A lawyer for Donald Trump on Wednesday said it would be "idiotic" and "insane" to dispute the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election during his Senate impeachment trial, adding that the former US. president has not pressured him to make those arguments. 
 
"Injecting that into a case that is already a winner would be idiotic," said Bruce L. Castor Jr, a recent addition to Trump`s legal team, in an interview with Reuters. 
 
"It would be insane to do that," Castor said. 
 
"Nobody has pressured me to make that defense," Castor added, saying Trump was happy with a brief filed by Castor and his co-counsel David Schoen on Tuesday. 
 
The two defense lawyers are preparing for trial before the US&nbsp;Senate beginning Feb. 9. The chamber will consider an article of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives charging Trump with inciting the deadly Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol by his followers.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/us-supreme-court-scraps-arguments-in-trump-era-immigration-and-wall-cases-361131" hreflang="en">US Supreme Court scraps arguments in Trump-era immigration and wall cases</a> 
 
In their response to the charge on Tuesday, they argued that the Senate lacked authority to hold an impeachment trial for a president who has left office. Castor told Reuters that would be the primary defense argument. 
 
Forty-five Senate Republicans backed a failed effort on Jan. 26 to halt Trump’s impeachment trial for that very reason, in a show of party unity that some cited as a clear sign he will not be convicted. 
 
Democratic lawmakers said in a brief on Tuesday that Trump pointed a mob "like a loaded cannon" at Congress and should be barred from holding public office in the future. 
 
Trump named Castor and Schoen as his lead counsel on Sunday after abruptly parting ways with a five-lawyer team he brought on to represent him.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/donald-trumps-lawyers-say-senate-has-no-authority-to-put-him-on-trial-360969" hreflang="en">Donald Trump's lawyers say Senate has no authority to put him on trial</a> 
 
A source familiar with the discussions said Trump had disagreed with his previous lead counsel, Butch Bowers, over strategy ahead of the trial. The president is still contending that he was the victim of mass election fraud in the Nov. 3 election won by President Joe Biden. 
 
Castor said he did not plan to call defense witnesses unless the House Democrats prosecuting the trial call their own witnesses. He declined to say who Trump would call in that scenario. 
 
Some congressional Republicans have said Trump should avoid rehashing his baseless theories about election fraud. 
 
"I think it would be a disservice to the president’s own defense to get bogged down in things that really aren’t before the Senate," Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, told reporters on Monday. 
 
Castor is a former Pennsylvania district attorney known for his decision not to prosecute entertainer Bill Cosby in 2005 after a woman accused Cosby of sexual assault. In 2017, Castor sued Cosby’s accuser in the case for defamation, claiming she destroyed his political career in retaliation.

A lawyer for Donald Trump on Wednesday said it would be "idiotic" and "insane" to dispute the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election during his Senate impeachment trial, adding that the former US.

A lawyer for Donald Trump on Wednesday said it would be "idiotic" and "insane" to dispute the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election during his Senate impeachment trial, adding that the former US. president has not pressured him to make those arguments. "Injecting that into a case that is already a winner would be idiotic," said Bruce L. Castor Jr, a recent addition to Trump`s legal team, in an interview with Reuters. "It would be insane to do that," Castor said. "Nobody has pressured me to make that defense," Castor added, saying Trump was happy with a brief filed by Castor and his co-counsel David Schoen on Tuesday. The two defense lawyers are preparing for trial before the US Senate beginning Feb. 9. The chamber will consider an article of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives charging Trump with inciting the deadly Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol by his followers. Also read: US Supreme Court scraps arguments in Trump-era immigration and wall cases In their response to the charge on Tuesday, they argued that the Senate lacked authority to hold an impeachment trial for a president who has left office. Castor told Reuters that would be the primary defense argument. Forty-five Senate Republicans backed a failed effort on Jan. 26 to halt Trump’s impeachment trial for that very reason, in a show of party unity that some cited as a clear sign he will not be convicted. Democratic lawmakers said in a brief on Tuesday that Trump pointed a mob "like a loaded cannon" at Congress and should be barred from holding public office in the future. Trump named Castor and Schoen as his lead counsel on Sunday after abruptly parting ways with a five-lawyer team he brought on to represent him. Also read: Donald Trump's lawyers say Senate has no authority to put him on trial A source familiar with the discussions said Trump had disagreed with his previous lead counsel, Butch Bowers, over strategy ahead of the trial. The president is still contending that he was the victim of mass election fraud in the Nov. 3 election won by President Joe Biden. Castor said he did not plan to call defense witnesses unless the House Democrats prosecuting the trial call their own witnesses. He declined to say who Trump would call in that scenario. Some congressional Republicans have said Trump should avoid rehashing his baseless theories about election fraud. "I think it would be a disservice to the president’s own defense to get bogged down in things that really aren’t before the Senate," Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, told reporters on Monday. Castor is a former Pennsylvania district attorney known for his decision not to prosecute entertainer Bill Cosby in 2005 after a woman accused Cosby of sexual assault. In 2017, Castor sued Cosby’s accuser in the case for defamation, claiming she destroyed his political career in retaliation.

Trump's impeachment lawyer says would be 'idiotic', 'insane' to suggest election fraud

Legendary country music star Dolly Parton reportedly turned down the Presidential Medal of Freedom by former President Donald Trump`s administration on two separate occasions. This is America's highest civilian honour.&nbsp; 
 
The 75-year-old songstress made the revelation during an interview on 'Today with Hoda &amp; Jenna,' which will air on Tuesday morning.&nbsp; 
 
"I couldn`t accept it because my husband was ill and then they asked me again about it and I wouldn`t travel because of the COVID," she said.&nbsp; 
 
Parton said she also heard from President Joe Biden about the award. The singer had earlier shared that she donated USD 1 million to research being done at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. It was revealed more than seven months later, that the donation made by Parton and the work done by researchers at Vanderbilt during trial phases directly led to Moderna announcing it had produced a coronavirus vaccine that was nearly 95 per cent effective.Her fans credited her with helping to cure the virus.

"Now I feel like if I take it, I`ll be doing politics, so I`m not sure. But I don`t work for those awards. It`d be nice but I`m not sure that I even deserve it. But it`s a nice compliment for people to think that I might deserve it," Parton remarked on the reported offer from Biden. 
 
The 'Here You Come Again' singer celebrated her 75th birthday last month, but was met with tragedy on January 21, with the death of her brother, Randy Parton. 
 
News of Randy`s passing comes just a few years after their other brother Floyd Estel Parton died in 2018. 
 
Last month, New England Patriots head coach, Bill Belichick, declined to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Trump, seemingly breaking from a friendship with the billionaire business mogul.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Legendary country music star Dolly Parton reportedly turned down the Presidential Medal of Freedom by former President Donald Trump`s administration on two separate occasions.

Legendary country music star Dolly Parton reportedly turned down the Presidential Medal of Freedom by former President Donald Trump`s administration on two separate occasions. This is America's highest civilian honour. The 75-year-old songstress made the revelation during an interview on 'Today with Hoda & Jenna,' which will air on Tuesday morning. "I couldn`t accept it because my husband was ill and then they asked me again about it and I wouldn`t travel because of the COVID," she said. Parton said she also heard from President Joe Biden about the award. The singer had earlier shared that she donated USD 1 million to research being done at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. It was revealed more than seven months later, that the donation made by Parton and the work done by researchers at Vanderbilt during trial phases directly led to Moderna announcing it had produced a coronavirus vaccine that was nearly 95 per cent effective.Her fans credited her with helping to cure the virus. "Now I feel like if I take it, I`ll be doing politics, so I`m not sure. But I don`t work for those awards. It`d be nice but I`m not sure that I even deserve it. But it`s a nice compliment for people to think that I might deserve it," Parton remarked on the reported offer from Biden. The 'Here You Come Again' singer celebrated her 75th birthday last month, but was met with tragedy on January 21, with the death of her brother, Randy Parton. News of Randy`s passing comes just a few years after their other brother Floyd Estel Parton died in 2018. Last month, New England Patriots head coach, Bill Belichick, declined to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Trump, seemingly breaking from a friendship with the billionaire business mogul.

Dolly Parton reportedly turned down twice the President Medal of Freedom by the Trump administration

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday canceled upcoming scheduled arguments in appeals filed by Republican former President Donald Trump`s administration defending his funding of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and his so-called "remain in Mexico" asylum policy.

Democratic President Joe Biden`s administration, which is in the process of changing course on both issues, on Monday had asked the justices to postpone further legal filings in the two cases and to remove them from their oral argument calendar. Biden`s administration already has announced plans to discontinue wall construction and suspend the asylum program, potentially making the cases moot.

The court was scheduled to hear arguments in the wall case on Feb. 22 and the asylum police case on March 1.

The cases involve two contentious issues left over from Trump`s turbulent four years in office.

The border wall was one of Trump`s central 2016 campaign promises, with his supporters chanting at rallies "build the wall." At issue was the legality of Trump`s decision, after Congress refused to appropriate money he sought for the wall, to shift military funds already provided by lawmakers for other purposes to pay for the project.

Trump called the wall necessary to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the southern border. Democrats have called the wall immoral, ineffective and expensive. Trump promised during the 2016 presidential race that Mexico would pay for the wall. Mexico refused.

Trump in 2019 redirected $2.5 billion from military counter-narcotics programs for border wall construction in California, New Mexico and Arizona. Biden issued a proclamation on Jan. 20, his first day in office, ordering a freeze on border wall projects and directing a review of the legality of its funding and contracting methods.

The "remain in Mexico" policy, which took effect in 2019, has forced tens of thousands of migrants along the southern border to wait in Mexico, rather than entering the United States, while their asylum claims are processed.

Trump said the policy reduced the flow of migrants from Central America into the United States. Migrants in the program, many of them children, faced violence and homelessness in Mexico while awaiting court dates. Human rights groups have documented cases of kidnappings, rapes and assaults.

Biden`s Department of Homeland Security has said it will suspend new enrollments in the asylum program, pending further review. On Tuesday, Biden announced a formal review of the asylum program.

In both cases, lower courts ruled against the Trump administration. The Supreme Court last year agreed to hear the Trump administration`s appeals.

They are among several cases pending at the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, that Biden`s administration may seek to change course on after earlier action by Trump`s administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday canceled upcoming scheduled arguments in appeals filed by Republican former President Donald Trump`s administration defending his funding of the U.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday canceled upcoming scheduled arguments in appeals filed by Republican former President Donald Trump`s administration defending his funding of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and his so-called "remain in Mexico" asylum policy. Democratic President Joe Biden`s administration, which is in the process of changing course on both issues, on Monday had asked the justices to postpone further legal filings in the two cases and to remove them from their oral argument calendar. Biden`s administration already has announced plans to discontinue wall construction and suspend the asylum program, potentially making the cases moot. The court was scheduled to hear arguments in the wall case on Feb. 22 and the asylum police case on March 1. The cases involve two contentious issues left over from Trump`s turbulent four years in office. The border wall was one of Trump`s central 2016 campaign promises, with his supporters chanting at rallies "build the wall." At issue was the legality of Trump`s decision, after Congress refused to appropriate money he sought for the wall, to shift military funds already provided by lawmakers for other purposes to pay for the project. Trump called the wall necessary to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the southern border. Democrats have called the wall immoral, ineffective and expensive. Trump promised during the 2016 presidential race that Mexico would pay for the wall. Mexico refused. Trump in 2019 redirected $2.5 billion from military counter-narcotics programs for border wall construction in California, New Mexico and Arizona. Biden issued a proclamation on Jan. 20, his first day in office, ordering a freeze on border wall projects and directing a review of the legality of its funding and contracting methods. The "remain in Mexico" policy, which took effect in 2019, has forced tens of thousands of migrants along the southern border to wait in Mexico, rather than entering the United States, while their asylum claims are processed. Trump said the policy reduced the flow of migrants from Central America into the United States. Migrants in the program, many of them children, faced violence and homelessness in Mexico while awaiting court dates. Human rights groups have documented cases of kidnappings, rapes and assaults. Biden`s Department of Homeland Security has said it will suspend new enrollments in the asylum program, pending further review. On Tuesday, Biden announced a formal review of the asylum program. In both cases, lower courts ruled against the Trump administration. The Supreme Court last year agreed to hear the Trump administration`s appeals. They are among several cases pending at the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, that Biden`s administration may seek to change course on after earlier action by Trump`s administration.

US Supreme Court scraps arguments in Trump-era immigration and wall cases

Former President Donald Trump&nbsp;said on Tuesday that the US Senate has no authority to try him as a private citizen on an impeachment charge that he incited the Capitol riots.

Trump&nbsp;became the first US president in history to be impeached twice when the House of Representatives charged him last month with inciting the mayhem inflicted by his followers when they invaded Congress on January 6.

Trump's defence team said that not only does the Senate lack the authority to put Trump on trial as a private citizen but that the chamber also lacks the jurisdiction to prevent Trump from holding office again.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trumps-impeachment-defense-team-leaves-less-than-two-weeks-before-trial-360411/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In a pre-trial brief, the House impeachment managers made their case for the Senate to convict, saying the American people should be protected "against a president who provokes violence to subvert our democracy."

Trump's impeachment was triggered by a speech he delivered to a crowd on the National Mall just before the riot, telling them Joe Biden had stolen the presidential election and that they needed to march on Congress and "fight like hell."

The mob stormed the Capitol, fatally wounded one police officer, wrecked furniture and forced terrified lawmakers and vice president Mike Pence to hide, interrupting a ceremony to put the legal stamp on Biden's victory.&nbsp;

The nine impeachment managers, all Democrats, argued in their sweeping 77-page document that&nbsp;Trump's speech had whipped the crowd into a "frenzy."

Trump, they said, "is singularly responsible for the violence and destruction" during the riot that left five people dead.

During his January&nbsp;6 speech, Trump repeated false claims that the election was fraudulent and exhorted supporters to march on the Capitol, telling them to "stop the steal," "show strength" and "fight like hell." The rampage interrupted the formal congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden's election victory and sent lawmakers into hiding for their own safety.

"The Senate must make clear to him and all who follow that a president who provokes armed violence against the government of the United States in an effort to overturn the results of an election will face trial and judgment," the Democratic managers added.

Trump is just the third president to have been impeached, the first to be impeached twice and the first to face trial after leaving office. Members of the 100-seat Senate will serve as jurors in his trial.

Convicting Trump would require a two-thirds majority, meaning 17 Republicans would need to join the Senate's 50 Democrats in the vote. That presents a daunting hurdle. Last week, 45 of the 50 Republican senators voted in favour of a failed bid to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional because Trump has left office.

A conviction could lead to a second vote banning Trump from holding public office again.

The Tuesday deadline for briefs in the case came just days after he parted ways with his initial legal team amid a reported dispute over how to respond to the charge. Trump is still making his false claims of a stolen election.

In their brief, the Democratic impeachment managers said the Senate has jurisdiction to try Trump now because the House impeached him while in office for acts he committed as president.

"There is no 'January Exception' to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution," the managers said. "Presidents do not get a free pass to commit high crimes and misdemeanours near the end of their term."

The brief made no mention of any witnesses the managers planned to call during the trial, though it did cite a phone call Trump placed to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to "find" just enough votes to undo Biden's victory in that state.

Trump's first impeachment trial, on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress arising from his request that Ukraine investigates Biden and his son Hunter, ended last year in an acquittal by the then Republican-led Senate.

A group of Republican former officials rebutted the argument that the trial was unconstitutional in an open letter released on Tuesday.

It is "essential to focus the nation on the gravity of what Trump did," the group said in a statement.

The three dozen former officials signing the letter included former Governors Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld of Massachusetts and Carter Phillips, a veteran Washington litigator and assistant solicitor general under former President Ronald Reagan.

"It will be a permanent stain on the history of the Republican Party and the legacy of its members in the US&nbsp;Senate if they fail to find a way to hold a president of their party to account for this unprecedented mayhem at our nation's Capitol," the group wrote.

Former President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that the US Senate has no authority to try him as a private citizen on an impeachment charge that he incited the Capitol riots.

Former President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that the US Senate has no authority to try him as a private citizen on an impeachment charge that he incited the Capitol riots. Trump became the first US president in history to be impeached twice when the House of Representatives charged him last month with inciting the mayhem inflicted by his followers when they invaded Congress on January 6. Trump's defence team said that not only does the Senate lack the authority to put Trump on trial as a private citizen but that the chamber also lacks the jurisdiction to prevent Trump from holding office again. In a pre-trial brief, the House impeachment managers made their case for the Senate to convict, saying the American people should be protected "against a president who provokes violence to subvert our democracy." Trump's impeachment was triggered by a speech he delivered to a crowd on the National Mall just before the riot, telling them Joe Biden had stolen the presidential election and that they needed to march on Congress and "fight like hell." The mob stormed the Capitol, fatally wounded one police officer, wrecked furniture and forced terrified lawmakers and vice president Mike Pence to hide, interrupting a ceremony to put the legal stamp on Biden's victory. The nine impeachment managers, all Democrats, argued in their sweeping 77-page document that Trump's speech had whipped the crowd into a "frenzy." Trump, they said, "is singularly responsible for the violence and destruction" during the riot that left five people dead. During his January 6 speech, Trump repeated false claims that the election was fraudulent and exhorted supporters to march on the Capitol, telling them to "stop the steal," "show strength" and "fight like hell." The rampage interrupted the formal congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden's election victory and sent lawmakers into hiding for their own safety. "The Senate must make clear to him and all who follow that a president who provokes armed violence against the government of the United States in an effort to overturn the results of an election will face trial and judgment," the Democratic managers added. Trump is just the third president to have been impeached, the first to be impeached twice and the first to face trial after leaving office. Members of the 100-seat Senate will serve as jurors in his trial. Convicting Trump would require a two-thirds majority, meaning 17 Republicans would need to join the Senate's 50 Democrats in the vote. That presents a daunting hurdle. Last week, 45 of the 50 Republican senators voted in favour of a failed bid to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional because Trump has left office. A conviction could lead to a second vote banning Trump from holding public office again. The Tuesday deadline for briefs in the case came just days after he parted ways with his initial legal team amid a reported dispute over how to respond to the charge. Trump is still making his false claims of a stolen election. In their brief, the Democratic impeachment managers said the Senate has jurisdiction to try Trump now because the House impeached him while in office for acts he committed as president. "There is no 'January Exception' to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution," the managers said. "Presidents do not get a free pass to commit high crimes and misdemeanours near the end of their term." The brief made no mention of any witnesses the managers planned to call during the trial, though it did cite a phone call Trump placed to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to "find" just enough votes to undo Biden's victory in that state. Trump's first impeachment trial, on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress arising from his request that Ukraine investigates Biden and his son Hunter, ended last year in an acquittal by the then Republican-led Senate. A group of Republican former officials rebutted the argument that the trial was unconstitutional in an open letter released on Tuesday. It is "essential to focus the nation on the gravity of what Trump did," the group said in a statement. The three dozen former officials signing the letter included former Governors Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld of Massachusetts and Carter Phillips, a veteran Washington litigator and assistant solicitor general under former President Ronald Reagan. "It will be a permanent stain on the history of the Republican Party and the legacy of its members in the US Senate if they fail to find a way to hold a president of their party to account for this unprecedented mayhem at our nation's Capitol," the group wrote.

Donald Trump's lawyers say Senate has no authority to put him on trial

In a memorandum filed ahead of the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, the House Democrats who will prosecute the case said that Trump is accountable for the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

Impeachment managers hold Donald Trump accountable for Capitol attack

The Democratic lawmakers who will prosecute former President Donald Trump at his second impeachment trial urged the Senate on Tuesday to convict him, saying he pointed a mob "like a loaded cannon" at the U.S. Capitol before a deadly Jan. 6 rampage.

In a brief filed a week before the Senate trial is set to begin, nine House of Representatives lawmakers known as impeachment managers also rejected Republican claims that it would be unconstitutional to try Trump since he became a private citizen after leaving office on Jan. 20. The Democrats urged the Senate to bar Trump from holding office again.

Trump also faced a Tuesday deadline to respond to the article of impeachment passed by the Democratic-led House on Jan. 13 charging him with inciting insurrection in his speech to supporters before rioters stormed the Capitol, leaving five people dead including a police officer.

"President Trump`s conduct offends everything that the Constitution stands for," the managers wrote in an 80-page brief that noted that Trump had begun voicing his intention to contest an election loss months before the Nov. 3 election was held.

"He summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue.

As the Capitol was overrun, President Trump was reportedly `delighted,`" they said.

During his Jan. 6 speech, Trump repeated false claims that the election was fraudulent and exhorted supporters to march on the

Capitol, telling them to "stop the steal," "show strength" and "fight like hell." The rampage interrupted the formal congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden`s election victory and sent lawmakers into hiding for their own safety.

"The Senate must make clear to him and all who follow that a president who provokes armed violence against the government of the United States in an effort to overturn the results of an election will face trial and judgment," the Democratic managers added.

Trump is just the third president to have been impeached, the first to be impeached twice and the first to face trial after leaving office. Members of the 100-seat Senate will serve as jurors in his trial.

Convicting Trump would require a two-thirds majority, meaning 17 Republicans would need to join the Senate`s 50 Democrats in the vote. That presents a daunting hurdle. Last week, 45 of the 50 Republican senators voted in favor of a failed bid to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional because Trump has left office.

A conviction could lead to a second vote banning Trump from holding public office again.

TRUMP RESPONSE DUE

The Tuesday deadline for a response by Trump comes just days after he parted ways with his initial legal team amid a reported dispute over how to respond to the charge. Trump is still making his false claims of a stolen election.

One of Trump`s recently hired lawyers, David Schoen, called the impeachment process "completely unconstitutional" in an interview with Fox News on Monday but did not outline the former president`s legal strategy.

"I think it`s also the most ill-advised legislative action that I`ve seen in my lifetime," Schoen said. "It is tearing the country apart at a time when we don`t need anything like that."

In their brief, the Democratic impeachment managers said the Senate has jurisdiction to try Trump now because the House impeached him while in office for acts he committed as president.

"There is no `January Exception` to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution," the managers said.

The brief made no mention of any witnesses the managers planned to call during the trial, though it did cite a phone call Trump placed to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to "find" just enough votes to undo Biden`s victory in that state.

Trump`s first impeachment trial, on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress arising from his request that Ukraine investigate Biden and his son Hunter, ended last year in acquittal by the then Republican-led Senate.

A group of Republican former officials rebutted the argument that the trial was unconstitutional in an open letter released on Tuesday.

It is "essential to focus the nation on the gravity of what Mr. Trump did," the group said in a statement.

The three dozen former officials signing the letter included former Governors Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld of Massachusetts and Carter Phillips, a veteran Washington litigator and assistant solicitor general under former President Ronald Reagan.

"It will be a permanent stain on the history of the Republican Party and the legacy of its members in the U.S. Senate if they fail to find a way&nbsp;to hold a president of their party to account for this unprecedented mayhem at our nation`s Capitol," the group wrote.

The Democratic lawmakers who will prosecute former President Donald Trump at his second impeachment trial urged the Senate on Tuesday to convict him, saying he pointed a mob "like a loaded cannon" at the U.

The Democratic lawmakers who will prosecute former President Donald Trump at his second impeachment trial urged the Senate on Tuesday to convict him, saying he pointed a mob "like a loaded cannon" at the U.S. Capitol before a deadly Jan. 6 rampage. In a brief filed a week before the Senate trial is set to begin, nine House of Representatives lawmakers known as impeachment managers also rejected Republican claims that it would be unconstitutional to try Trump since he became a private citizen after leaving office on Jan. 20. The Democrats urged the Senate to bar Trump from holding office again. Trump also faced a Tuesday deadline to respond to the article of impeachment passed by the Democratic-led House on Jan. 13 charging him with inciting insurrection in his speech to supporters before rioters stormed the Capitol, leaving five people dead including a police officer. "President Trump`s conduct offends everything that the Constitution stands for," the managers wrote in an 80-page brief that noted that Trump had begun voicing his intention to contest an election loss months before the Nov. 3 election was held. "He summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue. As the Capitol was overrun, President Trump was reportedly `delighted,`" they said. During his Jan. 6 speech, Trump repeated false claims that the election was fraudulent and exhorted supporters to march on the Capitol, telling them to "stop the steal," "show strength" and "fight like hell." The rampage interrupted the formal congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden`s election victory and sent lawmakers into hiding for their own safety. "The Senate must make clear to him and all who follow that a president who provokes armed violence against the government of the United States in an effort to overturn the results of an election will face trial and judgment," the Democratic managers added. Trump is just the third president to have been impeached, the first to be impeached twice and the first to face trial after leaving office. Members of the 100-seat Senate will serve as jurors in his trial. Convicting Trump would require a two-thirds majority, meaning 17 Republicans would need to join the Senate`s 50 Democrats in the vote. That presents a daunting hurdle. Last week, 45 of the 50 Republican senators voted in favor of a failed bid to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional because Trump has left office. A conviction could lead to a second vote banning Trump from holding public office again. TRUMP RESPONSE DUE The Tuesday deadline for a response by Trump comes just days after he parted ways with his initial legal team amid a reported dispute over how to respond to the charge. Trump is still making his false claims of a stolen election. One of Trump`s recently hired lawyers, David Schoen, called the impeachment process "completely unconstitutional" in an interview with Fox News on Monday but did not outline the former president`s legal strategy. "I think it`s also the most ill-advised legislative action that I`ve seen in my lifetime," Schoen said. "It is tearing the country apart at a time when we don`t need anything like that." In their brief, the Democratic impeachment managers said the Senate has jurisdiction to try Trump now because the House impeached him while in office for acts he committed as president. "There is no `January Exception` to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution," the managers said. The brief made no mention of any witnesses the managers planned to call during the trial, though it did cite a phone call Trump placed to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to "find" just enough votes to undo Biden`s victory in that state. Trump`s first impeachment trial, on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress arising from his request that Ukraine investigate Biden and his son Hunter, ended last year in acquittal by the then Republican-led Senate. A group of Republican former officials rebutted the argument that the trial was unconstitutional in an open letter released on Tuesday. It is "essential to focus the nation on the gravity of what Mr. Trump did," the group said in a statement. The three dozen former officials signing the letter included former Governors Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld of Massachusetts and Carter Phillips, a veteran Washington litigator and assistant solicitor general under former President Ronald Reagan. "It will be a permanent stain on the history of the Republican Party and the legacy of its members in the U.S. Senate if they fail to find a way to hold a president of their party to account for this unprecedented mayhem at our nation`s Capitol," the group wrote.

Trump aimed mob like a 'loaded cannon' before Capitol siege, House Democrats say

Former U.S. President Donald Trump abruptly parted ways on Saturday with the two lead lawyers working on his defense for his Senate impeachment trial, a source familiar with the situation said, leaving Trump's legal strategy in disarray.

Trump parts ways with impeachment lawyers: sources

Former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party entered this year having stockpiled more than $175 million from fundraising in November and December based on his false claims of voter fraud, spending only a tiny fraction on lawyers and bills for his effort to overturn the presidential election, according to new campaign finance reports filed Sunday night.

The picture that emerges in the new Federal Election Commission reports is of Trump mounting a furious public relations effort to spread the lie and keep generating money from it, rather than making a sustained legal push to try to support his conspiracy theories.

His campaign’s single biggest expense in December was a nearly $5 million media buy paid to the firm that bought his television advertisements. His second-largest payment, $4.4 million, was for online advertising. And the Republican National Committee pocketed millions of dollars in donations — collecting 25 cents for every dollar Trump raised online — in the final weeks of the year as it spent relatively little on legal costs.

All told, Trump’s campaign spent only $10 million on legal costs — about one-fifth of what it spent on advertising and fundraising, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings from Nov. 4 through the end of the year.

During that period, Trump’s conspiracy-fueled accusations that votes had been miscounted or misappropriated repeatedly fell flat in the courts. Joe Biden was elected president by voters on Nov. 3, confirmed by the Electoral College on Dec. 14 and ratified by Congress on Jan. 6 — the same day that Trump incited a mob that stormed the Capitol.

But while Trump’s efforts to delegitimize the election did not keep him in power, they did spur millions in contributions from loyal supporters and provided both him and the party with an enormous infusion of cash.

The Republican National Committee ended the year with more than $80 million in the bank after the fundraising blitz, and Trump had $31 million in the new political action committee he formed in November for his post-presidential political ventures.

That accounts for just some of their haul. The party and the former president had roughly $63 million more in two shared accounts waiting to be distributed between them, with Trump’s PAC entitled to 75% of the money raised in December, giving him an estimated $70 million PAC war chest.

Most of the money appears to have come online and from smaller contributors, with relatively few five- and six-figure checks, especially once the calendar turned to December. One $100,000 check in early December came from Elaine J. Wold, a major Republican donor in Florida.

Though his race was over, Trump’s voracious online fundraising from Nov. 24 through the end of the year even outpaced that of the two Republican senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who were competing in the Georgia runoff elections that would determine control of the chamber.

During those 39 days, Trump and his shared committees with the RNC raised $80 million online; Loeffler and Perdue combined for closer to $75 million. Both lost.

Trump did incur some legal costs from more than a dozen law firms.

He paid $1.6 million to Kasowitz Benson Torres, more than $500,000 to Jones Day and about $600,000 to Dechert. The law firm of Kurt Hilbert, who was on Trump’s phone call pressuring the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” votes to overturn the election outcome, was paid more than $480,000. A $3 million payment went to the Wisconsin election commission to pay for a recount.

One major Republican donor, C. Boyden Gray, who contributed more than $2 million to Republicans in the 2020 cycle, also provided legal consulting for Trump, earning $114,000.

The man who made so many public appearances on behalf of Trump as his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, reported no payments by the former president’s campaign. His firm was reimbursed for $63,423 in travel in mid-December.

An associate of Giuliani’s had asked that he be paid $20,000 a day for his work for Trump, which Giuliani initially denied. He later acknowledged the request to The New York Times, but he has continued to publicly deny making money for his work, including in a radio appearance Sunday.

“I haven’t made a penny on it,” Giuliani said.

The Trump campaign also spent $20,130 in mid-December for what were described as travel reimbursements to the Kerik Group, led by former New York Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik, whom Trump pardoned last year for his 2010 conviction on eight felonies. Kerik is a close ally of Giuliani’s.

The Trump operation continued to spend on fundraising, pouring millions more into a secretive limited liability company, American Made Media Consultants, for online and text-message advertising. Family members of Trump and Vice President Mike Pence once served on the board of that company, which had more than $700 million in spending flow through it during the 2020 campaign.

One of Trump’s shared committees with the Republican National Committee spent $237,000 on books through a company, Reagan Investments, that has also done work for a PAC controlled by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. The Trump campaign offered signed copies of Cruz’s book last fall to donors who gave $75 or more.

And, as they have since the beginning of his candidacy in 2015, Trump’s campaign accounts patronized his businesses in the postelection period.

The Trump Victory committee paid $34,000 to the Trump Hotel Collection in its final 2020 filing. The same committee also paid a Trump-owned limited liability company that operates a private plane, DT Endeavor, $39,200 on Nov. 24.

Another Trump campaign committee paid $75,000 in rent to the Trump Tower building in December.

Former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party entered this year having stockpiled more than $175 million from fundraising in November and December based on his false claims of voter fraud, spending only a tiny fraction on lawyers and bills for his effort to overturn the presidential election, according to new campaign finance reports filed Sunday night.

Former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party entered this year having stockpiled more than $175 million from fundraising in November and December based on his false claims of voter fraud, spending only a tiny fraction on lawyers and bills for his effort to overturn the presidential election, according to new campaign finance reports filed Sunday night. The picture that emerges in the new Federal Election Commission reports is of Trump mounting a furious public relations effort to spread the lie and keep generating money from it, rather than making a sustained legal push to try to support his conspiracy theories. His campaign’s single biggest expense in December was a nearly $5 million media buy paid to the firm that bought his television advertisements. His second-largest payment, $4.4 million, was for online advertising. And the Republican National Committee pocketed millions of dollars in donations — collecting 25 cents for every dollar Trump raised online — in the final weeks of the year as it spent relatively little on legal costs. All told, Trump’s campaign spent only $10 million on legal costs — about one-fifth of what it spent on advertising and fundraising, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings from Nov. 4 through the end of the year. During that period, Trump’s conspiracy-fueled accusations that votes had been miscounted or misappropriated repeatedly fell flat in the courts. Joe Biden was elected president by voters on Nov. 3, confirmed by the Electoral College on Dec. 14 and ratified by Congress on Jan. 6 — the same day that Trump incited a mob that stormed the Capitol. But while Trump’s efforts to delegitimize the election did not keep him in power, they did spur millions in contributions from loyal supporters and provided both him and the party with an enormous infusion of cash. The Republican National Committee ended the year with more than $80 million in the bank after the fundraising blitz, and Trump had $31 million in the new political action committee he formed in November for his post-presidential political ventures. That accounts for just some of their haul. The party and the former president had roughly $63 million more in two shared accounts waiting to be distributed between them, with Trump’s PAC entitled to 75% of the money raised in December, giving him an estimated $70 million PAC war chest. Most of the money appears to have come online and from smaller contributors, with relatively few five- and six-figure checks, especially once the calendar turned to December. One $100,000 check in early December came from Elaine J. Wold, a major Republican donor in Florida. Though his race was over, Trump’s voracious online fundraising from Nov. 24 through the end of the year even outpaced that of the two Republican senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who were competing in the Georgia runoff elections that would determine control of the chamber. During those 39 days, Trump and his shared committees with the RNC raised $80 million online; Loeffler and Perdue combined for closer to $75 million. Both lost. Trump did incur some legal costs from more than a dozen law firms. He paid $1.6 million to Kasowitz Benson Torres, more than $500,000 to Jones Day and about $600,000 to Dechert. The law firm of Kurt Hilbert, who was on Trump’s phone call pressuring the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” votes to overturn the election outcome, was paid more than $480,000. A $3 million payment went to the Wisconsin election commission to pay for a recount. One major Republican donor, C. Boyden Gray, who contributed more than $2 million to Republicans in the 2020 cycle, also provided legal consulting for Trump, earning $114,000. The man who made so many public appearances on behalf of Trump as his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, reported no payments by the former president’s campaign. His firm was reimbursed for $63,423 in travel in mid-December. An associate of Giuliani’s had asked that he be paid $20,000 a day for his work for Trump, which Giuliani initially denied. He later acknowledged the request to The New York Times, but he has continued to publicly deny making money for his work, including in a radio appearance Sunday. “I haven’t made a penny on it,” Giuliani said. The Trump campaign also spent $20,130 in mid-December for what were described as travel reimbursements to the Kerik Group, led by former New York Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik, whom Trump pardoned last year for his 2010 conviction on eight felonies. Kerik is a close ally of Giuliani’s. The Trump operation continued to spend on fundraising, pouring millions more into a secretive limited liability company, American Made Media Consultants, for online and text-message advertising. Family members of Trump and Vice President Mike Pence once served on the board of that company, which had more than $700 million in spending flow through it during the 2020 campaign. One of Trump’s shared committees with the Republican National Committee spent $237,000 on books through a company, Reagan Investments, that has also done work for a PAC controlled by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. The Trump campaign offered signed copies of Cruz’s book last fall to donors who gave $75 or more. And, as they have since the beginning of his candidacy in 2015, Trump’s campaign accounts patronized his businesses in the postelection period. The Trump Victory committee paid $34,000 to the Trump Hotel Collection in its final 2020 filing. The same committee also paid a Trump-owned limited liability company that operates a private plane, DT Endeavor, $39,200 on Nov. 24. Another Trump campaign committee paid $75,000 in rent to the Trump Tower building in December.

As Trump raked in cash denying his loss, little went to actual legal fight

Many Republicans who served former US President George W Bush's administration are now leaving the party.

Some of these officials held important portfolios during the Bush reign. Reuters reported that many of these leaders were disappointed in the failure by many Republicans to shut out former President Donald Trump who repeatedly claimed that the November 2020 election was fraudulent.&nbsp;

In the aftermath of these claims, Trump urged his supporters to march to the US Capitol, which ended in violent riots leaving five people, including a police officer dead.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/democrats-need-17-republican-votes-to-convict-donald-trump-359663/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Many Republicans leaders told Reuters that they no longer feel&nbsp;the party represents what it once used to.

Many of these former Bush officials have ended their membership with the party, while others are letting it lapse. A few have reregistered as independents.&nbsp; 
 
"The Republican Party as I knew it no longer exists. I’d call it the cult of Trump," Jimmy Gurulé, who was Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in the Bush administration told Reuters.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/trump-names-two-new-lawyers-to-lead-his-impeachment-defence-team-in-senate-trial-360485" hreflang="en">Trump names two new lawyers to lead his impeachment defence team in Senate trial</a>

Another official - Kristopher Purcell, who worked in the communications department for Bush said that at least 60-70 former Bush officials have withdrawn from the party, and that the "number is growing every day".

In an interview given by The Republican National Committee's chair Ronna McDaniel to Fox Business, McDaniel claimed that the party is having a spat at the moment.

“We’re having a little bit of a spat right now. But we are going to come together. We have to”, McDaniel said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/top-trump-donor-funded-rally-that-preceded-us-capitol-riot-report-says-360337" hreflang="en">Top Trump donor funded rally that preceded US Capitol riot, report says</a>

Many Republicans still support Trump, with many claiming that they would not support his impeachment, which would ensure that his conviction in the Senate trial does not happen.

On January 13, Donald Trump was impeached by the US House of Representatives, which is under Democrat control for "incitement of insurrection".

After this, Trump became the only US President to be impeached twice. 
&nbsp;

Many Republicans who served former US President George W Bush's administration are now leaving the party. Some of these officials held important portfolios during the Bush reign.

Many Republicans who served former US President George W Bush's administration are now leaving the party. Some of these officials held important portfolios during the Bush reign. Reuters reported that many of these leaders were disappointed in the failure by many Republicans to shut out former President Donald Trump who repeatedly claimed that the November 2020 election was fraudulent. In the aftermath of these claims, Trump urged his supporters to march to the US Capitol, which ended in violent riots leaving five people, including a police officer dead. Many Republicans leaders told Reuters that they no longer feel the party represents what it once used to. Many of these former Bush officials have ended their membership with the party, while others are letting it lapse. A few have reregistered as independents. "The Republican Party as I knew it no longer exists. I’d call it the cult of Trump," Jimmy Gurulé, who was Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in the Bush administration told Reuters. Also read: Trump names two new lawyers to lead his impeachment defence team in Senate trial Another official - Kristopher Purcell, who worked in the communications department for Bush said that at least 60-70 former Bush officials have withdrawn from the party, and that the "number is growing every day". In an interview given by The Republican National Committee's chair Ronna McDaniel to Fox Business, McDaniel claimed that the party is having a spat at the moment. “We’re having a little bit of a spat right now. But we are going to come together. We have to”, McDaniel said. Also read: Top Trump donor funded rally that preceded US Capitol riot, report says Many Republicans still support Trump, with many claiming that they would not support his impeachment, which would ensure that his conviction in the Senate trial does not happen. On January 13, Donald Trump was impeached by the US House of Representatives, which is under Democrat control for "incitement of insurrection". After this, Trump became the only US President to be impeached twice.

Many former Bush officials are leaving Republican Party, calling it 'Trump cult'

It is Occupy Wall Street, the sequel. It is elements of the Tea Party, again. It is Bernie bros and MAGA maniacs.

The hordes of young traders who this week fueled a spectacular surge in the value of video game retailer GameStop may lack a unified political ideology. But they have forced a reckoning on Wall Street and caught the attention of leaders in Washington who recognize a populist uprising when they see one.

Wall Street has long been an easy villain for many on Capitol Hill. But the rush to side with speculative traders by both Democrats and Republicans reflects the broad recognition of the impulses that have driven U.S. politics in recent years, fueling both the ascension of President Donald Trump and a liberal wing of the Democratic Party that grew stronger in opposition.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trading-curbs-reverse-gamestop-rally-angering-upstart-traders-360011">Trading curbs reverse GameStop rally, angering upstart traders</a>

The decision by online brokerage app Robinhood to impose trading limits as hedge funds were hammered by the wild market fluctuation has prompted the rarest of all political occurrences: bipartisan agreement. Lawmakers from across the political spectrum condemned the move and called for hearings into the decision — among them Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a staunch conservative; and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a standard-bearer of the left. The conservative attorney general of Texas and his progressive counterpart in New York have both initiated inquiries into Robinhood.

“For years, the stock market has been less and less about the value of business and more and more like casino gambling,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who called for increased regulation of Wall Street shortly after the market frenzy over GameStop began this week.

“GameStop is just the latest and most visible example,” she said in an interview Friday. “We need to take this not as a one-off problem but as a systemic problem that requires systemic regulation and enforcement.”

While President Joe Biden defeated Trump with a centrist message of restoring political norms, the trading frenzy this week provided a potent reminder of the strong undercurrent of grievance and institutional distrust in the country. Many believe that will only intensify as the nation wrestles with the economic fallout from a devastating pandemic.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/how-gamestop-stocks-surge-exposed-wall-street-elites-360171">How GameStop stocks surge exposed Wall Street elites</a>

As Wall Street booms, unemployment has hit record highs, with nearly 10 million fewer people holding jobs than at the beginning of last year — a situation that reminds some former officials of the 2008 economic crisis that led to both the Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party movements.

“It’s not about Republicans and Democrats,” said Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House Speaker and an ally of Trump. “It’s lots and lots of normal, everyday people who began to figure out they really got ripped off for the last year just like they got ripped off in 2008 and 2009. What you’re seeing is an almost spontaneous cultural reaction in which the little guys and gals are getting together and going after the bigs, so the bigs are having to rig the game in order to survive.”

The reality is more complicated. There is little sign of any central political mission shared by the millions of amateur traders who combined to squeeze at least two hedge funds that bet against the stocks of companies like GameStop and movie chain AMC. One of the originators of the scheme is far from a “little guy,” with the financial resources to have purportedly transformed an initial investment of $53,000 into $48 million. Overall, only about half the country owns any stock at all.

On Reddit, the online message board that helped fuel the surge, few of the mostly young participants frame their flood of investments in clearly partisan terms. Yet many write of being driven by anger over the 2008 financial bailouts that kept the big banks afloat while 10 million Americans lost their homes.

“When that crisis hit our family, we were able to keep our little house, but we lived off of pancake mix, and powdered milk, and beans and rice for a year,” one person identified as ssauronn posted on Reddit. “Your ilk were bailed out and rewarded for terrible and illegal financial decisions that negatively changed the lives of millions.”

Other posters responded with their own stories of economic struggle and political rage.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/gamestop-prompts-surge-in-hyper-rally-after-elon-musks-tweet-359791">GameStop prompts surge in hyper-rally after Elon Musk's tweet</a>

“Forget republican/democrat, left/right... the bankers play both sides and have almost always come out on top,” a poster identified as ChrisFrettJunior wrote, after recounting watching his parents struggle through the 2008 recession.

The decision to bail out the biggest banks and also decline to prosecute any of their top executives led to much of the populist fervor that has driven U.S. politics in the past decade. The Tea Party surged to political prominence in the wake of the $700 billion financial rescue package that passed in 2008, eventually becoming a force that defeated both moderate Republicans and Democrats.

After Republicans won control of the House in 2010, Democrats began to face their own backlash, beginning with Occupy Wall Street — a loose coalition of largely liberal protesters who fueled a national conversation about economic inequality.

These days, political strategists warn, hedge funds, private equity investors and bankers are unlikely to find the same kind of deep support in Washington. Anger over the bailouts fueled the campaigns of political outsiders, creating a Congress that is less receptive to the pleas of Wall Street and far more eager to make use of upheaval to advance their agendas.

“There’s a ton of political currency in holding hedge funds’ feet to the fire from Democrats and Republicans,” said Josh Holmes, a Republican strategist and longtime adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “If you’re sitting on Wall Street looking at this, dismissing people as folks who don’t understand the way that the markets work, I think you’re going to be in a lot of trouble.”

For Republicans, the market upheaval was a referendum on elitism. Democrats saw pure corporate greed and the need for greater regulation.

“Big Hedge, with outposts in South Hedge-i-stan (Wall Street) and North Hedge-i-stan (Greenwich, CT), has made trillions shorting great American companies facing a rough patch,” said Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb. “Now they are getting a comeuppance from flash mobs of day traders and are paying dearly.”

Most of the ire this week was directed at Robinhood, a brokerage app catering to younger investors, which suddenly limited trading in GameStop, AMC and other stocks. Lawmakers argued that the app was protecting hedge funds and other big investors over retail investors. Robinhood said the additional restrictions were necessary to comply with government financial requirements.

Yet even centrists like Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who is poised to become the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in the online company’s decision-making.

“I find it disturbing when retail investors who are simply seeking to buy a stock are frozen out of the market,” Toomey said in a statement. “Retail investors should be free to purchase even highly speculative stocks, just as hedge funds should be free to short them.”

Although politicians from both sides joined calls for greater scrutiny, it was hardly a kumbaya moment for the two parties.

After Cruz tweeted that he agreed with Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a probe into Robinhood’s action, she quickly disavowed any support from Cruz, who was a prominent backer of Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud.

“I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there’s common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out,” she responded. “Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed. In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign.”

Cruz condemned her response as “partisan anger” that’s “not healthy for our country,” drawing another response from Ocasio-Cortez, while his allies in the House called for an apology.

The uproar over GameStop and Robinhood comes at a challenging time for the Biden administration, which took office promising to restore a sense of calm to the country. The Senate Banking Committee has yet to schedule a hearing to confirm Gary Gensler, Biden’s pick to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, leaving the agency with an acting chair for the indefinite future. On Friday the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, deferred questions on the issue.

“It’s a good reminder, though, that the stock market isn’t the only measure of the health of our economy,” she said, an apparent reference to Trump’s persistent fixation on stock prices during his tenure. Biden has not yet commented on the issue.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a progressive who represents a district that includes Silicon Valley, said this week’s events should alert lawmakers to the need to tighten financial regulations and increase transparency and equity.

He said the wide range of Republicans and Democrats who have spoken out are a reflection of “a real populist anger in this country.”

“Some people go get fancy degrees, know the right people and spend all day in front of their computers short selling, Khanna said. “And it’s a form of manipulation that has hurt our country. That has enriched the few at the expense of many Americans.”

Although many Americans own no stock at all, the sense that Wall Street has gamed a rigged system cuts across demographic barriers, he argued.

“I think this has been bubbling up since the Wall Street crash of 2008,” Khanna said. “And it’s coming to a boiling point.”

It is Occupy Wall Street, the sequel. It is elements of the Tea Party, again. It is Bernie bros and MAGA maniacs. The hordes of young traders who this week fueled a spectacular surge in the value of video game retailer GameStop may lack a unified political ideology.

It is Occupy Wall Street, the sequel. It is elements of the Tea Party, again. It is Bernie bros and MAGA maniacs. The hordes of young traders who this week fueled a spectacular surge in the value of video game retailer GameStop may lack a unified political ideology. But they have forced a reckoning on Wall Street and caught the attention of leaders in Washington who recognize a populist uprising when they see one. Wall Street has long been an easy villain for many on Capitol Hill. But the rush to side with speculative traders by both Democrats and Republicans reflects the broad recognition of the impulses that have driven U.S. politics in recent years, fueling both the ascension of President Donald Trump and a liberal wing of the Democratic Party that grew stronger in opposition. Also read| Trading curbs reverse GameStop rally, angering upstart traders The decision by online brokerage app Robinhood to impose trading limits as hedge funds were hammered by the wild market fluctuation has prompted the rarest of all political occurrences: bipartisan agreement. Lawmakers from across the political spectrum condemned the move and called for hearings into the decision — among them Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a staunch conservative; and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a standard-bearer of the left. The conservative attorney general of Texas and his progressive counterpart in New York have both initiated inquiries into Robinhood. “For years, the stock market has been less and less about the value of business and more and more like casino gambling,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who called for increased regulation of Wall Street shortly after the market frenzy over GameStop began this week. “GameStop is just the latest and most visible example,” she said in an interview Friday. “We need to take this not as a one-off problem but as a systemic problem that requires systemic regulation and enforcement.” While President Joe Biden defeated Trump with a centrist message of restoring political norms, the trading frenzy this week provided a potent reminder of the strong undercurrent of grievance and institutional distrust in the country. Many believe that will only intensify as the nation wrestles with the economic fallout from a devastating pandemic. Also read| How GameStop stocks surge exposed Wall Street elites As Wall Street booms, unemployment has hit record highs, with nearly 10 million fewer people holding jobs than at the beginning of last year — a situation that reminds some former officials of the 2008 economic crisis that led to both the Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party movements. “It’s not about Republicans and Democrats,” said Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House Speaker and an ally of Trump. “It’s lots and lots of normal, everyday people who began to figure out they really got ripped off for the last year just like they got ripped off in 2008 and 2009. What you’re seeing is an almost spontaneous cultural reaction in which the little guys and gals are getting together and going after the bigs, so the bigs are having to rig the game in order to survive.” The reality is more complicated. There is little sign of any central political mission shared by the millions of amateur traders who combined to squeeze at least two hedge funds that bet against the stocks of companies like GameStop and movie chain AMC. One of the originators of the scheme is far from a “little guy,” with the financial resources to have purportedly transformed an initial investment of $53,000 into $48 million. Overall, only about half the country owns any stock at all. On Reddit, the online message board that helped fuel the surge, few of the mostly young participants frame their flood of investments in clearly partisan terms. Yet many write of being driven by anger over the 2008 financial bailouts that kept the big banks afloat while 10 million Americans lost their homes. “When that crisis hit our family, we were able to keep our little house, but we lived off of pancake mix, and powdered milk, and beans and rice for a year,” one person identified as ssauronn posted on Reddit. “Your ilk were bailed out and rewarded for terrible and illegal financial decisions that negatively changed the lives of millions.” Other posters responded with their own stories of economic struggle and political rage. Also read| GameStop prompts surge in hyper-rally after Elon Musk's tweet “Forget republican/democrat, left/right... the bankers play both sides and have almost always come out on top,” a poster identified as ChrisFrettJunior wrote, after recounting watching his parents struggle through the 2008 recession. The decision to bail out the biggest banks and also decline to prosecute any of their top executives led to much of the populist fervor that has driven U.S. politics in the past decade. The Tea Party surged to political prominence in the wake of the $700 billion financial rescue package that passed in 2008, eventually becoming a force that defeated both moderate Republicans and Democrats. After Republicans won control of the House in 2010, Democrats began to face their own backlash, beginning with Occupy Wall Street — a loose coalition of largely liberal protesters who fueled a national conversation about economic inequality. These days, political strategists warn, hedge funds, private equity investors and bankers are unlikely to find the same kind of deep support in Washington. Anger over the bailouts fueled the campaigns of political outsiders, creating a Congress that is less receptive to the pleas of Wall Street and far more eager to make use of upheaval to advance their agendas. “There’s a ton of political currency in holding hedge funds’ feet to the fire from Democrats and Republicans,” said Josh Holmes, a Republican strategist and longtime adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “If you’re sitting on Wall Street looking at this, dismissing people as folks who don’t understand the way that the markets work, I think you’re going to be in a lot of trouble.” For Republicans, the market upheaval was a referendum on elitism. Democrats saw pure corporate greed and the need for greater regulation. “Big Hedge, with outposts in South Hedge-i-stan (Wall Street) and North Hedge-i-stan (Greenwich, CT), has made trillions shorting great American companies facing a rough patch,” said Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb. “Now they are getting a comeuppance from flash mobs of day traders and are paying dearly.” Most of the ire this week was directed at Robinhood, a brokerage app catering to younger investors, which suddenly limited trading in GameStop, AMC and other stocks. Lawmakers argued that the app was protecting hedge funds and other big investors over retail investors. Robinhood said the additional restrictions were necessary to comply with government financial requirements. Yet even centrists like Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who is poised to become the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in the online company’s decision-making. “I find it disturbing when retail investors who are simply seeking to buy a stock are frozen out of the market,” Toomey said in a statement. “Retail investors should be free to purchase even highly speculative stocks, just as hedge funds should be free to short them.” Although politicians from both sides joined calls for greater scrutiny, it was hardly a kumbaya moment for the two parties. After Cruz tweeted that he agreed with Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a probe into Robinhood’s action, she quickly disavowed any support from Cruz, who was a prominent backer of Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud. “I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there’s common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out,” she responded. “Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed. In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign.” Cruz condemned her response as “partisan anger” that’s “not healthy for our country,” drawing another response from Ocasio-Cortez, while his allies in the House called for an apology. The uproar over GameStop and Robinhood comes at a challenging time for the Biden administration, which took office promising to restore a sense of calm to the country. The Senate Banking Committee has yet to schedule a hearing to confirm Gary Gensler, Biden’s pick to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, leaving the agency with an acting chair for the indefinite future. On Friday the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, deferred questions on the issue. “It’s a good reminder, though, that the stock market isn’t the only measure of the health of our economy,” she said, an apparent reference to Trump’s persistent fixation on stock prices during his tenure. Biden has not yet commented on the issue. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a progressive who represents a district that includes Silicon Valley, said this week’s events should alert lawmakers to the need to tighten financial regulations and increase transparency and equity. He said the wide range of Republicans and Democrats who have spoken out are a reflection of “a real populist anger in this country.” “Some people go get fancy degrees, know the right people and spend all day in front of their computers short selling, Khanna said. “And it’s a form of manipulation that has hurt our country. That has enriched the few at the expense of many Americans.” Although many Americans own no stock at all, the sense that Wall Street has gamed a rigged system cuts across demographic barriers, he argued. “I think this has been bubbling up since the Wall Street crash of 2008,” Khanna said. “And it’s coming to a boiling point.”

Lawmakers look at GameStop furor and see a populist issue to seize

In a fresh setback to former US President Donald Trump, five of his impeachment defence lawyers have stepped aside over disagreements on legal strategy. Trump's trial in Senate is just a week away. Meanwhile, Kremlin-critic Alexei Navalny's aides have planned for fresh nationwide protests in Russia. Read this and more in our Morning News Brief.

 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-impeachment-defence-attorneys-leave-team-a-week-before-senate-trial-360351">Trump's impeachment defence attorneys leave team a week before Senate trial</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-impeachment-defence-attorneys-leave-team-a-week-before-senate-trial-360351"><img alt="Donald Trump" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="eeea0c24-b893-4233-8eee-f8ff95c9893d" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Trump_11.JPG" /></a> 
 
Trump is set to stand trial on the week of February 8 on a charge that he incited the riot inside the US Capitol&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/navalny-supporters-plan-fresh-nationwide-protests-despite-crackdown-360353">Navalny supporters plan fresh nationwide protests despite crackdown</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/navalny-supporters-plan-fresh-nationwide-protests-despite-crackdown-360353"><img alt="Alexei Navalny" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e496007b-a8d8-4d18-be09-b6050b6b44b3" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Navalny_1.JPG" /></a> 
 
Russian authorities have issued warnings against participation in these rallies and have threatened of criminal charges

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/britain-opens-visa-scheme-for-millions-of-hong-kong-residents-to-become-citizens-360340">Britain opens visa scheme for millions of Hong Kong residents to become citizens</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/britain-opens-visa-scheme-for-millions-of-hong-kong-residents-to-become-citizens-360340"><img alt="Boris Johnson" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="3df3b675-c7e5-4891-96ea-f1b2b195d39a" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Boris%20Johnson_3.JPG" /></a> 
 
The move comes as China and Hong Kong have said they will no longer recognise the British National Overseas (BNO) passport as a valid travel document from Sunday, January 31

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-reports-biggest-daily-surge-in-new-coronavirus-cases-360342">China reports biggest daily surge in new coronavirus cases</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-reports-biggest-daily-surge-in-new-coronavirus-cases-360342"><img alt="China" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e565b120-ba05-42d3-a08f-bf56f564a59c" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/China_10.JPG" /></a> 
 
Tonghua city in Jilin province accounted for most of the new cases

Large scale rallies expected across Russia

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/large-scale-rallies-expected-across-russia-360352/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

In a fresh setback to former US President Donald Trump, five of his impeachment defence lawyers have stepped aside over disagreements on legal strategy. Trump's trial in Senate is just a week away.

In a fresh setback to former US President Donald Trump, five of his impeachment defence lawyers have stepped aside over disagreements on legal strategy. Trump's trial in Senate is just a week away. Meanwhile, Kremlin-critic Alexei Navalny's aides have planned for fresh nationwide protests in Russia. Read this and more in our Morning News Brief. Trump's impeachment defence attorneys leave team a week before Senate trial Trump is set to stand trial on the week of February 8 on a charge that he incited the riot inside the US Capitol Navalny supporters plan fresh nationwide protests despite crackdown Russian authorities have issued warnings against participation in these rallies and have threatened of criminal charges Britain opens visa scheme for millions of Hong Kong residents to become citizens The move comes as China and Hong Kong have said they will no longer recognise the British National Overseas (BNO) passport as a valid travel document from Sunday, January 31 China reports biggest daily surge in new coronavirus cases Tonghua city in Jilin province accounted for most of the new cases Large scale rallies expected across Russia ×

Morning news brief: Trump lawyers quit, fresh protest plans in Russia, and more

Five of former President Donald Trump's impeachment defence attorneys have stepped aside&nbsp;little more than a week before his trial amid a disagreement over his legal strategy.

Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, both South Carolina lawyers, have left the defence team in what one person described as a ''mutual decision''&nbsp;that reflected a difference of opinion on the direction of the case.&nbsp;The change injects fresh uncertainty into the makeup and strategy of his defence team.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/democrats-need-17-republican-votes-to-convict-donald-trump-359663/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Trump is set to stand trial on the week of February&nbsp;8 on a charge that he incited the riot inside the US&nbsp;Capitol. Republicans and Trump aides have made clear that they intend to make a simple argument: The trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden urged his fellow members of the Democratic Party in the Senate to keep former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the upper chamber short and not to let it "derail the agenda".

Biden administration officials and allies close to the White House say the president will distance himself from Trump's trial as it begins in the second week of February.

There is a debate among scholars over whether the Senate can hold a trial for&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;now that he has left office. Many experts have said "late&nbsp;impeachment" is constitutional, arguing that presidents who engage in misconduct late in their terms should not be immune from the very process set out in the Constitution for holding them accountable.

The Constitution makes clear that&nbsp;impeachment&nbsp;proceedings can result in disqualification from holding office in the future, so there is still an active issue for the Senate to resolve, those scholars have said.

Trump&nbsp;is the only president to have been impeached by the House of Representatives twice and the first to face a trial after leaving power, with the possibility of being disqualified from future public office if convicted by two-thirds of the Senate.

<script src="https://jsc.mgid.com/a/n/aninews.in.713570.js" async></script>The House approved a single article of&nbsp;impeachment&nbsp;- the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal trial - on January&nbsp;13, accusing him of inciting an insurrection with an incendiary speech to supporters before they stormed the Capitol. A police officer and four others died in the melee.

But reaching the two-thirds threshold required for conviction will be a steep climb.&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;remains a powerful force among Republicans and his supporters have vowed to mount election challenges to lawmakers in the party who support the conviction.

Some Republicans have criticised&nbsp;Trump's false claims of voting fraud and his failed efforts to overturn Biden's Novmeber&nbsp;3 election victory. But no Senate Republicans have said definitively that they plan to vote to convict him.

Although the Constitution calls on the chief justice to preside over presidential&nbsp;impeachment&nbsp;trials, a senator presides when the impeached is not the current president, a Senate source said. First elected to the chamber in 1974, Leahy is the most senior Democrat in the chamber and holds the title of Senate president pro tempore.

The nine House Democrats who will serve as prosecutors set the trial in motion on Monday by delivering the article of&nbsp;impeachment&nbsp;to the Senate.

Five of former President Donald Trump's impeachment defence attorneys have stepped aside little more than a week before his trial amid a disagreement over his legal strategy.

Five of former President Donald Trump's impeachment defence attorneys have stepped aside little more than a week before his trial amid a disagreement over his legal strategy. Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, both South Carolina lawyers, have left the defence team in what one person described as a ''mutual decision'' that reflected a difference of opinion on the direction of the case. The change injects fresh uncertainty into the makeup and strategy of his defence team. Trump is set to stand trial on the week of February 8 on a charge that he incited the riot inside the US Capitol. Republicans and Trump aides have made clear that they intend to make a simple argument: The trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden urged his fellow members of the Democratic Party in the Senate to keep former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the upper chamber short and not to let it "derail the agenda". Biden administration officials and allies close to the White House say the president will distance himself from Trump's trial as it begins in the second week of February. There is a debate among scholars over whether the Senate can hold a trial for Trump now that he has left office. Many experts have said "late impeachment" is constitutional, arguing that presidents who engage in misconduct late in their terms should not be immune from the very process set out in the Constitution for holding them accountable. The Constitution makes clear that impeachment proceedings can result in disqualification from holding office in the future, so there is still an active issue for the Senate to resolve, those scholars have said. Trump is the only president to have been impeached by the House of Representatives twice and the first to face a trial after leaving power, with the possibility of being disqualified from future public office if convicted by two-thirds of the Senate. The House approved a single article of impeachment - the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal trial - on January 13, accusing him of inciting an insurrection with an incendiary speech to supporters before they stormed the Capitol. A police officer and four others died in the melee. But reaching the two-thirds threshold required for conviction will be a steep climb. Trump remains a powerful force among Republicans and his supporters have vowed to mount election challenges to lawmakers in the party who support the conviction. Some Republicans have criticised Trump's false claims of voting fraud and his failed efforts to overturn Biden's Novmeber 3 election victory. But no Senate Republicans have said definitively that they plan to vote to convict him. Although the Constitution calls on the chief justice to preside over presidential impeachment trials, a senator presides when the impeached is not the current president, a Senate source said. First elected to the chamber in 1974, Leahy is the most senior Democrat in the chamber and holds the title of Senate president pro tempore. The nine House Democrats who will serve as prosecutors set the trial in motion on Monday by delivering the article of impeachment to the Senate.

Trump's impeachment defence attorneys leave team a week before Senate trial

Trump has struggled to find attorneys willing to defend him after becoming the first president in history to be impeached twice.

Donald Trump's impeachment defense team leaves less than two weeks before trial

An heiress to the Publix Super Markets chain donated about $300,000 to fund a rally that preceded the deadly storming of the U.S. Capitol this month by supporters of former President Donald Trump, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

The Journal said the funding from Julie Jenkins Fancelli, a prominent donor to Trump`s 2020 campaign, was facilitated by far-right show host Alex Jones. It said her money paid for the lion`s share of the roughly $500,000 rally at the Ellipse park where Trump spoke and urged his supporters to "to fight."

More than 135 people have been arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol as Congress met to certify Democrat Joe Biden`s victory in the November election. Five people including a Capitol Police officer died.

According to the Journal, Jones personally pledged more than $50,000 in seed money for the rally in exchange for a speaking slot of his choice. Jones, who has publicized discredited conspiracy theories, has hosted leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, two extremist groups that were prominent at the riot, on his popular radio and internet video shows, it said.

Jones did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Fancelli could not immediately be reached for comment.

In a Twitter post, Publix Super Markets said Fancelli is not an employee of the chain, "and is neither involved in our business operations, nor does she represent the company in any way. We cannot comment on Mrs. Fancelli`s actions."

An heiress to the Publix Super Markets chain donated about $300,000 to fund a rally that preceded the deadly storming of the U.S. Capitol this month by supporters of former President Donald Trump, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

An heiress to the Publix Super Markets chain donated about $300,000 to fund a rally that preceded the deadly storming of the U.S. Capitol this month by supporters of former President Donald Trump, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday. The Journal said the funding from Julie Jenkins Fancelli, a prominent donor to Trump`s 2020 campaign, was facilitated by far-right show host Alex Jones. It said her money paid for the lion`s share of the roughly $500,000 rally at the Ellipse park where Trump spoke and urged his supporters to "to fight." More than 135 people have been arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol as Congress met to certify Democrat Joe Biden`s victory in the November election. Five people including a Capitol Police officer died. According to the Journal, Jones personally pledged more than $50,000 in seed money for the rally in exchange for a speaking slot of his choice. Jones, who has publicized discredited conspiracy theories, has hosted leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, two extremist groups that were prominent at the riot, on his popular radio and internet video shows, it said. Jones did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Fancelli could not immediately be reached for comment. In a Twitter post, Publix Super Markets said Fancelli is not an employee of the chain, "and is neither involved in our business operations, nor does she represent the company in any way. We cannot comment on Mrs. Fancelli`s actions."

Top Trump donor funded rally that preceded US Capitol riot, report says

TEMPE, Ariz. — In the months leading up to the congressional vote on the Dream Act in 2010, young people across the state organized protests to urge our elected officials to vote in favor. I was a 21-year-old communications student at Estrella Mountain Community College, in Avondale, Ariz., at the time.

I remember how hopeful I felt the day I joined others in Senator John McCain’s office in Phoenix that December; after all, he had co-sponsored the 2003 and 2005 versions of the Dream Act. But the bill died on the Senate floor the next day. Mr. McCain was among the lawmakers who voted against the legislation, including five Democrats.

It wouldn’t be the last time I felt betrayed by a politician.

The first version of the Dream Act, which would have given young people like me a path to citizenship, was introduced in 2001. But nearly 20 years on, our futures still hang in the balance. Comprehensive immigration reform that could provide permanent immigration relief for the approximately 11 million undocumented people in the country has failed to pass under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

I’m 31 years old now. I am also a mother to a beautiful 5-year-old boy. Two years ago he was diagnosed with autism. His father and I were granted deferred action under DACA shortly after it was established in 2012, which made us eligible for work permits. This in turn allows us to receive private health insurance through our employers, which means that our son is able to get the therapy he needs.

The last four years have been a roller coaster of emotions. The stress that has always accompanied my undocumented status has been amplified since his diagnosis, given the Trump administration’s attempts to end DACA. What would happen if we lost our status and health insurance? What would become of my son if he lost access to the care that is so vital to his development? My stomach turned each time I heard a court handed down a decision on one of Donald Trump’s many challenges to the program.

President Biden has already taken various actions on immigration, including fortifying DACA. He also sent Congress The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, which would offer a pathway to citizenship to the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States. The plan has been hailed as bold, but undocumented people have been here before. Barack Obama also made big promises he couldn’t keep. We can’t go on like this.

Mr. Trump dehumanized and terrorized the immigrant community. But the truth is that racist laws and politicians targeted undocumented people long before he arrived on the scene. In 2008, former Sheriff Joe Arpaio gloated about having his very own concentration camp, where he jailed undocumented people. An Arizona statute, Senate Bill 1070, in 2010 gave officers the power to arrest anyone without a warrant that they believed to have committed a crime that could make that person subject to deportation, among other things. In 2012, Gov. Jan Brewer sought to ban drivers licenses for DACA recipients in the state.

Through my work in the immigrant rights movement, I have witnessed so many examples of how lack of status, combined with criminalizing immigration policies, cast dark shadows over the lives of our community not only in Arizona but across the country. From allegations of forced sterilization of women in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody to children left orphaned by deportation.

It sometimes feels as if undocumented people are persecuted for simply existing in a country they have given so much to. Our contributions are not limited to playing a key role in the nation’s economy and paying billions in taxes each year. Many have also worked to keep Americans fed during the pandemic, losing their lives in the process, all the while with no permanent legislative solution in sight. Thinking about all this fills me with rage. Then I look at my son, and think that I have no other option but to continue to fight, even though I am tired. I am so tired.

Actions must speak louder than words this time around. The Biden administration should begin by launching an investigation of the Department of Homeland Security, which houses ICE as well as Customs and Border Protection, two institutions that have become symbols of abuse and terror in our community.

ICE and C.B.P. have separated families at the border, put kids in cages and, by some accounts, have sexually assaulted immigrants. Mr. Biden should abolish both agencies and hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable for the violations they committed. The administration should also take a stance against state policies and politicians that seek to enforce laws designed to further criminalize our community.

And, of course, there’s the immigration bill.

Democrats currently carry a thin majority in the House and Senate, but passing the president’s bill is likely to be contingent upon Republican support. This will require Mr. Biden to remain strong and not allow for amendments or concessions that would criminalize, hurt or alienate any part of our community. It also means not jeopardizing the promise of protection for the entire 11 million. While it is important, we cannot let protection for Dreamers be the ceiling of permanent legislation achieved during the Biden administration. Protecting Dreamers means also protecting our families and communities.

The new president has the opportunity to take decisive action. He should work to shift the narrative; denounce and dismantle ideas, policies and institutions rooted in white supremacy; and deliver on the overdue promise of legislation that would grant a pathway to citizenship. The time is now; it has always been now.

TEMPE, Ariz. — In the months leading up to the congressional vote on the Dream Act in 2010, young people across the state organized protests to urge our elected officials to vote in favor.

TEMPE, Ariz. — In the months leading up to the congressional vote on the Dream Act in 2010, young people across the state organized protests to urge our elected officials to vote in favor. I was a 21-year-old communications student at Estrella Mountain Community College, in Avondale, Ariz., at the time. I remember how hopeful I felt the day I joined others in Senator John McCain’s office in Phoenix that December; after all, he had co-sponsored the 2003 and 2005 versions of the Dream Act. But the bill died on the Senate floor the next day. Mr. McCain was among the lawmakers who voted against the legislation, including five Democrats. It wouldn’t be the last time I felt betrayed by a politician. The first version of the Dream Act, which would have given young people like me a path to citizenship, was introduced in 2001. But nearly 20 years on, our futures still hang in the balance. Comprehensive immigration reform that could provide permanent immigration relief for the approximately 11 million undocumented people in the country has failed to pass under both Republican and Democratic administrations. I’m 31 years old now. I am also a mother to a beautiful 5-year-old boy. Two years ago he was diagnosed with autism. His father and I were granted deferred action under DACA shortly after it was established in 2012, which made us eligible for work permits. This in turn allows us to receive private health insurance through our employers, which means that our son is able to get the therapy he needs. The last four years have been a roller coaster of emotions. The stress that has always accompanied my undocumented status has been amplified since his diagnosis, given the Trump administration’s attempts to end DACA. What would happen if we lost our status and health insurance? What would become of my son if he lost access to the care that is so vital to his development? My stomach turned each time I heard a court handed down a decision on one of Donald Trump’s many challenges to the program. President Biden has already taken various actions on immigration, including fortifying DACA. He also sent Congress The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, which would offer a pathway to citizenship to the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States. The plan has been hailed as bold, but undocumented people have been here before. Barack Obama also made big promises he couldn’t keep. We can’t go on like this. Mr. Trump dehumanized and terrorized the immigrant community. But the truth is that racist laws and politicians targeted undocumented people long before he arrived on the scene. In 2008, former Sheriff Joe Arpaio gloated about having his very own concentration camp, where he jailed undocumented people. An Arizona statute, Senate Bill 1070, in 2010 gave officers the power to arrest anyone without a warrant that they believed to have committed a crime that could make that person subject to deportation, among other things. In 2012, Gov. Jan Brewer sought to ban drivers licenses for DACA recipients in the state. Through my work in the immigrant rights movement, I have witnessed so many examples of how lack of status, combined with criminalizing immigration policies, cast dark shadows over the lives of our community not only in Arizona but across the country. From allegations of forced sterilization of women in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody to children left orphaned by deportation. It sometimes feels as if undocumented people are persecuted for simply existing in a country they have given so much to. Our contributions are not limited to playing a key role in the nation’s economy and paying billions in taxes each year. Many have also worked to keep Americans fed during the pandemic, losing their lives in the process, all the while with no permanent legislative solution in sight. Thinking about all this fills me with rage. Then I look at my son, and think that I have no other option but to continue to fight, even though I am tired. I am so tired. Actions must speak louder than words this time around. The Biden administration should begin by launching an investigation of the Department of Homeland Security, which houses ICE as well as Customs and Border Protection, two institutions that have become symbols of abuse and terror in our community. ICE and C.B.P. have separated families at the border, put kids in cages and, by some accounts, have sexually assaulted immigrants. Mr. Biden should abolish both agencies and hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable for the violations they committed. The administration should also take a stance against state policies and politicians that seek to enforce laws designed to further criminalize our community. And, of course, there’s the immigration bill. Democrats currently carry a thin majority in the House and Senate, but passing the president’s bill is likely to be contingent upon Republican support. This will require Mr. Biden to remain strong and not allow for amendments or concessions that would criminalize, hurt or alienate any part of our community. It also means not jeopardizing the promise of protection for the entire 11 million. While it is important, we cannot let protection for Dreamers be the ceiling of permanent legislation achieved during the Biden administration. Protecting Dreamers means also protecting our families and communities. The new president has the opportunity to take decisive action. He should work to shift the narrative; denounce and dismantle ideas, policies and institutions rooted in white supremacy; and deliver on the overdue promise of legislation that would grant a pathway to citizenship. The time is now; it has always been now.

For dreamers, action will speak louder than words

On abortion, the White House said Biden was ordering the government to review rules under Donald Trump's administration.

U.S. President Joe Biden reverses restrictions on access to abortion

Authorities in Florida's Palm Beach town are currently performing a legal review of former US president Donald Trump's residency at his Mar-a-Lago resort.

Trump had purchased the Mar-a-Lago resort, also a national historic landmark, in 1985.

The resort became the primary residence for Donald and Melania Trump in September, 2019. They moved backed to the place on the morning of January 20 ahead of Joe Biden's inauguration as the 46th president of the United States.

"Our town attorney is reviewing the agreement and the laws surrounding it," Palm Beach Town Manager Kirk Blouin told The Hill news website on Friday.

The decision to review comes a month after Blouin told a local media outlet that the town was not aware of the former president's intention to permanently move to the resort.

He, however, added that the authorities would "address the matter appropriately" when required.

While in office, Trump hosted meetings for international leaders, including former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping, at the club originally built between 1924 to 1927. 
&nbsp;

Authorities in Florida's Palm Beach town are currently performing a legal review of former US president Donald Trump's residency at his Mar-a-Lago resort. Trump had purchased the Mar-a-Lago resort, also a national historic landmark, in 1985.

Authorities in Florida's Palm Beach town are currently performing a legal review of former US president Donald Trump's residency at his Mar-a-Lago resort. Trump had purchased the Mar-a-Lago resort, also a national historic landmark, in 1985. The resort became the primary residence for Donald and Melania Trump in September, 2019. They moved backed to the place on the morning of January 20 ahead of Joe Biden's inauguration as the 46th president of the United States. "Our town attorney is reviewing the agreement and the laws surrounding it," Palm Beach Town Manager Kirk Blouin told The Hill news website on Friday. The decision to review comes a month after Blouin told a local media outlet that the town was not aware of the former president's intention to permanently move to the resort. He, however, added that the authorities would "address the matter appropriately" when required. While in office, Trump hosted meetings for international leaders, including former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping, at the club originally built between 1924 to 1927.

Trump's residency at Mar-a-Lago under review

US first lady Jill Biden will participate in efforts by her husband's administration to reunite families split apart by former president Donald Trump's hardline immigration policies, the White House said Friday.

In line with his campaign promises, President Joe Biden plans to announce on Tuesday "his launch of a task force on reunifying families and children. Something that he is personally committed to, his wife Dr Biden is personally committed to and invested in," said White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

The task force will be under the command of Alejandro Mayorkas, who is due to be confirmed by the Senate as head of the Department for Homeland Security on Monday, she added.

Jill Biden, 69, has a doctorate in education and plans to keep teaching at a university close to Washington while her husband serves as president.

In December, she visited a migrant camp in Mexico, close to the border with Texas. "We are a welcoming nation, but that's not the message that we're sending at the border," she said at the time.&nbsp;

Her tone was in marked contrast with her predecessor Melania Trump, who in 2018 visited children who had been locked up by her husband's policy of "zero tolerance" at the border and who wore a jacket with the logo, "I really don't care, do u?"

Trump's government separated hundreds of migrant families, with very young children being taken away from their parents, some of whom were then deported.&nbsp;

The plight of the children, &nbsp;taken from their parents and locked in detention centers, provoked such an outcry, even from some in the ranks of Trump's own Republican party, that he was forced to backpedal. A judge later ordered that the families be reunited.&nbsp;

Authorities identified more than 2,700 children who needed to be reunited with their parents.

But the parents of 611 children have yet to be located, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).&nbsp;

Most of the parents who were deported remain stuck in their country of origin, the ACLU has said, calling on the US government to allow them to legally return to the United States.

US first lady Jill Biden will participate in efforts by her husband's administration to reunite families split apart by former president Donald Trump's hardline immigration policies, the White House said Friday.

US first lady Jill Biden will participate in efforts by her husband's administration to reunite families split apart by former president Donald Trump's hardline immigration policies, the White House said Friday. In line with his campaign promises, President Joe Biden plans to announce on Tuesday "his launch of a task force on reunifying families and children. Something that he is personally committed to, his wife Dr Biden is personally committed to and invested in," said White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki. The task force will be under the command of Alejandro Mayorkas, who is due to be confirmed by the Senate as head of the Department for Homeland Security on Monday, she added. Jill Biden, 69, has a doctorate in education and plans to keep teaching at a university close to Washington while her husband serves as president. In December, she visited a migrant camp in Mexico, close to the border with Texas. "We are a welcoming nation, but that's not the message that we're sending at the border," she said at the time. Her tone was in marked contrast with her predecessor Melania Trump, who in 2018 visited children who had been locked up by her husband's policy of "zero tolerance" at the border and who wore a jacket with the logo, "I really don't care, do u?" Trump's government separated hundreds of migrant families, with very young children being taken away from their parents, some of whom were then deported. The plight of the children, taken from their parents and locked in detention centers, provoked such an outcry, even from some in the ranks of Trump's own Republican party, that he was forced to backpedal. A judge later ordered that the families be reunited. Authorities identified more than 2,700 children who needed to be reunited with their parents. But the parents of 611 children have yet to be located, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Most of the parents who were deported remain stuck in their country of origin, the ACLU has said, calling on the US government to allow them to legally return to the United States.

US first lady to help reunite migrant kids with parents

A New York judge Friday increased pressure on former President Donald Trump’s family business and several associates, ordering them to give state investigators documents in a civil inquiry into whether the company misstated assets to get bank loans and tax benefits.

It was the second blow that the judge, Arthur F. Engoron of state Supreme Court in Manhattan, had dealt to Trump’s company in recent weeks.

In December, he ordered the company, the Trump Organization, to produce records that its lawyers had tried to shield, including some related to a Westchester County, New York, property that is among those being scrutinized by the New York state attorney general, Letitia James.

On Friday, Engoron went further, saying that even more documents, as well as communications with a law firm hired by the Trump Organization, had to be handed over to James’ office. In doing so, he rejected the lawyers’ claim that the documents at issue were covered by the attorney-client privilege.

The ruling was a fresh reminder that Trump — who left office about a week ago under the cloud of impeachment and is headed for a Senate trial on a charge of “incitement of insurrection” after his supporters stormed the Capitol in a violent rampage — faces significant legal jeopardy as a private citizen.

The most serious threats confronting the former president include a criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney and the civil inquiry by the attorney general into possible fraud in Trump’s business dealings before he was elected.

James’ investigation began in March 2019, after Michael Cohen, the former president’s onetime lawyer, told Congress that Trump had inflated his assets in financial statements to secure bank loans and understated them elsewhere to reduce his tax bill.

Investigators in James’ office have focused their attention on an array of transactions, including a financial restructuring of the Trump International Hotel &amp;amp; Tower in Chicago in 2010 that resulted in the Fortress Credit Corp. forgiving debt worth more than $100 million.

James’ office has said in court documents that the Trump Organization — Trump’s main business vehicle — had thwarted efforts to determine how that money was reflected in its tax filings, and whether it was declared as income, as the law typically requires.

A New York judge Friday increased pressure on former President Donald Trump’s family business and several associates, ordering them to give state investigators documents in a civil inquiry into whether the company misstated assets to get bank loans and tax benefits.

A New York judge Friday increased pressure on former President Donald Trump’s family business and several associates, ordering them to give state investigators documents in a civil inquiry into whether the company misstated assets to get bank loans and tax benefits. It was the second blow that the judge, Arthur F. Engoron of state Supreme Court in Manhattan, had dealt to Trump’s company in recent weeks. In December, he ordered the company, the Trump Organization, to produce records that its lawyers had tried to shield, including some related to a Westchester County, New York, property that is among those being scrutinized by the New York state attorney general, Letitia James. On Friday, Engoron went further, saying that even more documents, as well as communications with a law firm hired by the Trump Organization, had to be handed over to James’ office. In doing so, he rejected the lawyers’ claim that the documents at issue were covered by the attorney-client privilege. The ruling was a fresh reminder that Trump — who left office about a week ago under the cloud of impeachment and is headed for a Senate trial on a charge of “incitement of insurrection” after his supporters stormed the Capitol in a violent rampage — faces significant legal jeopardy as a private citizen. The most serious threats confronting the former president include a criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney and the civil inquiry by the attorney general into possible fraud in Trump’s business dealings before he was elected. James’ investigation began in March 2019, after Michael Cohen, the former president’s onetime lawyer, told Congress that Trump had inflated his assets in financial statements to secure bank loans and understated them elsewhere to reduce his tax bill. Investigators in James’ office have focused their attention on an array of transactions, including a financial restructuring of the Trump International Hotel &amp; Tower in Chicago in 2010 that resulted in the Fortress Credit Corp. forgiving debt worth more than $100 million. James’ office has said in court documents that the Trump Organization — Trump’s main business vehicle — had thwarted efforts to determine how that money was reflected in its tax filings, and whether it was declared as income, as the law typically requires.

Legal pressure on Trump increases with judge’s order in fraud inquiry

The new US government, under President Joe Biden, has named Rob Malley as its special envoy to Iran.

Malley is known as the architect of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran -- one of the chief negotiators on the 2015 nuclear deal reached by Iran and world powers, under which Tehran was promised economic relief for major curbs in its contested nuclear programme.

The deal was reached under Barack Obama, when President Joe Biden was his number two.

Malley has been serving as head of the International Crisis Group, an independent non-governmental organisation focussed on conflict resolution.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken is "building a dedicated team" to address Washington's relations with Iran, to be led by Malley, a State Department official said Friday.

Malley "brings to the position a track record of success&nbsp;negotiating constraints on&nbsp;Iran's nuclear program," the State Department official said.

"The Secretary is confident he and his team will be able to do that once again."

In 2018, Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the 2015 accord, which was also signed by Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

The Trump administration deemed the deal not tough enough, and felt it should have also covered what it saw as Iran's "destabilising" activities in the Middle East. It slapped tough sanctions on Tehran.

This week, Blinken confirmed the new US administration's intention to rejoin the accord -- once Tehran meets its commitments.

Iran responded to the tough Trump-era sanctions by reducing its compliance with the deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It wants Washington to make the first move.

The new US government, under President Joe Biden, has named Rob Malley as its special envoy to Iran. Malley is known as the architect of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran -- one of the chief negotiators on the 2015 nuclear deal reached by Iran and world powers, under which Tehran was promised economic relief for major curbs in its contested nuclear programme.

The new US government, under President Joe Biden, has named Rob Malley as its special envoy to Iran. Malley is known as the architect of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran -- one of the chief negotiators on the 2015 nuclear deal reached by Iran and world powers, under which Tehran was promised economic relief for major curbs in its contested nuclear programme. The deal was reached under Barack Obama, when President Joe Biden was his number two. Malley has been serving as head of the International Crisis Group, an independent non-governmental organisation focussed on conflict resolution. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is "building a dedicated team" to address Washington's relations with Iran, to be led by Malley, a State Department official said Friday. Malley "brings to the position a track record of success negotiating constraints on Iran's nuclear program," the State Department official said. "The Secretary is confident he and his team will be able to do that once again." In 2018, Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the 2015 accord, which was also signed by Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. The Trump administration deemed the deal not tough enough, and felt it should have also covered what it saw as Iran's "destabilising" activities in the Middle East. It slapped tough sanctions on Tehran. This week, Blinken confirmed the new US administration's intention to rejoin the accord -- once Tehran meets its commitments. Iran responded to the tough Trump-era sanctions by reducing its compliance with the deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It wants Washington to make the first move.

US names 2015 nuke deal negotiator Rob Malley as new envoy to Iran

US President Joe Biden has a higher approval rating after one week in office than Donald Trump did in his entire presidency, a new poll has found.

A Monmouth University poll Wednesday showed 54 per cent of Americans approving of Biden's performance and 30 per cent disapproving.&nbsp;

Trump spent most of his presidency with ratings in the low 40s, and left office on January 20 with a Gallup poll approval of just 34 per cent, a record low.

A&nbsp;Morning Consult tracking poll&nbsp;published Monday gave Biden 56 per cent approval and 34 per cent disapproval. Another poll released Monday, by Hill-HarrisX, showed Biden with 63 per cent approval.

In the Monmouth poll, Biden won 90 per cent approval from Democrats but only 47 per cent from independents and 15 per cent from Republicans.

According to data from the fivethirtyeight.com site, Trump was the first president in half a century not to enjoy a honeymoon period with substantially better polling in the first six months.

Barack Obama had an average of 60 per cent approval in his first half year and his predecessor George W Bush had 53.9 per cent.

Trump, by contrast, had an average approval rating of 41.4 per cent in his first six months.

US President Joe Biden has a higher approval rating after one week in office than Donald Trump did in his entire presidency, a new poll has found. A Monmouth University poll Wednesday showed 54 per cent of Americans approving of Biden's performance and 30 per cent disapproving.

US President Joe Biden has a higher approval rating after one week in office than Donald Trump did in his entire presidency, a new poll has found. A Monmouth University poll Wednesday showed 54 per cent of Americans approving of Biden's performance and 30 per cent disapproving. Trump spent most of his presidency with ratings in the low 40s, and left office on January 20 with a Gallup poll approval of just 34 per cent, a record low. A Morning Consult tracking poll published Monday gave Biden 56 per cent approval and 34 per cent disapproval. Another poll released Monday, by Hill-HarrisX, showed Biden with 63 per cent approval. In the Monmouth poll, Biden won 90 per cent approval from Democrats but only 47 per cent from independents and 15 per cent from Republicans. According to data from the fivethirtyeight.com site, Trump was the first president in half a century not to enjoy a honeymoon period with substantially better polling in the first six months. Barack Obama had an average of 60 per cent approval in his first half year and his predecessor George W Bush had 53.9 per cent. Trump, by contrast, had an average approval rating of 41.4 per cent in his first six months.

Biden polls higher in first week than Trump at any time

The United States has imposed a temporary freeze on two big arms deals with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates which were approved in the final weeks of the Trump administration, a State Department official said.

The nearly week-old administration has already signaled it plans to end support for the Saudi-led, UAE-backed offensive in Yemen, which is facing a humanitarian catastrophe. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-joe-biden-warns-china-over-expansionism-in-asia-359774">Also read | US President Joe Biden warns China over expansionism in Asia</a> 
 
A State Department spokesperson said the administration is "temporarily pausing the implementation" of a number of defense sales "to allow incoming leadership an opportunity to review."

"This is a routine administrative action typical to most any transition, and demonstrates the administration's commitment to transparency and good governance," the spokesperson said. 
 
Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-and-suga-vow-to-strengthen-us-japan-alliance-359772" hreflang="en">Biden and Suga vow to strengthen US-Japan alliance</a>

The move is also aimed at "ensuring US arms sales meet our strategic objectives of building stronger, interoperable and more capable security partners."

The most high-profile sale is a $23 billion package of top-of-the-line F-35 jets to the United Arab Emirates.

Former president Donald Trump's administration agreed to the sale -- the first of the stealth-capable planes to an Arab nation -- after the United Arab Emirates agreed to recognize Israel.

A potential halt to the sale could raise questions about whether the United Arab Emirates will continue its normalization with Israel, which Trump saw as a key foreign policy achievement.

Lawmakers of Biden's Democratic Party had voiced misgivings over the deal, fearing it would set off an arms race, but failed in the Senate to block the sale while Trump was in office.

The package to the United Arab Emirates also included unarmed drones, while the United States has been preparing major sales of munitions to Saudi Arabia.

Trump had explicitly backed arms sales on commercial grounds, saying that the Saudis were creating US jobs by buying from US manufacturers.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during his confirmation hearing that the Saudi offensive against Yemen's Huthi rebels, who are backed by Iran, has contributed to the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen.

(With inputs from agencies)

The United States has imposed a temporary freeze on two big arms deals with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates which were approved in the final weeks of the Trump administration, a State Department official said.

The United States has imposed a temporary freeze on two big arms deals with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates which were approved in the final weeks of the Trump administration, a State Department official said. The nearly week-old administration has already signaled it plans to end support for the Saudi-led, UAE-backed offensive in Yemen, which is facing a humanitarian catastrophe. Also read | US President Joe Biden warns China over expansionism in Asia A State Department spokesperson said the administration is "temporarily pausing the implementation" of a number of defense sales "to allow incoming leadership an opportunity to review." "This is a routine administrative action typical to most any transition, and demonstrates the administration's commitment to transparency and good governance," the spokesperson said. Also read: Biden and Suga vow to strengthen US-Japan alliance The move is also aimed at "ensuring US arms sales meet our strategic objectives of building stronger, interoperable and more capable security partners." The most high-profile sale is a $23 billion package of top-of-the-line F-35 jets to the United Arab Emirates. Former president Donald Trump's administration agreed to the sale -- the first of the stealth-capable planes to an Arab nation -- after the United Arab Emirates agreed to recognize Israel. A potential halt to the sale could raise questions about whether the United Arab Emirates will continue its normalization with Israel, which Trump saw as a key foreign policy achievement. Lawmakers of Biden's Democratic Party had voiced misgivings over the deal, fearing it would set off an arms race, but failed in the Senate to block the sale while Trump was in office. The package to the United Arab Emirates also included unarmed drones, while the United States has been preparing major sales of munitions to Saudi Arabia. Trump had explicitly backed arms sales on commercial grounds, saying that the Saudis were creating US jobs by buying from US manufacturers. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during his confirmation hearing that the Saudi offensive against Yemen's Huthi rebels, who are backed by Iran, has contributed to the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen. (With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden freezes controversial arms deals with Saudi Arabia and UAE

Any attempt to contain China is "mission impossible", the country's defence ministry warned the US on Thursday.

The warning came as the Biden administration works to shore up its Asian alliances against Beijing.

Military tensions between the two superpowers worsened under former US President Donald Trump, who adopted an aggressive stance on regional flashpoints such as Taiwan and the South China Sea.&nbsp;

China at the same time poured billions into revamping its military, in line with President Xi Jinping's ambitions to transform the People's Liberation Army into a fully modernised, "world-class" fighting force by 2050.

"The facts show that to contain China is mission impossible, and will only end up in shooting yourself in the foot," warned defence ministry spokesman Wu Qian on Thursday.

"Sino-US military relations are currently at a new historic starting point" with the arrival of the Biden administration, said Wu, urging the US to adopt a "non-confrontational, mutually respectful, win-win mentality."

Tensions between the two superpowers have shown no sign of abating under the Biden administration, which deployed groups of warships, including a US aircraft carrier, to the South China Sea over the weekend.

China has increasingly asserted its presence in the disputed region in recent years, aggressively expanding its territory via man-made islands and reefs, much to the chagrin of Southeast Asian neighbours with rival claims.

Washington, to this end, has sought to firm up ties with Asian nations this week, with US President Joe Biden reaffirming his administration's "unwavering commitment" to defend Japan, including the disputed Senkaku Islands claimed by China, in a Wednesday call with the country's Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga.&nbsp;

The new US Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin III, also discussed regional security threats in recent calls with counterparts in South Korea, Australia and India -- the latter two have seen deteriorating ties with China.

Any attempt to contain China is "mission impossible", the country's defence ministry warned the US on Thursday. The warning came as the Biden administration works to shore up its Asian alliances against Beijing.

Any attempt to contain China is "mission impossible", the country's defence ministry warned the US on Thursday. The warning came as the Biden administration works to shore up its Asian alliances against Beijing. Military tensions between the two superpowers worsened under former US President Donald Trump, who adopted an aggressive stance on regional flashpoints such as Taiwan and the South China Sea. China at the same time poured billions into revamping its military, in line with President Xi Jinping's ambitions to transform the People's Liberation Army into a fully modernised, "world-class" fighting force by 2050. "The facts show that to contain China is mission impossible, and will only end up in shooting yourself in the foot," warned defence ministry spokesman Wu Qian on Thursday. "Sino-US military relations are currently at a new historic starting point" with the arrival of the Biden administration, said Wu, urging the US to adopt a "non-confrontational, mutually respectful, win-win mentality." Tensions between the two superpowers have shown no sign of abating under the Biden administration, which deployed groups of warships, including a US aircraft carrier, to the South China Sea over the weekend. China has increasingly asserted its presence in the disputed region in recent years, aggressively expanding its territory via man-made islands and reefs, much to the chagrin of Southeast Asian neighbours with rival claims. Washington, to this end, has sought to firm up ties with Asian nations this week, with US President Joe Biden reaffirming his administration's "unwavering commitment" to defend Japan, including the disputed Senkaku Islands claimed by China, in a Wednesday call with the country's Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga. The new US Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin III, also discussed regional security threats in recent calls with counterparts in South Korea, Australia and India -- the latter two have seen deteriorating ties with China.

Beijing warns Biden, says containing China is 'mission impossible'

U.S. President Donald Trump signals radical shift from Trump-era Climate Change policies. During his campaign for the presidential elections, Biden proposed a $2 trillion spending plan to deal with climate change that includes promoting clean energy and climate-friendly infrastructure.

U.S. President Joe Biden hints radical steps to curb Climate Change

US President Joe Biden will reopen the nation's online health insurance marketplace for people who cannot obtain coverage through their employers, the White House said on Thursday.

Biden, who took office last week, to this end will restore access to healthcare.gov with an executive order on Thursday afternoon, the latest in a blizzard of moves by the Democratic president to quickly reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor Donald Trump.

The order will allow people to sign up for insurance through the government exchange from February 15 to May 15, the White House said in a policy fact sheet. The programme is normally accessible for just six weeks a year.

The action was expected. Biden has vowed to shore up the healthcare.gov, and other programmes created under former president Barack Obama's sweeping 2010 Affordable Care Act. He has argued that the changes are more urgent because of the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed more than 400,000 Americans.

Republicans have long opposed the healthcare restructuring law, criticising the cost and quality of care as well as extensive government involvement in healthcare markets.

Biden also plans to direct federal agencies to "re-examine" Trump-era policies like work requirements that made it more difficult for people to qualify for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance programme for the poor.

US President Joe Biden will reopen the nation's online health insurance marketplace for people who cannot obtain coverage through their employers, the White House said on Thursday.

US President Joe Biden will reopen the nation's online health insurance marketplace for people who cannot obtain coverage through their employers, the White House said on Thursday. Biden, who took office last week, to this end will restore access to healthcare.gov with an executive order on Thursday afternoon, the latest in a blizzard of moves by the Democratic president to quickly reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor Donald Trump. The order will allow people to sign up for insurance through the government exchange from February 15 to May 15, the White House said in a policy fact sheet. The programme is normally accessible for just six weeks a year. The action was expected. Biden has vowed to shore up the healthcare.gov, and other programmes created under former president Barack Obama's sweeping 2010 Affordable Care Act. He has argued that the changes are more urgent because of the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed more than 400,000 Americans. Republicans have long opposed the healthcare restructuring law, criticising the cost and quality of care as well as extensive government involvement in healthcare markets. Biden also plans to direct federal agencies to "re-examine" Trump-era policies like work requirements that made it more difficult for people to qualify for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance programme for the poor.

Biden to reopen healthcare.gov, ease Medicaid rules amid pandemic

In major&nbsp;"major revisions" to its regulations, the US Army has amended its&nbsp;uniform rules and allowed women to wear ponytails and lipsticks while letting men use clear nail polish.

Women in the US Army who are breastfeeding or pumping will also be allowed to wear an undershirt in addition to relaxed grooming standards.&nbsp;They will come into effect o February 24.

Calling it an effort to increase ''diversity'' and ''inclusion'', the US army has updated its grooming standards to address the disparate impact on female soldiers.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/USArmy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#USArmy</a> has revised Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia. 
 
The updates will be effective Feb. 25, 2021 and directly supports the Army’s diversity and inclusion efforts. 
 
Learn more in this STAND-TO! ➡️ <a href="https://t.co/Y2VlaZgQHr">https://t.co/Y2VlaZgQHr</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ArmyLife?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ArmyLife</a> <a href="https://t.co/4y9e7hBJ5a">pic.twitter.com/4y9e7hBJ5a</a>
— U.S. Army (@USArmy) <a href="https://twitter.com/USArmy/status/1354524006104387586?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The changes are the result of a review launched last year under previous defence secretary Mark Esper, part of an examination of racial discrimination and mistreatment of minorities in the military.

In the past&nbsp;women&nbsp;with longer hair had to tie it in buns, which many said was uncomfortable and interfered with their helmets.

Lt. Gen. Gary Brito, Army deputy chief of staff for personnel said: "We are continuously assessing our policies to identify areas for improvement, then implementing policies that demonstrate our commitment to ensuring all Soldiers feel as though they are valued members of the Army team."

"We know that actions speak louder than words when it comes to inclusivity and equity within our ranks, and we believe that the changes we announced today are one example of policies that put our people first."

<img alt="Trump" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="5608a571-ac02-4cb0-bd31-f20344a6ed86" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%282%29_122.jpg" />

In picture: US Army grooming standards and AR 670-1

The decision received a mixed response on social networking platform Twitter with some making fun of it while others applauded&nbsp;the move.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Lol. Nail polish for Joe? Seems legit.
— Anonymause77 (@anonymause77) <a href="https://twitter.com/anonymause77/status/1354532405906911237?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
As a vet I applaud the Army's progressive stance. Thank you.
— planetransgender (@planetrans) <a href="https://twitter.com/planetrans/status/1354699886843850757?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 28, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The announcement comes a week after the US Air Force had changed its rules on how women in the service are allowed to wear their hair.

President Joe Biden on Monday signed an executive order that overturned a controversial ban by his predecessor on transgender individuals serving in the US&nbsp;military, a move cheered by LGBTQ advocates that fulfils a campaign promise.

Flanked by Vice President Kamala Harris, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, Biden signed the executive order in the Oval Office.

“It’s simple: America is safer when everyone qualified to serve can do so openly and with pride,” Biden said on Twitter after the signing.

Former Democratic President Barack Obama in 2016 allowed trans people to serve openly and receive medical care to transition genders, but Republican President Donald Trump froze their recruitment while allowing serving personnel to remain.

When Trump announced the ban in 2017 on Twitter, he said the military needed to focus on “decisive and overwhelming victory” without being burdened by the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of having transgender personnel.

A November 2020 report by the LGBT-rights think tank the Palm Center co-written by former military Surgeons General said the transgender ban had hurt military readiness.

Austin in a statement said he supported the move and would immediately take action to ensure that transgender people are eligible to enter the military.

The US&nbsp;Supreme Court ruled that the Trump transgender policy of 2019 could stand while it faces separate lawsuits in lower courts.

About 1.3 million active personnel serve in the US&nbsp;military, Department of Defense data shows. There are no official figures on the number of trans members but the Rand Corp, a US&nbsp;policy research institute, estimated in 2016 about 2,450 active service members were transgender.

In major "major revisions" to its regulations, the US Army has amended its uniform rules and allowed women to wear ponytails and lipsticks while letting men use clear nail polish.

In major "major revisions" to its regulations, the US Army has amended its uniform rules and allowed women to wear ponytails and lipsticks while letting men use clear nail polish. Women in the US Army who are breastfeeding or pumping will also be allowed to wear an undershirt in addition to relaxed grooming standards. They will come into effect o February 24. Calling it an effort to increase ''diversity'' and ''inclusion'', the US army has updated its grooming standards to address the disparate impact on female soldiers. The #USArmy has revised Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia. The updates will be effective Feb. 25, 2021 and directly supports the Army’s diversity and inclusion efforts. Learn more in this STAND-TO! ➡️ https://t.co/Y2VlaZgQHr#ArmyLife pic.twitter.com/4y9e7hBJ5a — U.S. Army (@USArmy) January 27, 2021 × The changes are the result of a review launched last year under previous defence secretary Mark Esper, part of an examination of racial discrimination and mistreatment of minorities in the military. In the past women with longer hair had to tie it in buns, which many said was uncomfortable and interfered with their helmets. Lt. Gen. Gary Brito, Army deputy chief of staff for personnel said: "We are continuously assessing our policies to identify areas for improvement, then implementing policies that demonstrate our commitment to ensuring all Soldiers feel as though they are valued members of the Army team." "We know that actions speak louder than words when it comes to inclusivity and equity within our ranks, and we believe that the changes we announced today are one example of policies that put our people first." In picture: US Army grooming standards and AR 670-1 The decision received a mixed response on social networking platform Twitter with some making fun of it while others applauded the move. Lol. Nail polish for Joe? Seems legit. — Anonymause77 (@anonymause77) January 27, 2021 × As a vet I applaud the Army's progressive stance. Thank you. — planetransgender (@planetrans) January 28, 2021 × The announcement comes a week after the US Air Force had changed its rules on how women in the service are allowed to wear their hair. President Joe Biden on Monday signed an executive order that overturned a controversial ban by his predecessor on transgender individuals serving in the US military, a move cheered by LGBTQ advocates that fulfils a campaign promise. Flanked by Vice President Kamala Harris, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, Biden signed the executive order in the Oval Office. “It’s simple: America is safer when everyone qualified to serve can do so openly and with pride,” Biden said on Twitter after the signing. Former Democratic President Barack Obama in 2016 allowed trans people to serve openly and receive medical care to transition genders, but Republican President Donald Trump froze their recruitment while allowing serving personnel to remain. When Trump announced the ban in 2017 on Twitter, he said the military needed to focus on “decisive and overwhelming victory” without being burdened by the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of having transgender personnel. A November 2020 report by the LGBT-rights think tank the Palm Center co-written by former military Surgeons General said the transgender ban had hurt military readiness. Austin in a statement said he supported the move and would immediately take action to ensure that transgender people are eligible to enter the military. The US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump transgender policy of 2019 could stand while it faces separate lawsuits in lower courts. About 1.3 million active personnel serve in the US military, Department of Defense data shows. There are no official figures on the number of trans members but the Rand Corp, a US policy research institute, estimated in 2016 about 2,450 active service members were transgender.

US Army changes uniform rules for women to allow ponytails and nail polish

Zalmay Khalilzad, the US negotiator who brokered a deal with&nbsp;Afghanistan's Taliban, has been asked to stay in his post under President Joe Biden even as the administration reiterated Wednesday it was assessing the fine print of that agreement.

"We've asked him to continue the vital work that he's performing," Secretary of State Antony Blinken told his first news conference since taking office.

Khalilzad, a political scientist born in&nbsp;Afghanistan, is a veteran of Republican administrations who served as US ambassador to the United Nations, Iraq and&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;under former president George W. Bush.

Donald Trump's administration, eager to end America's longest war, tasked Khalilzad with negotiating with the Taliban, culminating in a deal signed in Qatar on February 29 last year.

Under the accord, the United States will withdraw all troops from&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;by May 2021 with the Taliban promising not to allow the territory to be used by terrorists -- the original goal of the US invasion following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Blinken reiterated concern that the new administration has not seen parts of the accord that were not made public.

"One of the things that we need to understand is exactly what is in the agreements that were reached between the United States and the Taliban, to make sure that we fully understand the commitments that the Taliban has made as well as any commitments that we've made," Blinken said.

The Taliban did not halt violent attacks in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;although the militants started their first talks with the internationally recognized government.

Biden as vice president under Barack Obama was an early proponent of leaving&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;and has generally backed the goal of an exit.

But he has also called for a small force to remain to be able to target terrorist threats -- a position unlikely to be backed by the Taliban.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the US negotiator who brokered a deal with Afghanistan's Taliban, has been asked to stay in his post under President Joe Biden even as the administration reiterated Wednesday it was assessing the fine print of that agreement.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the US negotiator who brokered a deal with Afghanistan's Taliban, has been asked to stay in his post under President Joe Biden even as the administration reiterated Wednesday it was assessing the fine print of that agreement. "We've asked him to continue the vital work that he's performing," Secretary of State Antony Blinken told his first news conference since taking office. Khalilzad, a political scientist born in Afghanistan, is a veteran of Republican administrations who served as US ambassador to the United Nations, Iraq and Afghanistan under former president George W. Bush. Donald Trump's administration, eager to end America's longest war, tasked Khalilzad with negotiating with the Taliban, culminating in a deal signed in Qatar on February 29 last year. Under the accord, the United States will withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by May 2021 with the Taliban promising not to allow the territory to be used by terrorists -- the original goal of the US invasion following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Blinken reiterated concern that the new administration has not seen parts of the accord that were not made public. "One of the things that we need to understand is exactly what is in the agreements that were reached between the United States and the Taliban, to make sure that we fully understand the commitments that the Taliban has made as well as any commitments that we've made," Blinken said. The Taliban did not halt violent attacks in Afghanistan although the militants started their first talks with the internationally recognized government. Biden as vice president under Barack Obama was an early proponent of leaving Afghanistan and has generally backed the goal of an exit. But he has also called for a small force to remain to be able to target terrorist threats -- a position unlikely to be backed by the Taliban.

Biden asks US negotiator with Taliban to stay on

If President Joe Biden’s plan for COVID relief ever passes the Senate, it won’t be with the 10 Republican votes it needs to clear a filibuster.

“I’m going to suggest that we get together and talk about what we think would be a reasonable package, and one that could garner bipartisan support,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, to reporters after a conference call with a bipartisan group of 16 senators led by her and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, another necessary vote, isn’t just skeptical of the cost, he’s skeptical that the country needs another relief bill so soon after the last one. “I think at this early stage, just having passed $900 billion in relief, we need to understand where is the money going,” Romney said in an interview with CNN on Sunday. “It is important we don’t borrow trillions of dollars from the Chinese for things that may not be absolutely necessary.”

Without Republican support, Democrats have two options for passing Biden’s plan into law. They could use “reconciliation” — a limited-use parliamentary maneuver that lets any deficit-neutral budget-related bill pass with a simple majority — or they could end the legislative filibuster and rid themselves of the burden of a 60-vote threshold for action. Democrats could then pass the relief package and anything else they had the votes for.

The choice is simple. Change the rules and govern or leave them as is and struggle on the way to likely defeat in the next elections.

This isn’t the first Democratic majority to have to deal with this kind of problem. Sixty years ago this month, Sam Rayburn, the Democratic speaker of the house, faced a similar situation. The president-elect, John F. Kennedy, had promised to take America toward a “new frontier” of reform, including new civil rights legislation. But Howard Smith of Virginia, the 78-year-old Dixiecrat chairman of the House Rules Committee, was less than keen on making that journey.

The Rules Committee was where legislation went to live or die. It decided whether a bill moved to the floor for full consideration or if it was buried and forgotten. The 12-person committee was meant to act like a traffic cop, controlling the flow of legislation to the entire House. Under Smith, however, the committee used its broad powers to restrict the scope of activity altogether.

Smith’s main target was liberal legislation, which he blocked in partnership with William M. Colmer of Mississippi (the other Dixiecrat on the committee) as well as the four Republicans in the minority. What on paper was a committee controlled by eight Democrats was, in practice, a committee controlled by a bipartisan group of six conservatives, who only had to tie a vote to kill a bill.

For Rayburn, this was intolerable. He wanted Kennedy to succeed — or at least, to have a chance at success — and Smith’s control of the Rules Committee made that impossible. So Rayburn had to act. Liberal members had already conferred with him on how to break conservative control of the committee. He had three options. He could revive an old rule that would take all bills out of the committee after 21 days. He could purge Colmer and give his spot to a loyal soldier. Or, since committee size was set by majority vote of the House, he could move to make it bigger.

The first option would make the floor unmanageable. Rayburn still needed a traffic cop. And the second option would cause a schism as conservative Southern Democrats broke from the party to defend one of their own (and head off another civil rights bill — Rayburn had helped shepherd the Civil Rights acts of 1957 and 1960). He chose the third. The Rules Committee could be as small as five members or as large as 15. Smith could keep his coalition. With three additional members, two Democrats and one Republican, liberals and moderates would have an 8-7 majority. They could block legislation as needed, but they could also let Kennedy’s bills through.

Rayburn chose door number three, but not before acting as if he might go through door number two. After his meeting with House liberals, Rayburn’s office told The New York Times of a plan to purge Colmer from the Rules Committee. Rayburn tried to effect some compromise with Smith, but the Dixiecrat wouldn’t budge. At this point, Rayburn endorsed the plan to enlarge the committee. Smith could have stopped it there — the bill to add members had to go through him — but he allowed it through, on the assumption that Republicans and Dixiecrats would kill it on the floor.

On the last day of the month, Jan. 31, with Kennedy now in office, the House took a vote. According to the Times, it was a “tense debate that produced cheers and applause” as well as “derisive ‘ahs’ and laughter from members.” Smith and his Republican allies accused Rayburn of “packing” the Rules Committee and making it a “rubber stamp for whatever the new administration proposes.” Rayburn, for his part, urged members to adopt the resolution since “This House should be allowed on great measures to work its will,” even “if the Committee on Rules is so constituted as not to allow the House to pass on those things.”

When the votes were finally counted, Rayburn had won, 217-212, with most of the Southern delegation in opposition.

“This triumph did not mean complete success for the New Frontier,” historian James Smallwood wrote in a 1973 journal article on the Rules Committee fight, “it only meant that the entire House could consider its proposals and that the majority would rule.”

Here in the present, Senate Republicans aren’t the only ones pumping the breaks on the president’s agenda. On Monday, Manchin announced his total support for the Senate filibuster in an interview with Politico. “If I haven’t said it very plain, maybe Sen. McConnell hasn’t understood, I want to basically say it for you. That I will not vote in this Congress, that’s two years, right? I will not vote” to change the filibuster.

Likewise, a spokesperson for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said that the senator is “against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about the filibuster.”

In 1961, the prospect of gridlock and the possibilities opened up by a new administration motivated a coalition of liberals and moderates to change the rules and clear a path that would, in just a few short years, allow Congress to pass some of the most important legislation in its history.

Today, liberals see the opportunity of the moment. But moderates don’t appear to be frustrated enough with gridlock and inaction to change the rules of the chamber. They seem to think they can negotiate Republicans out of their partisanship and win votes for policies — a $15 federal minimum wage, a new Voting Rights Act — that Republicans have already deemed unacceptable. And they seem to think that failure won’t matter, that Americans won’t notice how the Democratic Party campaigned on help and assistance but never delivered. Yes, without the filibuster to protect them, moderate members will have to take the occasional tough vote. But their constituents will probably care more about checks and vaccines than whether their senator voted with their more liberal colleagues.

At this point, American elections are almost completely nationalized. The broad, diverse coalition that is the Democratic Party will either rise or fall together. Even members with their own personal political appeal need the entire party to win if they are to wield any influence over government. If Manchin wants the government to spend $4 trillion on infrastructure, then he’ll need the Democratic Party to succeed in as many areas as it can.

The first step toward victory is a government that can act. So, sure, moderate Democrats can keep the filibuster if they want. But they should prepare for when the voting public decides it would rather have the party that promises nothing and does nothing than the one that promises quite a bit but won’t work to make any of it a reality.

If President Joe Biden’s plan for COVID relief ever passes the Senate, it won’t be with the 10 Republican votes it needs to clear a filibuster. “I’m going to suggest that we get together and talk about what we think would be a reasonable package, and one that could garner bipartisan support,” said Sen.

If President Joe Biden’s plan for COVID relief ever passes the Senate, it won’t be with the 10 Republican votes it needs to clear a filibuster. “I’m going to suggest that we get together and talk about what we think would be a reasonable package, and one that could garner bipartisan support,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, to reporters after a conference call with a bipartisan group of 16 senators led by her and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, another necessary vote, isn’t just skeptical of the cost, he’s skeptical that the country needs another relief bill so soon after the last one. “I think at this early stage, just having passed $900 billion in relief, we need to understand where is the money going,” Romney said in an interview with CNN on Sunday. “It is important we don’t borrow trillions of dollars from the Chinese for things that may not be absolutely necessary.” Without Republican support, Democrats have two options for passing Biden’s plan into law. They could use “reconciliation” — a limited-use parliamentary maneuver that lets any deficit-neutral budget-related bill pass with a simple majority — or they could end the legislative filibuster and rid themselves of the burden of a 60-vote threshold for action. Democrats could then pass the relief package and anything else they had the votes for. The choice is simple. Change the rules and govern or leave them as is and struggle on the way to likely defeat in the next elections. This isn’t the first Democratic majority to have to deal with this kind of problem. Sixty years ago this month, Sam Rayburn, the Democratic speaker of the house, faced a similar situation. The president-elect, John F. Kennedy, had promised to take America toward a “new frontier” of reform, including new civil rights legislation. But Howard Smith of Virginia, the 78-year-old Dixiecrat chairman of the House Rules Committee, was less than keen on making that journey. The Rules Committee was where legislation went to live or die. It decided whether a bill moved to the floor for full consideration or if it was buried and forgotten. The 12-person committee was meant to act like a traffic cop, controlling the flow of legislation to the entire House. Under Smith, however, the committee used its broad powers to restrict the scope of activity altogether. Smith’s main target was liberal legislation, which he blocked in partnership with William M. Colmer of Mississippi (the other Dixiecrat on the committee) as well as the four Republicans in the minority. What on paper was a committee controlled by eight Democrats was, in practice, a committee controlled by a bipartisan group of six conservatives, who only had to tie a vote to kill a bill. For Rayburn, this was intolerable. He wanted Kennedy to succeed — or at least, to have a chance at success — and Smith’s control of the Rules Committee made that impossible. So Rayburn had to act. Liberal members had already conferred with him on how to break conservative control of the committee. He had three options. He could revive an old rule that would take all bills out of the committee after 21 days. He could purge Colmer and give his spot to a loyal soldier. Or, since committee size was set by majority vote of the House, he could move to make it bigger. The first option would make the floor unmanageable. Rayburn still needed a traffic cop. And the second option would cause a schism as conservative Southern Democrats broke from the party to defend one of their own (and head off another civil rights bill — Rayburn had helped shepherd the Civil Rights acts of 1957 and 1960). He chose the third. The Rules Committee could be as small as five members or as large as 15. Smith could keep his coalition. With three additional members, two Democrats and one Republican, liberals and moderates would have an 8-7 majority. They could block legislation as needed, but they could also let Kennedy’s bills through. Rayburn chose door number three, but not before acting as if he might go through door number two. After his meeting with House liberals, Rayburn’s office told The New York Times of a plan to purge Colmer from the Rules Committee. Rayburn tried to effect some compromise with Smith, but the Dixiecrat wouldn’t budge. At this point, Rayburn endorsed the plan to enlarge the committee. Smith could have stopped it there — the bill to add members had to go through him — but he allowed it through, on the assumption that Republicans and Dixiecrats would kill it on the floor. On the last day of the month, Jan. 31, with Kennedy now in office, the House took a vote. According to the Times, it was a “tense debate that produced cheers and applause” as well as “derisive ‘ahs’ and laughter from members.” Smith and his Republican allies accused Rayburn of “packing” the Rules Committee and making it a “rubber stamp for whatever the new administration proposes.” Rayburn, for his part, urged members to adopt the resolution since “This House should be allowed on great measures to work its will,” even “if the Committee on Rules is so constituted as not to allow the House to pass on those things.” When the votes were finally counted, Rayburn had won, 217-212, with most of the Southern delegation in opposition. “This triumph did not mean complete success for the New Frontier,” historian James Smallwood wrote in a 1973 journal article on the Rules Committee fight, “it only meant that the entire House could consider its proposals and that the majority would rule.” Here in the present, Senate Republicans aren’t the only ones pumping the breaks on the president’s agenda. On Monday, Manchin announced his total support for the Senate filibuster in an interview with Politico. “If I haven’t said it very plain, maybe Sen. McConnell hasn’t understood, I want to basically say it for you. That I will not vote in this Congress, that’s two years, right? I will not vote” to change the filibuster. Likewise, a spokesperson for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said that the senator is “against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about the filibuster.” In 1961, the prospect of gridlock and the possibilities opened up by a new administration motivated a coalition of liberals and moderates to change the rules and clear a path that would, in just a few short years, allow Congress to pass some of the most important legislation in its history. Today, liberals see the opportunity of the moment. But moderates don’t appear to be frustrated enough with gridlock and inaction to change the rules of the chamber. They seem to think they can negotiate Republicans out of their partisanship and win votes for policies — a $15 federal minimum wage, a new Voting Rights Act — that Republicans have already deemed unacceptable. And they seem to think that failure won’t matter, that Americans won’t notice how the Democratic Party campaigned on help and assistance but never delivered. Yes, without the filibuster to protect them, moderate members will have to take the occasional tough vote. But their constituents will probably care more about checks and vaccines than whether their senator voted with their more liberal colleagues. At this point, American elections are almost completely nationalized. The broad, diverse coalition that is the Democratic Party will either rise or fall together. Even members with their own personal political appeal need the entire party to win if they are to wield any influence over government. If Manchin wants the government to spend $4 trillion on infrastructure, then he’ll need the Democratic Party to succeed in as many areas as it can. The first step toward victory is a government that can act. So, sure, moderate Democrats can keep the filibuster if they want. But they should prepare for when the voting public decides it would rather have the party that promises nothing and does nothing than the one that promises quite a bit but won’t work to make any of it a reality.

Democrats should act like they won the election

US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) &nbsp;declared a nationwide alert on Wednesday over threat from domestic anti-government extremists. The department said that there was a possibility of violence from those having 'perceived grievances fueled by false narratives'.

"Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence," the department said.&nbsp;

The National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin said a heightened threat of attack "will persist in the weeks following the successful presidential inauguration," which took place on January 20.

However, the bulletin said that the department did not have specific information&nbsp;

The alert said there had been mounting threats since last year from domestic violent extremists motivated by Covid-19 restrictions, Biden's defeat of Donald Trump in the November election, police brutality and illegal immigration.

Security agencies in the US have been on their toes after the violence a Capitol Building on January 6. DHS said the motivations behind the attack could remain in place for coming months.

The department urged the public to report suspicious activity and threats of violence.

US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared a nationwide alert on Wednesday over threat from domestic anti-government extremists. The department said that there was a possibility of violence from those having 'perceived grievances fueled by false narratives'.

US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared a nationwide alert on Wednesday over threat from domestic anti-government extremists. The department said that there was a possibility of violence from those having 'perceived grievances fueled by false narratives'. "Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence," the department said. The National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin said a heightened threat of attack "will persist in the weeks following the successful presidential inauguration," which took place on January 20. However, the bulletin said that the department did not have specific information The alert said there had been mounting threats since last year from domestic violent extremists motivated by Covid-19 restrictions, Biden's defeat of Donald Trump in the November election, police brutality and illegal immigration. Security agencies in the US have been on their toes after the violence a Capitol Building on January 6. DHS said the motivations behind the attack could remain in place for coming months. The department urged the public to report suspicious activity and threats of violence.

US issues nationwide alert over domestic 'violent extremists'

US President Joe Biden -- in just seven days since assuming America's highest office -- has signed a series of executive orders.

Some are aimed at undoing the legacy of Donald Trump, and some are aimed at getting the &nbsp;US back on track. They range from housing to criminal reform, from racial equality to climate change, and from immigration to American manufacturing.

Here's a list of all what Biden has signed on for a change:

'BUY AMERICAN' ORDER

Biden vowed on Monday to leverage the purchasing power of the US government, the world’s biggest single buyer of goods and services, to strengthen domestic manufacturing and create markets for new technologies.

The Democratic president signed an executive order aimed at closing loopholes in existing “Buy American” provisions, which apply to about a third of the $600 billion in goods and services the federal government buys each year. The order will make any waivers more transparent and create a senior White House role to oversee the process.

“I don’t buy for one second that the vitality of American manufacturing is a thing of the past,” Biden told reporters before signing the order. “American manufacturing was the arsenal of democracy in World War Two and it must be part of the engine of American prosperity now.”

Biden reiterated plans announced on the campaign trail to replace the fleet of federal cars with U.S.-made electric vehicles.

“America can’t sit on the sidelines in the race to the future. Our competitors aren’t waiting,” Biden said. “To ensure the future is made in America, we need to win not just the jobs of today, but the jobs and industries of tomorrow.”

RACIAL EQUALITY

Biden on Tuesday issued a firm call to heal America’s racial divide, taking several steps and promising more to confront racism and inequality that he said has plagued the United States for far too long.

Biden said he believes the vast majority of Americans believe in equality.

“We’ve never fully lived up to the founding principles of this nation - to state the obvious - that all people are created equal and have a right to be treated equally throughout their lives,” Biden said in remarks at the White House. “And it’s time to act now, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because if we do we’ll all be better off for it.”

Biden took executive action on four fronts: curbing the U.S. government’s use of private prisons, bolstering anti-discrimination enforcement in housing, underscoring a commitment to Native American tribal sovereignty and condemning discrimination against Asian Americans and Americans of Pacific Island descent he said has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN

Biden also signed an executive order that overturned a controversial ban by his predecessor on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military, a move cheered by LGBTQ advocates that fulfills a campaign promise.

“It’s simple: America is safer when everyone qualified to serve can do so openly and with pride,” Biden said on Twitter after the signing.

COVID RESTRICTIONS

Biden reimposed travel restrictions to fight the spread of coronavirus. He would now impose a ban on most non-U.S. citizens entering the country who have recently been in South Africa starting Saturday in a bid to contain the spread of a new variant of COVID-19.

An entry ban will be imposed on nearly all non-U.S. travelers who have been in Brazil, the United Kingdom, Ireland and 26 countries in Europe that allow travel across open borders.

US President Joe Biden -- in just seven days since assuming America's highest office -- has signed a series of executive orders. Some are aimed at undoing the legacy of Donald Trump, and some are aimed at getting the US back on track.

US President Joe Biden -- in just seven days since assuming America's highest office -- has signed a series of executive orders. Some are aimed at undoing the legacy of Donald Trump, and some are aimed at getting the US back on track. They range from housing to criminal reform, from racial equality to climate change, and from immigration to American manufacturing. Here's a list of all what Biden has signed on for a change: 'BUY AMERICAN' ORDER Biden vowed on Monday to leverage the purchasing power of the US government, the world’s biggest single buyer of goods and services, to strengthen domestic manufacturing and create markets for new technologies. The Democratic president signed an executive order aimed at closing loopholes in existing “Buy American” provisions, which apply to about a third of the $600 billion in goods and services the federal government buys each year. The order will make any waivers more transparent and create a senior White House role to oversee the process. “I don’t buy for one second that the vitality of American manufacturing is a thing of the past,” Biden told reporters before signing the order. “American manufacturing was the arsenal of democracy in World War Two and it must be part of the engine of American prosperity now.” Biden reiterated plans announced on the campaign trail to replace the fleet of federal cars with U.S.-made electric vehicles. “America can’t sit on the sidelines in the race to the future. Our competitors aren’t waiting,” Biden said. “To ensure the future is made in America, we need to win not just the jobs of today, but the jobs and industries of tomorrow.” RACIAL EQUALITY Biden on Tuesday issued a firm call to heal America’s racial divide, taking several steps and promising more to confront racism and inequality that he said has plagued the United States for far too long. Biden said he believes the vast majority of Americans believe in equality. “We’ve never fully lived up to the founding principles of this nation - to state the obvious - that all people are created equal and have a right to be treated equally throughout their lives,” Biden said in remarks at the White House. “And it’s time to act now, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because if we do we’ll all be better off for it.” Biden took executive action on four fronts: curbing the U.S. government’s use of private prisons, bolstering anti-discrimination enforcement in housing, underscoring a commitment to Native American tribal sovereignty and condemning discrimination against Asian Americans and Americans of Pacific Island descent he said has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic. TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN Biden also signed an executive order that overturned a controversial ban by his predecessor on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military, a move cheered by LGBTQ advocates that fulfills a campaign promise. “It’s simple: America is safer when everyone qualified to serve can do so openly and with pride,” Biden said on Twitter after the signing. COVID RESTRICTIONS Biden reimposed travel restrictions to fight the spread of coronavirus. He would now impose a ban on most non-U.S. citizens entering the country who have recently been in South Africa starting Saturday in a bid to contain the spread of a new variant of COVID-19. An entry ban will be imposed on nearly all non-U.S. travelers who have been in Brazil, the United Kingdom, Ireland and 26 countries in Europe that allow travel across open borders.

Joe Biden has signed a series of executive orders. Here's a list

Senate Republicans rallied Tuesday against trying former President Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection” at the Capitol, with only five members of his party joining Democrats in a vote to go forward with his impeachment trial.

By a vote of 55-45, the Senate narrowly killed a Republican effort to dismiss the proceeding as unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office. But the numbers showed that loyal Republicans are again poised to spare him from conviction, this time despite his role in stirring up a mob that violently targeted lawmakers and the vice president Jan. 6 as Congress met to finalize the election.

“I think it’s pretty obvious from the vote today that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the president will be convicted,” said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the five Republicans who voted to proceed to trial. “Just do the math.”

It would take two-thirds of senators — 67 votes — to attain a conviction, meaning 17 Republicans would have to cross party lines to side with Democrats in finding Trump guilty. If they did, an additional vote to disqualify him from ever holding office again would take a simple majority.

Aside from Collins, the only Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to reject the constitutional objection and proceed were Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania. All five had previously said they were open to hearing the House’s impeachment case, which was adopted in a bipartisan vote a week after the attack.

With the facts of the case still spilling forth and the meat of the trial delayed for two weeks, senators could change their views. Several Republicans who voted Tuesday to uphold the constitutional challenge, which would have effectively killed the trial, rushed afterward to clarify that they remained open-minded about the trial, which next convenes Feb. 9.

In the weeks since the attack, Trump has made no apology for his actions, including spreading falsehoods about election fraud and urging his supporters gathered outside the White House on Jan. 6 to march to the Capitol, confront members of Congress formalizing his election loss and “fight like hell.”

But most agreed that whatever window of possibility there had been for bipartisan condemnation of Trump by lawmakers who were evacuated from the Capitol amid the deadly assault was closing fast, as Republicans were reminded once again of Trump’s remarkable hold on their party and the risks of crossing him. The 10 House Republicans who broke with their party to support the impeachment charge are already facing an intense backlash, both at home and in Washington.

It appeared that Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, was among those making such a calculation. He had twice signaled in recent days — through advisers and then in a letter to colleagues — that he was open to convicting a former president he privately disdains, and he publicly asserted last week that Trump had “provoked” the mob.

But if McConnell was trying to soften the ground for a faction of Republicans to abandon Trump and jettison him from the party, it had become increasingly clear that no such coalition was emerging.

When his fellow Kentuckian Sen. Rand Paul lodged a constitutional objection to the proceeding minutes after the Senate convened as a court of impeachment, McConnell voted with the vast majority of his conference in favor of the challenge.

It seemed to be a recognition that Republicans were not so keen to move on from Trump, whether out of fear of his promises of retribution and his overwhelming popularity with the party’s core supporters, or out of a belief that the fight was simply not worth having.

Democrats feared something more conspiratorial, pointing out that it was McConnell who, as majority leader, refused Democrats’ entreaties to begin the impeachment trial two weeks ago, when Trump was still president. On Tuesday, the Republican leader turned around and sided with Paul’s argument that trying a former president was unconstitutional.

McConnell made no public comment about his views of the vote nor did he speak up on the matter during a private Republican luncheon beforehand, according to people familiar with the session.

The showdown caught many senators off guard on a day that they expected to be devoted largely to the carefully scripted ceremony and logistics of a trial.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Senate president pro tempore, was sworn in as the presiding officer and then asked all 100 senators to take an oath to administer “impartial justice” during the trial. Senators were warned by the sergeant-at-arms “on pain of imprisonment” to remain silent.

It was then that Paul, an outspoken defender of Trump, lodged his formal objection.

“Private citizens don’t get impeached," Paul had said a short time earlier, calling the trial "deranged" and vindictive. "Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, quickly moved to shut down the request.

“The theory that the impeachment of a former official is unconstitutional is flat-out wrong by every frame of analysis,” Schumer said. “It has been completely debunked by constitutional scholars from all across the political spectrum.”

The Senate has clearly taken that position in the past. In 1876, as the House was preparing to impeach him on corruption charges, William Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant’s secretary of war, hurried to the White House, where he tendered his resignation in tears just before Congress could act. The House proceeded anyway, and when the case arrived in the Senate, a majority of the body decided that it retained jurisdiction to hear it, notwithstanding Belknap’s departure from office.

Support for a constitutional argument against holding the trial had been growing in the Senate in recent days, particularly among Republicans who showed little interest in mounting any substantive defense of Trump’s conduct. But the overwhelming level of Republican support exceeded what almost anyone was expecting.

Paul declared victory, saying, “Forty-five votes means the impeachment trial is dead on arrival.”

Murkowski, who has praised the House’s move to impeach and called Trump’s actions “unlawful,” reluctantly agreed. She told reporters that she feared that it would be impossible for most of her Republican colleagues to truly consider supporting a conviction after they had put themselves on record arguing that the trial should not even take place.

“That’s why I thought it was a little unfortunate that we had this very spontaneous vote on an extraordinarily significant matter without the considered debate and analysis,” she said. “People had to make really quick decisions.”

But other Republicans said their votes to uphold Paul’s objection should not be read as opposition to hearing the case against Trump.

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio said that he voted with Paul because he wanted a “fulsome discussion” on the issue of constitutionality, not necessarily to kill the trial.

“I’ve not made my mind up,” he said. “I’m a juror.”

He and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the Republican whip, suggested McConnell might feel the same way.

“I don’t think it binds anybody once the trial starts,” Thune said.

Far from settled, the argument over constitutionality will reappear when the trial reconvenes in February, when senators may seek to use it as justification for voting to acquit. The House managers have already begun preparing a constitutional justification for proceeding, and Trump’s lawyers will be asked to argue the opposite as a key plank of their defense.

The debate arises from the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly discuss impeachments of former officials or instruct Congress how to handle a case like Trump’s, in which the president was impeached while still in office but was not put on trial until after his term expired.

Senate Republicans have embraced a legal theory that argues that the document’s silence means the Senate does not have authority to try former officials whatsoever, even if the first stage of the process, impeachment, took place before they left.

Just before the vote, McConnell had invited Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, to speak about the constitutional debate at the regularly scheduled Republican luncheon. Turley has taken a more nuanced position than some who argue trying a former official is strictly unconstitutional. He argues instead that it is “constitutionally unsound” to proceed and could set a dangerous precedent whereby a Congress of one party could go about charging and punishing the leaders of another at whim.

But other leading constitutional scholars say that view is backward, and a trial of a former official — particularly one who just left office — is entirely consistent with the framers’ intentions to hold public officials accountable. If it was not, they argue, officials could routinely commit high crimes and misdemeanors in their final weeks and months in office, confident they would avoid punishment.

“If an official could only be disqualified while he or she still held office, then an official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate’s final conviction vote,” a group of 150 prominent legal scholars, including a founder of the conservative Federalist Society, wrote last week. “The framers did not design the Constitution’s checks and balances to be so easily undermined. History supports a reading of the Constitution that allows Congress to impeach, try, convict and disqualify former officers.”

Senate Republicans rallied Tuesday against trying former President Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection” at the Capitol, with only five members of his party joining Democrats in a vote to go forward with his impeachment trial.

Senate Republicans rallied Tuesday against trying former President Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection” at the Capitol, with only five members of his party joining Democrats in a vote to go forward with his impeachment trial. By a vote of 55-45, the Senate narrowly killed a Republican effort to dismiss the proceeding as unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office. But the numbers showed that loyal Republicans are again poised to spare him from conviction, this time despite his role in stirring up a mob that violently targeted lawmakers and the vice president Jan. 6 as Congress met to finalize the election. “I think it’s pretty obvious from the vote today that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the president will be convicted,” said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the five Republicans who voted to proceed to trial. “Just do the math.” It would take two-thirds of senators — 67 votes — to attain a conviction, meaning 17 Republicans would have to cross party lines to side with Democrats in finding Trump guilty. If they did, an additional vote to disqualify him from ever holding office again would take a simple majority. Aside from Collins, the only Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to reject the constitutional objection and proceed were Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania. All five had previously said they were open to hearing the House’s impeachment case, which was adopted in a bipartisan vote a week after the attack. With the facts of the case still spilling forth and the meat of the trial delayed for two weeks, senators could change their views. Several Republicans who voted Tuesday to uphold the constitutional challenge, which would have effectively killed the trial, rushed afterward to clarify that they remained open-minded about the trial, which next convenes Feb. 9. In the weeks since the attack, Trump has made no apology for his actions, including spreading falsehoods about election fraud and urging his supporters gathered outside the White House on Jan. 6 to march to the Capitol, confront members of Congress formalizing his election loss and “fight like hell.” But most agreed that whatever window of possibility there had been for bipartisan condemnation of Trump by lawmakers who were evacuated from the Capitol amid the deadly assault was closing fast, as Republicans were reminded once again of Trump’s remarkable hold on their party and the risks of crossing him. The 10 House Republicans who broke with their party to support the impeachment charge are already facing an intense backlash, both at home and in Washington. It appeared that Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, was among those making such a calculation. He had twice signaled in recent days — through advisers and then in a letter to colleagues — that he was open to convicting a former president he privately disdains, and he publicly asserted last week that Trump had “provoked” the mob. But if McConnell was trying to soften the ground for a faction of Republicans to abandon Trump and jettison him from the party, it had become increasingly clear that no such coalition was emerging. When his fellow Kentuckian Sen. Rand Paul lodged a constitutional objection to the proceeding minutes after the Senate convened as a court of impeachment, McConnell voted with the vast majority of his conference in favor of the challenge. It seemed to be a recognition that Republicans were not so keen to move on from Trump, whether out of fear of his promises of retribution and his overwhelming popularity with the party’s core supporters, or out of a belief that the fight was simply not worth having. Democrats feared something more conspiratorial, pointing out that it was McConnell who, as majority leader, refused Democrats’ entreaties to begin the impeachment trial two weeks ago, when Trump was still president. On Tuesday, the Republican leader turned around and sided with Paul’s argument that trying a former president was unconstitutional. McConnell made no public comment about his views of the vote nor did he speak up on the matter during a private Republican luncheon beforehand, according to people familiar with the session. The showdown caught many senators off guard on a day that they expected to be devoted largely to the carefully scripted ceremony and logistics of a trial. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Senate president pro tempore, was sworn in as the presiding officer and then asked all 100 senators to take an oath to administer “impartial justice” during the trial. Senators were warned by the sergeant-at-arms “on pain of imprisonment” to remain silent. It was then that Paul, an outspoken defender of Trump, lodged his formal objection. “Private citizens don’t get impeached," Paul had said a short time earlier, calling the trial "deranged" and vindictive. "Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office.” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, quickly moved to shut down the request. “The theory that the impeachment of a former official is unconstitutional is flat-out wrong by every frame of analysis,” Schumer said. “It has been completely debunked by constitutional scholars from all across the political spectrum.” The Senate has clearly taken that position in the past. In 1876, as the House was preparing to impeach him on corruption charges, William Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant’s secretary of war, hurried to the White House, where he tendered his resignation in tears just before Congress could act. The House proceeded anyway, and when the case arrived in the Senate, a majority of the body decided that it retained jurisdiction to hear it, notwithstanding Belknap’s departure from office. Support for a constitutional argument against holding the trial had been growing in the Senate in recent days, particularly among Republicans who showed little interest in mounting any substantive defense of Trump’s conduct. But the overwhelming level of Republican support exceeded what almost anyone was expecting. Paul declared victory, saying, “Forty-five votes means the impeachment trial is dead on arrival.” Murkowski, who has praised the House’s move to impeach and called Trump’s actions “unlawful,” reluctantly agreed. She told reporters that she feared that it would be impossible for most of her Republican colleagues to truly consider supporting a conviction after they had put themselves on record arguing that the trial should not even take place. “That’s why I thought it was a little unfortunate that we had this very spontaneous vote on an extraordinarily significant matter without the considered debate and analysis,” she said. “People had to make really quick decisions.” But other Republicans said their votes to uphold Paul’s objection should not be read as opposition to hearing the case against Trump. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio said that he voted with Paul because he wanted a “fulsome discussion” on the issue of constitutionality, not necessarily to kill the trial. “I’ve not made my mind up,” he said. “I’m a juror.” He and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the Republican whip, suggested McConnell might feel the same way. “I don’t think it binds anybody once the trial starts,” Thune said. Far from settled, the argument over constitutionality will reappear when the trial reconvenes in February, when senators may seek to use it as justification for voting to acquit. The House managers have already begun preparing a constitutional justification for proceeding, and Trump’s lawyers will be asked to argue the opposite as a key plank of their defense. The debate arises from the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly discuss impeachments of former officials or instruct Congress how to handle a case like Trump’s, in which the president was impeached while still in office but was not put on trial until after his term expired. Senate Republicans have embraced a legal theory that argues that the document’s silence means the Senate does not have authority to try former officials whatsoever, even if the first stage of the process, impeachment, took place before they left. Just before the vote, McConnell had invited Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, to speak about the constitutional debate at the regularly scheduled Republican luncheon. Turley has taken a more nuanced position than some who argue trying a former official is strictly unconstitutional. He argues instead that it is “constitutionally unsound” to proceed and could set a dangerous precedent whereby a Congress of one party could go about charging and punishing the leaders of another at whim. But other leading constitutional scholars say that view is backward, and a trial of a former official — particularly one who just left office — is entirely consistent with the framers’ intentions to hold public officials accountable. If it was not, they argue, officials could routinely commit high crimes and misdemeanors in their final weeks and months in office, confident they would avoid punishment. “If an official could only be disqualified while he or she still held office, then an official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate’s final conviction vote,” a group of 150 prominent legal scholars, including a founder of the conservative Federalist Society, wrote last week. “The framers did not design the Constitution’s checks and balances to be so easily undermined. History supports a reading of the Constitution that allows Congress to impeach, try, convict and disqualify former officers.”

Republicans rally against impeachment trial, signaling likely acquittal for Trump

donald-trump

Donald Trump, News on Donald Trump, stories on Donald Trump, articles on Donald Trump, Donald Trump stories at Wion, Donald Trump news, Donald Trump latest news

donald trump