LightNews — News, ranked by scholars

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

22nd Aug 2025 10am EST,
Without issuing prior direct notice, to John Bolton, requesting that he relinquish any classified materials he may have in his possession, the Trump FBI is raiding Bolton's house.

Incidentally, the same deadline the DOJ has been court ordered to release the Epstein files by.

August 22, 2025 at 2:29 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P137

With my deepest sincerity, I wish all persons the most peaceful August 6th, 2025

Donald Trump, throughout his political career, has been a vocal Vladimir Putin advocate and Donald Trump’s support of Putin in his, Trump’s, 2016-2020 term can be said to have considerably lent to the Putin Regime’s ability to maintain its interior credibility within Russia and facilitated the Putin Regime, despite its annexation of Crimea, having been able to continue to be considered as a legitimate institution by persons internationally who might have been willing to maintain or further potential sociopolitical or economic ties with the Regime.
With that consideration noted, it can therefore be said that President Donald Trump has done more to help the Vladimir Putin Russian Regime than potentially any other political figure ever has, even as such pertains to facilitating the perceived legitimacy of the Regime for their violent methods such as in the Annexation of Crimea.
That is to bring mention to the question, “Russian President Vladimir Putin, being that President Donald J. Trump has been of such great assistance to your Regime and its enterprises, will you possibly be giving President Donald J. Trump a Miniature Golden Sukhoi Replica at the end of the Russian war against Ukraine?”

August 18, 2025 at 4:18 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P133-136

The members of the public that seek to advocate for the rights of humanity and justice are the final bastion against fascism and pillaging by reapers of damnation against the downtrodden, meek and forlorn by means of fire, disease and being mangled by boulders, into crevices; such an interstice least offers a recess from the mortal torment brought upon them by sadists, supremacists and anarchists.
Murderers of the dejected whose only sanctuary was their beds and tents before missile thunder found them, even whilst already maimed and lain in salvaged together field hospitals.
The perpetrators of any genocidal atrocities should be brought to just account and offered only a stay to the mercy of repercussions in accordance so that they may portend a mercy for all peoples thereafter that is greater spared of the villainy humanity’s time thus far has bemused itself to failed remembrance of and instead abirthed destitutions to pious reverie.

Potential Definition for “Abirthed”: variation of ill birthed to adjust to use cases describing concepts of existentially inherent sufferance of salvatory potentia
particularly where there an emphasis on connotations of available, but limited, progressed overcoming, liberation or transcendence.

Sufferance (as used): the referenced is in a state of being seen as an acceptability for persons to be without although, an otherwise to such, to have the referenced, is considered more favorable in spite of such.

Let them be known in kind as those who hath commit and spent their remainder in defilement of the sanctity of all that had been spared of them for all their time in life and in memory and time in memory itself.

A compilation of some of lines of rhetoric by some of the top media influencers gracing the airwaves and broadband recently.
Are we Delulu for believing you when you said you were going to end the war on day one or were you delulu for claiming that you’d be ending said wars on day one?

The Israeli campaign Against Iran has been named Operation Roaring Lion
This may be with the intention of bring reference to the story of Daniel who was cast into a lion’s den and maybe also to bring reference to the thunderous nature of the explosives they’d use in their war campaigns as provided by President Donald J. Trump.
President Donald J. Trump, the one who sought to brave the maelstrom to commune with Daniel in his pits amidst lions in their sleep.
Within context of animals and the Trump administration, one might make mention of ICE Barbie, former North Dakota Governor, present U.S. Director of Homeland Security, Ms. ‘Double Barrels for Labradoodles’ Kristie Noem

If you happened to have found yourself in the unfortunate situation of having to decide your fate by choosing between Ms. Kristie Noem and a Wardrobe, if it so happens that you are an undocumented immigration or a dog take your chances with the wardrobe.
If you are an immigrant woman in America who happens to be pregnant and is living in a Red State and has to decide whether to get your maternal care in state or risk getting deported by Kristie Noem and ICE, you might want to take your chances with Kristie Noem. Even if you get deported you might end up somewhere with better maternity care.
If you happen to be a Gazan having to decide between risking being harmed while trying to access a humanitarian aid shipment or starvation, you might have to consider starvation.
If you happen to be Jewish and have the decide between having a dinner meeting with President Trump and some particular guests of his, you also might want to consider starvation.
If you happen to be a woman who has to share the company of Donald J. Trump and his friend Jeffery Epstein, take your chances with the lions.

Wanna stop something in one day? Insist that international humanitarian bodies be given full unimpeded authority over aid shipments to Gaza and end the genocidal mass starvation and issue sanctions in any persons or groups in Israel that are enabling or abetting the food withholding till they and tell them sanctions will stay on if they don’t provide US law enforcement and Interpol with a list of all possible suspects involved in the terrorist murder of, Sayfollah Musallat, an innocent 20 year old Palestinian-American man, to start with, as well as

all the other Americans that have been killed by attacks in the West Bank and all the other attacks by Israeli settlers on civilians in the West Bank.
Now it’s time to get DOGEY:
This is Lying to the Left
This is Lion to the Right
This is Lion to the Left
This is also Lying to the Right
“Criss Cross Out any Evidence of A CLIENT LIST”
We need proof about how Epstein ended up in a Herse.
Your attempts at gaslighting the public by playing as though we don’t have every right to care about kids that were on an island makes this, and also the perceivable likelihoods that you might be hiding incriminating evidence,
so much worse.
As it has recently been the season of Christmas in July.
Joy to the world, no savior hath come
No saviour had there been
Hath not found oneself been done
No saviour there be will
Know till thy to oneself be found
Thy, salvation, hath not yet been.
Was it to be known that there Jesus loved thee?

August 18, 2025 at 4:18 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P129-132

Ukraine to launch substantial counter offensives and force the Russian Regime to face military repercussions has a serious effect of causing the Russian Regime to loose support for their war campaign into Ukraine. ‘Crushing sanctions’, as repeatedly promised, but never acted upon, by President Trump on the campaign trail and since the start of the 2025 term, has also been observed by analysts of the war to have a potent effect of bolstering opposition to the Putin and Oligarch crony Russian Regime’s rule and depletes any internation confidence that the Russian Regime would repay any credit used to purchase more weapons to maintain their military offensive.
Make a Deal with Ukraine that would provide a serious capacity to punish Russia for continuing an offensive and severely sanction Russia and any nations or companies that are providing any military support and weapons sales.
Trade deals to rebuild Ukraine while the Putin Russian Regime is going to wait to for any next opportunity to restart an offensive and continue seeking the overwhelming defeat and capture of Ukraine which large portions of the Russian population who support the Regime are firmly behind.
International State Authorities that are serious
ready to deploy, weapons based, military deterrence infrastructure in Ukraine

To restate, this is not a call to take up arms and neither is this meant to be a call to send troops to fight in any presently ongoing armed conflicts.

The Russia and Ukrainian conflict is in Europe, that does have anything to do with the U.S., no we, the Trump administration are focusing our foreign military campaigning on the Middle Eastern Imperialist initiatives in support of a land hungry Israeli regime that is being rebuked world round for alleged gross human rights violations.
Don’t think about Ethnic Cleansing, think, say it with us now,
‘R-I-V-I-E-R-A’.
And while we’re at it, let’s walk you through something about the practice of political manipulation of the public.
***Please place out your hands.
Here is a piece of pipe to hold.
Now place the pipe onto the floor. ***
See there you go, now you know how to pipe down so pipe down about human rights violations and, let’s throw in, the Epstein files since as President Trump and his administration’s stance is that the public has been too bothersome and noisy in persistently expressing concern about the crimes and implications involved in the Epstein case.

 The availability of a substantially thorough accounting of events as they had occurred, within and, of the circumstances as they had been at a given time, without the recontextualization of actions that may have been taken upon retrospective understanding of the implications of the deeds that had been, is, also, a right of the public; this is particularly with mention of the note that persons in

retrospection of their actions, in some cases, may come to consider the efforts, by those who had been of concern, to have them held in account of their actions as, a therein, operantly, found, impetus to reproach their prior ways.

SECTION 5: WITH KIND REGARDS
Core to the founding identity of the American Institution was the sense that all persons inalienably hold certain rights and civil duties and, in so too, was the nation of peoples, The United States of America, founded and thus so, too, the institutionalization of liberty and within, foremost of which, the right to pursuit and virtue fulfilment of these rights and responsibilities as the defining fundamental principles to be recognized of and for the human condition and, within that extent, it is thus a purpose of the United States, its citizens who may so chose of their own liberty to endeavor to such an accord or otherwise, and it is therein pertained to that which is stated and can otherwise justly be stated, that such a plight, that such a freedom, might, forth be spared unjust persecution, be recognized and considered, should they so exercise such right to designation, its Government, and within it the legislative, judicial and executive branches and their members, to stand upon the utmost principles of conscientiousness, humanitarianly ethical conduct, truth, justice, civil rights, liberties and democracy and, furthermore, to stand for these principles should they or any other such crucial paradigms of the constitution be brought into contention within the nation of the United States’ people and the world they share.

August 18, 2025 at 4:15 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P125-128

The question of having to deal with the contention towards ethicality when faced with only certain terminal outcomes.

 The choice to take a stand when being forced to rest one’s faith and survival in someone else who has only demonstrated ill will towards them

 When, being, faced with the prospect of outcomes that would have, at least, certain detrimental components or implications, potentially to oneself or others, if one were to enterprise towards matters in question with substantial extents of ethical conduct in such a case where the only alternative to avoid certain components within the range of possible adverse effects were to be the abandon of innocents, inherently, of which, the ideals of justice would, instead, be to yield for them sanctuary
,should it be the case that in all such cases of conduct or actions done in ethical disregard or exploitative manners, even if for the interest of one’s prioritized outcomes, are considered justified?

 Are you one’s that would welcome them to be submitted to the shadowy grasp of sinister tyranny, or such an intent, with their fate left in limbo, your strength to their cause you stay of them denied, unafforded of the insight as of whether they are, and if untoward, are they being made, destitute to wait for opportunistic spiteful and ruinous to decide if it would bring itself upon them again?
This is said so as to offer portent proverbialisms as a regard

for stances that had been and to lament of the heralding for a return of such.

~ A Plausible Definition for the term ‘Portent’ (Noun) ~
***An affordance or offering of a notice of a described state of being regarding matters of concern or disconcertion***

~ A Definition for the term ‘Heralding’ (Verb) as it was used ~
*** The act of proclaiming or advocating that a subject or topic of concern may be of, or should be perceived as, a better nature or higher ordinant of purpose, in rightfulness***

 A tragedy would it be for the vulnerable of just cause to be abandoned as a matter of convenience but why might it be that one would sanction such? Plausible motivations are to be considered when seeking to learn from and reconcile history.

 Alliances can be fickle and it is warranted that such might be a matter of concern. It is just to bring such into mention and to hold such in consideration of the circumstances as they are; this is rightful of the contexts and circumstances that may be pertained.
It is within the nature of such, and any proceedings therein,

that, good faith, if such is in fact the case, should not be impeded by measures of transparency and accountability, nor would be if the good faith therein is substantive, if it is given such that intentions are earnest; this is to say that efforts made in good faith are only such, genuinely good faith, if that they are tolerant of substantive measures of transparency and accountability and further, it can thus be said that, acts or efforts made by parties that are of genuinely good faith would entail welcomeness and endorsement of subjection of themselves to substantive measures of transparency and accountability should such not be unjustly arduous or derogatory.

 Are you ones that would bare them into the dark or ones who would stand alongside them in their tribulations?
Do you party yourself to those of long seething enmity and scorn for your people and, similarly, democracy, as its principles might long stand, unadulterated by maliciousness, manipulativeness, coerciveness, cruelty, prejudice and the othering of peoples despite that they uphold just causes, and hope to yield salvation from tyranny?
Would you, cast your lot for, and act in support of an enemy of long time in contention and had brought tragedies upon your, and your allies’, peoples and would you do so if it were to be to the detriment and abandon of longstanding allies?

This is not to be taken as an attempt to plead for persons to volunteer to participate directly in armed conflict. This is of the question of humanitarian and military aid and respect for parties’ accounting of events if they are fair and based in truth

 In a meeting with President Zelenskyy at the Vatican, President Trump lightened his aggression and reprimanding stance toward President Zelenskyy and population of Ukraine for their, even now, still continuing efforts to resist the unlawful ethnic cleansing, genocidal Russian war campaign against them.
Trump has also moved from refusal to support Ukraine’s defense to approving military aid shipments though he still wavers and had for a portion of July, 2025, paused military aid shipments. Military experts note of the significantly smaller scale of both military aid support President Trump administration has been willing to provide comparing the larger aid packages the Biden administration had provided as giving Ukraine chances to push back and seriously disincentivize further Russian aggression while also comparing President Trump’s packages as a means to only slow Russian advance. Within logistical regard, systems that are designed to intercept missiles and aerial drones are costly to utilize and can be overwhelmed by launching large numbers of these missiles and explosives in waves. As seen by the unrest in Russia and greatly increased disapproval of the Putin Regime’s handling of the war during Ukraine’s Occupation of Kursk in Russia and the greatly successful Ukrainian drone attack on Russia military air bases which destroyed highly valuable Russian military aircraft, enabling

August 18, 2025 at 4:13 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P121-124

its existential entity as an innately [impositous] imposing being upon them even if such a power is unable to extend its reach to bring its jurisdiction upon them, is, by nature, definitively Authoritarian.
As this [impositous] imposing nature of such power untethered by the gravity of its implications upon the lives of others, those whom it does not have an innate bearing to serve, whilst because of its capacity to dismiss or impose untoward impediment against the capabilities, of those whom it does not serve, to venue challenge or accountancy against ‘it’, the domain of power, it thus exists in relation to all others and thus, so too, by its entitative nature, as a determining paradigm of the innate potential for a form of truth of nature in absolution, of the range of definitive overarching truths, to be known or professed, if it is that such a ‘truth in absolution’, even despite its absolution, is contrary to other ‘availing’ or ‘limitedly availing’ truths that are the assimilate or the inculcated of it’s decided, and thereby, deterministic jurisdiction thus allowing potential ‘part truths’ or ‘falsehoods’ to reign and rule, over the subjugated, as law, and potentially a form of such without justice, and further allow it to be fraudulently lauded as that which governs the scope of nature, history and the vein in which they flow or may be channeled and are recorded; as such a domain of power, of such a nature, unchecked by the supplication of itself to self-willed free appraisal of its bases by the range of lives within ‘relation to’ or ‘observation of’ it rather than imposition of a sovereignty that does not yield permit to free testament, which is any such testament that is unadulterated by the impetus of, ‘it’, the domain of power’s will, is a dominion of power that is, both innately and by intention, definitively Dictatorial.

If one intends not to dominate then one must allow a chance for concerns to be expressed and heard.
Further, and, what should have been done, precedingly, one must also then consider for any such implications, acknowledge the extents of validities of such as they pertain and willingly welcome or tolerate deliberation whilst also offering affordable to the suitable decorum ascribed to the roles or responsibilities that may be entailed by one’s dispositions at a given instance howsoever they may directly pertain to a given concern or even if it is such that there are responsibilities independent of a given point of concern if it is the case that one does not intended to dictate.

It must be solemnly stated that,
and I would personally note with condolences for such having potentially been the workings of the 47th Presidential Administration and with distinction toward The Offices of the Presidency and The Vice Presidency for potentially having acted in such a desecrating manner of the integrity and history of the nation and faith afforded to them by the people they swore to serve, for if it is such that the most egregious possible extents of criminality and persecution potentially involved in this case are actualities, the 47th Presidential Administration of The United States of America, helmed by President Donald J. Trump and Vice President JD Vance, may be considered liable to damages to the Nation of Ukraine potentially to the order of numerous of Trillions of United States Dollars.

If the potential misconduct, to the extent of severity that might apply in this case, that had allegedly occurred on the part of the White Houses’ Vice President JD Vance and President Donald J. Trump ,if similar to such, had been done by another nation to the United States, one could reasonably expect the United States to seek to claim legal reparatory action against that nation or monetary compensation to such as scale as above stated, potentially at an even great monetary valuation.
It is precedented that the United States has judicially pursued that populations or entities pay substantially large quantities of monetary capital to the US to compensate even for non-criminal actions and even in matters where the parties, that United States entities were seeking compensation from, could have been considered as seeking outcomes where they’d be recognized as

having basic rights in a substantial way; for such to be a precedent upon which a significant contingent of the United States’ economy, as it is today, had been based, maintained or developed, it would be a gross injustice for parties to have to endure being abused for seeking to advocate for or defend themselves, and ,even more significantly, fulfil their diplomatic obligations to advocate for the basic rights of their people, without being allowed effective avenue for legal recourse that would afford substantial reparatory or compensatory measures be sought and enforced if found applicable.

August 18, 2025 at 4:12 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P117-120

Has Trump ever made public statements similar to, “I like Putin, I think he is a great guy,” or, “The idea that this war was started by Russia is a conspiracy by the Left”?

Has President Trump ever made accusations against Ukraine, the Ukrainian public or any members of the Ukrainian Government of tolerating, enabling, endorsing or utilizing fascism or Nazism to achieve their interests?
It is to be noted that the Trump administration has managed to achieve one of its prioritized interests regarding having of gotten a resource deal from Ukraine.
Notably, this resource deal has been publicly described by the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Dimitry Medvedev, as Trump’s forcing of Ukraine to pay for US aid, therein a potential insinuation, as the Trump administration has, advertently or inadvertently, facilitated avenues for the Russian Government to make, being that if the United States has the right to act with aggression and force towards seeking their claims of interests, in this case resources, from Ukraine, then why shouldn’t Russia be able to?
Recall a publicity video shoot President Trump had done in the oval office in 2024 in which a trained live bald eagle was brought into the office for , the at the time former President, Mr. D. J. Trump to have perched on his arm for the filming and while perched on Mr. D. J. Trump’s arm the bird flapped its wings a few times upon which, the then former president, Trump grimaced in seemingly startled manner?

Regardless of the considerations of the legality of one’s conduct records, to seek the prevention of the adulteration of the historical record of events as it pertains to any matter wherein one might claim that such an imposition, as this may regard any changes to the facts and actualities (, inclusive of opinions claimable, even if thereafter,) that have been held within the historical record of events or may have been a plausibility within historical context, if it is such that said imposition may enable, factor into, or incur, any subsequent potential forms of misrepresentations, persecution or stances of prejudice toward any parties therein, even if only minimally or tangentially so, as well as if it may be such that said unchanged record may avail any unprejudiced avenue to counteract any potential forms of persecution, or any other ill toward inclusions or alterations, is innately and universally within the rights of persons, however, within such, definitive truths and substantiated certainties cannot be considered of ill, within entitativity, of nature; it is, therein, a universal right of persons to be free of untoward burden from such an imposition.

If it is such, then, the inquiry regarding the connotations of the stated term ‘diplomacy’ was a request for a basic,
or as the term may apply, menially requiring, requiring of a minimal level of invocation or citation of the pertinent aspects of the dynamic’s complexity to be substantive within context to the question and it’s contingents of, or specifically factored bases within, the ethicality of its warrant, thereby such would have been a failure to have met the bare minimum of a response that wouldn’t have been ethically incompetent or unethically, and obtrusively {as it may have been uncalled for}, obstructing, level of contextualization, particularly within pertinence as to how such serves the public’s basic rights to transparency and accountability,
and thus should have been treated such, in what should have been reasonably considered, as innocuous in regard,
of the stances of President Trump & Vice President JD Vance, which was, and should have been considered, highly reasonable to question, particularly as such may regard to potential conflicts of interests, and therein,
even in the most scrutinizing, uncompromised, rationale, even if allowing for, reasonably limited or, adequately restrained untoward bias from President Trump and Vice President JD Vance, should have been considered as of negligible untowardness, and even if greater than negligible then at least not to the extent that would’ve warranted the
should have been perceived as entirely conducive to the purpose of public demonstration of diplomatic intentions.
If such is the case within regard to the inquiring interjection, pertaining to the contextualization of diplomacy, wouldn’t such have thus been well within the pertinent ethical diplomatic standards and, furthermore, would have been of fundamentally

positive service toward the public’s stakes therein of this diplomatic process?
Such an inquiry, as it had been made by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, should by no means be treated as within unreasonable ethics and shouldn’t have been considered an attempted act of incitation within the context of the diplomatic interaction or escalatory of tensions if such 'diplomatic' interactions had been being conducted in good faith.
Is it the case that President Zelenskyy, within the context of how the question regarding what was meant by President JD Vance’s use of the term diplomacy, could be considered as of acting within reasonable intentionality and approached in an efficacious manner and within demonstrably adequate considerateness of the ethical implications regarding a substantial extent of the pertinent paradigms of the specific diplomatic endeavor, in question, especially within regard to the potential impact on the public, or at the very least without unjustifiable untowardness?
How much lower a minimum could be asked for as a basic level of rights to be afforded to the public than that?
The answer to that question is very certain.
Any lower a minimum cannot by within any terms be an ethically valid constitution of afforded rights since further erosion of avenues for accountability and undermining attempts to facilitate transparency can only exist as a created domain of power over the affairs and lives of the public with unchecked means of corruption and exploitation of those subjugated to such a domain, therefore it is to say such an act or an institution or utilization of a dominion of ordination in transcendence of the reigns of the rights of the lives subordinate to it or the lives existing adjacent to it, with

August 18, 2025 at 4:10 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P113-116

sinister manipulation, persecution and exploitation and the further potential malignant trend of such practices of these acts or tactics of cruelty and silencing and in forms more severe where it may, such, constitute an attack against human liberties,
given its nature as being a potential means for use in the distortion of perceptions of even profound truths and starkly deniable matters of actuality and reality, the denial of rightful claim to truth in testimony and the denial of a right for persons to freely accord, adhere the understandings, of which are with sound and just regard to the context of implications and conceive, further, upon, of, such, therein, found, moreover, where such may be said to be in a form analogous to ‘a species of violence malicious coercion to dereliction of duty’ to protect of those whose rights may be infringed upon, as well as made to be further subjected to greater vulnerability,
many victims, of which, have there been, hitherto, this, thine day, else hitherto, the day, that thus would be resoundingly reckoned with, do not persist as threats to human safety and liberties.

Due to the nature of the misconduct involved, would it thus be reasonable to inquire as to whether the matters pertaining to this case may constitute the act of persecution of parties for specifically seeking their rights to fair representation, their rights to fair testimony, the right to transparency of process and the right to accountability of process as such may pertain to any parties of relevancy therein, in such a manner that parties were being maligned for seeking said rights, wherein these, potentially victimized, parties may have possibly been being portrayed or treated as wrongful and as having been necessary to be subject to threat, and potentially even to the point that even, persecutory,

violence against them may have been framed as of their, the potentially victimized parties’, own provocation, within even to the extent of the severity of the inflicted violence, for, their, having engaged in the act of seeking that their rights, to fair testimony, fair representation and accountability as such may pertain to any parties of relevancy to matters of concern, be upheld?
If such, would this case be reasonably characterizable as a act of highly manipulative, potentially drastically malicious, misconduct, by President Donald J. Trump, Vice President JD Vance and others who may be participant therein, in, potentially having created a dynamic which entails that the public may be functionally misled to believe that the exercise of the identified rights, themselves, can be considered and treated as wrongful, in so, functionally deterring persons from seeking their rights to just representation and right to be allowed fair testimony as well as, thus, imposing a dynamic of perceived potential threat of persecution upon those who seek to exercise their rights?

“AMERICAN TROOPS”
In the immediate first public statement made to the press (news media journalists) after the Oval Office altercation, between the White House and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of the 28th of February 2025, President Trump went so far as to make the accusation, while referring to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, alleging that ‘they’ {President Zelenskyy} are trying to get American troops killed.
In another, later, statement to the press President Trump, this time wearing a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat (this is with reference to a literal MAGA hat and not mean to be a figure of speech), made toned down, one might argue sanitized in comparison to the first interview, statements regarding the Oval Office altercation; this interview would be the second on video statement given by President Trump following the Oval Office incident.
The ‘MAGA hat’ has been mentioned above to assist anyone who may be interested in looking for these interview statements made by President Trump since it functions as an identifier between the first and the second interviews that Trump gave to the press following the Oval Office meeting and since if it were to have been that you, an online viewer of the news, were too have been unaware that Trump had made two different statements to the press about the Oval Office incident then, if you were to look for either of the video statements made by Trump to the news media, you may end up inadvertently only seeing one statement or the other thereby, inadvertently, going on without having gotten to find out that two different statements had been made by President Trump, *the first statement that did not include a MAGA hat and involved the accusations of attempts to get American troops

killed* or *the second statement in which President Trump was wearing the MAGA hat and spoke less forcefully or, as one might reasonably say, in a sanitized manner*.

Side Note: Since the Trump ordered, B-2 Spirit fleet, bombing of Iranian Nuclear facilities and, what has been dubbed by President Trump, “The 12 Day War [in Israel and Iran]”, Iran has launched a capture and execution campaign against all persons within Iran found to have ties to the United States which may potentially have cost the lives of US citizens, allies and strategic collaborators within Iran. A ceasefire deal was brokered between Israel and Iran following the B-2 Spirit air campaign on Iran’s Nuclear facilities. Since the time of the start of the ceasefire, new reports have come out that Isreal launched an airstrike on Iran in which the President of Iran was injured but not killed; this report requires verification to confirm if there had actually been a strike, if it had been carried out by Israel or if the Iranian President had actually been at the site of the strike or had been harmed by the alleged incident, if involved.

I have been unable to find any official notice of a retraction of President Trump’s Statements regarding his accusations towards Zelenskyy of an involvement in intentions to ‘Get American Troops Killed’ as having been formally declared.

August 18, 2025 at 4:09 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P109-112

as such may pertain, in this case as one of Ukrainian’s,
statespersons, dignitaries, delegates and representatives,
as such would be rightfully obliged to the members of the civilian public being represented, in this case being Ukraine’s, and also as Zelenskyy has noted Europe’s, Western Ally Nation’s, and has noted on various occasions, populations that value liberty, liberalism, libertarianism and democracy,
howsoever it may be that such a provided representation might pertain to their potential for achievement of just, or more just, conditions and just furtherance of interests,
in this case being the matter that their rights, with regard to the affordance and respect for free and fair testimony, fair representation itself, and that all parties in relation to the overall matters of pertinence to said topics of discourse, in this case being the Russian Invasion of Ukraine {particularly so with relevance to this point}, ceasefire negotiations and the potential for preserving the support of the US in relevant capacities, are held to substantially just standards of accountability
by U.S. President Donald J. Trump and U.S. Vice President JD Vance,
as having a concocted, faux, element of, what one might describe as a near, confabulatory inconspicuousness, to whatever extent this may be factorial to the implications of their conduct,
particularly so as it may relate to topics
which may prompt that the ethics of their diplomatic conduct ties and stances, and, in so too, their diplomatic integrity and, in such, the credibility of their diplomatic practice methods, as to whether such has been substantially grounded in principles of justice,
within matters of partisan political contention
that may be brought into question,

guising the standing contentions, in a misleading, or even deceitful, manner,
which, further, potentially serves concealed untoward and exploitative, or even extortionate, intentions and agendas and also involving coercion being utilized against President Zelenskyy to force his capitulation to tolerating the maligning slander, that has been brought against himself and, by extension the people of Ukraine and, further, any persons who might consider President Zelenskyy’s and the Ukrainian people’s endeavors within as being favorable regard to such matters therein, accusing said parties of
in so being his relenting, or silencing, from advocating for transparency, fair and accurate representation and accountability within diplomatic process?

It may be worthwhile to make note, again, of the considerations that President Trump has been making claims that President Volodymyr President Zelenskyy is unpopular, is trying to avoid elections, has been characterizing President Zelenskyy as a dictator and has expressed his, President Trump’s, stance is that President Zelenskyy should resign.

Side Note: A recent piece of legislation has been passed in Ukraine which by some media reports and public opinions is perceived as needing more adequate and clearer substantiating in regard to how it makes the case that it is in keeping with a logistically responsible degree of standards of accountability as it pertains to the bill’s inclusion of allowing the Ukrainian government to gain oversight or control of two of Ukraine’s prior independent non-government monitoring agencies, a component of the nation’s methods of checks and balances, which function to verify that the Ukrainian Government has been in avoiding and preventing corruption.

It can therefore be claimed that due to the nature of the misconduct involved in this case, the persecution of parties for specifically seeking their rights to fair representation, their rights to fair testimony, the right to transparency of process and the right to accountability of process, as such may pertain to any parties of relevancy therein, in such a manner that parties were being maligned for seeking said rights, in such, vulnerable parties are being portrayed or treated as wrongful and as necessary to be subject to threat, and potentially even to the point that even,

persecutory, violence against them may be framed as of their, the vulnerable parties’, own provocation, as inflicted for their engagement in the act of seeking that their rights, be upheld, this case of highly manipulative, potentially drastically malicious, misconduct by President Donald J. Trump, Vice President JD Vance and others who may be participant therein
has created a dynamic which entails that the public may be functionally misled to believe that
the exercise of the identified rights, themselves, can be considered and treated as wrongful, in so, functionally deterring persons from seeking their rights to just representation and right to be allowed fair testimony as well as, thus, imposing a dynamic of perceived potential threat of persecution upon those who seek to exercise their rights.

In recognition of the potential, profoundly so within regard to the possible, extents of the severity of, predatory extortionate and persecutory criminality of President Donald J. Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other potential unspecified associates who may have participated alongside them in the matters of misconduct described, investigations of these parties, The United States President Donald J. Trump, The United States Vice President JD Vance and unspecified associates that may be implicated, and the factors involved in this case are a necessity for the preservation of justice and the impeachment of any parties criminally implicated, as applicable, and, further, criminal prosecution, within the same accord, should be considered, strictly, a crucial imperative as it pertains to ensuring that,
if these allegations are sound, that, these potential factors for enabling or establishing precedent of such potential methods of

August 18, 2025 at 4:05 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P105-108

as it pertains to how Trump’s accusation of that, they, said party, Zelenskyy and, by extension,
those who support him or defend his actions within regard to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, are acting as, illegitimate perpetrators of said conflict.

This tactic of trying to obstruct and vilify Zelenskyy, and, by extension, Ukraine, in regard to their efforts to seek that their rights to transparency, fair representation and accountability within diplomatic process are upheld extends to enabling the vilification of any parties globally to be predatorily characterized in a similar manner for supporting Zelenskyy or Ukrainians; this can be considered of tremendous, and potentially even grave, relevance to those who might, possibly, within regard even to matters unrelated to this Russian War Against Ukraine, identify with such a plight of desiring transparency, fair and accurate representation and accountability within societal approaches to matters that are concerning to them.

Such a consideration may apply in regard to Palestinians, for instance, portions of whose population, those is Gaza, President Trump has stated the intention to have ‘relocated’ out of the Gaza strip and for they land on which they dwelled to then be used for the construction what Trump has described, as he intends for it, as prior alluded to, would be ‘The Riviera of The Middle East’, a revenue aimed destination, under ownership of the United States, regarding which one might reasonably note seems to imply acquisition through annexation, though the specific term itself had not specifically been stated by Trump; such a political and monetary motive might be noted within consideration of the possibility that President Trump and Vice President JD Vance may have been utilizing the described tactic of predatorily maligning parties that seek their right to testimony, so, to create perceived precedent for such predatory practices, as it applies to

matters of diplomatic contentions in these contexts, to enable more ease of utilization of such in further exploits.

This tactic can be seen as a unlawful persecutory means of exploiting the status, of, and public influence associated with the US executive’s station to smear, Zelenskyy and, by extension, those in support of his conduct within leading Ukraine, to infringe upon their rights to be afforded the opportunity to give fair testimony without obstruction and to have the actualities of their claims held in respectful legitimizing accord, howsoever it is that ethical imperatives for such may be pertinent, by manipulating the perceived contexts of acts which should have been considered substantively ethical, unmistakably justified and rightfully afforded of the chance to have been treated within good faith through the misleading characterization of President Zelenskyy’s intentions as seeking, as such is termed, ‘to litigate’ since said term, distinctly so, with relevance as to how it had been utilized in this case by Vice President JD Vance, has unreasonably or unjustifiably accusatory underpinnings or underpinnings of unreasonable or unjustifiable imposingness.

Regarding the considerations that an, if not the, explicitly designated pretense of the Oval Office meeting was to negotiate a commercial deal with President Zelenskyy for a quantity of Ukrainian resources, to a sum that would have been determined in said discussions, for the purpose of establishing a monetary interest for the Trump administration into Ukraine, which President Trump also went so far as to state would be the predominant

means of deterrence against further Russian aggression that his administration would be willing to be party to in addition to the resultant events within said Oval Office meeting, being the resulting altercation wherein, if it is such that, the involvement of the implications, mentioned earlier in this statement, of intentional misrepresentations to malign said party, President Zelenskyy and Ukraine, of which monetary assets are being sought, apply in the severely incriminating ways that they potentially might, as discussed, is it therefore the case that one would have a right to reasonably suspect that these events amount to what could be a seemingly systematically sinister, highly technical and manipulative scheme, to potentially facilitate the, intersecting or interplaying, and potentially coordinated, statements and actions that may be component to the historical record of their conducts,
within relevance to any such related feature of concerns and rhetoric that can be noted and significantly contribute to this case’s specific, as well as with regard to the factorisations of President Trump’s and Vice President Vance’s own general, communication dynamics, inclusive of any noteworthy effects that any distinctive features of their decorum and candor within political dignitary capacities that might apply,
(***such as instances where President Trump or Vice President Vance may have initiated interactions with some level of, potentially even limited, display of amicable intentionality to then enact or exhibit a sudden, potentially even rapid, escalation of aggression or hostility***)
if it is such that they entered into these interactions knowing that they had been holding, ill regarding, views, prospectively, towards ,specifically ,any potential acts in which the party in question, President Zelenskyy, would attempt to fulfil their responsibilities,

August 18, 2025 at 4:03 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P101-104

(noun)
*** A state of being or condition of ill affliction(s) which is/are causative of/to disturbances and discongruity/discongruences {incongruity/incongruences} within one’s (physical or conceptual) constitution***
This thereby makes the act of directly or conditionally discrediting the extent to which a specified claim or paradigm is precedential, as it may stand either in isolation or in relation to alternate specified claims or paradigms, (and this applies to the precedent of factual or evidentiary based process and accuracy of recording and representation) exclusively and fundamentally an active process.

Section 4: (Main Part Continued) Russia - Ukraine and The Oval Office Meeting

This therefore substantiates that VPOTUS’s actions can be characterized as an attempt to falsely portray Zelenskyy’s conduct as predatory, in a manner than one could not reasonably conclude from the circumstances, to slanderously malign President Zelenskyy and by extension, so too, those who support or defend him and his conduct in office.

Moreover, to slanderously malign a party, particularly so as it pertains to the egregious nature of the allegations of intentionally seeking the deaths of victims, vulnerable persons, or persons toward whom there are not, or would have been without, substantial ethical imperatives or indications of criminality to warrant such measures that would be permitting of harm being brought against them by any party therein,
in such a manner that would be imposing of a dynamic in which a party’s basic rights [and means] to attest to matters of actualities and act in well-founded obligation to endeavor question as to whether their right to testimony of events, as they may have been plausibly truthfully experienced, would be preserved,
as is an inherent aspect of ethical fair diplomacy as well as in keeping with the public’s rights to transparency and accountancy of events of public relevance as they occur and of the persons pertaining therein, furthermore, crucially, a slanderous maligning, in such a manner that would impose a dynamic that misrepresents one’s act of seeking their right to testimony, of

therein a fair accounting of events, as component to, in this case, an irrational and thereby prejudiced, contrived notion, that a basic question regarding the pertinent contexts of the circumstances as they were occurring, that is, within relation to diplomatically obliged concerns, on behalf of the population said party, represents a conspiratory act of hostility and ploy,
particularly so as such a suspicion or accusation would be the only possible premise that one could perceive or question, even if erroneously so, of such an inquiry, as it had been made by Zelenskyy, as having any bearing whatsoever of being anything but well toward and a conducive facilitation of the diplomatic process, thereby making it the most plausible, though only remotely so,
and, though in this case would, or could, have been the only plausibly mistaken or misconstrued as being a, perceived, rational inference,
though in this case, was of no substantial logical warrant of JD Vance to presume such, in so, such had been done erroneously, in a contrived prejudicial manner,
from such a question that they, Vice President JD Vance and President Donald J. Trump, could have possibly been acting upon, in the manner they had been, against,
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and by extension the officials of the Ukrainian Government and of the Ukrainian military forces that support President Zelenskyy,
which accuses said party, President Zelenskyy and subsets of Ukrainians in support of him, of acting with the intent to enable that vulnerable populations, Ukrainian civilians, be exposed to violence for exploitative reasons,
potentially based on President Trump’s claims that President

Zelenskyy has been intentionally trying to prolong conflict with regards to how such may be compounded with President Trump’s narrative of accusing President Zelenskyy of being a dictator that is trying to avoid elections,
which, to reiterate, is a contrived accusation, purported by the White House, without substantial evidence, and, that being so, potentially for the maliciously intentional purpose of manipulatively misleading the public towards adopting these persecutory views towards said party, Ukraine and particularly President Volodymyr Zelenskyy,
thus manufacturing a situation in which said party, President Zelenskyy, is being coerced, given that both humanitarian and military aid supply as well as US participation in ceasefire negotiations is being leveraged, into relenting from upholding his obligation to the Ukrainian Public to advocate that they may retain their rights to honest accounting of the events of the Ukrainian war and that the diplomatic proceedings involving management of the Ukrainian war are conducted in transparent accountable manners, regarding all parties involved in any such component of diplomatic process, thereby resulting in the forced capitulation, of said party, to,
and, so, thus the enabling of various forms of predatory mischaracterizations that are being brought against Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians, even more egregiously so, in a manner that goes beyond being, not only, defamation
but is, thus, functionally an act
fraudulent incrimination against them, said party, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and by extension the officials of the Ukrainian Government and of the Ukrainian military forces that support President Zelenskyy,

August 18, 2025 at 4:02 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P97-100

Supplementary Elaboration {written in semi-formal dialectic format}:
The terms invalidation and nullification have similar meanings and may be used alternatively to one another based on a given use case. The term nullification as it is commonly used sometimes connotates, the further distinction, that a subject of such can may be characterized as of being in an abjectly, pervasively or thoroughly disqualifying state or condition towards itself, or crucial aspects, such as faculties or features, pertinent to itself therein, or of thoroughly, unduly {of its self-innate [/self-inane (self-disordaining within its self-entheticising/self-constitutionalizing process)(self-decoherent / meta-decoherent)] facets} deleterious ‘standings’, ‘status’ or ‘credentialism’. The act of ‘nullification’ is an act of deconstitutionalisation (or the disestablishment of the validity of a paradigm of claim). For an act of deconstitutionalisation to occur there has to be a structured framework of concepts and facts that model or constitute the design of an outlined claim.

 To answer the question, the term ‘self-inane’ inane was not used to mean ‘self-silly’, in the dictionary literal sense, but rather in a literary or dialectic although informal, yet still noteworthy, sense to describe a condition of an entity, of such, wherein its self-imposed preconditions may be inexorably debasing or may be of inordinately ill construction to the point of profound, persistent catabolism of its entitative

integrity of, being upon, having, its formulation within, principles.

SIDE NOTE:
A REASON WHY A LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTION MAY BE REFERRED TO AS A ‘BODY OF LAWS’ IS THAT ‘A LEGISLATURE’ OR ‘LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK’ CAN BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ENTITATIVE QUALITIES, IN THAT, SUCH CAN BE DESCRIBED AS ‘A FUNCTIONAL CONCEPT STRUCTURALIZING FORM OR STATE.’

~ Deconstitutionalisation ~

~ Definition of ‘Constitution’ by the Oxford Dictionary:
** a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed. **

~ Definition of the Term ‘Constitutionalize’ (Verb) by Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
*** to organize along constitutional principles***

~ A Plausible Definition for the Term ‘Deconstitutionalize’ (Verb):
*** To terminally reproach, disordinate {root word disordain} or repeal of a held or considered paradigm of relevance to principalities***

~ Definition of the Term ‘Ordain’ (Verb) by Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1 - ***To invest officially [as by the laying on of hands] with ministerial or priestly authority***
2 - ***To establish or order by appointment, decree, or law***

~ Plausible Considerations for Use Case Applicabilities of the Term ‘Ordain’ (Verb)
1 - *** To authorize the recognition of a given subject as of a denoted specific entitative state of being that is based on abstractions within philosophy which, within more frequent use cases, relates to their status(es) in society (such as to a position of nobility, a position of service to a given nobility, a position within clergy, a guardianship of a potential dependent, a marital or spousal relationship***
2 - *** To make formal recognition of a granted state or position of authority, a hierarchical standing within philosophical principalities, or principilisms, or a status of precedence

Free, Unobstructed, Fair, Open Testimony, {The right to testimony is underpinned terminally within the arbitrative parameters of representation being such that a party innately has the right to state claims of factual matters which is the most basally limited means by which a premise can be established, defined of distinguished. Denial of

such a basic right is to deny the ability to express any matter of concern and afford even the most minimal/limited/basal means of self-defense}

Fundamentally, it is a possibility to passively (or actively) add further included considerations or factors into a structuralized framework (such as a ‘constitute claim’) of concept, however it is impossible to passively {through passive means} extricate, disestablish, ‘entirely dismiss’ or discredit an article within (, or by extension the entirety of,) a claim or considered paradigm; this is of note to further the substantiation that litigation is innately an act and process of imposition and that the act of characterizing a party as being of ‘litigious intent’ or ‘with the intent to litigate’ is inherently asserting that they have intentions to act in a directly imposing manner toward (and/or within) the context of a given consideration or subject matter.

~ A Possible Use Case for the Term *Extricate* (verb)~
“To liberate, extricate or distinguish principalities from(st) a malaise of misconceptions and paradoxical stances or beliefs”
~ Definition of ‘Malaise’ (noun) by Oxford Dictionary~
*** A general feeling of discomfort, illness or unease whose exact cause is difficult to identify***

~ Another Plausible Definition for The Term ‘Malaise’

August 18, 2025 at 4:01 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P93-96

Trump administration and, particularly so, shouldn’t the Ukrainian people have the right to obligate that their leadership that would be representing them in diplomatic proceedings consider for and at least seek to peacefully deliberate upon the concerning reasonably suspected contentious motives by that may have been held by the Trump administration ulterior to the priority for a resolved peaceful outcome for Ukraine’s future and that it was seemingly the case in that interaction that Ukraine’s rights to testify of their concerns were being intentionally undermined by Trump administration though what could have been considered as unreasonable attempts to discredit their claims, as President Zelenskyy had rightfully been advocating for, as is within his diplomatic duty to the Ukrainian people.

The logic of Vice President JD Vance’s litigation claim can be surmised as being tantamount to the perception that JD Vance believes in, to state, “Zelenskyy and Ukraine are trying to take advantage of the US’s kindness by trying to facilitate a situation where their people have their rights respected and they are afforded a substantially logistically secure solution to the conflict instead of a solution that we, Ukraine and the Trump administration in partnership, can have achieved immediately, that would also achieve US economic goals, even if it would be insufficient to protecting Ukraine and might further enable Russia, such as by giving them time to regroup, so we can put aside the matter, and I, JD Vance am doing the right thing for
persecuting that Zelenskyy and Ukraine be recognized as hostile and abusive for what I, JD Vance in representation of the Trump administration, consider their erroneousness
in being hesitant about agreeing to our, the Trump administration’s,

regarding of potentially risking worsening the threats of harm toward Ukraine, questionable stances and approach to the matter of the ongoing conflict and for their, President Zelenskyy and Ukraine’s, what we the Trump administration may be inclined to treat as, bothersome persistence in seeking such a thing as having their people’s rights to testify and account for to the conditions they are suffering respected, and that they, Zelenskyy and Ukraine, for some reason think that they are justified in continuously seeking to have their testimony against Russia upheld instead of having
the global military super power, Russia’s, portrayal of Ukraine as being a terrorist, nazi, military threat against, said super power, Russia, to be intervened upon in any manner or time Russia would see fit and rightful, be treated as justly permissible by other world authorities, in this case the United States’ Trump Administration.”
A process being strictly/limitedly/terminally arbitrative does not connotate that contrary points of perspective (such as the validities of opposing agendas) are inherently being approached/engaged with through deterministic evaluation of supersedence (the function of attempting to denote decisive superlativeness of a given point) whereas, rather, is only terminally inherent of a process that is preliminarily qualificative of the potential precedents that the case may consider further as therein pertinent;
this is not to say that decisions cannot be optionally made within arbitration of the treatment of a consideration as of superlativeness in some capacity or even overall and that further decisions cannot be made on such a basis within arbitration optionally,
however, a necessary note is that a party or claims wherein of

such are potential valid precedents that cannot terminally be determined as unsubstantially factorial to the case, even if determined of a degree of subordination to an established superseding point, wherein such may have or pose any potential question as to its contextual legal or ethical applications or considerations cannot be justly denied of the avenue to present the case with pertinence to the contention of evaluation of reasonably questioned implications, and the overall case considerations therein, within regard to said potentially contestable precedents.
In such arbitration can be definitively stated as being of minimal connotations of imposition/imposingness in processes since its foundation is the basal right to state, and inquest to facilitate further understandings of, a claim and hold such as testimony and claimed fair account if such cannot otherwise be refuted.
Litigation contrastingly entails the specific objective to establish, a given claim as being justly and substantively of superseding precedent (such as to how considerations of law are treated as wherein forth justly held, and as to how aspects of such therein, may be claimed through a through deterministic elucidatory process of contextualism) and within the same regard thus inherently connotates the functional, or operant (conditionally designate), cause to the nullification of the (operant) proposed credentials or the subordination of component paradigms which may pertain to a given claim contentiously as well as, connotates, the intention to the pursuit of/for such, and, is thereby inherently imposing [impositous].

Arbitration is limited to conduct that does not inherently include attempts to terminally establish a set paradigm of consideration as overturing of other such paradigms that are currently of held status, or are, yet, not discredited of potential, of being in justly higher precedential standing by other parties within a given process of arbitration.
Arbitration is very specific and distinctly different from litigation, crucially so, in that parties who are maintaining contrary paradigms as being of greater precedent within a discourse may still have the ability to arbitrate if they were to approach the paradigms in contention without the attempt to authoritatively assert a point of distinction that may be partly or entirely invalidating or nullifying of underpinning conceptual, or in some cases evidentiary, components of some facet of a perceived paradigm.
~ Definition of ‘Authoritatively’ (adverb) {as the term was used above} by The Oxford Dictionary:
1 - ** in a commanding and self-confident manner that induces respect and obedience. **
2 - ** in an official capacity or with official sanction, and therefore requiring compliance or obedience. **

August 18, 2025 at 3:59 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P89-92

This claimed ‘intent for litigation’ is a conjectural allegation that was beyond warrant, within the contexts of the interaction, given that the connotations of such implies, suggestions of aspects of intentionality that are not entirely innocuous or, a degree of aggression beyond that of which just considerations of the potential intentions of President Zelenskyy based on Zelenskyy’s actions within said interaction, an interaction, which was supposed to have taken place within diplomatic pretenses, a conduct standard which President Zelenskyy’s actions had been in accordance with, as well as based upon Zelenskyy’s record of conduct for the duration of the matters of relevancy to said Oval Office altercation.

Section 4 (continued): ARBITRATION AND LITIGATION
To return to a prior mentioned point, it is crucial to recognize that arbitration and litigation are definitively distinct in regard to their functional and conceptual natures and the act of conflating arbitrative intent as being litigious intent can be misleading or, further, even potentially an exploitative slanderous accusation.
The acts of ‘litigation’ and within the same regard ‘litigious intent’ by definition have characteristic features that make the terms ‘litigation’ & ‘litigious intent’, as they exist procedurally, departures from the forms of discourse or deliberation that would constitute ‘arbitration’ (root words arbiter, arbitrate, arbitrary) on the basis of how the term, ‘arbitration’, is specifically defined and functions legally and diplomatically; most relevantly, this would be with regard as to how these terms, in use, inherently connotate the imposed suggestions of certain basally constitute(d) implications which thereby terminally differentiate them.
Arbitration, and particularly so within procedural contexts, can be described as referring to the navigation, however not specifically the contest for terminal superlativeness, of factors of oppositional references, perspectives, contrary specifications or characterizations of evidences.
The court has an obligation of service within relation to the public as it pertains to the codification of logistical concepts as operationally superlative, this is inherently a process or ordination.

This is relevant since the characterization of an interaction as being litigious rather than arbitrative functionally connotates the characterization of given circumstances or proceedings as well as parties pertaining to such as being of higher extents of combativeness or inappropriate uncompromisingness (exceedingly arduous {such as in cases where there may be pertinent conflicting interests such as maintaining the perceptions of credibility, ‘noteworthiness’ or ‘standing’ of one’s positions or claims}, unsustainable logistically or where there is a held stance of resolute unwillingness to cooperate) opposition beyond the basal or more inert parameters of arbitration.
This thus may inadvertently, or serve to advertently, create impetus toward the perceptions and the regard of said interaction in question, and as it may apply to parties there in, as potentially being terminally underlined by pretenses beyond or outside the basally constitute paradigms of both litigation and arbitration and can rather be utilized to suggest a given party, which may be being characterized as having litigious intent, as instead holding intentions that are more untoward or ill natured; this is particularly notable since litigious intentions, despite not inherently connotating untoward intentions, do entail the aggressing of a matter’s confrontation whereas, however, ‘arbitrative intentions’ only connotate, at most, active reproachful stances towards a consideration and, in such, are, definitively, substantively less challenging or imposing towards said considerations, or parties holding said consideration, which said reproach is being held towards; arbitrative actions, in comparison to litigatory actions, by no means connotate active or pursued aggressing of contest or aggressing of contentions against said considerations or parties.

Arbitration as it is used within procedural matters can only be claimed to be as innately, within dialectic context, a negotiatory process, or, a delineation process that is not with intent for contest
, rather than, and not inclusive of, a debate process, particularly as such may pertain to the terminalization of the plausible principles of concern or relevancy, and cannot be said to be innately of a comparable degree of inherent confrontationality that would constitute litigatory procedures and, therefore, could not qualify as being justly characterizable as an act of imposition by a party that is seeking, in this case diplomatic, deliberation, particularly as such pertains to ethical, and legal, obligations to refrain from negligent conduct, further, therein ,and by inherence , could not be justly considered untoward in nature
with exemption to the form of a potential exploit in the act of filibuster.
There is a narrative in the public that Ukraine is maintaining its defensive campaign for irrationally substantiated reasons, or even prejudiced hostility toward Russia.
What is to be said of the White House’s handling of considerations, within the escalatory response and course of action they followed such with, of the
context that the statement made by President Zelenskyy, inquiring as to what was meant by Vice President JD Vance’s use of the term diplomacy, was seeking to contextualize what extent of Ukrainian rights would be upheld within the parameters of such diplomacy within consideration that Russia and parties outside of Russia have been maintaining this stated narrative that is harmful to Ukraine and that given the Trump administration’s representations of Ukraine to the public, shouldn’t Ukraine reasonably have had a right to be weary of the imperatives of the

August 18, 2025 at 3:57 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P85-88

{ ‘???’ instead of ‘period [.]’ : because the statement is ludicrous despite being factual/true} {not an editing error, the “{italicized}” is intentionally included so that the perspective that the ethics of such an action by Trump are dubious is noted unambiguously as being suggested by the statement}

Republicans like to bring up Orwell in regard to Democrat COVID-19 policy.
President Donald Trump has brazenly and/or unabashedly (you decide which of those two is more damning; you have every right to speculate) stated that the public isn't allowed to criticize Russia and specifically the 'fairly elected' [by Novachok/ Freezing Prison Cell / Mysterious Illness elimination of the Opposition Alexei Navalny] President Vladimir Putin.

On a historically crucial note, it must be stated that arbitration and litigation are profoundly distinct from one another.
Given the perceivable conflicts of interest and justifiably warranted concerns that your Administration may not be intending fair, ethical methods of diplomacy and instead intend to act with bias towards Russia and Vladimir Putin, it is therefore the case that, (and that is to again state) a request for elaboration as to what was entirely being meant by VPOTUS JD Vance's call for 'diplomacy' is by no valid means substantially indicative of an expression of dissent or an act of transgressive inquest regarding a potential claim of reprehensibility of the Trump administration.
Therefore, again, within the context of the statements made within the lead up to the escalatory response, by Vice President JD Vance and President Trump, to President Zelenskyy’s question about ‘diplomacy’,

it ,further, cannot be rationally concluded that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's question,
which inquired as to what connotations were being meant by said ‘diplomacy’,
regarding the manner in which the term had been prior used by JD Vance, (ie: "What do the POTUS and VPOTUS entail within their use of the intended 'diplomacy' as expressed?” “Are there relevant specifications of types or parameters of said ‘diplomacy’?)
had been specifically indicative of President Zelenskyy, as to having been,
allegedly,
acting with an intent for seeking litigation of ‘the matter’ whereas, thus, instead it can only be justly interpreted as an act of the intent for seeking arbitration of ‘the matter’ since such a basic question has no level inherent forwarded accusatory underpinning regarding potential contentions.

It is thus substantiated that such an inquiry within the context of the interaction as it occurred does not constitute an attempt to instigate hostility or conflict within the interaction or disrupt the aim of ‘the matter’ at hand, with said ‘matter’ being the amicable diplomatic deliberation and negotiation of terms for a ceasefire in Russia’s war against Ukraine as well as the US President’s Office’s demands for a resource deal and the advocacy for measures to ensure that a secure future for the Ukrainian people and nation be preserved.
Despite the reasons for skepticism, especially given their potential extent of superfluousness within the context of the highly sensitive

and critically precedential matter of attaining a robustly secure peaceful resolution to the war in Ukraine, President Zelenskyy's question as it was asked had no innate component of an expression that would connotate the communication of any extent of perceived implications of untoward intent or perceived misconduct in an unintentionally deleterious manner toward Ukraine by the POTUS or the VPOTUS or the perception that the US President Trump’s administration was approaching the interaction with a general level of corruptness of their pretenses.

To note, it is well within the norms of diplomacy for, at minimum, 'basic disclosure', the most basal component of transparency, in union with record keeping, to be demonstrated by participants as it is the only means to assuage public concerns of, at minimum, potential likelihoods of 'non-malicious mishandling', or more extenuatingly 'untoward mishandling', as being possibilities even if only to the limited extent that it might be functional for that purpose whilst under permissions for the maintenance and facilitation of only the most basic or bare minimal diplomatic standards of transparency from the participants in the diplomatic process.
This is to say, given that Zelensky’s request for clarification on what the POTUS and VPOTUS were implying by the use of the term ‘diplomacy’ inherently connotates no extent of hostility or provocation of contention between the stances held by Zelenskyy and the Oval Office aside from the basal level of inquiry necessary to reasonably contextualize the mentioned ‘diplomacy’ as it was stated; that being, the justly noted inquiry, for a terminalization of the limits or parameters of the suggested

‘diplomacy’ within the context of ‘the matter’ at hand and, as well as, within said interaction in itself.
As thus is the case, and given that Vice President JD Vance did not have a substantial basis to impose the assertion toward, or as it may have been stated with the potential intention to function as an indictment against, Zelenskyy as to have been attempting to seek litigation rather than arbitration as it pertains to how such an assertion implies the suggestion that Zelenskyy’s motives were more combative, more confrontational, less amicable or, as also noted, less than adequately ‘diplomatic’ as well as that President Donald Trump had been, in the lead up to this oval office altercation, accusing Zelenskyy of being a dictator that is holding control of the Ukrainian government, which POTUS alleges is being done in spite of, as POTUS alleges, a status of (widespread) disapproval of Zelenskyy by the majority of the Ukrainian population, as well as abusing the American public’s generosity to approve of aid shipments to Ukraine it is therefore the case that by utilizing the tactic of mischaracterizing Zelenskyy’s intentions, which could only within good faith be considered, even in the most scrutinizing just understandings, as having being limited to, but not more contentious than, expressed disapproval or as being reproaching towards President Trump’s and the Trump administration’s handling of ‘the matters’ in question;
this is a stance that is well within the bounds of just cause within the context of the case, and, further, not, in any substantive way, inherently hostile, as, instead, being ‘intent for litigation’.

August 18, 2025 at 3:54 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P81-84

public statement that his administration and military consider that any security guarantees for Ukraine of which the United States is not a participating guarantor cannot withstand the Russian military's efforts if the Russian Regime were to decide to continue an offensive anytime thereafter.
Of the pertained conditions of this Oval Office meeting included efforts to extract monetary gain, for the Trump Administration's economy, from Ukraine whilst leveraging threats of denial of President Trump's Administration's support for facilitating efforts to attain a stable ceasefire deal while President Trump has also been promoting narratives that are in alignment with the Putin Russian Regime's own narrative and further seemingly suggesting that there was a more stable option for response from Ukraine to the Russian invasion in the form of 'A Deal' of which President Trump has also indicated he believes should not have included security guarantees, even if such were to have been made at the time of the start of the invasion, from the United States or NATO.
Has President Trump or any officials associated with him since the start of the Russian invasion into Ukraine, or in the lead up to the invasion, made statements that may be considered as suggesting that Europe should not get involved in said conflict?
It seems rightful to question as to whether there may not be a predominant prioritization of a secure future for Ukraine as the motive of said meeting, taking place; a similar note may be worth mention, with pertinence to discussions or negotiations that may be relevant to, both, the disclosed and potential undisclosed motives of the Oval Office meeting in question and preceding events that potentially factor into any such disclosed motive and

plausible undisclosed motives, in regard to press coverage in the media, by both members and nonmembers of the Trump administration, still taking place and that have taken place.
The above stated should not to be mistaken as to be abjectly making the claim that the Trump administration definitively doesn't have an extent of priority towards Ukraine and its people.
It, however, may be the case that, given the perceivably irrational, evidence defying, repeatedly stated stance of President Trump that a substantive degree of security can be attained by capitulating to the demands of the Putin Regime and opting for, what can be described as, relying on the Russian Regime's 'moral integrity', and ‘honor’, to maintain commitments as the overarching determining means of security for Ukraine,
that, in regard to potential associations with such, these stances may be an extension of a potential factor of plausible critical cause for concern, that being, the Trump administration's, and supporting media influencers’, public communication, in regard to Ukraine, has, at some instances or potential time periods, had the potential, at least to some considerable extent, to convey the impression of specific disregard towards Ukraine even in the face of what President Donald Trump has publicly acknowledged as an existential threat to Ukraine.

Under such circumstances it's arguably only diplomatically competent to recognize the issues and address the simple matter of the questionable stated intended 'diplomacy', its methods and its implications.
It inherently shouldn't have even been a difficult question to answer because the crucial point of relevance, to do the bare minimum of at least reassuring the public that the diplomatic

process intended is accountable, is to commit to a form of ethically judicious diplomacy that entails honest transparent testimony on behalf of Ukraine. There is no justification to consider the desire for accountability and transparency unreasonable, bar none the alternative would be corrupt.

It seems like a failure of sanity to loose one's composure at such a minuscule level of inquisition especially under such exceedingly high stakes.
What opinion is the public supposed to form of the Office of The President and Vice President of the United States under the helm of the Trump-Vance administration with that considered?
Emotional dysregulation, neuroticism, paranoia, monetary greed, cognitive decline, deception, collusion???
Not much else can explain that type of reaction and spontaneous jump to almost violent aggression on the parts of both President Trump and Vice President JD Vance.
It would be remiss and a failure of the maintenance of protocols for diplomatic accountability to forgo the acknowledgement that malice or a vendetta against President Zelenskyy and Ukraine cannot be dismissed as also being a possibly factorial to the severely threatening and destabilizing indiscretion displayed.

All of the above acknowledged, it's hard to say that it is unfair to consider a level of skepticism as to whether there is intention from the Trump 2025 administration to act with an extent of bias toward the Vladimir Putin Russian Regime's agenda and potentially bias also towards validating the Putin Russian Regime's accounting of history, the specific narratives they have been telling and

variations they may opt to portray later on, as being just and warranted.
 Also to be noted is that President Trump has chosen to engage in meeting and coordinating, the United States’ plans regarding the war in Ukraine with, President Vladimir Putin via Private Secure Channels of which no one else alive, or ever to live for that matter, is inherently privy to the knowledge of what transpired in said interaction with certainty or in its entirety since any accounting of their discussions are entirely at their discretion without any possible means for verification of what had been stated between them.

 "Dark Room Deals" and a frantic or even hysterical response to a very simple and entirely justified question as to what would be a basic level of context or elaboration regarding the perceivable inconsistency of prior communicated statements and the statement which prompted the question.
The question also had been, by all reasonable sensibilities, expressed in a very innocuous manner by President Zelenskyy?
It seems necessary to mention that the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump's, followed up the Oval Office Confrontation with a statement to the press to impose upon President Zelenskyy and Ukraine that they must refrain from expressing disapproval of Vladimir Putin???

August 18, 2025 at 3:45 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P77-80

preserve the unadulterated historical record of events or potentially, enact, a case of something worse in that those available to resist the dominator so choose to herald the brinkman's/dominator's methods and instead party themselves to the will of the dominator and relinquish their basic freedom to even seek truth beyond the confines of the dominator's permitted range, of stances or knowledge, or hold any such truth in recognition while simultaneously now partaking as a contributor/co-conspirator/compatriot to the dominator's agenda, through capitulation, to strip the right of the freedom to seek evidence and speak to the just discernment of truth from what, however limitedly, can objectively be known.

On record, the stance of the Trump-Vance administration has been to claim that Ukraine, to quote President Trump, "Shouldn't have started it," which, is to say that, at the most irreducible level means to say that President Trump, within mere days prior to this confrontation in the Oval Office, was holding the stance that there should have never been a resistance to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, since, at the most definite level, the most that can determined from public evidence as to having been, preeminently, 'started' by Ukraine was an effort to defend against the Russian invasion?

This would be with the note that there is not currently substantial evidence that is implicating of Ukraine, as having contributed in a preeminent role in initiation or incitement of this conflict, that has been formally claimed.

Moreover, there has been no credible substantial evidence that has been disclosed to the public, through the media, to refute that Russia had been the preeminent provocateur in this conflict and if there is such evidence, one might reasonably question or wonder as to why no one is publicizing it?

There is undeniably a right to be weary as to what pretenses are being held by a party that has been claiming that a resistance to, what can be reasonably considered, a grossly persecutory, or even genocidal, invasion against one's population was not the most warranted approach if not a certain necessity for the preservation of Ukrainian lives and survival of the nation.
News reports state that ‘The Russian Putin Regime’ closed negotiations with Ukraine and refused diplomacy immediately prior to their invasion of Ukraine regarding the issues of determining a peaceful approach to managing the state of unrest and internal conflict within Ukraine between the minority Russian loyalist portion of the population and Ukrainian Nationalists' much larger majority portion of the population.
New reports indicate that Ukraine was attempting to peacefully and securely resolve the matter and Russia decided to utilize the hostilities steeped by the faction of Russian loyalist citizens of Ukraine as an avenue to demand the relinquishing of Ukrainian Land and Cities as well as to institute the Russian Putin Regime's intentions to push for the Annexation of Ukraine by military means if Russia's demands were refused?
Any just considerations would maintain it to be undeniable that Ukraine had the right to deny Russia's demands that the Ukrainian people relinquish their land and allow Russia's borders

to encroach closer towards Ukraine's capital Kyiv with the potentially greater threat to Ukrainian national security such would entail acknowledged.

This is especially the case, given the precedent, set by the Russian Population, for readily considering the utilization of aggression and the means of invasion against any parties that dissent to the Russian Putin Regime's agenda as being a preferred strategic method of engagement; far more so in the case of, such, toward, Ukraine since Russia has violently exercised their aggression and invaded Ukraine in very recent history in the Annexation of Crimea to Russian control and, moreover, the implication that further impairment of Ukrainian means of resistance against potential Russian offensives could be existential to the Ukrainian People and Nation.

Also, Vice President JD Vance, you are correct to say that the United States had a President that for 4 years stood up at Press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin which, notably, had then been followed by The Russian Putin Regime's invasion and destruction of an significant, too extensive, amount of the Ukrainian nation in that President Donald Trump in his first term was perceivably very 'tough', ‘vigorous’, ‘vehement’, or one might even say ‘dogged’, about levying praise and admiration towards Vladimir Putin.

You, JD Vance, however, forgot to reemphasize, or emphasize at all, that the Russian Putin Regime inflicted a devastating extent of civilian casualties in what can reasonably be claimed to be an illegal, ethnically cleansing, genocidal war campaign against the

Ukrainian population.

Oddly, and it might be worthwhile to note, President Donald Trump in his first term hadn't expressed similar admiration toward Ayatollah Khamenei. Should one then presume, at least beg the question as to whether it may be that, you, President Trump and Vice President JD Vance, are suggesting toward a more situational type of diplomatic foreign policy method specially tailored to the dynamics of the Trump administration's (‘diplomatic’) relationship with Vladimir Putin's Russian Regime?

Pardon the confusion, if there is any, Mr. Vice President JD Vance, but was one supposed to be cognizant of the stated pretense of the meeting between President Donald Trump and his administration with President Zelenskyy as having been for the purposes of negotiating a commercial deal with President Zelenskyy for a quantity of Ukrainian resources, to a sum that would have been determined in said discussions, for the purpose of establishing a monetary interest for the Trump administration into Ukraine, which President Trump also stated would be the predominant means of deterrence against further Russian aggression that his administration would be willing to be party to?

President Trump then further elaborated that his intention is to maintain a stance of refusal to have the United States participate in any security guarantees for Ukraine as part of the terms of a ceasefire.

Also, it is warranted to note that President Vladimir Putin, since such time as the events of this Oval Office fiasco, had issued a

August 18, 2025 at 3:43 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P73-76

instance of unsecure conduct or inadvertent failure to uphold adequate security, notably given the high-risk nature of these discussions, within their proceedings and the manner by which they had undertaken such in this instance, constitute evidence that can be considered in suggestion of the possibility of incompetency within regard to the conduct of these executives as it pertains to their respective appointed professional positions within the administration and the constitutionally enshrined responsibilities of such?

 This administration is deporting people without court hearings of their cases under the basis of claiming that, they, the administration is confident that these persons are involved in criminal gang activities related to Tren de Aragua and MS13 yet this administration is somehow incapable of checking the roster/participant list of persons included in such a high-risk/high-sensitivity military discussions of which all persons were included by a direct personal contact for them?

 The contacts for these individuals are specific identifying information of their person and they don’t go through the minimal or basic extent of difficulty to check/verify which individuals the contact information they are using for federal intelligence functions actually apply to, even as it applies to issues as sensitive as international security in ongoing wars the administration themselves are participating in?
Within even far from sufficient standards of responsibility, such overturing of basic levels of initiative to ensuring cautionary handlings when treating with matters as severe

as potential threats to human lives are in regard, could justifiably be considered exceptionally reckless.
This conduct should not be considered allowable and the systems of accountability within process of governance have an obligation to ensuring higher standards of security are upheld; as it had occurred in this case, adequate standards were certainly cannot be said as being upheld if the descriptions of what materials were ‘inadvertently disclosed’ are accurate and further, adequate standard continue may potentially still be failing to be upheld in regard to how these federal officials are handling the matter thus far by withholding official documentation of the specifics of these events, from the senate committee involved in addressing the matter, for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of reported ‘inadvertently disclosed’ information in regard to what statements were made, the identities of the persons who made them and the list of persons involved in this online ‘Signal’ conferencing group in which this ‘inadvertent disclosure’ had occurred.

Section 4: RUSSIA UKRAINE AND THE OVAL OFFICE
Some issues that can be pervasive during times of state level adventurism and political or geopolitical restructuring of allegiances include institutionalized state level cognitive manipulation and misconduct or ethically compromised conduct, through the use of mass population deception, as well as matters in regard to the how these methods have been historically used and, further, the potential avenues as to how they can be used to enable authoritarian and even dictatorial regimes to bolster population level appeal toward the use of violent and even inhumane methods for gaining power and advancing political standing.

Vice President JD Vance, easy question for you, what kind of diplomacy should have been used for Qasem Soleimani?

The Russian Regime has done much more damage to Citizens of Nations much more closely allied to the United States than one might perceive Qasem Soleimani could likely have been able to have done although only those of access to military intelligence would be able to would be able to confirm what the risks truly were.

Vladimir Putin has also threatened the use of nuclear weapons against any party that contributes to conflict against the Russian Regime.

It's an entirely fair question to ask what you are entailing by suggesting the 'need for diplomacy' because the historical record suggests that brinkmanship isn't something that usually

contributes to facilitating a degree of stability substantial enough for there to be an avenue for fair diplomatic negotiations because brinkmanship is predominantly used as a means to extenuate {diminish the efficacies and diminish perceived salience of efficacies of} avenues to counteract circumstances through escalatory means, diminish resolve among those in resistance to the party utilizing such a form of escalatory aggression and to extort others for physical resources or influence.
Historically, those that have used brinkmanship have, in some cases, framed themselves as acting with entirely just and noble intent as well as having been within definitive warrant based on 'their own delineations' of what is within their ethical rights to pursue regarding their nation's security and sovereign geopolitical agenda.

Some of the main advantages that can be gained from domination which brinkmanship is meant to do, is to force concessions of resources, to force concessions (ie: the forgoing) of securities or assets that can be functional for the self-defense of the, party or subject, dominated and further the abandonment of the truth and historically evidenced realities/actualities to impose forced alternation of the dominated party to the narrative of the dominating party, the dominator, as so that they would then hold power over the dominated party to govern what the dominated can safely be willing to communicate in regard to the dominating enterprise or might even be willing to publicly acknowledge as the truth of recorded historical events.

The brinkman/dominator, so too, may then dictate the telling of all parties' history if it were to be such that a resistance fails to

August 18, 2025 at 3:41 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P69-72

that they consider themselves to be within the authority, regardless of their potential conflicts of interest
(such as political favorability, professional reputability, intent to avoid reprimand or recourse for shortcomings or misdeeds)
, to manage, self-evaluate, self-designate, self-govern and/or self-enforce
(so much that they consider themselves warranted to withhold evidentiary materials from the other bodies of authority and jurisdiction, seemingly in supersedence of such, on these matters)
the necessary accountability measures regarding matters of their own mishandlings and professional procedural shortcomings (or failings)
and, further, to be able to do so within overture of the authorities of the systems of checks and balances
(, and the bodies or official national personnel with constitutional duties to conduct and maintain such checks and balances,)
of their executive powers
(, of which, such systems of checks and balances would entail the requirement that access to crucial information within the possession of state officials or which may be obtainable through investigation if such information relates to yet undiscovered materials be available, be made available or is within their authority to necessitate parties, that may hold such, provide or disclose such to those whose function would be to uphold or enact such measures or checks and balances)
, based on said rational inherences of their, The National

Security Council’s, actions and statements, as made by the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, in representation of them, The National Security Council, within regard to implied, outlined and/or enacted, underlying ‘conduct decisions’ or ‘stances’ in such instance,
can such thereby be considered and, further, would such thereby constitute an attempt to leverage their recognizability and the perceptual social status associated with their societal and government positions as a means to misrepresent and, in so doing, potentially mislead the public into believing these individuals hold greater authority and constitutionally accorded powers than that which the constitution actually ascribes to their positions in office?

 Furthermore, does such therefore constitute an abuse of the power of their stations via the unlawful leveraging of the perceived status and, innately and inclusively of as to how such in so functions with regards to, their influence upon the public as such may pertain to the general degrees of notoriety as well as the societally common perceptual associations with ‘credibility’ and ‘sustained accountable practice’ of the public platforms that so apply to their offices, positions or designations within government and the legacies of these platforms within institution and in general?

 It is within the rights of the public to file legal claim against parties participating in obstruction of justice as it may relate in this case to the disclosure of withheld evidentiary materials and potential abuses of power as it may relate to implicit assertions that parties, whether these assertions be made in acts of self-reference or reference to others, hold authorities beyond or superseding of that which is specifically constitutionally accorded to them for the purpose of manipulation of judicial processes, as such preeminently applies in this case, in manners intended to cause deviation from constitutionally standard and/or substantially precedented protocols, of which the Government’s mandate to transparency and accountability as well as the Senate’s obligations, to ensuring that the legislative, judicial and executive branches are in adherence of or otherwise held to methods and conduct of processes that are transparent and accountable, are both (the government mandates to such and the senate’s obligation to uphold such) standard and substantially precedented.

 Are federal executives held within a constitutional mandate to refrain from taking actions that potentially jeopardize lives of civilian or military personnel without a strategic justification or warrant for doing so?
And if so, in cases where such actions may have potentially occurred, is it the within the authority and obligation of the senate to inquire into such cases of actions taken within excess of the constitutional authorities of said members of the executive?
Further, is it also within constitutional protocols for such

jeopardizing actions (regardless of whether or not the action of causing such a jeopardization was specifically intentional) to be potentially impeachable?

 (Houthis threaten civilian staffed shipping vessels, Hamas may have also considered the threat as a motive to further target civilians in the region or punish hostages.)
There were lives at stake and especially so given the potential for these events to have had gone worse than they allegedly had.
It is highly pertinent that this matter be treated with a degree of formality and initiative to substantive robustness of process of accountancy that would be within, similarly, substantially thorough respect toward the human lives that were at risk of jeopardization by the alleged mishandling of, or misconduct within, national military intelligence proceedings.

 Was the decision by these executives to utilize this platform for communication of such high-risk strategic discussions without also utilizing adequate additional measures of assurances that these interactions were being undertaken without a threat of ‘inadvertent disclosure’ made within soundness of mind by the parties involved?
Further, regardless of whether they were cogent of the laissez-faire (they should’ve checked to verify that no unauthorized persons were mistakenly added into the conference chat) and negligent manner by which they were handling these sensitive and high-risk discussions, does this

August 18, 2025 at 3:38 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P65-68

matter, why is it that you are hiding something of such a serious nature from the public and the senate?

And if so, why are you withholding this from the Senate, of which the authority to oversee such cases of misconduct on your, The National Security Council’s, part, is held, as such pertains to the ensuring of the accountability of any members and the overall conduct of the National Security Council therein on behalf of the American public?

Or is it the case the case that you are not acting under suspicions that fraud may be involved in this case and you are instead pretending to be treating the case in such a manner so as to manufacture a cause for withholding information, therein, unjustly so?

How would that then not be attempting to cover up the evidences of the case both through a highly corrupt form of deception and potentially for the service of your own interests, given that you yourselves, the National Security Council, are the parties implicated?

Would the withholding of evidentiary materials potentially create an avenue by which potential malicious or treasonous intentionality could be obstructed from being accounted for?

If it is that you are utilizing dishonest means to attempt to withhold information in the manner that you are attempting to withhold said information aside from obstructing the processes meant to hold you accountable to cover up and

avoid accountability for your misconduct, what other reasons could you possibly be utilizing such a dishonest means of withholding information for?

Maybe such could have been for the purpose of intentionally causing the public distress to facilitate framing the public as unstable, to stoke divisions or the purpose of causing some sort of distractions?

Maybe such could have been to capitalize on a scenario where the evoked public distress from the entire situation and resultant scrutiny of yourselves, members of the National Security Council, as well as where the Senate is obliged to the public to ensure the accountability of your actions to craft an exploitative narrative to manipulate the public into thinking the systems of accountability and the personnel who are acting within the authority to uphold them, as this regards the involvement of a senate inquiry, and the members of the public that would advocate that, these, the constitutional processes of accountability that should apply to yourselves as members of the executive remain efficacious are prejudiced against you and using lawfare to persecute you by subjecting you to this inquiry into your actions, wherein such may pertain to alleged misconduct?

Maybe it could have been to give yourself an opportunity to attempt to >>>>> portray the processes of accountability as farcical to undermine them and, therein, so as to promote the perspective that you should not be subject to processes or systems of accountability for the interest (/ intent purpose)

of attaining greater power for yourselves, within your offices, to act unconstitutionally or extra judiciously?

And as a further note, if the hypothetical that you had potentially gone so far as to have possibly intentionally added Mr. Jeffery Goldberg to the Signal chat in question within this case to be a convenient casualty for you to have orchestrated this scenario to exploit the systems of accountability and manipulation the public in such a prejudiced and malicious manner with complete disregard
how severely criminally liable of offenses against the public could you be considered for having abused your power for such a seditious act against the systems meant to maintain a decentralization of power within the United States Government as well as to how severely criminally liable that you could be considered for exploiting Mr. Jeffery Goldberg, who happens to a public critic of President Trump, by forcibly injecting him into this deeply arduous situation where he’s has had character attacked?

 Whilst it may be the case that currently disclosed evidences are preliminary or yet insufficient to indicate suspicion of potential malicious or treasonous intentions of conduct in regard to parties involved, it also cannot be stated that it is implausible to consider that such might be a possibility.
The withholding of evidentiary materials obstructs the process of making a full assessment on the matter.

 The public has a right the accountancy on such matters, of potential breaches of national security intelligence, and the

senate committee conducting these hearings has an obligation to provide the public with such an assessment/accounting within regard to all pertinent plausible considerations as well as the other aspects of legalities or implications of the alleged events inclusive of wherein such might further relate to parties involved.
Members of the senate should refrain from acting in accordance with potential conflicts of interest in such a way that they are deterred or refrain from substantially scrutinizing the evidences and persons within inquiry or involvement.
Further, if it is such that they cannot fulfil their duty to critically examine the evidences or implicated persons, which in so should require applications of high standards of comprehensiveness of examination through the function of thorough disclosure as it pertains to aspects of the case and it’s legalities which the public would have rights to be informed of as well as to correct for points wherein potential biases may factor into such proceedings.
Members to whom this might apply should recuse themselves form participation within the evaluation and decision making processes on the matters or otherwise be insisted they be refrained by process of council vote to rescind their permission for participation.
 If it is such that the authority of handling matters of accountability relating to the security of the processes of governance exists within the jurisdiction of the Senate and Judiciary rather than the executive and executive cabinet,
and if it is also such that, The National Security Council as Tulsi Gabbard had represented them, did implicitly indicate

August 18, 2025 at 3:35 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P61-64

 Legal pursuit of the accountability of ‘state officials’ can be pursued within the court system with the normal appellate routes or public hearings, inquiries or trials in the Congressional Senate of jurisdiction of said given ‘official’ whether it may be within state or the federal national. Matters of misconduct or failures in office of the executive and executive cabinet as well as other federal officials to which this may apply are initially addressed within the Senate via public hearings, inquiries and trials as necessary with authority to impose certain repercussions being within the Senate’s jurisdiction and, in addition, such matters may also be pursued, by parties who may have claims, for legal recourse within the court systems.

 As it may pertain to any shortcomings of the Senate’s handlings of these processes of accountability, it is lawfully permitted for legal claims to be brought against parties of which culpability to any professionally procedural shortcomings may apply or any parties by which law may facilitate avenue for the pursuit of recourse by any other parties affected by any given matters or cases in question, or other matters specifically related to such, or for the pursuit of higher standards of accountability from parties or entities whom there may be an ethical relevancy for or by which they should be held to such; this may also be inclusive of challenge to the judicial process or body of laws itself.
 Such claims may be pursued within the United States court system, inclusive of normal appellate routes as they may apply, within which the United States Supreme Court is the

serving uppermost, premier or most superseding court of appeal within the nation of the United States of America.

 Access to the evidentiary materials or available scope of documentation on these events would be necessary for the Senate inquiry committee for their purposes of producing even basic assessments of the legality of the actions taken. Moreover the evidentiary materials can be considerably an innate necessity to make a thorough and substantial accounting of alleged events, and further particularly so within regards to parties’ alleged involvement and their actions within the consideration of the potential relevances to their conflicts of interest within the matter as it pertains to the context that members of the National Security Council themselves had been participants within the event or forum by which such a mishandling had occurred and thus themselves cannot be dismissed as being uninvolved or even unimplicated without independent third party review of the evidences, of which, such is an obligation of the United States Senate to the public.

 With regard to the classification of the records of these events, is it the case that ‘The National Security Council’ has the constitutional authorities to overture the standard methods of accountability, which in this case would entail public hearing under examination of parties involved by members of the Congressional Senate, or the provision of the requirements for a thorough and unencumbered legal evaluation by these state officials to take place, most

notably, within the context of the potential conflicts of interest, wherein such may potentially apply to ‘The National Security Council’, of which may potentially include motives to prevent, stall or impede the inquiry process (such as blocking access to verifiable or means of verifying evidences that implicate them) into ‘The National Security Council’s own potential misconduct within these events, given their alleged involvement via inclusion or participation and potential implication or culpability to misconduct within the establishing said ‘Signal’ conference group of which the alleged ‘inadvertent disclosures’ had occurred and the, further, proceedings of the events therein?
If it were to be suggested that you, The Director of National Intelligence, are considering these events and alleged claims to have been made fraudulently would it still be in the authority of the National Security Council to make decisions as to the handling of the evidentiary materials within regard to the matters as such pertains to the plausibility of any potential actions, by implicated parties, as having been taken within malicious or even treasonous intentionality?

Why would withholding confirmation as to whether some of the very clearly presented specifics within the allegations, even going to the point of presenting whether or not any part of the allegations are true at all in a manner that suggests that such is being treated as within question or uncertain, and particularly with regard to how basic a level of context the information, that you are withholding and preventing confirmation of, would be within this case and how crucial such would be to proceed with any substantial extent of

inquiry into the matter without having the inquiry be forced to pose questions on the case as though it is conjecture as to whether or not there is any event that has happened here to be a case at all, which is obviously not true since this inquiry is within regard to very serious allegations that have been made, though are yet unconfirmed, be your chosen approach to the handling of the situation and for addressing inquiry into the matter by the systems of accountability of the conduct of yourself, as representative of the National Security Council, under any precedent aside from the basis that the matter is being treated with suspicions that some amount of fraud might be involved?
If so, fraud on whose part?
Jeffery Goldberg was the only person who wasn’t a member of the national security council allegedly involved in this incident?
If not Mr. Goldberg, the only other persons the allegations would suggest as implicated of such an act of fraud would be members of the National Security Council themselves?
And if so, what is it that you are suggesting might be the intentions of such a conspiracy?
Are you acting under the suspicion that Mr. Goldberg or members of the national security may have orchestrated this event for conspiratorial purposes?
And if it is that the matter is with regard to such a case of something as seriously threatening as a potential conspiracy from within the national security council as is the only logical indication for a lawful basis for your, as representative of the National Security Council’s, actions of withholding confirmation and access to the official evidences on this

August 18, 2025 at 3:28 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P57-60

given the risks of terrorist like attacks and distrust between demographics.
A reasonable request could be for the international community to assist in providing logistical support for maintaining such overwatch security perimeters and act to facilitate or provide independent third-party accountability measures for the address of any instances of alleged misconduct or threat that has occurred or might occur in future till such time as domestic social and government institutions in Syria stabilize and tensions between the populations are resolved.
It also should be noted that Israel’s stance on the situation of the lone dissenter to the armistice, amongst the Druze elder leadership council, who called for the Druze to take up arms and fight, was to militarily support that lone member that opposed the other council members that wanted an armistice between the Bedouin and Druze populations.
Israel had the opportunity to compel the lone dissenting Druze leader to accept the armistice and there has been no clear and credible reporting by international journalists and news agencies to indicate that they, Israel, made any substantial attempts to do so.
Some news reports indicate that Israel had already been air striking Bedouin settlements and camps before the Druze leader had made notice of dissent to the armistice.

Page 58 of 137
Page 58 Contains No Text
See Page 59 (next) to Continue Reading

Section 3: Comments Regarding the Trump Administration National Security Council Signal Chat

 It is within reason to consider that an initiating point of address should connotate, and, as so, was highlighted by (D) Senator Warner, the statement and acknowledgement of the unambiguously evident security risks incurred by the events of these military/international security strategic coordination meetings/interactions being transmitted to an individual, that has no level of specifically authorized and documented state monitoring or accountability measures assigned to their person which can function to verify that they pose negligible risks or only pose risks that are authorized of said individual as well as control for the security or potential threats of the actions they may have taken whilst in possession of such sensitive high-risk information, as it pertains to the manner in which these alleged events had transpired on the online text conferencing/media/communications platform by the name ‘Signal’.

 Upon inquiry as to whether or not Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard was included within the ‘Signal’ conferencing platform under the account name ‘TG’, Director Gabbard refused to indicate or deny whether such is the case.
The Director of Intelligence stated, “I am not going to get into the specifics of the deliberations.”
An inquiry, by (D) Senator Warner, as to the basis by which

the refusal to disclose the further information that had been being requested at such time was made.
Intelligence Director Gabbard indicated that she was refusing to make the requested disclosures on the basis that the matter, quote, “Is currently under review by The National Security Council.”

 Is it therefore to be understood that the Director of Intelligence is asserting that they, the individual, Tulsi Gabbard, themselves and the other members of the National Security Council are inherently*** acting within accordance to the law in all their proceedings that may pertain to the management of such a instance of mishandling of potentially high-risk communications and National Intelligence within independence and exemption from, or, rather, within the yet unavailing of, accountancy, thus far, given that the Director of Intelligence is asserting that they refuse to disclose the records of these events on the basis that the matter in question is currently being reviewed by the National Security Council of which therein is the implicit assertion that they, the individual in question, Tulsi Gabbard, as they represent themselves and by extension their affiliates whom said individual is representing, The National Security Council members, consider their actions to be within, and as it pertains to their implied justification by which they are taking the action of withholding disclosure of evidentiary materials, legal warrant within the terms of the constitutional duties and authorities specific to their official positions in national office as the basis for such?

August 18, 2025 at 3:26 PM

Alejandro Ramgoolam

@alejandroramgoolam.bsky.social

[Reposted as Thread] Statement
With Relevance to:

- US Deportations
- Political Rhetoric
- Conflict in the Middle East
- The US National Security Council Signal Chat Leak
- The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Oval Office Fiasco between Trump, Vance & Zelensky

P53-56

mixed describing individuals in the Syrian military uniform attire, or uniform like attire, assisting civilians from both Bedouin and Druze populations escape the conflict zones to safety; these individuals are suspected to be actual official Syrian military personal.
Other reports have indicated persons dressed in Syrian military uniform have been attacking the Druze civilians and Druze armed resistance fighter in prejudiced ways.
Some reports claim that members of the Syrian military were launching mortars at a Druze encampment where Bedouin hostages were allegedly being held, in a coordinated effort alongside Bedouin militants.
These reports do not clearly suggest whether or not these reported Syrian military soldiers were acting upon direct orders from the chain of command to launch such an attack or if these individual soldiers independently took it upon themselves to support the supposed rescue effort; verification of these reports are still pending.
Bedouin militia have been alleged to have small scale explosive weapons such as grenades and grenade launchers.
There have been reports that Bedouin militants may have stolen uniforms and are impersonating Syrian military officials.
The, Al-Sharaa, Syrian Government is known to have close ties and support for the Bedouin communities.
A military truck transporting Syrian military soldiers to the conflict area was stopped by a blockade of Druze armed resistance fighters. The Syrian military soldiers were allegedly dragged out of the vehicle and shot in an execution type manner by the Druze

resistance fighters; it is unclear if these Druze were authorized to take these actions by any internal Druze higher ups within Suweida.
Reports have been mixed regarding whether Syrian state or military officials have issued a clear confirmation as to whether these alleged executed officers were actual Syrian officers deployed to the area.
Initial reports from commanding officers overseeing Syrian military defense operations in the area claimed that the vehicle and soldiers were military personnel but this report was contradicted by a later interview in which President Al-Sharaa claimed the vehicle and the executed persons were not Syrian military, however, he, President Al-Sharaa, later retracted this statement and issued a notice confirming the executed were Syrian Military soldiers acting on official deployment instructions.
Such a case can be noted as indicating internal disorganization within the Syrian Military chain of command.
An armistice agreement between the Druze and Bedouin forces fell through due to the conflict with a single member of the Druze leadership council opposing the armistice and calling for the Druze people to engage in armed resistance against the Bedouin forces and Syrian Government.
The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has opted to back this Druze leader and, further, support the Druze armed resistance initiative wherein, they, the IDF, have been conducting military operations in Suweida against Bedouin forces and the Syrian Army which has involved airstrikes on Syrian Army outposts and military vehicles, such as armored trucks and tanks, citing the imperative to protect civilians in Suweida.

The Israeli airstrikes have reportedly targeted Syrian military vehicles and personnel that were being deployed to intervene and halt armed conflict between the Bedouin militia and the Druze armed resistance fighters and has been described as, overall, destabilizing of the situation in the region.
Israeli airstrikes on Bedouin settlements and outposts have been described as contributing to escalating hostile views between the populations involved in the conflict.
A major attack on a hospital in Suweida has allegedly occurred in which released video shows numerous bodies throughout several rooms and lined up outside the hospital. The hospital morgue is reportedly at capacity and walls of patient rooms were displayed in videos showing alleged bullet holes in them. The armed assailants allegedly swept through the hospital killing patients, it has not been specified whether hospital staff and visitors were also targeted. Druze civilians have in interviews with journalists expressed fears about discussing details of the attacks their community had suffered to the news regarding the potential that doing so might increase the risk of persons that may have been in proximity to any of the attacks being subsequently targeted.
A joint military blockade around Suweida’s main city had been set up involving collaborated efforts by the Syrian military and the Suweida Druze armed resistance personnel and was in place at the time of the hospital massacre.
This has lead to suspicions that members of the Syrian Government had treacherously allowed the assailants of the hospital massacre through the blockade and let them escape.
It is unknown, if possible, traitors amidst the Druze population also potentially could have enabled such an attack by sabotaging

the blockade in a similar manner.
It has been reported that members of the Syrian Army and the Druze forces have been alleging one another as having traitorously facilitated the suspected breach of the blockade.
International Authorities have noted that it is still unclear whether or not unknown groups other than the Syrian Army, Bedouin Militants and Druze Armed Resistance have been involved in the conflict amidst concerns of the possibility of terrorist factions, such as ISIS sleeper cells, operating in the area and targeting the populations.
There is immediate imperative to address the concerns regarding the means to discern for possible internal conspirators within the Syrian military that have potentially been supporting terrorism and attacks against the Druze and addressing the potential threat of members of the Druze population who may have intentions to promote conflict.
Bilateral peace talks need to resume and further methods of ensuring stability of cooperation such as identification exercises where the members of the Syrian Army are identified, by recognizable Syrian Officials, to the Druze leadership and resistance fighters that are participating in their side of the blockade and Druze civilians.
Similarly, surveillance infrastructure should be used to monitor all access routes to the city and a substantially capable and numbering squadron of Syrian military personnel that are individually identified to the Druze community should be stationed within a rapid response range of the city center. Both means of defense and infrastructure meant to maintain accountability can be considered necessities within securing peace within the region

August 18, 2025 at 3:22 PM

Add to Home Screen

News, ranked by scholars

Sign in to LightNews

Sign up to start reading

Connect Bluesky

Connect with Bluesky