accommodations in such a manner as to keep the Cabal off our backs and burdening the affair with their much publicized imaginary tit-for-tat, _quid pro quo_ fantasy conjecture about required conditions which had been invented out of whole cloth by that committee; as though it is they who have been in charge of the conduct of foreign affairs throughout the course of their Cabal memberships' busy attempt to muddy up and poison the otherwise cheery ambiance?

It seems possible. Sondland had received, on September 9, the directive: " _I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on_..."

Somehow despite U.S. envoy mastermind confusion; on 25 September 2019 Zelenskyy was already well-rehearsed for his delivery before the U.N. General Assembly. The speech had been written presumably well in advance. The Ukraine President had his prop on hand; a 12.7 millimeter bullet (quite large) which had been cleared for customs and would be available to illustrate a point. In one part of his U.N. speech Zelenskyy said:

Let me tell you one story. The story of a person for whom "being heard" has become the meaning of life. For this man had a divine voice. He was called one of the best baritones and countertenors in the world. His voice was heard at Carnegie Hall in New York, Notre Dame Cathedral, Covent Garden in London and Grand Opera in Paris. Each of you could have personally heard his incredible singing.

_But unfortunately, there is one thing that will not allow you to do so. I'll show you. It looks like this_ [holding the large caliber shell above the podium for anyone to see] _. 12.7 millimeters that not only stopped his career, but also stopped his life. It costs 10 dollars. And, unfortunately, today on our planet it is the value of human life._

There are thousands of such stories, millions of such bullets. Welcome to the XXI century. A century of opportunities. Where instead of "being heard" you have an opportunity to be killed.

The name of the man I've told you about was Wassyl Slipak. He was a Ukrainian, a soloist of the Paris National Opera who was killed in Donbas defending Ukraine from the Russian aggression.

By September 25, the day of reckoning in New York, President Zelenskyy was raring to go before the General Assembly. Hotel accommodations in place – visas arranged; and best of all, or at least pretty great, the broadcast meeting with Trump had been set up for afterwards, with the issues to be discussed between the two Presidents, in a post-press conference closed door meeting, evidently already having been clearly delineated.

IN THE LATE NOVEMBER depositions of these favorite cartoon caper career diplomats; with the **fact** of the 25 September New York meeting and announcements barely ever even coming up in testimony – nobody took notice of or appreciated, and least of all the diplomats themselves, that these specific envoy characters weren't in on the planning and the logistical arrangements for that famous almost entirely forgotten 25 September meeting in New York, where all the talked about and speculated upon action actually did take place.

The job description assignments of these already by September 9th relatively shaky and non-performing U.S. diplomats apparently had been rescheduled without their having received the memo – and they were now unwittingly effectively serving as decoys playing interference with the Cabal while real negotiation and planning was carried on elsewhere. And the bungling and malevolent impeachment committee, groundlessly intruding where it had no business, were essentially spending hours, two months later in November, on fussy examination of irrelevant bags of hay, which they were excited enough to munch down on and swallow up whole-heartedly. As previously cited, Justice Story had observed way back in 1833:

**§ 779**.... secrecy and immediate despatch are generally requisite, and sometimes absolutely indispensable.... No man at all acquainted with diplomacy, but must have felt, that the success of negotiations as often depends upon their being unknown by the public, as upon their justice or their policy....

...measures may be defeated by the intrigues and management of foreign powers [or in this case, domestic powers], if they suspect them to be in progress, and understand their precise nature and extent. In this view the executive department is a far better depositary of the power, than congress would be.

The delays incident to a large assembly ; the differences of opinion ; the time consumed in debate ; and the utter impossibility of secrecy, all combine to render them unfitted for the purposes of diplomacy. And our own experience during the confederation abundantly demonstrated all the evils, which the theory would lead us to expect.

THIS SMOOTHLY SMOOTH logistical New York operation, presumably orchestrated between political neophyte team Zelenskyy and whatever reserve elements of diplomatic corp. remnants political neophyte Trump still had available to him, effectively kept the congressional partisan hostiles distracted and off the President's' backs during productive negotiations. Like I like to say – I wouldn't underestimate those uncanny Ukrainian political neophytes in any of their bids for negotiations' success; even when roughed up under glare of unforgiving news-media spotlight and in the face of heavy-handed congressional ire.

The cooperative effort between the bi-lateral political neophyte collaborators bears louder-than-words prima-facie testimony that Zelenskyy, as he himself had declared explicitly, was not having his arm twisted painfully – but that Trump and Zelenskyy were working towards the same objective; heated jealous intimations of antagonistic partisan rivals notwithstanding.

The accusation of intent to commit a crime in the delaying of the release of funds is groundless nonsense shoveled up before the public in a tawdry, wholly political attempt to discredit Trump's entirely legitimate implementation of his Constitutional mandate; as being something seemingly sinister. The delay of funds was mandated by statute and condoned or endorsed by previous Supreme Court Ruling.

The public morale uplifting Ukraine commitment to fight corruption; along with the uplifting public commitment by the Untied States to support this – these were announced as planned. Specific investigations into corruption would be, quite properly per the Constitution of Ukraine, announced by the Prosecutor General's office the next month.

And domestic Ukraine investigations into domestic Ukraine corruption cannot be construed as: " _foreign interference in our democratic process_ ," as Supreme Court Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall has laid it down in front by the Court's 1812 Ruling:

The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.

Domestic Ukraine investigations cannot be construed as " _foreign interference in our democratic process_ " which all worthwhile and decent American Citizens concerned with our core values should be on their guard against; as the crackpot buzzard Democratic Party throwback, bigoted-when-it-serves the political purposes, retrograde hate speech revival marketers of the 116th Congress have insinuated.

The throwbacks were happy when the Obama administration was promoting investigation of _Burisma Holdings_ ; but the President succeeding is a criminal for even having discussed such U.S. support with the Ukraine President.

And in the New York event, there had been no smear of the Bidens coming from the Trump administration. The major publicizing and consequential public awareness of Biden's perceived nepotism had come from the impeachment committee's heavy handed intentionally distorted malevolent reading of the 25 July 2019 Zelenskyy-Trump phone call – and the committee's persistence on keeping the issue as front page news for a considerable time.

Again with Justice Joseph Story ( _Commentaries on the Constitution_ – Book III; Chapter X):

**§ 385**....the [impeachment] power partakes of a political character, as it respects injuries to the society in its political character ; and, on this account, it requires to be guarded in its exercise against the spirit of faction, the intolerance of party, and the sudden movements of popular feeling. The prosecution will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly, or hostile to the accused. The press, with its unsparing vigilance, will arrange itself on either side, to control, and influence public opinion ; and **there** **will always be some danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real proofs of innocence or guilt**...

**§ 386**....The difficulty of placing it [the power of impeachment] rightly in a government, resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will be more strikingly perceived, when it is considered, that the ambitious and the cunning will often make strong accusations against public men the means of their own elevation to office ; and thus give an impulse to the power of impeachment, by pre-occupying the public opinion.

Regardless – the 116th House of Representatives Democrats voted unanimously for impeachment.

* * * * *

And so now it is time to proceed to an examination of the massive scale arms deal (which shows up the Ukraine weapons endowment as a mere drop in the bucket) which Trump had shut down. Trump's scuttling the arms deal fairly early in his Presidency was an action obviously of far greater concern to weapons trading financial speculation interests than the window dressing gangbusters' commotion made concerning the 55 day withholding period placed on the Ukraine funds.

But the issue of Trump's having shut down the well documented massive arms deal; while evidently too politically embarrassing to the national level faux progressive's image for it to be directly and voluntarily shared with the public;

The issue is too prominent a cause for virulent antagonism against the President's not playing ball for it to be ignored. To be fair, no discussion of this impeachment episode would be complete without taking into consideration that motivating element in this call for impeachment. Proceeding therefore:

* * * *
Part II – Avarice and Animosity

*Chapter 3

– [Impeachment Selectivity;  
Weapons Development and Expansion](tmp_d6117ac218f63326d4250189172a97a0_ZliH9Y.ch.fixed.fc.tidied.stylehacked.xfixed_split_001.html#ref_n_a03) –

Trump was in trouble from day-one of his presidency. It was already bad enough he had won the 2016 election when the Democratic Party thought their candidate should have.

It is now well-known that neither candidate could get even a third of the voting population to come-on-out for them. That's a lot of millions of people staying home on election-day with the largest voting block of the populace being content instead just to sit around waiting it out to hear which of the worst of two evils would be swept into control of the nation's Office of the Chief Magistrate over the duration of the next four years.

There was that. And then there was this business of how Republican candidate Trump had really set Democratic Party established credentials notables on edge with his vouchsafing guarantee he would pull the United States out of this iconic Obama "nuclear deal" which the preceding President Barack Obama had worked so hard alongside the Ministers of the Government of Iran to produce. Trump was promising to unravel everything, and there was general Democratic Party and U.S. news-media outlet panic that this dark horse candidate out there was going to get the world blown up if he were ever allowed to collect on the spoils of office.

The Democrats, relying on a hoped-for general ignorance among the citizenry of the true nature of this "Iran nuclear deal;" the complete official text of which is known to be _United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)_ , easily obtainable for free off the internet via the United Nations Security Council website; yet which was never transmitted over to the Congress, or shared with the public by the Obama administration – as Barack Obama had promised to do, and despite his administration's proven as false claims to the contrary;

In the 2016 national campaign and beyond; the Democrats, relying on a hoped-for general ignorance of the true nature of Resolution 2231; made it clear they would try and get along by spreading predictably routine fear-speech propaganda insisting boorishly that without the "Iran nuclear deal" war between the United States and Iran would inevitably ensue. That being the case, nobody better go around electing that unwholesome lunatic Republican contender insanely squawking about extricating the U.S. from Obama's carefully constructed "Iran nuclear deal;" or it's likely final curtains for us all.

The drab predictability of the monotonous fear-speech lecture style of the 2016 election campaign had been taken from the iconic Barack Obama speechmaker's playbook. In his August 5, 2015 oration performed on the campus of American University in Washington, District of Columbia; then President Barack Obama threatened anyone listening that day; or anyone tuning in possibly even years later; to the effect that:

"Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option, another war in the Middle East."

And just to make sure we got it Obama added, as if to paraphrase Humphrey Bogart's character Rick in _Casablanca_ :

_So let's not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war. **Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon**._*

*[BARACK OBAMA; Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal; American University, Washington D.C.; August 5, 2015; This file has been archived, find it on google at: obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/05/remarks-president-iran-nuclear-deal.]

Obama was unmistakably slapping a promotional hard-sell notion on the public backside that his "Iran nuclear deal" instrument represented the results of diplomacy at their finest, and the only possible avenue to peace; and it had better pass muster with a vote in Congress or else chaos would ensue.

And then, oddly enough, Obama allowed transmittal of only part of his "Iran Nuclear Deal" to the 114th Congress for review – never the whole thing. There are aspects of the deal he obviously wanted kept from the Congress and the public;

And so he figured on what he contemplated would be adequate to placate the not too swift membership population of the Congress that term; considering that it would be highly unlikely that anyone of the lethargic 114th national assembly would be bothered enough by any interest in the issue to take advantage of the obvious immediate availability (from the U.N. Security Council website) of the entire Obama "Iran Deal" and download it as if it were too much to ask.

After all, it _is_ the blasted darn dabble concoction what was the one which everyone else in the world was working from, don't you know. That means every other government other than ours, which at some point got filled up with those well-known opinionated and really smug and prone-to-sermonizing personalities populating the 114th Congress of the United States.

The other Member States of the United Nations were working from the Security Council resolution as it was universally known and understood without a doubt everywhere (except in the 114th U.S. Congress) that the official complete version of Obama's arrangement with the Ministers of the Government of Iran is the _United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231_ (2015).

Indeed, the 114th House of Representatives and Senate, having accepted the word of the unreliable Obama spokesperson John Kirby as will soon be reviewed, took their respective September 11th and 10th votes on the truncated version of "Iran nuclear deal" transmitted them by the Obama faction, without ever picking up on the fact that they were only looking at a piece of the collusion fashioned with Iran which Obama was now representing as the whole real deal.

* * * * *

Former President Barack Obama did not share with the Congress during his tenure in office or after, any part of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 outside of the Security Council's resolution _Annex A: JCPOA_. The following timeline of events documents that Obama did not transmit the entire United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 to Congress – this despite that he had signed into Law the binding pledge that purportedly guaranteed his doing so;

And while Barack Obama presented his abbreviated version of his "Iran nuclear deal" to the 114th session; in the same sleight of hand act he directed attention away from a correct identification and acknowledgment of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 as the actual entire agreement;

And the obfuscation he indulged in has been carried on with to this day almost to the end of 2019 by partisans associating their political careers with a sustained progress of the deception.

The Democratic Party has indicated in its national election campaign platform that the Party favors returning to participation in the "Iran nuclear deal" declaring, among other statements on this aspect of the party platform:

We support the nuclear agreement with Iran because... **it verifiably cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb**...

The obvious reason for Obama not sharing the instrument officially recognized as United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (the authentic version of Obama's deal with Iran) with the 114th Congress and the public; is that the text of Resolution 2231 exactly provides for a process and procedure for directly facilitating and expediting international material assistance to Iran in its development or procurement of various weapons classes (including weapons of mass destruction) associated goods, technologies and support services, while prohibiting International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of certain critical weapons related aspects of the Iranian nuclear program – as we shall soon review.

Noting that the Democratic Party persists even in its written platform in its refusal to correctly identify by name the Security Council resolution: " _We support the_ _nuclear agreement with Iran because_... ;"

It may be justifiably construed that the relentless promoters of Obama's Iran deal might find it easier to knowingly lie directly about Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" if they don't let people in on what the real deal is and where to get hold of it.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 can be found (in English) on the United Nations website at:

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2231(2015)

Other language versions of it can be accessed from that page as well. To find United Nations Security Council resolutions by year refer to:

https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/resolutions-0

THE FOLLOWING presents a step-by step timeline of the simple stratagem implemented by the Obama administration which successfully duped the memberships of both houses of a nit-wit 114th national assembly into voting on a document other than the one they believed themselves to be voting on.

**ON 22 MAY 2015** , as President, Barack Obama, signed the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ into law. This law stipulates that within not later than five calendar days "... _after reaching an agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran, the President shall transmit_ [such agreement] _to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership_...;"

And that " _an agreement_ ," for the purposes of that Act is defined as:

"... _an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future_."

**ON TUESDAY 14 July 2015** , the conclusion of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between the United States, Iran, France, China, the United Kingdom, Russia and Germany (and along with the European Union) prescribing the implementation of the provisions agreed upon by the mentioned Parties; was announced to the public in a ceremony in Vienna.

The full title of the Annex A in Resolution 2231 is: " _Annex A: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Vienna,  
14 July 2015_."

The impression has been widespread in the public that what became generally known as the JCPOA (announced on Bastille Day 2015); had actually been signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015. The Obama administration has denied that the instrument was ever signed – an impression the merit of which we shall review towards the end of this examination.

For my part – I can find no evidence, photographic or otherwise of any _signing ceremony_ held in Vienna between those noted Parties on that day. There are photographs of representatives of States, or Heads of States Party to the deal standing happily in a row each posed in front of their countries' respective flags.

But I haven't found one photograph of Representatives of Parties to the agreement signing anything; or shaking hands while passing around the seven minimum required copies; each with the signature of the representatives of Russia, the United States, Iran, the U.K., France, China, and Germany – all on the same respective page of each Nation's copy. It is odd that no such photographs appear on the internet serving to record and document the provenance of so auspicious an occasion

There is a photograph of a title page of what purports to be the JCPOA floating around on the internet. And that photograph displays many autographs to the effect that persons signing can tell their friends back home that they were present at the occasion of the illustrious public announcement that the Parties had concluded their arrangement with each other.

The difference between an autograph and a binding signature in this case; is that the binding official signature is accompanied by the legibly printed name; and by the title of the person signing – as this is necessary to confirm that person's recognized competency to legally bind a State to the agreed upon provisions contained in the instrument the Government presumed to be represented by that person.

So, for example, if legendary baseball player Babe Ruth were brought back to life to place his autograph along side all the others; and the provenance of the signature was irrefutably shown – this still would not be enough to bind the United States to the agreement.

And even if President Abraham Lincoln managed to edge his way forward through the crowd to stick pen to paper – this still wouldn't be enough to commit the United States: for neither could produce credentials verifying that they are recognized as competent to bind the nation at time of signature.

It is fair to observe however, that there was no need for signature on the JCPOA itself as it was from the beginning designated to be incorporated into the larger document of the Security Council resolution.

ON BASTILLE DAY, 14 July 2015, the day of the announcement ceremony in Vienna, Obama made a speech from the East Room of the White House acknowledging the event declaring, among other things:

"After two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon." *

*[ BARACK OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE, OFFICE OF THE PRESS SECRETARY; Statement by the President on Iran; July 14, 2015 (For Immediate Release); This file has been archived, find it on google at: whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/14/statement-president-iran.]

Sadly, lacking a view towards furtherance of Franco-American trans-Atlantic relations – President Obama, all carried away in the enthusiasm of his oratory, did not think to make mention of Bastille Day. *****

***** Bastille Day: the day remembering the capture of the Bastille prison by the Citizens' of France, with the subsequent freeing of the incarcerated – is celebrated in France as Independence Day.

**On the same day, 14 July 2015** ; in another part of the world, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano asserted that the following had been agreed to and mutually signed on to by the IAEA and Iran:

"I have just signed the Road-map between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear programme. The text has been signed on behalf of Iran by the country's Vice-President, and President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mr. Ali Akbar Salehi. This is a significant step forward towards clarifying outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear programme....

'... Implementation of this Road-map will provide an important opportunity to resolve the outstanding issues related to Iran's nuclear programme...." *

*[INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: IAEA Director General's Statement and Road-map for the Clarification of Past & Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran's Nuclear Program; (Tuesday 14 July 2015 8:30 CEST); Web address: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-generals-statement-and-road-map-for-the-clarification-of-past-present-outstanding-issues-regarding-irans-nuclear-programme]

Director General Amano then proceeded to an explanation – which was reprinted in IAEA Board of Governors report GOV/INF/2015/14: In his explanation, Director General Amano stipulates that Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, on 14 July 2015, had entered into two side agreements, which can be associated with the new JCPOA. Here are some excerpts of his explanation:

Road-map for the Clarification of Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran's Nuclear Program:

Joint Statement

By the IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano and the Vice-President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano and the Vice-President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi agreed on 14 July 2015 the following...

1. The IAEA and Iran agreed on a separate arrangement that would allow them to address the remaining outstanding issues, as set out in the annex of the 2011 Director's General report (GOV/2011/65). Activities undertaken and the outcomes achieved to date by Iran and the IAEA regarding some of the issues will be reflected in the process....

5. Iran and the IAEA agreed on another separate arrangement regarding the issue of Parchin.*

*[INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: GOV/INF/2015/14: (Date: 14 July 2015) https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov-inf-2015-14.pdf - The contents of the document have been published in many places by the IAEA, in its press releases and secondary sources reporting on it – on or around July 14, 2015.]

This declaration by the IAEA Director General is brought up here as the fact of the declaration becomes a subject of contention later in House of Representatives debate.

**ON THURSDAY, 16 July 2015** , Texas Senator Ted Cruz addressed a letter to Barack Obama describing some of his concerns relating to the JCPOA. The entire letter is presented first – and then remarks later. Senator Cruz wrote:

I write to express deep concern about your nuclear deal with ran. Language in the JCPOA assumes Congressional consent of this agreement and fails to even mention the statutory review process that you signed into law on February 27, 2015. Specifically, Annex V of the JCPOA states the United States and Iran" will endorse this JCPOA," and further elucidates that the UN Security Council will undertake a prompt review of the agreement after the conclusion of negotiations. Not later than ninety days after a United Nations Security Council Resolution endorses the JCPOA, the process arrives at "Adoption Day," calling upon the United States to prematurely "issue wavers" in order to roll back the US sanctions regime in preparation for a future implementation date.

Nowhere does the Annex mention the US Congress or recognize mandatory Congressional review under the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_. By virtue of the Congressional review under mechanism you agreed to, implementation of a deal cannot go into effect until Congress receives all necessary documentation, evaluates the deal, and renders a judgment. As the JCPOA is written, it seems your Administration intended all along to circumvent his domestic review by moving the agreement tot the UN Security Council before the mandatory 60-day review period ends, thus adopting an agreement without Congressional consent. That Samantha Power has already introduced a draft resolution to the Security Council portrays an offensive level of disrespect for the American people and their elected representatives in Congress.

Under no circumstances should the Executive Branch take such action before the Congressional review process is complete. Thus, I ask that you provide written assurances that you will take all necessary steps to block any UN Security Council resolution approving the JCPOA until the statutory timeline for Congressional review has run its course. Until you provide such assurances, I intend to block all nominees for the Department of State and hold any legislation that reauthorizes funds for the Department of State.

I look forward to your response.

[The letter can be found at:

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20150716_LettertoPOTUSonIranDeal.pdf.]

Following is a facsimile of the letter Senator Cruz sent the White House on 16 July 2015 – viewing the whole of what was sent might give a better understanding of the impressions the Senator was under during the course of the week's events.

Senator Cruz was expressing his exasperation over the speed at events proceeded. It had been agreed upon by the President, and signed into law [ _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ ] that the Congress would have its time period for review of any agreement made with Iran over the nuclear issue, and it was becoming apparent that Obama had no intention of honoring his legally binding pledge.

... Language in the JCPOA assumes Congressional consent of this agreement and fails to even mention the statutory review process that you signed into law on February 27, 2015. Specifically, Annex V of the JCPOA states the United States and Iran" will endorse this JCPOA," and further elucidates that the UN Security Council will undertake a prompt review of the agreement after the conclusion of negotiations.

Putting the above in context; following are areas of the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ Senator Cruz refers to:

Public Law No: 114-17

*SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ''Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW AND OVERSIGHT OF AGREEMENTS WITH IRAN RELATING TO THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM OF IRAN.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 134 the following new section:

''SEC. 135. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW AND OVERSIGHT OF AGREEMENTS WITH IRAN.

''(a) TRANSMISSION TO CONGRESS OF NUCLEAR AGREEMENTS WITH IRAN AND VERIFICATION ASSESSMENT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH AGREEMENTS.—

''(1) TRANSMISSION OF AGREEMENTS.—Not later than 5 calendar days after reaching an agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership—

''(A) the agreement, as defined in subsection (h)(1), including all related materials and annexes;

And presenting the referred to sub-section (h)(i):

''(h) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

''(1) AGREEMENT.—The term 'agreement' means an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.

Obama's In noting that: "... _Specifically, Annex V of the JCPOA states the United States and Iran" will endorse this JCPOA," and further elucidates that the UN Security Council will undertake a prompt review of the agreement after the conclusion of negotiations_..." Senator Cruz is referring to this following which appears twice in the Security Council resolution:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015);

Annex A – JCPOA

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

34. Iran and the E3/EU+3 will implement their JCPOA commitments according to the sequence specified in Annex V. The milestones for implementation are as follows:

i. Finalisation Day is the date on which negotiations of this JCPOA are concluded among the E3/EU+3 and Iran, to be followed promptly by submission of the resolution endorsing this JCPOA to the UN Security Council for adoption without delay.

Cruz is incorrect in his interpretation that the above refers a prompt review of the agreement. The above declares that the Security Council will be submitted "... _for adoption without delay_." The provision as written means exactly what it says – that the resolution is decreed to be adopted without delay.

What happened in the Security Council was exactly that. The Obama administration deposited its United States draft resolution with the Security Council on Friday 17 July 2015. Copies of this were plopped down Monday morning 20 July 2015 on the table tops of representatives of the nations decreed to adopt the resolution without delay. And indeed, the resolution was scrupulously adopted without delay as will be reviewed presently.

On another note: in his letter of the 16th, Senator Cruz was under the impression: "... _That_ [Ambassador] _Samantha Power has already introduced a draft resolution to the Security Council_..." Actually, the United States draft proposal hadn't yet been submitted; and Ambassador Ms. Power was up to something quite different on that Thursday the 16th of July 2015.

* * * * *

**On that Thursday July 16, 2015** , two days after the July 14th Vienna signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the E3/EU+3; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Ms. Samantha Power, sent a Letter of Transmittal to the acting President of the United Nations Security Council, Mr. McCully of New Zealand. Ms. Power wrote: " _The United States Mission to the United Nations requests that the attached Missile Technology Control Regime list (see annex) be circulated as a document of the Security Council_." *

*[U.S. AMBASSADOR SAMANTHA POWER: Letter dated 16 July 2015 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council. (United Nations document number S/2015/546): Available on the internet at: https://disarmament-library.un.org/UNODA/Library.nsf/6d9eec6cdd36149b85257ddc006cd868/e7551f39803265f285257e92005b6a0c/$FILE/S%202015%20546.pdf [last accessed: August 22, 2016.]]

The letter was necessary as part of a sub-gambit. Nobody needed the _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ to be re-circulated through the Security Council. Such an action would represent a redundancy. The above list is a well known international document.

It would be like asking the Security Council to re-circulate the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It is perfectly alright to do so – but it would be sort of a waste of departmental time and money.

The purpose of this seemingly redundant exercise was not necessarily to have the _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ circulated. It was to get that Security Council document number appearing on that upper left hand corner of the page of the copied letter of transmittal. This document number was immediately used as a code word, avoiding the need to refer directly to the Annex by name within the text of Resolution 2231; as we shall soon see.

When it came time for the Security Council or the Congress to debate United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; the use of the code word, which nobody in Congress would think to wonder as to the meaning of or look into, would initially obscure from the body of the Security Council: and, or from the Congress, or from the electorate, positive knowledge that certain classes of weapons were to be made available to Iran through the agreement – as is shown by the provision of Resolution 2231 presented below.

The Code Word was used once in Resolution 2231. It was needed for use in Annex B of the resolution, paragraph 4(a) below. Annex B would never be transmitted to the Congress – nevertheless the code word was used in the following Annex B; paragraph 4(a), which has since become well-known:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; Annex B. - Statement

4. All States may participate in and permit the activities described below provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to permit such activity:

(a) the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to or from Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, and whether or not originating in their territories, of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in _S/2015/546_ and of any items, materials, equipment, goods and technology **that the State determines could contribute to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems** ; and

This paragraph shall apply until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

The code word gambit would make it easier for the administration to hide its assistance to, and promotion of the Iranian expansions of its ballistic missile program and arsenals; and to assert that the agreement authored by the Obama administration, had every intention of retaining sanctions limiting Iranian weapons procurements – as opposed to allowing and promoting unheard of Iranian paying procurement of the latest in western weapons design style advanced achievements.

The Appendix 01 (Chapter 15) – _Excerpt of inventory listed on Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ presents a substantial excerpt from the list and gives a pretty good idea of what the administration was attempting to cover up with its code word.

**ON FRIDAY 17 July 2015** : Barack Obama, completely ignoring the Texas Senator's letter as a matter of course; went ahead and had his draft resolution deposited with the Security Council.

Here is a facsimile of the header to the first page of _United States of America: draft resolution S/2015/547_ is presented immediately below presented as verification of the chronology as stated:

The entire document of the original draft resolution (in pfd format) submitted on the 17 July 2015 was to be found at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/547 [last accessed May, 3 2016.]. However, the United Nations has since modified the document it allows the public to review. The new web address finding United States of America: draft resolution is: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2F2015%2F547&Lang=E

What's missing in this newer version here is any mention of the submittal of the draft resolution by the United States – or the date on which the draft resolution was deposited, by the United States, with the Security Council (17 July 2015). That's perhaps an example of part of your Obama-era, post Obama-Era United Nations Security Council emerging style of paperwork deciding upon the new ideal of what to show the public, and when, in this day and age:

The header of this later version does note that the draft resolution was put out for General Distribution on 20 July 2015, the date of adoption of the resolution by the Security Council. Here then, the Security Council establishes its claim that the entire body of the Security Council, which does include the non-permanent Member States of the Council (none of which were privy to the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel JCPOA negotiation itself); here the Security Council establishes its chronology, which verifies the claim (voiced the morning of the 20th by U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power, and which will be documented anon) that there had been no real review of the draft resolution by the entire body of the Security Council before the 9 AM vote for adoption on Monday morning, 20 July 2015, before anyone was really sure if everyone had even already had their cup of coffee yet.

The original version of the draft resolution can be found in two places that this writing knows of:

_Human Rights Voices_ has it listed at:

http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/assets/attachments/documents/7.17.2015.security.council.resolution.iran.pdf

And _document cloud.org_ retains this at:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2168507/security-council-draft-resolution.pdf

The identical adopted Security Council Resolution 2231 version, as adopted on 20 July 2015 is found at is found (in English) at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2231(2015)

To find United Nations Security Council resolutions by year refer to: http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions

**ON SUNDAY, 19 July 2015** , Obama Spokesperson John Kirby announced in a press release that the State Department had transmitted to Congress everything relevant to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – this was the day before Resolution 2231 was even adopted by the Security Council. The resolution didn't exist yet, transmittal of an authorized version was impossible – for the State Department to transmit to Congress an official copy of an un-circulated U.N. document would have been a bureaucratic impossibility. Here is what Kirby released to the news media:

"Pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, today the State Department transmitted to Congress the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, its annexes, and related materials. These documents include the Unclassified Verification Assessment Report on the JCPOA and the Intelligence Community's Classified Annex to the Verification Assessment Report, as required under the law. Therefore, Day One of the 60-day review period begins tomorrow, Monday, July 20 ."*

*[DEPARTMENT OF STATE: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; Press Statement, John Kirby, Washington DC (July 19, 2015). This document has been archived in the State Department files. In order to find it, first go to this webpage: https://2009-2017.state.gov/# - Once on that page, notice the Search box just below the headline. In the Search box type: 2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/07/245051.htm]

What Kirby does here is to declare that the administration has transmitted these documents as " _Pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ ;" the act which stipulates that:

Not later than 5 calendar days after reaching an agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership— ''(A) the agreement, as defined in subsection (h)(1), including all related materials and annexes;

...and continues on by defining what an "Agreement" as far as it concerns the Bill:

''(h)(1) AGREEMENT.—The term 'agreement' means an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.

Obama's Agent Kirby declares a list of documents which have purported to have been transmitted to Congress. Kirby then stipulates that the documents he transmitted, " _as required under the law_ ," comprise the complete set of documents relating to the agreement between Iran and the United States Government.

Naughty Kirby is a liar. Nowhere on his list of transmitted documents does Kirby make mention of any United States draft resolution which had been deposited with the Security Council on the Friday (17th) before his Sunday declaration.

The definition of "Agreement" in paragraph (h)(1) clearly stipulates that the transmittal to Congress must include:

... any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or **to be entered into or implemented in the future**.

Knowing full well that the Security Council would vote on the United States draft resolution on Monday after his Sunday transmittal; and knowing full well that the draft resolution was intended "... _to be entered into or implemented in the future_ ;" and knowing full well that the United States draft resolution which he had on hand to send was, is the entire "Iran nuclear deal" and not just a part of it;

Kirby refused to mention or include that instrument on his 19 July 2015 list of transmittals to the Congress.

Kirby lied directly when he stipulated that everything had been transmitted in his assertion: " _Pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_...;" and no ingenious choice of word gaming changes that his asserted White House compliance is intended to deceive.

Obviously it was Obama's intention to deceive; and to keep his draft resolution – which was to become Resolution 2231 – away from the 114th Congress. Obama didn't want the entire resolution sent over to the Legislative Branch; given what was contained in the contents of it; that would have been too politically dangerous. The President couldn't have the Congress look at the thing and discuss it on public record. And the obliging Congress never did.

As a ruse – the Obama administration, in its assertion that it had sent everything; was possibly hoping to put across the notion that the United Nations Security Council resolution well-known to be voted on the following day; was only a redundancy, and the Congress need not waste its time in review of it.

As so we have this Obama Democrats' pattern of lying to the public after the fashion that: if it isn't acknowledged as existing or as relevant by the high and high horses mighty party politician – it doesn't exist and is probably not worth considering. And you, Mr. and Ms. Guy and Gal on the street; don't you go asking questions about things that don't exist either. You'd be showing yourself up to your neighbors as being all conspiracy theory paranoid running around asking about things that nobody is bothering you with.

It's just like this Zelenskyy thing. Zelenskyy comes to the United States to speak at the U.N. in Manhattan, New York on September 25, 2019. He later that day presents himself to the U.S. public in a broadcast joint press conference with President Trump. During the press conference he clearly states that he was not pressured by Trump, etc. All of what he says is troublesome as going against the very foundations of the Impeachment committee's claims.

As a result, the statements of their uncooperative fabricated "Injured Party;" the foreigner Ukraine President Zelenskyy who somehow isn't playing along as planned; are ignored by the 116th House of Representatives – and his visit to the United States likewise naturally goes unacknowledged in the early course of the inquiries. That silence at first, lasted only until the point a couple of months later when the committee had had time to gather their wits together and run through some rehearsal for until everyone to feel practiced enough to come out and call the President of the Ukraine a "liar," and just another one of these malleable characters what caves in to Trump's unruly temper.

If the high and mighty horses of the political elite of the United States don't acknowledge something – it doesn't exist. That's the way it is with these current Congressperson partisans, Republican or Democratic Party – but especially that's how the national level Democratic Party pro-nuke agenda acolytes want to keep it.

On the impeachment question: ordinarily Zelenskyy's declarations would be construed as evidence most material to the inquiry. But the current House of Representatives has adopted this unwritten rule that since impeachment proceeding procedures are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution; then whatever fashionable trend or premise or scurrilous accusation the ruling culture of the House of Representatives intends to promote and promulgate need not be scrutinized in the light of best evidence – Common Law notwithstanding, and in disregard for inexpedient notions such as presented by Justice Story as previously cited:

**§ 385**....Strictly speaking...the power [to impeach] partakes of a political character, as it respects injuries to the society in its political character ; and, on this account, it requires to be guarded in its exercise against the spirit of faction, the intolerance of party, and the sudden movements of popular feeling.

Returning to the proof that United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 was never transmitted to the 114th Congress:

**ON MONDAY, 20 July 2015** , the vote adopting Barack Obama's _United States draft proposal S/2015/547_ as United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 takes place in the 7488th meeting of the Security Council.

The meeting notes of the event follow:

The meeting was called to order at 9.05 a.m.

Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

[the topic of the agenda was non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The conclusion of how the Security Council masterfully resolved the issue is a matter of the record, as follows:]

Non-proliferation

**The President** [Mr. McCully of New Zealand _]: In accordance with rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Germany and the Islamic Republic of Iran to participate in this meeting._

In accordance with rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite His Excellency Mr. Thomas Mayr-Harting, Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations, to participate in this meeting.

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. Members of the Council have before them document S/2015/547, which contains the text of a draft resolution prepared in the course of the Council's prior consultations.

_The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. I would like to thank all Council members for their sponsorship of the draft resolution, which is now a presidential text. I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now_.

A vote was taken by show of hands.

_In favour_ :

Angola, Chad, Chile, China, France, Jordan, Lithuania, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

**The President** : _The draft resolution received 15 votes in favour. The draft resolution has been adopted unanimously as resolution 2231 (2015)_.

It is important to note that Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations requires of any vote concerning the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments, the Military Staff Committee must be involved in the development of such:

Charter of the United Nations

*CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

Article 26

In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the **Military Staff Committee** referred to in Article 47 plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.

THE MILITARY STAFF COMMITTEE is defined in the Charter of the United Nations under Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to The Peace, Breaches of The Peace, and Acts of Aggression; Article 47. The composition of the Military Staff Committee is defined in the 2nd clause of the Article:

Charter of the United Nations

*CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 26

2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives...

Naturally the Military Staff Committee was never invited to participate in this event. The JCPOA intentionally precluded this possibility in its cited provision stipulating that conclusion of negotiations are to be "... _followed promptly by submission of the resolution endorsing this JCPOA to the UN Security Council for_ _adoption without delay_."

[Interesting premise there – that a resolution which has never been ratified, approved, or even looked at, should be given the Authority on the merits of its simply having been put down on paper to in itself decree and command it should be adopted " _without dela_ _y_." That kind of political immaculate conception is what's known as self-appointed or usurped authority – theoretically not condoned in what are lauded to be representative forms of Government.]

Obama had evidently learned much in his contact with the understood authoritarian flair of the Ministers of the Government of Iran. This despotic styling was becoming typical of Obama's manner of doing business.

The presence of the Military Staff Committee on the occasion of the vote might have interfered with directly proceeding to a vote to adopt without delay. It might have been thought by the authors of the draft resolution that if the representatives of the Non-permanent Member States of the Security Council – who weren't included in negotiations and had no detailed first hand knowledge of the content of the draft deposited with the Security Council by the United States administration just before the weekend; if the representatives of those Member States were suddenly surprised 9 O'clock Monday morning by a display of swarthy uniforms worn on military brass notables;

Some of those nations' representatives might get to thinking that there might be more to this instrument placed before them than had originally been represented. Some might consider even asking for a slow-down on the vote until a consultation call could be put in to home base; if a procedural embarrassment like that might be tolerated by the chairpersonship. Maybe something like that should have been considered as opposed to this scenario of being rushed into a show of hands vote for purposes of political window dressing advantage.

The authors of the draft resolution had to be careful about how the voting process was managed; after all, the attendance of the Military Staff committee might well disrupt the contemplated ordered process – as observed. So that was that; and the military professionals weren't even invited to picnic in the hallways.

It was decided thereby, that the requirements of the Charter of the United Nations would of necessity have to be dispensed with; thus maybe making that aspect of the illegitimacy of the vote vulnerable to possible attack and nullification if the case were brought before the Court. That was O.K. anyway; why should anyone worry about something as unlikely as that ever happening. If elite U.N. Five Permanent Member State leaderships decide to ignore Article 26 – then it's automatically blurred out of existence without anyone asking questions trying to be smart about it. Obama had been edging up on his totalitarian technique with all that practice he'd been getting hanging around with the Minister of the Government of Iran, what with all their long time savvy know-how making up their own rules for how things ought best proceed to their pleasure.

ALL THAT ASIDE – Barack Obama now on Monday the 20th, finally had something from the Security Council to send Congress; but there was no movement, at that time or in seasons following, emanating from the Obama White House on this aspect.

The 60 day countdown for Congressional review of the "Iran Deal" officially began – not because Obama had transmitted Resolution 2231 to the Congress; but because Obama had decided explicitly on his own that the race would start at the time of his pleasure – regardless of what had been ratified by his signature in the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ .

One challenging way this 60 day count-down period during the summer months of 2015 might have been thought of: the count down could have been perceived as an exciting national spectator sport event; a race to see if our practicing members of Congress of that 114th term could manage to figure out in the time allotted that Obama had only pretended it was his intention to effect transmission of Resolution 2231 to the 114th Congress...

**ON WEDNESDAY, 22 July 2015** , White House Spokesperson John Kirby held a press conference in the White House.

The following is a recounting of some further details of the questions posed, and answers given during that July 22 press Conference:

QUESTION: _Yes, please. Just to clarify, you mentioned that the Congress has what we have. And in the same time you mentioned yesterday and today in a TV appearance that you transferred to the Congress all the documents that you have regarding this issue. Can you describe it? I mean, what is it? I mean, it's like it is detailed or it's just – I assume it's not --_

MR KIRBY _: It's the entire set of documents that go along with the deal to include the annexes and a verification assessment._

QUESTION: _...It's all the technical, the financial part and everything?_

MR KIRBY _:...It's – everything that we have about this deal has been provided to Congress. And I would point out that much of it is already available to all of you online._

QUESTION: _...It's not the 158 pages, right? It's more than that, right?_ [The first copy of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action announced in Vienna was published as a volume separate from the entire resolution – it was 158 or 159 pages. The entire resolution (Annex A: JCPOA included) is laid out more compactly with smaller print and runs some 104 pages.]

MR KIRBY _:...There is some additional information provided there, yeah, but a lot of it's already been made publicly available. But yes, everything is up there. It got there on Sunday.*_

*[U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: Daily Press Briefing - Washington DC (July 22, 2015); John Kirby, spokesperson. This document has been archived in the State Department files. In order to find it, first go to this webpage: https://2009-2017.state.gov/# - Once on that page, notice the Search box just below the headline.  
In the Search box type: 2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/07/245186.htm]

Kirby was lying – naturally. And his lie of avoiding once again to claim the Security Council resolution in his list of things he says he sent (and this time when he missed mentioning the Security Council resolution which is the actual text of the entire "Iran nuclear deal," it had already been voted on that Monday two days earlier); Kirby's lie of omission on the issue once again that Wednesday the 22nd stands as added testimonial that Security Council Resolution 2231 was never posted as it should have been, and the benighted Congress never received it from Obama as promised and as the Congress expected it would be.

The so odd and strange thing is: nobody of the news media attending John Kirby's 22 July 2015 press conference asked the obvious about the Sunday 19th transmittal: "what about the Security Council resolution that got voted on, on Monday – did you send that along to the Congress with everything else on Sunday too?" Nope, not a peep; which just goes to show that words coming out the mouth of an authority figure in a well tailored monkey suit or an impressive enough uniform, doesn't merit or alert the level of critical attention as a 10 year old trying to buy a pint of malt liquor.

* * * * *

So it became clear that United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 was not going to get transmitted to the Congress. Going through the Congressional Record, and State Department records, there is no trace of anything having to do with Obama's "Iran Deal" being transmitted or received after that Sunday, the 19th. The Statements made on the 22nd by John Kirby would be the White House final word on the matter – almost...

But not quite; the White House later, in December 2015, made a very interesting declaration in writing of its principles regarding the agreement President Obama had finagled with the Ministers of the Government of Iran.

Although everyone in the assorted 114th Congressional cavaliers knew about the 20 July 2015 vote in the Security Council; the product resulting from the vote was blithely ignored until two members of the Senate: Republicans Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo, on or around 18 September 2015 almost made, but failed to make, the connection between the observation that the JCPOA was unsigned – and that this lack of signatures on the document might have something to do with the resolution adopted by the Security Council on 20 July 2015.

The sense that something was amiss somewhere dawned on these two after both Houses of Congress had voted on something purported to be the "Iran Nuclear Deal" on 10 and 11 September 2017, a little over a week before.

Being inclined to look into the matter of the missing signatures; then Senator, now Secretary of State Pompeo, along with Senator Cotton, wrote then Secretary of State John Kerry, on 18 September 2015, asking questions:

Dear Secretary Kerry:

I have reviewed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 and Islamic Republic of Iran – or at least the parts of the agreement that were provided to Congress by the administration. As you know, pursuant to H. Res. 411, the House of Representatives considers the documents transmitted on July 19, 2015 incomplete in light of the fact that the secret side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran were not provided to Congress. I look forward to seeing the entire agreement – including the two secret side deals that are part of the JCPOA – so that Congress may continue to evaluate the JCPOA and, depending on the outcome of the vote under the relevant provisions of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, potentially end the current and continuing prohibition of the lifting of sanctions on Iran.

During that review, I found that the copies provided to Congress of the JCPOA are not signed by any of the P5+1 members nor by Iran. Having never seen an international agreement of this magnitude not signed by the parties or an agent of the parties, I assume this is simply an oversight or an administrative error. That is, Congress must not have the final version of the agreement that would necessarily be signed. I request that you provide us with copies of a final, executed copy of the JCPOA. In the event that the JCPOA has not yet been signed by the parties, please inform us (a) when signatures will be placed on the agreement, (b) what parties will be signing, and (c) which person you anticipate will sign on behalf of each of those parties, including on behalf of the United States.

I am confident that you intended for the JCPOA to be signed by each of the P5+1 participants. I can find no international agreement of this "historic" nature that was not signed by the parties. Each of the past five major nuclear agreements to which the U.S. is a party – SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II and the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea – were signed by representatives of each nation that was party to the agreement. This is not a mere formality. Those signatures represent the commitment of the signatory and the country on whose behalf he or she is signing.

A signature also serves to make clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement. In short, just as with any legal instrument, signing matters.

This is particularly important with respect to JCPOA. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has made clear that he does not believe that JCPOA is legally binding on his nation, saying, "If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it. Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?"

Given the many benefits that will accrue to the ayatollahs, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and other unsavory elements of the Iranian regime, I believe that Iran should, at the very least, bind itself to the few requirements placed on it under the JCPOA by signing the agreement. I also believe that the United States and its P5+1 partners on the JCPOA should execute the agreement on behalf of their countries. I look forward to your response.

We all do. *

*[The text of the letter was found in two places:

https://cjhsla.org/2015/11/01/the-iran-deal-was-not-signed-by-iran-or-anyone-else/

And:

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/the-iran-deal-was-not-signed-by-iran-or-anyone-else/2015/09/19/

I was unable to locate an original facsimile; however, the response to the letter from the State Department verifies that the letter was sent.]

The text of the response follows – and a facsimile of the response is presented after:

Dear Mr. Pompeo.:

Thank you for your September 18 letter regarding the nuclear deal with Iran. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China), and the European Union. As you know, the United States has a long-standing practice of addressing sensitive problems in negotiations that culminate in political commitments.

The success of the JCPOA will depend not whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran's understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose and ramp up – our sanction if Iran does not meet its commitments.

Everything the JCPOA and its annexes are commitments Iran made, and must keep, to remain in compliance. Iran breaks these commitments, we can snap back both unilateral and UN sanction.

We provided Congress with everything agreed to between the P5+1 and Iran in the JCPOA, in full compliance with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INAEA). There are no "secret deals" between the P5+1 and Iran, and no JCPOA document that Congress does not already have. The Administration is fully committed to providing information to Congress to ensure full transparency as we implement the JCPOA.

We hope this information is useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Julia Frifield; Assistant Secretary; Legislative Affairs.

The facsimile presented next can be found at: _http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/assets/attachments/documents/11.24.2015.state.dept.letter.jcpoa.pdf_

Republican Senator Pompeo, later to become Secretary of State under President Trump, along with Republican Senator Cotton, at that point still didn't get what this is all about. The Senators, in their lethargic timidity; hadn't put themselves to the trouble of carrying out the elementary comparison between what was sent Congress and what was voted on in the Security Council. Had they done that it would have completely changed the whole conversation between the legislature and the Obama administration at the time and saved everybody a world of trouble and misery later on.

Once again – per the narrow collective imagination of the insular culture of Congress of the era: if it hasn't been talked about; it doesn't exist and isn't worth considering.

Then Senators Pompeo and Cotton, at that time chose not to think and act as grown men capable of independent reasoning – but instead fashioned themselves as the products of their Congressional society, bound by the limitations of that society's uninvestigated preconceptions, the constraints of its prejudices.

As no one else would do the most obvious common sense thing in the circumstance – the Senators followed suit and did not dare pursue any necessary review of the Security Council resolution.

It was as though the population of the national assembly collectively considered this Security Council resolution to be something foreign. It had been published in far away New York City, perhaps as a kind of formality after-thought; wholly redundant given that the Barack Obama White House had committed itself to the proclamation announced Sunday 19th of July, 2015 to the news-media outlets that as of that Sunday the 19th everything had been duly transmitted to Congress.

This is another example of the seemingly imperceptible congressional cultural bias against foreigners. Whatever it was those foreigners got over there in New York that 20 July 2015 day must have been at best what we got – although it was probably just an annotated spin off. Naturally Congress gets the real deal and who cares what Obama gave the Heads of State of foreign countries.

It may seem a crude thing to say; but it's clearly evident in the examples. The insulting and shabby manner in which President Zelenskyy was treated; I take it as disparaging to the People of Ukraine that their choice in the matter should be treated so dishonorably; and I take it as contrary and insulting to a true sensibility and affection for the ideal of representative. It makes me as an American Citizen angry that the members of Congress members are like that: so insular and so narrow in their sympathies.

And then there is example of the restrictive stupidity of not looking to affirm that the domestic and international contents of the Iran nuclear deal were the same. A lack of interest in how the foreigner is treated – an imbecile lack of concern (concern where it is due) as to whether envoys of the foreign Heads of State are receiving the same treatment due the Congress – or are they being hoodwinked into believing they have anything other than an annotated, abbreviated version of what was given the Congress.

It would seem preposterous were Obama to submit an annotated version to the Security Council membership, it wouldn't make sense – someone international would be bound to figure it out one would think. And of course, Obama did no such thing. It was the Congress of the United States which received the abbreviated article; it was the Congress which was hoodwinked, that got suckered – naturally.

And such are the wages of living in the darkened world of this congressional culture. A chauvinistic competitive and defensive reaction to the stranger with strange customs – as though appreciation of those strange customs would interfere with our democratic process;

The same competitiveness and deficiency in the candor of empathy which so characterizes the cornered dog behavior of the members of Congress towards each other; is projected on to and applied to the foreigner, but this time with no restraint – because the foreigner is of no Caste or Status;

Resulting in an imbecile lack of interested sympathy as to whether the foreign guest is treated graciously and with respect;

Leading to hasty indifference with no time or space to share with any curiosity of what's going on over there in New York with those foreign envoys and all – and is the rest of the world looking at what we're looking at and do we really understand the world around us even, or is everything out to interfere with our democratic process the way we're doing right now...

So the Congress doesn't check the most elementary thing because, being so carried away possessed by the standard of the congress-centric community that thinks it's the whole world – the standard being that if the Congress doesn't by golly bipartisan acknowledge it, then no one will or should; and you shouldn't be asking questions about what nobody's bothering you with anyway.

Putting that aside we return to our two sorrowful children of woe Senators who thought they noticed something about signatures:

Having not looked into the matter of the obscure difference between what the Security Council got to read and the Congress didn't; it flowed naturally that the uninformed Senators' approach to posing their lackluster queries was simple-minded, obtuse and unstudied.

Unwilling to take advantage of the easy accessibility of Resolution 2231; they outwardly advertised themselves as persons clearly not enough interested in the issue to look into the obvious; and so they weren't a threat because they just didn't know anything, never would – and so couldn't formulate or express a petition articulating any real complaint as its basis.

Consequentially they were simply treated as more of those same kind of swaggering louts coming around from time to time spoiling for a political brawl; you know their kind, the rowdies who don't quite know how to get things started but raise a pretty good ruckus over it, whatever it is anyway. The sophisticated politician trained in the policies of indifference knows how to deal with their kind as a matter of course.

It's pretty well known in the current annals of Congressional partisan interactive conflict; that the incessant political brawl is a sport most frequently practiced. And so it's no surprise when the bruisers show up on the doorstep scowling dark looks and generally putting out other signs of imminent huff.

Pompeo and Cotton barged in; focusing on an obsessive preoccupation with rumored "secret side deals" joined between Iran and the _International Atomic Energy Agency_ ; which weren't so secret or rumored after all, it being the case that Director _General of the International Atomic Energy Agency_ , Yukiya Amano himself – as previously cited; had already publicly declared on 14 July 2015 that these side deals did exist; and further, had even roughly described the content and subject matter of them.

The Senators, advertising by the tenor of their questions that they were unaware of Amano's declaration on the matter; were, in despite of themselves, insentiently leaving the outward impression that as far as they might have known they were only chasing after mere rumors of "side deals;" just guessing as it were. And if that was their true circumstance of mind; their advances could be easily deflected.

More critically; without realizing it, they were exposing that they remained in ignorance of Security Council Resolution 2231 and consequentially the significance and primary importance of its provisions which they had no clue of as even existing.

By neglecting to identify or even mention the very central Security Council resolution they revealed themselves to be hopelessly out of touch and pretty much on a fishing expedition like the rest of Congress – nothing for the Obama administration to worry about or trouble itself over.

The State Department, through the Agency of _Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs_ Ms. Julia Frifield (for that was indeed her true title in the Obama administration – regardless that she doesn't spell it out in her letter of response to the two Senators; which she addressed solely to Pompeo;

The State Department through Assistant Secretary Frifield responded to the Senators' tentative and trivial now almost forgotten inquiry by treating them as the fools who proudly make a tiresome issue of their ignorance by idly sweating out other people's time with their persistent spewing out of incoherent conjecture in search of direction; and then following up on that by insisting someone official formulate a response validating their madness.

As reply to their advances – the Assistant Secretary of State Ms. Frifield put the Senators' letter on a waiting list for about two months. Giving this adventure quest saga of the Senators something of the tone of a sort of Zen practical field test of patience;

Frifield of the State Department had them sit it out cooling their heels for a couple of months while she at her leisure scientifically carried out an empirical study of her laboratory subject Senators' temperance and patience levels; their responses to the irritating stimulus of the annoying standard bureaucratic brush off – this perhaps to learn as whether the Pompeo-Cotton teamwork committee exchange were serious or simply too shallow to carry on in restless pursuit.

The State Department sat unresponsive on the letter and the issue from 18 September 2015 through to November 19 – a respectable amount of time in which to allow the Senators' excitement to fizzle, then burn itself out as it would.

The Senators in the mean time to the best of my knowledge, didn't spend the two month communication interval pulling Resolution 2231 down off the internet and studying it like mad as they might have, should have.

And as far as I know, they didn't start writing in and calling the Ms. Frifield of the State Department Office indignantly leaving word with harried secretarial staff about at least every two weeks complaining they were being neglected and someone highly placed over there might want to tell them why.

The State Department for its part; finally getting around to putting together a response to the unnecessary upset, got back in touch as noted, on 19th of November.

In formulating her rejoinder, Assistant Secretary; Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield by that time in November – evidently not having heard a peep of a mention out of the Senators over the last two months referring to a Security Council Resolution 2231 seemingly gone missing, never having been transmitted to Congress – would have by then been empowered with a pretty good idea that the Obama administration ploy had worked and an imbecile Congress still believed and acted upon the notion that they had received everything, voted on it; and that was that.

It being apparent that the Congress in general was content with having been fooled; Frifield could make a reasonable guess that Pompeo and Cotton had lost interest over time and were no longer seized of the matter – in which case whatever response the State Department wanted to pull over on the querulous but out-of-steam Senators; from that point on probably wouldn't be argued with by those two goofy Congress members who just wouldn't get a clue.

In her letter, she stonewalled the Senators with much the same brand of banal fabrication and lies of omission as Kirby had handed out to the press that July past claiming that everything had been sent; but then she added that it really didn't matter if the instrument was legally binding or unsigned etc.

Frifield chose to lie directly in her snide rebuff deflecting the easily distracted Senators' attention away from the official instrument everyone else in the world, except the hick population of the backwater U.S. Congress; was reading off of and preparing to work from:

"We provided Congress with everything agreed to between the P5+1 and Iran in the JCPOA, in full compliance with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INAEA). There are no "secret deals" between the P5+1 and Iran, and no JCPOA document that Congress does not already have..."

Frifield might have thought herself very clever in playing her little word game claiming that Congress had been provided with "... _everything agreed to between the P5+1 and Iran_ _in the JCPOA_ ;" perhaps congratulating herself she had the foresight in her ingenious ruse to limit her claim only to having fulfilled all requirements associated with the JCPOA exclusively – perhaps by working that subterfuge she could persuade herself that even though she hadn't addressed the issue of the rest of the Security Council resolution which remained unsent; she was telling the truth after a fashion because the two Republican Senators hadn't asked about that.

Corrupt people have a tendency to develop warped rationalizations presumed by the persons themselves to exculpate the wrongs they commit – and in this case the _Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs_ was kidding herself. Inattentive, bored and lax Ms. Frifield hadn't nearly read the required reading material, which was the law she cited in her letter: the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act_ of 2015; which clearly declares the definition of an "Agreement," for the purposes of that document, as being:

''(h)(1) AGREEMENT.—The term 'agreement' means an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action...whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or **to be entered into or implemented in the future**.

By the terms of the cited law ratified by no other than Barack Obama himself; it can be most reasonably construed that the administration was violating the **letter of the law** by not transmitting either the United States draft resolution or the word-for-word identical Security Council Resolution 2231 to Congress. (Regardless if Obama's license taking little twerp _Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs_ Frifield might have been dreaming to console herself that she had only violated something debatable – like the "spirit of the law.")

Per the definition asserted in paragraph (h)(1), United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 – which only published at earliest on the day after Kirby claimed he had sent everything and all that was to be "... _entered into or implemented in the future_ ;" Frifield's statement that: "... _We provided Congress with everything agreed to between the P5+1 and Iran in the JCPOA, in full compliance with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act_..." was pure obstructionist falsehood – no debate about it.

The administration simply had not sent everything "... _to be entered into or implemented in the future_...;" a classification which United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 falls under. It was purely preposterous to promote the notion that Obama's bunch had sent everything as they evaded transmitting the full agreement between Parties – but the deception held and is still holding at year end 2019.

AS TO FRIFIELD'S CONTENTION...:

"The success of the JCPOA will depend not whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place..."

Regarding this Case of the Unsigned Contract: an earlier slip of the tongue on the part of Obama spokesperson John Kirby is worthy of remark.

In a newsmaker availability White House Daily Press Briefing seminar session of Friday 17 July 2015 – that very same day Friday Obama's United States draft resolution was being deposited at the U.N. – Obama spokesperson minion John Kirby managed to let the cat out of the bag without anyone in attendance at the time noticing what they couldn't have guessed at without more information.

A reporter asked:

QUESTION: _Now that the nuclear deal is concluded at first stage with Iran, and two days ago President Obama stated that Iran should be part of the Syria conversations, have you had a chance to start some kind of talks on Syria with the Iranian Government?_

MR KIRBY: _Well, look, this deal just got signed earlier this week – **sorry, just got finalized this week**. So no, there have been no forum – fora through which talks on Syria have occurred with the Iranian Government. So no, I don't have anything new to announce in that regard._

Ouch! Kirby made a mistake saying the deal was signed; but he quickly went back and corrected himself apologizing saying: "... _sorry, just got finalized this week_." How does that work – being honest for once when maybe the administration wasn't yet ready for the world to know that the deal wasn't even signed?

As noted – no one in attendance recommended anything as being out-of-step; so there was no need not to let the gaffe slide. And another thing that went undetected at the 17 July 2015 press convening was that Kirby made no declaration acknowledging that the earth shattering Obama's draft resolution, destined to become Resolution 2231; which in no way was going to get transmitted with everything else to the Congress on Sunday coming up, or ever; had already been deposited with the Security Council on that very same day.

Not to be persnickety about it; but I bring the aspects up as further indication that Obama administration personnel knew exactly what the administration was doing and all essential personnel (like then Vice President Joe Biden for example) already had a pretty good idea of how Things were wanted to shape up and spin out.

So is seems plausible that when Frifield left the Senators Cotton and Pompeo joyriding around in their imaginations for a couple of months, the administration probably already had long since developed an approach on how to toy with and diffuse an anticipated possible like request coming from any quarter.

ON THE SENATORS' END: the Senators Cotton and Pompeo had asked about side deals between the IAEA and Iran. And here the crooked _Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs_ Frifield evaded by claiming there were "... _no 'secret deals' between the P5+1 and Iran_ ;" which is not what she had been asked. This was another shaming official jerk-around implementation of a practiced policy of intentional bureaucratic obfuscation and misdirection.

That aside – the letter itself expressed confusion over whether Congress had received the final version of the JCPOA. The Senators'18 September 2015 letter, sent after the votes taken in the House of Representatives and Senate, is wholly ignorant of the existence or relevance of the Security Council resolution voted on in the 7488th Security Council Meeting in New York on 20 July 2015.

Had the Senators secured copies of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 on their own, as they easily might have had they bothered to look into the matter; they would have already been certain the administration had not been true to its word; and as it hadn't transmitted the agreement between the parties, a different form of action would have had to have been initiated by elements of the Congress.

THE FACT OF the two Senators still being confused in their letter sent after the September votes in the Congress, as to the final "JCPOA" version; bears further testimony that Obama's official Iran nuclear agreement had not been received by Congress – and that the Congress remained completely in the dark on the issue that season.

A significant observed feature of the history of this documented event, which will not pass without remark and is immediately relevant to the current impeach inquiry; is that as the documentation shows: the entire Congress, severally in its members and universally as a body; can easily delude itself and be deluded on an unarguably elementary level.

It is a property of an entire Congress in general; and also specific to this particular 114th body of argumentative status seeking, highly status-conscious, stridently competitive Congress members constantly on the lookout to upstage those of the other party or each other;

It is a proven by experience property of Congress: that the whole of the Congress, each and every member of both Houses; can be entirely and universally, as a monolithic body with no member dissenting – the whole group portrait of a Congress is capable of being, and can be, simply wrong without introspection or restraint.

The obsessive brawlers of the Congress, preoccupied with their compulsive need to browbeat or humiliate, counter and dismiss variant views – often through the exertion of a quantity of insultingly antagonistic theatrical bombast – each member aware and anxious that the same will be meted out to themselves at some point or other or often;

Those obsessive famous brawlers focused on their bickerings, can very easily lose sight of, or lose the capacity to grasp the substance or facts of an issue. The fight noise is what consumes and distracts attention as they group together in mobbed preparations for pointless combat; which spurs anxious, exhausted individual Congressperson rowdies to retreat into personal timidity in apprehension of the constant daily exposure to irrational conflict punctuated by aggravating, sneeringly mendacious or distorting histrionics;

To retreat into personal timidity; to resign themselves in their timidity to the protection of the current party line, the current version of partisan group therapy available; of which no one can exactly remember who came up with what on which topic, and how things came to be or got so far out of hand;

To retreat, to fall back on the protection of party line from which no self-respecting status seeker dare meander or deviate;

To retreat back into a society from which no person who was there can remember or begin to tell you how it came to pass that with so many questioning whether what Obama transmitted was complete – and where did the missing "side agreements" go in hiding; how it could turn out to be that every any single gullible person in both Houses of a perpetually self-distracted Congress failed to come up with or implement the genius breakthrough plan of simply downloading the Security Council resolution from the Security Council website and checking Obama's transmittal against the genuine article to verify or deny Obama's alleged unadulterated wholeness.

ILLUSTRIOUS SENATORS Pompeo and Cotton's reaction to Agent Frifield's snub was to slink back to their respective Senatorial cubicles hopelessly deflated. All choked up from the scolding they got the Senators evidently had lost their taste for looking into the matter any further.

As far as I've been able to discover, even now serving as Secretary of State in the Trump Administration and no longer under the thumb of the formidable and terrifying Ms. Frifield; Mr. Pompeo still hasn't uttered a public word about the horrifically traumatizing, later notorious case of the misdirected votes cast; that adventure naturally accompanying the case of the Security Council Resolution 2231 gone missing – the Security Council endorsed arrangement which was never reviewed by the Congress at any time, then through till now (end of 2019 – smack dab towards the middle of the Era of the Lower House Trump Impeachment Cycle).

IT IS WORTH REMEMBERING that the two Republican Senators weren't the only one's in the summer of 2015 Congress who had shown concern over what was in those _International Atomic Energy Agency-Iran_ "side deals."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Republican Bob Corker and Ranking Member Democrat Ben Cardin, the two of them as well sent a bipartisan letter to the State Department requesting the actual text of the two separate publicly announced agreements between the IAEA and Iran. They were effectively ignored by the Obama administration same as the later ones would be. And very junior Illinois Republican Representative Mr. Peter Roskam of the Lower House gave a very long speech on the floor of the House of Representatives on September 8th, 2015 admonishing that a vote on the JCPOA should be held up until the "side deals" were transmitted from the White House. The speech was to no real effect except to illicit more of the same derisive practiced policy sermon of: " **if we don't acknowledge it, it doesn't exist** :"

Then very high ranking Democrat Louise Slaughter of the House of Representatives referred dismissively, in debate, to the IAEA Director's publicly announced side deals:

...the House majority has... thrown us into disarray. We will vote today on two bills, another one tomorrow. It was decided that, first, there will be a bill to say that the President cannot lift the sanctions and a bill on **side agreements that they think are out there that nobody else knows about**...

And there was more of that sort of tawdry mocking obstructionism coming from other partisans as well.

A surly unwillingness by an influential higher-status pecking order elitist of the small world collective populating Congress; a surly unwillingness by Party leadership to be bothered with accounting for or discussing an issue is enough to distract and sideline, or dismiss entirely a concern of the highest magnitude of importance put before the National Assembly.

Our surrealistic, easily cowed members of Congress were unwilling as a group to even insist on acknowledging the at-the-time known materially relevant fact of the existence of the IAEA publicly declared "side deals." If the facts of the matter could even be recognized – then a reasonable discussion of the merits or lack thereof of those could at least be undertaken; but this was a rational course which primitive tribal obstructionist Party leadership quite simply just would not allow.

AS TO OBAMA'S State Department, and as to Obama's choices: To understand how perniciously vile was the intransigent refusal of Obama toadies Mr. Kirby and Ms. Frifield, to at least refer or direct the members of the National Assembly of Representatives (as collectively obtuse as they were) to the existence and availability of the Security Council resolution – deciding instead to disregard what Obama had earlier ratified into law in favor of following their Master's latest subsequent change of heart, the decree of his recent most despotic arbitrary whim – which dictated in the event; that the genuine article would be substituted by an intentional lie;

To better appreciate the absolutely serious threat posed by the carried away perversity of the President and his warped minions' so utterly degraded misconduct in withholding and misdirecting attention away from Security Council Resolution 2231; one must examine what is in the contents of that Security Council resolution Obama and loyal henchmen and women minions were so intent on keeping from the 114th Congress.

* * * * *
Chapter 4

– Weapons Development Expansion Plan:  
– Content Outline –

Barack Obama's Secretary of Energy, Dr, Ernest Moniz; presenting himself before the United States Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on July 23, 2015, declared:

"Under this deal, Iran will not engage in several activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device, including multiple point explosive systems. These commitments are indefinite." *****

***** [Testimony Before The Senate Foreign Affairs Committee; Secretary Ernest Moniz; Washington, DC; July 23, 2015; internet access to pdf document is found at: http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-23-15%20Moniz%20Testimony.pdf [Last accessed June 24, 2016.]

Actually, what was slated to happen in the arrangement, and what did happen: is that within a very short time – six months as the advertised "indefinite" would turn out to be, Iran was permitted to exactly engage in activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device – and specifically permitted to undertake experimentation with multiple point (multipoint) explosive systems. (Odd that Secretary of Energy Moniz should stipulate that particular item in his fraud sales pitch. Guilty conscience allowed perhaps to surface in public?)

One shouldn't be surprised by anything found in the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. Obama's Iran nuclear deal turned Security Council resolution is quite simply an arrangement whereby the State Powers, the five Permanent Members of the Security Council: Russia, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and China; along with Germany – perhaps reasoning that since Iran was going to develop nuclear weapons anyway – decided to get Iran to agree to slow down the effort a bit.

In exchange for, or in addition to a slow down; Iran allows the above mentioned State Powers to turn a profit over time by approving and expediting the sales to Iran (likely of each other's) nuclear weapons associated, and other weapons classes associated; goods, technologies and support services – throughout the protracted development period and beyond.

Obama's Iran nuclear deal – Security Council Resolution 2231 – establishes a _Procurement Working Group_ bureaucracy which oversees the expediting and approval of sales to Iran of procurement packages bundling nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated goods, technologies and support services; while prohibiting the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from inspecting the contents of these packaged Iranian acquisitions; from inspecting these with a view towards to preventing the diversion of whatever is in those packages, from peaceful uses to use in the development or manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The procedures organizing this internationally agreed upon business enterprise are laid out unmistakably in the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 – the official entire version of the Obama Iran nuclear deal arrangement coordination template between Iran and the other State Parties; which as noted, is the version of the deal which Obama lawlessly refused to transmit to the 114th Congress as required by the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ ; a statute which Barack Obama the President himself had signed and ratified.

By mid 2016 the Security Council sponsored bureaucracy, the _Procurement Working Group_ – its decision making body staffed exclusively by representatives of the Governments of the Five Permanent Member States of the Security Council, along with Germany and Iran; and moderated by the non-voting representative of the European Union – had published their advertisement alerting all comers international that they may sell to Iran procurement packages bundling nuclear and ballistic weapons associated goods, support services, and technologies...

What follows in this chapter is an encapsulated description of these already mentioned, and other aspects of Resolution 2231 which might surprise the reader who may yet have been under the impression that Obama's Iran nuclear deal might ever have been intended to: _verifiably cut off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb;_ as it is roundly mischaracterized by proponents of President Obama's sales scheme just begging to be looked into.

Description of each aspect will also reference an annex or annexes to this writing (each annex found in the later chapters of this book); – annexes which describe the respective issues addressed in further detail.

RETURNING to the narrative: The decision making body of the _Procurement Working Group_ is comprised of the direct Parties to the Iran nuclear agreement, which are: Russia, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and China; along with Germany and Iran – and with the permanent representative of the European Union moderating discussions as a non-voting member; as an attendee if you will.

The Procurement Working Group decides on whether to approve sales proposals submitted by various parties eager to make a sale – and as there is little requirement for the Group to account for its decisions on why a sales proposal was approved or rejected. One may construe from this that the process might occasionally give way at times to possible bias or leanings towards favorites.*

* Chapter 16 – Appendix 02: _The Procurement Working Group and its mandate to expedite Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories_ ; [] describes provisions detailing the activities and mandate of the Procurement Working Group

THE EXACT CONTENTS of what inventory or service rendered is contained under a given Iranian purchase order contract is kept as secret. However, it is known that Iran is permitted to buy nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies and support services listed on the International Atomic Energy Agency's previous INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 list of nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies and support services; a list which has most recently been updated as INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2.

The INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 roster of nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies and support services, like its predecessor the INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 list, includes under technology the heading "Technical Data" which pertains to such inventory as: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions_..."* Any of that might appear on a sales proposal intended for Iranian consumption. And because sales to Iran of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 class inventory are kept secret per the Secrecy Agreement governing these transaction – no member of the United States Congress will ever know what exactly is being sold Iran by whom.**

* Chapter 17 – Appendix 03: _Excerpt of the contents of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a inventory list. (Nuclear weapons associated inventories Iran is entitled to acquire under Resolution 2231_.)[]; provides excerpts of some inventories found on the INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 series list of nuclear weapons associated items which the IAEA stipulates should not be transferred to as State when: "when there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to such an activity, or when the transfers are contrary to the objective of averting the proliferation of nuclear weapons..." **†**

† INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA), INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; part 2 (12 November 2013), https://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/infcircs/purpose-series-documents \- or as an alternate https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1978/infcirc254r9p2.pdf [last accessed: May 9, 2016].

** Chapter 18 – Appendix 04 []: _Secrecy arrangement concerning Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories_ ; Details to some extent the agreed upon Secrecy arrangement between the Parties regarding the contents of procurement packages acquired by Iran.

AS MENTIONED; the International Atomic Energy Agency is also prohibited from inspecting the contents of these packaged Iranian acquisitions with a view towards to preventing the diversion of whatever is in those packages – from peaceful uses to use in the development or manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.*

* Chapter 19 – Appendix 05 []: _The Procurement Working Group mandate to prohibit the International Atomic Energy Agency from discovering, investigating, or reporting on Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated assets listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a – this in violation of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT); Article III; first clause_ ; Describes the policy prohibiting IAEA investigation of the contents of Iranian acquisition through the Procurement Working Group of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 nuclear weapons related assets – and indicates where the prohibition is found in the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.

The above appendix answers the question as to how one may know whether or not nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies, or support services are being sold Iran in these procurement packages, the exact contents of which are kept secret – and of which the International Atomic Energy Agency is prohibited from inspecting.

There are two lists of inventories the Procurement Working Group along with Iran are working from in selecting items to be added to the shopping cart. INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1, or the Part 1 list of nuclear industry associated inventories refers to items specific to the production of nuclear energy.

The INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 and INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2, or the Part 2 lists deals with "dual use" items most of which are items designed for dedicated weapons development – and some of which have dual use application.

The Appendix documents that the International Atomic Energy Agency is invited to attend Procurement Working Group meetings pertaining to Part 1, nuclear energy production acquisitions; and the International Atomic Energy Agency is barred from attending meetings concerning Part 2., nuclear weapons development associated acquisitions.

The prohibition on International Atomic Energy Agency access to those meetings is most reasonably construed as violating Clause 1; Article III of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; in that the IAEA is prevented from certain knowledge of Iranian nuclear weapons associated "dual use" acquisitions – and so cannot verify that these are not being diverted from peaceful use to the development of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. And obviously – if the IAEA is explicitly prohibited from examining the items in question then a determination cannot be made as to any possible "dual use" status, and it must be construed the diversion to nuclear weapons development is in progress. With nuclear weapons, given the extreme danger of proliferation – this is a case where; if verification of innocence is prohibited – then guilt is presumed.

The _Facilitator_ _on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231_ (2015), and the _Procurement Working Group_ each issue a six month report, both of which list the number of procurement proposals submitted during the six month period covered; and the number approved, rejected or withdrawn. As well, these reports cite the number of Procurement Working Group meetings held, and the number of those meetings the IAEA was invited to attend. Quarterly _International Atomic Energy Agency_ reports also list the number of Procurement Working Group meetings attended by the Agency.

During the first two years of operations (2016 & 2017), the " _six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231_ ," the Facilitators' Reports (Facilitator tenure rotates annually) – those of _Román Oyarzun Marchesi_ (Spain) and _Sebastiano Cardi_ (Italy) – counted Iranian total acquisitions from the INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1 (nuclear energy production related acquisitions), and total acquisitions from the INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2 (weapons development associated acquisitions) lists separately along with presentation of the sum total. Acquisitions of Part 2 (weapons development associated acquisitions) far outstripped Iranian acquisitions from the Part 2 list – naturally.

That watered down slide sample of a concession to a minuscule transparency in reporting was discarded with unusually exacting Dutch precision upon the ascendancy of _Karel J.G. van Oosterom_ to the Facilitator's post who decided there would no longer be any political need to distinguish between Iranian acquisitions of inventories associated with nuclear energy production (INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1) – of which there were naturally comparatively few; and acquisitions of inventories associated with nuclear weapons development (INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2).

Nevertheless it's too late, the Procurement Working Group mandate is known; the policy of secrecy surrounding the specifics of the contents, and the policy of secrecy regarding the chain of custody (where the acquisition go, into whose hands, what are they being used for) is also well known. Activity under the policy poses enough of an infringement to get the book thrown at the entire occupational hazard; and with a Court Order the policies of clandestine transferals begs and demands the project books be opened at least to the open Court.

And on one's own – the shut in hobbyist such as myself, can all the same, and despite van Oosterrom's unwelcoming interferences, just count the ratio of Procurement Working Group meeting to P.W.G. meetings attended by the International Atomic Energy Agency to get a pretty satisfying idea where business interests concentrate.

As is noted in the appendix referenced and described below ( _IAEA Statement of Purpose: INFCIRC/254/Rev.##/Part 2_ ); the Statement of Purpose of Part 2 inventories admonishes that inventories listed on that roster not be transferred to a recipient "... _when there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to acts of nuclear terrorism_."

SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2231 applies the INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 or INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 lists in the opposite manner intended. Instead of considering the assets indicated as items not to be transferred except under tightest surveillance, and especially not to a known State sponsor of terrorism; and especially not to a State which has bargained for and got, through the Resolution 2231 agreement – an arrangement with the Five Permanent Member States of the Security Council that prohibits the IAEA from inspection of INFCIRC/254/Rev.-/Part 2 listed acquisitions procured under the auspices of the _Procurement Working Group_ ;

Instead of their being used as cautionary reference lists – the INFCIRC/254/-/Part 2 catalogues are identified for use by the Security Council resolution as shopping guides in selecting inventory acquisitions ideally suited to the development of a world class nuclear weapons program.*

*Chapter 20 – Appendix 06 []: _IAEA Statement of Purpose: INFCIRC/254/Rev.##/Part 2_ ; Presents an excerpt of the essential Statement of Purpose of the document referred to in the title.

As the IAEA is prevented from inspecting package contents with a view towards preventing diversion to use in the development or manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and since Iran is known as a State sponsor of international terror – the INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 and INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 lists admonish under the headers "GUIDELINES FOR TRANSFERS OF NUCLEAR-RELATED DUAL-USE EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED TECHNOLOGY" that: " _Suppliers should not authorize transfers of equipment, materials, software, or related technology identified in the Annex... when there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to such an activity, or when the transfers are contrary to the objective of averting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or... when there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to acts of nuclear terrorism_." This annex presents the text under the subheaders "Objective" and Basic Principle" which stipulate why the list was put together and the proper use of the INFCIRC/254/___/Part 2 lists as reference material.

* * * * *

Since early to mid 2016, the Procurement Working Group through the advertisement below embedded in the United Nations document _Information on the Procurement Channel_ , began to openly seek out vendors world-wide inducing those to present sales proposals offering Iran procurement packages of either nuclear weapons associated goods, support services and technologies as found on the INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 and Rev. 10/Part 2 rosters – or procurement packages bundling INFCIRC/254/Rev.__/Part 2 listed assets with ballistic missile weapons associated inventories found on the _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ :

Information on the Procurement Channel

B. Further questions and answers

18. Can a proposal include items which are set out in _S/2015/546_ as well as in _INFCIRC/254/Rev.13/Part_ _1_ or _INFCIRC/254/Rev. 10/Part 2?_

[Answer] A proposal may include items which fall both under _S/2015/546_ , as well as one of the _INFCIRC_ s. Such a proposal should be submitted for review as an activity falling under Paragraph 2 of Annex B of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015). The Security Council will decide on such proposals based on a recommendation of the Joint Commission.

That paragraph is found in the United Nations issued document " _Information on the Procurement Channel_ " which is recovered from the United Nations website page: **http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/restrictions-nuclear.shtml**

The page directly accessing the document in question (English Version) is: **https://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/pdf/Information%20note_EN.pdf**

As previously documented; then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers; on 16 July 2015 had the Security Council redistribute the _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ so that the Obama Administration could use the Security Council document number affixed to the redistributed instrument (" _S/2015/546_ ") as a code word replacing the proper title of the Missile Technology Annex – (note the document number on reader's upper right hand corner of the facsimile following next:

The code word _S/2015/546_ appears once in the Security Council resolution (Annex B: Statement; Paragraph 4).

As indicated by the lead-in paragraph in the Resolution 2231 excerpt below; Paragraph 4 comes into play as of 16 January 2016 ("JCPOA Implementation Day") whereupon All States may participate in the sales to Iran of _S/2015/546_ listed inventory; with any sales contingent on prior Security Council approval (under the agency and auspices of the Procurement Working Group – as publication of the " _Information on the Procurement Channel_ " document confirms)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; Annex B. - Statement

As provided by a resolution so deciding, the following provisions would apply on the date on which the IAEA Director General submits a report verifying that Iran has taken the actions specified in paragraph 15.1-15.11 of Annex V of the JCPOA ***** :

4. All States may participate in and permit the activities described below provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to permit such activity:

(a) the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to or from Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, and whether or not originating in their territories, of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in _S/2015/546_ and of any items, materials, equipment, goods and technology **that the State determines could contribute to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems** ;...

This paragraph shall apply until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

***** That first paragraph [beginning: " _As provided by a resolution so deciding_..."] stipulates – through the description of it – _JCPOA Implementation Day_ , which turned out to be 16 January 2016. What that paragraph and those following decree in other words, effectively is: _As provided by a resolution so deciding, the following provisions would apply on the date of JCPOA_ _Implementation Day_ [16 January 2016].

Chapter 15 – Appendix 01 [01b]: Excerpt of inventory listed on _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ ; provides an excerpt of the _Missile Technology Annex_ which should give the reader some idea of the level of ballistic weapons systems sophistication contemplated for sale to Iran under the auspices and provisions of the Security Council resolution.

IN HIS JULY 14th, 2015 speech to the nation broadcast from the East Room of the White House; Barack Obama gave the impression that "restrictions" relating to Iranian ballistic missile associated undertakings would only be lifted after eight years:

"...over the course of the next decade, Iran must abide by the deal before additional sanctions are lifted, including five years for restrictions related to arms and eight years for restrictions related to ballistic missiles."

The vaguely referred to crushing "restrictions" imposed upon Iran in regards to its ballistic missile program are that, as indicated in the preceding Resolution 2231 excerpt cited; sales to Iran of ballistic missile associated goods, technologies and services as specified in Paragraph 4, and as corollary specified by the _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ ; these sales must be approved in advance by the Procurement Working Group which is responsible for, and has advertised itself as responsible (in its _Information on the Procurement Channel_ document) for expediting, facilitating and approving sales to Iran of procurement packages bundling nuclear and ballistic weapons associated assets – and that is the burdensome humiliation which the Government of Iran must be willing to bear if it is to share in the benefits of the most modern technologies, goods and support services Russia, China, Obama's United States, and Obama's U.K. and France and Germany are willing to sell.

To be fair however; in addition to that above – there are somewhat robust measures pertaining to specified frozen financial assets which ought to be considered as significant. These are found in Paragraph 6 of Annex B. In addition, under Paragraph 6(a) Iran is effectively blocked from transfers to other parties of ballistic missile or nuclear weapons associated inventory.

OF COURSE all of this business about bundling nuclear and ballistic weapons associated assets for sale to any non-nuclear-weapons-State, and preventing IAEA inspection of such on top of that; is repugnant to, is in egregious violation of, the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ (commonly known as either the "Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty," or the NPT). Article I of the treaty declares:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and **not in any way to assist,** encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to **manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices** , or **control over such weapons or explosive devices**.

The Security Council Procurement Working Group mandate is directly repugnant to the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_. The mandate is dedicated to _induce_ , _assist_ and expedite; and _encourage_ in providing means and opportunity for Iran to procure nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies and support services; or to develop domestic nuclear weapons manufacturing capacity.

Given the history and intentions behind the formulation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; the bundling of nuclear weapons with ballistic warhead delivery systems is particularly odious.

Clarification of the intent of the meaning, the definition, of control over such weapons is found in the correspondence of the two nations authoring the NPT – the then Soviet Union, and the United States.

ON JANUARY 1, 1968, the United States and the Soviet Union presented a joint draft treaty on nuclear non-proliferation to the United Nations Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee; thus confirming that earlier efforts at consolidating differing points of view were not simply intended as political grandstanding marked by competitive one-upmanship – as has been so often the case – rather, the sincere efforts at cooperation were evidently the product of seriously frightened parties motivated by a deeply felt desire to avoid a perceived inevitable disastrous and irreversible harm to humanity and to the planet that could result from a single act of negligence, error in judgment, or madness.

It is through the documentation of the discussions relating to the development of a mutually agreed upon terms between the Soviet Union and the United States that one learns of part of the intention and meaning of Articles I and II of the NPT, and the meaning of control of nuclear weapons. This writing mentions two documents that it feels may be helpful to clarify the aspects of the intentions of the NPT, and the interpretation of those first two articles.

Four question between the U.S. and NATO allies were reproduced in a then classified document titled: Questions on the Draft Non-Proliferation Treaty Asked by U.S. Allies Together with Answers Given by the United States. This document is comprised of a set of four questions with corresponding responses. The questions and answers outlined the United States' position on the first two proposed articles of the NPT. The document was considered classified at the time; these have since been declassified. The questions and answers contained therein were intended to be presented to the Soviet Union for correction or approval. These were presented on April 28, 1967 and met with no objection from the Soviet Union. The Questions and Answers follow:

Questions on the Draft Non-Proliferation Treaty asked by U.S. Allies together with answers given by the United States.

1.Q. What may and what may not be transferred under the Draft Treaty?

A. The Treaty deals only with what is prohibited, not with what is permitted.

It prohibits transfer to any recipient whatsoever of "nuclear weapons" or control over them, meaning bombs and warheads.

It also prohibits the transfer of other nuclear explosives devices because a nuclear explosive device intended for peaceful purposes can be used as a weapon or can be easily adapted for such use.

It does not deal with, and therefore does not prohibit, transfer of nuclear delivery vehicles or delivery systems, or control over them to any recipients, so long as such transfer does not involve bombs or warheads.

2.Q. Does the Draft Treaty prohibit consultations and planning on Nuclear Defense among NATO Members?

A. It does not deal with allied consultation and planning on nuclear defense so long as no transfer of Nuclear Weapons or control over them results.

3.Q. Does the Draft Treaty prohibit arrangements for the deployment of nuclear weapons owned or controlled by the United States within the territory of Non-Nuclear NATO members?

A. It does not deal with arrangements for deployment of nuclear weapons within allied territory as these do not involve any transfer on nuclear weapons or control over them, unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which time the Treaty would no longer be controlling.

4.Q. Would the Draft prohibit the unification of Europe if a nuclear-weapon State was one of the Constituent States?

A. It does not deal with the problem of European Unity, and would not bar succession by a new federated European State to the nuclear status of one of its former components. A new federated European state would have to control all of its external security functions including defense and all foreign policy matters relating to external security, but would not have to been so centralized as to assume all governmental functions. While not dealing with succession by such a federate state, the Treaty would bar transfer of nuclear weapons (including ownership) or control over them to any recipient, including a multilateral entity.

IN A LETTER, DATED APRIL 10, 1968 from Under Secretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach to Secretary of Defense Clark M. Clifford, Mr. Katzenbach indicated that:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Before you go to The Hague for the Nuclear Planning Group meeting on April 18-19, I believe you should be familiar with the US interpretations of Articles I and II of the Non-Proliferation Treaty regarding alliance arrangements for nuclear defense...

...The language of Articles I and II of the NPT was chosen in order to protect alliance consultations on nuclear defense as well as on nuclear defense deployment arrangements. These are not explicitly sanctioned by Articles I and II, since the USSR was not prepared to provide such an endorsement of NATO arrangements.

In Secretary Rusk's October 10, 1966 talk with Foreign Minister Gromyko, it was clearly understood that Articles I and II of the NPT deal only with what is prohibited and not what is permitted. Article I of the NPT prohibits the transfer of ownership or control of nuclear weapons (understood to mean warheads and bombs and not delivery vehicles). It does not mention alliance consultations or deployment arrangements not involving a transfer of nuclear weapons. We worked out interpretations on these and other aspects of Articles• I and II with our allies (and in particular the FRG [Federal Republic of Germany, the nation of then divided West Germany]) which were presented to the Soviets on April 28, 1967 in the form of answers to questions posed by our allies (Tab A). *****

***[** This letter and related correspondence can be found under: FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1964–1968 Volume XI, Arms Control and Disarmament, Document 232. Document 232 refers to the particular letter, Volume XI provides related items of interest. **]**

This excerpt from the April 10 letter confirms that Russian Foreign Minister Gromyko, and hence the Soviet government, understood the U.S. position as early as the end of April, 1967. As previously mentioned, on January 1, 1968 the United States and the Soviet Union presented a joint draft treaty on nuclear non-proliferation to the United Nations Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee. This Joint Draft between the US and the USSR supports that the Questions and Answers document presented to the Soviet Union was considered an appropriated interpretation of Articles I and II by both parties.

A facsimile of the full April 10, 1968 letter is reproduced on following pages for the readers' interest (the Addressee's name, Clark Clifford, is listed on the bottom of page 1). The reproduction of the Questions and Answers document follows. Both documents were considered sensitive at the time, but they have long since been declassified. And so, as unclassified government documents, they are in the public domain. These documents are presented following:

Along with violations associated with the interdicted sales or transfers of nuclear weapons associated assets to the non-nuclear-weapons-State of Iran; there is also this issue of the Security Council, under the auspices of the given Resolution 2231 Procurement Working Group mandate; prohibiting the International Atomic Energy Agency from inspecting the Iranian acquisitions in question with a view to preventing diversion of these from peaceful use to use in the development of nuclear weapons capacity. Reviewing Article III of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for the exclusive **purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices**...

The United States President Barack Obama and the Ministers of the Government of Iran were not sensitively attuned to the particular niceties of multilaterally signed international treaty in their dismissal of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ while opting instead to favor expediting the development of their Security Council to-be-endorsed pact providing for international participation in the – as defined by treaty – illicit sales to the non-nuclear-weapons-State Iran of contraband weapons associated assets with the objective of furthering the aspirations of that State's evident development of it nuclear weapons capacity.

* * * * *

NONE OF THE THOSE in attendance on August 5th, 2015, eagerly anticipating the delivery of another uplifting oratory to be performed on the campus of American University by then United States President Barack Obama; could have known or suspected – and the speech giver himself possibly as of yet couldn't be 100% sure – that the entire population of the 114th House of Representatives and almost all of the Senate; heading off to a well deserved summer vacation respite from the glamour of their endlessly scrutinized (by professional U.S. news-media outlets) political posturing showmanship;

Probably no one in attendance on the American University campus; none of the elite student body being groomed for an excellent career in future public service; none of those, nor might any of the faculty present have guessed that day, or could be blamed if they did not correctly foresee; that all congresspersons packing their bags and heading off on vacation; and scheduled to return in September from their well earned recreations – would actually dare come back to the office entirely empty-handed... and evidently without even any of their holding-down-the-fort, well-heeled secretarial staff having looked into the matter meantime of what the absent masters were scheduled to be voting on this fast approaching September of 2015.

The farce carried out by vote in both Houses of Congress that September 2015; the mockery of taking a vote on the wrong document and without ever realizing or acknowledging it; predictably led to ever more generous preposterously effusive, self righteous lectures and swagger echoing on down throughout recent history up to this time period, end of 2019.

For that moment however, back on the American University campus that cheery speech making day of early August 2015 – dismaying revelations of what implementation of President Barack Obama's deal actually involves, and all the accompanying political posturing to be undertaken with an objective of subduing or suppressing public knowledge and awareness of what is actually involved – that would all belong to the indistinct, hazy future.

And no sense of the long-term consequences resulting from the unanticipated, at the time still imperceptible yet all the same pending and imminent, completely outrageous Congressional neglect soon to be performed on the public venue of the Congressional Record in the upcoming middle of next month of September 2015 – no future far away distant or closely approaching concern could permeate the prevalent upbeat mood of the enthusiastic crowd then present and waiting expectantly on the President in the event.

All manner of surly premonitions, and even overshadowing darkening thoughts pursuing some of the more diffident attendees considering whether politics is to be thought of as a viable career choice of conscience;

Perhaps the all manner of possible misgivings occasionally off-and-on occurring to student body graduates and undergraduates alike regarding the stresses and concerns complementing a future invigorating lifestyle as an active office holder – all such potential ominous forebodings were to be wafted away in the breezy composure and presence of the lecturer approaching the podium, so very much at the ready to convey a powerful and persuasive message – promotional of his agenda; which would be certain to allay fears surrounding the grinding questions; and stifle even the gripes of the eternal malcontent dissenter.

Once situated standing comfortably behind the lectern, the always personable, charismatic President Barack Obama immediately put audience members at their ease – nonchalantly quipping:

Thank you so much. Thank you. Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you very much.

I apologize for the slight delay... even presidents have a problem with toner.

And with that, the down to earth Mr. Obama proceeded to regale his friendly captivated addressees with a faithless, devious mischaracterization of what had been agreed to between himself and the Ministers of the Government of Iran. Among the other things Barack Obama deceitfully maintained:

I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it's been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible military options, on the table to achieve that objective.

Even so, with all his business-like keeping the military option open, " _on the table_ ," or on a back burner in the wings somewhere; our forty-fourth President of the United States all the same managed the remainder of his time in office well enough to have approved for sale to Iran four mysterious procurement packages, exact contents uncertain, but nevertheless known generally to contain INFCIRC/254/Rev.--/Part 2 listed nuclear weapons associated inventory – ultimate approval for this activity initiated exactly under Obama's watch.

Chapter 21 – Appendix []: _Official United Nations six-month releases informing of Procurement Working Group activities, noting the quantities of INFCIRC/254/Rev.--/Part 2a listed inventories acquired by Iran_ ; summarizes Security Council published documentation on Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 listed procurement packages which the International Atomic Energy Agency is prohibited from inspecting.

No one in the Congress agitating favorably for Obama's Iran nuclear; nor any of the 2020 Presidential candidates running on a platform promising to re-enter the deal; will ever know exact contents of what was or will be in the INFCIRC/254/Rev.--/Part 2 packages acquired by Iran under the protection of the Secrecy Agreement prohibiting IAEA inspection. No one in Congress agitating _for_ U.S. re-entry into the deal will know or share with the public; and no 2020 Presidential candidate promising to re-enter the deal, is able to know or share with the public any knowledge of exactly what illicit contraband weapons associated assets were sold or are being sold Iran; or where these assets are secreted in Iran; or what exactly these are being used for. Runners _for_ can't possibly vouch for the product they would sell us; as IAEA verification of any chain-of-custody is forbidden;

* * * * *
Chapter 5

– The Disappointing Six Month Indefinite –

Nobody was going to make a Federal Case out of the fact that Obama's Secretary of Energy Dr. Ernest Moniz, although not under Oath, lied directly in his 13 July 2015 testimony before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee when he engagingly reassured Senators then sitting there present for the occasion:

"Under this deal, Iran will not engage in several activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device, including multiple point explosive systems. These commitments are indefinite."

Moniz was only airing publicly the appropriately tailored fiction best suited to Senators who would soon in September prove themselves so uninterested in the facts of the matter that not one of those esteemed monkey suit sporting luminaries would bother to pull down the Iran nuclear deal and have a look at what the Security Council, the Five Permanent Members along with the non-permanent Members, had voted on.

No one after the fact ever cared to make a fuss over the Secretary of Energy's lie which convincingly opened the Iranian market to domestic speculative contraband and conventional weapons profiteering interests. The not so swift elite population of the Congress of the United States of America would eventually come to realize the advantage of potential gains to be won selling conventional weapons to Iran as specified in Resolution 2231; _Annex B: Statement_ ; Paragraph 5:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015);

Annex B; Statement

As provided by a resolution so deciding, the following provisions would apply on the date on which the IAEA Director General submits a report verifying that Iran has taken the actions specified in paragraph 15.1-15.11 of Annex V of the JCPOA [the above specification describes "JCPOA Implementation Day];

5. All States may participate in and permit, provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to approve: the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from or through their territories, or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, to Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, of any **battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems,** as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, and the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance, or use of arms and related materiel described in this subparagraph...

This paragraph shall apply **until the date five years after** the **JCPOA Adoption Day** or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

So conventional arms sales or transfers to and from Iran could legitimately begin five years after Adoption Day. As repeatedly mentioned in this writing – this would be 18 October 2020; right near the 2020 national election which the Democratic Party has good reason not to want to miss out on.

And there was also the as discussed and documented noteworthy weapons racketeering potential trade with Iran in ballistic missile and nuclear weapons associated assets to be given priority consideration while busily ignoring those tiresome would-be restraints imposed by treaty.

As to Iran's undertaking experimentation with multipoint explosive systems and other technologies necessary in the development of nuclear weapons capacity;

This sort of activity wasn't by any means agreed with Iran to be put on hold forever as Obama's Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz had preposterously, in his capacity as one of the chief negotiators of Resolution 2231 (on the U.S. side), intentionally misinformed the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and the People of the United States;

Iran has been allowed in the Iran nuclear deal to engage in the sport as of "JCPOA Implementation Day," which turned out to be 16 January 2016.

To understand how this provision is formulated, and where it is in Resolution 2231; Annex A: JCPOA: examining first that the inception date beginning implementation of the allowance was 16 January 2016, "JCPOA Implementation Day." As of the designated JCPOA Implementation Day; as of that date, this following came into play:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015);

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex I – Nuclear-related measures

A. General

1. The sequence of implementation of the commitments detailed in this Annex is specified in Annex V to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Unless otherwise specified, the durations of the **commitments in this Annex are from Implementation Day**.

Nothing anywhere in Annex V mentioned in the paragraph _A – General; 1_ , cited above; indicates that the timeline for putting in to effect the very important Section T following below "... _has otherwise been specified_...;" therefore the following activities described under JCPOA Annex I; Section T have been permitted since JCPOA Implementation Day; 16 January 2016.

T. ACTIVITIES WHICH COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE DEVICE

82. Iran will not engage in the following activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device:

82.1. Designing, developing, acquiring, or using computer models to simulate nuclear explosive devices.

82.2. Designing, developing, fabricating, acquiring, or using multi-point explosive detonation systems suitable for a nuclear explosive device, unless approved by the Joint Commission for non-nuclear purposes and subject to monitoring.

82.3. Designing, developing, fabricating, acquiring, or using explosive diagnostic systems (streak cameras, framing cameras and flash x-ray cameras) suitable for the development of a nuclear explosive device, unless approved by the Joint Commission for non-nuclear purposes and subject to monitoring.

82.4. Designing, developing, fabricating, acquiring, or using explosively driven neutron sources or specialized materials for explosively driven neutron sources.

"... _unless approved by the Joint Commission for non-nuclear purposes and subject to monitoring_..." is the key contingency in all of this. JCPOA Annex I; Section T paragraphs 82.2 and 82.3 both stipulate in the above key contingency that any Iranian engagement in such activity is " _subject to monitoring_." There is no indication of which agency does the "monitoring."

It would have been simple for the authors of Resolution 2231 to have written "... unless approved by the Joint Commission for non-nuclear purposes and subject to monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency..." or words to that effect. But that isn't what the authors intended.

Instead, the authors put in place a system preventing IAEA inspections which is simple enough in conception:

Just about every practical experiment which "could contribute to the Design and Development of a Nuclear Explosive Device" involves INFCIRC/254/Rev.--/Part 2 listed items; and as the IAEA is prohibited from investigating INFCIRC/254/Rev.--/Part 2 listed items – then the IAEA is prevented from reviewing experiments undertaken in the advancement of the design and development of potential nuclear weapons capabilities.

TRACING FROM THE BEGINNING OF IT – the process preventing IAEA inspections in the area of nuclear weapons development begins with the mandate of the Joint Commission and the Procurement Working Group:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015);

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission

6.2. The Joint Commission will discharge its responsibility for reviewing and making recommendations on proposals for nuclear-related transfers to or activities with Iran through a Procurement Working Group.

6.4.1 Upon receipt of a proposal, including all necessary supporting information, by a State seeking to engage in transfers and activities referenced in Section 6.1, the Coordinator will forward the proposal, through appropriate means, without delay to the Procurement Working Group and, **when the proposal relates to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA** , to the IAEA..:

As a concession to the IAEA, the Agency is informed as to the contents of any proposal when such proposal "... _relates to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA_...;" which, as it turns out, means when a proposal has nothing to do with nuclear weapons associated INFCIRC/254/Rev.--/Part 2 listed inventories.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is also allowed to sit in on Procurement Working Group meetings when a procurement proposal has nothing to do with INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 listed items

6.1.6....When some of the proposals to be reviewed relate to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA, the IAEA may be invited to attend the meeting as an observer.

A clearer sense of which meetings the IAEA is authorized to attend, as opposed to not authorized, begins to take on more defined shape upon a bit further examination of later provisions of paragraph six with its subs and sub-subs:

6.7. Iran will provide to the IAEA access to the locations of intended use of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1 (or the most recent version of these documents as updated by the Security Council) imported following the procedure under Section 6 of this Annex.

6.8. Iran will permit the exporting state to verify the end-use of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 (or the most recent version of these documents as updated by the Security Council) imported following the procedure under Section 6 of this Annex. Upon request of the exporting state, or if the Joint Commission deems necessary when approving a proposal for transfer, the Joint Commission will provide expertise to the exporting state, including experts, as needed, to participate in the end-use verification.

The IAEA document INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1; unlike INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2; refers to components and technologies associated specifically associated with nuclear energy production.

Sub paragraph 6.7 stipulates the IAEA can verify end uses and end use locations of any goods and technology, any inventory, procured from the INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1.

When it comes to Iranian acquisitions from the prominent, nuclear weapons related inventories listed of INFCIRC/254/Rev.--/Part 2, the IAEA is dropped from the picture; it is never conceded by the authors of the arrangement that the IAEA be invited to drop in for inspection time.

The IAEA is not invited to meetings involving anything having to do with any Iranian acquisition of INFCIRC/254/Rev.--/Part 2 listed assets, and therefore is to have no information on what has been procured; and is not granted authority to confirm or look into end-use or end-use location of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 listed inventories acquired by Iran.

Paragraph 6.8 stipulates explicitly which authority is expected to replace the IAEA in its mandatory duty to conduct certain perceived as necessary verification inspections:

6.8. Iran will permit the exporting state to verify the end-use of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 (or the most recent version of these documents as updated by the Security Council) imported following the procedure under Section 6 of this Annex. Upon request of the exporting state, or **if the Joint Commission deems necessary when approving a proposal for transfer, the Joint Commission will provide expertise to the exporting state, including experts, as needed, to participate in the end-use verification**.

The exporting state may verify, if it wants to go to the expense and any trouble which might cut into the profit margins; end-use somewhere in Iran of any INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 items procured from the exporting State.

The IAEA, had already been refused, in earlier stages of the process, access to any discussion or meetings which relate to INFCIRC/254/Rev.--/Part 2 listed nuclear weapons associated inventories;

The IAEA is not invited to any Procurement Working Group meetings associated with transactions relating to INFCIRC/254/Rev.--/Part 2 items.

In paragraph 6.8, the IAEA is never mentioned as being invited to inspect end-use of any procured item associated with INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2. The IAEA is _de facto_ – by fact – excluded from inspections in the latter sentence of paragraph 6.8:

**...if the Joint Commission deems necessary when approving a proposal for transfer, the Joint Commission will provide expertise to the exporting state, including experts, as needed, to participate in the end-use verification**.

Paragraph 6.8 invokes the arbitrary magical power of "... _if deems necessary_...;"

And should the Joint Commission invoke the magic syllables of the mystical incantation " _If Deems Necessary_ ;" who does one suppose will provide the expertise &c., to participate in end-use verification? Certainly not the International Atomic Energy Agency. That obsolete group has been relegated to some distant footnotes here and there in other departments.

As far as anything that might have anything directly to do in the sensitive area of nuclear weapons development – the Joint Commission will provide an ad hoc group of its own "expert" hirelings to conduct the proper business of assuring the world that whatever nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies, services, &c. which Iran is procuring under the protection of the Joint Commission's Procurement Working Group; the ad hoc committee illicitly replacing the IAEA will reassure that these packages procured by Iran are certainly not being diverted from peaceful uses towards anything related to the development of nuclear weapons manufacturing capabilities.

* * * * *

In an _Reuters_ article of September 26, 2017; by Francoise Murphy, titled: " _IAEA chief calls for clarity on disputed section of Iran nuclear dea_ l;* Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano referring to the _Section T_ in question is quoted as having said:

"Our tools are limited... In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T I don't see any (such commitment)...'

'...More clarification would be helpful ... Russia has a different view. They believe that it is not the mandate of the IAEA. Others have different views and discussions are ongoing." *****

***** [The article can be found at: https :/ /www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea/iaea-chief-calls-for-clarity-on -disputed-section-of-iran-nuclear-deal-idUSKCNICI2AN].

In the quote, Amano indicates that he feels that Russia has a different view – and then he characterizes what he supposes that view to be. Whichever way Amano cares to register his point of view concerning Russia's point of view is of no interest here. What is of interest is that there is a divergence of viewpoints on an essential issue.

Russia's (Iran and China's) view sticks more closely to the Resolution 2231. The others; presumably the United States, France, the U.K. and Germany feel that IAEA inspections with regards to " _Activities Which Could Contribute to the Design and Development of a Nuclear Explosive Device_ " should be taking place. As noted previously – there is no stipulation that it is the IAEA which is to be carrying on with any inspecting in that area.

So Russia and China and Iran are sticking to what's written and Trump's post Obama era United States along with presumably the leaderships of the U.K., France and Germany wanted to change the goal posts there on what Obama had agreed to with the Ministers of the Government of Iran.

The Russian view would seem to be correct per the Contract. Question to be raised then: does the Contract conform to the rule of law, or the rules which authorize the Contract in the first place?

Article VII of the Statute of the IAEA declares:

STATUTE – of the IAEA *****

ARTICLE VII _Settlement of disputes_

A. Any question or dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Statute which is not settled by negotiation shall be referred to the International Court of Justice in conformity with the Statute of the Court, unless the parties concerned agree on another mode of settlement.

***** The Statute of the IAEA can be found at: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/statute.pdf

Per Article VII above it would seem Trump's United States et al are correct. Regardless of the fact that the IAEA is not enumerated in Section T as the inspecting Agency – it should go even without saying that the IAEA should inspect per the first clause of Article III or the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – reiterating:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for the exclusive **purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices**...

In any event there is a clear bone of contention – a dispute which needs resolving regarding the application of the Statute in a manner conforming to the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ : Article III (the Statute of the IAEA derives its authority from the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty – so Article III first clause would very likely be an object to consider):

[NPT]  
ARTICLE III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency **in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency** and the **Agency's safeguards system**...

By the above, it could be most reasonably contended that the Section T in question must conform to the provision in that first clause requiring the IAEA be permitted to fulfill its "... _obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices_..."

A primary question becomes – which document has the superseding authority? Is it the _Statute – of the IAEA_ , deriving its authority from the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ which takes precedence?

Or is it the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 instrument which claims to derive its authority both from the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, and the _Charter of the United Nations_ – itself a multilaterally signed Constituent Treaty which declares in the third clause of its preamble:

Charter of the United Nations

We the People of the United Nations – Determined:

[3]...to establish conditions under which justice and **respect for the obligations arising from treaties** and other sources of international law can be maintained...

And the Charter of the United Nations also stipulates under Article 24; 2nd clause:

Charter of the United Nations

*CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL

FUNCTIONS and POWERS

Article 24

2. In discharging these [its] duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations...

Implementation of Resolution 2231 would have to abide by treaty given those cited provisions or risk losing its status as a recognized legitimate Security Council resolution conforming to the Charter.

It would seem most reasonable then; that both the _Charter of the United Nations_ and the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ would take precedence over the Security Council resolution. If that is the case; then the IAEA is to be acknowledged as the recognized by treaty Agency which is required to undertake inspections regarding activities described in the Section T in question.

So there are the two sides to the issue. There is the Trump administration U.S. view – which reflects traditional U.S. policy stemming from the time the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ went into force (1970); which effectively calls for IAEA inspections to be implemented along the stipulated lines of treaty;

And there is the Russian point of view, clearly derivative of the maverick United States Obama administration perspective as voiced through Obama's _Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs_ Ms. Julia Frifield; a view which disparages the inexpedient formalities imposed by treaty or law:

The success of the JCPOA will depend not whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place

And naturally it is the issue of the Resolution 2231 prohibitions on IAEA verification measures which were intended from the beginning in the writing of the resolution; which is what so upsets contending parties.

* * * * *

Fundamentally, the dispute becomes a question of: will the Security Council be allowed to defy and deviate from the Charter of the United Nations whenever popular whim of the Five Permanent Members of the Security Council leaderships dictate it expeditious to do so; or will the Security Council abide at all times to the Charter – as Article 24 declares it must.

It is the view of this writing that the decision may not be left to the indulgences of self-interested politicians and party leaders claiming, on the one hand; that their declarations (one of such being Security Council Resolution 2231), and their actions, are authorized by the very treaty they effectively set out to subvert.

Taking a page from Book III; Chapter XXXVIII, _Judiciary –Organization and Powers_ ; of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's _Commentaries on the Constitution_ :

**§ 818.**...Where there is no judicial department to interpret, pronounce, and execute the law, to decide controversies, and to enforce rights, the government must either perish by its own imbecility, or the other departments of government must usurp powers, for the purpose of commanding obedience, to the destruction of liberty.

The will of those, who govern, will, under such circumstances, become absolute and despotic ; and it is wholly immaterial, whether power is vested in a single tyrant, or in an assembly of tyrants. No remark is better founded in human experience, than that of Montesquieu, that " _there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive powers_." And it is no less true, that personal security and private property rest entirely upon the wisdom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of justice.

If that government can be truly said to be despotic and intolerable, in which the law is vague and uncertain, it cannot but be rendered still more oppressive and more mischievous, when the actual administration of justice is dependent upon caprice, or favour, upon the will of rulers, or the influence of popularity.

When power becomes right, it is of little consequence, whether decisions rest upon corruption, or weakness, upon the accidents of chance, or upon deliberate wrong. In every well organized government, therefore, with reference to the security both of public rights and private rights, it is indispensable, that there should be a judicial department to ascertain, and decide rights, to punish crimes, to administer justice, and to protect the innocent from injury and usurpation.

And so – in order to resolve this and other associated critical questions... per application of Article VII (A) of the _Statute – of the IAEA_ :

Any question or dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Statute which is not settled by negotiation shall be referred to the International Court of Justice in conformity with the Statute of the Court;

The entire Security Council resolution must be brought before the International Court of Justice. The panel of judges presiding would naturally refuse to review a case piecemeal in the style of the 114th Congress (where Obama transmitted only part of his Iran nuclear deal to a clueless legislature demonstrably too lethargic to care). Generally, judges don't like it when litigants decide for the Court what the finders of fact on a case may be prohibited by contesting parties from considering.

And of course, as prohibitions on IAEA inspections permeate and resound throughout Resolution 2231; and as these prohibitions may be most reasonably construed as impacting all of the other, some 184 signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, those which continue to adhere to the treaty regardless of the what the Five Permanent Member States of the Security Council along with Germany and Iran; those other States which continue to comply with Treaty requirements despite what the stand-out rogue Security Council et al players opine should happen – then yes, the International Court of Justice panel of judges might most likely want to look at the whole thing and even in open court no less.

As long as the dispute remains unresolved – menacing _Activities Which Could Contribute to the Design and Development of a Nuclear Explosive Device_ presumably continue to be carried out in Iran without IAEA inspection.

* * * * *

Chapter 6

– Lifting Terror Bans; Assuming a Presidential Prerogative –

The Government of Iran had had gotten through to President Obama that persons on its end were unhappy about certain provisions in U.S. law prejudicial to Iranian interests. These interests naturally include its nuclear development programs – and also its fervent commitment to support what the Iranian Government considers organized freedom fighters; groups across the middle-east which the United States and some Western European nations consider international terror organizations often identified as Foreign Terror Organizations (FTOs).

Barack Obama took it to heart that if the Ministers of Iran were going to endorse any kind of deal with the U.S. over a nuclear development project in Iran; then he would have to agree to terminate various provisions in U.S. law associated not just with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but also provisions U.S. which were put in place prevent diversion of United States ports and shipping services for use in provisioning or servicing vessels transporting goods related to the proliferation of contraband weapons or goods associated with terrorist operations. One such provision destined to be terminated, scrubbed from the books so to speak – was Section 211(a) of the _Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012_ – presented below:

**Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012** *

Title II — Expansion of Sanctions Relating to the Energy Sector of Iran and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction by Iran

Subtitle B — Additional Measures Relating to Sanctions Against Iran

SEC. 211. Imposition of Sanctions With Respect to the Provision of Vessels or Shipping Services to Transport Certain Goods Related to Proliferation or Terrorism Activities to Iran.

(a) IN GENERAL.— Except as provided in subsection (c), if the President determines that a person, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, knowingly sells, leases, or provides a vessel or provides insurance or reinsurance or any other shipping service for the transportation to or from Iran of goods that could materially contribute to the activities of the Government of Iran with respect to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or support for acts of international terrorism, the President shall,... block and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property of the persons specified in subsection (b) if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.

(b) PERSONS SPECIFIED.—The persons specified in this subsection are—

(1) the person that sold, leased, or provided a vessel or provided insurance or reinsurance or another shipping service described in subsection (a); and

(2) any person that—

(A) is a successor entity to the person referred to in paragraph (1);

(B) owns or controls the person referred to in paragraph (1), if the person that owns or controls the person referred to in paragraph (1) had actual knowledge or should have known that the person referred to in paragraph (1) sold, leased, or provided the vessel or provided the insurance or reinsurance or other shipping service; or

(C) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, the person referred to in paragraph (1), if the person owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with (as the case may be), the person referred to in paragraph (1) knowingly engaged in the sale, lease, or provision of the vessel or the provision of the insurance or reinsurance or other shipping service.

***** The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (H. R. 1905) can be found as a pdf file at:

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/hr_1905_pl_112_158.pdf (last accessed June 14, 2016).

The Resolution 2231 order to delete this section of the law is found in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) Annex A: JCPOA. The order to terminate begins in Annex V of Resolution 2231; Annex A: JCPOA – and is completed in Resolution 2231 **§** Annex A: JCPOA **§** Annex II – _Sanctions-related commitments_ , as follows beginning with **§** Annex A: JCPOA; Annex V – _Implementation Plan_ :

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex V - Implementation Plan

D. Transition Day

19. Transition Day will occur 8 years from Adoption Day [which was October 18, 2015] or upon a report from the Director General of the IAEA to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the UN Security Council stating that the IAEA has reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier.

21. The United States will:

21.1. Seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, the statutory sanctions set forth in Sections **4.1-4.5, 4.7 and 4.9 of Annex II** ;

Continuing to Annex II; paragraphs 4.4; and 4.4.1 to discover which U.S. statues are decreed to be terminated by these paragraphs found in text of the " _Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action_ " Annex of Resolution 2231:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex II – Sanctions-related commitments

B. United States

4. The United States commits to cease the application of, and to seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, all nuclear-related sanctions as specified in Sections 4.1-4.9 below, and to terminate Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622 and 13645, and Sections 5-7 and 15 of Executive Order 13628, in accordance with Annex V.7.

4.4. Shipping, shipbuilding and port sectors

4.4.1. **Sanctions on transactions with Iran's shipping and shipbuilding sectors and port operators** including IRISL, South Shipping Line, and NITC, and the port operator(s) of Bandar Abbas10 ( **TRA** Sections **211(a)** and 212(a); IFCA Sections 1244(c)(1) and (d); 1245(a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(C)(i)(I)-(II), (a)(1)(C)(ii)(I)-(II) and (c), 1246(a) and 1247(a); Section 5(a) of E.O. 13622 and Sections 2(a)(i) and 3(a)(i) of E.O. 13645);

In the Security Council resolution's Shorthand, the **TRA** represents the " _Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012_." TRA had already earlier been stipulated in the Security Council resolution (paragraph 4.1.5 of this same Annex II) as signifying the _Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012_.

The Paragraph 4.4.1 decree dropped sanctions against persons associated with Iranian shipping of "... _goods that could materially contribute to the activities of the Government of Iran with respect to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or support for acts of international terrorism_...," as discussed in Section 211(a).

Obama certainly did know that such an extremist decree would not go over easily with the U.S. electorate. Provisions of such an unpopular nature were clearly the reasons behind the Obama administration's refusal to transmit Security Council Resolution 2231 to the Congress.

By _extremist_ I mean, for the purposes of this writing: an action, or a legislative or a political decision or act which is generally known or thought of as egregiously going against the moral conscience of the vast majority of the community.

Obama did, as is documented in the example above, concede to the Iranian Government his extremist's promise that he would terminate the Section 211(a) cited. In the unlikely hood that his decree terminating Section 211(a) would have withstood the test of time and open scrutiny to achieve public acceptance; it would have taken away a future President's Authority to "... _block and prohibit_ _all transactions in all property and interests in property of the persons specified_...," when such property is owned by a person who "... _knowingly sells, leases, or provides a vessel or provides insurance or reinsurance or any other shipping service for the transportation to or from Iran of goods_ _that could materially contribute to the activities of the Government of Iran with respect to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or support for acts of international terrorism_..." as stipulated in Section 211(a).

Another concession regarding both Government of Iran associated Weapons of Mass Destructions development and Iranian support for its international terror proxies is found in the same Resolution 2231 **§** Annex A: JCPOA; **§** Annex II – _Sanctions-related commitments_ ; this time in the later paragraphs 4.9 and 4.9.1 (following):

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex II – Sanctions-related commitments

B. United States

4. The United States commits to cease the application of, and to seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, all nuclear-related sanctions as specified in **Sections 4.1-4.9** below...

4.9. Nuclear proliferation-related measures

4.9.1 Sanctions under the _Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act_ _*_ on the acquisition of nuclear-related commodities and services for nuclear activities contemplated in the JCPOA, to be consistent with the U.S. approach to other non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT.

_*_ [The above refers to the _Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013 - H. R. 893_ – Resolution 2231 is not exact in identifying the title; but the meaning is understood.]

That catch-all phrase: "... _to be consistent with the U.S. approach to other non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT_ ;" could mean that just about every provision in the _Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013_ would have to be terminated.

An explanation is due to help round out what the intended angle is in that neat phrase " _to be consistent with_...:"

Beginning with the definition of "Transfer" per Section 3 of " _Accountability Act_ " is necessary to catching the drift of what's going on here:

Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013 \- H. R. 893 (113th Congress)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ''Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

It shall be the policy of the United States to fully implement and enforce sanctions against any person, entity or country that assists the proliferation activities or policies of Iran, North Korea, or Syria.

SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH COUNTRIES AIDING PROLIFERATION BY IRAN, NORTH KOREA, OR SYRIA..

(c) DEFINITIONS.— :

(4) TRANSFER.—The term ''transfer'' means the conveyance of technological or intellectual property, or the conversion of intellectual or technological advances into marketable goods, services, or articles of value, developed and generated in one place, to another through illegal or illicit means to a country, the government of which the Secretary of State has determined... **is a government that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism**.

Here are some examples of prohibited Transfers under the definition cited:

SEC. 3. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN FOREIGN PERSONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the day of the enactment of this Act, the President shall impose, for a period of not less than two years, the sanctions specified in subsection (c) with respect to a foreign person if the President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the person—

(1)(A) on or after September 1, 2007, transferred to or acquired from Iran, North Korea, or Syria—

(i) goods, services, or technology listed on—

(I) the Nuclear Suppliers Group Guidelines for the Export of Nuclear Material, Equipment and Technology (published by the International Atomic Energy Agency as Information Circular INFCIRC/254/Rev. 3/Part 1, and subsequent revisions) and Guidelines for Transfers of Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Material, and Related Technology (published by the International Atomic Energy Agency as Information Circular INFCIRC/254/Rev. 3/Part 2, and subsequent revisions); [Prohibited by U.S. statute – stipulated as allowed by the Obama administration negotiated Resolution 2231 – contrary to, in defiance of, and in spite of standing United States current law; and the contemplated termination of the provision was never acknowledged or authorized by the Congress at any time.]

(II) the Missile Technology Control Regime Equipment and Technology Annex of June 11, 1996, and subsequent revisions; ); ); [Prohibited by U.S. statute – stipulated as allowed by the Obama administration negotiated Resolution 2231 – contrary to, in defiance of, and in spite of standing United States current law; and the contemplated termination of the provision was never acknowledged or authorized by the Congress at any time.]

(III) the lists of items and substances relating to biological and chemical weapons the export of which is controlled by the Australia Group;

(IV) the Schedule One or Schedule Two list of toxic chemicals and precursors the export of which is controlled pursuant to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction; or

(V) the Wassenaar Arrangement list of Dual Use Goods and Technologies and Munitions list of July 12, 1996, and subsequent revisions; or (ii) goods, services, or technology not listed on any list specified in clause (i) but which nevertheless would be, if such goods, services, or technology were United States goods, services, or technology, prohibited for export to Iran, North Korea, or Syria, as the case may be, because of the potential of such goods, services or technology to contribute to the development of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or of ballistic or cruise missile systems or destabilizing types and amounts of conventional weapons; and

(B) with respect to the transfer of goods, services, or technology, knew or should have known that the transfer of goods, services, or technology, to Iran, North Korea, or Syria, as the case may be, would contribute to the ability of Iran, North Korea, or Syria, as the case may be, to—

i) acquire or develop chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or related technologies; or...

The above excerpt should give a pretty good idea of what's in the law; and why Iran didn't like it; and why Obama conceded to the Ministers of Iran that it should be got rid of.

[The _Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013 - H. R. 893_ (113th Congress) – can be found as a pdf file at: https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr893/BILLS-113hr893ih.pdf (last accessed June 14, 2016)]

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION had gone on and on, in many different press availabilities provided on location in a given variety of venues; about how concerns over terrorism were separate from the issue of his Iran nuclear deal; which – the Obama administration continually asserted – was exclusively dedicated to preventing Iran from ever achieving nuclear weapons capacity.

Barack Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes; encapsulated the advertised policy speaking in a March 31, 2016 White House Press Briefing; where he claimed:

_"...And we've always been very clear that the JCPOA is about rolling back and constraining Iran's nuclear program. We were also clear that they were going to continue to be engaged in behavior that we found counterproductive -- ballistic missiles, support for terrorism, destabilizing activities in the region. That's not the nuclear deal; it's a separate set of issues in which we have the ability to respond..._ * _"_

***** THE WHITE HOUSE, OFFICE OF THE PRESS SECRETARY; Press Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on the Nuclear Security Summit; March 31, 2016 (For Immediate Release);

internet address: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/31/press-briefing-senior-administration-officials-nuclear-security-summit [last accessed May, 2016]

Or it can also more recently be found at:

 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/31/press-briefing-senior-administration-officials-nuclear-security-summit

Self-promoting false claims promulgated by the administration notwithstanding; the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 bears truest testimony to the fact that Obama's nuclear deal is exactly about expediting and approving Iranian acquisitions of procurement packages bundling nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated goods, technologies and support services. Obama's Iran nuclear deal, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, is not exclusively dedicated to the development of nuclear weapons capacity in Iran – but also concerns itself with assisting Iran in its ballistic missile development program; and the other things – as have been documented and detailed.

The Iran nuclear deal is also at the same time exactly about (as documented) allowing Iran to engage (as of 16 January 2016) in activities which could contribute to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device.

The Iran nuclear deal is also at the same time exactly about (as documented) preventing the IAEA from fulfilling treaty obligation by preventing the Agency from verifying that none of the preceding activities are being somehow diverted, or co-opted towards development of nuclear weapons capacity;

And the text of Resolution 2231 bears truest testimony (as documented) to the fact that Obama's nuclear deal is also exactly about dropping prophylactic, self-defense measures against the spread of terrorist activities to or through the United States – as is proven in the examples of U.S. statutes targeted for termination by the edicts decreed in the text of Resolution 2231. Iran's support for terror is not a separate issue per the text of the agreement.

The United States is signatory to the two following multilaterally signed international treaties regarding United States commitment to agreed upon international measures undertaken to combat world wide organized terror:

The _International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings_ ; which defines what are considered terrorist bombings, as well as measures of deterrence and penalties associated with these acts, and;

The _International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism_ which defines what is to be considered the financing of terrorism, and discusses deterrence and penalties for such financing. These penalties, in the United States, can be quite severe.

Proponents of Obama's Iran nuclear deal must by necessity ignore these two treaties as they are repugnant to the provisions of Obama's Iran nuclear deal; United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 discussed in this Chapter.

Nevertheless, as they are treaties made under the Authority of the United States Constitution these remain as parts of the supreme Law of the Land per Article VI of the United States Constitution:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

[Clause 2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; **and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land** ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Examining origins and aspects of the two treaties listed:

* * * * *

In 1998 and 1999 those two important treaties cited above were signed for on behalf of the United States by then sitting United States President William J. Clinton.

Having signed for these treaties, President Clinton sent them off to the U.S. Senate for its essential Advice and Consent required for ratification of treaty. President Clinton attached a Letter of Transmittal to each of the respective international agreements.

These Letters of Transmittal are reprinted here for the readers' interest and as partial introduction to the conventions (Mr. Clinton offers his own description of the treaties, and underscores, in his judgment, the relevance and importance of each).

Following is President Clinton's Letter of Transmittal to the Senate on the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism:

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1999, and signed on behalf of the United States of America on January 10, 2000. The report of the Department of State with respect to the Convention is also transmitted for the information of the Senate.

In recent years, the United States has increasingly focused world attention on the importance of combating terrorist financing as a means of choking off the resources that fuel international terrorism. While international terrorists do not generally seek financial gain as an end, they actively solicit and raise money and other resources to attract and retain adherents and to support their presence and activities both in the United States and abroad. The present Convention is aimed at cutting off the sustenance that these groups need to operate. This Convention provides, for the first time, an obligation that States Parties criminalize such conduct and establishes an international legal framework for cooperation among States Parties directed toward prevention of such financing and ensuring the prosecution and punishment of offenders, wherever found.

Article 2 of the Convention states that any person commits an offense within the meaning of the Convention "if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out" either of two categories of terrorist acts defined in the Convention. The first category includes any act that constitutes an offense within the scope of and as defined in one of the counterterrorism treaties listed in the Annex to the Convention. The second category encompasses any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of the act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

The Convention imposes binding legal obligations upon States Parties either to submit for prosecution or to extradite any person within their jurisdiction who commits an offense as defined in Article 2 of the Convention, attempts to commit such an act, participates as an accomplice, organizes or directs others to commit such an offense, or in any other way contributes to the commission of an offense by a group of persons acting with a common purpose.

A State Party is subject to these obligations without regard to the place where the alleged act covered by Article 2 took place.

States Parties to the Convention will also be obligated to provide one another legal assistance in investigations or criminal or extradition proceedings brought in respect of the offenses set forth in Article 2.

Legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be submitted to the Congress separately.

This Convention is a critical new weapon in the campaign against the scourge of international terrorism. I hope that all countries will become Parties to this Convention at the earliest possible time. I recommend, therefore, that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to this Convention, subject to the understanding, declaration and reservation that are described in the accompanying report of the Department of State.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

Mr. Clinton also wrote a Letter of Transmittal endorsing with the _International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings_ treaty to the U.S. Senate, as follows:

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

The White House, September 8, 1999.

To the Senate of the United States:

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 15, 1997, and signed on behalf of the United States of America on January 12, 1998. The report of the Department of State with respect to the Convention is also transmitted for the information of the Senate.

In recent years, we have witnessed an unprecedented and intolerable increase in acts of terrorism involving bombings in public places in various parts of the world. The United States initiated the negotiation of this convention in the aftermath of the June 1996 bombing attack on U.S. military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in which 17 U.S. Air Force personnel were killed as the result of a truck bombing. That attack followed other terrorist attacks including poison gas attacks in Tokyo's subways; bombing attacks by HAMAS in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and a bombing attack by the IRA in Manchester, England. Last year's terrorist attacks upon United States embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam are recent examples of such bombings, and no country or region is exempt from the human tragedy and immense costs that result from such criminal acts. Although the penal codes of most states contain provisions proscribing these kinds of attacks, this Convention provides, for the first time, an international framework for cooperation among states directed toward prevention of such incidents and ensuing punishment of offenders, wherever found.

In essence, the Convention imposes binding legal obligations upon States Parties either to submit for prosecution or to extradite any person within their jurisdiction who commits an offense as defined in Article 2, attempts to commit such an act, participates as an accomplice, organizes or directs others to commit such an offense, or in any other way contributes to the commission of an offense by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. A State Party is subject to these obligations without regard to the place where the alleged act covered by Article 2 took place.

Article 2 of the Convention declares that any person commits any offense within the meaning of the Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility, with the intent (a) to cause death or serious bodily injury or (b) cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss. States Parties to the Convention will also be obligated to provide one another legal assistance in investigations or criminal or extradition proceedings brought in respect of the offenses set forth in Article 2.

The recommended legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be submitted to the Congress separately.

This Convention is a vitally important new element in the campaign against the scourge of international terrorism. I hope that all states will become Parties to this Convention, and that it will be applied universally. I recommend, therefore, that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to this Convention, subject to the understandings and reservation that are described in the accompanying State Department report.

William J. Clinton.

Those were Mr. Clinton's observations at the time.

Given the premise that the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism is intended to prohibit funding of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, basic definitions are needed: What is terrorism, and what are funds? The convention defines funds as:

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism;

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention:

1. Funds means assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, however acquired, and legal documents or instruments in any form, including electronic or digital, evidencing title to, or interest in, such assets, including, but not limited to, bank credits, travelers cheques, bank cheques, money orders, shares, securities, bonds, drafts, letters of credit.

[ **Tangible assets** are included in the definition of funds under this treaty. Tangible assets are assets that are material objects which can be seen; touched: or bumped into in the dark with possible unnerving effect. Such tangible assets could include ballistic missiles or cruise missiles cloaked with the specialized tangible materials and components and technological devices related to stealth technology. Those are tangible assets;

[A **movable asset** is an asset that can ordinarily be moved from one place to another without losing value or without destroying it. A building is not a moveable asset (generally), it is an immovable object. A ballistic missile or cruise missile capable of carrying a fissile or non-fissile nuclear warhead is a movable tangible asset. It is material, and it (possibly) can be moved without its being destroyed – regardless of whether its ultimate intended purpose is to destroy other things, even living things, while destroying itself in the process.]

Article 2 of the Convention defines Terrorism, terrorist activities:

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism;

Article 2

1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out:

(b) Any... act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

3. For an act to constitute an offence set forth in paragraph 1, it shall not be necessary that the funds were actually used to carry out an offence referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraphs (a) or (b).

4. Any person also commits an offence if that person attempts to commit an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 of this article. [Emphasis added]

5. Any person also commits an offence if that person:

(b) Organizes or directs others to commit an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 or 4 of this article;

Articles 5 and 6 go on the stipulate:

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism;

Article 5

1. Each State Party, in accordance with its domestic legal principles, shall take the necessary measures to enable a legal entity located in its territory or organized under its laws to be held liable when a person responsible for the management or control of that legal entity has, in that capacity, committed an offence set forth in article 2. Such liability may be criminal, civil or administrative.

2. Such liability is incurred without prejudice to the criminal liability of individuals having committed the offences.

3. Each State Party shall ensure, in particular, that legal entities liable in accordance with paragraph 1 above are subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal, civil or administrative sanctions. Such sanctions may include monetary sanctions.

Article 6

Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Senate voted its consent to that treaty as – and it was ratified, as previously indicated – along with the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings by President George W. Bush on June 25, 2002.

Following are some highlights from the Preamble of The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings:

International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings

Preamble

The States Parties to this Convention,

Bearing in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the maintenance of international peace and security and the promotion of goodneighbourliness and friendly relations and cooperation among States,

Deeply concerned about the worldwide escalation of acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations,

Noting... that terrorist attacks by means of explosives or other lethal devices have become increasingly widespread,

Noting further that existing multilateral legal provisions do not adequately address these attacks,

Being convinced of the urgent need to enhance international cooperation between States in devising and adopting effective and practical measures for the prevention of such acts of terrorism, and for the prosecution and punishment of their perpetrators,

Considering that the occurrence of such acts is a matter of grave concern to the international community as a whole,

Noting that the activities of military forces of States are governed by rules of international law outside the framework of this Convention and that the exclusion of certain actions from the coverage of this Convention does not condone or make lawful otherwise unlawful acts, or preclude prosecution under other laws,

Have agreed as follows: [etc]

Here is in part what the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings has to say:

International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings

Article 2

1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility: '

(a) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or;

(b) With the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss.

2. Any person also commits an offence if that person attempts to commit an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 of this article.

3. Any person also commits an offence if that person:

(a) Participates as an accomplice in an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 or 2; or

(b) Organizes or directs others to commit an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 or 2; or

(c) In any other way contributes to the commission of one or more offences as set forth in paragraph 1 or 2 by a group of persons acting with a common purpose; such contribution shall be intentional and either be made with the aim of furthering the general criminal activity or purpose of the group or be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the offence or offences concerned.

Article 5

Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention, in particular where they are intended or calculated to, provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

As cited previously, The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism defines terrorism as:

"Any... act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

As does Article 5 of the _International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings_ (above); Article 6 of the _International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism_ denounces xenophobic or political motives as justification for perpetrating acts of terrorism.

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism

Article 6

Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

While all the other Parties to the Obama-Iran nuclear deal: The U.K., China, Russia, France and Germany, are signatories to the two cited treaties – Iran is naturally not; Heaven Forbid.

* * * * *

Recalling the case of The Schooner _Exchange v. Mcfadden_ , 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812); early Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in writing the Opinion of the Court observes:

The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.

Recalling that Obama never consulted Congress requesting that the statutes previously cited be amended or discarded; never even transmitted Resolution 2231 to Congress as required by the previously cited law, the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ , which he himself had ratified by his signature – Obama proceeded to decree his unilateral termination of the statutes cited in this chapter, without any Constitutional authority; substituting instead the pretense of an authority vested in himself through his Iran nuclear deal which had never been submitted to the either House of 114th Congress for vote or review.

Obama's personal edict decreeing termination of those statutes designed to conform to the _International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings_ and the _International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism_ ; agreed to in the arrangement made between Obama and the Ministers of the Government of Iran, would have gone into effect in 2023 had succeeding President Donald Trump not pulled the U.S. out of the deal.

Obama, in seeking to unilaterally terminate those, was unlawfully ceding portions of U.S. sovereignty over use of U.S. waterways and ports to the sovereign discretion of the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran.

Obama evidently felt it necessary to diplomatically acquiesce and accommodate Iranian sympathies for its "freedom fighter" proxies, and those who would turn a profit shipping materiel essential to the maintenance of those groups. Or else, if he didn't do that, then his political agreement (or rather his "political commitment" as his Assistant Secretary; Legislative Affairs Ms. Frifield put it) with the Ministers of the Government of Iran would fall through and this incredibly venal man would not receive the praise and accolades due; and certain domestic United States weapons manufacturing or weapons industry financial and speculative interests would not get their fair share of the Iranian weapons market Obama went to all the trouble of having opened for them.

* * * * *

What a cheery thought. U.S. ports and waterways were to become third world styled conduits; embarkation and debarkation arrival and departure points for lax and easy going terror related transfers of whatever it is they'd want to be shipping or doing: forcing legitimate shipping to compete for space with bad players' interests; throwing law enforcement agency mandates into dithering hesitancy or chaos; and generally discrediting any international or domestic reputation of the integrity of U.S. Ports, shipping interests and U.S. Customs might once have enjoyed.

And say again – how is does any of this blank check writing _verifiably cut off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb_ – as proponents of the proliferation campaign maintain it does?

The Obama policy acolytes' wing in control of the national level Democratic Party fund raising machine have tended to avoid the embarrassment of public explanation, preferring to instead evade the issues with sneering claims vilifying Trump as having vindictively wanted to get rid of the Iran deal just because it was some great thing his predecessor had achieved; and about how conspiracy theorists and the like looking for something to get anxious about or wanting to draw attention to themselves simply can't, won't; refuse to understand or concede the point, etc. – anything to avoid admitting to the problems.

But the text of the provisions is irrefutably there – and again, what's not there is any justifying explanation or acknowledgement of the existence of the provisions by the persistent proponents; who in spite of inflexible dogma are certainly nevertheless free to hold their noses, if they will, while quickly mentioning that the shipping/ports related provisions aren't a problem anymore because Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal; but who as of yet resist any fault be found in the iconic deal they pin their 2020 hopes for election success on.

That evasion that the U.S. is out of the deal and so the shipping/ports issue over and done with so it's no longer an issue up for discussion; that doesn't work, as it avoids the proponents' need to explain or justify their persistent advocacy of the measure in the first place.

And the evasion that the U.S. is now out of the deal never works as an apology for any aspect of the deal – as for one thing, the Obama-Iran nuclear weapons arrangement is still in play between at least Russia, China, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Iran; and permission is ongoing for Iranian nuclear and ballistic associated weapons acquisitions of unknown character or quantity; and Iranian undertaking activities which could contribute to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device are still allowed to continue without molestation from any threat of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors coming around rummaging;

And the evasion also doesn't work as politicians; or political proponents persistently hanging on to the Iran nuclear deal travesty as of yet show no evidence of any willingness or capacity to discuss honestly or think through the issues they so have eagerly suppressed or avoided any public acknowledgment of; they who have refused to undertake honest discussion of specific problematic points and provisions – and replaced that with the intentional misrepresentation and omission of the characteristics of the deal.

And the evasion also doesn't work; as politicians vying to enter into the deal won't explain how it can be considered legitimate in what is proposed to be a representative form of government – that a deal of the magnitude of Resolution 2231 can be considered to have been legitimately entered into by the Government of the United States without the text of it ever being put before the Congress for scrutiny or a vote; a deal which violates treaty and compels the United States Government to participate in the internationally codified and defined War Crime, _Crimes against Peace_ (to be explained presently) by colluding in assisting Iran with its preparations for its pledged waging of war of aggression, war of annihilation in violation of treaty and international assurances;

And assist Iran in its preparations for its pledged waging of war of annihilation by piecemeal, on a case-by-case basis, expediting and approving Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated goods, support services, technologies and technical data such as: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions_...;" so as to best accelerate Iran's progressing development of the very weapon wanted to exterminate relatively near-by population centers with the convenience of a mere push of a button.

Not one member of either political party in Congress will even discuss the fact that Resolution 2231 was never voted on in the first place, apparently it being the universal belief in that esoteric little community of some 435 politicians that the negative can't be proven – when in fact it is easily proven; and is proven by the documentation as provided and explained;

Not one of those insular politicians as of yet not having been confronted with the fact that the negative is easily proven and the documentation proving it is all there;

And not one of those insular politicians as of yet has explained their philosophical point of view which considers the contemplated populations targeted to be expendable for the greater good of securing their lasting weapons deal which will return a few crumbs of sales of domestic materiel to be exported to Iran where such will no doubt be backwards engineered (and the Iranians are good at that) with the result being that the Iranians may eventually build their own hybrid versions; so that the services of U.S. weapons manufacturers will become redundant and no longer needed.

None of the Congresspersons of today so rigorously portraying themselves as living bulwarks of the Constitution and of "our core values and democratic process;" and not even our vaunted ex-Senator and current Secretary of State Mike Pompano, who may also be remembered for having written his letter to then Secretary of State John Kerry wondering why no one ever got a _signed_ JCPOA copy; and not even our extroverted outgoing President Trump with all his plethora of glamorous public tweets transmitted for every occasion; not even He the President has dared to point out that no vote on the Iran deal, Resolution 2231, was ever taken (although it's really not clear why he doesn't bring it up).

Perhaps this scurrilous impeachment expedition carried on by the political movement that wants back in on the Iran nuclear weapons deal will help to clear his head and cause him to come to grips with the fact that if he doesn't do his duty and confront the situation honestly – then that's what he'll always be remembered for and nobody in future will need to scratch their heads wondering how it is that Iran came to get the bomb as a consequence of the Obama administration followed by the Trump administration.

Proceeding to further examination of the international standard recognizing that furnishing arms to a belligerent declaring that it will at some point carry out on a pledge to wage war of aggression in violation of treaty is not a separate issue from whatever it is the Obama doctrine pretends and preaches.

* * * * *
Chapter 7

– The Defined Character –

It is well known that Iran constantly pledges the destruction of the State of Israel, and that the Iranian Government preaches the overthrow of the Government of Saudi Arabia. These are two examples of Iranian declared intention to initiate or wage planned war of aggression in violation of treaties, international agreements or assurances.

One of the major treaties Iran infringes upon in its unrelenting repeated and continuous avowal to extinguish populations or overthrow targeted disapproved of governments in the neighborhood; is the multilaterally joined constituent treaty: the _Charter of the United Nations_ , which declares:

Charter of the United Nations

*CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Obama has repeatedly declared that Iran's support for international terror and it's declared intention to institiate or wage a planned war of agression are issues separate from Obama's Iran nuclear deal. As an example, Barack Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes; speaking in a March 31, 2016 White House Press Briefing, claimed:

"...And we've always been very clear that the JCPOA is about rolling back and constraining Iran's nuclear program.

'We were also clear that they were going to continue to be engaged in behavior that we found counterproductive -- ballistic missiles, support for terrorism, destabilizing activities in the region. That's not the nuclear deal; it's a separate set of issues in which we have the ability to respond... ***** "

*[THE WHITE HOUSE, OFFICE OF THE PRESS SECRETARY; Press Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on the Nuclear Security Summit; March 31, 2016 (For Immediate Release); internet address: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/31/press-briefing-senior-administration-officials-nuclear-security-summit [last accessed May, 2016].

The provisions of the Security Council resolution in question declare Ben Rhodes a polished liar. The provisions of Resolution 2231 – (the true name of the Obama Iran nuclear deal which he refuses to invoke) – testifies that the Security Council resolution is not about " _rolling back and constraining Iran's nuclear program_ ;"

It is about directly encouraging, inducing and materially assisting the non-nuclear-weapons-State of Iran to the develop the means to manufacture nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices – and as well, advanced ballistic missile weapons associated goods, technologies and support services; and it is all about expediting Iranian procurement of nuclear weapons, and ballistic missile systems associated goods, technologies and support services through the Offices of the Procurement Working Group – all of which is as previously described and documented.

And as examined in the previous chapter, Obama's Iran nuclear deal is also clearly about relaxing controls on international terror as Obama, sought in Resolution 2231 to dismantle a future U.S. President's Authority to "... _block and prohibit_ _all transactions in all property and interests in property of the persons specified_...," when such property is owned by a person who "... _knowingly sells, leases, or provides a vessel or provides insurance or reinsurance or any other shipping service for the transportation to or from Iran of goods_ _that could materially contribute to the activities of the Government of Iran with respect to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or support for acts of international terrorism_..."

Naturally a President does not have any Constitutional authority to overturn ratified legislation – but Obama did it anyway, or tried it out anyway. And naturally, the Democratic Party membership in Congress, in support of their political icon, characteristically refused and refuses to acknowledge and enter into discussion of any of this.

Relaxing controls on U.S. Ports aside; Resolution 2231 does not punish Iran for its acts in support of international terror; it does not put a halt or suspension on the sales to Iran of INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 listed nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies and services as a measure of restraining Iranian activity in areas of support for terrorist activities.

Obama's Iran nuclear deal thereby, is also all about its provisions, explicit or implicit, designed to relax measures enacted by treaty to combat the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the spread of international terror.

* * * * *

International law – formulated in large part by the United States along with the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom during and after the final year, thereabouts, of World War II recognizes that a belligerent's pledge to wage war of aggression in violation of treaty, and the furnishing by foreign governments of the means to carry out the pledge – are not separate issues.

The act of furnishing weapons to nations pledging to, planning on, preparing for, or initiating invasions of other countries and waging wars of aggression, or wars of extermination, in violation of international laws and treaties, agreements or assurances; is internationally recognized as falling under the defined War Crime category understood as Crimes against Peace.

The definition of this category of War Crime is found, among other places, in the _International Military Tribunal Control Council Law No. 10_ :

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL  
CONTROL COUNCIL LAW NO. 10

PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST PEACE AND AGAINST HUMANITY

1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime:

(a) **Crimes against Peace**. Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties, including but not limited to planning, **preparation** , initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war of violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, **or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing**.

[UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: Trials of War Criminals Before The Nuernberg Military Tribunals; Nuernberg, October 1946-April 1949 Volume III: page XIX]

Proponents of Obama's diplomatic solution to easing U.S.-Iran tensions, the Iran nuclear deal, which sympathizes with the peculiar needs of the theocratic regime in terms of relaxing U.S. prohibitions restricting the use of U.S. Ports and Shipping Services as stations to be made available for exploitation in the advancement of terrorist logistical operations; Obama's final diplomatic solution, which sympathizes with the peculiar needs of the Government of Iran in advancing its weapons arsenals, including Weapons of Mass Destruction associated arsenals (as the provisions of Obama's Resolution 2231 tell the story) most reasonably understood, per Iranian Government proclamation, as to better prepare for its pledged conclusive apocalyptical war of extermination;

Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution, Brigadier General Telford Tyler, explains in his opening remarks in Case III; _The United States v. Altstoetter et. al_., of the _Trials of War Criminals Before The Nuernberg Military Tribunals_ (Under Control Council Law No. 10):

Crimes, theoretically and, more often than not, actually, are these acts, which are so contrary to the moral conscience of the community or so dangerous to the maintenance of a reasonable degree of order, justice and peace in the community, that the community, by appropriate processes, demands their elimination and suppression in the interest of the individuals who constitute the community...

... although this indictment is brought in the name of the Government of the United States, this case in substance is the people of the world against these men who have committed criminal acts against the community we know as the world...

... unless all the countries of the world fight a continuous struggle to match the moral conscience of the world which has been asserted here, the result will be a cynical Germany and an apathetic amoral world which drifts aimlessly because it sees no national conduct which matches the standards of moral conduct which are proclaimed here.

The true significance of these proceedings, therefore, far transcends the mere question of the guilt or innocence of the defendants. They are charged with murder, but this is no mere murder trial. These proceedings invoke the moral standards of the civilized world, and thereby impose an obligation on the nations of the world to measure up to the standards applied here...

Although this Tribunal is internationally constituted, it is an American court [the Tribunal is made up of three U.S. Judges]. The obligations which derive from these proceedings are, therefore, **particularly binding on the United States**...

... Nuernberg must be a symbol, not of revenge or of smug self-satisfaction, but of peace and good will among nations and peoples.

It is the crime of shattering the foundations of peace and denying the very fact of humanity that is charged in this and other proceedings at Nuernberg.

It is by trying these charges under law, and in quest of truth, that Nuernberg will find its full measure of justification.

These political proponents of the proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities to Iran; favoring the specific provisions of Obama's final diplomatic solution which they won't publicly discuss; discover themselves, are discovered, as the effective allies and advocates agitating for completely insane un-thought through United States Government participation in a foreign States' preparations for waging it's pledged war of aggression and extermination. In this they may be justifiably considered by the electorate as the defined allies and advocates agitating for U.S. Government involvement in self-defeating participation in the internationally recognized War Crime – _Crimes against Peace_ against the interest of the General Welfare.

And the unanimous vote; presently reviewed in the next chapter; that vote these allies and advocates took on 26 October 2017 agitating in favor of this participation irrefutably and very publicly confirms their position on what they have for so long resisted discussing honestly on the public record.

* * * * *
Chapter 8

– Trumps Original Issue –

On 26 October 2017; almost the entire 115th House of Representatives (save two abstaining and seven not present) would vote in favor of attempting to directly legalize the sales of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile weapons to Iran under the auspices of the Procurement Working Group.

House Bill HR 1698 made it clear – that if ballistic missile associated goods, technologies and support services, were shunted to Iran under the official auspices of the Procurement Working Group – then the 115th House of Representatives was satisfied that there would be no need for any reporting or announcement of any of that sort of thing to Congress.

This following excerpt provides the definition of the Procurement Working Group for the purposes of this document. The definition is consistent with that of Resolution 2231; Annex A: JCPOA:

Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698

SEC. 2. SANCTIONS RELATING TO EFFORTS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN WITH RESPECT TO BALLISTIC MISSILE-RELATED GOODS, SERVICES, AND TECHNOLOGIES.

(e) SANCTIONABLE ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO BALLISTIC MISSILES.

''(B) ADDITIONAL BALLISTIC MISSILE-RELATED GOODS, SERVICES, AND TECHNOLOGY.—

''(iv) PROCUREMENT WORKING GROUP DEFINED.—In clause (iii)(I), the term 'procurement working group' means the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission established under Annex IV of the applicable provisions in Annex A of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).

The above affirms that the 115th House of Representatives is fully aware of the Procurement Working Group and its mandate.

Examined next are the provisions endorsing the sales to Iran of nuclear and ballistic weapons associated goods, services and technologies when such Iranian acquisitions are made under the auspices of the Procurement Working Group. As one first begins reading, it appears sales to Iran of the like are censured overall. This is the impression until reaching the exclusions paragraph which stipulates that if the materiel in question is routed through the Procurement Working Group bureaucracy, then the field is wide open.

The text of the Act is presented first with explanatory commentary following:

Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698

SEC. 2. SANCTIONS RELATING TO EFFORTS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN WITH RESPECT TO BALLISTIC MISSILE-RELATED GOODS, SERVICES, AND TECHNOLOGIES.

(e) SANCTIONABLE ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO BALLISTIC MISSILES.

B) ADDITIONAL BALLISTIC MISSILE-RELATED GOODS, SERVICES, AND TECHNOLOGY.—

''(i) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.—The President shall impose the sanctions described in paragraph (8), (10), or (12) of section 6(a), as the case may be, with respect to—

''(I) an agency or instrumentality of the Government of Iran if the President determines that the agency or instrumentality, on or after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, knowingly seeks to develop, procure, or acquire goods, services, or technology that materially supports efforts by the Government of Iran with respect to ballistic missile-related goods, services, and technologies as described in clause (iii);

''(iii) EFFORTS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN WITH RESPECT TO BALLISTIC MISSILE-RELATED GOODS, SERVICES, AND TECHNOLOGIES DESCRIBED.—

''(I) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of clause (i), and except as provided in subclause (II) of this clause, efforts by the Government of Iran with respect to ballistic missile-related goods, services, and technologies described in this subsection are efforts by the Government of Iran to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer, test or use ballistic missiles or associated goods, services, or technology by the Government of Iran, including efforts by the Government of Iran to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer, purchase—

''(aa) goods, services, or technology listed on the Missile Technology Control Regime Equipment and Technology Annex of October 8, 2015, and subsequent revisions that have been acquired outside of the Procurement Working Group or not otherwise approved by the United Nations Security Council;

''(bb) goods, services, or technology not described in the matter preceding item (aa) or item (aa) but which nevertheless the President determines would be, if such goods, services, or technology were United States goods, services, or technology, prohibited for export to Iran because of their potential to materially support the development of ballistic missile systems or ballistic missile launch technologies.

''(II) EXCEPTION.—Subclause (I) shall not apply with respect to efforts the Government of Iran with respect to ballistic missile-related goods, services, and technologies that have been approved under paragraph 4 of Annex B of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).

Okay, so the first part is pretty straightforward: (e)(B0(i) _Additional Authority_ , declares the President shall impose sanctions with respect to..., and then it proceeds in the next paragraph (I) to define the what the sanctions to be imposed are in respect to:

''(I) an agency or instrumentality of the Government of Iran if the President determines that the agency or instrumentality, on or after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, knowingly seeks to **develop, procure, or acquire goods, services, or technology that materially supports efforts by the Government of Iran with respect to ballistic missile-related goods, services, and technologies as described in clause** (iii);

Clause (iii) - _Efforts by the Government of Iran with Respect to Ballistic Missile-Related Goods, Services, and Technologies Described_ –

"(iii)" leads into (I) In General – which explains the actions associated with ballistic missile related development which are to be penalized; and the subparagraphs following: (aa) and (bb), describe inventories which must not be acted upon in the manners proscribed in paragraph (iii)

''(I) IN GENERAL.—....efforts by the Government of Iran with respect to ballistic missile-related goods, services, and technologies described in this subsection are efforts by the Government of Iran to **manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer, test or use ballistic missiles or associated goods, services, or technology** by the Government of Iran, including efforts by the Government of **Iran to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer, purchase** —

All of this seems clear until reaching the paragraph on exclusions, which is "(II) _Exception_ ;" which turns everything around in the 180º opposite direction:

"(II) EXCEPTION" declares that Iran is exempted from all of the prohibitions previously mentioned; and none of the prohibitions previously mentioned apply with respect to missile-related goods, services, and technologies – when these have been approved under paragraph 4 of Annex B – which means that when such are approved by the Procurement Working Group, then Iran can do whatever. Review of Paragraph 4 Annex B is necessary to a fuller appreciation of the meaning.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; Annex B. - Statement

4. All States may participate in and permit the activities described below provided that the Security Council [Procurement Working Group inclusive] decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to permit such activity:

(a) the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to or from Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, and whether or not originating in their territories, of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in _S/2015/546*_ and of any items, materials, equipment, goods and technology **that the State determines could contribute to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems** ; and

(b) the provision to Iran of any technology or technical assistance or training, financial assistance, investment, brokering or other services, and the transfer of financial resources or services, or Iran's acquisition of an interest in any commercial activity in another State, related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture or use of the items, materials, equipment, goods and technology described in subparagraph a of this paragraph or related to the activities described in paragraph 3.

This paragraph shall apply until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

* [The code word "S/2015/546" has previously been identified in the chapter " _Impeachment Selectivity; Weapons Development and Expansion_ ," as referring to the Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex.]

As has already been examined; permission by the Procurement Working Group to sell ballistic missile associated goods, technologies and support services to Iran automatically entails corresponding permission to bundle these assets in procurement packages which include nuclear weapons associated goods, support services and technologies listed on the INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 inventory list [Technologies may include: _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on other media or devices such as disk, tape, read-only memories_."].

Appendix 02 – Chapter 16 [[02b]: _Excerpt of the contents of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a_ and _INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 inventory list. (Nuclear weapons associated inventories Iran is entitled to acquire under Resolution 2231.)_ ; furnishes an excerpt from the list as sample. Blueprints etc., are found under the heading "Technical Data."]

The 115th House of Representatives vote in favor of its bi-partisan Iran _Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act_ – HR 1698 was almost unanimous with a little over a handful not present and two dissenting. All Democrats voted in favor.

In the formulation of the bill, it was understood the Congress of the United States would have no knowledge of what material is contained in sales of INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 listed inventories made to Iran under the auspices of the Procurement Working Group. The specific material content of any one of these INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 associated procurement packages is kept secret, as previously documented.

So the 115th House of Representatives voted to legitimize through statute, sales to the non-nuclear-weapons-State of Iran bundled packages of nuclear and ballistic missile inventories in violation of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty; and in so doing, the House of Representatives voted to grant blanket endorsement of whatever was being sold in those packages of bundled nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets again, without any knowledge of what exactly is or will be in those Packages sold Iran.

The idea was that if the procurement packages sold Iran in violation of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ , and sold with the Security Council guarantee that IAEA inspectors are prevented from verifying the contents and prevented from establishing any chain of custody of these with a view to certifying that inventories are not being diverted from peaceful use to the development of nuclear weapons capacity;

If these items being sold and acquired under those conditions in violation of Article I and II, and Article III first clause, of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ ; are expedited or facilitated under the auspices of the Procurement Working Group, then it's perfectly peachy as far as the United States Government should be concerned.

But if the same class of goods were acquired by Iran outside the intended Procurement Working Group contraband weapons racketeering syndicate monopoly – then the President was to report this to Congress, and it would be time to scream bloody hell on earth and sanctions against Iran would have to be contemplated.

So the 115th House of Representatives determined in its wisdom that U.S. participation in a foreign State's preparations for its pledged waging of war of aggression, war of extermination, in violation of international treaty and assurances – is acceptable if this participation is carried out under the auspices of the official sounding Security Council sponsored group: the _Procurement Working Group_ ; whose mandate is in no way authorized by, and is explicitly disavowed and prohibited, in various articles of the _Charter of the United Nations_ ; the previously cited _Charter of the United Nations_ Article 24, second clause being one example:

Article 24

2. In discharging these [its] duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations...

And an obvious principle, among the so very many purposes and principles the Procurement Working Group mandate violates:

Charter of the United Nations

*CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

* * * * *

Justification for U.S. Government participation in Iran's preparations for its planned war of aggression, war of extermination; justification for U.S. Government participation in the internationally codified War Crime, _Crimes against Peace_ – was that every other State of any consequence was doing it, so we should also.

Representative Jim Costa, speaking in the Lower House on 11 October 2017, just a couple of weeks before the 26 October vote summarized the justification in the following:

In addition to Iran, we negotiated the Iran nuclear agreement with the United Kingdom, Germany, European Union, China, and Russia, and we must keep our word. In other words, to remain credible, the United States cannot change positions on international agreements from one administration to another without serious justification and without the consent in working with our allies.

Representative Costa in his presumption, posits with the infantile cunning of a five year old; which should be considered okay if it's a five year old speaking: "They do it, so I can do it" Recalling the previously cited words of Chief Counsel for Prosecution Telford Taylor:

... unless all the countries of the world fight a continuous struggle to match the moral conscience of the world which has been asserted here [in the Nuernberg Trials], the result will be a cynical Germany and an apathetic amoral world which drifts aimlessly because it sees no national conduct which matches the standards of moral conduct which are proclaimed here...

...Although this Tribunal is internationally constituted, it is an American court [the Tribunal is made up of three U.S. Judges]. The obligations which derive from these proceedings are, therefore, **particularly binding on the United States**...

...It is the crime of shattering the foundations of peace and denying the very fact of humanity that is charged in this and other proceedings at Nuernberg.

* * * * *

COSTA CLAMED, as did the others of the political faction surreptitiously favoring proliferation; that the Trump administration had deviated from the norm: "... _to remain credible, the United States cannot change positions on international agreements from one administration to another_...;" clearly it was and is the other way around.

Before the Obama administration, neither the United States, nor had any of the other Five Permanent Member States of the Security Council ever considered granting other nations the kind of illicit assistance endowed Iran under United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) – in violation of multiple international treaties cited in this writing; and including the multilaterally signed international constituent treaty; the Charter of the United Nations, the only instrument from which the Security Council may claim some authorization.

The Five Permanent Member States of the Security Council have, from times long before Resolution 2231; remained consistent with the declarations of Article I of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_. Those States had always refrained from transferring to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly;

(Deployment of U.S. nuclear arsenals in Western Europe is often confused with the placing of nuclear weapons under the control of other States. The weapons remain under active U.S. control in conformance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and as agreed to between the former Soviet Union and the United States – as explained in the previously cited "Questions on the Draft Non-Proliferation Treaty asked by U.S. Allies together with answers given by the United States," and in the previously cited letter, dated April 10, 1968 from Under Secretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach to Secretary of Defense Clark M. Clifford.)

And the Five Permanent Member States of the Security Council had always refrained from in any way assisting, encouraging, or inducing any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

The Obama administration Iran nuclear weapons deal is a departure from the norm as it explicitly claims itself to be, and as it explicitly declares Iran to be an exceptional State requiring exceptional leeway in the development of its nuclear program – this in the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 section " _Other Matters_ :"

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Other Matters

27. [the Security Council]... Decides that **all provisions contained in the JCPOA are only for the purposes of its implementation between the E3/EU+3 and Iran** and **should not be considered as setting precedents for any other State** or for principles of international law and the rights and obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and other relevant instruments, as well as for internationally recognized principles and practices;

The above provision in the context of the resolution, clarifies that provisions of _Annex A: JCPOA_ ; which necessarily include provisions pertaining to Procurement Working Group activities associated with expediting and approving Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.__/Part 2 listed assets – this while preventing International Atomic Energy Agency inspection of these, naturally in violation of treaty; the above clarifies that the intention is that such provisions are to the exclusive benefit of the Government of Iran's nuclear program; and the special relationship between Iran and the other Parties (effectively, the Five Permanent Member States of the Security Council) cannot, or will not, be repeated on behalf of the nuclear program of any other State.

And in order to justify the departure from the norm – Obama, in the text of his Iran nuclear deal – posted a counterfeit claim, for all generations following to witness forever more what an irrefutable scumbag Obama really was, in the text of his Security Council Resolution 2231 – which promulgated the forgery that that all Member States are obligated to accept and carry out whatever despotic arbitrary whim is the current fashionable pleasure of the leaderships of the Five Permanent Member States of the Security Council, with non-permanent Members tagging along for show:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Underscoring that Member States _are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council's decisions_...

It wouldn't make sense following the declaration of Article 24 second clause which avows that the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations – it wouldn't make sense to then follow that up with the notion that the Security Council can decide and decree whatever.

And indeed, Charter of the United Nations Article 25 says nothing like what Obama invents for it to say, nor can it legitimately be suggested that the Article in any way implies anything in Obama's twisted characterization of it.

What Charter of the United Nations; Article 25 does say is as follows:

Charter of the United Nations;

*CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL

FUNCTIONS and POWERS

Article 25

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

No where is the word "obligated" or any hint or indication of duress implied in the above – such as Obama falsely asserts.

The wording and meaning of the Article is exactly the opposite of what Obama perversely twists. "Agree to accept..." means, in the written context, exactly the opposite of obligated. "Agree to accept" means _no duress_!

" _In accordance with the present Charter_ ;" explicitly specifies that Security Council resolutions must conform to the Charter of the United Nations, the law which governs them – otherwise they are unenforceable and void. "... _Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter_ ;" ascertains that it is the Member States of the United Nations who are decided by the authors of the _Charter of the United Nations_ as being the _first interpreters_ as to whether or not a given Security Council resolution is deemed as being in conformance with the Charter of the United Nations (the **Final Interpreter** being the International Court of Justice, if a dispute were to arise and it should be deemed necessary to resolve the dispute in that wise.)

In agreeing to accept; the Members affirm that they each feel that the Security Council resolution does conform to the Charter of the United Nations. They are therefore in the role of **first interpreters** as to whether or not a Security Council decision is made in accordance to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Upholding that interpretation of Article 25 presented here is, among other Charter of the United Nations provisions; Charter of the United Nations Article 2; Clause 7:

Charter of the United Nations

*CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

7. **Nothing contained in the present Charter shall** **authorize** the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall **require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter**...

It is the Members States which decide that it is the policy of their Governments to adhere to treaty – they are the _first interpreters_ as to whether or not Obama's Security Council decree that claims all States are obligated to violate treaty at Obama's whim conforms to the Charter of the United Nations.

If they find they Obama's dictums are not in accordance to the Charter of the United Nations, then they simply shrug shoulders and don't go along with the scam. And they don't even have to defend their stance in Court: " _Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter_."

It is the Member States who are presumed to be in the right when they resist a crackpot decree coming out of the Security Council; it is for the Security Council to explain and justify the reasonableness in its decision.

Case in point: U.S. President Trump pulls the U.S. Government out of the odious arrangement. The immediate result was an outpouring of high-minded sounding platitudes condemning the action. But obviously no direct discussion of the provisions. No State directly a Party to the agreement would dare.

Analogous to the predicament of the direct States Party to the nuclear agreement – as regards the near unanimous vote in the Lower House favoring the _Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act_ – HR 1698:

The Act was dutifully transmitted to the Senate where it was read twice on the floor and then quietly shunted to committee to be silenced for good. Moving the Act to the Executive for review and signature might obviously be pushing things too far. It is possible that the Trump administration, at that point, would be forced to publicly explain what the Procurement Working Group was all about. The risk of forcing a revelation of the true character of the Iran nuclear deal would have been felt daunting.

That the administration hadn't explained the realities of the case in the first place – and that it still hasn't by the end of 2019 – is a moral omission and political blunder of appalling consequence.

Returning to States Party to the agreement; the infringements previously cited (there are more) are already too grotesque, and the leaderships of most of the States Party to the Iran nuclear deal are too vulnerable politically to risk publicly contending in favor of and possibly revealing the transgressions testified to by the very text of the provisions. Hence, the immediate constrained reaction stirred by Trump's withdrawal from Resolution 2231 was confined, at that time, to antagonistic political criticism.

Regarding some build in aspects of the fundamental vulnerability of Resolution 2231 to legal challenge fatal to the resolution:

It was so clearly felt by the authors of the nuclear deal that some sort of rationale had to be fabricated to appear as justifying the declaration made in section "Other Matters;" which excuses Iran's and the other Parties' obligations to treaty in declaring this Security Council resolution as being "... _only for the purposes of its implementation between the E3/EU+3 and Iran and should not be considered as setting precedents for any other State_...;"

It was so clearly felt by the authors of the nuclear deal that in order to justify exempting themselves and the Government of Iran from treaty obligation, they would have to pretend some supreme overriding authority vested in the Security Council; an authority and a commission which would naturally empower the Security Council to annul or suspend any specific troublesome treaty obligations which might tend to get in the way.

And so the Obama administration passed the forgery, in its United States draft resolution deposited with the Security Council on Friday, July 17 2015; which declares the fraud that: "... _Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council's decisions_...;" as though it is a Security Council decision which automatically establishes and codifies standards of international law.

The false notion, although popular in some unschooled circles, is rebutted in the earliest writings regarding the _Charter of the United Nations_. One example refuting Barack Obama's mendacious self-serving characterization of United Nations Security Council Article 25 is found in the Opinion and Ruling of the Tribunal in Nuernberg Case III; "The Justice Case."

Presiding Justice James Tenney Brand signals out Article 13, clause 1-a of the Charter of the United Nations in his writing of the Opinion of the Court:

Charter of the United Nations

*CHAPTER IV: THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

FUNCTIONS and POWERS

Article 13

1. The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of: _a_ _._ **promoting international co-operation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification** ;

Bearing that in mind, the Opinion of the Court notes the following:

International Military Tribunal – Nuernberg

Case III – The United States v. Altstoetter et. al.

...Surely the requisite international approval and acquiescence is established when 23 states, including all of the great powers, have approved the London Agreement and the IMT Charter without dissent from any state. Surely the IMT Charter must be deemed declaratory of the principles of international law in view of its recognition as such by the General Assembly of the United Nations. We quote:

"The General Assembly recognizes the obligation laid upon it by article 13, paragraph 1 (a) of the Charter, to initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification ;

"Takes note of the agreement for the establishment of an International Military Tribunal for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis, signed in London on 8 August 1945, and of the Charter annexed thereto and of the fact that similar principles have been adopted in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the trial of the major war criminals in the Far East, proclaimed at Tokyo on 19 January 1946;

"Therefore" Affirms the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuernberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal ; "Directs the Committee on Codification of International Law established by the resolution of the General Assembly of * * * * December 1946, to treat as a matter of primary importance plans for the formulation, in the text of a general codification of offenses against the peace and security of mankind, or of an International Criminal Code, of the principles recognized in the Charter of the Nuernberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal."

Above, the Court has given an example of how this Power invested in the General Assembly, this Power to encourage: "... _the progressive development of international law and its codification_..." might express itself. The Charter of the United Nations vests no such enumerated Power in the Security Council.

The totalitarian notion that the Security Council can legislate or decree whatever it wants through its own self-appointed authority which, as Security Council Resolution 2231 dictates, may override at will even the nuisance second clause of Charter of the United Nations Article 24; that Article which affirms the Security Council must confine its behavior to acts which conform to the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

The despotic shared proclamation primarily issued by Barack Obama in conjunction with the Ministers of the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran; and attended to by the leaderships of the other direct Parties to the nuclear agreement; is one of the totalitarian edicts embedded in the whole which begs the entire menacing bag of provisions be dragged before the _International Court of Justice_ for energetic review and some healthy Judicial Application.

Following is what international law has to say about Obama's pretense that his Security Council edict embedded in his Resolution 2231 may override international law and treaty. Examining first that the V _ienna Convention on the law of treaties_ supplies the international definition of a recognizable as legitimate international agreement:

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART I. INTRODUCTION

_Article 2_. Use of Terms

1. For the purposes of the present Convention:

(a) "Treaty" means an international agreement concluded between States **in written form and governed by international law** , whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and _whatever its particular designation_ ;

And there is more:

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 53. Treaties Conflicting With a Peremptory Norm of General International Law ("Jus Cogens")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

A rewording of an Article, which alters the meaning to the opposite of that specified in the Original; is a contrivance which may prove an effective coercive measure in some social spheres – as in the case of Obama's preposterous counterfeit claim that the Security Council has an absolutist overriding authority to suspend treaty at will and pleasure for whatever arbitrary and expeditious purpose; a false claim that proponents of the weapons proliferation edicts find comfort clinging to;

But fiction of that sort would, more likely than not, be discovered immediately as repugnant to the Court when brought before it. Given Obama's preposterously false claim that the Security Council, has overriding authority to suspend or renounce treaty – noting the various _Charter of the United Nations_ imposed safeguards restraining unchecked Security Council conduct – Obama's charlatan, scoffing pretense couldn't fool a judge; and certainly couldn't fool the fifteen to at least nine judges hearing a case brought before the International Court of Justice for examination and ruling.

That Resolution 2231 counterfeit claim that the Security Council can force Member States' compliance and participation in violations of international law and treaty is the proclamation that the resolution will not be governed by international law and treaty. Hence, under the definition provided in Article 2 of the _Vienna Convention on the law of treaties_ ; Resolution 2231 identifies and denounces itself as an illicit international agreement playing by its own rules which are contemplated as superceding peremptory norm of general international law and, among other things, also superseding the Charter of the United Nations which is the singular instrument from which the United Nations Security Council can claim any legitimate authority.

And with that premise, of Security Council superseding and overriding authority asserted in the resolution – Security Council Resolution 2231 follows through from there; proceeding to justify the excusing of the Parties to the Iran nuclear deal from whichever articles of treaty it decides. This characteristic of overthrowing treaty and law calls Article 53 of the _Vienna Convention on the law of treaties_ from dormancy.

As consequence of Article 53 being called into play – Resolution 2231 could meet its end as being found void at the time of its conclusion (being as of July 20, 2015 – at the conclusion of the vote taken at the 7488th meeting of the Security Council). And if found void upon conclusion –Article 71 would necessarily next follow:

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 5. CONSEQUENCES OF THE INVALIDITY, TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A TREATY

Article 71. Consequences of the Invalidity of a Treaty which Conflicts with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law

1. In the case of a treaty which is void under article 53 [above] the parties shall:

(a) Eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance on any provision which conflicts with the peremptory norm of general international law; and.

(b) Bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of general international law.

The Court should then proceed to define and Order how the infringing Parties are to _bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of general international law_ , etc.

It is imperative therefore, that proponents of the Iran nuclear weapons transfer deal evade and suppress as far as possible any meaningful discussion of Resolution 2231; and as well, discourage any perceived effort to challenge the Security Council resolution in Court.

* * * * *

A review of Annex B; paragraph 5 of Resolution 2231 serves as further reminder explaining the pressing need of the Democratic Party, in support of the interests of the very lucrative domestic U.S. weapons manufacturing and weapons sales financial speculative interests – to regain the White House in 2020.

"JCPOA Adoption Day" occurred on 18 October 2015. Paragraph 5 (below) stipulates that on the date five years after "JCPOA Adoption Day;" which is 18 October 2020, only a short time before the U.S. national election – the market on sales of conventional weapons to Iran opens up internationally. Clearly therefore, it is imperative that if United States domestic weapons manufacturing and financial speculative interests are to get their market share – Trump's withdrawal from Resolution 2231 must be discredited, and Trump must be removed from office in the most timely manner possible.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2231); Annex B.

As provided by a resolution so deciding, the following provisions would apply on the date on which the IAEA Director General submits a report verifying that Iran has taken the actions specified in paragraph 15.1-15.11 of Annex V of the JCPOA [this means "JCPOA Implementation Day];

5. All States may participate in and permit, provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to approve: the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from or through their territories, or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, to Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, of any **battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems,** as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, and the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance, or use of arms and related materiel described in this subparagraph...

This paragraph shall apply until the date five years after the **JCPOA Adoption Day** or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

As of 18 October 2020 the cited Paragraph 5 will no longer apply – and international trade in conventional weapons is entirely under the sovereign discretion of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The avarice and speculation surrounding 18 October 2020 is one of the powerful incentives for scandalizing as aberrant Trump's attempt to turn the United States away from the self-admitted deviancy of the Obama administration – self-admitted in its pernicious deception that the Security Council has overriding absolutist totalitarian authority to enact any decree; and by that premise, force Member States' compliance and participation in Iran's pledged war of aggression; war of annihilation;

The most callous avarice incited by the opening of potentially lucrative Iranian weapons market incentives is enough to inspire these debased members of Congress to perversely declare that it is the U.S. return to compliance with treaty which is aberrant, and that the self-admitted Obama administration's derogation from peremptory norm of international law and treaty is the correct, or desirable course.

In pursuit of its desired and correct path, the Democratic Party 2020 election campaign platform regarding the Iran nuclear affair; avows:

We support the nuclear agreement with Iran because, as it is vigorously enforced and implemented, it verifiably cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb without resorting to war. We reject Donald Trump's view that we should have walked away from a deal that peacefully dismantles Iran's nuclear program.

It is summary repetition of the same collection of fancies designed for political face saving or self promotional validation – whatever. These are collectively refuted mostly by the very text of the Security Council resolution itself – as has been documented and explained.

These Congresspersons characterizing themselves as something like the exemplary bastions of the Constitution – the paragons who righteously preach from the pulpit admonishing us to always be on our guard, on the lookout to defend "our core values," and "our democratic process;"

These are the very ones exactly who voted on 26 October 2017 in favor of U.S. Government endorsement of the Procurement Working Group mandate expediting Iranian acquisitions of procurement packages bundling nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated goods, support services, and technologies – in violation of treaty – the mandated purchase order and acquisitions system which had already been almost a year in progress at the time these people voted to endorse the process. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Eliot L. Engel Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs; Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House; and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler; and all the others voting in favor – and Republicans, and Democrats alike; they all loved the idea and voted for it accordingly.

And they're all there doing it – voting for it right on page H8254 of the Thursday October 26, 2017 edition of ; _Proceedings and Debates of the 115th Congress, First Session_ , _Vol. 163, No. 173;_ of the _Congressional Record_. You can look up your favorite reprehensive right there and find out about what they still won't talk over with you.

The vote was taken at a time when President Trump was pretending to the electorate that he would renegotiate the deal with Iran – or threaten to withdraw from it. The above vote was taken in the face of Trump's threat. More clearly, perhaps it had in part been intended as a measure taken in response to Trump's intimation, a measure meant to put a counterweight pressure lean-on against Trump's suggested course.

Members of both political parties in the 115th House of Representatives were evidently entirely confident the charade that the Iran nuclear deal was a diplomatic masterstroke which "verifiably cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb;" could be carried on indefinitely. A near unanimous vote in favor of keeping United States presence on the Procurement Working Group decision making board, participating in the Procurement Working Group activities of expediting and approving Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 listed nuclear weapons associated inventories might sustain the political pressure to remain in the deal.

Earlier in the month of the vote – on 4 October 2017, 115th House of Representatives members David Price and Ted Deutch sent Trump a letter of complaint summarizing Congressional members' frustration in anticipation of a possible U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal. It was signed on to by the Democratic Party membership residing in the House of Representatives.

This excerpt furnishes most of the letter:

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing to urge that you do not withhold certification on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) absent credible evidence of a material breach by Iran...

...The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) requires the President to provide to Congress credible evidence of Iranian noncompliance should violations of the JCPOA occur. We have received no such information to date. On the contrary, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and career U.S. military and intelligence officials continue to verify that Iran has honored its obligations under the agreement, and we remain unaware of any material change in Iranian activity since you last certified compliance to Congress on July 17.

Absent credible and accurate information confirming a material breach, we are concerned that withholding certification of Iran's compliance or walking away from the JCPOA would harm our alliances, embolden Iran, and threaten U.S. national security. We are further concerned that noncertification based on justifications beyond the scope of the nuclear agreement would threaten global non-proliferation efforts and send exactly the wrong message to North Korea at the moment we are trying to diplomatically defuse that crisis. Countries should know that unless Iran commits a material breach of the JCPOA, the United States will keep its word...

...We remain hopeful that with strong U.S. leadership, we can ensure rigorous enforcement of the JCPOA, as well as implementation of non-nuclear and multilateral sanctions, including CAATSA, to keep the American people secure and safeguard American interests.

[The letter may be downloaded from: https://teddeutch.house.gov/uploadedfiles/10.4.17_td_dp_iran_recert_letter.pdf [last accessed Oct., 17, 2017]

Actually, the Democratic membership was inducing the President to _violate_ the very law they cited. Public Law No: 114-17; the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 – establishes a series of specifications, **all of which must be met** for a President to re-certify the "JCPOA." One of these specifications reads as follows:

Public Law No: 114-17

Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 [Section 2]

''(6) COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION.— After the review period provided in subsection (b), the President shall, not less than every 90 calendar days—

''(A) determine whether the President is able to certify that—

(iii) **Iran has not taken any action** , including covert activities, **that could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program** ;

Naturally Iran was receiving United States Government assistance in significantly advancing its nuclear weapons program per the continuing United States involvement as a member of the Procurement Working Group decision making, voting body. Such being the case – it should most reasonably be construed that recertification of the deal would violate of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.

The United States Government, the Trump administration upon assuming White House residency, found itself participating in the Procurement Working Group activities of expediting and approving sales to Iran of nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies and support services listed on the International Atomic Energy Agency issued INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 nuclear weapons associated roster.

The October 26 vote itself is the documentation which establishes; that every Democratic Party member of the 115th Lower House by October 2017 was clearly aware of U.S. Government involvement in the Procurement Working Group and also knew, to whatever the individual's greater or lesser degree of exposure; what this entailed when they signed the October 4, 2017 letter just a few weeks before the Lower House took its near unanimous vote to endorse the ongoing Procurement Working Group mandated activities clearly designed to assist in the advancement of the nuclear weapons program of Iran.

A little over two years previous, in his 14 July 2015 East Room of the White House address to the nation broadcast on the occasion of the Vienna joint announcement of Parties' reaching conclusion of the JCPOA aspect of the Iran nuclear deal – Barack Obama had insisted:

And over the course of the next decade, Iran must abide by the deal before additional sanctions are lifted, including five years for restrictions related to arms and **eight years for restrictions related to ballistic missiles**.

It was another of Obama's professionally voiced deceptions like so many. Sales to Iran of ballistic missile associated goods services and technologies, along with nuclear weapons associated inventories listed on the INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2 rosters were allowed as of "JCPOA Implementation Day," 16 January 2016. Obama had intentionally left the public with the impression that "restrictions" imposed would serve as comprehensive remedy which would eventually produce game changing lasting results:

Without this deal, there is no scenario where the world joins us in sanctioning Iran **until it completely dismantles its nuclear program**.

It was in the context of the overall promise that the deal would result in Iran's dismantling of its nuclear weapons program that Obama's submitted his charlatan's promise " _eight years for restrictions related to.._." The Procurement Working Group mandate is one aspect that proves that nothing like a dismantling of the nuclear weapons program, or intensive restrictions related to ballistic missiles development or acquisitions was ever intended or contemplated by the Parties engaged in negotiations.

The Democrats penning the October 2017 letter all knew of the promise their former Party leader had made regarding Iranian access to, or development, of ballistic missiles assistance or materiel. They all knew of the often publicly repeated claim that the Iran nuclear deal "... _verifiably cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb_...," and the further claims of that nature. They were all aware the fraudulent promotional campaign was intended to generate in the electorate expectations that a program to control Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons capacity was in place and on course.

And the national level membership of both political parties – but especially of the national level Democratic Party – both either vociferously perpetuated the false notions; or sat back comfortably allowing the swindle be carried on without hindrance or protest.

No politician from either political party publicly discussed Resolution 2231 documented provision allowing nuclear and ballistic missile weapons development effective as of 16 January 2016, or publicly spoke out about the Procurement Working Group mandate on the Congressional Record; certainly no one publicly discussed the 26 October 2017 vote outside of class.

Congress members did not return home asking constituencies: "This is what is on the voting agenda over here in Washington – how would you have me vote on this?" No Republican or Democrat Congress member needed to. Everyone knew what had been promised the voting public and how the Iran nuclear deal had been falsely characterized, continues to be falsely characterized. Just as everyone knew the public was and is overwhelmingly against such unheard of aid as is given Iran in United States Government promotion of Iran's (eventual) domestic ballistic and nuclear weapons production capabilities. Obama had conceded what was needed for the Iranians to join the agreement; and the Washington political scene was bereft of any wanting to publicly discuss what really had been conceded; what is all there in Resolution 2231 for all to read.

The creeping public policy of the political lie was insidiously dissolving whatever partisan affection for the ideal of a representative form of government, with representatives confiding in the constituencies, which might once have been. By the time of the 115th House of Representatives October 17 vote overwhelmingly favoring endorsement of the Procurement Working Group mandate and associated elements, the notion had been scrubbed out of use.

AS NOTED: the document issued early in the previous year (2016) by the Joint Commission, " _Information on the Procurement Channel_ ;" states clearly under section " _B. Further questions and answers_ " that: " _A proposal may include items which fall both under_ _S/2015/546_ _, as well as one of the_ _INFCIRC_ _s_." House of Representatives membership certainly knew by end of October 2017 that part of the Procurement Working Group mandate was to secure approval for Iranian acquisitions _of Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ listed inventory ( _S/2015/546)_ bundled with nuclear weapons associated INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2 items in egregious violation of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_.

Aside from the _Information on the Procurement Channel_ document; the office of the Facilitator for the implementation of resolution 2231 (2015) had published two easy to grasp Power Point presentations which explain that Iran could purchase ballistic missile associated goods, technologies and support services (independent of nuclear weapons associated INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2 listed items) through the Security Council.

The first of two presentations where published on 1 March 2016: (<https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sites/www.un.org.securitycouncil/files/facilitator-presentation-implementation-of-resolution-22312015.pdf>)...And the second on 14 July 2017: (<https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sites/www.un.org.securitycouncil/files/facilitator_presentation_14july2017.pdf>). The fifth and sixth bullet points in readers' left hand column on slide six of the July 2017 second presentation reads:

– [The Security Council] Reviews and decides on proposals for nuclear, ballistic missile, or arms-related transfers to or activities with Iran; and

– Grants exemptions to the restrictions.

A facsimile of the slide follows next:

Ballistic missile sales through the Security Council aspect of the Procurement Channel are not attached by the Secrecy Agreement established for transactions made through the Procurement Working Group, so transactions through this avenue would be more transparent and therefore less politically attractive to groups seeking to undertake sales to Iran in a manner where the greater discretion is of political concern;

And INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2 listed nuclear weapons associated inventories are not passed through the Security Channel at all; and so the vehicle of choice for selling packages bundling nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated inventories is definitely the designer Procurement Working Group procurement channel – which was endorsed and supported in the 115th House of Representatives Public Law No: 114-17; the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ (although the Security Council procurement route was mentioned as an acceptable venue as well).

Given the all of the above, the 4 October 2017 letter of complaint is discovered as a certainly knowledgeable and mischievous political attempt to induce President Trump to remain in an illegitimate deal that required a United States partnership-in-crime voting presence and participation on the Procurement Working Group decision-making Board; and required the Trump administration maintain illicit United States Government assistance – as previously pledged by the Obama administration – in expediting and approving the sales of INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 listed inventories immune to IAEA inspection in disregard and in violation of treaty.

As well; the Democratic Party activists writing the 4 October 2017 letter knew also that the recertification of the deal they sought would violate the law they cited – the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ ; which they had put forward as inducement or pressure to Trump's recertifying the deal.

Those aspects noted – and moving on: "Recertification" of the deal was always exclusively a domestic issue with no bearing on the implementation of Resolution 2231 – no where in Resolution 2231 is U.S. domestic "recertification" of the "JCPOA" ever referred to and no aspect of the implementation of Resolution 2231 was ever affected by whether or not a U.S. President "recertified" the deal.

The "deal" was to be "recertified" every ninety days, and as mentioned, recertification had nothing to do with implementation of the deal; but the recertification issue did give opportunity for political grandstanding and theatrics. It had become an argument over partisan prestige superseding honesty.

Trump had come into office denouncing the Iran nuclear deal – pledging to pull out of it. Therefore, if once every ninety days Trump could be forced to recertify the deal – this would be fodder for proponents of the Iran nuclear weapons sales deal to reassert that Trump once again had conceded the excellence of the preoccupation. As Senator Van Hollen put it on the floor of the Senate (October 5, 2017, the day after the Lower House Democrats sent their letter, some twenty days before the Lower House October 26 vote):

The Iran deal is working. It has verifiably shut off Iran's pathways to a nuclear bomb, imposed tough constraints on Iran's nuclear program ...

... the Trump administration has twice certified Iran's compliance with the deal, acknowledging that adherence to the agreement is in the vital national security interests of the United States.

So there it was – Trump had twice conceded the virtue of the proponents' cause. This above excerpt was part of a long indignant speech by Van Hollen denouncing Trump's anticipated refusal to recertify again. Van Hollen also remarked in that speech made some twenty days before the Lower House vote to endorse ballistic missile sales to Iran made under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council sponsored Procurement Working Group:

The truth is, if the United States had tried to expand the nuclear agreement to also address Iran's ballistic missile tests and its regional terrorism, there would simply be no deal.

No truth to it at all – the Obama administration most certainly did discuss and agree to U.S. assistance in expediting and approving Iranian acquisition of ballistic missile associated goods, technologies and support services – and had even gone so far as to offer shipping associated services to Iranian supported terrorist freedom fighter interests (as previously discussed and documented).

Declarations of the sort parroted by Senator Van Hollen were common to the period. Another example from the October 4, 2017 letter: "... _We are further concerned that noncertification based on justifications beyond the scope of the nuclear agreement would threaten global non-proliferation efforts._..;"

And another one from the October letter: "... _we are concerned that withholding certification of Iran's compliance or walking away from the JCPOA would harm our alliances_...." This next one already mentioned earlier is again, from the desks of Jimmy Costa submitted by same to the House of Representatives for review (11 October 2017):

_....In addition to Iran, we negotiated the Iran nuclear agreement with the **United Kingdom, Germany,... China, and Russia** ,_ [he forgot France] _and we must keep our word...._

The far-out fear-speech was angled at convincing the honest civilian that international alliances would collapse and that Weapons of Mass Destruction proliferation would explode world wide if Trump failed to satisfactorily perform on a purely ceremonial domestic occasion.

This is exactly the kind of vintage stuff just made for good news-media hot copy fascination. It's reassuring to us that the world is clued in to our peculiar Washington-centric rites and ritual practices – and we know it and appreciate it knowing nobody international is put off by our obscure local D.C. customs and its good of them to ask and look in on us when it is seasonably the right time again;

And everyone out there is hanging on to the edge of their seats expecting to find out earliest will he sign or what happens when the Mississippi River ink runs dry and what else can we think up to be occupying ourselves with that could be really just as interesting to know all about on the off season as we await the results of the next calamitous run-in.

As noted, the staging of these melodramas is for the obvious purpose of partisan validation and news-media generated imagery favoring the proponents of the Iran nuclear deal. And the time consuming exercise had actually succeed in monopolizing new-media outlet attention every three months seasonally to an even greater degree than perhaps even the tantalizing impeachment production spectacle conceived and carried on with at this later date.

OVERALL; seeking to justify their position and their complaint, the authors of the October 2017 letter resorted to the returning paradigm that U.S. Government honoring of group commitments which violate treaty; may be thought to override treaty when the U.S. commitment is made to a rogue group, which although being a tiny minority of the total States Party to the multilateral treaty; is nevertheless comprised of the most powerful weapons manufacturing and weapons purveying States world-wide.

When each of the leaderships of this rogue group of the most powerful weapons manufacturing and weapons purveying States world-wide have decided to collude in disdaining the commitments and concerns of the overwhelming vast majority of signatories remaining in compliance with the treaty; then it is acceptable for the current United States Government to join in discarding the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ , the seminal international agreement designed to restrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons – the treaty which an earlier United States Government, in cooperative effort with the then Soviet Union, had brought into being.

And when each of the leaderships of this rogue group of the most powerful weapons manufacturing and weapons purveying States world-wide have decided to collude in disdaining the commitments and concerns of the overwhelming vast majority of signatories remaining in compliance with the treaty; then it also becomes acceptable for national level Democratic Party congressional membership to forget that it was the United States Government administration of Barack Obama which instigated and organized the departure from the NPT in the first place.

Infatuation with the prestigious status of the group of the most powerful weapons manufacturing and weapons purveying States world-wide should not be allowed as justifying the disavowal of treaty. The proponents of the Iran deal act as though it does.

Nor does enamored distraction over the prestigious status of the great rogue weapons producing group change the fact of Iran's pledge to eradicate populations whose prevalent or diverse religious practices differ from that of the official religion of Iran.

Nor do any of the evasions, prevarications, excuses; the lies by omission or by fabrication, or the directed falsehoods; the none of which change the fact of the well known pledge – nor can any of those annul the existence of the International Military Tribunal internationally codified definition of _Crimes against Peace_ outlawing participation in the preparations for the waging of war of aggression in violation of international treaties and assurances – the decisions of a political movement entrenched within the national level Democratic Party; a movement favoring corporate contraband weapons profiteering while necessarily ignoring the internationally codified definition of _Crimes against Peace_ – the choices and decisions of that group notwithstanding;

And regardless of the decision of the national level Republican Party membership to keep still about the whole thing – disregarding that the rule of _knowledgeable silence gives consent_ , implicates the Republicans just as well in their silent refusal to protest – the Iranian pledge exists, and the definition of the War Crime, _Crimes against Peace_ exists, and;

It doesn't matter that the cited law of deterrence or retribution lies dormant while all of this fabrication and omission etc. is carried on overhead – the psychological and logical truth of the law endures; the recognition of the definition of the crime as a peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation is permitted endures.

We should consider the iniquitous and menacing influence that the surreptitious disavowal of treaty and peremptory norm of general international law; with the associated refusal or incapacity to allow for identification of, and to acknowledge critical pertinent fact; has on decision making in the Legislature and on governance in general:

* * * * *
Chapter 9

– Adjudication and Diktat –

Discussions concerning the actions, the behavior of Iran's activities regarding Resolution 2231 are ongoing and find no resolution. Two examples of this follow – along with explanation as to the persistence of the disputes, and the inability of the Security Council to resolve a given issue. These two examples are excerpts from the Eighth six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015) – [https://www.undocs.org/S/2019/952/Rev.1]

The following excerpt contains a series of accusations rebutted by denials.

**In paragraph 15** , Israel claims the Islamic Republic of Iran has conducted missile tests which had violated [Resolution 22331] annex B restrictions. Iran says: no it did not.

**In paragraph 16** France, Germany and the U.K. claim that Iran had undertaken ballistic missile associated activities in inconsistent with paragraph 3 of annex B. Iran responds by saying no it did not.

**In paragraph 17** Russia claims that Iran was " _...respecting in good faith" paragraph 3 of annex B to resolution 2231 (2015)_."

Eighth six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)

Ballistic missile launches

**15.** In identical letters dated 19 November 2019 (S/2019/895), the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations stated that, from March 2019 to June S/2019/952/Rev.1 4/6 19-21996 2019, the Islamic Republic of Iran had conducted "at least three surface-to-surface missile tests", two of which "violate[d] annex B restrictions". In response, the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in a letter dated 26 November 2019 (S/2019/907), stated that the Islamic Republic of Iran "strongly rejected" the aforementioned letter and that it had "neither launched any missile nor conducted any other action inconsistent with annex B to resolution 2231 (2015)".

**16.** In a letter dated 21 November 2019 (S/2019/911), the Permanent Representatives of France, Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations noted that recent actions undertaken by the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding its ballistic missile programme were "inconsistent with paragraph 3 of annex B to resolution 2231 (2015)", including, inter alia, the test launch of a Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile in July 2019 and an attempted launch of a Safir satellite launch vehicle, according to media reporting on 29 August. In response, in a letter dated 4 December 2019 (S/2019/926), the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that the Islamic Republic of Iran "has not conducted any activity inconsistent with paragraph 3 of annex B to resolution 2231 (2015)" and "reject[ed] the claims" made in that letter.

**17.** In a letter dated 26 November 2019 (A/74/565-S/2019/909), the Chargé d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations stated that none of the multilateral non-proliferation mechanisms prohibited the Islamic Republic of Iran from "develop[ing] missile and space programmes". In the letter, the Chargé d'affaires also noted that "as yet no viable information to the contrary has ever been provided to the Security Council" and concluded that the Islamic Republic of Iran was "respecting in good faith" paragraph 3 of annex B to resolution 2231 (2015). Ballistic missiles, arms-related and other transfers

One side says the other is wrong – who decides? The same problem exists with the next argument; with the satisfactory conclusive result being that nothing gets agreed to but a number of in-house memos are duly circulated signaling the Facilitator's Office is no longer to be seized of the unresolved affair:

Eighth six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)

Ballistic missile launches

**18.** In the above-mentioned letter dated 19 November 2019 (S/2019/895), the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations also stated that the Islamic Republic of Iran had "transferred the Sadad-103 electro-optic surveillance system to the Iraqi military", which "most probably constitutes a violation of Iran's arms transfers restrictions". In response, in a letter dated 26 November 2019 (S/2019/907), the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that the Islamic Republic of Iran "strongly rejected" the aforementioned letter.

**19.** In identical letters dated 27 August 2019 (S/2019/688), the Permanent Representative of Israel stated that, in violation of resolution 2231 (2015), Iranian forces arrived in the Syrian Arab Republic "equipped with drones and explosives". In a letter dated 6 September 2019 (S/2019/714), the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran "reject[ed] all claims raised" in those letters.

**20.** In identical letters dated 7 September 2019 (S/2019/716), the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations claimed that "components necessary for manufacturing and converting precision-guided missiles" had been transferred from the Islamic Republic of Iran to Lebanon. The Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in a letter dated 23 October 2019 (S/2019/836), "categorically reject[ed] all claims" made in the aforementioned letters from the Permanent Representative of Israel.

**21.** In the above-mentioned letter dated 21 November 2019 (S/2019/911), the Permanent Representatives of France, Germany and the United Kingdom also noted that the similarities between the new Borkan-3 medium-range ballistic missile reportedly launched by Houthi forces in August 2019 and the Qiam-1 missile launched by the Islamic Republic of Iran at targets in the Syrian Arab Republic in September 2018 suggest that the Islamic Republic of Iran "may be acting in breach of relevant provisions in annex B to Council resolution 2231 (2015) barring the transfer of missile technology".

**22.** In response to the above-mentioned letter (S/2019/911), in a letter dated 4 December 2019 (S/2019/926), the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that the Islamic Republic of Iran "refutes, once again, the charges" that it had violated the resolution.

**23.** The above-mentioned letters, as addressed to the Secretary-General and/or the President of the Security Council, were circulated to Security Council members and/or circulated in the "2231 format" of the Council during the reporting period.

Again, both sides contend the other is wrong – who decides? On the face of it: absolutely no one. Resolution 2231 provides for a _dispute resolution mechanism_ ; but that is another piece of useless for-show window dressing. A detailed explanation of the dispute resolution mechanism is provided in Chapter 22 - Appendix 08 [] – but in the mean time:

If a dispute has reached an impasse after a series of intermediary attempts at mediation the " _Dispute Resolution Mechanism_ " provides that a Security Council resolution must be passed which endorses continued lifting of sanctions on Iran. Theoretically, any of the Five Permanent Members of the Security Council can veto such resolution and the lifting of sanctions on Iran is halted and sanctions imposed by previous resolutions are reinstated.

However, there is a proviso which allows for the overriding of the veto, as follows:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A – JCPOA

DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM

37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant,...the UN Security Council,...shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, **unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise**...

The "otherwise in the " _unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise_ " – is never defined. So if the United States, or another of the five permanent members of the Security Council, vetoed that resolution described; then the Security Council might nevertheless "decide otherwise" and take a simple majority vote to override the veto – or "decide otherwise" through some other undefined method.

In any event the Dispute Resolution Mechanism has never been tried. So absent of any decision from there; Iran does what it wants, automatically becoming the final arbiter of any dispute.

And were the Dispute Resolution Mechanism invoked to its full extent – with the "decide otherwise" failing to override the Security Council veto, and with restoration of sanctions finally coming into play – there is still another caveat annulling the whole process. Referring to the conclusion of paragraph 37 (begun above):

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A – JCPOA

DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM

37\....Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.

So Iran hasn't really agreed to accept any dispute resolution mechanism at all. If Iran isn't happy with the results of a decision – it reserves the ultimate right to walk out.

The final arbiter of any dispute is Iran effectively – and presumably with the backing of Russia and China. You are dealing with professionals here; and the well trained totalitarian tendency does know how best to secure order from dissent.

* * * * *

Obama's approach in general was a bit more heavy-handed than the more refined stylings of the Ministers of the Government of Iran – but he managed to get the job done nonetheless.

The President Obama could often startle an audience with the simplicity of his intimate candor and transparency. Take for example this offer made in Obama's July 14, 2015 broadcast to the nation from the East Room of the White House on the day conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action aspect of the Iran deal was announced in Vienna:

I believe it would be irresponsible to walk away from this deal. But on such a tough issue, it is important that the American people and the representatives in Congress get a full opportunity to review the deal...

So I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement...

It's all marvelous of course – except for the part where Obama never transmits Resolution 2231 to Congress; and Congress members, especially the Democrats, continue to pretend to the public over the next four and a half years through end of 2019 at least; that they actually voted on the Iran nuclear weapons exchange deal way back in September of 2015 when no one over there then even bothered to pull down a copy of Resolution 2231 from the Security Council website to take a timely look-see.

The Obama administration concluded its nuclear associated weapons sales agreement with Iran acknowledging the public understanding that Iranian belligerence towards its neighbors, including its support for terrorist proxy organizations, was ongoing and had preceded his nuclear deal.

Barack Obama affirmed this on many occasions. On July 14, 2015 for example, in that same Obama broadcast from the East Room of the White House:

We share the concerns expressed by many of our friends in the Middle East, including Israel and the Gulf states, about Iran's support for terrorism and its use of proxies to destabilize the region...

...we will maintain our own sanctions related to Iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program and its human rights violations...

The publicly proposed presumption supporting the deal was that a "diplomatic" solution could be arrived at which would ameliorate Iran's belligerence and convince Iran to put a halt on any progressing nuclear weapons development project. That was the popularized position submitted to the public.

The reality of the diplomatic solution involved all violations of treaty thought of as required to make the thing work.

Such as the circumstances were, it obviously would have been too much to have expected the public should believe that all the weapons capacity enhancing gifts Obama's world seemingly had to offer would sate the appetite for violence – that U.S. participation in Iranian preparations for a pledged waging of war of aggression; by assisting it in its development of Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities; and by opening up U.S. ports and shipping services to industrious terror associated financial and shipping interests – it would have been too incredible to be believed that any of that would blunt belligerent hegemonic aspirations.

Suppression of information in the face of facts was obligatory; clearly. The Obama administration calculated correctly that his weapons sales style of diplomacy wouldn't have gone over too well were it made generally known to the public.

And the political calculation wasn't rocket science – anyone could have figured it– and no one needed reference to multiple focus groups or panels of experts for something so self-evident as that. So the political culture of disinformation was taken up out of necessity as clearly a rosier promotional marketing campaign picture of some sort needed inventing:

_The agreement now reached between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran builds on this_ [United States] _tradition of strong, principled policy diplomacy._

...Said Barack Obama in a speech he performed August 5th, 2015 on the campus of the American University. Obama also promised in that speech:

"...Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch..."

[Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal; American University, Washington D.C.; August 5, 2015; this file has been archived, find it on google at: obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/05/remarks-president-iran-nuclear-deal.]

And that was true enough – Iran wouldn't have time to achieve nuclear weapons parity in the small window between 20 July 2015, the day of the vote at the Security Council; and end of January 2017 when succeeding President Trump took office. But it was a good start.

Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2 listed inventories were first approved in November of 2016 – in the last few months of Obama's tenure. And the proliferation project had got four sales proposals of INFCIRC/254 – Part 2 listed inventories into the system before Obama took his leave of the White House.

It took a total of some eleven months of diligent Procurement Working Group service-providing activity; from November 2016 through till October 2017 – before congressional complaints concerning news of sudden exponential increases in North Korean ballistic missile and warhead capabilities: missile launch tests', underground explosive tests – complementary demonstrations registering increased range and fire power capacity; it was in October 2017 before alarmed complaints about what was going on over there in North Korea started filtering their way into the Congressional Record.

These complaints about North Korean missile prowess really took off around a couple of days before the 26 October 2017 House of Representatives vote favoring U.S. congressional endorsement of sales to Iran of ballistic missile associated inventories bundled with (as explained) nuclear weapons associated INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 listed assets – these were to be endorsed as long as such were shunted through the good offices of the United Nations Security Council sponsored Procurement Working Group.

Representative Maxine Waters (Democrat California) rose before Congress on 24 October 2017 to declare [Congressional Record of that date; Page HR 8101]:

... the rapid acceleration in the scale and range of North Korea's nuclear and missile programs is so alarming, including the launch of two intercontinental ballistic missiles in July, one of which experts believe could have had the capacity to reach the continental United States. Then, in September, the regime tested its sixth nuclear explosive device, and, according to U.S. and international estimates, this thermonuclear test was significantly higher in magnitude and yield than any previous test.

Okay, so in October testimony starts creeping in that members of Congress have been aware that since July, some eight months after the Procurement Working Group began approving secret contents contained in procurement packages sold Iran; that North Korea ballistic missile capabilities were on the exponential rise.

On 24 October 2017 again; Congressperson Barr of Kentucky says (page H8100 of the Congressional Record on that date):

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

...Since 2006, North Korea has undertaken six nuclear tests and, earlier this summer, test-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching United States territory. The most recent nuclear device that the country detonated on September 3 had an estimated explosive power 10 times greater than the bomb dropped at Hiroshima. We must not allow the North to threaten a U.S. city with such weapons

24 October 2017 again, in the same edition of the Congressional Record Congressperson Rothfus of Pennsylvania says (page H8103):

Now, as the brutal Kim regime continues its nuclear quest... This July, the dictatorship claimed they had the capacity to send an intercontinental ballistic missile anywhere in the world. In September, they conducted their sixth nuclear weapons test and claimed to have detonated a hydrogen bomb that could be mounted on an intercontinental ballistic missile. These actions must not be ignored.

And with those complaints duly noted and recorded on the Congressional Record – the House of Representatives then proceeded a scant two days later to its overwhelmingly in favor 26 October 2017 vote endorsing those ballistic missile-nuclear weapons associated sales to Iran contingent on those being channeled through the Procurement Working Group international contraband weapons profiteering syndicate monopoly.

As a reminder (and for readers who haven't yet had a chance to look at the excerpt of INFCIRC/254-Part 2 nuclear weapons associated "Dual Use" listed assets); "technical data" as listed below may be sold Iran via the Procurement Working Group:

IAEA; INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2

Annex – List of Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Materials, Software, And Related Technology

DEFINITIONS

"Technical data" -- "Technical data" may take forms such as blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on other media or devices...

With Iran and North Korea being best trading buddies and all – things, like maybe "Technical Data" pertinent to "dual use" application, might have a tendency to get around and get shared.

So as of July 2017 thereabouts – with the Procurement Working Group having made its first approvals of INFCIRC/254-Part 2 listed items to Iran as of the November before – there's this sudden exponential leap in Korean ballistic missile and nuclear warhead's prowess that everybody's now complaining about in October 2017. And incidentally – at that point the U.S. is still in the Iran nuclear dealt. (So Trump's withdrawal of the U.S. from the Iran nuclear can't be blamed for provoking the escalation.)

And it was also not just the Democrats who were complaining about North Korean suddenly advancing weapons capability – the Republicans were protesting their alarm as well.

On 10 January 2018 (page S128 of the Congressional Record of that day) Republican Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma spoke about his shock and dismay that as early as November North Korea had somehow made a huge jump in the capacity of its long-range ballistic missiles, now capable of hitting anywhere in the mainland United States. Senator Inhofe said:

...Since Kim Jong Un took power in 2009, he has already conducted more than 80 ballistic missile tests. That is far more than his father and his grandfather conducted.

North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests of increasingly powerful weapons. The latest test was in September of last year. The major test actually came after that, and that was on November 28. On November 28, he demonstrated that he had the range of the United States and the central part of our country. In other words, it was stated by others who observed that he now has the capability of reaching any target in mainland United States...

Here is the scary part of this. Those who are not wanting to believe that the threat is real and the threat is there are saying: Well, we don't know that the missile he demonstrated on November 28 could have reached that range if it had a full payload, a load of a nuclear warhead.

_We don't know if they had one or not, but that doesn't give me much comfort. They_ [analysts] _also questioned whether or not it could sustain the reentry back into the atmosphere._

The point is that they now have that capability, and that is something we have to keep in mind as we are making decisions, because we have decisions to make...

Outlines of socio-political taboo were beginning to emerge around the mention of the previously often spoken of Iran-North Korea connection and trading partnership. Congress members could complain all they wanted about North Korea as long as they avoided mention of that Iran-North Korea trade connection.

Allowing too close examination of what North Korea might be getting from Iran might risk bringing up the relation between U.S. involvement in the Procurement Working Group activity of expediting and approving Iranian acquisitions of nuclear and ballistic associated INFCIRC/254-Part 2 listed assets; and hence, consequential unintended U.S. indirect aid and assistance to North Korean weapons development which might pose an existential threat to parts of mainland United States.

So just as the 115th House of Representatives was eager to get its bill passed voting almost unanimously in favor of continued U.S. presence in the Procurement Working Group weapons sales approval decision making process;

The 115th House of Representatives was naturally just as eager to keep off-limits undertaking open public debate on the Congressional Record as to whether it might prove to be of practical disadvantage to continue selling Iran goods, support services; technologies and technical data as listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2; which might probably also turn up in some form in North Korea, possibly ending up assisting North Korean weapons acumen – influencing the progressing direction of North Korean weapons development research and experimentation; and thus contributing to the aggressive momentum of the imminent existential threat everyone had been complaining of.

And above all – Iran must not be antagonized; and discussion of what is sold to Iran is to be minimized or avoided altogether.

**Reviewing** :

So here we have this situation where we're complaining about North Korea as much as we want – but we can't talk about the association between North Korean weapons advances and the sales to Iran of contraband weapons associated stuff stored away in kept clandestine containers of some sort, which can't be identified without reference to illegibly scrawled ledgers or penciled in bills-of-lading kept lying around somewhere if who-knows-how knows where to go digging.

And Trump (at that point) must not be allowed to withdraw the U.S. from participation in the well documented Iran nuclear, ballistic, and conventional weapons market as developed and agreed to between the Obama administration and the Ministers of the Government of Iran. So as corollary, public discussion of the very well known Iran-North Korean connection must therefore be closed to on record debate in Congress.

* * * * *

Naturally the lucrative year 2020 opening of the Iranian market in diverse conventional weapons is a business occasion not to be missed. And so, despite the overwhelming support in the 115th House of Representatives for the _Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act_ – HR 1698 – which endorsed open U.S. Government support of the Procurement Working Group mandate; despite the overwhelming support for the Lower House measure, caution prevailed in the Senate; so the approach to the matter recommended by the Lower House was allowed to quietly disappear never to be heard from again in Senate committee; but despite that setback – overall; the charade, and the energy propping it up had to be carried on with.

And so restating of promotional marketing propaganda suggesting the illicit contraband arms sales swindle as the ideal, the historic pinnacle of United States principled diplomacy; that had to be constantly reiterated, kept before the public eye as it were, in some fashion or other.

On 26 April 2018 for example, Senior Democratic Party Senator Dianne Feinstein of California declared on the Congressional Record:

The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, protecting our security and the security of our partners in the region.

[Source: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol. 164; No. 68: (page S2456), WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2018]

As was common in the Congress of the day, the teacher and leader Senator Diane Feinstein promoted Obama's Iran nuclear weapons deal to that special place which supersedes even the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_.

At a 13 March 2018 session of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) interviewing two generals on the topic of " _The Posture of U.S. Central Command_ " in the Middle-East; Democratic Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island and leader of the Democratic Party political wing of SASC spoke up:

On Iran, the president risks creating foreign policy crisis by threatening to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA...

Let there be no doubt, Iran continues to be a state sponsor of terror and an abuser of human rights. Iran continues to destabilize the region through its development of ballistic missiles and its support for proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere.

The JCPOA was not intended to address all of Iran's bad behavior, just the nuclear aspect. If Iran behaves this way without a nuclear weapon, imagine how much worse it would be with a nuclear-armed force.

Withdrawing from the JCPOA would be a devastating blow not only to the Middle East, but also for our efforts diplomatically with North Korea and for any future diplomatic efforts to constrain aggressive behavior by our adversaries.

[Transcript of the 13 March 2018 Senate Armed Services Committee interview can be found at: http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/Votel-SASC-Testimony-13-MAR-2018/]

It's all the usual stuff refuted by the documentation but which nevertheless gets parroted over and again in multiple venues.

Trump withdrew from the deal May 9th 2018, and this deeply angered those supportive of keeping the diverse Iranian weapons market open to U.S. arms manufacturing and arms associated speculative financial interests.

So now, in order to get things moving once more in time for the year 2020, 18 October official opening of Iran's conventional weapons market – Trump has to be got rid of and the Democrats must regain the White House.

Reviewing that the Democrats have it in their official 2020 election campaign platform:

We support the nuclear agreement with Iran because, as it is vigorously enforced and implemented, it verifiably cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb without resorting to war. We reject Donald Trump's view that we should have walked away from a deal that peacefully dismantles Iran's nuclear program. We will continue the work of this administration to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon and will not hesitate to take military action if Iran races towards one.

* * * * *

An examination would be timely as to what U.S. participation in Iranian project job hours scheduling involves at this point – and a brief summary review of the current situation and fundamental issues' context is provided below.

IRAN BEGAN BREAKING AWAY from Annex A: JCPOA uranium 235 set enrichment restrains as of 8 July 2019. At that time, Iran advised the International Atomic Energy Agency Iran could be enriching its uranium fuel stock above the 3.67% allowed. This was announced by the IAEA in its Board of Governors' Report GOV/INF/2019/9:

IAEA Board of Governors Report (GOV/INF/2019/9); 9 July 2019

Activities Related to Enrichment

**2.** On 7 July 2019, Iran provided the Agency with updated design information indicating that the enrichment level of the UF6 product is up to 5% U–235 at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) at Natanz. On 8 July 2019, Iran informed the Agency that, based on the operator's assessment, the enrichment level of the UF6 product at FEP "is about 4.5%"

On 8 July 2019, the Agency, using its on-line enrichment monitors, verified that Iran was enriching UF6 above 3.67% U-235 at FEP.2 On the same date, the Agency took samples of the UF6 product for analysis.

The above is a bit peculiar in that Iran is claiming that it is enriching its uranium product to contain a higher ratio of Uranium 235 isotope per total uranium product (the greater the ratio of U235 to other uranium isotopes in a batch – the higher the level of enrichment) than the IAEA online electronic surveillance systems are registering. The IAEA took samples of the UF6 (uranium hexafluoride fuel stock) to cross check.

Board of Governors Report GOV/2019/55 of 11 November 2019 states:

IAEA Board of Governors Report (GOV/2019/55); 11 November 2019

C.2. Activities Related to Enrichment and Fuel

**11.** Iran has continued the enrichment of UF6 at FEP and, since the Acting Director General's previous quarterly report, has started the enrichment of UF6 at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) at Natanz and the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) at Fordow (see paragraph 15 of this report). As previously reported [GOV/INF/2019/9 – cited just previously], on 8 July 2019, the Agency verified that Iran had begun enriching UF6 above 3.67% U–235 (para. 28). Since that date, Iran has been enriching uranium up to 4.5% U-235.

The November report confirms that Iran had indeed begun enriching up to 4.5%, and that enrichment level had been maintained ever since.

A _Reuters_ 5 January 2020 article " _Iran steps back further from nuclear deal, says no limits on enrichment_ ," by Parisa Hafezi. The article quotes a declaration repeated on [Iran] State Television:

"Iran will continue its nuclear enrichment with no limitations and based on its technical needs," a statement cited by state television said.

Other news sources corroborated. A BBC 5 January 2020 blurb: " _Iran rolls back nuclear deal commitments_ ***** ," has it that an announcement was made following a meeting of the Iranian cabinet to the effect Iran "... _would no longer observe limitations on its capacity for enrichment, the level of enrichment, the stock of enriched material, or research and development_."

***** [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51001167]

Various news agencies have it that Iran justifies the action as response to U.S. sanctions imposed by the Trump – claiming that this Iran withdrawal from its choice of JCPOA commitments is agreed to under section _SANCTIONS_ ; paragraph 26 and section _DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM_ paragraph 36. I have cited paragraph 37 under Dispute Resolution Mechanism – because I think it's more to the point. But whichever of those is chosen; if one considers Resolution 2231 a legitimate legal document; then Iran is presumably right.

The beginning of this chapter explained in outline the manner by which Resolution 2231 makes Iran the final arbiter and judge in a dispute. And if one agrees that the Iran nuclear deal is an instrument understood to be authorized as superseding treaty, then that flimsy and erroneous assumption leads to Iran being final interpreter and arbiter of the Iran nuclear deal or Iran walks out of the deal as explained. And Iran is accepted as final arbiter as events have shown and will show.

On the flimsy and erroneous assumption that Resolution 2231 is recognized as a legitimate instrument superseding treaty; the Parties on the Procurement Working Group decision making body justify they may violate treaty every time they expedite and approve sales to Iran of INFCIRC/254/Rev.##/Part 2 listed nuclear weapons associated inventories while preventing IAEA inspection of such to verify that these are not being diverted from peaceful use to the development of nuclear weapons capacity. The violations are of _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ Article III first clause – for hiding the stuff and preventing verification; and Article I for selling the stuff in the first place; and Article II for Iran's procuring the stuff:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for the exclusive **purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices**...

ARTICLE I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty **undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control** over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and **not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons** or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

ARTICLE II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and **not to seek or receive any assistance** in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

If one agrees that the Iran nuclear deal is a legitimate instrument which is recognized as superseding treaty, then by that flimsy and erroneous presumption the Parties are authorized by it to also prevent the IAEA from inspecting or evaluating Iranian undertakings of activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device. Resolution 2231 does provide for as documented; that the IAEA is barred from such inspection.

And if one agrees that the Iran nuclear deal is a legitimate instrument recognized as superseding treaty...

If one agrees with the flimsy and erroneous presumption – then one also might enjoy (as so many who have taken up the banner on this one) Barack Obama's counterfeit claim that Article 25 declares that the Security Council can decide what it wants whenever and all Member States have to abide by that and act upon whatever it is – and forget about what the real Article 25 says, and that Article 24 declares:

Charter of the United Nations

*CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL

FUNCTIONS and POWERS

Article 24

2. In discharging these [its] duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations...

Obama is a charlatan. Security Council decisions must conform to the _Charter of the United Nations_ or they cannot be recognized as authorized by the _Charter of the United Nations_. Obama's despotically inclined fabrication of an omnipotent Security Council is the fraud he used to justify noncompliance with legally binding treaty.

And Iran had been practicing with its missile prowess since implementation day 16 January 2016 and that's hard to miss. The exchange described at the beginning of the chapter was typical. One side says Iran shot off a kind of missile that goes against the rules – Iran says no it doesn't, or no we didn't; and it's confirmed, Iran is the referee with Russian and Chinese backing.

And when Iran pledges its war of annihilation: Germany, the Democrats, the U.K., France, Russia, and China continue to say: "we're still here to help with supplies!" And the Republicans sit back quietly approving, playing it innocent until the vote comes up where they're needed – and then they join right in with the heavy lifting Democrats of the 115th House of Representatives and go right ahead standing up and being counted voting "yes" for the Procurement Working Group mandate, and "yes" for contraband weapons profiteering, "yes" for sales to Iran of bundled packages of ballistic missile and nuclear weapons associated inventories,– which is what it means are probably in these packages of supposed _just_ ballistic missile associated goods, technology and support services when they are sold through the Procurement Working Group procurement channel; as opposed to the Security Council procurement channel venue – where it is confirmed that these _are_ _actually_ just missile systems associated assets under those circumstances.

Trump decides he doesn't like the way things are; doesn't like the set up – he lays on a bunch of sanctions. So now with that the Government of Iran is really pissed-off, infuriated is the more international word for it; because Trump's sanction's are chasing business away from the Procurement Working Group procurement channel venue which is conducting operations in violation of treaty anyway. (There were no new sales proposals in the last six months of 2019.)

In response to Trump sanctions – so it was claimed – Iran decided it's the time to prove a point and start moving things along. Just so no one might get too confused, all those acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.##/Part 2 listed packages of clandestine inventories secreted away somewhere; and all that permission to undertake, un-chaperoned by the IAEA, activity which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device – the Ministers didn't bargain for all and get all that without an objective in mind.

So let's stop fooling around with outmoded ideas about half-baked enrichment procedure and just enrich to whatever degree and however much we want and see if and how long it takes for the Western diplomats to figure it out.

AT CURRENT POINT in the story, the only properly functioning part of the Iran nuclear deal remaining intact in this fog and tussle is the most important part – the integral Procurement Working Group procurement channel. Even if no one's showing up for business just now, the promise of future sales revenue is still there once this whole mess with Trump gets cleaned up.

* * * * *

Evidently a decision had been made somewhere in the summer of 2019 that it was time to ratchet up pressure on the Americans – let the public and the politician's know Trump's sanctions won't work in the long run; or that sanctions will come with a price, and that the Iranian Government was getting impatient.

The objective facts of common knowledge reported from various news sources was that it was Iran which had begun blasting away at oil tankers in the gulf, and blowing up oil refineries in Saudi Arabia during the summer of 2019. That was also the common belief (that it was Iran responsible) among governments seriously concerned with the security of their oil supplies, and therefore not inclined to make frivolous accusations as to the source of the problem.

After numerous provocations, on December 27 a rocket attack on a U.S. military base believed to have been carried out by an Iranian terror proxy backed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, killed a civilian contractor and wounded several armed services personnel.

From that point – as _CNN_ describes the timeline in a January 6, 2020 article by Darran Simon titled " _The US and Iran are on heightened alert after a weekend of military action. Here's how it unfolded:_ " _*_

**December 29** : According to the Pentagon, US forces conducted airstrikes at five facilities in Iraq and Syria controlled by a Shiite military group known as Kataib Hezbollah -- the group that American officials blamed for the attack on a base near Kirkuk.

**December 31** : Pro-Iranian protesters, demonstrating against the American airstrikes, attacked the US Embassy in Baghdad, scaling walls and forcing the gates open.

**January 3** : Trump said he ordered a precision drone strike at the Baghdad airport to "terminate" Soleimani, a top Iranian commander who was plotting "imminent and sinister attacks on Americans diplomats and military personnel." Others were killed in the attack.

*****(https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/us-iran-soleimani-tensions-live-intl-01-05-20/index.html)(also corroborated by other news outlet sources):

Another CNN January 6 article notes the German Foreign Minister's interesting response to the U.S. retaliation. The article titled " _US drone strike marks_ ' _first step towards end_ ' _of Iran nuclear deal, Germany foreign minister says,"_ is by authors: Nadine Schmidt in Berlin, Maija-Liisa Ehlinger in Atlanta, Nada Bashir and James Frater in London. (<https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/us-iran-soleimani-tensions-live-intl-01-05-20/index.html>)

The article quotes Foreign Minister Heiko Maas speaking on a public radio station _Deutschlanfunk_ : on Monday 6 January the day after Iran announced its new policy towards enrichment:

What was announced is not in line with the nuclear agreement... this could be the first step towards the end of this agreement, which would be a big loss...

We will now weigh this up very, very responsibly

His Excellency Herr Maas doesn't have to worry about the Iran nuclear deal turning out to be a big loss; because the Iran weapons market opening in October 2020 will no longer be under the even nominal scrutiny of the Security Council. And so many players want to get so rich selling in the lucrative market. So the doors will stay open for that.

But forget about big sales on small arms – because Iran is already a major producer of those; although Iran might buy a nominal amount of such for backwards engineering purposes. It's the big stuff that counts however. As paragraph 5 of Annex B puts it:

(2231); Annex B.

5. All States may participate in and permit, provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to approve: the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from or through their territories, or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, to Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, of any **battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems,** as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, and the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance, or use of arms and related materiel described in this subparagraph...

This paragraph shall apply until the date five years after the **JCPOA Adoption Day** or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

Western European politicians have shown on many occasions that the eagerness to sell Iran weapons outweighs caution. In the example presented at the beginning of this chapter Germany, France and the U.K. protest Iranian long range missile practice and development. Iran simply denies that any of it's happening – and that's the end of discussion because if weapons sales to Iran are to continue, then Iran can't be antagonized and;

As Iran is best situated to understand its own needs – Iran must be the final judge and interpreter of what is right and what is wrong.

For convenience a paragraph of the example of the Facilitator's Report is repeated below. After which new material, the concluding paragraphs of the joint letter from France, Germany and the U.K. sent the Facilitator. Proceeding with the first excerpt:

Eighth six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)

Ballistic missile launches

**16.** In a letter dated 21 November 2019 (S/2019/911), the Permanent Representatives of France, Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations noted that recent actions undertaken by the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding its ballistic missile programme were "inconsistent with paragraph 3 of annex B to resolution 2231 (2015)", including, inter alia, the test launch of a Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile in July 2019 and an attempted launch of a Safir satellite launch vehicle, according to media reporting on 29 August. In response, in a letter dated 4 December 2019 (S/2019/926), the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that the Islamic Republic of Iran "has not conducted any activity inconsistent with paragraph 3 of annex B to resolution 2231 (2015)" and "reject[ed] the claims" made in that letter.

Next; an examination of the concluding paragraphs of the France, Germany U.K. letter _S/2019/911_ referenced in the Facilitator's Report [found at: <https://www.undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/S/2019/911>]:

Letter dated 21 November 2019 from the Permanent Representatives of France, Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General

(S/2019/911)

France, Germany and the United Kingdom assert once again our firm conclusion that Iran's developments of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and related technologies is inconsistent with paragraph 3 of annex B to resolution 2231 (2015). **These activities are the latest in a long series of advances in Iranian ballistic missile technology** , as we argued in our letters of November and December 2018 and February and March 2019. Furthermore, Iran continues its proliferation of ballistic missile technology in the region, in breach of Security Council resolutions 2231 (2015) and 2216 (2015)

To get a better idea of the extent of the concern – we next examine one of the earlier letters from the permanent missions of France, Germany and the U.K. This following excerpt is from Security Council document number S/2019/270 dated March 27, 2019 [<https://undocs.org/en/S/2019/270>]:

Letter dated 21 November 2019 from the Permanent Representatives of France, Germany and the U.K to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General

(S/2019/270)

Further instances of activity inconsistent with resolution 2231 (2015)

(a) Launch of Safir space launch vehicle

On 6 February 2019, the Iranian Deputy Defence Minister, General Ghassem Taghizadeh, announced the launch of a Dousti satellite using the Safir space launch vehicle.1 The Safir is a two-stage liquid propellant space launch vehicle based on the Shahab-3 and the control motors from the Khorramshahr ballistic missile... Furthermore, **the technologies necessary for the conception, fabrication and launch of a space launch vehicle are closely related to those required for the development of long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles**. Space launch vehicle launches also provide Iran with empirical results that can be used to optimize capabilities related to the development of these missile systems.

The letter goes into the details of other Iranian launches within the period the letter covers and leaves us with the conclusion:

Conclusion

We therefore re-emphasize our assessment that Iran's development and launching of ballistic missiles is inconsistent with paragraph 3 of annex B to resolution 2231 (2015) and follows previous inconsistent activity, as notified in our letters dated 20 February 2019, as well as 18 December and 20 November 2018 (S/2018/1171 and S/2018/1062). Iran's ballistic missile activity remains a matter of deep concern as it has a destabilizing effect on the region and increases existing tensions.

We trust that this information will assist the Security Council in promoting the implementation of resolution 2231 (2015) by all States. In light of the requests made of the Secretary-General in resolution 2231 (2015), we therefore respectfully request that the Secretary-General report fully and thoroughly on Iranian ballistic missile activity inconsistent with resolution 2231 (2015) in his next report.

This gives an idea of how deeply justified the concerns over this issue are in some quarters, or why some are very concerned. Iran is developing and practice-deploying multistage rocketry which at some point could be capable of reaching Paris, Berlin, London, etc.

And yet our Democratic Party faux progressive members in Congress – who despite having voted near unanimously (26 October 2019) in favor of the Procurement Working Group mandate to expedite and approve of Iranian acquisitions of procurement packages bundling nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated goods, technologies and support services – keep filling us up with rosy fabrications of Principled American Diplomacy and a wonderful deal that cuts off all pathways to a nuclear weapon. **Reviewing** :

**Senator Van Hollen** speaking in the Senate ( **October 5, 2017** ; some twenty days before the Lower House October 26 vote):

The Iran deal is working. It has verifiably shut off Iran's pathways to a nuclear bomb, imposed tough constraints on Iran's nuclear program ...

...The truth is, if the United States had tried to expand the nuclear agreement to also address Iran's ballistic missile tests and its regional terrorism, there would simply be no deal.

**13 March 2018** : Democratic **Senator Jack Reed** from Rhode Island in a session of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC); " _The Posture of U.S. Central Command_ _in the Middle-East_ ;" anteceding Trump's withdrawal from the deal:

_On Iran, the president risks_ [Trump] _creating foreign policy crisis by threatening to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA..._

Let there be no doubt, Iran continues to be a state sponsor of terror and an abuser of human rights. Iran continues to destabilize the region through its development of ballistic missiles and its support for proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere.

The JCPOA was not intended to address all of Iran's bad behavior, just the nuclear aspect. If Iran behaves this way without a nuclear weapon, imagine how much worse it would be with a nuclear-armed force.

This after the October 26 2017 vote overwhelmingly favoring continued U.S. Government presence on the P W.G. decision making body; U.S. approvals of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear warhead and delivery systems associated inventories included.

**26 April 2018** : Senior Democratic Party Senator **Dianne Feinstein** of California declared on the Congressional Record:

The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, protecting our security and the security of our partners in the region.

The list of goes on but there's no need filling up space with relentless and ubiquitous national level Democratic Party pro-surreptitious proliferation propaganda; except maybe to reiterate the Democratic 2020 election campaign platform reassuring us these entrenched burn-out politicians in current control of national level Party priority, promise continued suppression of honest discussion on the issue over the next four years if elected:

We support the nuclear agreement with Iran because, as it is vigorously enforced and implemented, it verifiably cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb without resorting to war. We reject Donald Trump's view that we should have walked away from a deal that peacefully dismantles Iran's nuclear program.

* * * * *

Clearly no cohesive national policy of response to Iran's increasing militarist brinksmanship can be formulated when there is this under-the-table argument being allowed to continue without exposure and challenge. The Democrat Party pledged allegiance to weapons manufacturing and weapons speculative concerns interested in selling their wares in Iran presents a policy conflict-of-interest which must be openly addressed.

The January 5 announcement that Iran will enrich as much as it wants to whatever degree affirms that the Iran nuclear deal, as revealed through its own text and by the implementation of the deal itself, as documented by official Security Council progress reports – was and is primarily an arrangement expediting contraband weapons sales to Iran; with inspection measures provided for publicity's sake and political cover.

Trump's sanctions have chased weapons sales away from the Procurement Working Group. No new sales proposals were submitted in the last six months of 2019.

The Democrats vociferously; but evidently the Republican as well, although more quietly; support the notion that they'd like the U.S. back in the contraband weapons profiteering swindle that's been pushed on the American public over the last four years going on five. To that end, Iran must not be antagonized and Iranian demands must be acquiesced to (whatever tough talk posturing politicians may resort to notwithstanding).

The faux progressive national level Democrats propose their public fantasy that it's understandable there may be a few glitches in Obama's Iran nuclear deal – but regardless, because when whichever next Democratic Party political neophyte candidate gets elected in 2020, he or she will certainly apply some of that well-known hard-nosed Principled American Diplomacy to the dispute which will amaze and impress the hell out of the Ministers of the Government of Iran, and they'll be so blown off course and out of their seats because they've just never seen anything like it.

Naturally the reality of reentering the deal is nothing near as fabulous as that. Obama demonstrated in agreement with Iran how far he was willing to go to accommodate the demands of the Government of Iran. He and his acolytes and supporters claim that his deal with Iran does not deal with terrorism – "that is a separate issue;" whereas the reality is that Obama agreed, in Resolution 2231, to terminate a sanctions on entities or persons using Sovereign U.S. ports and shipping services as staging areas in furtherance of terrorist logistical needs.

It is too much to imagine that, given Obama's outrageous concessions to Iran in the first place; another party line Democratic President could achieve, or would even attempt with the most studied and fullest application of textbook "American Principled Diplomacy," a successful renegotiation with Iran which would convince Iran to comprehensively dislodge itself from its Top-Dog dictator's position.

Iran may now enrich uranium to whatever degree and quantity may pleasure the perceived national interest; so if your corporate sponsors and your healthy stock portfolios ever want to make some real money over there selling weapons, you'll just have to take it for what it is and drop sanctions and do whatever else the Government of Iran expects;

Currently, proponents clinging to the ideal weapons sales campaign opportunity offered in Resolution 2231, mention only two options in addressing the Iran nuclear deal affair: "Diplomacy," which amounts to dropping those sanctions prohibiting reentry into the weapons exchange market – or War!

The concept of petitioning the Court for Remedy relief and Justice is never brought up as a Court Ruling would likely interfere with someone's lucrative sales campaign – and also; bringing up petition to the Court on the matter would require acknowledgement of a problem which the pro-surreptitious proliferation wing of the national level Democratic Party has vociferously denied the existence of; and which the pro-even more surreptitious proliferation wing of the national level Republican Party generally quietly refuses to even mutter a public whisper about.

A Ruling from the International Court of Justice would provide for what is really needed; the pulling of the sanctions of earlier Security Council resolutions out of dormancy so that provisions like these following from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010) come back into effect:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010)

8. [The Security Council] Decides that all States **shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran** , from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, **of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, or items as determined by the Security Council or the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 (2006) ("the Committee")** , decides further that **all States shall prevent** the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of **technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related materiel** , and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel;

9. Decides that Iran **shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology** , and that **States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities** ;

The International Court of Justice is the international body recognized as competent to Rule that such Security Council resolutions be brought back on line. The Court may rule that due to the various violations of treaty decreed in Resolution 2231; and due to the Procurement Working Group mandate itself; or the fact that the 20 July 2015 vote for it taken by the Security Council intentionally did not allow for the presences of the Military Staff Committee as required by the previously cited Charter of the United Nations Article 26 – and therefore the vote itself is compromised; or that the Security Council resolution attempts to coerce cooperation by purposeful misrepresentation of Charter of the United Nations Article 25; or that the counterfeit misrepresentation of Article 25 asserts an omni potency of the Security Council never authorized by the Charter of the United Nations – omnipotency to decree an edict which violates treaty or international law, to coerce cooperation with such edict – and with that premise, Resolution 2231 authorizes itself and the Security Council to discard rule of law under the preposterous pretense that the design of the Charter of the United Nations authorizes the Security Council to deviate from or discard the Charter itself, and;

Obama's approach was to discount rule of law – examination of Article 2 of the _Vienna Convention on the law of treaties_ indicates that Resolution 2231 is therefore not recognizable as a legitimate international agreement conforming to rule of law.

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART I. INTRODUCTION

_Article 2_. Use of Terms

1. For the purposes of the present Convention:

(a) "Treaty" means an international agreement concluded between States **in written form and governed by international law** , whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and _whatever its particular designation_ ;

The Direct Parties to the agreement have discarded the Authority of the law and so agree to allow no recourse to the Authority of the Court. By this they have declared that the Direct Parties to the deal are the final interpreters of the Resolution 2231 agreement and have established themselves as such. And now – as it turns out, and is explained – whenever there's a dispute between the Parties, the dispute is resolved on the terms of what Iran is or is not willing to agree to.

The Court may rule that also due to the clear menace this Security Council resolution poses to regional or world peace and stability – Resolution 2231 is declared null from the time of its conclusion (the Security Council vote) per Article 53 of the _Vienna Convention on the law of treaties_ :

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 53. Treaties Conflicting With a Peremptory Norm of General International Law ("Jus Cogens")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

If that point is reached, then as previously mentioned – this next comes into play:

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 5. CONSEQUENCES OF THE INVALIDITY, TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A TREATY

Article 71. Consequences of the Invalidity of a Treaty which Conflicts with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law

1. In the case of a treaty which is void under article 53 [above] the parties shall:

(a) Eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance on any provision which conflicts with the peremptory norm of general international law; and.

(b) Bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of general international law.

In Ordering the manner in which the consequences of acts performed in reliance on any provision which conflicts with the peremptory norm; and in Ordering the manner by which Parties relations are to be brought into conformity with peremptory norm of general international law – the Court may order, among many options available, the restoral of the sanctions provided for in previous resolutions such as those of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010) just recently cited; the Court could order the Procurement Working Group secret registrars be opened so that IAEA inspectors may review what had been prohibited – and so on, whatever the Court decides.

It is highly most likely that bringing the matter to Court would finish the Procurement Working Group mandate to expedite and approve of Iranian acquisitions of procurement packages clandestinely bundling unspecified to the outside world weapons associated nuclear and ballistic missile goods, support services and technologies listed on the INFCIRC/254/Rev.##/Part 2 roster while prohibiting IAEA inspection and verification of such with a view to announcing or preventing the diversion of such from peaceful use to the development of nuclear weapons warhead and delivery systems capabilities.

The contempt shown by the authors of the Security Council resolution for the Charter of the United Nations and the Authority and competence of the Court, in their proclaiming the falsehood of an omnipotent Security Council, must be addressed by the Court in the interest of clarifying the duties and responsibilities, and limits of authority granted the Security Council under the Charter of the United Nations and;

The contempt shown by the authors of the Security Council resolution for the Charter of the United Nations in their proclamation of an omnipotent Security Council must also be addressed with a view towards instructing Member States as to the true function and purpose of the Security Council; and perhaps also the meaning of Articles 24, 25 and Article 2, Clause 7; with a view toward preventing any such future despicable usurpation of authority repugnant to the Charter of the United Nations, as was attempted and secured in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) affair.

In general, the Competence of the Court to review and Rule on such issues is established under Article 36, First Clause of the _Statute of the International Court of Justice_ :

STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

*CHAPTER II – COMPETENCE OF THE COURT

Article 36.

1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force..

* * * * *

No cohesive policy addressing Iranian belligerence and escalating brinksmanship can be formulated as long as the obstructionist pro-proliferation political movement led by the entrenched political out-of-ideas burnt-out Party Elites continue to lie and mischaracterize and carry on with the charade that the Iran nuclear deal was ever about verifiably shutting down all of Iran's pathways to developing a sweeping, well-rounded world-class nuclear weapons program complete with intercontinental ballistic missiles equipped with the most advanced guidance, propulsion and stealth systems and gear Iranian money can buy.

As long public policy is constrained by the conflicted interest of selling contraband to Iran – and nevertheless not liking the pernicious results of the activity; and yet nevertheless refusing to let go of the dream opportunity to sell those weapons in at least the interests of expanded stock portfolio speculative profits (and who knows what these legislators have got cooking in their back pockets – I sure don't).

It is impossible with such a poisoned legislature strung along by politicians hoping to have another chance on getting in on prospective weapons sales opportunities; can formulate and develop any constructive approach as long as the Legislature is slave to this desperate hope that there may still be some weapons sales to be made and the public won't eventually wise up to what's going on..

* * * * *

If Russia and China are to be prevented from further aiding in Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction development – then only the Court can Order it, and Order that sanctions provisions from previous Security Council resolutions (such as Resolution 1929 – 2010) be reapplied

And so the real choice faced is not the pro-proliferation political movement's paradigm of "diplomacy" or war; that's not it.

The real choice is whether to return to the scheme where Iran's role of final interpreter of implementation of the Iran nuclear deal is now more pronounced and obvious than ever; a scheme that is promoted as being of an authority which supersedes international law even – and to return to that for the sake of avaricious sales to Iran of contraband weapons systems, and for the sake of the political aggrandizement of a few individuals;

Or to choose instead petitioning the Court for a return to adherence to peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation is permitted; this for the sake of promoting and maintaining "... _a reasonable degree of order, justice and peace_..." in the world.

HAVING DISCUSSED a major factor motivating the perceived desperate need to expel Trump from the political scene; although it may appear the attempt is being made to theatrically remove Trump; the real assault is to discredit and suppress a seditious understanding of what Obama's Iran nuclear deal really entails;

The assault is intended to discredit and suppress necessary dissenting response to Resolution 2231, such as withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal – and heavens forbid the ultimate – a petition for remedy from the Court.

Now that the underlying feature which no one will discuss has received some focus and attention at least here – it's time to return to examination of the submitted Articles of Impeachment.

* * * * *
Chapter 10

– Predatory, anti-Representation Opportunism –

That Obama's Iran nuclear deal would have allowed Iran to enrich or acquire uranium enriched to weapons grade; and to acquire or create weapons grade plutonium as well – and to cast these metals into forms suitable for use in igniting a nuclear chain reaction – any of this as of 18 October 2030:

Seeing how things are going on unrestrained ahead of schedule with this internationally assisted nuclear weapons development program in Iran; it doesn't seem like anyone's going to have wait around that long for the project to deliver on the aspect – so I'll leave that detail for some other writing.

In the meantime: national level Obama party Democrat politicians running for President in 2020 all exclaim they will renegotiate to insinuate the U.S. Government back into the nuclear weapons sales arrangement with Iran they guarantee will prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

That indisputable certainty having been asserted; they have cleared the way move on without ever having publicly touched upon any justification for any of these persistent Resolution 2231 provisions which they have refused to even acknowledge – much less discuss.

And one thing that's guaranteed among the many other things is that on 18 October 2020 – just shortly before the 2020 National Election first week of November or so, Paragraph 5 of Annex B; United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 goes into effect and the Iranian conventional weapons market opens for good and all:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015);

Annex B; Statement

As provided by a resolution so deciding, the following provisions would apply on the date on which the IAEA Director General submits a report verifying that Iran has taken the actions specified in paragraph 15.1-15.11 of Annex V of the JCPOA [the above specification describes "JCPOA Implementation Day];

5. All States may participate in and permit, provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to approve: the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from or through their territories, or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, to Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, of any **battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems,** as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, and the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance, or use of arms and related materiel described in this subparagraph...

This paragraph shall apply **until the date five years after** the **JCPOA Adoption Day** or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

So 18 October 2020 it the day until the date five years after the _JCPOA Adoption Day_ ; the date set for the Iranian conventional weapons market to open free for all. And so whichever the winning Democrat, they'd better have their Master Plan ready to drop the sanctions on Iran because Iran won't discuss U.S. re-entry into the Iran weapons market without that; and realistically, there won't be a weapons market without that.

So the Democrats' plan to bring peace to the middle-east by dropping weapons sanctions in order to automatically free up that conventional weapons market to domestic arms supplier interests; that plan better be down on paper all ready to go because once elected there's still a few months left of Donald Trump; and that's already time wasted that could have been spent negotiating weapons sales. So when the Democratic Party President Elect takes office in February of 2021 there's no time to waste. Vigorously Corporate Sponsorship sensitive proponents of the new Democratic Party progressives might get impatiently irked if there's no quick movement and decision making on what everyone agrees must be done.

The partisan promoters have vigorously asserted the stance that:

We support the nuclear agreement with Iran because, as it is vigorously enforced and implemented, it verifiably cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb without resorting to war...

So far that's all the Citizen needs to know as far as national level Obama party acolytes concern themselves. The details must be left up to the Obama party Democrats' contemplated initiatives to be implemented in the quadrant if the notion of bringing peace to the middle-east by dropping weapons sanctions is ever to gain headway and bear fruit.

* * * * *

Incidentally, that case that was brought up earlier in the writing: _United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export_ where Supreme Court Mr. Associate Justice George Sutherland discussed the President's mandate in regards to foreign relations. In that case, then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took the exact opposite stance of the new progressive Democrats of today. That old fashioned bow tie decided that the best way to contain the particular conflict of the day was to place sanctions on weapons exports – and to hold any would-be weapons smuggling scofflaws to account if they were to mistakenly take it the President was kidding around.

In 1936 the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider a Case concerning the export of fifteen machine guns into the disputed region of the Chaco; this weapons cache was to have originated in the United States.

The high plains of the Gran Chaco region were, are, shared largely between Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay, and in smaller portion by Brazil. War broke out in 1932 between Paraguay and Bolivia; it was a border conflict that had erupted over rumors that the disputed region was rich in oil. In the end, no one ever found any substantial oil in that region to exploit at that time – although, if the belligerents had put their heads together instead of fighting about it, they might have then realized the full extent of the reserves sitting under their noses all along.

In the meanwhile, fighting had flared up and the result of the struggle seemed unpredictable. What was likely predictable was that the people who would take the brunt of the fighting would, of course, be the usual; the defenseless – particularly los indios – who had lived in the area long before any fighting had started; who were just trying to get along eking out a living within their communities, and having each other as friends and neighbors and loved ones; despite that these people didn't have television sets to inform them of what might be about to happen to them soon.

However difficult it was to get along in life, these people previously had been living in a condition vastly superior to suddenly being swarmed unexpectedly by soldiers rushing in shooting at the everything that moves, and taking away anything they wanted – which is exactly the kind of thing that happens when things get out of hand.

Already poised to provide service in the region; there were arms dealers within the United States who had an angle and were willing to start making money off this whole miserable bushwhacking business. There were U.S. interests wanting to use their connections up in those parts to sell some weapons.

But it turned out that the U.S. government was not to be so easy going, in this case, about the idea of international arms racketeering. An uncooperative spoil-sport U.S. President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt; evidently didn't like the thought of the potential mayhem and ill will that could result from an escalation of conflict in the Chaco region; he didn't like it one little bit. He would want to know a little more about conditions in the region if he were going to allow American arms profiteers going wandering into the high country, mingling with questionable elements in the local population, and generally stirring things up, readying the climate for some active and enthusiastic trade negotiations.

President Roosevelt sought counsel and guidance from governments in the region as to what was actually going on and what might be best done with a view to possibly helping out a little bit with a view to avoiding trouble, if possible (an undertaking our bigot jingoist weapons dealing politicians of today might as an impediment to expediency).

The then President Franklin Roosevelt maybe didn't know the area particularly well, if at all, and perhaps didn't know what to think about the whole thing. But he had noticed that some arms dealers in the United States were spoiling for a chance to get into a fight somewhere. So he also consulted the Congress to get a sense of the thinking in Congress; just as he had consulted with Governments of neighboring countries in the region (probably mostly Argentina and Brazil). President Roosevelt was thoughtful and concerned, and he was that judicious kind of fellow that played by the rules and could be trusted to make an effort to do his best.

Many of the confidential discussions and thoughts that were exchanged were not recorded to the knowledge of this writing (no unfortunate self-commission specialist critics around to share hand-me-down impressions with opportunist rumor mongering friends).

The evident consensus in the first-hand views exchanged on the topic was that surrounding countries and the United State should essentially let this one burn itself out as any attempt at involvement would probably aggravate the situation. And certainly no free-lance arms dealers should be allowed to go poking around up there trying to get in on inflaming events in order to incite greatest possible potential financial gain.

It was decided that the United States was not to let any U.S. arms dealers find their way into the region to play a part in escalating any tensions. The consensus between the U.S. Congress, the South American Ambassadors in consultation with their respective Governments, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt was: No, the U.S. won't contribute to any escalation by allowing U.S. arms profiteers up into the Chaco.

In consultation with President Roosevelt, Congress enacted a Joint Resolution prohibiting any U.S. arms sales to either Bolivia or Paraguay so as to help prevent further outrage.

President Roosevelt had never been required to pay any attention to conditions in the obscure, far off Chaco; he could have ignored the whole thing and no one in the United States would have even mentioned it or probably even noticed it.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE SORT OF FELLOW HE WAS, not that Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His standards of concern for humanity were much higher than just simply sitting by and forgetting about the whole thing. Mr. Roosevelt wasn't going to turn his back and look the other way on little peoples' sufferings if there was something he could do about it – and it didn't even matter if he couldn't speak Spanish or Portuguese; or South American Indian or whatever it was called; he could see the suffering going on in his own country; he definitely had a pretty good idea of what could happen to the impoverished and the vulnerable of other lands, standing defenseless, terrified in their last moments on earth, fearing what could happen to their loved ones when they themselves had been wiped from the face of the earth; all facing the bad end of machine guns exported from the U.S.; machine guns that the United States would be responsible for having allowed be exported.

Mr. Roosevelt wasn't going to tolerate any of that brutality being carried out in the name of the United States and her Citizens.

As things were to spin out, after the Joint Resolution was passed; almost immediately afterwards, a group of opportunistic arms smuggling scoff-laws going by the name of Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, along with, in collusion with, another group – Barr Shipping, tried to run the established embargo and; wouldn't you just know it, got caught attempting to sneak fifteen machine guns plus ammo around the U.S. Authorities for unspecified deployment usages in the Chaco (their plan probably already being in the works while the Joint Resolution was under discussion). The arrested and processed arms dealing syndicate protested innocence because what they were sure that what they were doing wasn't illegal; and their protest of innocence (which appeared to have some merit) made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

THIS TIME I'll spare the reader the full legal details of the case and stick to the moral point of the story:

In the event, the Statesman President Roosevelt had consulted with the Nations neighboring the warring parties, and learned of their perceptions and concerns. President Roosevelt had consulted with, and sought the insight, perspective and experience of both houses of Congress. And even though he wasn't negotiating a treaty; he had obtained a Joint Resolution of both houses of Congress enabling the Executive to deter or prosecute anyone from the United States, or from within the United States to transfer arms into the area of conflict. The Executive had been enabled by legislation to deter or prosecute any who would choose to profit in and possibly thereby further inflame the Chaco conflict by selling arms to either to the Bolivian government or to the government of Paraguay, or any other non-governmental opportunistic party engaging in a destructive blood soaked conflict which would entrap the innocent, unwary and defenseless.

And with the resolution of the Case of UNITED STATES v. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORPORATION, the Supreme Court decision had those scoff-law arms smuggling gun-runners pack up their gear and go scuttling back down to the Lower Court to receive their very just and well-deserved come-uppance

Yes, the reprobates were forced to pay their debt to Society – that agreed upon come-uppance posted as deterrence; that awful double edged sword held high by the lady – the villaines had presumed to challenge it; and all for the sake of gun-running of all things (wretched leeching pirates);

Had it been worth it? That sword held high by the lady was now leveled in retribution and unleashed upon the syndicate; it did not meander; it scored decisively upon its objective, those of the grasping unruly who would commit themselves to such misbegotten, unctuous action – now they, slack in astonishment, would receive plenty of time to consider and reflect upon their ill conceived plans and inequities – and even get three square meals a day while they were at it, slowly chewing the thing over behind bars as the expression of the day goes.

The fifteen machine guns plus ammo never even made it to the high plains of the Chaco; they weren't allowed to pass through – so much less the pity.

Now the descendents of those who might have been killed as a result of the self-compelled incentives of the Curtiss-Wright group – the descendents who might never have been born had it not been for the businesslike and efficient shutting down of the Curtiss-Barr Cartel by the U.S. Government – now at least these descendents of the innocent have a chance at happiness; which should be the birthright of a struggling human desire.

This all having been noted:

* * * * *

That true Statesman, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had acted out the Ideal of what a President could become. Among the other things, President Roosevelt had inspired confidence and courage in the region by discouraging blood profit opportunism; and he had helped to heal a situation by doing no harm, and by preventing others from doing harm. President Roosevelt had left an impression that the U.S. could be considered a friend; and would be helpful, cooperative and beneficial in the region to the extent that it could be, if the situation were to arise.

The United States was not to be thought of as some looming, opportunistic State waiting on the sidelines for the first signs of carnage that would invite the U.S. to allow in a flood of parasitical arms profiteers to further inflame a situation; and in so doing, ensure for themselves greater and more regular flows of revenue.

The President had acted honestly and out of concern. The Statesman, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, armed with intellect and compassion; with foresight, imagination and understanding, looked and saw a problem – and he saw a problem where perhaps many in his day might have looked and seen nothing.

President Roosevelt consulted with, and sought out the intelligence of the representatives of the nations surrounding the conflict; nations also sharing parts of the High Plains of the Chaco, and who knew the area and the issues that were faced.

And President Franklin Roosevelt took his honest concerns, and the intelligence he had gathered to the Congress. And he was open about the matter, and felt that this obscure side issue was, indeed, of some importance.

And the Congress, once alerted to the threats posed to the people of the Chaco region (a region probably most people had never heard of, but had suddenly had become very important); the Congress once alerted, acquitted itself admirably and most favorably in taking heed to the advice given by the representatives of the foreign governments of the region and the honest perceptions of the President.

The Congress responded by developing a Joint Resolution that would seek to prohibit arms profiteering with regards to the Bolivia-Paraguay blood sport engagement; this was the Joint Resolution of which Justice Sutherland later referred to in the opinion of the Court.

* * * * *

But fashions change, and the possibly of further arming and inflaming the middle-east, and this time with sales to Iran of procurement packages bundling ballistic missile and nuclear weapons associated assets (of all things); this contraband weapons scheme continues to be shrouded in the counterfeit rhetoric of promoting peace and stability.

A review of the Candidates in their own words might serve to profit a better rounded sense of their feelings for the perspective.

These following excerpts of pretenders to the 2020 Executive Aura are taken from the Iowa Obama Democrats' primary debates, wherein each candidate stakes out their claim affirming unwavering party partisan peer pressured support confirming that not one of them has a mind of their own to protest the unwarranted sales of nuclear and ballistic bundled assets packaged for Iranian consumption.

The Iowa venue fell in the allotted time slot between the January 5 Iranian enrichment announcement and the onslaught kick starting of the Senate Impeachment media trial later in the month. Each candidate that had anything to say about the Iran nuclear weapons to-do has their uncensored show-and-tell mouthful on the topic presented here:

Amy Klobuchar: (05:39)

We just found out today the four Republicans are joining Democrats to go to him and say, "You must have an authorization of military force if you're going to go to war with Iran." That is so important because we have a situation where he got us out of the Iranian nuclear agreement, something I on for a significant period of time. As President, **I will get us back into that agreement**. I will take an oath to protect and defend our constitution and I will mean it.

Pete Buttigieg: (23:07)

**Ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons, will of course be a priority because it's such an important part of keeping America safe**. But unfortunately, President Trump has made it much harder for the next President to achieve that goal. By gutting the Iran nuclear deal, one that by the way, the Trump administration itself admitted was working, certified that it was preventing progress toward a nuclear Iran. By gutting that they have made the region more dangerous and set off the chain of events that we're now dealing with as it escalates even closer to the brink of outright war.

As covered, Congress pressured Trump to violate the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ by certifying Iranian compliance while ignoring the Procurement Working Group activities – and thereby ignoring (6)(A)(iii) below:

Public Law No: 114-17

Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 [Section 2]

''(6) COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION.— After the review period provided in subsection (b), the President shall, not less than every 90 calendar days—

''(A) determine whether the President is able to certify that—

(iii) **Iran has not taken any action** , including covert activities, **that could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program** ;

Naturally, Iranian acceptance of Procurement Working Group assistance in expediting and approving INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2 nuclear weapons associated assets for sale to Iran must be construed as Iran taking "any action" which " _could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program_." That the U.S. was involved in the contraband weapons transfers doesn't excuse the matter or nullify that salient part of the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act_.

Pro-nuke pawn Buttigieg is asserting the same lie as many in Congress, that Trump's having ignored the law a couple of times under pressure from congressional Democrats is tantamount to an "admission" that the deal is "working."

Pete Buttigieg: (23:47)

In order to get that done, we've got to work with our partners. The Iran nuclear deal, the technical term for it was the JCPOA, that first letter J stood for joint. We can't do this alone. Even less so now after everything that has happened, which is why it will be so critically important to engage leaders, including a lot of new leaders emerging around the world and ensure that we have the alliances we need to meet what I believe is not just an American goal, but a widely shared goal around the world, to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear armed country.

Abby Phillip [moderator]: (24:21)

Mayor Buttigieg to be clear, would you allow Iran to become a nuclear power? Yes or no?

[What's he supposed to do; say yes? It's questions feeding media spotlight give-away time.]

Pete Buttigieg: (24:26)

No. Our security depends on ensuring that Iran does not become nuclear. And by the way, we've got a lot other challenges with nuclear proliferation around the world. Despite this President's coziness with Vladimir Putin, we actually seem to be further away from being able to work with Russia on things like the renewal of START. We've got to move toward less, not more nuclear danger, whether it is from States, from stateless potential terrorist actors or anywhere else around the world.

Bernie Sanders: (11:07)

... what we need to do is have an international coalition. We cannot keep acting unilaterally. As you know, the nuclear deal with Iran was worked on with a number of our allies. **We have got to undo what Trump did, bring that coalition together and make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon**.

Joe Biden: (11:33)

I was part of that deal to get the nuclear agreement with Iran, bringing together the rest of the world and including some of the folks who aren't friendly to us and it was working. It was working, it was being held tightly. There was no movement on the part of the Iranian government to get closer to a nuclear weapon. And look what's happened, he went ahead and it was predictable from the day he pulled out of the agreement, Trump, what exactly would happened. We're now isolated. We're in a situation where our allies in Europe are making a comparison between the United States and Iran, saying both ought to stand down, making a moral equivalence. We have lost our standing in the region, we have lost the support of our allies. The next President has to be able to pull those folks back together, re-establish our alliances and insist that Iran go back into the agreement, which I believe with the pressure applied as we put on before we can get done.

Abby Phillip: (24:56)

Thank you Mayor Buttigieg. Senator Klobuchar, if you become President, it's very possible there won't be an Iran nuclear deal for the United States to rejoin. Given that, how would you prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon?

Amy Klobuchar: (25:08)

I would start negotiations again and I won't take that as a given, given that our European partners are still trying to hold the agreement together. My issue is that because of the actions of Donald Trump, we are in a situation where they are now starting, Iran is starting to enrich uranium again, in violation of the original agreement. So what I would do is negotiate, I would bring people together just as President Obama did years ago, and I think that we can get this done. But you have to have a President that sees this as a number one goal. And an answer to the original question you asked the mayor, **I would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And then you have to get an agreement in place**.

Amy Klobuchar: (25:54)

I think there are changes you can make to the agreement, better sunsets and changes to the inspections, but overall that is what we should do. And I am the one person on this debate stage, on the first night of the very first debate, when we were asked what we saw as the biggest threat to our world, I said China on the economy, but I said Iran because of Donald Trump. Because I feared that exactly what happened would happen, enrichment of uranium, escalation of tensions, leaving frayed relations with our allies. **We can bring them back, understanding this is a terrorist regime that we cannot allow to have a nuclear weapon**.

Oh Wow – she must really know something! She's conceding that maybe there could be some slight cosmetic changes that would make the whole thing palatable. Incredibly straight forward and generous of her to inspect and comment on this deal with such candor; presenting with a so remarkably clinical, objective, and thorough critical analysis – as if she or any of the other snide showboating Iowa venue charlatans could ever get a hearing with the Ministers, at this point, to grant any U.S. politician some sort of miniscule cosmetic change for the sake of wasting time and worry over a tawdry U.S. neophyte nobody politician's need for political face saving;

Well maybe that could happen – depending on how seriously inclined and talented the U.S. politician is at being able to think up and hand out even more far-out further concessions than the Master himself Obama managed to get creative with.

THE NEOPHYTE CONTENDERS; those guest starring their White House vacation plan schedules before Iowa audiences and broadcast viewers nationwide; do show off their unfortunate penchant for packaging empty calorie snack frivolity as serious sounding something no one needs make sense of till doomsday.

They can continue to ignore the U.S. electorate by refusing to publicly acknowledge the weapons sales; and the other unfortunate provisions in the Security Council resolution and there's not much we can do about it except not vote for them.

They pretty much with impunity take the electorate on any ride they think they can get away with.

But they can't do that with the Ministers. The Ministers of the Government of Iran demonstrably talk back. And the Ministers know that they nailed the thing down tight with Obama so that it is Iran which is the final arbiter in all matters of interpretation and implementation.

Obama had worked it out that the "Dispute Resolution Mechanism," as documented and explained; would have its fail-safe feature almost iron-clad guaranteeing that Iran would come out of any altercation on top (provided, on a practical level, Russia or China continued to back Iran); it was agreed during negotiations that Resolution 2231 should have that built in self-destruct button which Iran can push at any time things got too hot and the Resolution 2231 charade got to be more tiresome that it was worth.

But that self-destruct button described in the previous chapter _Adjudication and Diktat_ isn't the only one set up in the agreement.

Eight years after "JCPOA Adoption Day" (which was 18 October 2015); "JCPOA Transition Day" comes into play (18 October 2023) – another very peculiar self-destruct capability suddenly goes in to effect; which manifests as an abruptly recognized increase in Iran's authority to decide unilaterally on whether or not the U.S. is suitably in compliance with the deal.

If not entirely pleased – Iran could walk out and even, if it feels the urge, threaten to withdraw from the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ like it's doing now. Iran could simply walk right out of that multilaterally signed international treaty – which anyway is treated in Resolution 2231 as mere window dressing as the treaty regards Iran – and they'll be no use squawking about it because Iran will have got what it wants from the Procurement Working Group bureaucracy and it will still presumably be able to get whatever else from Russia or China – and so complaining won't help.

Let's examine how this little tidbit about Iran's new found interpretive power (which Obama and the Ministers included in the business) comes into being per Resolution 2231 scheduling:

As of "JCPOA Transition Day," just a little over three years from now on 18 October 2023; this following goes into effect:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231;

Annex A. – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Vienna, 14 July 2015

SANCTIONS

**23**. Eight years after Adoption Day... the United States will seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, the sanctions specified in Annex II on the acquisition of nuclear-related commodities and services for nuclear activities contemplated in this JCPOA, **to be consistent with the U.S. approach to other non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT**.

So who is to be the final interpreter of whether or not the United States Government's approach to the Government of Iran is consistent with the United States' approach to other non-nuclear-weapons-States such as maybe Switzerland or Nepal? Naturally Iran; as a matter of course. But by what criteria shall the Government of Iran use to determine whether the U.S. Government is properly behaving itself or not?

For the sake of review we must pretend a postulate that this decision with not be solely arbitrarily made. Rather, it would be liberally based on the JCPOA order terminating the United States statute: the _Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013 - H. R. 893_ ; which has to do with prohibitions against assisting Iran in obtaining nuclear weapons. The Resolution 2231 decree terminating provisions in the "Accountability Act" is found following this trail of JCPOA provisions:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex V - Implementation Plan

D. Transition Day

19. Transition Day will occur 8 years from Adoption Day [October 18, 2015] or upon a report from the Director General of the IAEA to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the UN Security Council stating that the IAEA has reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier.

21. [At this time....] The United States will:

21.1. Seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, the statutory sanctions set forth in Sections 4.1-4.5, 4.7 and 4.9 of Annex II;

From that point we are directed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; Annex A – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; JCPOA _Annex II; section B_ ; **United States** ; paragraphs 4, subparagraph 4.9, and subparagraph 4.9.1 of the JCPOA Annex II:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex II – Sanctions-related commitments

B. United States

4. The United States commits to cease the application of, and to seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, all nuclear-related sanctions as specified in Sections 4.1-4.9 below, and to terminate Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622 and 13645, and Sections 5-7 and 15 of Executive Order 13628, in accordance with Annex V.7

On to 4.9 and 4.9.1...:

4.9. Nuclear proliferation-related measures

4.9.1 Sanctions under the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act on the acquisition of nuclear-related commodities and services for nuclear activities contemplated in the JCPOA [are to be terminated as stipulated in subparagraph 21.1 previously indicated above], **to be consistent with the U.S. approach to other non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT**.

The language of the United States pledging to recognize and confer a new status upon Iran might seem to mimic the language of a treaty to some – perhaps a treaty forged in the foggy depths of a crazy dreamlike world. It suggests that it had been agreed by Congress that relations with the Government of Iran – a government currently recognized as a State Sponsor of Foreign Terror Organization – would now, after the described and documented probationary period, be considered as automatically having made great strides in contributing to world-wide peace simply by signing on to Resolution 2231.

That aside – we return to speculation of what provisions the Ministers of Iran would want terminated in the _Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013 - H. R. 893_ , in order for it to be perceived and affirmed by Iran that the United States approach to Iran is _consistent with the U.S. approach to other non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT_.

So which are the nuclear weapons associated provisions Iran would like done away with? Here are some possible candidates for cutting:

Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013 - H. R. 893 (113th Congress)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ''Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

it shall be the policy of the United States to fully implement and enforce sanctions against any person, entity or country that assists the proliferation activities or policies of Iran, North Korea, or Syria.

SEC. 3. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN FOREIGN PERSONS

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the day of the enactment of this Act, the President shall impose, for a period of not less than two years, the sanctions specified in subsection (c) with respect to a foreign person if the President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the person—.

(1)(A) on or after September 1, 2007, transferred to or acquired from Iran, North Korea, or Syria—

(i) goods, services, or technology listed on—

(I)... Guidelines for Transfers of Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Material, and Related Technology (published by the International Atomic Energy Agency as Information Circular **INFCIRC/254/Rev. 3/Part 2** , and subsequent revisions);

(ii) goods, services, or technology not listed on any list specified in clause (i) but which nevertheless would be, if such goods, services, or technology were United States goods, services, or technology, prohibited for export to Iran, North Korea, or Syria, as the case may be, because of the potential of such goods, services or technology to contribute to the development of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or of ballistic or cruise missile systems or destabilizing types and amounts of conventional weapons;

(2)(B) with respect to the transfer of goods, services, or technology, knew or should have known that the transfer of goods, services, or technology, to Iran, North Korea, or Syria, as the case may be, would contribute to the ability of Iran, North Korea, or Syria, as the case may be, to—

(i) acquire or develop chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or related technologies... [The Ministers of Iran want it gone – Barack Obama writes it into the JCPOA that this is dispensed with as of JCPOA Termination Day, 18 October 2025.]

(6) on or after August 10, 2010, provided a vessel, insurance or reinsurance, or any other shipping service for the transportation of goods to or from Iran, North Korea, or Syria for purposes relating to the nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or ballistic or cruise missile development programs of Iran, North Korea, or Syria, as the case may be.

The above excerpt gives an idea of what the statute is about – and what Iran doesn't like about it. In the section presented above; sanctions are placed on "Certain Foreign Persons" in any way assisting Iranian attempts to acquire nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies, services, etc. So that is one set of provisions that should probably have to be made to go away.

To give a further idea of what else might have been candidate for termination, some titles of further offending sections of the Act could have been:

SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH COUNTRIES AIDING PROLIFERATION BY IRAN, NORTH KOREA, OR SYRIA.

SEC. 6. IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTRIES THAT ENABLE PROLIFERATION TO OR FROM IRAN, NORTH KOREA, OR SYRIA.

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES ASSISTING PROLIFERATION ACTIVITIES BY IRAN, NORTH KOREA, OR SYRIA.

SEC. 9. EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES OF SENIOR OFFICIALS OF FOREIGN PERSONS WHO HAVE AIDED PROLIFERATION RELATING TO IRAN, NORTH KOREA, AND SYRIA.

And here following is another general provision from the _Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of_ _2013_ which Iran might like to have had done away with having to do with (once again) ports and shipping services.

Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013 - H. R. 893 (113th Congress)

Sec. 10. Prohibition on certain vessels landing in the United States; enhanced inspections.

''(a) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—

''(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date of enactment of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013, before a vessel arrives at a port in the United States, the owner, charterer, operator, or master of the vessel shall certify that the vessel did not enter a port in Iran, North Korea, or Syria during the 180-day period ending on the date of arrival of the vessel at the port in the United States.

''(2) FALSE CERTIFICATIONS.—The Secretary shall prohibit from landing at a port in the United States for a period of at least 2 years—

''(A) any vessel for which a false certification was made under section (a); and

''(B) any other vessel owned or operated by a parent corporation, partnership, association, or individual proprietorship of the vessel for which the false certification was made.

''(b) ENHANCED INSPECTIONS.—The Secretary shall—

''(1) identify foreign ports at which vessels have landed during the preceding 12-month period that have also landed at ports in Iran, North Korea, or Syria during that period; and

''(2) inspect vessels arriving in the United States from foreign ports identified under paragraph (1) to establish whether the vessel was involved, during the 12-month period ending on the date of arrival of the vessel at the port in the United States, in any activity that would be subject to sanctions under the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013.''

There is all that in the above – and of course, there is also Section 211(a) of the _Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012_ mentioned earlier in Chapter 6; _Lifting Terror Bans; Assuming a Presidential Prerogative_ ; which deals with lifting another aspect of restrictions on terror associated shipping being staged from U.S. Ports.

The notion of rendering up to the Ministers of Iran U.S. sovereign jurisdiction of what types of contraband may be smuggled through U.S. ports and customs is preposterous – potential Democratic Party partisans' support of it notwithstanding.

The idea would be almost certain to provoke challenge in Congress. And such challenge could easily be reproached by Iran in its capacity as final interpreter; in that it signals once again that the U.S. Government's approach to Iran is discriminatory and is not consistent with the U.S. approach to other non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT.

That Iran might take such a stance could have seemed impossible a few months ago. But Iran has certainly confirmed – in its January declarations about unlimited uranium enrichment, and its threat to pull out of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty should the European Union States of France, Germany and the U.K. get too far into the Dispute Resolution Mechanism; that Iran will walk, or threaten to, at its pleasure with whatever excuse serves.

The text of Resolution 2231 shows in the construction of the sham "dispute resolution mechanism" that the above was always understood as the case. So it becomes manifestly clear that the above outlandish proviso insisting on the vague standard of: the U.S. approach to Iran must be "... _consistent with the U.S. approach to other non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT_..." is the another sure fire obvious Resolution 2231 self-destruct button put in place to serve as back up just in case the Government of Iran feels the need to jettison the agreement at its expedient whim.

* * * * *

The whole line of reasoning allowing for the nonsense arises from the notion that Resolution 2231 is a law unto itself and that the Security Council is authorized to make exceptions to treaty at its pleasure (it's not – and as noted in Chapter 8, Articles 24 and 25 of the _Charter of the United Nations_ say its not). As mentioned, the Security Council's self-appointed commission is presented in Obama's counterfeit rewriting of Article 25, and in Resolution 2231 Section; Other Matters:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Other Matters

27. [the Security Council]... Decides that **all provisions contained in the JCPOA are only for the purposes of its implementation between the E3/EU+3 and Iran** and **should not be considered as setting precedents for any other State** or for principles of international law and the rights and obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and other relevant instruments, as well as for internationally recognized principles and practices;

The whole premise that the Security Council may exempt Iran from aspects of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ is a fraudulent usurpation of fake authority. But the counterfeit serves the purpose of the contraband weapons dealing interested proponents vying to get the U.S. back in the deal with sanctions dropped and the weapons market reinstated, ready and available.

Our presidential candidate fable-makers concoct an image that they would argue with Iran from a position of strength where they have no leverage. The pretense that they can hold sanctions over the Iranians to get the Ministers to give in to U.S. demands is a feeble sham. Iran knows that for the Democrats to get back in the Iran weapons market, U.S. sanctions would have to be dropped even without Iran saying a word; because the sanctions are placed on the U.S. (and European) suppliers – and this whole spectacle is being carried out exactly for their profiteering benefit; which is exactly dependant on those sanctions being dropped.

The pretenders to the 2020 candidacy have no leverage in the law since they play by the rules of the Security Council resolution which fraudulently pretends _it_ is the law. The Obama party Democrats have no recourse to the Courts; because bringing Resolution 2231 in petition before the Court, as it should be brought to Court, would almost certainly undo the hard work it took getting the illicit weapons deal in place. The contraband weapons marketing scheme would be sure to be scuttled; and so bringing the thing before the panel of nine to fifteen international judges is out of the question as it would not serve the Obama Democrats' purpose.

Which, as observed in parts earlier, is the reason for this phony paradigm of the Obama party Democrats' that the only alternative to their style of "diplomacy," which means appeasement; is war. Naturally that Obama party paradigm needs omit any mention of the most appalling to them option: recourse to and remedy of the law as, again; that would put an end to the speculative hopes of those backing perhaps lucrative contraband sale of nuclear weapons capacity to Iran.

As well as their opposition to seeking recourse in the rule of law; the other anathema plaguing the ambitions of the ruling elite entrenched in control of the current day Democratic Party fund raising entity is the concept of pluralistic representative governance.

The case is not overstated. The practice of honesty in presentation of the facts and throughout the course of conduct of a campaign is contrary to the objective of expeditious returning to the Iran weapons market in time for the October 2020 grand opening of the conventional weapons sales aspect.

The candidate hopefuls contend they will negotiate with Iran to insinuate the United States into a deal which, as the Congressional Record documents – was never even reviewed by the Congress much less voted on.

The Obama party acolytes want to get into a deal that they've been lying about entirely for the last four and a half years going on five – and so it's not like their giving the electorate any kind of a choice.

The pro-proliferation movement candidates want to get impose this deal on the electorate; which violates treaty made under the Authority of the Constitution, and therefore the Constitution – and they know that the only way to do it is by maintaining their ongoing deception as to the character and details of the deal. Which means the electorate – if they have their way – believes in voting for the Democratic Party ticket that they're voting for one thing; when what's really being voted on is the opposite;

Voting for the Democratic Party ticket in 2020 means voting in favor of U.S. support for internationally sponsored material assistance to Iran's domestic development of nuclear weapons capacity; a thing the electorate doesn't support and therefore has to be tricked into voting for.

And so, the Obama party Democrats want to get into office on a platform propped up by lies most odious – with the objective of returning to a process designed to necessarily intentionally violated\ the Constitution in order to meet contraband weapons sales criteria established by the very Security Council resolution never approved, voted on, or even discussed by Congress;

And they would return to this through a series of discussions with the Ministers which will necessarily be secret. And unlike Resolution 2231, which is down on paper and can be checked on (and is checked up on here) – there is no guarantee contemplated negotiations entered into with Iran this round will ever be written down to be cross checked by the public;

Nor would there be anything to present to the Court – which might greatly hamper a future petition for remedy and remediation (I say might – as there are ways...).

But seeking proper remedy in the Court for restoration of international adherence to peremptory norm of general international law is the ultimate anathema and spoiler running contrary to the Democrats' ambitious weapons dissemination and profiteering scam – and so mention of that is to be suppressed within partisan city limits.

And the self-commissioned totalitarian mandate the pro-proliferation political movement has served itself with is what the current entrenched Democratic Party elite consider should pass as the modern model of representative governance in the United States of today.

With the second Resolution 2231 self-destruct button having been explained; with the fallacy of negotiations examined; and having looked a bit into the anti-pluralistic and anti-representative government stance of the current entrenched burnt out and deceiving demagoguery in current control of the national level Democratic Party – we return to our examination of what our tin-plated little despotic tyrant demagogues have to allege about "foreign interference in our democratic process."

* * * * *

Part III – Examining the Articles

*Chapter 11

– of Article I –

Two Articles of Impeachment of the President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump were entered into record on 10 December 2019. The first Article alleged, in general, malfeasance in the conduct of negotiations with a foreign Head of State; the second, represented that the President had obstructed legal and legitimate congressional investigation into the allegations of the first.

In attending to the first Article: as the substance of each of the allegations has already been covered in depth singly and as a group – each of the accusations will be treated with singly in concise review as they come up in the House of Representatives presentation of its Articles.

Some review and a few general observations are in order before addressing the Articles of Impeachment directly.

One aspect of this impeachment affair involves the jurisdictional authority of a House of Representatives to decide upon constitutional questions regarding the extent of congressional authority to intercede in and constrain a President's explicit Constitutional mandate to receive and to enter into negotiations with a foreign Head of State.

For example: the accusers in this case have made determinations as to the impropriety of President Trump's interaction with the foreign President Zelenskyy. The accusations were publicly refuted by Zelenskyy himself.

In response to Zelenskyy's rebuttal – members of Congress, including the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in fraudulent meanness, explicitly and publicly called the President of the Ukraine a "liar."

The House of Representatives accusers team already knew from the transcript of the 25 July 2019 Zelenskyy-Trump phone call that Zelenskyy had asked for U.S. assistance in what would turn out to be already contemplated investigations into domestic corporate corruption in the Ukraine. Zelenskyy had said:

The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.

_On top of that, I would kindly ask you_ [President Trump] _if **you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country**._

As it turned up in the impeachment inquiry – the U.S. already did have a great deal of relevant information regarding corruption in the corporate entity _Burisma Holdings_ which Joe Biden's son sat on the Board of Directors. This information had been gathered under the Obama administration – as has already been covered. So the truth was what Zelenskyy said it was: that Zelenskyy was hoping to get some intelligence assistance from U.S. intelligence agencies.

The truth would not serve the purposes of the accusers. The accusers instead publicly relied on the word of the "whistle-blower" who refused to be publicly identified; who was only repeating what he was told by someone else and in the parroting process did not mention that Zelenskyy requested U.S. assistance in contemplated investigations into domestic Ukraine corruption in general. And yes, _Burisma Holdings_ , which is a known Ukraine tax evader – would have to be regularly re-audited by this new Zelenskyy administration given that Zelenskyy's main campaign pledge was to combat ongoing corruption, including reviewing of past corruption which had not been sufficiently addressed.

Trump was amenable to lending such support, just as Obama had been. But in Trump's case it became a crime to do what had been previously considered a virtue vaunted as so typically characteristic of the Obama administration.

In taking the word of an anonymous American who still refuses to be publicly identified and was only repeating what he was told; over the word of the foreigner Ukraine President – who was literally publicly called a "liar" for contradicting the anonymous American – the Democratic Party demagogues gave a hint of what the Party's current perceptions of impropriety in the conduct of foreign policy might amount to.

Instead of graciously considering the testimony of the foreign head of state with earnest attentiveness and care; and taking into gracious consideration that the transcript of the phone call documents Zelenskyy as having asked for assistance; and so the Ukraine President's claim that his administration wasn't being pressured by Trump to conduct investigations that were already being contemplated could only be considered truthful and should have been respected – as evidence presented during the impeachment inquiry would show;

The accusers chose instead to personally insult the Ukraine President, and to relegate the foreign President to some sort of political caste understood as beneath the dignity or respect due just any anonymous American of unknown credentials who comes along telling tales about what some other unidentified American claims they think they overheard – and whose word would be weighed as being far more credible then that of the Ukraine President who happened to be one of the two principles in the call;

The accusers chose instead to insult a man who is a well-known patriot deeply concerned about the conditions in his own country – and to publicly disparage him as being of the character of an untrustworthy little political weasel (like them); and to insult and denigrate the choice of the Citizens of Ukraine who voted overwhelmingly, 70+%, in favor of this reform candidate;

This is the current era archetypical congressional foray into the world of U.S. relations with foreign nations which affirms the wisdom of the authors of the Constitution's decision to appoint the President as the sole constitutional representative with foreign nations – as opposed to the current 435 stunted bigoted jokers posing as "representatives" in Congress.

* * * * *

The Democratic Party leadership in the Lower House; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff; House Judiciary Chairman, Jerry Nadler; Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Eliot L. Engel; all of these Democratic Party leaders in key information areas such as the House Intelligence and Foreign affairs Committees; voted together with the others on 26 October 2017, at the time the U.S. was still implicated as an active presence participating in the Procurement Working Group decision making body (which decides on a case-by-case basis when it feels appropriate that Iran acquire procurement packages bundling ballistic missile associated and nuclear weapons associated goods, support services, and technologies listed on the INFCIRC/254/Rev.9-10/Part 2 rosters in violation of multi-nationally signed treaty);

All of the above mentioned Democratic Party leaders voted, on 26 October 2017 in favor of officially recognizing and condoning United States approvals of sales to Iran of nuclear weapons associated inventories bundled with ballistic missiles systems associated inventories; as long as these contraband weapons sales were made through the Procurement Working Group sales monopoly set up.

As previously noted; their votes are recorded on page H8254 of the Thursday October 26, 2017 edition of edition of the Congressional Record.

Certainly cheerleading Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was best informed and knew exactly what her vote endorsing U.S. continued presence in the Procurement Working Group decision making body entailed. Pelosi had boasted of her 0credentials in Congress long before. In House of Representatives debates on 10 September 2015 she officially declared of herself:

For over 20 years, I have served as a member of the Intelligence Committee both as a member of the committee, as the top Democrat on the committee, and as the Speaker and leader ex officio over the years, longer than anyone in the history of the Congress. I went to the Intelligence Committee because I had a major concern which sprang from my district, which was a very big interest there in stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

[U.S.] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 114th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION; Vol. 161, No. 130 page H5900, first column (September 10, 2015): This record can be retrieved as a pdf file at web address: https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/09/10/CREC-2015-09-10.pdf

Noting again the Resolution 2231 provision decreeing that the U.S. must terminate Section 211(a) of the _Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012_ as of 18 October 2023 and thereby terminate sanctions on persons or entities using sovereign U.S. ports and shipping services as staging areas in furtherance of terrorist logistical needs, as previously documented and explained...

None of these key people so insistent that the U.S. should once again return to participation in the Resolution 2231 mire has shown any interest in explaining why they believed in the first place that terminating sanctions on entities or persons using sovereign U.S. ports and shipping services as staging areas in furtherance of terrorist logistical needs or objectives would help prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon; or that this or any of the other wild concessions made to Iran would somehow pacify Iranian belligerence or hegemonic aspirations.

When the pro-proliferation proponents espouse concessions like that – then it's fair to question what the leadership of this political movement would not concede to in carrying out their avaricious 2020 election campaign platform threat to redeem the U.S. in the eyes of the Iranian Government, so that U.S. corporate weapons manufacturing and financial speculative interests might be allowed to reenter whatever new venomous sludge version of the Iranian contraband weapons profiteering swindle Iran would decree and the Democratic Party would accept and then impose on the Citizens of the United States and the world.

Their man – the darling great Democratic Party grand hope to regain a vacant slot as President of the White House in 2020 – here is the man; the prankster former vice president who knew very well at the time and still does; that lead Joker Obama never intended to and didn't transmit Resolution 2231 to Congress; and not one member of a gullible Congress – which already didn't trust that the assembly had received the full story from the administration – crosschecked the source (the Security Council resolution voted on in New York a couple of months earlier); thereby proving to the annals of U.S. history the disinterest, apathy and incapacity of an imbecile 114th Congress wherein (as noted) no member whatsoever could be bothered to practice the tiniest smidgen of due diligence, and clue in and pull Resolution 2231 down from the Security Council website to confirm that Obama was playing games and that the unsigned version he had sent to Congress earlier in the year was not the real deal.

Had any member in either House of either political party even bothered to take five minutes maybe to do so – none of this four years of Iranian intensive and clandestine weapons development would have been possible without serious challenge; and the political culture and climate in the United States would have been much different and maybe even cleaner than it is today.

But no one at the time could be bothered. And the totalitarian weapons proliferation wing of the national level Democratic Party is back on the scene now threatening in its 2020 campaign platform to pull the U.S. back into the avaricious venom of Obama's nuclear weapons transfer deal; which has already exposed for what it truly is and always was by the Iranian 5 January 2020 announcement that an unchallengeable Iran will now enrich uranium to whatever degree and quantity it pleases;

The weapons proliferation advocates who have chosen squirrelly prankster Joe Biden as their main man to be constitutional representative of the United States in foreign relations, the guy who's supposed to negotiate with Iran the removal of sanctions preventing U.S. domestic weapons manufacturing interests from selling their wares in the Islamic Republic of Iran;

These are the politicians who are banking on it that now, as in 2015; that no current Washington politician will get up the nerve to, or be bothered to, challenge a thing so overwhelmingly contrary to the moral conscience of the community; and so deeply dangerous to the maintenance of a reasonable degree of order, justice and peace in the world.

And these are the politicians who pretend in their wispy baseless accusations that it is Trump; Trump who did the half-assed job of pulling the United States out of the deal without explaining to the public why; and who satisfied himself with imposing fairly effective unilateral sanctions but so far has not even hinted at doing what is really necessary to shut down the weapons scam completely – which is to take Resolution 2231 to Court;

The accusing politicians pretend it is Trump; Trump who pulled the U.S. out of the nuclear weapons sales scam who poses a threat to national security.

And President Trump isn't being accused of posing a threat to national security because he still hasn't taken the contraband weapons profiteering scam to Court like he ought.

Trump is the crazy intolerable threat to national security because he pulled the U.S. out of the nuclear deal sewer in the first place – point blank period.

Well, I don't have to like Trump or even try to get along with the guy to know that it's the Democratic Party 2020 election campaign platform, and the people who stand behind it and support it with all the constant harangue of public lies issuing out; which poses the prevailing unsupportable threat and imminent menace to national security and world peace.

Taking into account that this fiasco of an impeachment charade is fundamentally an assault intended to discredit and suppress the thing which most threatens continued employment of these pro-proliferation parasite politicians; that thing being a knowledgeable and aware U.S. population widely distributed among the several constituencies, conscious that what the pro-proliferation political movement wants to impose on an unwary citizenry is the very thing – U.S. Government sponsorship of Weapons of Mass Destruction sales to Iran – which runs so obviously overwhelmingly contrary to, and is so odious to, the moral conscience of the citizenry;

Considering the above in the context the 2019 summer of Iranian unprovoked attacks on Gulf oil shipping and Iranian assaults blowing up and setting fire to Saudi refineries; leading up to the time of the Iranian 5 January 2020 unraveling declaration on unrestricted uranium enrichment;

We proceed from that context of current events; to review of the partisan contrivance designed to distract public attention from all else but their own select theatrics.

This contrivance which as well as distracting from all else, also distracts from the predictable product result of the Obama nuclear deal; and draws public attention away from the inability of Congress to formulate any reasoned policy response to a nuclear acquisitions-empowered Iranian (explicitly empowered due to a policy originating in the Obama administration) fully exercising its domestic capacity for truculent intransigence...

About this incapacity of Congress: The Lower House is under the control of the national level Democrats strung out on their fixation with getting back in on the weapons deal in the service of corporate weapons sales interests. To avoid political embarrassment, they must suppress open public on record discussion of what the nuclear deal is and what it entails; and that the reality of what it is and entails has become manifest and clear in the light of recent Iranian acts and the unraveling 5th of January declaration.

Without an open on record discussion in Congress of the situation evolved from the mandate allowing international weapons dealerships to sell nuclear and ballistic weapons associated inventories to Iran – the Congress, as long as it is held up and hobbled by the generally perceived need to suppress open, on public record discussion of this mandate allowing international weapons dealerships to sell in violation of the NPT – and suppress discussion of the Resolution 2231 provisions decreeing such allowance; as long as the Congress is constrained by rhetorical obstructions and evasions desperately put in place to protect the burn-out political leadership from political embarrassment, and by this faulty sense of etiquette which allows the treacherous behavior carried on with in Congress over the past four years to persist as the prevailing sensibility;

Without an open on record discussion in Congress of the situation evolved from the mandate allowing international weapons dealerships to sell nuclear and ballistic weapons associated inventories to Iran, the pernicious results of the fiasco charade won't be addressed; and debate in Congress degenerates into retaliatory infantile backbiting taunts, and the imbecility of a prevailing myopic and frightened perspective brought on by constant browbeating (giving and taking), too fearful of reprisal to honestly assess or point out and identify fact.

So the sham impeachment contrivance is clearly a really handy vehicle to keep things off course and open-ended; a chance to distract from the certain inability of this 116th National Assembly as a unit to rationally respond to the critical situation with any kind of an honest assessment at least;

The farcical spectacle gives occasion to maybe score political brownie points with the public; and a great opportunity for the faux sham progressives to point the finger of blame anywhere but at their own responsible throwback selves.

Proceeding to further examination and review of this derivative political contrivance designed to stupefy, amaze, and impress us to no end because we just have never seen anything like it:

* * * * *

The leadership of the pro-proliferation movement accusers' squadron; who won't tell the public who got to _them_ ; who twisted _their_ arms to vote in favor of official U.S. endorsement of the Procurement Working Group mandate to violate treaty on a case-by-case basis at the decision making body's pleasure; or, if it's the other way around – _whose_ arms did they go twisting and putting the thumbscrews on to get everybody on their side of the aisle to vote unanimously in favor of an officially U.S. recognized and approved of Procurement Working Group mandate;

THE LEADERSHIP of said political movement who still won't let on about the above (as if there was something needed hiding in that regard); has set out to explain in introductory remarks to their Impeachment Article I, how it is that they had come to develop such an appalling lack of confidence in President Trump:

President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election...[they say]

...[Trump solicited] the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage...

...Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.

**As to the basic premise** that " _President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government...in the 2020 United States Presidential election_...;"

The premise itself is utter nonsense predicated on the obnoxious notion that Ukraine Government domestic investigation of domestic corruption carried out in areas under its own jurisdiction, constitutes foreign interference in our elections in that special and sensitive circumstance where the investigation involves a known domestic Ukrainian tax evading entity which coincidentally and very importantly, had enlisted the son of an elite Presidential candidate to opportunistically serve on the Board of Directors of that foreign entity under investigation.

The recognition of the Sovereignty or other nations is an essential element of the Constitution. Reviewing Article VI, Second Clause:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

[Clause 2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; **and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land** ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Noted that Treaty made under the Authority of the United States Constitution is understood as a part of the supreme Law of the Land; some brief reflection on a feature of the concept of a Treaty is in order:

The act of ratifying a Treaty between States is an _ipso facto_ , by the _fact_ of, automatic act recognition of the sovereign competence of the other Party to enter into this compact in the capacity of a recognized Sovereign State understood as possessing equal rights and independence as the other Party. Reviewing once again that previously cited excerpt from the Opinion of the Court handed down by United States Supreme Court Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1812 case of The Schooner _Exchange v. Mcfadden_ :

The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.

The Democratic Party impeachment cotillion has energetically rushed in to salvage the checkered past political history of the _numero dos_ , second fiddle prankster former Vice President Joe Biden, who still doesn't explain why he was so willing to sit back and laugh it off when leading Star Joker Obama pulled his hilarious knee-slapping practical joke-on-the-public antic of coaxing a bored and disinterested 114th National Assembly into believing that the curtailed document sent Congress as stand-in replacement, was the Iran nuclear deal which had been voted on in the Security Council; the instrument which the rest of the world has been working from since July 2015;

The impeachment cotillion leadership might be upset by Ukraine Government investigation of _Burisma Holdings_ – but as handed down from the Supreme Court, it is very clearly Constitutional policy to recognize the sovereign status of Ukraine, and its sovereign right to investigate domestic corporate tax evading scoundrels.

And if Trump wants to carry on with the policy of the previous Obama administration in support of Ukrainian investigations into domestic corruption and money laundering (which illicit tax evasion is a form of); then Trump has a Constitutional mandate to openly support such investigation if he believes, as Obama clearly did in the case of _Burisma Holdings_ in particular, that such investigation is meritorious and worthy of public recommendation. That's all part of being the sole constitutional voice of the nation in relations with foreign governments.

The impeachment committee of Huns and knaves' absurdist definition of sinister "foreign intervention" obviously has nothing to do with anything but their own woe begotten vindictive urgings. But they brought it up; so it has to be addressed.

* * * * *

The national level leadership of the Democratic Party, in their farcical definition of what "foreign interference" consists of, insult the dignity of the United States Constitution in its fundamental decree ordaining that formal recognition of a foreign Sovereign State entails the recognition of that Sovereign State's membership in the family of nations, and in this capacity, recognizes that the Sovereign State is vested with all the powers of government necessary to perpetuate domestic justice, peace and security, and to maintain effective independent control over its international relations. This recognition ordained in the Constitution is reflected in the preamble and first Article of the much later multilaterally signed constituent treaty, the _Charter of the United Nations_ (which also is a Treaty made under the Authority of the United States – and so is recognized as another part of the supreme Law of the Land binding upon the Congress):

Charter of the United Nations

[Preamble] We the People of the United Nations Determined:

[2]... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in **the equal rights** of men and women and **of nations large and small**...

The Charter of the United Nations also stipulates in Article 2; first clause:

Charter of the United Nations

* CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of **the sovereign equality of all its Members**...

By the above cited, any ludicrous notion implied or explicitly submitted by the partisan impeachment leadership; denouncing as "foreign interference" contemplated Ukrainian domestic investigation of scurrilous scofflaw miscreant Corporate tax evading parasites sucking up and stealing funds from infrastructure and the needy; is repugnant to Article VI, second clause of the United States Constitution, and Article 2, first clause of the Charter of the United Nations. It is does not proceed from constitutional authority, and is therefore without competence or merit.

* * * * *

The overall charge made in this impeachment is high Crimes and Misdemeanors; the wording of the charge as submitted in the Articles of Impeachment:

Resolved, That Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Representative Maxine Waters (D-California, 32nd District), on Thursday the 19th of September 2019 at a Congressional Black Caucus Town Hall on Civil Rights, announced the trending Democratic Party current definition of high Crimes and Misdemeanors:

"Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment. What the Constitution says is 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' and we define that."

[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/09/21/maxine_waters_impeachment_is_whatever_congress_says_it_is_no_law_that_dictates_impeachment.html.]

Representative Waters naturally does not officially speak for the Committee – but her stunted despotic and arbitrary vision of the Constitution, and her complete lack of understanding of the terminology therein, does reflect the wretched ignorance of; dissatisfaction with; and the impatient disregard for the Constitution which is displayed by this committee comprised of faithless law school graduates of elite institutions, and non-attendees of same. The example of the committee's spitefully self-serving, preposterous notion of what comprises "foreign interference" is one case in point of their voluntary advertisement of their malicious ignorance on public record.

WRITING ON the topic of what can reasonably be construed as "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," Justice Story observes (Book III; Chapter – The Senate):

**§ 403**....The next inquiry is, what are impeachable offences? They are " treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours."

For the definition of treason, resort may be had to the constitution itself; but for the definition of bribery, resort is naturally and necessarily had to the common law ; for that, as the common basis of our jurisprudence, can alone furnish the proper exposition of the nature and limits of this offence.

The only practical question is, what are to be deemed high crimes and misdemeanours ? Now, neither the constitution, nor any statute of the United States, has in any manner defined any crimes, except treason and bribery, to be high crimes and misdemeanours, and as such impeachable.

In what manner, then, are they [high Crimes-Misdemeanors] to be ascertained ? Is the silence of the statute book to be deemed conclusive in favour of the party, until congress have made a legislative declaration and enumeration of the offences, which shall be deemed high crimes and misdemeanors?

If so, then, as has been truly remarked, the power of impeachment, except as to the two expressed cases, is a complete nullity ; and the party is wholly dispunishable, however enormous may be his corruption or criminality...

**§ 404**....there are many offences, purely political, which have been held to be within the reach of parliamentary impeachments, not one of which is in the slightest manner alluded to in our statute book.

And, indeed, political offences are of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task of positive legislation would be impracticable, if it were not almost absurd to attempt it.

Resort, then, must be had either to parliamentary practice, and the common law, in order to ascertain, what are high crimes and misdemeanours ; **or the whole subject must be left to the arbitrary discretion of the senate** , for the time being.

**The latter is so incompatible with the genius of our institutions** , that **no lawyer or statesman would be inclined to countenance** **so absolute a despotism of opinion and practice** , which might make that a crime at one time, or in one person, which would be deemed innocent at another time, or in another person. **The only safe guide in such cases must be the common law, which is the guardian at once of private rights and public liberties**.

**§ 405**. Congress have unhesitatingly adopted the conclusion, that no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct ; and the rules of proceeding, and the rules of evidence, as well as the principles of decision, have been uniformly regulated by the known doctrines of the common law and parliamentary usage....

... It seems, then, to be the settled doctrine of the high court of impeachment :...that jurisdiction, when given [to an impeachment tribunal], attaches, and **is to be exercised according to the rules of the common law** ; and that, what are, and what are not high crimes and misdemeanours, is to be ascertained by a recurrence ***** to that great basis of American jurisprudence.

***** [ **recurrence to** : reference to; review of...]

So Justice Story uses the Common Law, as it has developed in the several American colonies and later in the confederation of States under the Articles of Confederation, and as it subsequently developed further under the United States of America; the Common Law, the "great basis of American jurisprudence" is to be taken as the foundation for determining what are "high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

It must also be noted however; and although it seems almost to go without saying; but it certainly needs to be said in this case: any accusation made cannot be allowed if it is repugnant to the Constitution – and no conviction can be arrived at if it is founded on an accusation unauthorized by the Constitution.

For example: an accusation and an attempt to convict on the grounds of a President's following a Constitutional mandate is a manifestly absurd contradiction. A President has the Constitutional mandate to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers – a definition which naturally includes a Chief Magistrate or President of another Sovereign State. As Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland put it in the case of _United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp_. previously cited:

...the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.

The President hears petitions and notes or does not note his approval or dissatisfaction. In this case, President Zelenskyy petitioned for U.S. assistance in contemplated investigations of Burisma. Although not explicitly mentioned in the call, the petition specifically regards information gathered in previous U.S. investigation of _Burisma Holdings_ under the Obama administration.

As referred to in the Kent Taylor deposition Obama was concerned about Burisma Holdings the tax evader etc. Obama had Burisma investigated; Obama's involvement was not impeachable. Reviewing:

Rep. Stefanik: (01:53)

And you testified that you first came to learn about Burisma in 2015 when you were the senior anti-corruption coordinator, correct?

George Kent: (02:01)

Correct. Detailed to the embassy in Kiev as the acting deputy chief of mission.

Rep. Stefanik: (02:07)

And you testified that the issue of corruption in Burisma was in the US interest because, and this is from your deposition, " _We had made a commitment to the Ukrainian government in 2014 to try to recover an estimated tens of billions of dollars of stolen assets out of the country_." Is that correct?

George Kent: (02:26)

That is stolen assets that were in the name of the owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky. He was the one who we believed had stolen the money.

Rep. Stefanik: (02:34)

Sure. So the first case, this was... the first case that the US, the UK, and Ukraine investigator worked on was against the owner of Burisma.

George Kent: (02:44)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (02:45)

And this was during the Obama administration.

George Kent: (02:48)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (02:48)

So for the millions of Americans viewing, the **first investigation** against the owner of Burisma was under **President Obama's administration**.

George Kent: (02:57)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (02:58)

You testified also, " _We spent roughly half a million dollars of State Department money in support of the FBI and this investigation, to build capacity and track down stolen assets_." Is that correct?

George Kent: (03:09)

That's correct. It was launched in May 2014 by the Attorney General of the US and UK, in conjunction with the World Bank.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:16)

And in fact, by 2016, you were so concerned about corruption questions related to Burisma that when there was an effort by Burisma to sponsor an essay contest with USAID, you asked USAID to stop it.

George Kent: (03:31)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:32)

And you testified that it was because " _Burisma had a poor reputation in the business_ ," and that you didn't think it was appropriate for the US government to be co-sponsoring something with a company that had a bad reputation. Correct?

George Kent: (03:45)

Correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:46)

You are also aware, and you testified today, that Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma.

George Kent: (03:52)

Correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:53)

And you also testified that you were indeed concerned about the appearance of conflict of interest.

George Kent: (03:57)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:59)

And broadly, this is very important, you testified in your deposition that when the State Department evaluates for an assistance, it is appropriate for them to look at levels of corruption in countries.

George Kent: (04:11)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (04:11)

And lastly, you also testified that, and this is your quote, " _Issues of corruption have been part of high-level dialogue between US leaders and Ukrainian leaders, regardless of who is the US leader and who is the Ukrainian leader. And that is a normal issue of diplomatic discussion at the highest level_." Is that correct?

George Kent: (04:30)

That's correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (04:31)

I will yield 30 seconds. You know what? I will yield back after that. Thank you.

The point is: Trump expresses the same concern as Obama; Trump's concern and response to Zelenskyy's petition is positive; but according to unexplained committee policy; Trump's implementation of a President's constitutional mandate in this case is impeachable.

At no time does the impeachment committee make reference to the Constitutional mandate authorizing the President's discretion in the conduct of U.S. relations with foreign nations. And yet it would be amazing if none of these graduates from the finest elite law schools would not have had any idea that such a thing could exist. These people are so sensitive as to the vulnerability of their feeble accusations, that they are rigidly unable to acknowledge even the most basic thing if it touches a nerve anywhere in the shabbiness of the program.

So it's easier for the great edifier, the great teacher – the Democratic Party membership in Congress – to behave in a completely arbitrary and despotic manner when the Cabal membership is confident it will be publicly tolerated in its unabated disregard of the Constitution ordained by the People.

The negative example provided by the cabal membership of the 116th House of Representatives demonstrates by these proceedings the absurd malice of arbitrarily impeaching a president for carrying out his mandate. Such specious premise asserting legitimate "grounds" for an impeachment is by definition unconstitutional and null.

It is a spurious and obvious mischief designed to distract public attention away from the pressing issue of formulating rational response to Iranian intransigence and escalating physical belligerence – formulation of which is obstructed by the Democratic Party's constant striving to keep public attention ignorant of and away from the partisans' persistent obsession with hoped for weapons sales to an Iran – and to refrain from upsetting Iran in any way which might seem to jeopardize future possible U.S. suppliers' access to the Iranian weapons market.

It is proof of the malicious contempt for the tradition of U.S. jurisprudence, and proof of contempt for the U.S. Constitution which is expressed in an assertion that "high Crimes and Misdemeanors is anything the Congress says it is or wants it to be at anytime it chooses."

IN A MUCH anticipated 25 September 2019 joint press availability (referred to earlier) featuring Ukraine President Zelenskyy and Mr. Trump at the _InterContinental New York Barclay_ in New York, New York...

[Note the "intercontinental" – a genuine step up study from the merely "international." This means top-shelf reliability coupled with paramount specialty service. No neophyte mishandling of folding chairs or tripping over sound system cables allowed in this operation, nope – you all must know what I'm talking about].

Now far removed from the behind-the-scenes eavesdropping ready to back stab sneer jockeys so prevalent in the cloak and dagger government work political scrabble back over in Washington D.C.; the two Presidents seemed quite relaxed and at their ease speaking before a mixed audience collective of visiting neophyte Ukrainian press and counterpart USA cronies.

They spoke of, among other things: confronting and combating corporate corruption in Ukraine – and War... between aggressor Russia and the defending Ukraine underdog. Here's part of what was said:

**PRESIDENT TRUMP** : Well, thank you very much, everybody. We're with the President of Ukraine... I will say he's got a great reputation. He's very, very strongly looking into all sorts of corruption and some of the problems they've had over the years. I think it's one of the primary reasons he got elected. His reputation is absolutely sterling. And it's an honor to be with you...

... I have a feeling that your country is going to do fantastically well. And whatever we can do. You just take care of yourself. Thank you.

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** :...Thank you for your support, especially now when — you know, when we have two — really, two wars in Ukraine. The first one is with corruption, you know. But we'll fight — no, we'll be winner in this fight, I'm sure. And the priority — my priority is to stop the war on Donbass and to get back our territories: Crimea, Donbass, Luhansk.

Thank you for your support in this case. Thank you very much.

**PRESIDENT TRUMP** : Well, thank you very much, Mr. President. If you remember, you lost Crimea during a different administration, not during the Trump administration.

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : Yeah. So you have chance to help us.

**PRESIDENT TRUMP** : That's right. I do. But that was during the Obama administration that you lost Crimea, and I didn't think it was something that you should have. But that was done a long time ago, and I think it was handled poorly. But it's just one of those things.

One of the elements that we discussed is the United States helps Ukraine, but I think that other countries should help Ukraine much more than they're doing — Germany, France, the European Union nations. They really should help you a lot more. And I think maybe, together, we'll work on that. They have to feel a little bit guilty about it because they don't do what they should be doing.

You're very important to the European Union. You're very important — strategically, very important. And I think they should spend a lot more in helping Ukraine. And they know that also, and they actually tell me that, but they don't seem to produce. So I'm sure you'll talk to them, and I'll certainly be talking to them.

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : Thank you very much, Mr. President. And, you know, now we need — I want to tell you that we now (inaudible) the new country. And, I'm sorry, but we don't need help; we need support. Real support. And we thank — thank everybody, thank all of the European countries; they each help us.... so only together, America and EU — only together we can stop the war. And, you know, we are ready. We just want to tell that we are — remember that we are the biggest country in Europe, but we want to be the richest one. It's true; it's in my heart.

**PRESIDENT TRUMP** : Well, you know, you have great people in Ukraine, and you have very talented people —

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : Very smart.

**PRESIDENT TRUMP** : — in terms of manufacturing, in terms of some of the things they do. And we'll be doing — we're doing trading already, but we should be doing a lot more trading with Ukraine. But you have very talented people. They make great things. You're at the top of the line, really. So that's very important.

And the other thing is I've heard you actually have — over the last fairly short period of time, you've really made some progress with Russia. I hear a lot of progress has been made. And just keep it going. It'd be nice to end that whole disaster.

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : First of all, I want to tell you, before — before the relations with Russia — I will prolong, just one minute — I mean, you have to know — I want world to know that now we have the new team, the new parliament, the new government.

**PRESIDENT TRUMP** : Right.

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : So now we (inaudible) about 74 laws, new laws, which help for our new reforms: land reform,... They did the law about concessions. Did — we (inaudible) general for security, and we launched the Service Secretary.

Is it right Service Secretary?

**AIDE** : Yes. Anti-corruption court, as well.

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : An anti-corruption court. As we came, we did — we launched the anti-corruption court. It began to work on the 5th of September. It was — you know, it was — after five days, we had the new government.

So, we are ready. We want to show that we... just come. And if somebody, if you — if you want to help us, so just let's do businesses cases. We have many investment cases. We're ready.

**PRESIDENT TRUMP** : And stop corruption in Ukraine, because that will really make you great. That will make you great personally, and it'll also be so tremendous for your nation, in terms of what you want to do and where you want to take it.

Thank you very much. It's a great honor.

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : Thank you very much, Mr. President.

* * * * *

The next day back in Washington (26 September) finds a seething Committee Chairman Adam Schiff holding Court and passing sentence.

Cabal Chairman Schiff was clearly livid and upset that the committee's erstwhile arm-twisted victim of Trumpist subornation policy had found a tongue in his head which didn't corroborate at all the "whistle-blower's" second hand overheard account and interpretation of what had gone before.

At this point in time the committee of corporate stooges; the committee of the running dog step-and-fetch-it lackeys of their corporate capitalist arms manufacturing purveyors-of-lepers'-dung masters, evidently hadn't yet agreed upon the stratagem of denouncing the Ukraine President as a liar and a pawn.

So naturally the committee's immediate jealous rejoinder to the Zelenskyy-Trump press availability event of the day before couldn't be expected to rise to the level of sophistication of what that bunch would eventually come up with later on.

Noting that the transcript of the 25 July 2019 Zelenskyy-Trump call had been released the same day as the 25 September 2019 _InterContinental New York Barclay_ press conference; Chairman Schiff's decided response was the tawdry politicians' generic reply to anything unappreciated **:** farcical mendacious histrionics.

It just so happened that the day after the joint Presidential press availability, that day-after being 26 September 2019, a deposition of _Acting Director of National Intelligence_ Joseph Maguire had been arranged for the ostensible purpose of getting to the bottom of things. Naturally this venue would provide an excellent tailor-made opportunity for the chairman to excoriate and to squawk at the world of changeable occurrences.

Cabal Chairman Schiff made good his opportunity launching into a rant fabrication of – not what had taken place the day before; that would remain avoided and ignored until a couple months after – he dove into instead a well-prepared totally fabricated tirade invective rewrite of the 25 July 2019 Zelenskyy-Trump phone call; which he had evidently been laboriously fuming over during the previous two months.

Schiff, in his ersatz version of the presidential call transcript, had President Trump saying:

"We've been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it. On this and on that. I'm going to put you in touch with people, not just any people. I'm going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He's got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I'm going to put you in touch with (presidential attorney) Rudy (Giuliani). You're going to love him, trust me. You know what I'm asking and so I'm only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And by the way, don't call me again. I'll call you when you've done what I asked."

https://www.rev.com/blog/joseph-maguire-testimony-transcript-intel-chief-testifies-before-congress

After finishing his pure fantasy version of what had transpired over the phone between the two presidents, Chairperson Mr. Adam Schiff concluded:

"This is, in sum and character, what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn't such a graphic betrayal of the President's oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there's nothing **the president says here** that is in America's interest after all."

Actually, unless your angle is working in the field of U.S. news media journalism, or U.S. national level politics – knowingly putting false words in someone else's mouth doesn't make _that_ person the sinner.

But Chairperson Schiff says that the words the he deliberately falsely attributed to Trump capture the President in a bloody red-handed graphic betrayal of his Oath of Office: " _It would be funny if it wasn't such a graphic betrayal of the President's oath of office_."

It's the dream stuff our politicians waste our time with.

In the event – Schiff was confronted during the deposition regarding that his account of what was said in the call is fictional. There was some back and forth on this tainting aspect of Schiff's outburst – and I relate some of that:

Mr. Turner: 01:28:43

... We now have the complaint and the transcript and people can read that the allegations in the complaint **are not** the allegations of the subject matter of this conversation...

Mr. Turner: 01:29:32

...What else it's not, **it's not** the conversation that was in the Chairman's opening statement. While the Chairman was speaking, I actually had someone text me, "Is he just making this up?" And yes he was because sometimes fiction is better than the actual words or the texts, but luckily the American public are smart and they have the transcript. They've read the conversation. They know when someone's just making it up.

...Now we've seen this movie before, we've been here all year on litigating impeachment. Long before the July 25th conversation happened between the President and the President of Ukraine and we've heard the clicks of the cameras in this Intelligence Committee's room where we've not been focusing on the issues of the national security threats, but instead of [but instead on] the calls for impeachment, which is really an assault on the electorate, not just this president...

The Chairman later quiescently responded:

Adam Schiff: 01:34:33

...my summary of the President's call was meant to be at least part in parody....Of course, the President never said, "If you don't understand me, I'm going to say it seven more times." My point is, **that's the message that the Ukraine president was receiving** in not so many words. Mr. Carson.

Another challenge followed:

Dr. Wenstrup: 01:43:09

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you Mr. Maguire for being here today. You know, I think it's a shame that we started off this hearing with fictional remarks. The implication of a conversation that took place between a president and a foreign leader, putting words into it that did not exist, they're not in the transcript. And I will contend that those were intentionally not clear and the Chairman described it as parody and I don't believe that this is the time or the place for parody when we are trying to seek facts...

It wasn't a parody. Schiff had stated implicitly or explicitly twice that Schiff was paraphrasing President Trump's words in the course of this September 26 deposition of _Acting Director of National Intelligence_ Joseph Maguire.

During dramatic performance of his personally scripted fabrication Schiff first asserted:

"... _there's nothing_ _the president says_ _here that is in America's interest after all_."

Schiff clearly means to assert that Trump did say those things – " _the President says here_." Later on, in his on-the-shallow-face-of-it "apology," he spells out the "message recieved:"

Adam Schiff: 01:34:33

...Of course, the President never said, "If you don't understand me, I'm going to say it seven more times." My point is, **that's the message that the Ukraine president was receiving** in not so many words. Mr. Carson.

But the Ukraine President was not receiving any such message " _in not so many words_ " or any other kinds of words because the conversation was between two people who were in agreement; and discouraging parley palaver words of the dour sort Schiff ascribes were never part of the vocabulary. The actual transcript of the call documents a scenario where two parties who don't know each other very well are trying to figure out how to best achieve the common objective. And if there's any audience problem with clarity of interpretation; we have the authoritative assessment of the President of Ukraine to help calm things:

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : I think you read everything. So I think you read text. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be involved to democratic, open elections — elections of USA.

No, you heard that we had, I think, good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. And I — so I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed — pushed me.

The Cabal leadership wasn't going to accept that. As previously noted, the cabal simply refused to attribute any credibility to the word of the foreigner coming around trying to correct the record. Zelenskyy's contribution aggravated to no end.

They called him a liar. Oh great, another sterling example of Principled American Diplomacy – like the Ukraine President is a lying little some sort of sneaky neo-Stalinist throwback eastern European Warsaw Pact post-communist commie dictator trying to insinuate himself as an inspiration to duped U.S. Citizen fellow travelers living among us who will one day turn out in droves voting to overthrow _Our_ Government (the Democratic Party); or maybe he's some creepy mere thug hireling flunky of the famed Ukraine Oligarchy, or whatever special thing it is that suits the purpose and does the job alerting a previously naïve and inattentive U.S. public to be constantly on guard and on the lookout for the imminent and ongoing threat of continuing foreign interference in our democratic process.

Schiff was clearly not making some "parody," some sort of analogy – he was claiming that his fabrication was an abbreviation of words spoken: "My point is, **that's the message** that the Ukraine president was receiving **in not so many words**."

It was intentional misrepresentation. And saliently – it was a prosecutor's announcement of the accusations, derivative of that original falsification; which were intended to be proven in the indictment, and it was the foreshadowing of the biased line of questioning to be pursued throughout the course of this public exhibition.

AND SO HERE AGAIN are the excerpted baseless contentions submitted by the committee; which the Democratic Party membership of the 116th House of Representatives voted in support of with objective of moving the affair to the Senate. These are accompanied by summarized review of the material refuting the allegations:

President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election...

The prosecution's definition of " _interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election_ " is predicated upon the manifest absurdity and, as explained, unconstitutional premise that a Ukraine Government domestic investigation of domestic corruption carried out in areas under its own sovereign jurisdiction, can in any way be interpreted as comprising foreign interference in our elections.

In this special and sensitive circumstance spoken of by the Committee; Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden, in April 2014, chose under no duress and by his own volition to involve himself serving on the Board of Directors of the company with a singularly bad business reputation, _Burisma Holdings_. As the record of the deposition of George Kent corroborates; _Burisma Holdings_ in 2014 was under investigation by the Ukraine Government and the Obama administration.

Given the positively known facts: The obvious contention by the Democratic partisan committee has asserted is; that when a known corrupt corporate entity such as _Burisma Holdings_ acquires the son an elite United States Democratic Party Office Holder to serve on its Board of Directors; that corrupt entity will have resourcefully paid out for powerful assurance from the demonstratively corporate-sponsorship-sensitive Democratic Party; that bought and sold party leadership will scream all hell and bloody murder, and will impeach a President from the other major political party if that President should have the temerity to pursue his constitutionally mandated discretion in relations with foreign States by his showing U.S. Government approval and endorsement backing Ukraine Government investigation into possible or likely ongoing corporate corruption specifically carried on with by the known tax evader _Burisma Holdings_ in areas under the Ukraine Government's sovereign jurisdiction.

The general announcement and advertisement of the Democratic Party leadership is that foreign sponsorship of U.S. politicians (such a one as Joe Biden) or their relatives (such as the clean living Hunter Biden) by known as corrupt corporate entities, buys stand-by U.S. political pressure to be asserted at whatever necessary juncture against any spoil sport neophyte foreign administration seeking to do some essential domestic house cleaning with the objective of combating the corporate corruption despoiling that nation's economy – siphoning off monies from infrastructure and the needy; and warping the contractual level playing field necessary to reassure or restore essential foreign investment and trade.

The line of thought proposed by committee Democratic Party partisans; that egregiously biased collective of obstructionist burn-out politicians favoring the prerogatives of proprietary corporate sponsorship – this line of thought comes as no surprise coming from them considering that this is the bunch which has shown no interest in explaining why they believed in the first place that the Resolution 2231 decreed termination of sanctions on entities or persons using sovereign U.S. ports and shipping services as staging areas in furtherance of foreign terror logistical needs or objectives*, would be certain to help prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon; or that this or any of the other wild concessions made to Iran would somehow pacify Iranian belligerence or hegemonic aspirations.

*[The Previously cited Resolution 2231 provision decreeing that the U.S. must terminate Section 211(a) of the _Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012_ as of 18 October 2023.]

They've had over four years to do so, but instead of responding honestly to the obvious flop and failure of the product resulting from Obama's agreement with the Ministers of the Government of Iran (Resolution 2231) – the Democratic Party 2020 candidates have collectively endorsed, in their 2020 National Election campaign platform, United States involvement in this project materially supportive of Iranian development of nuclear weapons capacity. And that endorsement can pretty reliably be taken as a threat that the Democratic Party, once in control of the 2020 White House – will work to get the United States mired in the affair once again.

That threat to negotiate reentry into the deal would once again commit the United States Government to participation in Iranian preparations for its pledged waging of war of aggression, its waging of war of extermination specifically targeting Israeli populations – and this with the knowledge that participation in such preparation for Iran's waging war of aggression, assaults the moral conscience of the overwhelming majority of U.S. Citizens, and constitutes U.S. involvement in the internationally recognized, defined and codified War Crime – _Crimes against Peace_. The issues will be the same in 2020 (if the Democrats resume control of the White House and are still contemplating re-entry), as they were in 2015 at deal's conclusion.

And this promised reentry, in violation of treaty, this threatened resumption of avaricious business involvement in the theoretically possibly highly lucrative Iranian market in contraband weapons buying and selling; can only be reasonably construed as primarily serving domestic U.S. weapons manufacturing and suppliers' interests. The would-be contraband arms profiteering Democrats characterize their support for resumption of U.S. participation in Iran's preparations for its pledged waging of war of aggression, or war of extermination of civilian populations – as a virtue; as a political plus.

The codified internationally recognized definition, defined by the International Military Tribunal under Control Council Law Number 10; as previously noted, recognizes this agitating in support of resuming assistance to Iran by reentry into the scheme designed to expedite and approve sales to Iran of nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction class associated INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2 listed assets; and other classes of weaponry;

In the context of International Military Tribunal Control Council Law No 10; this agitating in support of resuming participation in Iran's preparations for it's pledged waging of war of aggression in violation of treaty or international assurance; is recognized as agitating in support of re-involvement in the War Crime falling under the category: _Crimes against Peace_.

So it's no surprise, given the national level Democratic Party leadership's corrupt policy supporting – in the evident interest of bringing in some corporate profit – participation in Iranian pledged waging of war in violation of treaty or international assurances; and also, given the allure generated by the now well-known foreign aid and sponsorship handed out to a prominent politician's close relative, his son;

It's no surprise with those givens that national level Democratic Party members now having learned or remembered how very desirable this "personal touch" corporate career sponsorship can be;

It's now no surprise that national level Democratic Party members make it a public point to wholeheartedly work together and obstruct and disparage – as well as can be – a U.S. President's constitutional mandate to approve and endorse and publicly commend an independent Ukrainian administration's efforts to clean up disreputable tax evading Ukraine domestic corporate entities like _Burisma Holdings_ ; any that might busily be funneling money away from their obligations inside their own country so as to better maintain and preserve their policy of providing personal touch corporate sponsorship favoring the needy relatives of the key political leaders of important foreign countries like the United States – so much so that these Democratic Party loyalists go so far as to perversely denounce the Ukrainian reformer as a liar; and go so far as to impeach a U.S. President on the basis of his carrying out of a President's constitutionally mandated discretion in the conduct of U.S. relations with foreign nations; a constitutional mandate which the accusers refuse to publicly acknowledge or discuss.

NEXT COMPLAINT:

...[Trump solicited] the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage...

The Articles of Impeachment were presented to the House of Representatives between the 10th and 13th of December 2019. The public announcement referred to in Impeachment Article I above; was broadcast much earlier on 25 September 2019; giving the impeachment inquiry plenty of time to review and analyze the data. Reviewing previously mentioned portions of the Trump-Zelenskyy interview relevant to the Ukraine President's announcements concerning corruption:

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** :...Thank you for your support, especially now when — you know, when we have two — really, two wars in Ukraine. The first one is with corruption, you know. But we'll fight — no, we'll be winner in this fight, I'm sure. And the priority — my priority is to stop the war on Donbass and to get back our territories: Crimea, Donbass, Luhansk. Thank you for your support in this case. Thank you very much.

And then:

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : First of all, I want to tell you, before — before the relations with Russia — I will prolong, just one minute — I mean, you have to know — I want world to know that now we have the new team, the new parliament, the new government.

**PRESIDENT TRUMP** : Right.

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : So now we (inaudible) about 74 laws, new laws, which help for our new reforms: land reform,... They did the law about concessions. Did — we (inaudible) general for security, and we launched the Service Secretary.

Is it right Service Secretary?

**AIDE** : Yes. Anti-corruption court, as well.

**PRESIDENT ZELENSKY** : An anti-corruption court. As we came, we did — we launched the anti-corruption court. It began to work on the 5th of September. It was — you know, it was — after five days, we had the new government.

So, we are ready. We want to show that we... just come. And if somebody, if you — if you want to help us, so just let's do businesses cases. We have many investment cases. We're ready.

**PRESIDENT TRUMP** : And stop corruption in Ukraine, because that will really make you great. That will make you great personally, and it'll also be so tremendous for your nation, in terms of what you want to do and where you want to take it.

Thank you very much. It's a great honor.

Yeah, well; when you read that interview transcript you can kind of get to seeing the Democrats' point there. It's pretty much well-known that a U.S. President sitting down with a foreign President for a nice friendly chat does score favorably with the electorate.

And the two Presidents were sitting down mind you. Not standing behind podiums fully appointed with those bullet proof glass shields or any such thing intended to cautiously separate the Presidents from cameras and hoi-polloi audiences. They were sitting down as relaxed as can be like they were in someone's living room – maybe yours if you've got one of those really big flat screen TV's (I don't). And there's the thing about that _InterContinental_ class hotel status... Wait, I've got a picture here as a souvenir, I hope nobody minds my showing:

See what I mean? They've even set up that nice display of green and white flowers in an emerald vase sitting on the table behind. What I'm talking about is the gal and guy InterContinental class service gurus really know how to compliment a setting like nobody's business; and it is lovely. So yes, _that's_ the kind of thing that scores points: two Presidents sitting around comfortably talking about getting after international corporate corruption money laundering outfits in a friendly, not conspicuously ostentatious, but tastefully presented relaxed ambient atmosphere – that's sure to go over with the electorate to some extent; possibly even " _benefit his reelection_ ;" Trump's reelection, as the Democratic Party enthusiasts put it.

As to rising to the standard of " _foreign interference in our democratic process_ ," or " _harming the election prospects of a political opponent_ ;" well I don't know. Maybe that might be the Democrats overreacting a bit to Trump's getting a little bit of positive press for once in the lively tenure of his administration.

Oh but wait – Impeachment _Article I_ says there's more to it; so let's jump ahead a bit and find out. The Article claims:

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump-acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government-corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into-

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--rather than Russia-interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

Well that's all just a bunch of seriously melancholy sounding nonsense the stuffed shirts like to bandy about looking for something that might feel like it's drearily important to share. But if the accusers mean to suggest a conspiratorial intent to commit; the evidence presented doesn't show it.

Announcements about investigation into Joe Biden were never in the record or the cards. As previously noted twice, the accusers have intentionally confused basic parts of speech. "It" and "him are now interchangeable according to members of Congress not wanting to take too kindly to minding their A, B, Cs and all those forgotten other things teacher tried long ago to school them at. Zelenskyy and Trump were talking about investigation into "it," Burisma; not "him," Joe or Hunter Biden.

Trump wanted to know about what happened with the investigation of Burisma. Biden had broadcast on camera that Biden had got the Prosecutor General fired. Regardless of apologists protesting the notion –Biden's broadcast swagger is recorded on camera and has been passed on through the internet. And thereby, has swept up on the hearts and minds of an internet generation profoundly engaged and newly attentive to the macabre revelry and rituals of previously cloistered blabbering loud-mouth politicians; the pageantry of their smug conceits once upon a time confidently secluded and secured but now exposed to the raging hosts of reviling temporal retribution.

Biden's broadcast swagger and boast was reason enough for President Trump to take Biden's word seriously and start to get curious about the substance of the brag and want the matter hopefully to be looked into.

There's enough information in this book already to inform that the Obama administration's image of pretend transparency was a façade contributing to an arsenal of cover up about anything; and that Obama himself was and remains a hardened cynical professional political liar.

So what else went on in the Obama administration that Trump needed, as President, to know about? Biden had broadcast on camera that he'd had the General Prosecutor fired. And as mentioned and in the context of the quality of character of the Obama administration, it becomes reasonable and necessary for President Trump to want the matter looked into.

But the Democratic Party committee membership is naturally very sensitive to Trump's looking into anything about the Obama administration. So they say Trump's inquiry is corrupt and motivated by partisan jealousy while they sneeringly stick to their 2020 election campaign platform telling the world that the Iran deal is going to prevent Iran from ever achieving nuclear weapons capacity if it was ever thinking about trying.

Since Zelenskyy was elected with a clear mandate to uncover and combat corporate corruption in Ukraine, Trump wanted to know about the business with Burisma investigations being shut down; Zelenskyy's people were rumored to be already on it.

I daresay on my own; considering that \the Obama administration U.S. investigation into Burisma was U.S. taxpayer crowd funded. It's worth noting as an aside: given the context of taxpayer crowd-funding – the Burisma investigation was also closed during the Obama administration without a peep of treasury accounting explanation (a minor procedural glitch perhaps).

It's also worth noting that, as is often mentioned during the depositions; that in an unusual departure from the regular Obama arms sale entrepreneurial enthusiasm, the administration refused to allow the javelin anti-tank weapons system to be sold to Ukraine at the time invading Russian aggressor mobile artillery tank units were blasting their way through town, rolling tank tracks over lightly armed Ukraine defenders during the business of gobbling up Crimea and parts of Ukraine eastern territory. From the Bill Taylor deposition of November 13, 2019:

Dr. Wenstrup: (00:00)

Mr. Taylor, this should be easy because I'm going to use a lot of your words from the previous deposition as we go forward. In your deposition, you spoke of support for Ukraine and its relationship to the United States and how much you support that. In 2014 you, and I'm quoting this, "Urged Obama administration to provide lethal defensive weapons in order to deter further Russian aggression." Did the Obama administration provide lethal weapons?

Bill Taylor: (00:27)

No sir.

Dr. Wenstrup: (00:28)

They provided MREs ["Meals Ready to Eat" – military field rations] and blankets and things like that. In your deposition, you also said President Obama's objection was because it might provoke the Russians and in fact you testified in your deposition that the Obama administration didn't have a good argument since Russia had already provoked and they have invaded Ukraine. Is that correct?

Bill Taylor: (00:49)

That's correct sir.

Dr. Wenstrup: (00:52)

It's a shame he didn't take the advice of a combat veteran like you sir. Someone who understands what deterrence provides because a lot of Ukrainian lives could've been saved if he had taken your advice. In your deposition, you said, and I quote happy, you were "Happy with Trump administration's assistance." And it provided both lethal and financial aid. Did it not?

Bill Taylor: (01:14)

It did sir.

Dr. Wenstrup: (01:16)

And you also stated that it was a substantial improvement. Is that correct?

Bill Taylor: (01:21)

That's correct, sir.

[https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment-hearings-first-day-transcript-bill-taylor-george-kent-testimony-transcript]:

At the time of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Obama was in the early stages of negotiating his nuclear weapons exchange deal with Iran. It was obligatory that the Russian Government be kept on board in this project.

Both Russia and China had competing interests and intentions in Iran – and neither probably would have appreciated United States intrusion into that sphere of influence were it not for the promise of cooperation from the United States in getting rid of that (previously cited) wearisome Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010), which bars sales of all weapons classes to Iran.

With key Obama administration United States Government backing; it would likely be possible to easily conscript the other two nuclear-weapons-State members of the Five Permanent Members of the Security Council, France and the U.K.; to agree to join in voting Resolution 1929 out of circulation, all the better to open up the potentially lucrative but currently dormant Iranian weapons market to renewed bustling trade.

So Russia must not be antagonized or challenged too seriously in its Ukraine adventure. The words attributed to Obama in the excerpt of the deposition above were along the line of – that Obama didn't want sales of the Javelins to Ukraine " _because it might provoke the Russians_." This was Bill Taylor's testimony in a previous deposition which Dr. Wenstrup was now going over with him in the current November 13 hearing.

Given all that above and the other malfeasant goings-on in the previous administration – Trump's inquiry into the current Ukraine Government perspective of what had transpired in U.S.-Ukraine Government relations under the Obama administration is entirely reasonable and proper.

* * * * *

Zelenskyy's announcement concerning investigations of domestic corruption in Ukraine was made on 25 September 2019; and there's naturally no mention of Biden or the Crowdstrike server because it was never intended between the two Principles there should be.

The diplomats appearing previously in the depositions cited – had been trying to figure out what to tell Zelenskyy he should maybe say in his "announcement" to be made at some time or another. The envoys appear to have been racking their brains about this, not really sure what they were supposed to try and figure out Zelenskyy should be saying at some point.

The envoys had heard rumors about what Trump had wanted Zelenskyy to say – and they were going round and round comparing notes, maybe beefing it up a little here and there whatever it was trying to be figured out, and seeing if any of their stories or perceptions matched up and this is going nowhere apparently until Ambassador Sondland has this sudden "Eureka!" moment where he asks himself something along the lines of: "Why don't I ask the President what he wants?"

And so, as already mentioned, he goes and asks the President and the President answers:

"I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on"

But this is all too difficult to understand because didn't so-and-so say the President wants this; and didn't someone see something on the broadcast news that said the President wanted Zelenskyy to say that other thing: and weren't the Democrats in the House of Representatives all mad because the President wanted Zelenskyy to say something else even? (Sondland got his September 9 answer from President Trump at the same time the Lower House was at the height of a full-blown episode of hot-blooded conjecture overload on the issue.)

It was way too impossibly indecipherable! From what Sondland had said he thought he heard the President say; it was almost as if it seemed like President Trump was somehow going over the diplomats' heads authorizing the President of an independent, sovereign Ukraine to speak on behalf of his nation in his own words!

All this painful fumbling by the diplomatic corp. is what gets characterized in the Articles of Impeachment as corrupt solicitation of the Ukraine Government to harm a 2020 U.S. Presidential Candidate's election prospects and corrupt solicitation of foreign interference in our democratic process:

(1) President Trump-acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government-corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into-

The announcements had come and gone on record and there was no announcement of anything the Impeachment Article claimed. Yet the Impeachment Article submitted around 13 December 2019 is written to give the public the clear impression that something like what had been accused had been said: Bullet Point (3) of Article I declares that the corrupt solicitation of the Ukraine Government is ongoing and persistent:

(3)... President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, **but has persisted** in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit....

And so here is this openly corrupt and ongoing urging and soliciting apparently surreptitiously taking place right under our very noses right now? And what are the imperceptible features or characteristics which distinguish this sinister ongoing persistence from other ongoing background noises obscuring its secreted and changeable form? – The record is steadfastly silent on these ponderous queries.

Shaking ourselves away and awake from the twilight world of a shoe eaters' story-line the Committee Cabal is filling us up with. We may calm ourselves with a couple of thoughts renowned American jurist William Rawle (LL.D.) shares in his 1829 _A View of the Constitution of the United States_ (Chapter XXII – Of Impeachments):

Articles of impeachment need not to be drawn up with the precision and strictness of indictments. **They must** however **be distinct and intelligible**. No one is bound to answer to a charge so obscure and ambiguous that it cannot be understood...

So when the Impeachment Cabal Committee of _Public Safety and General Surety_ rants unintelligibly that Trump is accused of openly corrupt and ongoing _urging and soliciting_ ; they're slapping phrases together that sound like they might mean something – but review of these eloquent or sinister sounding phrasings discovers them to be applicable to nothing at all existing in this world.

The unintelligible committee rant is unanswerable. But as the two Articles of Impeachment have been presented to the Senate, we will have to wait to see how much sensitive coddling this remarkable issue of a resourcefully aggressive, continually adapting pathogenic system of _urging and soliciting_ is dealt in the Upper House. Will the crowds cheer at the sight of the Emperor's marvelous new clothes; or will some wicked person cry out: "Whoa Gus, that guy's walking around buck naked!" And so, as the saying goes: "that is another story for another time."

So let us draw ourselves away for a brief respite from the gloomy vindictive and paranoid perspective the committee would have us live by...

We return to our neglected and woe begotten envoys so harshly treated by this congressional unprovoked and unfounded assault on the field of international relations.

The conundrum in which the envoys found themselves in this case is not unknown or even necessarily that uncommon in the annals of diplomatic adventure. Indeed, William Rawle also touches upon the aspect generally and briefly. Turning again to the pages of his _A View of the Constitution of the United States_ ; this time to Chapter XX – _Of Some Arduous Parts of the President's Duties_. In this next cited paragraph, Rawle discusses the nature of a possible aspect of an envoy's agency in foreign negotiation, and a President's relation, if any, to the product of an envoy's interaction with a foreign government. In this next passage Rawle refers to a minister's negotiation of a treaty, but this next refers to a minister's general capacity in this area. Examining the Rawle passage:

...[A President's] instructions to the minister who negotiated it **may have been misunderstood** , or **wilfully disregarded** ; the **national interests may have been plainly neglected** , and it may be altogether such a compact as he would not ratify if he stood alone. Under such circumstances, it would be a timorous policy to endeavour to fortify his own disapprobation by obtaining the concurrence of the senate...

In the current event it seems (if I'm reading it correctly) that the ambassadors' collective were somewhat unclear as to the mission objective vis-à-vis Zelenskyy arrangements. They sought to put their heads together to figure out what it was they were supposed to do; or figure out if maybe the Attorney Rudy Giuliani knew something that needed asking, or whatnot. And so, as previously recounted, eventually Ambassador Sondland took point guard on the issue and sallied forth and put in a request for further information and got an answer no one it seemed could make heads or tails of through no fault of President Trump's.

In any event; Zelenskyy and team had a speech before the U.N. General Assembly to prepare for in September – and the Americans weren't in on that.

And Team Zelenskyy seems generally pretty independent and resourceful on their own; and not in need of much outside hand holding.

So really the Diplomatic Corp., despite all the nervous anxiety they invested in the affair, wasn't responsible or faulted for not producing in this event; it seemingly being a case of their being frozen in tracks due to some sort of misunderstanding. That seems to be the general upshot.

As to the accusers' vindictive assertion characterizing this confusion as _corrupt solicitation_ ; this is absurdly mean-spirited and immaterial scurrilous nonsense.

Effectively what Rawle on his part is pointing out back in 1829; is that the President has the final word in this area – and he may ultimately veto at his discretion whatever it is an envoy or envoys tentatively produce. The President is, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Sutherland and the others cited: The sole representative with foreign nations with the power to speak or listen as the singular representative of this nation. And that constitutional mandate is thing in this case, which shocks and offends the pro-surreptitious nuclear proliferation partisan political movement of the national level Obama throwback Party Democrats.

Moving on:

Bullet Point (2) of Article I declares:

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump-acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government conditioned two official acts On the public announcements that he had requested-

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance o Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

AS TO (2)(A): As has been already discussed; the delay on the funds was within statute specifications – and the President has the constitutional duty and mandate to implement dispensing of funds in the most constructive manner perceived as immediatly fitting. Reviewing Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland in the case of _United States v. Curtis-Wright Export Corp_.:

... if, in the maintenance of our international relations,... success for our aims [is to be] achieved, **congressional legislation which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry** within the international field **must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved**.

The President's conduct in this regard cannot be legitimately impugned.

AS TO (2)(B):

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

These people are serious? The Committee Cabal goes on record calling the President of Ukraine a liar several times. And they make Zelenskyy out to be a liar because his story contradicts the word of an anonymous American of unknown credentials who didn't hear the call and won't publicly identify himself.

So the xenophobe bigots of the Lower House let everybody in Ukraine and elsewhere know that the word of a foreign Head of State – in this case a President who happens to have been elected by 73% of the Ukraine nationwide electorate (except for people in those areas of Ukraine under Russian occupation) on a pledge to reform;

The xenophobe bigots of the Lower House, none of whom could ever conceive of getting anything like that kind of a national vote of confidence in this country;

The xenophobe bigots of Congress want the world to know: that according to the 116th Congress, the baseless word of just anyone who happens to be an American who won't identify himself and whose qualifications are unknown; but who anyway comes along thinking he might have understood what another person thought they overheard, and thereby feels empowered to go shooting his mouth off on something he knows nothing of;

The xenophobe bigots of the Lower House are putting looming foreigner leaders the world over on notice that if such a person as described (provided they're an American), saying whatever unfounded and uninformed thing pleases from whichever is the current preferred hiding place of unwholesome little rumor spreading gossiping pieces of...

If such an American person says something; then By Golly, foreigner national leaders everywhere are hereby put on notice from the likes of no less than the 116th Congress; that those foreigner leaders better not even think of coming over here to America contradicting anything the special anonymous person of unknown credentials has to say. No sir, no ma'am; they'd better not come over here bringing along any foreigner ideas about gainsaying anything that outstanding unelected American in hiding feels inclined to mention – and that's all there is to it, point blank period.

SO THE Congress calls Zelenskyy a liar several times over and now wants to impeach President Trump because – so they claim; this scurrilously defamed by Congress as an intrusive foreign scoundrel, a foreigner liar of a foreign President, had it held over his head by the manipulative President Quick Buck Trump trying to take advantage; that if the Ukraine President didn't publicly put the finger on good ol' Joe Biden who's just minding his own lucrative business around here anyway; then Zelenskyy could forget about that treasured ham on pumpernickel-hold the mayonnaise visit to the White House which earlier President Franklin Delano Roosevelt back in his day never even offered Italian Fascist Dictator Benito Mussolini.

CEREMONIAL cordialities are solely at the discretion of the President who is mandated by the Constitution and voted to the job by the electorate nationwide as the sole representative to foreign nations authorized by the Constitution to speak or listen as the singular representative of this nation.

The Congress has no legitimate authority to impeach on the grounds that so far the two Zelenskyy-Trump administrations haven't found a healthy time to schedule a White House appointment.

And if the Ukraine Government feels it wants to keep a low profile in this country until such time as the Obama Party Democrats in Congress can get over their temper tantrums (like that's ever going to happen); and this rush of inactivity spewing from the Nation's Capitol can quiet down a little so that the rest of us civilians just trying to get along in our lives can get back to it without all the distracting output.

If the Zelenskyy administration feels chased off by this Congress (and who could blame them if it were so) and wants to keep a low profile in the U.S. until this thing burns itself out;

Then that's up to the Ukraine Government. And if that turns out to be the case, then it's also up to President Trump to figure out a way to coax the Ukrainians back with an assurance that no harm will come.

Zelenskyy has proven himself to be a patient person, and a good sport regarding the disgracing, antagonistic, shabby behavior of the 116th Congress of the United States; the shameful behavior which was already in bold play by the time Zelenskyy got to Manhattan to present the predicament and petition of the People of Ukraine to the United Nations General Assembly.

However the accusers want to make it look. The evidence shows Zelenskyy and Trump were always on the same page regarding combating domestic Ukraine corporate corruption; and Russian belligerent attrition of Ukraine territory. That being the case, antagonistic histrionics over a fabricated blackmail scheme can't be considered reasonable or credible.

* * * * *

As mentioned – the Committee would not consider, and certainly would not bring up any mention that Zelenskyy had asked for intelligence assistance in the 25 July 2019 phone call:

The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.

_On top of that, I would kindly ask you_ [President Trump] _if **you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country**._

A small but important bit of testimony regarding that is not to be neglected: In the Thursday November 7, 2019 deposition of Jennifer Williams, an assistant to Vice-President Pence, who had been one of the note takers listening in on the Trump Zelenskyy July call; Ms. Williams was asked if the issue of Burisma was brought up in the conversation in relation to something Trump had said.

From the transcript of the deposition [https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment-hearing-day-3-transcript-alexander-vindman-jennifer-williams-testify]:

BY MR. CASTOR:

Question:

And do you know whether Colonel Vindman's issue with Burisma was related to something President Zelensky said or President Trump said?

Ms. Williams:

I don't know what Colonel Vindman's issue was. When I went back to check my notes, I had written that President Trump had raised Burisma...

After the deposition before committee, Jennifer Williams went back and checked her notes again. She realized upon review that it wasn't Trump who had brought up Burisma – it was Zelenskyy.

Ms. Williams informed her attorneys and that office sent a letter to the committee requesting amendment to her testimony:

The letter can be found at the end of the committee's published version of the deposition; and reads:

Re: Correction to the transcript of Jennifer Williams's deposition testimony

Dear Chairman Schiff:

We write on behalf of Jennifer Williams under Rule 8 of the 116th Congress's Regulations for Use of Deposition Authority. Ms. Williams has reviewed the transcript of her deposition testimony from November 7, 2019, and wishes to amend it as described below.

At her deposition, Ms. Williams was asked whether the Ukrainian company Burisma was mentioned by name during the call between President Trump and President Zelensky on July 25, 2019. She testified that it was. Tr. at 66-67, 129. She was then asked who had mentioned it and whether she had taken notes. Ms. Williams testified that she had taken notes, and that she believed her notes reflected that President Trump had referenced Burisma. Id. At the time of her testimony, that was Ms. Williams's recollection.

Following the deposition, Ms. Williams reviewed her notes again and discovered that her recollection had been incorrect. Her notes reflect that President Zelensky mentioned Burisma during the July 25 call. They do not indicate that President Trump did so. Accordingly, Ms. Williams wishes to amend her response to the question discussed above so that it accurately reflects what she recorded during the call.

We thank the Committee for considering this letter.

Sincerely,

* * * * *

Chapter 12

– Interposing Insubstantial Nullity as Fact –

The very premises and assumptions on which the accusations are based, all run contrary and are repugnant to the Constitution; the specific accusation are either complete fabrications based on presumptions repugnant and running contrary to the Constitution, or in themselves simply run contrary to and are repugnant to the Constitution:

Firstly **:** the Committee presumes that a foreign Government's domestic investigations of corruption carried out in areas under its internationally recognized sovereign jurisdiction, constitutes interference in our elections.

That premise is obviously partisan and self-serving, as much as it may be a consolation to those persons persuaded by the endearing charm of the popular personal candidacy of former Vice President Joe Biden, and amenable to the notion that it is wrong to investigate something which might politically embarrass the former Vice President (who said nothing as Obama pulled his political dirty trick of claiming to Congress and the electorate that Annex A of Resolution 2231 comprised the entire Iran nuclear deal; when the actual entire deal is the entirety of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), all foundational Sections as well as two Annexes) **.**

Supreme Court Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall has explained:

The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself...

Given the Court's Opinion, the Democrats demand an absurdity; for if the Ukraine Government were to concede to halt investigations of Burisma on account that this might cause some political embarrassment to a group of partisans in the United States, the Zelenskyy administration would then be disavowing its pledge to the People of the Ukraine that it will fight corporate corruption; and the Ukraine Government would be doing this in the political service of aiding in the anointment of one key demanding political figure as U.S. President and furthermore; aiding in the aggrandizement of those minions and fawning fortune seekers surrounding the singularly lucky key politician.

The Ukraine Government cannot cede this aspect of Ukraine sovereignty – its sovereign right to examine and to prosecute cases of this nature falling under its jurisdiction – just to satisfy the interests of the Democratic Party elite.

The situation as made clear through Supreme Court Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall's explanation of the Opinion of the Court is that it is by no means the Zelenskyy administration, in its admitted stance that it intends to pursue justice of the sake of the General Welfare; it is by no means the Zelenskyy administration that is the notorious political group seeking to interfere in someone else's democratic process.

No..., that honor badge of foreign interference in someone else's democratic process goes to our obvious other notorious political group situated much closer to home.

The Democrats have made it clear to us through their preposterous demand – they have spelled out for us in this case how astonishingly easy it is for an entity such as _Burisma Holdings_ to buy up the unrelenting support of an entire United States political party on the national level provided two things **:**

That such entity finds or creates a convincingly lucrative enough vacant position for the son of a key Democratic Party political figure to fill, as in this case; or perhaps some other form of lucrative corporate sponsorship might be found in lieu of that.

And then the further provision is that there must be enough easily accessed and available people both susceptible to the influence, and in highly placed political positions enough to set the example of condoning the graft as nothing out of the ordinary.

Having fulfilled its informal obligations to the national level Democratic Party, and the bribe clearly in evidence as having been taken; and also evidently approved of by the prominent public figures positioned in the highest echelons of Obama party Democrats' social order; of which none of this population of Mount Olympus residing personalities all still endorsing the Iran nuclear agreement will condescend to explain to the electorate; why the Obama Democrats believed in the first place that terminating sanctions on entities or persons using sovereign U.S. ports and shipping services as staging areas in furtherance of terrorist logistical needs or objectives would help prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon – or pacify its belligerent tendency, or dampen its hegemonic appetites;

Both of those previously mentioned contingencies are clearly in play in this instance – and _Burisma Holdings_ , having fulfilled its informal obligations to the national level Democratic Party, has allowed us front row seating close enough to view the spectacle of this current example of how an entity like Burisma can get a whole U.S. political party to ignore the Supreme Court and the Constitution and go ahead practicing up on their throwing fits and tantrums about "foreign intervention" and impeaching a President on specious grounds of so called "solicitation of foreign interference in a United States election" because such President, in his constitutional capacity as the sole organ of the nation in its external relations and its sole representative with foreign nations, dared publicly commend and endorse Ukraine Government investigation of a known tax evading corporate entity which an important American political party leader has had ties to somewhat.

And the impeachment committee has cried out: "No, no, no; this is not politically motivated" when clearly their submitted definition of what constitutes " _foreign intervention in our elections_ ," being **:** Ukraine Government further investigation into the tax evading entity _Burisma Holdings_ ; which is the fundamental allegation of the House of Representatives' unrestrained and unfounded invasion into the area of a President's interaction with a foreign government – that submitted definition of " _foreign intervention in our elections_ " is a clearly manifest example of twisted partisan extravagantly self-serving, "what ever we can come up with at the moment" propaganda at its almost most debased.

Any accusation arising out of this self-serving partisan notion, or definition, that a foreign Government's domestic investigations of corruption carried out in areas under its internationally recognized sovereign jurisdiction, may in any way be construed as any sort of foreign interference in our elections; any such frivolous accusation runs contrary to the fundamental recognition of the sovereignty of other nations provided for in Treaty made under the Authority of the United States (i.e. the international multilateral constituent treaty of the _Charter of the United Nations_ ; Preamble; Articles I and II), and therefore is repugnant to the Constitution and is therefore null;

And furthermore, submission of this notion testifies not only to the committee's ignorant refusal to acknowledge the Constitution as it regards treaty; but is also testimony to an entrenched culture in Congress of xenophobic antagonistic mistrust of the foreigner; a xenophobic bigotry which displays an hostility so extreme that the extravagant membership of the 116th House of Representatives' impeachment committee, knowing of the previous Obama administration's support for investigation of Burisma, and of justifiable ongoing concerns about the entity; nevertheless simply refused to acknowledge the possibility that President Zelenskyy had given a truthful account of conditions in his country **.**

And these burnt-out vindictive politicians; much more interested in the development of their own party political re-election devices than either the Constitution or anything else; called him a liar for professing that further investigation of corporate embezzlement, tax evasion, money laundering, etc. is undertaken by his administration not because Trump put pressure on – but because the problem has been ongoing since Ukraine proclaimed its independence from the Soviet Union; and the fact is well known that the Citizens of Ukraine have long since reached their limit tolerating the corruption; and Zelenskyy was voted in by a landslide specifically to deal with ongoing Russian belligerence, and to clean house on corruption as best and fast as possible.

Secondly **:** The terms " _corrupt solicitation_ ," " _corrupt urging and soliciting_ ," and the like **:** these like terms standing alone are obviously meaningless. For these to be understood as having any coherent significance at all they must be shown as applicable to something distinct.

The "distinct" aspects those descriptive terms are applied to, are the allegations of 1(A) and (B), having to do with the committee's fabrication concerning announcements which never occurred and were never intended.

The accusation of 1(A) is a particularly rancorous harangue perversely inflating the mere mention of Biden's known connection to Burisma in a private conversation; to the level of ignominious social taboo and national scale scandal.

The impeachment committee has shown that it will fight to the death over a feather if the committee finds the feather offensive. But if the Obama party Democrats, or Joe Biden, don't like it if Biden and Burisma are sometimes mentioned together in the same sentence in private conversations world-wide, or even just nation-wide; then they might stop and consider calming themselves with the more philosophical approach of remembering that maybe the Biden's should have been more patient, and taken their time to do the advisable further due diligence in their search for a more reliable and less conspicuous source of opulent corporate sponsorship and enrichment,

Having said that and submitting for further consideration of the committee **:** it is the committee's relentless drive to maintain itself as front page news for so long that has really been the success story behind the publicizing of the notoriety of the Biden-Burisma conflagration.

The committee transposed the most elementary parts of speech in their intentional misrepresentation of the transcript; they substituted "him" in place of the written "it" for the purpose of making it appear that it was the Bidens that were to be investigated. What was written in the transcript shows that it was the "it," Burisma, which was under discussion. (And there was not any mention at all in that call about "announcements." Such discussion took place elsewhere.)

And in the bilateral 25 September 2019 Manhattan, New York press conference Zelenskyy proudly spoke in general of his Government's having enacted (through the Parliament) legislation establishing a Corruption Court; which the Zelenskyy administration had up and running within a few days, by September 5th. There was no mention at all of any investigations, particular or general. Announcements of the sort fall under the mandate of the Prosecutor General's Office, as previously remarked and explained.

In mid October the Prosecutor General's Office announced investigations into Burisma the Entity, but did not mention investigations of individuals possibly concerned.

All of this happened substantially before the mid December submission of the Articles of Impeachment. And the Articles of Impeachment ignore testimony and fact disproving the rumors that announcements concerning the Bidens were ever even contemplated.

Believe it or not – the Bidens aren't as persistently at the center of everyone's thoughts as ego-centric self-centered committee politicians perceived them to be.

Zelenskyy came to New York that September 25th bringing his petition to the U.N. General Assembly requesting United Nations support in putting a stop to Russia' belligerent gobbling up of Ukraine territory. The Ukraine Government objective was a return of Ukraine territory recognized by the U.K., U.S., Russian in the agreed to Budapest Memorandum in which the Ukraine declared it would relinquish its nuclear weapons arsenal (at that time third largest in the world after the U.S. and Russia's) to Russia.

In their joint press conference he and Trump conversed a bit about the War; which he noted as the preeminent concern of his nation – and of general concerns about ubiquitous corporate and other forms of institutionalized corruption in Ukraine.

Sadly, news-outlet reporter arbiters of all the best gossip available to broadcast or print only wanted to hear about the "Bidens" during the question and answer period, and completely ignored the anti-war message Zelenskyy brought with him. No questions were asked such as: "What kind of feedback or support did you get from the General Assembly," or "What are overall prospects for peace," or "What was Russia's response to all this – does Russia still recognize that the fourth clause of Article II of the Charter of the United Nations declares: ' _All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state_ ,'" or "Do the Ukraine People feel they have any friends left in the world," or any number of questions that might have been asked had anyone shown an interest.

It as though we had all forgotten; and because we forgot – we somewhere got lost on our way. And there was nothing coming out of reporters mouths' in that question and answer period that resembled anything of the sensibility expressed by Thomas Paine in his introduction to Common Sense:

...Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the AUTHOR

So all that gets asked that 25 September 2019 day naturally is about the Bidens because the committee has focused public attention on the Bidens – and no announcement about the Biden's was ever made by Zelenskyy and yet the committee is going on about the Bidens all through the impeachment deposition and it turns out nobody actually – when they really got to thinking about it – can remember Zelenskyy ever specifying that he was going to announce that he would have the Prosecutor General investigate Joe Biden at any time – or that Trump had ever ordered Zelenskyy to make a public announcement that the Biden's were to be investigated.

But nevertheless the impeachment committee had to mention something in their Articles of Impeachment because to call it off and put a stop to the "process," and say **:** "It's okay folks, we've looked into it and Trump kept his nose clean this time – but we're still keeping an eye on the blighter so just don't you worry yourself about that;" to do that after all those depositions would be a publicity nightmare anti-climax and a humiliating public embarrassment and they weren't going to give that to Trump – no siree Mr. Bet Your Bottom Dollar they wouldn't; because this one's going to the mat thank you very much for your ongoing attention and concern and keep on tuning in for the latest!

And the committee had worked hard to keep the notion of fictional announcements that never happened, and to keep the Bidens caught in with the diatribe; the committee worked hard and kept the notion in prominent competitive headlining position vis-avis the kaleidoscope changeable world of all the best gossip available to broadcast or print;

And so the announcements issue is a complete null but it has been keeping things lively and we'll just have to wait and see how this gets played with in the Senate because it looks like both sides contending are wanting to put on a real finery display of coat and tie monkey suit style pageantry that'll make the Senators think they at Mardi Gras Carnival time live. Except for that my fellow Citizens from the City that Care Forgot are fun, and the Senators who never got the spirit, no indeed they are not.

As far as the Article I (2)(A) – the White House visit thing is totally up to the President and if he doesn't want someone just showing up over there at his house; he doesn't have to let just anybody come by and then start telling the world afterwards that all they got stacked up in there on the kitchen pantry shelf in back is assorted canned beans. He doesn't have to do that when he doesn't want because he is, after all, the sole representative with foreign nations with the power to speak or listen as the singular representative of this nation even when he's been taking a nap on the grocery shopping.

And the Article I (2)(B) is a null too because as explained, the timing of that outlay of funds once again falls under a President's discretion as long as it's done within limits specified.

So there's nothing there. Proceeding to Article II, and the perception of obstruction in this case.

* * * * *

Chapter 13

– of Article II –

Popularized rumor has it that the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment and that's all there is to it – and that there's nothing else in the Constitution about it except that the Senate tries the indictment brought up from the Lower House. As Maxine Waters said – and others have parroted the unenlightened narrow view in so many ways a various times:

"Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment. What the Constitution says is 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' and we define that."

" _No law that dictates impeachment_...," now that's a fine ungrateful thing to say, or to try and put across to the public. If there's no law – then where'd the law come from that told Maxine Waters they could impeach anyone?

Now I know Maxine Waters and the others couldn't have meant that there was no Constitution that authorizes impeachment – so let's look at what else the Constitution says that maybe involves the topic congressional impeachment wizards occasionally cut corners on:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

[Clause 2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, **any Thing in the Constitution** or Laws of any State **to the Contrary notwithstanding.**

What could that possibly mean – this business of "... _any Thing in the Constitution... to the Contrary notwithstanding_...?"

How could something authorized by the Constitution be _notwithstanding_. Fortunately in this case it's easy to see what could be notwithstanding.

Theoretically then, nothing in the impeachment proceedings, of the accusations themselves; should go against or be repugnant to the Constitution – the Authority to Impeach not withstanding.

As Supreme Court Mr. Justice George Sutherland observes in the previously cited case of _U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export_ **:**

"...like every other governmental power, must be exercised **in subordination to** the **applicable provisions of** the Constitution."

There Justice Sutherland is speaking of the President's Authorized discretion in the area of foreign relations. But this maxim applies equally to all three branches in the exercise of their enumerated power, as in: "... _like every other governmental power_..."

United States Supreme Court Mr. Chief Justice Warren, in the 1965 case of _United States v. Brown_ (1965) – (No. 399) 381 U.S. 437, observes:

The Constitution divides the National Government into three branches -- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. [p443] This "separation of powers" was obviously not instituted with the idea that it would promote governmental efficiency. It was, on the contrary, looked to as a bulwark against tyranny. For if governmental power is fractionalized, if a given policy can be implemented only by a combination of legislative enactment, judicial application, and executive implementation, no man or group of men will be able to impose its unchecked will.

We understand the enumerated "separation of powers" as basic to the constitutional exercise of powers. Examining, then, one of the enumerated powers of Congress:

United States Constitution

Article I - The Legislative Branch

*Section 8 - Powers of Congress

[Clause 9] To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

In the case an impeachment proceeding; the Congress, the House of Representatives or the Senate depending where we are in the process, assembles and convenes a Tribunal by definition inferior to the Supreme Court.

As a Tribunal inferior to the Supreme Court, it follows that a congressional impeachment Tribunal is not established as a Court recognized to decide upon the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution; that power is exclusive to the Judicial Branch with ultimate decision making authority vested in the Supreme Court.

So the notion that our impeachment wizards can accuse and make stick just anything that Congress says is a High Crime or Misdemeanor – as Mr. Waters and others have declared – is faulty.

For example, the Constitution says it's the President decides who gets the big State Treatment or when he's got time to set it up. And for whatever reason Trump and Zelenskyy met in New York instead of Washington – so the Lower House decided that wasn't good enough for the foreigner Ukraine President the impeachment wizards had branded as a liar – so the Lower House condemned Trump to political exile for that.

Then, neither Trump and Zelenskyy made any announcements about the Bidens being investigated; and the Lower House didn't like that either – so the Lower House said Zelenskyy-Trump did or maybe they didn't but might have considered it anyway– so the Lower House condemned Trump to political exile for that.

The House of Representatives got mad in retrospect because the money earmarked for buying U.S. made weapons didn't go out the door into the pipeline fast enough for them in retrospect – so the Lower House condemned Trump to political exile for that.

And they added to the weapons sales thing the White House visit thing; which the impeachment wizards said was especially egregious because Trump had been holding off giving the weapons over to that foreigner Zelenskyy who the impeachment wizards had branded as a liar but who still needs a White House visit anyway (and who wouldn't these days) and so that's it, we're fed up, enough of that stuff – and the Lower House condemned Trump to political exile for that also.

* * * * *

Eventually the Committee, evidently dissatisfied with the way things were panning out with the ones they had, demanded access to further witnesses. Trump was treating the whole thing as an harangue, and an invasion into the area of a president's discretion in foreign relations where the Congress has no business; and he had ordered people not to cooperate with the proceedings – if counsel wasn't going to be allowed to attend.

The Committee called that "obstruction of justice" and indicted for that – and this part of the indictment becomes Article II- _Obstruction of Congress_.

One counter charge of _Obstruction of Congress_ is that the Congress sought no recourse to the Court regarding its self-commissioned authority to conduct open ended intrusion upon the internationally recognized _protected diplomatic status_ correspondence between a U.S. President and another Head of State; especially when this intrusion is dependent on suppression of facts in evidence; and on fabrication.

As to an explanation of _protected diplomatic status_ : United States Supreme Court Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall; again in the case of The Schooner _Exchange v. Mcfadden_ , 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812): writes:

One sovereign being in no respect amenable to another, and being bound by obligations of the highest character not to degrade the dignity of his nation by placing himself or its sovereign rights within the jurisdiction of another, can be supposed to enter a foreign territory... in the confidence that the immunities belonging to his independent sovereign station, though not expressly stipulated, are reserved by implication, and will be extended to him.

This perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns, and this **common interest** impelling them to **mutual intercourse** , and an **interchange of good offices with each other** , have given rise to a class of cases in which every sovereign is understood to waive the exercise of a part of that complete exclusive territorial jurisdiction [when receiving a visiting Head of State or accredited Minister] which has been stated to be the attribute of every nation.

1st. One of these is admitted to be the exemption of the person of the sovereign from arrest or detention within a foreign territory.

If he enters that territory with the knowledge and license of its sovereign, that license, although containing no stipulation exempting his person from arrest, is universally understood to imply such stipulation.

Why has the whole civilized world concurred in this construction? The answer cannot be mistaken. **A foreign sovereign is not understood as intending to subject himself to a jurisdiction incompatible with his dignity, and the dignity of his nation** , and it is to avoid this subjection that the license has been obtained. The character to whom it is given and the object for which it is granted equally require that **it should be construed to impart full security to the person** who has obtained it. This security, however, need not be expressed; it is implied from the circumstances of the case.

[Full security means security of person, possessions including papers and credential, and of _communication and correspondence_.]

By the above Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall explains reasons for formally respecting and assuring the dignity and security of a foreign Head of State **:**

He notes that "common interest" between nations impels them to mutual intercourse and exchange – to an "interchange of good offices" which may yield commerce, favorable promotion of the arts and sciences, and the many other benefits arising from constructive and creative positive cultural exchanges between peoples.

And so the hoped for objective of this "interchange of good offices" referred to is the flourishing of goodwill and productivity between individuals, peoples and nations

On the State to State level, some common international understanding, recognition and practice is necessary in establishing the hoped for "interchange of good offices."

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall has explained fundamental premises; for one:

...A foreign sovereign is not understood as intending to subject himself to a jurisdiction incompatible with his dignity, and the dignity of his nation,

In the current case, Zelenskyy made an appeal to the United States Government for assistance in contemplated investigation into corporate corruption. And this petition naturally specifically included the tax evading corporate parasite bad player _Burisma Holdings_ with its sucking of the funds away from infrastructure and the needy; and its consequential warping of the Ukraine contractual level playing field necessary to reassure or restore essential foreign investment and trade;

Investigation of the tax evading entity therefore, is of _common interest_ between the Ukraine and the United States in that United States commercial interests are uncertain as to the risk profile of any investment or venture in Ukraine so long as a huge corporate tax evading entity like _Burisma Holdings_ is allowed to suck up funds from the Ukraine Treasury.

That very corporate entity; the acting nemesis of goodwill and productive, illuminating exchanges between people; is also occasionally known as a rich source of potential lucrative Corporate Sponsorship benefiting some lucky elite politician higher up in a political party, or by extension some lucky political party, or some lucky higher up politician's lucky close relative or – in the case on hand, Joe Biden's son was the lucky sweepstakes winner this happy round.

The "whistle blower" had brought to the attention of the House of Representatives the topic, regardless of how distorted the details, of discussions transpiring in the what should have been a climate of protected diplomatic conversation,

The result is the Obama party Democrats blow a fuse, start screaming about how investigation of Burisma – a corporate entity known for its opulent Corporate Sponsorship of Joe Biden's son the clean-living Hunter Biden – how investigation of that comprises foreign interference in our democratic process.

And Trump must have twisted the malleable foreigner's little arm off don't you know, to get this corrupt urging and soliciting thing underway.

And to keep it all going, the issue is turned into an ongoing rant requiring public suppression of the many points of information that refute this tirade as all nonsense.

Because the committee demands respect and deference from the public, none of the irrefutable objective facts negating the spurious accusing narrative are allowed to be formally acknowledged in the Articles of Impeachment;

But what is allowed be submitted, and is submitted in the Articles of Impeachment is the notion that Trump solicited a, by implicit description, malleable and corrupt or frightened foreign leader to acquiesce to the U.S. President's insolent demands.

And the committee openly on public record branded visiting Ukraine President Zelenskyy a liar when he was obviously being truthful in recounting known facts which they didn't like hearing, and which they showed they didn't like hearing coming from a foreigners mouth – not his anyway. (That aspect is not mentioned in the Articles.)

So before going into what effect this showboating mendacity has on international relations; let's look at the obvious irrefutable objective facts that have driven the stark raving committee hypocrite drama queens out of their minds and into the extravagance of their barking raw invective:

**Obvious Irrefutable Objective fact:** Zelenskyy had, during the 25 July "private" phone call, petitioned Trump for U.S. assistance in contemplated Ukraine Government investigation into domestic corruption. The committee couldn't call Zelenskyy liar for that because Zelenskyy was clearly under no duress there – so they chose to steer around the fact refusing to acknowledge it as to do so would unravel the assertion that Zelenskyy was having his suit pressed while he was still in it.

**Obvious Irrefutable Objective fact:** There had been no demand made of an investigation into "him" Joe Biden. The request as stated was to look into "it," previous investigation into Burisma. Joe Biden had come up in the conversation because he had publicly broadcast his smelling of big fish story boast that he'd got that " _son of a bitch_ " Prosecutor General fired – which would have constituted an intrusion into the sovereign domestic affairs of an independent nation. Trump said " _Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it_..."

No where in any of that was there the suggestion of public announcements regarding specific investigations of what Joe Biden had already made public, or any announcements about Joe Biden at all – nor was there found any suggestion of that anywhere else besides the phone call.

The committee's intentional misreading of the transcript was a hoax which convinced many at the time. And the committee knew the hoax could work and pull in the many who have been suckered by it, because Obama had pulled a very successful more extravagant hoax of a similarly mendacious nature on some of the very people now pulling the strings on this one.

As previously documented and detailed, Obama over the summer of 2015 had tricked every member of the 114th Congress, both Houses, both Parties, into believing they were voting on the entire Iran nuclear deal (which is Resolution 2231) when they were not. Schiff in particular, Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi were among the Democratic Party leadership who got baited on that one – or maybe were in on the gag and helped keep Party members voting correctly. I don't know.

So these committee members; all of the leadership of whom are down on record for later voting on 26 October 2017 (a serious day of ignominy not to be forgotten) in favor of the Procurement Working Group mandate approving sales to Iran of bundled nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets – definitely know how effective a hoax built around fabrication and suppression of information can be.

The upshot here; is that there was no discussion in the 25 July 2019 conversation of any announcement being made about Joe Biden or any other clean living Biden.

**Example of Fabrication** : Dismissing that there were no announcements in the 25 September 2019 phone call of the sort the committee charge – the Committee absurdly accuses in mid December **:**

(3)... President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, **but has persisted** in **openly and corruptly urging and soliciting** Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit....

It's completely fanatical craziness – but it should be remembered that these are the people pulling all hoaxes who want back in on the Iranian weapons market; and especially now because in a few months on 18 October 2020, the market on conventional weapons in Iran is wide open for business and the Obama party Democrats have shown themselves to be especially susceptible and sensitive to domestic Arms Dealing interests' needs. To serve that end, Trump has to be gone and sanctions on Iran dropped so that the Obama party Democrats can go back to Iran begging for U.S. arms suppliers to be put back into the weapons sales project roster on some level at least.

**Obvious Irrefutable Objective fact:** Zelenskyy was eager to tell the world about the Ukraine crisis or he wouldn't have gone before the General Assembly in the first place with his petition for U.N. General Assembly support in putting an end to the war.

**Obvious Irrefutable Objective fact** : Following his speech at the U.N., Zelenskyy met with President Trump for the cited joint press conference. There were no announcements made in the 25 September 2019 joint press conference of the sort the committee charge – particularly about Biden which was the major concern (the "Crowdstrike" accusation is just spurious frivolity trying to sound consequential);

**Obvious Irrefutable Objective fact** : Responding to a question from a reporter at the 25 July 2019 joint press conference (as previously cited), Zelenskyy answered the reporter declaring that nobody "pushed him" to make any announcements.

And this was self-evident, because everybody attending the joint press conference that day knew that no announcement about the Bidens had been made – and the question was therefore stupid. But the reporter couldn't help asking a stupid question because if he didn't ask that he wouldn't have anything to ask.

But the news reporter, arbiter of which gossip is best to broadcast, did have a great deal to ask and apparently just didn't think about it at all. The reporter obviously could have asked questions about Zelenskyy's speech before the General Assembly earlier in the day. And it makes me feel very sorry and very ashamed that Zelenskyy's anti-war message was allowed to be completely overshadowed by the ongoing charade.

And the reporter's obsessive preoccupation with the Bidens in this case overshadowed any concern about Russian violent attrition of Ukraine territory: And what about former Ukraine nationals now under Russian Government occupation; what do _they_ suffer under this circumstance?

Nobody asks – so we can see how easy it is for people, or members of the news-media even, to have their perspective thrown and become mesmerized by local authority figures' parading political theatrics; and carry on ignoring what the committee wants the public to ignore and not looking at anything else but what satisfies the narrow little rat hole world this dismal bunch staffing the committee want us to join them in.

**News-media outlet ignominy aside** : There is then the fact that the committee became incensed that Zelenskyy openly publicly declared that "no one had pushed" him. And this was the stuff which the cornered dog impeachment cabal committee felt a need to respond to by publicly calling the visiting Ukraine President a liar when he was obviously being truthful in recounting known facts.

All that having been said; examination of the effect of the committee's intrusion into the realm of international relations is now in order.

The Impeachment Cabal has proceeded along the lines that the word impeachment gives the committee unlimited and unrestrained powers to pursue anything it determines no matter how without grounds it may be.

Following along this line, the committee has decided that the word impeachment suddenly gives Congress the constitutional right to traverse the separation of power and usurp supreme authority in areas enumerated to be strictly designated to the Executive of Judicial Branches.

The committee in this case, has decided that it, upon using the convenience of the news-media to politically force the opening of protected diplomatic communiqué; having done so, the committee is now empowered to pronounce critical judgment upon the topic having been discussed and upon the Parties, domestic and foreign (Trump; Zelenskyy) having discussed it; and based on committee's interpretation, or rewriting of the content of the communiqué, pronounce judgment upon the internal affairs of the sovereign and independent Ukraine declaring as a basis for committee's continued intrusive political domestic harangue that it is in the committees' judgment and ruling that the Ukraine General Prosecutor decision to conduct investigation into _Burisma Holdings_ comprises a foreign threat to our national security, a genuine " _foreign interference in our democratic process_ ," and that also Trump's public approbation of the Ukraine Prosecutor General's contemplated investigations of known Ukraine tax evader Burisma Holdings represents an act of " _soliciting foreign powers to interfere in our elections_."

The Impeachment Committee has declared in Article I under bullet point (3):

(3)... President Trump... **has persisted** in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit....

The committee cabal has not clarified what this persistent _openly and corruptly urging and soliciting_ is made up of exactly; and therefore the accusation as it stands falls under the Void for Vagueness rule – which as expressed by William Rawle (cited) – entails:

Articles of impeachment need not to be drawn up with the precision and strictness of indictments. **They must** however **be distinct and intelligible**. No one is bound to answer to a charge so obscure and ambiguous that it cannot be understood...

Regardless of whether not any this is null by reason of Void for Vagueness; Article I _is_ a list vague and torrid insinuations mixed in with outright fabrication; and this is the basis for the resulting Article II _Obstruction of Congress_ – which may well be more aptly thought of as _Putting a halt to Partisan Congressional Obstruction of a President's mandated interaction with foreign leaders_.

The committee had begun to subpoena officials higher and higher up in Diplomatic Corp. Echelons. Trump at some point had called a halt to the melodramatic and theatrical harangue; and told people to stop cooperating (and some did refuse to cooperate). And it is for that reason the committee has called out the charge of "Obstruction of Congress."

The question could be considered as a constitutional one. How far can an impeachment investigation intrude into the very delicate area of foreign affairs to the extent that it can – without grounds but based on innuendo and fabrication disproved by irrefutable objective fact – and continue on that basis with haranguing subpoenas of absurdly everybody? The Congress invades the area of foreign relations where it has no enumerated business and regardless of the harm it does by informing Heads of State the world over that the U.S. Congress simply does not respect internationally agreed to diplomatic protocols; that the Democratic Party congressional membership intends to at will drag whichever foreign leader into Democratic Party incited domestic squabbles on the excuse of the most tenuous histrionics; and so under those conditions it becomes very difficult to discuss anything with a U.S. President.

The Congressional obstructionists of United States foreign policy initiative has gone to extremes. It essentially argues that protected diplomatic correspondence is not protected from the Congress.

There is none of the sensibility, in any of this current spectacle, of the 1816 _Senate Committee on Foreign Relations_ previously cited quote:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to... impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch. *****

***** U.S. Senate, Reports, Committee on Foreign Relations, vol. 8, p 24.

The damage to foreign relations is incalculable thanks to the blundering intrusion of the national level Obama party committee members; those who do adhere to the Obama Democrats' 2020 election campaign threat to pull the U.S. back into the Iran nuclear weapons deal in time to as early as possible get in on the October 2020 Iranian open market on conventional weapons.

As suggested just earlier, it is an essential point that the Lower House, in pursuit of its partisan goal to impeach – has already made it clear world-wide that no foreign leader can ever expect to have a private conversation with a U.S. President without there being a serious risk that the lowest form of gossip will be loudly spread about by some disapproving or resentful person listening in – and that the Congress of the United States will proceed on the word of the most arbitrary person that can be found, and on presentation of the most recognized as unreliable and specious "evidence" – hearsay gossip – to purposefully distort and publicize world-wide their distortion of what was said in the private conversation between two heads of State; to the political embarrassment of the U.S. President and the foreign Head of State.

This extravagant and self-indulgent display by the Obama party Democrats cripples U.S. practice in foreign policy implementation in that, among other things, it now becomes extraordinarily difficult for any foreign Head of State to believe in any assurance of confidentiality or privacy coming from any U.S. President, not just Trump.

And the Obama party Democrats are wrong if they believe this smearing general assault by Congress on the credibility of United States conduct of foreign policy would benefit any of their Presidential candidates in any of their contemplated efforts to negotiate anything; because now the Democrats are known internationally to be the source of the rubbish; they are now the reputed political party of blabbermouth snitches; the Party of tattle tale little finks who are so desperately fawning for public attention they can't keep their mouths shut about anything – and so , with their now famous studied lack of discretion, an Obama party Democrat as President can least of anyone be trusted by the world outside the U.S., to be capable of handling foreign policy anything.

So the question arises: how far should the impeachment "inquiry" be tolerated to invade and intrude and injure in the area of interactions with foreign nations as it has done.

The Obama party committee supporters of finks and snitches say they can do as they like – come harm what may.

But the impeachment cotillion is a self-interested lower tribunal inferior to the Supreme Court – a lesser tribunal the smugly swell-headed membership of which, lacking any humility or perspective whatsoever, has determined it may decide on its own the constitutional question of how far Congress is allowed to step into an area the Constitution from which the Legislative Branch is kept separate – the area of diplomatic privilege or protection (Zelenskyy's) of diplomatic correspondence.

TRUMP turned the committee away when he probably felt he had enough of Congressional intrusion into diplomatic affairs; an aspect of which they show themselves to be appallingly inept and ignorant of; and so poorly acclimated they actually make Trump look good at foreign policy (although I think if Trump came out looking alright on this one the credit's probably mostly due to the fact that in the event; Team Zelenskyy showed obvious talent, perspective and understanding in foreign affairs far above the heads of the accusers' committee armed with the phony testimony of their ad hoc volunteer lackey "whistleblowers").

The committee called Trump's response dictatorial and proceeded to indict on some sort of a charge of Obstruction. But the charge without a Ruling from a Court can never legitimately be anything other than indistinct groundless accusation because of the Constitution mandates that the president is recognized as the person with the ultimate decision making authority in matters concerning international relations including the opening of diplomatic pouches and correspondences etc...

When reflecting upon an assembly such as the one we're stuck with this time around, the inevitability of the framers' choice in placing the responsibility of foreign affairs on to the Executive Branch becomes clear. Does anyone (besides the Congress) really want these some 435 clodhopper throwbacks and troglodytes; hobbled by their own stunted, xenophobes' foreigner resenting revival hate speech bigotry, and their frenetically deranged partisan competitive rancor; – does anyone really want these to be the ones opening up the diplomatic pouches, or receiving _Ambassadors and other public Ministers_?

As Supreme Court Mr. Justice Joseph Story observed in his _Commentaries on the Constitution_ (as cited previously):

**§ 779**....The delays incident to a large assembly ; the differences of opinion ; the time consumed in debate ; and the utter impossibility of secrecy, all combine to render them [Congress] unfitted for the purposes of diplomacy. **And our own experience during the confederation abundantly demonstrated all the evils, which the theory would lead us to expect**...

It is manifest, then, that congress would not be a suitable depositary of the power.

The ultimate decision to be relied upon in this case would be that of the Supreme Court, as to how far the Congress may intrude in this case and on what grounds. Yet the committee never approached any part of the judicial branch to present grounds for Warrant demanding deposition from whomsoever it might.

It was said among other things: "that would take too long" – which might be true considering that in October the Iranian conventional weapons market opens up and the Democrats per their 2020 election campaign threat want U.S. arms interests in there getting their feet wet at least.

But then there is the issue that the grounds for subpoena could be found specious and warrant would be denied by the Court and that would be embarrassing and it would also shut the whole charade down pretty quick so the committee didn't go that route.

Whatever the excuse or reason, without any Court decision having been sought served or disobeyed, it's hard to see how the Obstruction charge would legitimately be made to stick.

So we'll have to see how this aspect plays out in the Senate – and that is another story for another time.

These are some issues to consider regarding the two Articles of Impeachment – the background and circumstances leading to them having been discussed.

Before leaving this narrative altogether however, a few notes on the present foreign policy conditions are due:
Chapter 14

– W.M.D. Policy and Congress –

Fundamental United States policy regarding nuclear weapons is established in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty – (NPT)); a treaty developed jointly by the then Soviet Union and the United States – subsequently approved by the Senate and signed into law as a part supreme Law of the Land per 2nd Clause, Article VI of the United States Constitution...

...and completely ignored by the House of Representatives in the 26 October 2017 vote in favor of the Procurement Working Group mandate of expediting and approving Nuclear and Ballistic missile associated weapons systems while preventing the _International Atomic Energy Agency_ from inspecting any aspect of this to perhaps establish a chain of custody of these _INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2_ listed nuclear weapons associated inventories bundled with _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ ballistic missile delivery systems associated inventories; or to in some other way develop procedures for verifying that these Iranian acquisition are not being diverted to the development of a potent nuclear weapons capability.

The first approvals of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 sales to Iran of nuclear weapons associated assets in November 2016 – near the end of Obama's tenure in office. And since then it's been business as usual selling Iran nuclear weapons associated assets piecemeal so they can develop a well-rounded nuclear weapons program built on the combined nuclear weapons know-how of the United States, Russia, China, France and the U.K.

As cited, Iran has declared, on 5 January 2020 that it will now enrich Uranium up to whatever degree and quantity it wants.

And nobody in Congress knows what was in those procurement packages of nuclear weapons inventories which have been sold Iran since November 2016. Nancy Pelosi, Obama party Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives doesn't know specifically what was in those packages – but she is aware that it's nuclear weapons related. She doesn't have to know exactly what's in those packages, she's one of the biggest fans of this Iran nuclear deal, always has been – and that's that.

And Adam Schiff, Obama party Democratic Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – what does he know about what was specifically in those packages? Absolutely nothing; except that he's aware that these are all having to do with the transfer of nuclear weapons associated goods, support services, technologies and technical data such as:

"... _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on other media or devices such as disk, tape, read-only memories_ " as INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 & 10/Part 2 defines the term.

So Adam B. Schiff Obama party Democratic Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence knows all about that these are nuclear weapons associated assets being sold Iran though the Procurement Working Group pipeline; and he has no practical knowledge of exactly what these acquisitions are so he, like everyone else in the U.S. Government, has absolutely no practical data on which to base an assumption of how far along Iran is in its nuclear weapons development project – and that's what passes for "intelligence gathering" in the United States of today.

Nevertheless, ignorant as the Intelligence Chairman is of all – he too is a big fan of the deal which is believed to potentially be very lucrative to weapons interests; he too voted with all the others in favor of U.S. official recognition and approval of the Procurement Working Group mandate.

And the reason not one of these "Representatives" in Congress, who have lied over the past four and a half years about what this Iran nuclear deal really is about don't know what was in those packages?

Because Obama who didn't even transmit his nuclear deal to Congress like he pretended he did – as previously documented and explained – had worked out a procedure with the Ministers of the Government of Iran to ensure that legislatures like the Congress of the United States; were to be kept in the dark just like the IAEA inspectors are;

But these leaders; and all the national level Obama party acolytes identifying themselves as the Democratic Party "Representatives" in Congress – they all want the United States back in on the Iran nuclear weapons deal sales plan anyway so that the U.S. Government can continue to make its contribution to the sales scheme selling Iran bits and pieces of nuclear weapons associated assets on a case-by-case basis; all the better to render piecemeal U.N. sponsored assistance to Iran's development of its projects as first class nuclear weapons program.

Right now, since Trump pulled the U.S. out of the United Nations Security Council sponsored, Obama Democratic Party instigated scam; it's been up to mostly Russia and China to keep wheels in motion – although France and the U.K. have something related to nuclear weapons capacity development to contribute as well no doubt.

As cited, Iran has declared, on 5 January 2020 that it will now enrich Uranium up to whatever degree and quantity it wants.

And the Obama acolyte Democrats still want back in to the weapons deal so that maybe some Obama Democrat President can make a big showing about how their administration took Iran to terms with some of that renowned hard-nosed Principled American Diplomacy which should consist of dropping sanctions, including sanctions of weapons transfers so that everybody can get on with the business, and:

"Please Mister Iran; please let us back in the nuclear deal... we know Russia and China are still allowed to expedite and approve of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9 or 10/Part 2 listed nuclear weapons associated goods, support services, technologies and technical data.'

And: "We all know Russia and China can still sell you that stuff on there – and everybody understands the you're now enriching to whatever degree and quantity you want, and we know your going to get the bomb anyway so..."

"So please let us sell you our stuff, 'cause our stuff is better. Their stuff is cheaper but our stuff is better. And once everybody sees America selling again then everyone will know that everything is okay and they'll all start coming back to the Procurement Working Group too – France and the U.K. and even Germany too; and we'll all be happy again and there will be no more bad men to come around spoiling things ever and..."

And the Obama Democrats have no leverage to negotiate with Iran whatsoever. All they can offer Iran is to drop sanctions so that U.S. arms dealing interests can return to the Iranian weapons market and have a go at it. So Iran holds all the cards.

And Iran can still do what it wants and it can still trade whatever knowledge and expertise it's gained over this period with North Korea – so that Trump, whatever he says he thinks he's negotiating with North Korea, is just negotiating another political-face-saving publicity stunt on behalf of himself this time, because North Korea will never stop what it's doing as long as Iran is allowed to continue what it's doing with United Nations Security Council sponsorship and international endorsement.

And so all the Obama Democrats have to contribute to the problem is: "Please Mister Iran, we know you're going to get the bomb – but we promise we'll be good; so please – please just don't build your bomb during my administration..."

Please don't during my administration is what the agreement always was in part about. As Obama put it in his 5 August 2015 speech on the American University campus:

**I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch** , and it's been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible military options, on the table to achieve that objective.

And Obama was very successful at moving development of his Iran nuclear deal project through at a very steady clip so by JCPOA Implementation Day, 16 January 2016, Iran was suddenly allowed to undertake experimentation in _Activities Which Could Contribute to the Design and Development of a Nuclear Explosive Device_ ;

And by the end of Obama's tenure in office he already had two sales to Iran of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 listed nuclear weapons associated assets approved and two more in the Procurement Working Group pipeline which would be approved just after Trump came in to office. And so yes, Iran was not allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on his watch.

* * * * *

So the only way to put a stop to the deteriorating process is to take it to the _International Court of Justice_ which derives its Authority both from the _Statute of the International Court of Justice_ and from the _Charter of the United Nations_. Take it there, bring it before the Court and find out what the International Court of Justice thinks about the Procurement Working Group using the campuses and resources of the United Nations, paid for by membership dues, as staging areas to conduct contraband arms racketeering business egregiously repugnant to the _Charter of the United Nations_.

All that it would take is for the International Court of Justice to find that the egregious Resolution 2231 provisions in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons are repugnant to that treaty and...:

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 53. Treaties Conflicting With a Peremptory Norm of General International Law ("Jus Cogens")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

And there is oh-so-much in Resolution 2231, beyond the provisions violating the NPT, which conflicts with peremptory norm of general international law which the Court could sink its teeth into, including the assistance to a non-nuclear-weapons-State in its preparations for its pledged waging of war of aggression-annihilation – which, as pointed out several times, constitutes the War Crime, Crimes against Peace.

All the Court has to do is find where there is so much to be found there, and: Article 71 would necessarily next follow:

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 5. CONSEQUENCES OF THE INVALIDITY, TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A TREATY

Article 71. Consequences of the Invalidity of a Treaty which Conflicts with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law

1. In the case of a treaty which is void under article 53 [above] the parties shall:

(a) Eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance on any provision which conflicts with the peremptory norm of general international law; and.

(b) Bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of general international law.

The Court should then proceed to define and Order how the infringing Parties are to _bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of general international law_.

Any Resolution 2231 Secrecy is out the window and the Procurement Working Group books could be opened and it would be discovered what Iran's got so far, and IAEA inspectors maybe should come in and verify under Court Order which supercedes any confidentiality agreement in Resolution 2231 and Resolution 1929 (2010) could be put back into play:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010)

8. [The Security Council] Decides that all States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, or items as determined by the Security Council or the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 (2006) ("the Committee"), decides further that all States shall prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related materiel, and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel;

9. Decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities;

And at last, a reasonable assessment of where Iran is with its nuclear weapons program might be attempted. And meaningful negotiation with North Korea – whose trading partner's nuclear weapons program had just run into a little snag – might also be attempted.

And so, it is an essential national security issue that petition to the Court must be made.

In view of that above it becomes clear that this posturing of the Obama party Democrats pretending that Joe Biden, or any of the other spectacularly avaricious Corporate Sponsorship sensitive 2020 Presidential Candidates in support of the Iran nuclear deal are going to get in there with some tough-minded Principled American Diplomacy and show the Iranians how its done and renegotiate the ministers right down to the mat – is simply just another version of the sham. And a successful Democratic Party bid to bring the United States back into participation with Iran's preparations for its pledged waging of war of aggression-annihilation will also simply make an abysmally deteriorating conditions worse.

* * * * *

Reiterating that fundamental United States policy regarding nuclear weapons is established in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty – (NPT)); a treaty approved by the Senate and signed into law as a part supreme Law of the Land per 2nd Clause, Article VI of the United States Constitution;

Noting that – and that it is not just the national level Obama party Democrats, but the Republicans as well, have shown themselves to be overwhelmingly in favor of the Procurement Working Group mandate, and hence the potentially lucrative arms trade agreement developed by the Obama administration in collusion with the Ministers of the Government of Iran;

And noting also that not one person in Congress, either House, either Party, has publicly argued the specifics of the Procurement Working Group mandate on the Congressional Record; or argued on the public record any of the egregious violations of treaty enacted by the provisions of Resolution 2231;

Or objected to the violations of treaty therein and pointed out that to re-enter the deal is to violate the 2nd Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional; and anyway, it's also participation of in Iran's preparations for it pledged waging of war of aggression, of annihilation comprises involvement in the internationally defined and codified _Crimes against Peace_ War Crime; which the incredibly avaricious, extremely Corporate Sponsorship sensitive membership of the Congress of the United States of America couldn't seem to care less about given the potency of greed as a motivator, of which it is generally known through experience can't be, or is almost impossible to be reasoned with; and is a preoccupation which desensitizes to all else.

Considering as background the above, and considering also that Iran continues and escalates the aggressive behavior, the belligerent posture while at the same time going about its weapons development project business without the least concern that the current United States Trump administration will get up the nerve to take this thing to Court so that real pressure will be brought to bear.

The Congress, under its self-imposed conditions, is unable to formulate any public policy in response. There is no honest response in Congress to Iran's January 5th announcement about uranium enrichment. To avoid political embarrassment, the Congress won't discuss the weapons provisions of the Iran nuclear weapons deal honestly – the congress never has during these past four and a half years.

And there is the evident hankering still at large to get back into the W.M.D. deal for domestic arms suppliers' sake, or for whatever reason. And so Congress members have to be very careful not to interrupt to hoped for weapons transfer schedule with some discouraging words about the reality of the Iran nuclear deal even though it's gotten to the point where it's staring everyone in the face – and under the circumstances the Government of Iran still manages to maintain its easy leverage over the corrupted and avaricious in Congress without having to think about it or do a thing.

Whereas the fundamental written policy of the United States regarding nuclear weapons is the text of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ ; the leverage the Government of Iran has over the grasping avarice of the membership of Congress becomes the effective underlying policy of the 116th Congress regarding Iran.

And so when Iran plays out its brinksmanship farther and up the scale, and Trump responds – the Obama party Democrats start screaming because by all means we must not respond hastily or Iran might not let us back in the deal after all. And it's a fun game for some because Iran can act out and watch the U.S. Congress go crazy in defense of restraint and Iran can feel reassured once again that there are many who want to drop sanctions and get the Procurement Working Group sales plan back up to speed.

And no one dares mention bringing the thing to Court because that would ruin the prospect of reentering the potentially lucrative arms deal for everybody – and certainly the Democrats, with their election campaign platform just aching to get back in the thick of things, aren't going to mention anything like petitioning the Court for resumption of universal adherence to peremptory norm of general international law.

So the popularized paradigm becomes "it's either 'American Principled Diplomacy' or WAR!" But the phony rhetoric can't help Congress members come up with a policy response to Iran while they're still holding out for the rich rewards and also; while they're ignoring that the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ is the Ordained public policy whether the pro-proliferation movement membership likes it or not.

THE PRESIDENT took an Oath of Office which declares the President will, to the...: "... _best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States_ ;"

And I submit that in so doing, it is his duty to bring this Resolution 2231 abomination before the International Court of Justice calling for its being recognized as void upon conclusion for its multiple repugnant infringements; on the grounds of those violations and that this petition is made in defense of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty and the _Charter of the United Nations_ treaty, both of which are made under the Authority of the Constitution; and thereby, in defense of the United States Constitution.

Acquiescence to the terms of the Resolution with a view to placating the belligerent States is out of the question; and resort to gunfire is not the way. The Court is the way to put the thing most effectively out of business; and it is on the way back on to the paths of justice and peace.

The President doesn't need an Act of Congress to carry out this duty to defend the Constitution mandated to the Executive Branch; this duty to confront the menace as dangerous as the anticipated physical assault precipitated by ignoring the obligation – and it doesn't matter what the avaricious of Congress would have to say about it; any complaint out of that narrow gang of corporate weapons interest stooges and lackey slipper-sniffers in control of the Congress is notwithstanding in this affair.

The treaties referred to above are the true reflection of the moral conscience and consciousness of the overwhelming majority of the electorate;

And the treaties referred to above are made under the Authority of the United States and are thereby each a part of the supreme Law of the Land – and to violate them is repugnant to the Constitution;

Yet the Obama party Democrats want to return the United States to participation in the Resolution 2231 agreement without the text of the resolution ever being put before the Congress for scrutiny or a vote; this deal which violates treaty and compels the United States Government to participate in assist Iran with its preparations for its pledged waging of war of aggression, war of annihilation in violation of treaty and international assurances. Reviewing the definition of _Crimes against Peace_ :

(a) **Crimes against Peace**. Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties, including but not limited to planning, **preparation** , initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war of violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, **or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing**.

[UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: Trials of War Criminals Before The Nuernberg Military Tribunals; Nuernberg, October 1946-April 1949 Volume III: page XIX]

There is a great danger of a deep and consequential violation of international trust if Iran develops the bomb under the protection of the Five Permanent Member States of the Security Council.

This could easily lead to the dissolution of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as signatories perceive that the treaty is no longer functionally controlling;

And that they must now take defensive matters into their hands; because the United Nations itself has become sponsor and staging area of the outrage.

The first clause of the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares:

We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined...

...to save succeeding generations from the pestilence of war, which twice in the space of a human lifetime has brought unspeakable sorrow upon the humankind...

The cynicism set in – and the leaderships of the great arms dealing nations of the world: the United States, France, Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom and China, all got together and warped the understanding; and converted the ideal into the more fitting temporal use of our day; renovating the platform to serve as an utilitarian arms dealing, quarter-mastering logistics center dedicated to bettering the development of nuclear weapons capacity in one favorite erstwhile non-nuclear-weapons-State.

* * * * *
Chapter 15

Appendix 1 – Excerpt of inventory listed on Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex

01] [[01b]

Following is an excerpt of the inventories listed on the _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ :

Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex

CATEGORY I -ITEM 1

COMPLETE DELIVERY SYSTEMS

1.A.1. Complete rocket systems (including ballistic missile systems, space launch vehicles, and sounding rockets) (≥300km "range" & ≥500kg "payload")

1.A.2. Complete unmanned aerial vehicle systems (UAVs) (including cruise missile systems, target drones and reconnaissance drones) (≥300km "range" & ≥500kg "payload")

1.B.1. "Production facilities"

1.D.1. "Software"

1.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY I -ITEM 2

COMPLETE SUBSYSTEMS USABLE FOR COMPLETE DELIVERY SYSTEMS

2.A.1. "Complete subsystems"

2.B.1. "Production facilities"

2.B.2. "Production equipment"

2.D.1. "Software"

2.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 3

PROPULSION COMPONENTS AND EQUIPMENT

3.A.1. Turbojet and turbofan engines

3.A.2. Ramjet/scramjet/pulse jet/combined cycle engines

3.A.3. Rocket motor cases, 'insulation' components and nozzles

3.A.4. Staging mechanisms, separation mechanisms and interstages

3.A.5. Liquid and slurry propellant (including oxidisers) control systems

3.A.6. Hybrid rocket motors

3.A.7. Radial ball bearings

3.A.8. Liquid propellant tanks

3.A.9. Turboprop engine systems

3.A.10. Combustion chambers

3.B.1. "Production facilities"

3.B.2. "Production equipment"

3.B.3. Flow-forming machines

3.C.1. 'Interior lining' usable for rocket motor cases

3.C.2. 'Insulation' material in bulk form usable for rocket motor cases

3.D.1. "Software"

3.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 4

PROPELLANTS, CHEMICALS AND PROPELLANT PRODUCTION

4.A. None

4.B.1. "Production equipment"

4.B.2. "Production equipment"

4.B.3. a. Batch mixers

4.B.3. b. Continuous mixers

4.B.3. c. Fluid energy mills

4.B.3. d. Metal powder "production equipment"

4.C.1. Composite and composite modified double base propellants

4.C.2. Fuel substances

4.C.2. a. Hydrazine

4.C.2. b. Hydrazine derivatives

4.C.2. c. Spherical aluminium powder

4.C.2. d. Zirconium, beryllium, magnesium and alloys

4.C.2. e. Boron and boron alloys

4.C.2. f. High energy density materials

4.C.3. Perchlorates, chlorates or chromates

4.C.4. a. Oxidiser substances –liquid propellant rocket engines

4.C.4. b. Oxidiser substances –solid propellant rocket motors

4.C.5. Polymeric substances

4.C.6. Other propellant additives and agents

4.C.6. a. Bonding agents

4.C.6. b. Curing reaction catalysts

4.C.6. c. Burning rate modifiers

4.C.6. d. Esters and plasticisers

4.C.6. e. Stabilisers

4.D.1. "Software"

4.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 6

PRODUCTION OF STRUCTURAL COMPOSITES, PYROLYTIC DEPOSITION AND DENSIFICATION, AND STRUCTURAL MATERIALS

6.A.1. Composite structures, laminates and manufactures thereof

6.A.2. Resaturated pyrolised materials

6.B.1. a. Filament winding machines or fibre placement machines

6.B.1. b. Tape-laying machines

6.B.1. c. Multi-directional, multi-dimensional weaving machines or interlacing machines

6.B.1. d. Equipment designed or modified for the production of fibrous or filamentary materials

6.B.1. e. Equipment designed or modified for special fibre surface treatment

6.B.2. Nozzles

6.B.3. Isostatic presses

6.B.4. Chemical vapour deposition furnaces

6.B.5. Equipment and controls for the densification and pyrolysis process

6.C.1. Resin impregnated fibre prepregs and metal coated fibre preforms

6.C.2. Resaturated pyrolised materials

6.C.3. Fine grain graphites

6.C.4. Pyrolytic or fibrous reinforced graphites

6.C.5. Ceramic composite materials for missile radomes

6.C.6. Silicon-carbide materials

6.C.7. Tungsten molybdenum and alloys

6.C.8. Maraging steel

6.C.9. Titanium-stabilized duplex stainless steel

6.D.1. "Software"

6.E.1. "Technology"

6.E.2. "Technical data"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 9

INSTRUMENTATION, NAVIGATION AND DIRECTION FINDING

9.A.1. Integrated flight instrument systems

9.A.2. Gyro-astro compasses

9.A.3. Linear accelerometers

9.A.4. All types of gyros

9.A.5. Accelerometers or gyros

9.A.6. Inertial or other equipment

9.A.7. 'Integrated navigation systems'

9.A.8. Three axis magnetic heading sensors

9.B.1. "Production equipment", and other test, calibration and alignment equipment

9.B.2. a. Balancing machines

9.B.2. b. Indicator heads

9.B.2. c. Motion simulators/rate tables

9.B.2. d. Positioning tables

9.B.2. e. Centrifuges

9.D.1. "Software"

9.D.2. Integration "Software"

9.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 10

FLIGHT CONTROL

10.A.1. Hydraulic, mechanical, electro-optical or electromechanical flight control systems

10.A.2. Attitude control equipment

10.A.3. Flight control servo-valves

10.B.1. Test calibration and alignment equipment

10.C. None

10.D.1. "Software"

10.E.1. Design "technology" for integration of air vehicle fuselage, propulsion system and lifting control surfaces

10.E.2. Design "technology" for integration of the flight control, guidance, and propulsion data into a flight management system

10.E.3. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 11

AVIONICS

11.A.1. Radar and laser radar systems including altimeters

11.A.2. Passive sensors

11.A.3. Receiving equipment GNSS e.g. GPS,

GLONASS or Galileo

11.A.4. Electronic assemblies and components

11.A.5. Umbilical and interstage electrical connectors

11.D.1. "Software"

11.E.1. Design "technology"

11.E.2. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 12

LAUNCH SUPPORT

12.A.1. Apparatus and devices

12.A.2. Vehicles

12.A.3. Gravity meters (gravimeters), gravity gradiometers

12.A.4. Telemetry and telecontrol equipment, including ground equipment

12.A.5. Precision tracking systems

12.A.5. a. Tracking Systems

12.A.5. b. Range instrumentation radars

12.A.6. Thermal Batteries

12.D.1. "Software"

12.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 15

TEST FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

15.B.1. Vibration test equipment

15.B.1. a. Vibration test systems

15.B.1. b. Digital controllers [continued]

15.B.1. c. Vibration thrusters (shaker units)

15.B.1. d. Test piece support structures and electronic units

15.B.2. Wind-tunnels

15.B.3. Test benches/stands

15.B.4. Environmental chambers

15.B.5. Accelerators

15.D.1. "Software"

15.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 16

MODELLING-SIMULATION AND DESIGN INTEGRATION

16.A.1. Hybrid (combined analogue/digital) computers

16.D.1. "Software"

16.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 17

STEALTH

17.A.1. Devices for reduced observables – such as radar reflectivity, ultraviolet/infrared signatures and acoustic signatures (i.e. stealth technology), for applications usable for the systems specified in 1.A. or 19.A. or the subsystems specified in 2.A. or 20.A.

17.B.1. Systems specially designed for radar cross section measurement

17.C.1. Materials for reduced observables – such as radar reflectivity, ultraviolet/infrared signatures and acoustic signatures (i.e. stealth technology), for applications usable for the systems specified in 1.A. or 19.A. or the subsystems specified in 2.A.

CATEGORY II -ITEM 18

NUCLEAR EFFECTS PROTECTION

18.A.1. "Radiation Hardened" "microcircuits"

18.A.2. 'Detectors'

18.A.3. Radomes

18.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 19

OTHER COMPLETE DELIVERY SYSTEMS

19.A.1. Complete rocket systems (≥ 300km range)

19.A.2. Complete UAV systems (≥ 300km range)

19.A.3. Complete UAV systems

19.B.1. "Production facilities"

19.D.1. "Software"

19.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 20

OTHER COMPLETE SUBSYSTEMS

20.A.1. a. Individual rocket stages

20.A.1. b. Solid propellant rocket motors, hybrid rocket motors or liquid propellant rocket engines

20.B.1. "Production facilities"

20.B.2. "Production equipment"

There's more to that list – but that should give the reader a pretty good idea that a substantial part of the E3/EU+3 Iran, Resolution 2231 is about promising technological support to a weapons development program; all the while claiming that this whole arrangement is deeply concerned only with promoting the "exclusively" peaceful development of nuclear energy – and could never possibly have anything to do with any impure motives like arms trade profiteering.

THE MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME – Equipment, Software and Technology Annex is a general lexicon of 21st century weaponry, primarily dealing with ballistic missiles and delivery systems; and with other weapons technologies associated with ballistic missiles. This list was developed by the international Missile Technology Control Regime association. The Equipment, Software and Technology Annex was assembled as a list of weapons inventory the M.T.C.R. association considers should be controlled.

The Missile Technology Control Regime (M.T.C.R.) itself is a voluntary association of (currently) 34 member States joining together to establish and promote guidelines coordinating national export licensing efforts aimed at containing and restraining the proliferation of specific weapons war. The M.T.C.R. is not affiliated with the United Nations, but its members may also be United Nations members. All five of the Nuclear Weapons Nations (United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China) as well as Germany are all members of this association; the Islamic Republic of Iran is not.

For a more detailed description of the association's purpose and activities the interested reader may refer to the Missile Technology Control Regime website: http://www.mtcr.info/english/The Missile Technology Control Regime; or, possibly better, http://www.mtcr.info/.

The _Missile Technology Control Regime – Equipment, Software And Technology Annex_ does not correspond to the weapons inventory of any particular nation – rather, as mentioned, is a general lexicon of 21st century weaponry that the M.T.C.R. association considers should be controlled; and that great care and restraint should be exhibited when considering the import, export, sale or transfer of the listed inventory. The M.T.C.R. has established suggested common export policy guidelines (the MTCR Guidelines). These are non-binding legally, but may serve to be taken into account when developing export / import regulations regarding the list of voluntarily controlled items presented in the M.T.C.R. Equipment, Software and Technology Annex.

The E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel agreement, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, utilizes the M.T.C.R. Equipment, Software and Technology Annex for a use other than for which it was initially intended. It is used in the arrangement between Iran and the E3/EU+3 as a convenient shopping list which the Islamic Republic of Iran is to be given access to, on a case-by-case, basis as of 16 January 2016, and full access to some eight years after. The use of the Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex by the E3/EU+3 Iran Project resembles the Cartel's employment of the International Atomic Energy Agency INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a list.

* * * * *
Chapter 16

– Appendix 2 – The Procurement Working Group and its mandate to expedite Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories –

] [[02b]

Fundamental United States policy regarding nuclear weapons is established in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty – (NPT)); a treaty developed jointly by the then Soviet Union and the United States – subsequently approved by the Senate and signed into law as a part supreme Law of the Land per 2nd Clause, Article VI of the United States Constitution...

The provisions detailing the activities and mandate of the Procurement Working Group are laid out in JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission; a sub-Annex of Annex A: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is itself an Annex of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) – S/RES/2231 (2015) is presented below. Here then, is the authentic, accepted plan for expediting Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons associated assets as put forward by the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement expediting – beginning with paragraph 6 of Annex IV:

Resolution 2231;

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission

6. Procurement Working Group

6.1. With the purpose of establishing a procurement channel, the Joint Commission will,...decide on proposals by states seeking to engage in:

6.1.1. the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to, or for the use in or benefit of, Iran, and whether or not originating in their territories, of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1, and, if the end-use will be for Iran's nuclear programme set out in this JCPOA or other non-nuclear civilian end-use, all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 (or the most recent version of these documents as updated by the Security Council), as well as any further items if the relevant State determines that they could contribute to activities inconsistent with the JCPOA; and,

6.1.2. the provision to Iran of any technical assistance or training, financial assistance, investment, brokering or other services related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, or use of the items, materials, equipment, goods and technology described in subparagraph (a) above ;

6.1.6. Except as decided otherwise by consensus, the Procurement Working Group will meet every three weeks for reviewing the proposals. When some of the proposals to be reviewed relate to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA, the IAEA may be invited to attend the meeting as an observer.

6.2. The Joint Commission will discharge its responsibility for reviewing and making recommendations on proposals for nuclear-related transfers to or activities with Iran through a Procurement Working Group.

6.3. Each E3+3 State and Iran will participate in the Procurement Working Group. The High Representative [of the European Union] will serve as the Coordinator of the Procurement Working Group.

6.4.... the Procurement Working Group will consider proposals according to the following process:

6.4.1. Upon receipt of a proposal, including all necessary supporting information, by a State seeking to engage in transfers and activities referenced in Section 6.1, the Coordinator [of the Joint Commission] will forward the proposal, through appropriate means, without delay to the Procurement Working Group and, when the proposal relates to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA, to the IAEA. The Procurement Working Group will have up to 30 working days to consider and decide on the proposal.

6.4.3. Each participant in the Procurement Working Group will have to communicate to the Coordinator, within 20 working days, whether it approves or rejects the proposal. The timeline for consideration may be extended for an additional period of 10 working days at the request of a participant of the Procurement Working Group.

6.4.4. The proposal will be recommended for approval as soon as the Coordinator receives formal approvals from all the Procurement Working Group Participants or if, at the end of the 30 working day period, the Coordinator has received no disapprovals from any of the Procurement Working Group Participants. If at the end of the 30 working day period, the proposal has not been recommended for approval, the proposal may, at the request of at least two Working Group Participants within 5 working days, be referred to the Joint Commission, which would decide on approval of the proposal by consensus within 10 working days. Otherwise the proposal will be recommended for disapproval. The disapproving JCPOA participant(s) should provide relevant information regarding the disapproval to the Joint Commission as appropriate, taking into account the need to protect confidential information.

6.4.5. The Coordinator will communicate the recommendation of the Joint Commission to the United Nations Security Council no later than 35 working days, or in case of referral to the Joint Commission no later than 45 working days from the date the Coordinator transmitted the proposal and all necessary supporting information to the Procurement Working Group.

Oddly, the JCPOA itself doesn't mention anything about the Security Council taking part in this decision making process concerning what gets sent to Iran. Effectively the Security Council's role in this matter could be described as, at best, peripheral – but where is there any mention of that peripheral role?

Resolution 2231, section _JCPOA Implementation_ paragraph 16 (not to be confused as part of the Annex A: JCPOA; this section appears towards the beginning of Resolution 2231) tersely mentions the part that the Security Council plays in this decision making process, stipulating that:

16. [the Security Council] _Decides_ , acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, to review recommendations of the Joint Commission regarding proposals by States to participate in or permit nuclear-related activities set forth in paragraph 2 of Annex B, and that such recommendations shall be deemed to be approved unless the Security Council adopts a resolution to reject a Joint Commission recommendation within five working days of receiving it;

The description of the Procurement Working Group thus far has reached a certain level of complexity; naturally a flow chart, at this point, is in order to help clarify the process:

It is worth noting that once the determination to violate treaty has been made by the recruits stationed around the Procurement Working Group worktable; the entire body of the Security Council, under this system, has five working days to mount a defense against the violation of treaty endorsed by those recruits.

The Security Council has five days to put forward a proposal to reject the violation of treaty endorsed by the recruits of the institutionalized Procurement Working Group. If one of the five permanent members of the Security Council decides to uphold the violation of treaty recommended by the recruited staff of the Procurement Working Group – and veto any resolution against the Procurement Working Group decision; then the choice of the Procurement Working Group recruits to render the judicial decision to violate peremptory norm of general international law; to violate international treaty signed on to by a multitude of nations – that choice of the Procurement Working Group stands in force.

* * * * *
Chapter 17

– Appendix 3 – Excerpt of the contents of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a inventory list. (Nuclear weapons associated inventories Iran is entitled to acquire under Resolution 2231.) –

[]

This following is an excerpt – the complete list is found at: INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA), INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; part 2 (12 November 2013), https://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/infcircs/purpose-series-documents

Or as an alternate source: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1978/infcirc254r9p2.pdf [last accessed: May 9, 2016]

International Atomic Energy Agency; [information Circular] INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a

Annex – List of Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Materials, Software, And Related Technology

ANNEX CONTENTS

5. Test and Measurement Equipment for the Development of Nuclear Explosive Devices

5.B. TEST AND PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT

5.B.1. Flash X-ray generators or pulsed electron accelerators 5 – 1

5.B.2. High-velocity gun systems

5.B.3. High speed cameras and imaging devices

5.B.5. Specialized instrumentation for hydrodynamic experiments

5.B.6. High-speed pulse generators

5.B.7. High explosive containment vessels

5.D. SOFTWARE

5.D.1. "Software" or encryption keys/codes specially designed to enhance or release the performance characteristics of equipment not controlled in Item 5.B.3. so that it meets or exceeds the characteristics specified in Item 5.B.3.

5.D.2. "Software" or encryption keys/codes specially designed to enhance or release the performance characteristics of equipment controlled in Item 5.B.3.

5.E. TECHNOLOGY

5.E.1. "Technology" according to the Technology Controls for the "development", "production" or "use" of equipment, material or "software" specified in 5.A. through 5.D.

6. Components for Nuclear Explosive Devices

6.A. EQUIPMENT, ASSEMBLIES AND COMPONENTS

6.A.1. Detonators and multipoint initiation systems

6.A.2. Firing sets and equivalent high-current pulse generators

6.A.3. Switching devices

6.A.4. Pulse discharge capacitors

6.A.5. Neutron generator systems

6.A.6. Striplines

6.B. TEST AND PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT

6.C. MATERIALS

6.C.1. High explosive substances or mixtures,

6.E. TECHNOLOGY 6 – 4

6.E.1. "Technology" according to the Technology Controls for the "development","production" or "use" of equipment, material or "software"

These are examples of some of the inventory found in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; but to understand a little of what is meant by the above we must look at some definitions:

IAEA Information Circular INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a (Date: 13 November 2013) ;

DEFINITIONS

"Development" --

is related to all phases before "production" such as:

• design

• design research

• design analysis

• design concepts

• assembly and testing of prototypes

• pilot production schemes

• design data

• process of transforming design data into a product

• configuration design

• integration design

• layouts

"Production" --

means all production phases such as:

• construction

• production engineering

• manufacture

• integration

• assembly (mounting)

• inspection

• testing

• quality assurance

"Technical assistance" --

"Technical assistance" may take forms such as: instruction, skills, training, working knowledge, consulting services.

Note: "Technical assistance" may involve transfer of "technical data".

"Technical data" --

"Technical data" may take forms such as blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on other media or devices such as disk, tape, read-only memories.

"Technology" --

means specific information required for the "development", "production", or "use" of any item contained in the List. This information may take the form of "technical data" or "technical assistance".

*[ INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA), INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; part 2 (12 November 2013), https://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/infcircs/purpose-series-documents \- or as an alternate https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1978/infcirc254r9p2.pdf [last accessed: May 9, 2016]]

The above is a partial list, giving a sense of the kinds of nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies, training and support services the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel.

The list of nuclear weapons associated inventories from which the United Nations pledges to expedite procurement of to the benefit of the discretion of use ultimately to be decided upon by the Sovereign Government of Iran – has been identified; and a sense of some of the classes of inventories has been presented.

* * * * *
Chapter 18

– Appendix 4 – Secrecy arrangement concerning Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories –

[]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 secrecy arrangements favoring Iranian acquisition of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed assets make it impossible for anyone on the outside to really know what is being acquired and when.

Iranian procurement activities are overseen by an arm of the Joint Commission – the Procurement Working Group. The secrecy surrounding the operations of the Procurement Working Group is described as follows:

United States of America: draft resolution July 17, 2015 (S/2015/547);

JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission

3. Procedures

3.4. Except as provided in Section 6 of this Annex which will be subject to the confidentiality procedure of the UN, the work of the Joint Commission is confidential and may be shared only among JCPOA participants and observers as appropriate, unless the Joint Commission decides otherwise.

The above explains that the work of the Joint Commission is confidential; and that the work discussed in Section 6 of Annex IV is "subject to the confidentiality procedure of the UN." The confidentiality procedure is of a much higher standard than the mere status of something being considered as confidential.

Section 6 refers to the functions and procedures of the Procurement Working Group. The Working Group carries out its work under the standard of secrecy of the confidentiality procedure of the UN. The current definition of this U.N. confidentiality standard is found in the U.N. document, document number ST/SGB/2007/6; Secretary-General's bulletin; Information sensitivity, classification and handling; (February 12, 2007): and can be located at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/235/79/PDF/N0723579.pdf?OpenElement

The Bulletin's Section 5 – Handling of classified information gives a sense of the strict security surrounding the Procurement Working Group's activities. Documents are to be kept under lock and key in a secured location; any duplication of documents is tightly controlled – and logged if copied; transmission of documents must be sealed and clearly marked as classified, the addressee and sender is clearly stated, etc.; all transmissions are duly recorded, logged; and there are the various other aspects of strict document controls that are described in the bulletin. And, of course, no one from the office is to divulge any knowledge of what they might have thought they had read or heard somewhere. Here are some examples from Section 5, just to give an idea:

United Nations Secretariat – Document Number ST/SGB/2007/6

12 February 2007

Secretary-General's bulletin

Information sensitivity, classification and handling

*Section 1

Classification principles

1.1 The overall approach to classifying information entrusted to or originating from the United Nations is based on the understanding that the work of the United Nations should be open and transparent, except insofar as the nature of information concerned is deemed confidential in accordance with the guidelines set out in the present bulletin...

*Section 5

Handling of classified information

5.1 Heads of departments or offices shall ensure that the following minimal standards are maintained in the handling of classified information received by or originating from their department or office:

(a) All classified information must be transported in sealed envelopes or containers, and clearly marked as such;

(b) All outgoing and incoming classified information must be recorded in a special registry that lists the staff members who are authorized to handle such information;

(c) Classified materials may be duplicated only with the authorization of either their originator or the head of the receiving or originating department or office, and such copies must be entered in the special registry;

(d) All classified information must be filed and stored under lock and key in a secure location within the department or office concerned, accessible only to the authorized staff members;

And it goes on from there with more detail. If anyone is particularly interested the document is freely presented by the United Nations at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/235/79/PDF/N0723579.pdf?OpenElement.

* * * * *
Chapter 19

– Appendix 5 – The Procurement Working Group mandate to prohibit the International Atomic Energy Agency from discovering, investigating, or reporting on Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated assets listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a – this in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT); Article III; first clause –

[]

What is allowed and what is not allowed as far as concerns IAEA Participation in review of nuclear related assets acquired by Iran is detailed in the JCPOA as follows:

Resolution 2231;

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission

6.2. The Joint Commission will discharge its responsibility for reviewing and making recommendations on proposals for nuclear-related transfers to or activities with Iran through a Procurement Working Group.

6.4. Except as otherwise provided by the Joint Commission or the United Nations Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA, the Procurement Working Group will consider proposals according to the following process:

6.4.1 Upon receipt of a proposal, including all necessary supporting information, by a State seeking to engage in transfers and activities referenced in Section 6.1, the Coordinator will forward the proposal, through appropriate means, without delay to the Procurement Working Group and, when the proposal relates to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA, to the IAEA..:

As a concession to the IAEA, the Agency is informed as to the contents of a proposal when such proposal "... relates to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA...;" which, as it turns out, means when a proposal has nothing to do with nuclear weapons associated INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories.

6.1.6....When some of the proposals to be reviewed relate to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA, the IAEA may be invited to attend the meeting as an observer.

A clearer sense of which meetings the IAEA is authorized to attend, as opposed to not authorized, begins to take on more defined shape upon a bit further examination of later provisions of paragraph six with its subs and sub-subs:

6.7. Iran will provide to the IAEA access to the locations of intended use of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1 (or the most recent version of these documents as updated by the Security Council) imported following the procedure under Section 6 of this Annex.

6.8. Iran will permit the exporting state to verify the end-use of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 (or the most recent version of these documents as updated by the Security Council) imported following the procedure under Section 6 of this Annex. Upon request of the exporting state, or if the Joint Commission deems necessary when approving a proposal for transfer, the Joint Commission will provide expertise to the exporting state, including experts, as needed, to participate in the end-use verification.

The IAEA document INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1; unlike INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; refers to components and technologies associated specifically with nuclear energy production.

Sub paragraph 6.7 says the IAEA can hang around and check out the lay of the land – the end uses and end use locations of any goods and technology, any inventory, procured from the INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1.

When it comes to Iranian acquisitions from the prominent, nuclear weapons related inventories listed of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a, the IAEA is dropped from the picture; the Oligarchy authors of the arrangement leave out mention of anything about the IAEA being invited to drop in for inspection time.

It being the case therefore, that IAEA is explicitly not allowed in either to meetings, and is not explicitly granted authority to confirm end-use location of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories – one might ask if the IAEA is allowed to inspect this anyway.

Paragraph 26 of Resolution 2231 – Annex A: JCPOA – section SANCTIONS informs us of the following:

26. ...There will be no new nuclear-related UN Security Council sanctions and no new EU nuclear-related sanctions or restrictive measures. The United States will make best efforts in good faith to sustain this JCPOA and to prevent interference with the realisation of the full benefit by Iran of the sanctions lifting specified in Annex II. The U.S. Administration... will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. **Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part**.

Any attempt to insist – after the fait accompli – that the IAEA suddenly should be given access to meetings relating to; or given applicable knowledge of end-use or end-use location whereabouts of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons related inventories listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; anything like that could justifiably be understood as an attempt to sabotage the E3/EU+3 Iran arrangement effort by imposing a new nuclear related restriction, or restrictive measure.

Note: All participating Parties to the negotiation and concluded arrangement were united in their approval over what had been agreed upon.

It must also be noted that All Parties signatory to the NPT agree that it is the International Atomic Energy Agency that has the duty, the obligation, the responsibility and the mandate to verify that there is no "... diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices," as follows under the first clause of Article III of the NPT – or to report otherwise:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices...

* * * * *
Chapter 20

– Appendix 6 – IAEA Statement of Purpose: INFCIRC/254/Rev.##/Part 2 –

[]

What is allowed and what is not allowed as far as concerns IAEA Participation in review of nuclear related assets acquired by Iran is detailed in the JCPOA as follows:

Below is the Statement of purpose the International Atomic Energy Agency has declared concerning this INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a list of inventories the Agency itself had put together:

IAEA Information Circular INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a (Date: 13 November 2013);

GUIDELINES FOR TRANSFERS OF NUCLEAR-RELATED DUAL-USE EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED TECHNOLOGY*

OBJECTIVE

1. With the objective of averting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and preventing acts of nuclear terrorism, suppliers have had under consideration procedures in relation to the transfer of certain equipment, materials, software, and related technology that could make a major contribution to a "nuclear explosive activity," an "unsafeguarded nuclear fuel-cycle activity" or acts of nuclear terrorism. In this connection, suppliers have agreed on the following principles, common definitions, and an export control list of equipment, materials, software, and related technology. Suppliers intend to implement the Guidelines in accordance with national legislation and relevant international commitments.

And some of the Basic Principles are:

BASIC PRINCIPLE

2. Suppliers should not authorize transfers of equipment, materials, software, or related technology identified in the Annex:

– for use in a non-nuclear-weapon state in a nuclear explosive activity or

– in general, when there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to such an activity, or when the transfers are contrary to the objective of averting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or

– when there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to acts of nuclear terrorism.

*[ INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA), INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; part 2 (12 November 2013), https://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/infcircs/purpose-series-documents \- or as an alternate https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1978/infcirc254r9p2.pdf [last accessed: May 9, 2016]]

The Security Council asserts its claim that Security Council has the authority to declare any of its decisions, at any time, to be an exception to any accepted rule made under the authority of the Charter of the United Nations. The Council presented a fabricated misrepresentation of Charter of the United Nations Article 25; which the resolution idiotically submits in its clause 14 of the introduction to Resolution 2231:

* * * * *
Chapter 21

– Appendix 7 – Official United Nations six-month releases informing of Procurement Working Group activities, noting the quantities of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories acquired by Iran –

[]

As of JCPOA Implementation Day, 16 January 2016 was allowed, upon approval of the Procurement Working Group – Joint Commission, and acceptance by the Security Council, the acquire INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories.

Procurement activities began only as of October 2016. From November 2016 – towards the end of Barack Obama's term in office – through December 2017, fifteen such procurement proposals for items listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a have been approved. The following are the relevant excerpts from the United Nations Security Council Six-month reports of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015) which verify the Security Council approvals of such Iranian acquisitions:

_Second six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)_ [18 January 2017].

The English Language version is found on the United Nations website at: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2017/49&Lang=E

_Third six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)_ [27 June 2017]

_Fourth six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)_ [15 December 2017]

All of these can be found on the same page: <http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/briefings-by-the-facilitator.shtml>

Following is the relevant excerpt from the Second sixth month report:

Second six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015) [18 January 2017]

V. Procurement channel approval, notifications and exemptions

18. The procurement channel processed five proposals to participate in or permit the activities set forth in paragraph 2 of annex B to resolution 2231 (2015) that had been submitted by two Member States to the Security Council for approval. In accordance with paragraph 8 (b) of the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2016/44), the proposals were immediately forwarded to the Joint Commission for its review.

19. Two proposals for the supply of items, material, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 were submitted to the Security Council on 6 October 2016. The Joint Commission provided recommendations of approval. The two proposals were subsequently approved by the Council on 17 November 2016. One proposal for the supply of items, material, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1 was submitted to the Council on 15 November. The Joint Commission provided a recommendation of approval. The proposal was approved by the Council on 28 December. Two proposals for the supply of items, material, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 were submitted to the Council on 6 December. These proposals are currently under review by the Joint Commission.

20. On 23 December 2016, the Coordinator of the Procurement Working Group transmitted to the Facilitator of resolution 2231 (2015) the second six-month report of the Joint Commission (S/2016/1113), in accordance with paragraph 6.10 of annex IV to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reflecting the activities performed during the said six-month reporting period..

Paragraph 20 informs us that the Procurement Working Group transmitted to the Facilitator of resolution 2231 (2015) the second six-month Report of the Joint Commission to the United Nations Security Council on the status of the Procurement Working Group's decisions and on any implementation issues. This document (S/2016/1113) gives some further insight into what the Procurement Working Group had been up to in the last six months of 2016. The report advises that it "... _provides an overview of the work undertaken by the Procurement Working Group from 7 July to 22 December 2016_."

Report of the Joint Commission to the United Nations Security Council on the status of the Procurement Working Group's decisions and on any implementation issues (Doc. S/2016/1113) – [23 December 2016]

V. Procurement channel approval, notifications and exemptions

2. During the reporting period, the Procurement Working Group — comprising the States that are participants in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, with a designated representative of the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy serving as Coordinator — held six meetings. Representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency participated as observers in one of the meetings. The Procurement Working Group reviewed five proposals from two States. Three of the proposals were recommended for approval. The rest are currently under review.

The above paragraph 2 of the Joint Commission report speaks of six meetings held, with the IAEA being allowed to attend only one of them. Of five proposals submitted by two separate States, two are under review, three were approved.

Paragraph 19 of the Facilitator's report tells us that of the five proposals submitted only one was related to items listed on the INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1 document which deals primarily with components for nuclear reactors. Paragraph 2 above tells us that, coincidentally, the IAEA had attended only one of the meetings of the Procurement Working Group.

THE THIRD REPORT informs that five more INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a related proposals were also approved – bringing the total of nuclear weapons related proposals up to nine:

Third six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015) [27 June 2017]

IV. Procurement channel approval, notifications and exemptions

25. The Joint Commission provided a recommendation of approval for the two proposals that had been submitted to the Security Council in December 2016 and were still under consideration at the date of issuance of my previous report. The two proposals were subsequently approved by the Council.

26 During the reporting period, 10 new proposals for the supply of items, material, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 were submitted to the Security Council, including 2 for temporary export for the purposes of demonstration and display in an exhibition. Five of those proposals have been approved, one has been withdrawn and four are currently under review by the Joint Commission.

THE FOURTH REPORT informs that four more INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a related proposals were also approved – bringing the total of nuclear weapons related proposals up to thirteen through 2017:

Fourth six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015) [15 December 2017]

IV. Procurement channel approval, notifications and exemptions

29. During the reporting period, eight new proposals for the supply of items, material, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 were submitted to the Security Council. Four of these proposals have been approved, two have been rejected and two have been withdrawn.

30. In addition, the Security Council approved two and rejected one of the four proposals that were still under consideration at the date of issuance of my previous report (S/2017/537). The fourth proposal has been withdrawn.

31. Since Implementation Day, a total of 24 proposals to participate in or permit the activities set forth in paragraph 2 of annex B to resolution 2231 (2015) have been, submitted to the Security Council by four Member States from three different regional groups, including States that are not participants in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

In all, through end of year 2017 – thirteen proposals having to do with Iranian INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories have been approved. 24 proposals had been submitted altogether.

IAEA Board of Governor reports (listed further below) throughout the same period indicate that the IAEA has been allowed to attend only 4 of those meetings. Clearly the IAEA is being kept away from the major portion of what goes on in terms of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear related goods:

THE FIFTH REPORT informs that the Procurement Working Group has approved eight more procurement proposals; However, the new Facilitator, _Karel J.G. van Oosterom_ , has insinuated for himself a new reporting policy – Mr. van Oosterom had now decided that the Security Council no longer found it suitable, at this juncture, to differentiate between and report a comparison of the number of nuclear energy related approvals of nuclear energy related procurement applications; and the number of weapons related approvals of procurement applications.

It would appear almost as if there is some sense of embarrassment, and perhaps a touch of the guilty conscience beginning to sink in around the Security Council snack bar lounging areas (one might at least hope).

Fifth six-month report of the Facilitator on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015) [15 December 2017]

IV. Procurement channel approval, notifications and exemptions

23. During the reporting period, 13 new proposals for the supply of items, material, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.13/Part 1 or INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 were submitted to the Security Council. Eight of those proposals have been approved, two have been withdrawn and three are currently under review.

24. Since Implementation Day, a total of 37 proposals to participate in or permit the activities set forth in paragraph 2 of annex B to resolution 2231 (2015) have been submitted to the Security Council by five Member States from three different regional groups, including States that are not participants in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. To date, of the 34 proposals that have been processed, 24 have been approved, 3 have been disapproved, and 7 have been withdrawn. On average, the proposals were processed through the procurement channel in less than 51 calendar days. After the withdrawal of the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, including the Procurement Working Group, the procurement channel has continued to function and the Joint Commission has continued to review proposals..

It is worth noting that in this fifth report, as indicated; the new Security Council Facilitator for the implementation of resolution 2231 (2015), _Karel J.G. van Oosterom_ ; unlike his predecessor _Sebastiano Cardi_ ; does not differentiate between Procurement Working Group approvals of Iranian acquisition from the INFCIRC/254/Rev.13/Part 1 (nuclear energy related) list of inventories; and approvals of INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 (nuclear weapons related) acquisitions.

However; the Joint Commission / Procurement Working Group also transmits a very brief six month report which gives a tiny bit more information on the subject of approvals. The Joint Commission Report also does not differentiate between the two lists. But it does reveal how many Procurement Working Group meetings were held, how may proposal were submitted, approved, or are under review;

And it does tell how many meetings the IAEA was allowed to attend. We know from the JCPOA that the International Atomic Energy Agency is not allowed to sit in on meetings pertaining to INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2; now become INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 as these refer to nuclear weapons associated assets which the International Atomic Energy Agency is prohibited any knowledge of under the JCPOA arrangement invented mostly between the Obama administration and the Ministers of the Government of Iran.

(Incidentally, the IAEA Board of Governors Reports also mentions how many meeting the IAEA has been allowed to attend. However, the IAEA doesn't seem to know how many meetings total had been held, and so doesn't know what it might have been missing.)

Following is what the Joint Commission has to say for itself in the reporting period referred to:

Report of the Joint Commission to the United Nations Security Council on the status of the Procurement Working Group's decisions and on any implementation issues (Doc. S/2018/601) – [14 June 2018]

3. The Procurement Working Group held seven meetings. Representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency participated as observers in one of the meetings. The Procurement Working Group reviewed 13 proposals from three States: 8 were recommended for approval, 2 were withdrawn by the proposing States and 3 are currently under review.

* * * * *

These following are relevant excerpts of IAEA Board of Governor reports from September 2016 through May 2018. These cover the time period around when the Procurement Working Group got started reviewing and approving applications for Iranian procurement of nuclear weapons associated INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 listed; later become nuclear weapons associated INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 listed inventories.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is invited only to attend Procurement Working Group meetings which discuss issues relating to nuclear power production. The IAEA is precluded from attending meetings which discuss proposals relating to sales to Iran of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 listed, or INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 listed nuclear weapons associated assets.

Note that the International Atomic Energy Agency is prevented from attending most Procurement Working Group meetings. This gives some sense that nuclear weapons associated assets form the majority of Iranian material acquisitions through the Procurement Working Group.

IAEA – BOARD OF GOVERNORS

GOV/2016/46 – Date: 8 September 2016

E. Other Relevant Information

22. During this reporting period, the Agency has not attended meetings of the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission (JCPOA, Annex IV – Joint Commission, para. 6.4.6).

IAEA – BOARD OF GOVERNORS

GOV/2016/55 – Date: 9 November 2016

E. Other Relevant Information

22. During this reporting period, the Agency has not attended meetings of the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission (JCPOA, Annex IV – Joint Commission, para. 6.4.6).

IAEA – BOARD OF GOVERNORS

GOV/2017/10 – Date: 24 February 2017

E. Other Relevant Information

26. During this reporting period, the Agency has attended one meeting of the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission (JCPOA, Annex IV – Joint Commission, para. 6.4.6).

IAEA – BOARD OF GOVERNORS

GOV/2017/24 – Date: 2 June 2017

E. Other Relevant Information

27. During this reporting period, the Agency has attended one meeting of the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission (JCPOA, Annex IV – Joint Commission, para. 6.4.6).

IAEA – BOARD OF GOVERNORS

GOV/2017/33 – Date: 31 August 2017

E. Other Relevant Information

28. During this reporting period, the Agency has attended one meeting of the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission (JCPOA, Annex IV – Joint Commission, para. 6.4.6).

IAEA – BOARD OF GOVERNORS

GOV/2017/48 – Date: 13 November 2017

27. During this reporting period, the Agency attended one meeting of the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission (JCPOA, Annex IV – Joint Commission, para. 6.4.6).

IAEA – BOARD OF GOVERNORS

GOV/2018/7 – Date: 22 February 2018

26. During this reporting period, the Agency has not attended meetings of the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission (JCPOA, Annex IV – Joint Commission, para. 6.4.6).

IAEA – BOARD OF GOVERNORS

GOV/2018/24 – Date: 24 May 2018

26. During this reporting period, the Agency attended one meeting of the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission (JCPOA, Annex IV – Joint Commission, para. 6.4.6).

* * * * *
Chapter 22

– Appendix 8 – Sham Dispute Resolution Mechanism –

[]

What happens if it were to be proven that Iran was responsible for the arms smuggling into a zone under a U.N. arms embargo; arms smuggling which had occurred before October 18, 2020? Not necessarily anything.

U.S. President Barack Obama claimed that sanctions can be reinstated if merely one of the five permanent members of the Security Council considers it necessary; Obama has claimed this on many occasions (Obama makes a lot of claims he can't back up). Here is how he put in his August 5, 2015 American University speech:

_"If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won't need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council; America can trigger snap back on our own."_ *

_*_ [BARACK OBAMA; Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal; American University, Washington D.C.; August 5, 2015; This file has been archived, find it on google at: obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/05/remarks-president-iran-nuclear-deal.]

His claim is hardly factual – no matter how legitimate a complaint against Iran might appear to some. Here is how the dispute resolution process works (Resolution 2231 handles complaints on non-performance or breech of the agreement under a defined dispute resolution mechanism process):

The Dispute Resolution Mechanism procedure is presented in two places in Resolution 2231; neither contradicting the other, with both describing the same thing, although perhaps in slightly differing ways, and mentioning a few different aspects. First we examine this version from the opening of Resolution 2231. This begins at paragraph 10; [section] Application of Provisions of Previous Resolutions (approximately page 3 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Application of Provisions of Previous Resolutions

10. Encourages China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union (EU), and Iran (the "JCPOA participants") to resolve any issues arising with respect to implementation of JCPOA commitments through the procedures specified in the JCPOA, and expresses its intention to address possible complaints by JCPOA participants about significant non-performance by another JCPOA participant;

11. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that, within 30 days of receiving a notification by a JCPOA participant State of an issue that the JCPOA participant State believes constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA, it shall vote on a draft resolution to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph 7 (a) of this resolution, decides further that if, within 10 days of the notification referred to above, no Member of the Security Council has submitted such a draft resolution for a vote, then the President of the Security Council shall submit such a draft resolution and put it to a vote within 30 days of the notification referred to above, and expresses its intention to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue by the Advisory Board established in the JCPOA;

12. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that, if the Security Council does not adopt a resolution under paragraph 11 to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph 7 (a), then effective midnight Greenwich Mean Time after the thirtieth day after the notification to the Security Council described in paragraph 11, all of the provisions of resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), and 1929 (2010) that have been terminated pursuant to paragraph 7 (a) shall apply in the same manner as they applied before the adoption of this resolution, and the measures contained in paragraphs 7, 8 and 16 to 20 of this resolution shall be terminated, unless the Security Council decides otherwise;

The process for reinstating the previous resolutions is a bit longer then the above – this process is elaborated in another part of Resolution 2231:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Vienna, 14 July 2015

DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM

36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council, expressing its intention to prevent the reapplication of the provisions if the issue giving rise to the notification is resolved within this period, intends to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue of the Advisory Board. Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.

At first glance the above provisions seem to support Barack Obama's claim that sanctions can be easily reinstated. Again, here is how he put in his August 5, 2015 American University speech:

"If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won't need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council; America can trigger snap back on our own. "

Regardless of Obama's claims; closer examination of those provisions demonstrates that Obama's statement of August 5, 2015 is effectively false. The United States can't reliably "trigger snap back" on its own.

The aspect of what Obama implied concerning a potential veto of a Security Council resolution by one of the five permanent members of the Security Council certainly is the case; but that is not the end of the story. The above provisions inform us that a veto, effectively, is only a call for a simple majority vote on the subject.

Suppose, for example, the hypothesis of the Conflict Armament Research group; that the arms confiscated on the high seas did irrefutably come from Iran in violation of paragraph 6(b) [presented on page 313]. This may be grounds for the United States president succeeding Obama – a president perhaps not so amenable to the proliferation of conventional or nuclear weapons; this might be a basis for such a president to lodge a complaint contending that Iran was refusing to honor its commitments to Resolution 2231.

Suppose then, that this complaint, after going through the process described in the above preceding provisions, finally reached the Security Council; and that the Security Council produced " _a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting_...;" and then the United States vetoed that resolution...;

There is an identical contingency written into paragraph 12, and paragraph 37 that allows the Security Council to block a veto by one or more of the five permanent members of the Council. The proviso is stated so simply that a person could easily miss it, it says this: "... _unless the Security Council decides otherwise_."

Let's examine that in context to discover what "... _unless the Security Council decides otherwise_..." means.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Application of Provisions of Previous Resolutions

11. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that, within 30 days of receiving a notification by a JCPOA participant State of an issue that the JCPOA participant State believes constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA, it shall vote on a draft resolution to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph 7 (a) of this resolution, decides further that if, within 10 days of the notification referred to above, no Member of the Security Council has submitted such a draft resolution for a vote, then the President of the Security Council shall submit such a draft resolution and put it to a vote within 30 days...

12. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that, if the Security Council does not adopt a resolution under paragraph 11 to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph 7 (a), then effective midnight Greenwich Mean Time after the thirtieth day after the notification to the Security Council described in paragraph 11, all of the provisions of resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), and 1929 (2010) that have been terminated pursuant to paragraph 7 (a) shall apply in the same manner as they applied before the adoption of this resolution,... unless the Security Council decides otherwise;

We proceed to paragraph 37:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A – JCPOA

DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM

37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant,...the UN Security Council,...shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise.

There we see the proviso in context. The result is that a veto can be overridden by whatever means are decided. Even when presented in the context of the text of the above paragraph 37, the exact meaning of the contingency, the proviso "... _unless the Security Council decides otherwise_..." is not clearly defined. It could be reasonably interpreted to mean that a simple majority vote in the Security Council would be needed to override any veto – or it could mean veto could be overridden by some other means.

The proviso is an undefined escape clause; "...unless the Security Council decides otherwise...," could mean that a veto could be overridden by a simple majority vote, or an invention such as: the Veto must be supported by two thirds of the Security Council. Given the notoriously corrupt nature of the transaction, it might not be so far-fetched to imagine that some absurdity of an excuse could be invented.

In any event, it is very likely that a simple majority vote to override the veto could be easily attained. Members of the Security Council might be very squeamish about jeopardizing United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 on account of a little weapons smuggling – even if the recipient has been proven to be responsible for supporting war crimes or terrorism.

TO SUMMARIZE THIS POINT: If Iran were found to be egregiously violating Resolution 2231; if this resulted in going so far that the United States, or another of the five permanent members of the Security Council, actually managed to force the Security Council to produce "a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting [against Iran]...;" and if the United States, or another of the five permanent members of the Security Council, then vetoed that resolution; then the Security Council might nevertheless "decide otherwise" and take a simple majority vote to override the veto – or "decide otherwise" through some other undefined method.

Resolution 2231, consistent with its style of using vague language and undefined terms, never tells how the Security Council might nevertheless to "decide otherwise" to override a veto on "a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting..."

There is also the issue that it is never defined how many times a vote might be taken to override a veto (as a vote is never specified in this context of "decides otherwise;" or how long after a potential veto a vote to override the veto could still take place and be valid). This whole set up is designed to perpetuate the provisions of Resolution 2231, and if possible, over any objection.

* * * * *

