Identified as undeniably parts of the trademark of the 45th president of the United States, very recent notices might soon appear on the White House’s agenda: A quest for those who are able to withstand whatever duty has been fittingly described as “an impossible task.”

President Trump’s very recent European visits have been given due coverage as his official staff became visible parts of his entourage.

Photos viewed on TV indicated one such illustration fomenting disgust by John Kelly, Chief of Staff, as he “turned his head away” during that occasion when his boss “berated” Germany for allegedly being “totally controlled by Russia.”

In Helsinki, Dan Coats, Trump’s director of national intelligence, was reported to be “horrified” by having witnessed his boss’ “submission” to the Russian President Putin.

Coats was likewise described as saying how he felt obliged to indicate how Russia engaged in “outgoing pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton who reportedly had urged Trump

to be “rough” on Putin were described as having fled Helsinki in “mortified silence.”

It will be recalled fittingly, how some of the early Trump Cabinet appointees turned in their respective resignations, i.e., Rex Tillerson, H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohen.

An apropos question has been heard that deserves a quick reply: Would there be more resignations from such heavy-tasked responsibilities in the near future?

As soon as he returned from the aforesaid visits, the president was confronted by bipartisan rebuke centering on his “warm embrace” of Putin.

Election interference in the 2016 U.S. nationwide elections was supposed to be taken up by the two presidents.

Instead, Trump has been quoted by news sources as saying: “I will say this:  I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia. President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial.”

Consequently, the Trump aides were seen as extremely “flabbergasted” by that very direct presidential contradiction raised by U.S. intelligence findings because they were known to have “prepared their chief to press Putin on a range of issues including an all-important subject called “election disruptions.”

Instead, Trump blamed “both countries” for “deteriorating U.S.-Russia relations.”

World News reports came fast on the scene as Trump was described as having “walked back” to his most “fiery” statements before he met withRepublican legislators, and described how he simply “misspoke.”

The Trump correction in reference to his own response, “I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be Russia.”

As Trump continued to read from a script, he likewise added how he “accepted the intelligence community’s

conclusion that Russia interfered in the election of 2016, as he concluded: “Could be other people too.”

Strong denunciations in their emphases of Trump’s “half-hearted efforts” at what was marked as “damage control”

surfaced immediately as several critics voiced their commentaries on the U.S. president’s responses.

Trump was expected to rebuke Putin.  Primarily, the undertaking he was supposed to take up was to “condemn

a blatant attack on American democracy.”

America’s president evidently erased the above-mentioned particular facet of his mission. It hugely disappointed wide groups of officialdom who anticipated how he would follow through what was already designated as pre-Helsinki meeting guidelines.

Such statements were mentioned in published critiques: “Trump turned into a lap dog for one of America’s

most implacable foes.”

Until accurate responses will come from the issue on “What Happened In Helsinki,” it is inevitable that

the vastly-circulated criticisms will continue to play their role before America and its people will be reacting to

what has been described as a White House invitation to Russia’s President Putin against the background of a

forthcoming date in the fall.

Reiterating on the so-called “invitation in the fall,” the prospect of another summit likewise baffled official Washington because numerous questions still remain on the infamous July 12th news conference in the Finnish capital.

News reports underscored how there was a two-hour conversation between the two principal heads of state solely in the presence of two interpreters.

The two key officials who were announced as having comprised the White House’s representation were viewed by observers as “having been left in the dark.”

News analysts have reacted fast in voicing their opinions.

“We don’t know the full extent of what was said and done behind closed doors in Helsinki. Here’s what we already know as a result of the summit.

“America’s government is divided from its President on Russia: its process for orderly decision-making, or even basic communication, has disintegrated; and its ability to lead an alliance in Europe whose main mission in recent years has been to counter and contain renewed Russian aggression has been seriously called into question.”