That June 16, 2016 meeting with Trump Team members in attendance

It's no longer a witch hunt as dubbed by President Trump when, at a highly-described meeting of June 9, 2016, his oldest son, Donald Trump. Jr., met with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer who reportedly promised to share political information in reference to the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.
Initially, those reported as attendees in the aforesaid meeting were: Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman at that time, and Jared Kushner, the then Republican presidential candidate's son-in-law, currently a senior adviser of the president.
Per released and published e-mails, the world has known more details about that now well-known gathering.
Trump, Jr.'s initial explanation touching on the same meeting was ostensibly to help Russian orphans in reference to Russia's freezing of an adoption program popular with Americans.
However clearly identified the younger Trump's interpretation of the meeting was disseminated, the New York Times named conflicting information about the raison d'etre in touching on the story.
The same paper indicated that Ms. Veselnitskaya had "promised damaging material on Ms. Clinton which the Trump scion called essentially meaningless," and merely a "pretext" for discussing the adoption angle.
Questions have inevitably arisen: what is the extent of the knowledge that the Trump campaign had relevant to the Russian government's activities to inflict harm on the Clinton's quest for the presidency?
Doubt has entered the Trump Junior's explanation in regard to the Veselnitskaya's presence that the meeting in question was not a first contact.
In addition, prior to the meeting, a question has arisen: was Trump Jr. aware that the Russians might have expected his father to support the subject the above-named lawyer insisted on? Was it intended to be one in discussing international adoption sanctions and the anticipated category of quid pro quo?
The Russian law preventing Americans from adopting Russian children was not unknown; it was passed in retaliation of U.S. sanctions supposedly targeted at associates of President Vladimir Putin.
Another question that should be answered by Trump, Jr.: did he expect that the Russians would give him invaluable information without expecting anything in return? The younger Trump 's skills were bruited around by his father's campaign leaders about his skills as a negotiator.
What is clear and remains clear: Donald Trump, Jr., voluntarily met with someone known with ties to the Russian government, mainly to receive damaging evidence about Clinton that might have influenced the U.S. 2016 election in favor of his father.
Trump, Jr., has asserted strongly that he did not receive useful information for the above-named aim, so no crime was committed.
But some criminal lawyers' statements contradict his statements.
"Intent to commit a crime is still a crime," has been advanced.
There are 196 countries all over the globe.
Among those in addition to the U.S., Canada and Russia, there are several more, including China, Japan, Great Britain, Germany, France, the Scandinavian and Baltic countries, Israel, Iran and perhaps Brazil, have the capability to engage in cyber hacking.
All of the above-named countries have more than a passing interest in the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Yet, to this very date, no reliable information has surfaced that any foreign country other than Russia, has made an effort to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election in Trump's favor.
A note of interest: during the past presidential campaign: Donald Trump asserted that he could go out on New York City's Fifth Avenue and shoot someone; people would still support him, he vigorously added. Amid what's been happening since he became the U.S. president on January 20th, it seems Trump's assumption no longer seems questionable.
What remains clear however, Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort were at that meeting and their presence could never be underestimated despite answers to the contrary: they were all representing the older Trump's interest.


July 4th celebrations usher in another meaning of America's Independence Day!

America: A country of immigrants whose forebears led the waytoward human rights and democracy who were desirous of a better life ahead
Who are considered immigrants? Briefly, the people whoarrived on the shores of the United States who are nationals of othercountries the world over.
Thesole non-immigrant that distinguished herself/himself in America is one who wasborn on these frontiers whose ancestral home is indisputably America, andwho, over time, is recognized as American: the American Indian. Thelatter group was already identified culturally when the thousands who wereEuropean-born arrived on the Mayflower in 1650, in their quest for abetter life.
Overtime, the U.S. has depended greatly on the phenomenon called the"immigrant contribution."
Thisspace's writer lauds the reply of an immigrant who volunteered anidentification of an immigrant.
"Iam an immigrant who, like many of my immigrant colleagues, exudes humble prideto be contributing to my adopted land by working hard and creating newjobs for others."
Decadesago, still fresh in the minds of those who came from afar, theywho aligned themselves with the principal Democratic and Republicanparties were enamored by what they termed "economiccompetitiveness," demonstrated by stapling green cards on college diplomasof immigrant graduates.
Historyrelates how the foregoing took place before the immigration issue got hijacked,by many native-born Americans who were quick to describe the immigrant as"stealing our jobs."
Yet,some from the native-born who have given their personal estimates on theimmigrant population that has proven itself worthy of the manifoldcontributions to their current home, are far from what has been describedas precise. Those from the same ranks still have to vie with the acceptedimmigrants who have meritoriously qualified to practice their professionson these shores.
Intruth and in fact, figures and facts do point to the more vaunted achievementsof the immigrant society who have been known to reach the apex oftheir professional concerns in the tightening field of competition.
Thereis that well-known concept of "First,do no harm," which is culled in the oath that announces the entranceand careers of most new medical doctors admitted to theirrespective professional specializations.
Once,I was invited to attend a session featuring those minds deeply involved in thepractice of medicine.
Again,the main theme: "First, do no harm," embedded in the oath that startsthe careers of most newly-licensed doctors in America, has emerged assomething of a surrogate for the practice of medicine. Yet, it issomething that is likened to a false promise. Numbers of routines havebeen identified
asunmistakable. They might not be intentional. Yet,many native-born physicians have faced lawsuits that were markedlyidentified as "cases that held false promise."
Someonlookers into the fields of medical practitioners have suggested that part ofthe oath they take should be: "Help others with as little harm aspossible."
Whetherthe populace likes it or not, some frontiers have been branded as representing"a world of harm" specifically, resulting from car accidents torecreational drugs, sexually-transmitted diseases, cancer, unhealthydiets, and recent diagnoses of lack of exercise. The list isendless.
In treating the results of the named health hazards, the goal as a physicianshould be no other than to "reduce harm."
Thusfar, until the current administration can offer a substitute for theAffordable Care Act, the latter is still law. But it's notbeen an easy task. Signing up for health insurance is mind boggling forincreasing numbers of the population who are still awaiting solutions to theissue.
Despitethe Republicans' concerted efforts to repeal the law of 2010, theforegoing aforementioned Act, it is a well-known fact that the federal-andstate-based exchanges that created the Act will be realistically inoperation at least through 2019. There are living proofs that many marketplaceshave helped individuals, families and small businesses shop for and enrollin affordable medical insurance.
TheACA and its highly-awaited replacement, the American Health Care Act, both relyon the very same general structure to sell insurance to people who are notcovered by insurance through their employment or other programs.
Whatis anticipated: participants receive income-based subsidies to purchasequalified health plans on either a state or federal marketplace(
Theanticipation of decisions meant to shape the options available in 2019 arenow being done through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Moreconcern for U.S. veterans that arose during the Obama era has been underscored.
Untolddebts of gratitude to the servicemen and servicewomen who lost their lives indefense of our country have surfaced notably.
Ithas been accepted that the countless contributions to major advances in thebiological sciences were forged in that deplorable crucible of war.
Emergencymedicine and modern surgery have proven to define what physicians andmedics have encountered on the battlefield as conflicts the world overbreak out.
Technologicalbreakthroughs such as portable ultrasound and penicillin trace theirearly development to war settings.
Certainly,without fear of contradiction, would-be immigrants should comprehend what isanticipated of them as they turn their attention to the professionalfields so sorely needed in the U.S.
More Independence Day celebrations will, ofcourse be on the front burner, as observed through the ages. But what isanticipated is nothing novel. It will depend largely on how today's WhiteHouse will be managed. And as the moving calendar continues to remind theAmerican populace, the three branches of government (executive, legislativeand judicial) will have to perform accordingly with one goal in mind: tosee that democracy will strongly prevail.


Is there a Trump Doctrine?

Political analysts continue to deplore the infamous Trump decision in reference to America's departure from the Paris Climate Accord.
At this point in time, it will be remembered how, seven months ago, the United States led the international world in putting together the agreement to "reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in an attempt to prevent the worst effects of human-caused climate change." That historical coming together of numerous nations happened before the 2016 presidential election.
Trump, the 45th president of America, on the 134th day of his presidency zeroed in on his rejection of the Paris Climate Accord, thus removing the nation from its stature as a global leader. Numerous voices were heard in opposition to the Trump decision as America joined the company of only two other nations.
His rejection of the Accord over and above the objections raised not just among global political leaders and Pope Francis, but even of Exxon Mobil, boiled down to this conclusion by the aforementioned analysts: "The United States will cease to be part of the solution to the problem."
Furthermore, scientific opinion has been distinctive: the United States will put itself squarely on the other side and clearly, it will be a signal that it will bolster the credibility of the climate-change deniers, the anti-science hucksters and the irresponsible corporate cynics.
Already, the near future seems to be foretold: it will strike a powerful blow "against the common good from the coast of California to the melting permafrost of northern Alaska to the flood-prone lowlands located along America's rivers to the hurricane-ravaged communities along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean."
What has been foreseen by the scientific world: "Globally, it could set the world on track to what climate scientists agree: will be intensified floods, famines and storms, rising seas and mass migrations fueling strife over water scarcity, declining food production and epidemics."
How it will affect America's role in the world has been foretold: the negative Trump decision causes enormous injury to this country's reputation and to its leadership role in the world.
The only two nations that didn't sign on to the Paris agreement are Nicaragua and Syria.
Nicaragua said "no" based on the opinion that the Accord is nonbinding, and the goal of capping emissions at 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels is too low. It didn't sign because the deal wasn't good enough, compared with Trump's claim that it's a "bad deal" for the US.
The other non-signer is war-torn and ravaged Syria. And now, with the Trump decision, the US has become a third country.
History has told the world how there's been a notable presence of anti-Americanism, but at the end of the day, most nations understood that an alliance with the US would enhance, not diminish their peace and prosperity.
What has been embraced by other nations: the secret of American success: "it is a relatively benign superpower that championed a vision of human dignity that appealed to ordinary people everywhere around the globe."
Deplorably, Trump has acted so oblivious to the above-established earned secret over the numerous decades that America has worked so hard to earn.
Trump sees each international treaty as a racket, and every alliance as a rip-off.
Yet, the truth stares at Trump "by destroying the unprecedented power and wealth America has accumulated by its own efforts and skills as it joined other nations."
Were the US to pursue a "me first" policy, then it won't be difficult to see why every country in the world will do the same -- the result would redound to international lawlessness.
More analysts predict predatory states such as Iran, Russia and China will do well in the resulting chaos, while the US allies (should there still be any left) will inevitably suffer.
If history's guidance is sought, America will not be able to stay aloof from the consequences of the new disorder. Trade and security that have been established by America will be imperiled.
The ultimate scene that will unfold: the United States will likely be drawn into conflicts that could have been avoided had it maintained its well-known position as Leader of the Free World, such a hard-won achievement that Trump has obviously been intent on throwing away with characteristic recklessness and thoughtlessness accompanied by obvious ignorance.
Three adjectives have been prominently aired in reference to the Trump withdrawal from the Paris accord: America will be sicker, poorer and less secure.
Trump has been surrounded by his choice of generals, along with business leaders, scientists and the like who have reiterated that the effects of climate change without strong efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will destabilize much of the world.
In his announcement to leave the Paris Accord, Trump said in strong terms how he was "elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris."
In all likelihood, Trump did not realize the truth, or perhaps he simply doesn't care.
Would the citizens of Pittsburgh suffer for the Trump mistake along with everyone else on the planet?


TheHealth-Care Act as a continuing triumph of the Obama era

From all indicators in today's Trumpism, one boast that has been set aside is the Health CareAct. The latter legislation has been ferociously and desperately degraded not only by Trump himself, but a number of members of the RepublicanParty.
Currently, repealing the foregoing legislation has just passed the House (but is seen to face a tougher time at the Senate).
Recent history tells Americans that before Trump appeared prominently on the scene, a lively debate in the Republican Party emerged: what was the best way to appeal to the working-class voters of America?
All kinds of proposals arose.
What would be attractive to the voters coming from the working class, the query was heard prominently among the Republicans.
What Trump, the candidate proposed, was held close to those who voted in the 2016 presidential primaries: the vigorous offer that he would not touch Social Security and Medicare.
Weeks went by. With a 'new' transformation of the AffordableCare Act from Speaker Paul Ryan, Trump promised a health-care plan that would "provide insurance for everybody."
Trump flattered himself no end. He told the media that the White House was writing its own bill that would represent a dramatic break which would totally make the difference with what was known since 2010 as Obamacare.
None of the Trump statements were ever able to reach fruition.
Of course, it became well-proclaimed that whatever Trump backed, health-wise, was written by Ryan.
Definitely, it does not provide insurance for everybody.
Under that Ryan bill, millions of Americans (who have insurance currently) are bound to lose it because they will no longer be capable in paying for it.
As publicized, the Republican health-care plan would actually hurt the Americans who put Trump where he is today: as president.
The plan, which mentioned large tax cuts for the wealthy, has been adjudged by health providers who are extremely knowledgeable about Obamacare, (on perusal), would make numbers ofAmericans in the rural states find themselves (particularly the older ones) poorer and sicker, where premiums would have the
tendency to rise, owing to the absence of competition in the ranks of the individual insurance market.
Considered the hardest hit, are those eligible for at least $5,000 less in tax credits under the Republican plan, they who supported Trump by a record margin to59 percent to 36 percent, per election figures.
Furthermore, that assistance that the government provides to assist Americans to purchase insurance would be entirely changed: the House bill would cut back on Obama's expansion of Medicaid funding. The outcome would be telling: it would result in many Americans just over the poverty line, losing access to the program.
TheWhite House, from all publicized indications, never really considered writing its own bill, and left the huge job to Speaker Ryan.
It was revealed that there is no constituency in the G.O.P. Congress that sided with the Trump promise, one of the very first self-proclaimed assurances that crowded the campaign atmosphere of the then Candidate Trump.
TheTrump aggressive stance was at defining a new populist nationalism touching mainly on immigration, i.e.,scapegoating Mexican immigrants and Muslims, and trade, by cancelling theTranspacific Partnership and a promise to renegotiate NAFTA.
What does the dismal failure of Trump's vow to repeal Obamacare prove?
When it touches on domestic policy, neither Trumpism nor the Reformists from the GOP have done anything close to accomplishment to prove to the American citizenry what has been defined as bragging at its maximum.
TheAmerican Affordable Act continues to remain.
TheAmerican people who have been on the receiving end of the AAC represent the best judgment; unfortunately, those who voted for Trump
did not weigh the impact of the loss of health care that came to them through painstaking measures under the leadership of the Democratic Party and above all, a realization of what previous administrations were unable to do: affordable health care for everyAmerican.


It's all Barack Obama's fault, per Trump

The current Trump problems are traced by the country's new president to his predecessor.
Trump has laid mighty issues on Barack Obama.
He detailed those problematical subjects during a press conference with the visiting King of Jordan.
"I have to say that the world is a mess. I inherited a mess," Trump emphasized.
"Whether it's North Korea, the Middle East, it's so many other things. Whether it's in our country, horrible trade deals. I inherited a mess. We are going to fix it. We are going to fix it."
The bottom line of the press conference: whatever bad things are happening right now are traced wholly as Barack Obama's fault.
While Trump may be on target about the state of the world before he started his presidency in early January, a pressing question remains: how long can he really last, as he attributes his shortcomings on the last administration?
Specifically, Trump has laid the blame on Obama. He stressed on the economy, trade deals, government leaks, protests, and the failure of the health care replacement bill.
The North Korea problem is not new at all. It has been one of the perplexities facing any administration since the Bill Clinton era.
It wasn't a striking revelation when Obama blamed George W. Bush for not finding the solution to the North Korea troubling question.
George W. Bush did not hesitate to lay the onus on Clinton. He stated how his predecessor crafted a deal with the North Koreans and China which
was ignored eventually.
Obama essentially blamed Bush for a sluggish economy, which he named as a "Great Recession Inheritance," in nearly every major political speech.
Although the waning economy was at a standstill, Obama did not continue to identify Bush further as the cause.
What became evident even in the early days of the Obama presidency, statistics indicated how monthly unemployment numbers started to change for the better.
Lately, Trump aggressively announced how the country owes him credit for good job numbers and an upswing, stock market-wise, all of which started under Obama. (It has become habitual that the pluses Trump has claimed are not his own; they are traceable to the Obama administration.)
Tension headaches have multiplied in reference to tension abroad. But highly noted in the same press conference was the Trump proclamation: "I now have responsibility, and I will have that responsibility and carry it very proudly."
The Trump-owned Mar-a-Lago estate has served the president's purposes as he has met Asian leaders, i.e., Xi Jinping of China at what has been branded the 'president's exclusive club in Florida.'
Since then, Trump has served his own interests in holding foreign policy meetings against the backdrop of his description of what observers from the business circles have identified as showing off his for-profit private club.
Yet, the American populace, particularly the independent thinkers, do not need any excuses at all for Trump's choice as he continues to meet with foreign leaders. It is known that his club is named and known as for-profit private.
The Trump club has indeed become the scene highly scrutinized by diplomats, foreign policy specialists, and the media for certain clues in the Trump leadership
Inevitably, voices of harsh criticism about the use of the Trump property continue to grow stronger.
"Showing off his for-profit private club and crystallizing how he is bent on transforming the American presidency by merging international diplomacy, politics, and free-media marketing for the Trump business empire cannot be denied," is the consensus.
Additionally, Trump critics describe the Florida club "reeks of a corrupt blending of public power, personal profit, and undue access for wealthy club members."
Whatever negative reactions emanate from Americans who detest the Trump show of power, are invariably brought to light by the media. And when the latter surfaces, that's the occasion when Trump's distaste comes out through repetitive branding of fake media.
Trump should pay close attention to the men whom he immediately appointed as he took office.
Most well-known news reports have named how a civil war rages throughout the Trump administration.
"A civil war between Trump loyalists and establishment-minded Republicans continues to escalate throughout the federal government."
Interestingly, this space's writer increasingly believes Trump and his allies are fighting a losing battle and their action can no longer be patched over by Band-Aid protection.
For instance, from the State Department to the Environmental Protection Agency, an intense sharp dividing line has emerged between confirmed cabinet secretaries and those called "handpicked teams of GOP veterans who are in a great rush to take power as Trump campaign staffers, as they call themselves."
Evidently, in the face of a current atmosphere that undeniably permeates the White House, changes that hope to redound to the average American citizen should be prioritized which has not happened at all.
All questionable reports on the executive department should go through the Ethics Commission and everyone should abide by the outcome to save the United States' declining position while its criteria on the "first hundred days" have just taken place.


Strong voice comes from founder of Southern Poverty Law Center

It's 2017. But the fight for justice and tolerance has never been abandoned, thanks to an Alabama-born lawyer who, when still in his boyhood, tells his story "as the son of a poor Alabama cotton farmer who witnessed grave injustices," against "my African American neighbors and was inspired to earn my law degree so that I could fight for the rights of those with no other champions."
In his autobiography, Morris Dees says: "I was honored when the American BarAssociation chose to publish my book as the first in a series about lawyer spursuing justice."
The aforesaid book, "A Lawyer's Journey," relates how the author worked on his cases that came to him "over the past 40 years,"as Dees considers how "blessed" he has been in carrying out his work with lawyers, investigators, and others "who have a real passion for justice."
The Center, founded in 1971, modestly described by Dees as having "brought tough challenges and unforgettable moments of triumph," was responsible for putting up the fight against the United Klans of America who were found"liable in the lynching death of a black teen."
"I'll never forget the day I stood with our staff in a Mobile, Alabama courtroom as an all-white jury found the aforementioned 'United Klans of America' liable.
"It was poetic justice when the group was forced to turn over the deed to its national headquarters to the victim's mother."
Dees recounts another experience in his fight against racial injustice.
"Equally memorable was the day I walked through the ashes of our building after it was firebombed by the Klan. Not a single employee quit because of that arson.Instead, we rebuilt and we grew stronger than ever.
"And there was the heartbreaking moment when I held my sobbing young daughter in 1984while Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and guards searched the woods around our home for armed intruders who were determined to stop our work for justice, equality and tolerance."
Standing out as one of the Center's humble pride is how it does not receive government funds and accepts 'no fees' from clients who have been recipients of assistance.
The Center is financially supported by those who are called the Friends of the Center; each supporter believes in the fight for justice and tolerance through pledging 'modest amounts' each month to cover legal and educational programs.
Interestingly, the Friends of the Center provide the financial security of the organization's cause.
The founder says how 'impossible' it is to predict how 'lengthy' or how 'costly,'their 'legal actions' will be.
Dees amplified his statement when he pointed out how one case the Center won, lasted more than 20 years.
The Center has a Teaching Tolerance staff dedicated to spreading the message of tolerance and changing the 'hearts of young people across the country.'
Awe-inspiring is learning about how the Center's lawyers and investigators have pledged to fight for justice in court, no matter how long the hours or how difficult and dangerous the work would entail.
In sum, the author's autobiography is a modest but significant contribution that led Dees to the front lines of the civil rights struggle and his ongoing crusade opposing hate groups.
In A Lawyer's Journey, it narrates how a courageous and often lonely journey of a skilled and described 'controversial trial lawyer,' does parallel the nation's struggle to ensure freedom and equality for its citizenry.


What was never predicted: A 'first' ever in Oscar history

The team for what was called the 'odds-on' favorite musical "La La Land," was conveying its numerous 'thank-you' greetings on stage; but in a few minutes, there was an announcement that presenters Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway had called on the wrong winner.
"Moonlight," categorized as the 'underdog coming-of-age story,' was the correct winner.
An apology emanated from the accountants, Price Waterhouse Cooper.
What called attention to "Moonlight" was the diversity of the prize-winning picture, which included Mahershala Ali, the first Muslim actor to win the award as best supporting actor.
As he opened the program, Jimmy Kimmel, the Oscars host, poked fun at President Trump.
The show's late-night host evidently did not keep himself away from calling one Oscar-winner Mel Gibson, whom Kimmel called "the only one 'Braveheart' in the room.
"And he's not going to unite us either," the host added in the midst of laughter that filled the audience.
Kimmel turned serious when he stated that if each one watching right now "took a moment to reach out to one person you disagree with and have a positive, considerate conversation...we could really make America great again."
His initial crack on Trump was to thank him because. "remember when last year the Oscars were considered racist?"
Returning to the Oscar winners: "Moonlight" was known to have 'the devastating vulnerability of its protagonist, and filmmaker Barry Jenkins' brilliant writing and visionary direction.'
What was usually related to past Academy Award winners reflected artistic excellence. Yet, in recent years, subtlety has been part of the awardees as they accepted their respective acclaims: how America's identity is being disseminated around the globe.
As word has been heard from various film critics, the year's Oscars were 'guaranteed' to be more 'inclusive' than in past years.
Seven actors of color received nominations for their performances; those that came up for 'best picture,' aside from "Moonlight," were "Hidden Figures," and "Fences."
Films about the white working class: "Hell or High Water;" "Manchester by the Sea;" "Hacksaw Ridge," a female 'academic' dealing with extraterrestrial visitors; "Arrival," a little boy on his own as he survived in India via "Lion." Not to forget, how about the numbers of those 'kids' singing and dancing that made "La La Land" the way it turned out to be?
"Manchester by the Sea," is indeed lauded for being a 'masterpiece of screenwriting,' hence, the star Casey Affleck, who garnered 'the best actor of the year,' award did not come as a surprise at all.
"Fences" star, Viola Davis, who won the Oscar for her supporting role underscored her country's earned reputation: the United States remains in the forefront: as a champion of fairness, humanism and self-awareness. May the latter description of America be perpetuated, was the essence of Davis' performance.
The emceeing role of Kimmel closed with: "Some of you will win tonight and give a speech that the president of the U.S. will tweet about in all caps."
As what was never expected: "Moonlight" won the best picture after "La La Land' had been announced mistakenly.
The error, fortunately, was corrected as fast as change on the stage could muster.

Subscribe to this RSS feed


Sign up to keep in touch!

Be the first to hear about special offers and exclusive deals from TechNews and our partners.

Check out our Privacy Policy & Terms of use
You can unsubscribe from email list at any time