In Political Trial: Trump Acquits Trump?

The newspaper "Politician" published in Virginia said on Tuesday, Donald Trump is already organizing the celebration of his victory against the Impeachment.

According to that newspaper, he hopes he will be acquitted.

And he repeats, that he is ready to celebrate the exoneration in the political trial.

The newspaper adds that, on the verge of its imminent acquittal by the Senate, they manage the options to follow.


Officials said one of them would be deliver a huge address from the Oval Office to mark the occasion.

They added that Trump is closely following the evolution of the process and has attacked his favorite television station, Fox News.

For what motive? To give the floor to high-level Democrats and Republicans who demand John Bolton to speak, the former National Security advisor.

The latter is considered explosive, especially after this Sunday The New York Times revealed an unfavorable testimony for the president.

This surfaced when Trump's defense argued that paralyzing the military assistance to Ukraine is not a crime.

Even those who oppose Trump said that when he stopped the military supply to an ally of Washington to gain electoral advantages.

A transparent reference to the public confrontation between Donald Trump, and Democrat Joe Biden, looking at the upcoming elections.

Some put forward that the political trial could end this week, if witnesses are not called to the stand.


Something that nobody can consider impossible.

  • Published in Specials

Shadow Side on Trump's Political Trial

Much information and journalistic comments have been accompanying the process of Donald Trump’s political trial.


But its most important side has been poorly approached or not approached at all.


As an example, when it has been overtly repeated that Trump threatened to punish his Ukrainian colleague if he did not meet his requirements.

One of these, who he religiously fulfilled, suspended military assistance if he did not control the former Vice President John Biden.


The latter tops the list of those who could challenge Trump in the next general elections in his country.


That is, a blunt blackmail coming from the head of state against another head of state.


Both perfectly identified.


Where were left the principles of independence and sovereignty of nations of the world?


This issue that, if the UN had the strength and authority to do so, the International Court of the Hague would be judging it.


However, silence prevails in the face of a scandalous event, impossible to forgive.


Once again he is accompanied by his baptized free press, unable to move a finger if they put a scratch on Uncle Sam.


Again, now in Trump's political trial, the main voice of those media corresponds to the anecdotes, not the core substance.


And in the middle of that chessboard, one of the main culprits the Republican majority of the Senate, who is ready not to condemn him.


Although it will be difficult for them to free him from the political crutches that will welcome him after those hearings.


Some prospects mark the perspective in one direction or another.


First, that Donald Trump, based on historical experience, uses a military crisis looking for domestic support.

Second, that the U.S. economy remains balanced.


Third, a new devastating scandal.

  • Published in Specials

The Political Trial against Gente de Zona in Miami

Harassed by the press in the middle of the street, Randy Malcom, one of the members of Gente de Zona has just made a mea culpa in front of the cameras of one Miami’s television stations.


At the show Suelta la Sopa, of Telemundo 51 channel, the singer apologized "to all" Cubans, "without any exception", and added: "it’s a sensitive issue that we will talk about in its due time."


This episode is part of the political trial to which the music group has been submitted for singing to their people and greeting from the stage the Cuban President, who was among the attending public.

Remarkably, although the terrible sin was committed in July 2018, the inquisitorial authorities of Miami anti-Cuban mafia realized the terrible crime no less than on New Year’s Eve 2020.


For this reason, Gente de Zona was excluded from participating in an end-of-the-year concert with venue in the city of Miami, to which they had been invited by the Cuban-born reggaeton singer Pitbull.


To further enrage the intolerant inquisitors, during the concert on December 31st at Bayfront Park, Pitbull came up with the idea to say regarding the absence on stage of the famous Cuban duo: “They are not here tonight for other things, but I want to send greetings to Gente de Zona. Music is music, politics is politics. ”

Words that unleashed the anger of the brigades of retarded action among which were musicians like the antiprophet Willy Chirino and the repentant communist Arturo Sandoval.


To save face and not be exiled forever from the city of hatred, Pitbull was forced to appear last Sunday in the dock at Univision television network, which, according to some, was in turn the one who invited Pitbull to the concert.


After saying that his intention by greeting Gente de Zona during the concert had "been none other than to unite," the Cuban-American singer acknowledged before the acting judge, journalist Jorge Ramos, "that he had screwed up."


Among other reasons, he said, due to his ignorance of what was going on in both Cuba and Miami, something that he demonstrated when the journalist asked him what would happen to Gente de Zona if they didn’t sing in Cuba and the reggaeton singer replied that if they didn’t, probably "they would be killed or their family would be killed."



The interview finished with a mea culpa of Pitbull, who almost apologized to his accusing colleagues, as well as to the entire city of Miami for which "he has done so much."


After his humiliating confession, the reggaeton singer was acquitted no less than by the journalist acting as jury Ninoska Pérez Calderón, who openly celebrated the musician's take back.


However, the trial, despite Randy Malcom’s apology is not over yet, if you take into account a headline published in the official Miami Mafia newspaper, The New Herald, that reads: "Randy Malcom, of Gente de Zona, has already apologized, but Alexander Delgado is still silent ", so it remains to see if the other singer of the group is also called to the stand.

Although, as we highlighted in a previous comment, the fascist-like intolerance in Miami seems to have reached paroxysm after the current president signed a memorandum with the intention of blocking the cultural exchange between Cuba and the United States, this sort of political trial is nothing new in that city in South Florida.


Before visiting the Island to participate in 2018 concert for which Gente de Zona is today excommunicated, the Italian singer Laura Pausini told reporters: "I have been asking to go for 25 years, but singing in Cuba means having problems with radios from Miami. Now People from Genete de Zona invited me, how could I say no? "


In reality, such media lynching leaves naked the so-called freedom of expression that should exist in the ill-named land of freedom. Or is it that this only happens in a Miami trampled by the boot of the dictatorship of the anti-Cuban mafia?

  • Published in Specials

Elizabeth Warren Unveils Plan to Eliminate Student Loan Debt

With Cory Booker and Kamala Harris dropping out of the presidential race, the three frontrunners remain poised to win over their supporters for the Democratic candidacy. 

U.S. Senator and Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren unveiled her student loan plan to cancel the debt that has affected millions of Americans

RELATED: US Democratic Candidate Cory Booker Quits Presidential Race

According to Warren, if she wins the presidency, on the first day of her tenure in office, she will cancel student loan debt by using the Department of Education’s pre-existing authority.

In her article on the website Medium, Warren said she would act without congressional approval because the Secretary of Education can “use its discretion to wipe away loans even when they do not meet the eligibility criteria for more specific cancellation programs.”

Warren backed up her claim by offering a letter from experts at Harvard Law School's legal services center, which concluded her plan “calls for a lawful and permissible exercise of the Secretary’s authority under existing law.”

The Democratic Senator previously called forthe cancellation of up to $50,000 in student loan debt for each of the approximately 42-million borrowers.

Warren, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, detailed her latest proposal ahead of the seventh Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday evening, when she will be one of six candidates on stage.

Twelve Democrats remain in the nominating race to take on President Donald Trump in November 2020. National opinion polls show Warren in the top tier but trailing former Vice President Joe Biden and fellow U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. She has attempted in recent weeks to regain the momentum her campaign showed during the summer, with nominating contests set to begin in Iowa in early February.

Throughout her year-long presidential campaign, Warren has emphasized affordable college tuition as a way to reduce economic and racial inequality. In April, she rolled out a comprehensive plan to cancel $50,000 in student loan debt for borrowers with annual household incomes below $100,000, with some cancellation for those with household incomes between $100,000 and $250,000.

Warren said on Tuesday that the Higher Education Act, a law passed in 1965, gives the Education Department the ability to act as a “safety valve” for federal student loan programs.

Just 43% of students who attended two-year public colleges and 34% who attended for-profit colleges that began loan repayment in 2011 had begun paying down the principal after five years, Warren said.

Warren, in her proposals and speeches, often ties the high cost of U.S. higher education to decreasing home ownership rates among young adults, fewer individuals starting small businesses, and the so-called “brain drain” facing some rural areas.

  • Published in World

Trump considering dramatic expansion of travel ban

The White House is considering dramatically expanding its much-litigated travel ban to additional countries amid a renewed election-year focus on immigration by United States President Donald Trump, according to six people familiar with the deliberations.

A document outlining the plans -- timed to coincide with the third anniversary of Trump's January 2017 executive order -- has been circulating in the White House.  But the countries that would be affected are blacked out, according to two of the people, sources who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the measure has yet to be finalised.

It is unclear exactly how many countries would be included in the expansion, but two of the sources said that seven countries - the majority of which are majority Muslim - would be added to the list.  The most recent addition to the ban includes restrictions on five majority-Muslim nations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as Venezuela and North Korea.

A different source said the expansion could focus on several countries that were included when Trump announced the first iteration of the ban but that were later removed amid rounds of contentious litigation.  Iraq, Sudan and Chad, for instance, had originally been affected by the order, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in a 5-4 vote after the administration released a watered-down version intended to withstand legal scrutiny.  Trump later criticised the U.S. Department of Justice for the changes.

The White House did not immediately respond to questions about the effort, which several of the sources said was timed for release in conjunction with the third anniversary of Trump's first travel ban.  That order sparked an uproar when it was announced on January 27, 2017, with massive protests across the nation and chaos at airports where passengers were detained.

The latest deliberations come as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepares to transmit to the Senate the articles of impeachment that the Democratic-led House passed in the US Congress against Trump late last year, launching a formal impeachment trial just as the 2020 election year gets underway.  Trump in December became just the third president in history to be impeached by the House.  The Republican-controlled Senate is not expected to remove him from office.

Trump ran his 2016 campaign promising to crack down on immigration and spent much of his first term fighting lawsuits trying to halt his push to build a wall along the southern border with Mexico, prohibit the entry of citizens from several majority-Muslim countries and crack down on migrants seeking asylum in the U.S., amid other measures.  He is expected to press those efforts again this year as he ramps up his re-election campaign.

Just this past week, a coalition of leading civil rights organizations urged House leaders to take up the No Ban Act, legislation to end Trump's travel ban and prevent a new one.  The bill, introduced last year by Representative Judy Chu in the House and Senator Chris Coons in the Senate, would impose limits on the president's ability to restrict entry to the US.  It would require the administration to spell out its reasons for the restrictions and specifically prohibit religious discrimination.

Trump's revised ban eliminated some of the original's most contentious provisions, including making clear that those who held visas at the time of the signing could continue to enter the country.

  • Published in World

Cuban president rejects U.S. extension of ban on flights

Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel on Saturday strongly rejected the U.S. extension of ban on charter flights between the United States and Cuban destinations except Havana.

"Cuba rejects new ban on charter flights imposed by the United States. The escalation of sanctions violates the human rights of Cubans and of Americans," the president tweeted.

On Friday, the U.S. government announced the suspension of all public charter flights to Cuba, except those to Havana's Jose Marti International Airport.

This new sanction, which affects nine airports on the island, is an extension of last year's ban on U.S. commercial flights to all Cuban destinations except Havana.

Public charter flight operators will have a 60-day wind-down period to discontinue all affected flights, according to the U.S. statement.

The prohibition on charter flights adds to a set of sanctions implemented by Washington against Havana since U.S. President Donald Trump took office, seeking to stifle the island's economy, especially the tourism sector.

  • Published in Cuba

U.S. targeted Iranian official in Yemen in failed strike

The United States military tried, but failed, to kill another senior Iranian commander on the same day a U.S. drone strike killed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard's top general, Qassem Soleimani, U.S. officials have admitted.

Officials said a military air attack targeted Abdul Reza Shahlai, a high-ranking commander in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), but the mission was not successful.  The officials spoke to the Associated Press news agency on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a classified mission.  The Pentagon declined to discuss the highly classified operation.

"We have seen the report of a January 2 air strike in Yemen, which is long understood as a safe space for terrorists and other adversaries to the United States.  The Department of Defense does not discuss alleged operations in the region," said Navy Commander Rebecca Rebarich, a Pentagon spokesperson.  The Washington Post first reported the development.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury said Shahlai was based in Yemen and accused him of "a long history of targeting Americans and U.S. allies globally" -- including killing U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq.  It has offered a $15 million reward in connection with him under its "Rewards for Justice" program.

The unsuccessful operation against Shahlai may indicate that the Trump administration's killing of Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the IRGC or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally stated.

The Trump administration has been under fire by Democrats and two Republicans in Congress over its decision to order the drone strike that killed Soleimani.  In an interview that aired earlier on Fox News, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged that Washington did not know "precisely" when or where the imminent attacks allegedly being planned by Soleimani would take place, but said the threat was "real".

U.S. military operations in Yemen are shrouded in secrecy -- primarily because they are illegal under international law.  U.S. officials said the operation against Shahlai remains highly classified, and many declined to offer details other than to say it was not successful.

  • Published in World

Not So Fast, Mr President: Did Trump Abuse His Power by Ordering Soleimani's Assassination?

Following US President Donald Trump's decision to assassinate prominent Iranian General Qasem Soleimani on 3 January, Washington and Tehran wound up on the verge of a full-scale armed conflict. But for now, both sides seem to have chosen to avoid bloodshed, with Iran’s retaliation resulting in only minor damage to American bases in Iraq.

The POTUS' unilateral decision to assassinate Iran’s top commander of the Quds Force without consulting with Congress in advance has sparked heated debate among US lawmakers on whether the president abused his powers and should be limited in his ability to take action that could lead to a war with the Islamic Republic.

The American legislature has in the past limited the commander-in-chief's power to make war, but, despite this, the Democrat-dominated House of Representatives passed a resolution, albeit non-binding, seeking to limit Donald Trump's ability to start hostilities against Iran. Here is what the process of launching foreign military operations looks like and how it actually works in the US right now.

Genuine Commander-in-Chief or Just a Lame Duck?

The US Constitution designates the president as "commander-in-chief of the army and navy"; however, it does not explicitly describe the president as having the authority to initiate hostilities on their own (such as conducting an airstrike on a foreign state's territory). Instead, the Constitution names Congress as the body with the power to officially declare a war. It's generally believed by scholars that as commander-in-chief, the POTUS not only has the power to lead the military, but can also do so without a congressional declaration of war.

A napalm strike erupts in a fireball near U.S. troops on patrol in South Vietnam, 1966 during the Vietnam War
© AP Photo /
A napalm strike erupts in a fireball near U.S. troops on patrol in South Vietnam, 1966 during the Vietnam War

In fact, the US has engaged in several conflicts without declaring war officially, although presidents have usually received authorisation from Congress to do so in advance, as was the case with the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War in 1991, as well as with the War on Terror that started in 2001. However, US lawmakers decided to implement additional checks on presidential powers in the form of the so-called War Powers Resolution after the country was dragged into the disastrous 20-year-long Vietnam War due to President Lyndon Johnson interpreting a congressional resolution to protect US forces as a carte blanche to engage in a full-scale war.

So How Exactly Does the US Currently Start Its Wars?

The War Powers Resolution that was adopted by Congress in 1973 requires US presidents to seek congressional approval, in the form of a declaration of war or statutory authorisation, before deploying troops to fight abroad. Since 1942, the US has actually commenced all of its hostilities without an official declaration of war, relying instead on congressional authorisation or UN Security Council resolutions – another way for the US to engage in military activities abroad.

However, the 1973 resolution did leave one path open for a president to send American troops into hostilities – if US territories, possessions, or its armed forces are attacked (merely a threat is insufficient), then the POTUS can do so without a "go" from the legislative body. But in this scenario, the president is still required to consult with Congress before deploying troops, even if "imminent involvement in hostilities" is expected. Furthermore, the POTUS also needs to explain the reasons for and the duration of the deployment of US forces into hostilities within 48 hours.

How Many of These Rules Has Trump Really Followed?

When it comes to the recent assassination of Iranian General Soleimani, Trump, for starters, never notified Congress in advance of his plan to conduct the airstrike on 3 January. Additionally, the basis for the military operation, which had the potential to drag the US into a war with Iran, remains questionable.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivers remarks on human rights in Iran at the State Department in Washington, U.S., December 19, 2019
© REUTERS / ERIN SCOTT
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivers remarks on human rights in Iran at the State Department in Washington, U.S., December 19, 2019

Trump claims that Soleimani was planning attacks against US citizens in the near future, but later, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confessed that Washington knew neither the date nor the place of the allegedly planned attack. Even if the US had evidence suggesting that an attack was possible, technically Trump still didn't have the right to order the airstrike without a nod from Congress, as the War Powers Resolution only mentions an actual "attack" on US interests as a prerequisite for such a move.

Was Trump the First President to Ignore the War Powers Resolution?

While it does look like Trump did interpret his authority under the War Powers Resolution rather loosely, to say the least, he was not the first president to ignore the law's provisions, to the discontent of Congress.

One major instance when the resolution was violated was President Bill Clinton's use of American forces in the bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War in 1999. Back then, US troops were conducting operations in a foreign country without authorisation from either Congress or the UN Security Council and without a clear threat to American interests (let alone any "attack" on them). In addition, this deployment lasted for 78 days, or 18 days longer than the War Powers Resolution allows for without congressional approval – which had not been granted.

Serbian protesters hold a banner reading, Clinton make sex not war outside the U.S. embassy in Munich, Germany during a demonstration against NATO airstrikes in Yugoslavia, Friday, March 26, 1999.
© AP Photo / Uwe Lein
Serbian protesters hold a banner reading, "Clinton make sex not war" outside the U.S. embassy in Munich, Germany during a demonstration against NATO airstrikes in Yugoslavia, Friday, March 26, 1999.

The War Powers Resolution was also violated by Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, who directed the US military join the campaign against Libyan air defences in 2011. While the operation was conducted under the pretext of implementing a UN Security Council-approved no-fly zone over the country, it had still not been backed by American lawmakers, some of whom expressed concern that the POTUS was abusing his status as commander-in-chief.

Obama justified his actions at the time by calling the operation necessary to "prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat" allegedly posed to "international peace and security" by the Libyan Civil War, which had largely been fuelled by Western countries themselves. He also argued that the US operations in the conflict would be "limited in their nature, duration, and scope", even though Washington actually contributed more than any other of its NATO partners to the intervention in the country.

But despite ignoring and violating the existing laws regulating when the US can enter into an armed conflict, no president has so far been directly punished for doing so, even if members of Congress have expressed their discontent. On the other hand, Trump has faced major opposition in the US Congress throughout his presidency and was recently impeached, meaning he could face something more serious than just grumbling from lawmakers. Although Democrats only control the lower chamber of Congress, Trump's actions in Iraq have made some Republican senators consider supporting their opponents' recent initiative to limit the POTUS' ability to engage in hostilities with Iran.

  • Published in World
Subscribe to this RSS feed