Former US President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the National Archives and a House special committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot in a bid to block Congress from obtaining certain documents related to the insurrection. 
 
"The Committee's request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration," the lawsuit, filed on Monday, read.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2024-former-us-president-donald-trump-favourite-candidate-biden-lagging-behind-420648" hreflang="en">US election 2024: Former US President Donald Trump favourite candidate, Biden lagging behind</a> 
 
"Our laws do not permit such an impulsive, egregious action against a former President and his close advisors." 
 
In August, the committee had requested that the National Archives, which is the custodian of the Trump White House's records, submit a long list of records from the former President`s time in office and the aftermath of the Capitol riot, reports Xinhua news agency. 
 
The request is part of the panel's ongoing and intensifying investigation into how a mob of Trump's supporters breached the Capitol on January 6 trying to stop a Congressional joint session from certifying the 2020 presidential election result. 
 
Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hows-biden-doing-do-you-miss-me-yet-trump-pokes-fun-at-us-president-420630" hreflang="en">'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President</a>

Trump has said he would assert executive privilege to shield the documents requested by the committee, but Biden, who legal experts said has the ultimate say over whether the information sought by the panel is covered by the executive privilege, determined that Trump's effort to conceal the documents was neither in the best interest of the US nor justified.

In an October 8 letter to Archivist of the US David Ferriero, White House Counsel Dana Remus demanded that he turn over a subset of the required documents that Trump identified as privileged to Congress. 
 
Remus added that those documents should be submitted 30 days after Ferriero notified the former president. 
 
Trump, however, claimed in the lawsuit filed in the DC District Court that Biden has an interest in preserving his executive privilege, saying it amounted to "a political ploy to accommodate his partisan allies".

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/56-in-us-feel-cheating-affected-2020-presidential-election-outcome-says-poll-420060" hreflang="en">56% in US feel cheating affected 2020 presidential election outcome, says poll</a> 
 
"As it relates to any materials being sought in situations like this, where fundamental privileges and constitutional issues are at stake and where a committee has declined to grant sufficient time to conduct a full review, there is a longstanding bipartisan tradition of protective assertions of executive privilege designed to ensure the ability to make a final assertion, if necessary, over some or all of the requested material," the lawsuit read.

Watch |&nbsp;United States: Donald Trump sued Congress and National Archives

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/united-states-donald-trump-sued-congress-and-national-archives-422006/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In addition to seeking documents from the Trump White House, the special committee also sent subpoenas to and asked depositions from several former senior officials in the Trump administration, including Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist who defied the subpoena and did not show up at the scheduled hearing last week. 
 
Bannon's no-show infuriated the Democrat-led panel, prompting it to set up a vote Tuesday to recommend criminal contempt charges against him. 
 
In what could potentially be another blow to the former President, Democrat Bennie Thompson, who chairs the special committee, did not rule out subpoenaing Trump.

Former US President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the National Archives and a House special committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot in a bid to block Congress from obtaining certain documents related to the insurrection.

Former US President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the National Archives and a House special committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot in a bid to block Congress from obtaining certain documents related to the insurrection. "The Committee's request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration," the lawsuit, filed on Monday, read. Also read | US election 2024: Former US President Donald Trump favourite candidate, Biden lagging behind "Our laws do not permit such an impulsive, egregious action against a former President and his close advisors." In August, the committee had requested that the National Archives, which is the custodian of the Trump White House's records, submit a long list of records from the former President`s time in office and the aftermath of the Capitol riot, reports Xinhua news agency. The request is part of the panel's ongoing and intensifying investigation into how a mob of Trump's supporters breached the Capitol on January 6 trying to stop a Congressional joint session from certifying the 2020 presidential election result. Also read | 'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President Trump has said he would assert executive privilege to shield the documents requested by the committee, but Biden, who legal experts said has the ultimate say over whether the information sought by the panel is covered by the executive privilege, determined that Trump's effort to conceal the documents was neither in the best interest of the US nor justified. In an October 8 letter to Archivist of the US David Ferriero, White House Counsel Dana Remus demanded that he turn over a subset of the required documents that Trump identified as privileged to Congress. Remus added that those documents should be submitted 30 days after Ferriero notified the former president. Trump, however, claimed in the lawsuit filed in the DC District Court that Biden has an interest in preserving his executive privilege, saying it amounted to "a political ploy to accommodate his partisan allies". Also read | 56% in US feel cheating affected 2020 presidential election outcome, says poll "As it relates to any materials being sought in situations like this, where fundamental privileges and constitutional issues are at stake and where a committee has declined to grant sufficient time to conduct a full review, there is a longstanding bipartisan tradition of protective assertions of executive privilege designed to ensure the ability to make a final assertion, if necessary, over some or all of the requested material," the lawsuit read. Watch | United States: Donald Trump sued Congress and National Archives In addition to seeking documents from the Trump White House, the special committee also sent subpoenas to and asked depositions from several former senior officials in the Trump administration, including Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist who defied the subpoena and did not show up at the scheduled hearing last week. Bannon's no-show infuriated the Democrat-led panel, prompting it to set up a vote Tuesday to recommend criminal contempt charges against him. In what could potentially be another blow to the former President, Democrat Bennie Thompson, who chairs the special committee, did not rule out subpoenaing Trump.

Trump sues to block Congress from obtaining documents related to Capitol riot

Former President Trump relished in President Biden's troubles, asking voters whether congested supply lines, increasing gas costs, and a humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan made them miss him.&nbsp; 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/56-in-us-feel-cheating-affected-2020-presidential-election-outcome-says-poll-420060">Also read | 56% in US feel cheating affected 2020 presidential election outcome, says poll</a> 
 
"Covid is raging out of control, our supply chains are crashing with little product in our stores, we were humiliated in Afghanistan, our Border is a complete disaster, gas prices and inflation are zooming upward—how’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?" Trump said in a statement on Wednesday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW! 
 
“COVID is raging out of control, our supply chains are crashing with little product in our stores, we were humiliated in Afghanistan, our Border is a complete disaster, gas prices and inflation are zooming upward—how’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?” <a href="https://t.co/xpxErrtH4P">pic.twitter.com/xpxErrtH4P</a>
— Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) <a href="https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1448275843197947915?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 13, 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>

It was posted on Twitter by his spokesperson, Liz Harrington.

A new survey shows that 70 percent of Republicans want him to run for president in 2024, and that he has a commanding lead over his major GOP opponents.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is having a difficult time on several fronts.

His legislative agenda is delayed as party officials attempt to mend internal squabbles over expenditure plans.

Officials at the White House are rushing to avert supply chain issues that they fear could result in more empty shelves and interruptions to holiday shopping.

Though the tone of the remark was similar to his trademark tweets, Trump was banned from Twitter in January – while still the president – after Twitter claimed his statements might be construed as encouraging violence in the aftermath of the disturbance at the US Capitol.

In a series of remarks subsequently, he has chastised Biden, whom he refuses to recognise as the actual president.

In the United States, annual inflation has reached 5.4 percent, the highest level since the 2008 financial crisis.

(With inputs from agencies)

Former President Trump relished in President Biden's troubles, asking voters whether congested supply lines, increasing gas costs, and a humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan made them miss him.

Former President Trump relished in President Biden's troubles, asking voters whether congested supply lines, increasing gas costs, and a humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan made them miss him. Also read | 56% in US feel cheating affected 2020 presidential election outcome, says poll "Covid is raging out of control, our supply chains are crashing with little product in our stores, we were humiliated in Afghanistan, our Border is a complete disaster, gas prices and inflation are zooming upward—how’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?" Trump said in a statement on Wednesday. NEW! “COVID is raging out of control, our supply chains are crashing with little product in our stores, we were humiliated in Afghanistan, our Border is a complete disaster, gas prices and inflation are zooming upward—how’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?” pic.twitter.com/xpxErrtH4P — Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) October 13, 2021 × It was posted on Twitter by his spokesperson, Liz Harrington. A new survey shows that 70 percent of Republicans want him to run for president in 2024, and that he has a commanding lead over his major GOP opponents. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is having a difficult time on several fronts. His legislative agenda is delayed as party officials attempt to mend internal squabbles over expenditure plans. Officials at the White House are rushing to avert supply chain issues that they fear could result in more empty shelves and interruptions to holiday shopping. Though the tone of the remark was similar to his trademark tweets, Trump was banned from Twitter in January – while still the president – after Twitter claimed his statements might be construed as encouraging violence in the aftermath of the disturbance at the US Capitol. In a series of remarks subsequently, he has chastised Biden, whom he refuses to recognise as the actual president. In the United States, annual inflation has reached 5.4 percent, the highest level since the 2008 financial crisis. (With inputs from agencies)

'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it would not conduct mass arrests of workers living in the country illegally during enforcement operations at U.S. businesses, a reversal from Trump administration policies and the latest signal to millions of immigrants that they were not priorities for deportation.

Known as work-site raids, such arrests have long been criticized by immigration advocates for spreading fear and dissuading workers from reporting labor violations out of concern that they would be arrested. So far, these raids have not been a fixture during the Biden administration.

Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary, said in a statement that enforcement efforts at work sites would instead focus on “unscrupulous employers who exploit unauthorized workers, conduct illegal activities or impose unsafe working conditions.” He also asked for recommendations from the department’s immigration agencies over the next 60 days to identify policies and agreements that affected the enforcement of labor laws and how to “alleviate or mitigate” concerns and fear that workers without legal status had about exploitative employers.

The new policy comes during a critical labor shortage in the United States, precipitated by the coronavirus pandemic, and offers reassurances that workers in the U.S. illegally are not at risk of being deported en masse. The new strategy also reflects promises that President Joe Biden has made about taking a softer approach to immigration policy than his predecessor did.

Some companies that rely on such workers pay them below the market rate for jobs, exploiting immigrants and undercutting competitors.

“Refocusing resources to counter exploitative employers is a necessary step in protecting the American labor market and workers,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. and the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Republicans criticized the new policy. “This makes our country LESS SAFE and LESS SECURE,” the Republican National Committee’s research arm wrote on Twitter.

Workplace raids, which Mayorkas described as “resource-intensive,” were a priority during the Trump administration, which targeted employers as well as immigrant workers. The goal was to dissuade immigrants from illegally crossing the border to work in the United States. The George W. Bush administration started high-profile work-site raids in a bid to push Congress to pass an immigration overhaul, but lawmakers failed to reach a consensus.

The Obama administration sought to focus work-site enforcement efforts on employers who hired workers who entered illegally rather than on the workers themselves, prioritizing audits of employee files. Still, the policy led to the firing of thousands of immigrant workers.

Employers are required by law to check whether the people they hire are legally permitted to work in the United States. Several administrations have pushed for a nationwide requirement to use a program known as E-Verify to confirm that employees have permission to work in the country. But it currently remains a voluntary program for most employers.

Immigration advocates commended the new work-site enforcement strategy, but they said it was not a substitute for creating a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants in the U.S. without permission.

“While we applaud today’s announcement by the administration to end workplace raids, we need more commitment from this administration to protect all 11 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, not just in their workplaces,” Nicole Melaku, the executive director of the National Partnership for New Americans, said in a statement on Tuesday. “We need permanent protections now.”

Democrats tried to include a measure in a multitrillion-dollar spending package that would allow a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants without legal status, but their efforts have failed.

The work-site enforcement policy also echoes new guidance for immigration enforcement priorities that were partly devised to end the indiscriminate arrests that became commonplace during the Trump administration.

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it would not conduct mass arrests of workers living in the country illegally during enforcement operations at U.

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it would not conduct mass arrests of workers living in the country illegally during enforcement operations at U.S. businesses, a reversal from Trump administration policies and the latest signal to millions of immigrants that they were not priorities for deportation. Known as work-site raids, such arrests have long been criticized by immigration advocates for spreading fear and dissuading workers from reporting labor violations out of concern that they would be arrested. So far, these raids have not been a fixture during the Biden administration. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary, said in a statement that enforcement efforts at work sites would instead focus on “unscrupulous employers who exploit unauthorized workers, conduct illegal activities or impose unsafe working conditions.” He also asked for recommendations from the department’s immigration agencies over the next 60 days to identify policies and agreements that affected the enforcement of labor laws and how to “alleviate or mitigate” concerns and fear that workers without legal status had about exploitative employers. The new policy comes during a critical labor shortage in the United States, precipitated by the coronavirus pandemic, and offers reassurances that workers in the U.S. illegally are not at risk of being deported en masse. The new strategy also reflects promises that President Joe Biden has made about taking a softer approach to immigration policy than his predecessor did. Some companies that rely on such workers pay them below the market rate for jobs, exploiting immigrants and undercutting competitors. “Refocusing resources to counter exploitative employers is a necessary step in protecting the American labor market and workers,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. and the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Republicans criticized the new policy. “This makes our country LESS SAFE and LESS SECURE,” the Republican National Committee’s research arm wrote on Twitter. Workplace raids, which Mayorkas described as “resource-intensive,” were a priority during the Trump administration, which targeted employers as well as immigrant workers. The goal was to dissuade immigrants from illegally crossing the border to work in the United States. The George W. Bush administration started high-profile work-site raids in a bid to push Congress to pass an immigration overhaul, but lawmakers failed to reach a consensus. The Obama administration sought to focus work-site enforcement efforts on employers who hired workers who entered illegally rather than on the workers themselves, prioritizing audits of employee files. Still, the policy led to the firing of thousands of immigrant workers. Employers are required by law to check whether the people they hire are legally permitted to work in the United States. Several administrations have pushed for a nationwide requirement to use a program known as E-Verify to confirm that employees have permission to work in the country. But it currently remains a voluntary program for most employers. Immigration advocates commended the new work-site enforcement strategy, but they said it was not a substitute for creating a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants in the U.S. without permission. “While we applaud today’s announcement by the administration to end workplace raids, we need more commitment from this administration to protect all 11 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, not just in their workplaces,” Nicole Melaku, the executive director of the National Partnership for New Americans, said in a statement on Tuesday. “We need permanent protections now.” Democrats tried to include a measure in a multitrillion-dollar spending package that would allow a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants without legal status, but their efforts have failed. The work-site enforcement policy also echoes new guidance for immigration enforcement priorities that were partly devised to end the indiscriminate arrests that became commonplace during the Trump administration.

Biden ends workplace immigration raids, reversing Trump policy

With all the subtlety of a bullhorn, former President Donald Trump has been hinting that he plans to run for office again in 2024.

And Republicans are so far treating him with the deference they displayed while he was in the White House as they wait to see if he makes his move.

On Saturday afternoon, Trump heads to Iowa for a rally at the state fairgrounds, a perennial stop on the presidential campaign circuit. Joining him will be several of the state’s top Republicans, including Gov. Kim Reynolds, Sen. Charles E. Grassley and the chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, Jeff Kaufmann — a testament to the former president’s enduring dominance.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-tells-former-aides-to-defy-subpoenas-from-jan-6-panel-419184">Trump tells former aides to defy subpoenas from Jan. 6 panel</a>

Trump’s unwillingness to cede the spotlight has cast doubt on the political futures of an entire group of Republican politicians who have suggested that they might someday want to run for president. And while they — like the rest of the country — can’t be sure what the notoriously fickle former president might do, some of them are trying to stake their claims as leaders in the party.

That requires a good deal of delicacy on their part. And it got a little awkward this week for two of them.

First there was former Vice President Mike Pence, whose refusal to interfere with the counting of the electoral votes on Jan. 6 deeply angered <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Trump</a> and helped precipitate the deadly assault on the Capitol that day. Pence gave an interview this week to Sean Hannity of Fox News and sounded at times an awful lot like someone who wants to be president.

Also read |&nbsp;​​​​​​​<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/despite-disagreements-over-january-6-pence-still-close-to-trump-418444">Despite disagreements over January 6, Pence still 'close to' Trump</a>

He attacked President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a> for withdrawing US&nbsp;forces from Afghanistan. He also criticized the president’s approach to domestic affairs — for “lecturing the American people about vaccine mandates” and promoting what Pence called a “massive, big-government, socialist bill” before Congress that would widen the social safety net and address problems like climate change.

But when Hannity broached the subject of Pence’s reportedly frayed relationship with Trump, the former vice president tried to deflect by accusing the news media of blowing the events of Jan. 6 out of proportion, referring to it obliquely at one point as “one day in January.”

“They want to use that one day to try and demean the character and intentions of 74 million Americans who believe we could be strong again and prosperous again and supported our administration,” Pence said.

He did not address the fact that numerous rioters at the Capitol called for his execution during the attack, demanding that he be hanged for not carrying out Trump’s wishes. And Hannity didn’t bring it up.

Then there was a speech by Nikki Haley, another former Trump administration official whose relationship with Trump was damaged because she had declared herself “disgusted” with him after Jan. 6 and predicted that he’d “lost any sort of political viability.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/now-trump-drops-off-forbes-list-amid-pandemic-downturn-418624">Now, Trump drops off Forbes list amid pandemic downturn</a>

But Haley, who served as governor of South Carolina and ambassador to the United Nations, praised Trump in an appearance at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. She criticized Trump’s political opponents for accusing him of being compromised by the Russians, and said that Biden’s posture toward Russia was weaker by comparison.

Separately, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal this week, she lauded Trump’s ability to “get strong people elected” and insisted, “I don’t want us to go back to the days before Trump.”

At the moment, that doesn’t seem like an option for Haley or anyone else who wants to have a bright future in the Republican Party. Trump continues to attack Republicans who broke with him after Jan. 6 and supported his impeachment, such as Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming.

His first rally since the day of the Capitol riot was in June outside Cleveland. He endorsed a local Republican who was challenging Rep. Anthony Gonzalez in next year’s primary election. Gonzalez, one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for his role in inciting the riot, announced last month that he was leaving Congress rather than staying to face his Trump-approved challenger.

Also read |&nbsp;​​​​​​​<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-airs-old-election-grievances-at-campaign-style-rally-394254">Trump airs old election grievances at campaign-style rally</a>

Polls taken over the course of the year have shown that Trump remains the overwhelming favorite for Republican voters, suggesting that he would be difficult to beat in a primary if he did indeed run. Though his popularity suffered somewhat in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, most Republicans seem to have moved on. A Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday found that two-thirds of Republicans say Trump should continue to be a major national figure, an increase of 10 percentage points from January. Forty-four percent of Republicans or Republican-leaning voters want him to run again.

The Pew poll also found little tolerance for dissent. Asked whether their party should accept politicians who openly criticize Trump, 63 per cent&nbsp;said no.

With all the subtlety of a bullhorn, former President Donald Trump has been hinting that he plans to run for office again in 2024. And Republicans are so far treating him with the deference they displayed while he was in the White House as they wait to see if he makes his move.

With all the subtlety of a bullhorn, former President Donald Trump has been hinting that he plans to run for office again in 2024. And Republicans are so far treating him with the deference they displayed while he was in the White House as they wait to see if he makes his move. On Saturday afternoon, Trump heads to Iowa for a rally at the state fairgrounds, a perennial stop on the presidential campaign circuit. Joining him will be several of the state’s top Republicans, including Gov. Kim Reynolds, Sen. Charles E. Grassley and the chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, Jeff Kaufmann — a testament to the former president’s enduring dominance. Also read | Trump tells former aides to defy subpoenas from Jan. 6 panel Trump’s unwillingness to cede the spotlight has cast doubt on the political futures of an entire group of Republican politicians who have suggested that they might someday want to run for president. And while they — like the rest of the country — can’t be sure what the notoriously fickle former president might do, some of them are trying to stake their claims as leaders in the party. That requires a good deal of delicacy on their part. And it got a little awkward this week for two of them. First there was former Vice President Mike Pence, whose refusal to interfere with the counting of the electoral votes on Jan. 6 deeply angered Trump and helped precipitate the deadly assault on the Capitol that day. Pence gave an interview this week to Sean Hannity of Fox News and sounded at times an awful lot like someone who wants to be president. Also read | Despite disagreements over January 6, Pence still 'close to' Trump He attacked President Joe Biden for withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan. He also criticized the president’s approach to domestic affairs — for “lecturing the American people about vaccine mandates” and promoting what Pence called a “massive, big-government, socialist bill” before Congress that would widen the social safety net and address problems like climate change. But when Hannity broached the subject of Pence’s reportedly frayed relationship with Trump, the former vice president tried to deflect by accusing the news media of blowing the events of Jan. 6 out of proportion, referring to it obliquely at one point as “one day in January.” “They want to use that one day to try and demean the character and intentions of 74 million Americans who believe we could be strong again and prosperous again and supported our administration,” Pence said. He did not address the fact that numerous rioters at the Capitol called for his execution during the attack, demanding that he be hanged for not carrying out Trump’s wishes. And Hannity didn’t bring it up. Then there was a speech by Nikki Haley, another former Trump administration official whose relationship with Trump was damaged because she had declared herself “disgusted” with him after Jan. 6 and predicted that he’d “lost any sort of political viability.” Also read | Now, Trump drops off Forbes list amid pandemic downturn But Haley, who served as governor of South Carolina and ambassador to the United Nations, praised Trump in an appearance at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. She criticized Trump’s political opponents for accusing him of being compromised by the Russians, and said that Biden’s posture toward Russia was weaker by comparison. Separately, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal this week, she lauded Trump’s ability to “get strong people elected” and insisted, “I don’t want us to go back to the days before Trump.” At the moment, that doesn’t seem like an option for Haley or anyone else who wants to have a bright future in the Republican Party. Trump continues to attack Republicans who broke with him after Jan. 6 and supported his impeachment, such as Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming. His first rally since the day of the Capitol riot was in June outside Cleveland. He endorsed a local Republican who was challenging Rep. Anthony Gonzalez in next year’s primary election. Gonzalez, one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for his role in inciting the riot, announced last month that he was leaving Congress rather than staying to face his Trump-approved challenger. Also read | Trump airs old election grievances at campaign-style rally Polls taken over the course of the year have shown that Trump remains the overwhelming favorite for Republican voters, suggesting that he would be difficult to beat in a primary if he did indeed run. Though his popularity suffered somewhat in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, most Republicans seem to have moved on. A Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday found that two-thirds of Republicans say Trump should continue to be a major national figure, an increase of 10 percentage points from January. Forty-four percent of Republicans or Republican-leaning voters want him to run again. The Pew poll also found little tolerance for dissent. Asked whether their party should accept politicians who openly criticize Trump, 63 per cent said no.

Trump may run in 2024. So might they. It’s getting awkward.

Former President Donald Trump has instructed his former aides not to comply with subpoenas from the special congressional committee investigating the Capitol riot, raising the prospect of the panel issuing criminal referrals for some of his closest advisers as early as Friday.

In a letter reviewed by The New York Times, Trump’s lawyer asked that witnesses not provide testimony or documents related to their “official” duties and instead to invoke any immunities they might have “to the fullest extent permitted by law.”

The House committee has ordered four former Trump administration officials — Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff; Dan Scavino, a deputy chief of staff; Steve Bannon, an adviser; and Kash Patel, a Pentagon chief of staff — to sit for depositions and furnish documents and other materials relevant to its investigation. They all faced a Thursday deadline to respond.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chair of the select committee, has threatened criminal referrals for witnesses who do not comply with the subpoenas, and said the committee expected witnesses “to cooperate fully with our probe.”

The move amounted to a declaration of war by Trump on the investigation and raised legal questions about how far the committee would be able to go in compelling information from a former president and his advisers.

The committee is demanding that Meadows and Patel submit to questioning next Thursday, and Bannon and Scavino the following day.

It is unclear whether President Joe Biden’s team will extend executive privilege — which shields a sitting president’s communications and deliberations from disclosure — to the former president.

The Justice Department and the White House have already waived executive privilege for a previous batch of witnesses who were asked to testify before the Senate Judiciary and House Oversight committees, which were investigating the Jan. 6 attack and the Trump administration’s efforts to subvert the results of the presidential election. The Justice Department argued that privilege was conferred in order to protect the institution of the presidency, not to provide immunity for wrongdoing.

Taylor Budowich, a spokesperson for Trump, said that the records request by the select committee was “outrageously broad” and that it lacked “both legal precedent and legislative merit."

“Executive privilege will be defended, not just on behalf of President Trump and his administration, but also on behalf of the office of the president of the United States and the future of our nation,” he added.

The instructions from Trump were reported earlier by The Guardian.

The deadline for compliance from the select committee’s first batch of subpoenas came as it issued three more on Thursday, targeting organizers of the “Stop the Steal” rally that brought together many of Trump’s supporters who went on to violently storm the Capitol.

The latest subpoenas seek deposition testimony from Ali Abdul Akbar, also known as Ali Alexander, and Nathan Martin, both of whom were involved in organizing protests around the country — including in Washington on Jan. 6 — based on Trump’s lies that he was the rightful winner of the 2020 election and that it had been riddled with fraud. The committee also issued a subpoena for Stop the Steal LLC, an organization affiliated with the event.

“The rally on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, like the rally near the White House that day, immediately preceded the violent attack on the seat of our democracy,” Thompson said. “Over the course of that day, demonstrations escalated to violence and protesters became rioters.”

In the weeks before the attack, Alexander, a far-right activist and conspiracy theorist, made repeated reference during “Stop the Steal” events to the possible use of violence to achieve the organization’s goals, and he claimed to have been in communication with the White House and members of Congress regarding events planned to undermine the certification of the 2020 Electoral College results, the committee said.

Alexander has claimed that he, along with Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama, Paul Gosar of Arizona and Andy Biggs of Arizona, all Republicans, set the events of Jan. 6 in motion.

“We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” Alexander said in a since-deleted video posted online, “so that who we couldn’t lobby, we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.”

Additionally, Alexander spoke at a rally on Jan. 5 held by the Eighty Percent Coalition at Freedom Plaza in Washington and led the crowd in a chant of “Victory or death,” the committee said.

The committee has issued 18 subpoenas, many focusing on the funding, planning and organization of the rally that morphed into a violent rampage at the Capitol, where Congress was meeting to formalize Biden’s election victory. Participants chanted “Hang Mike Pence,” threatened to shoot Speaker Nancy Pelosi and forced lawmakers to evacuate the building. About 140 police officers were injured, and several people died in connection with the riot.

The committee said it was trying to get to the bottom of the organizing of the Jan. 6 event, given the conflicting information its investigators have received.

An organization named One Nation Under God submitted a permit application in December to the U.S. Capitol Police for a rally about “the election fraud in the swing states” on Jan. 6 that listed Martin’s phone number and email address among the contact information.

But when a Capitol Police official spoke with Martin at the end of December, Martin claimed not to have any information about the rally and directed the official to speak with a vendor, the committee said. According to the police official, the vendor was “shocked” to learn this, because he was in “daily communication” with Martin about the event, the committee said.

After the Jan. 6 attack, Alexander released a statement acknowledging that Stop the Steal had obtained the rally permit “for our ‘One Nation Under God’ event,” the committee said. He said it was the intention of Stop the Steal to direct attendees of the rally to march to Lot 8 on the U.S. Capitol grounds, which is the location for which the Capitol Police granted the permit for the “One Nation Under God” rally. The permit application estimated the event would have only 50 attendees, not the hundreds who marched on the Capitol.

The subpoenas require Alexander and Martin to produce documents by Oct. 21 and testify at depositions next week.

The committee’s latest action came as the Senate Judiciary Committee released a lengthy interim report about Trump’s efforts to pressure the Justice Department to do his bidding in the chaotic final weeks of his presidency. Thompson said he planned to incorporate the Senate’s findings into the House inquiry.

Former President Donald Trump has instructed his former aides not to comply with subpoenas from the special congressional committee investigating the Capitol riot, raising the prospect of the panel issuing criminal referrals for some of his closest advisers as early as Friday.

Former President Donald Trump has instructed his former aides not to comply with subpoenas from the special congressional committee investigating the Capitol riot, raising the prospect of the panel issuing criminal referrals for some of his closest advisers as early as Friday. In a letter reviewed by The New York Times, Trump’s lawyer asked that witnesses not provide testimony or documents related to their “official” duties and instead to invoke any immunities they might have “to the fullest extent permitted by law.” The House committee has ordered four former Trump administration officials — Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff; Dan Scavino, a deputy chief of staff; Steve Bannon, an adviser; and Kash Patel, a Pentagon chief of staff — to sit for depositions and furnish documents and other materials relevant to its investigation. They all faced a Thursday deadline to respond. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chair of the select committee, has threatened criminal referrals for witnesses who do not comply with the subpoenas, and said the committee expected witnesses “to cooperate fully with our probe.” The move amounted to a declaration of war by Trump on the investigation and raised legal questions about how far the committee would be able to go in compelling information from a former president and his advisers. The committee is demanding that Meadows and Patel submit to questioning next Thursday, and Bannon and Scavino the following day. It is unclear whether President Joe Biden’s team will extend executive privilege — which shields a sitting president’s communications and deliberations from disclosure — to the former president. The Justice Department and the White House have already waived executive privilege for a previous batch of witnesses who were asked to testify before the Senate Judiciary and House Oversight committees, which were investigating the Jan. 6 attack and the Trump administration’s efforts to subvert the results of the presidential election. The Justice Department argued that privilege was conferred in order to protect the institution of the presidency, not to provide immunity for wrongdoing. Taylor Budowich, a spokesperson for Trump, said that the records request by the select committee was “outrageously broad” and that it lacked “both legal precedent and legislative merit." “Executive privilege will be defended, not just on behalf of President Trump and his administration, but also on behalf of the office of the president of the United States and the future of our nation,” he added. The instructions from Trump were reported earlier by The Guardian. The deadline for compliance from the select committee’s first batch of subpoenas came as it issued three more on Thursday, targeting organizers of the “Stop the Steal” rally that brought together many of Trump’s supporters who went on to violently storm the Capitol. The latest subpoenas seek deposition testimony from Ali Abdul Akbar, also known as Ali Alexander, and Nathan Martin, both of whom were involved in organizing protests around the country — including in Washington on Jan. 6 — based on Trump’s lies that he was the rightful winner of the 2020 election and that it had been riddled with fraud. The committee also issued a subpoena for Stop the Steal LLC, an organization affiliated with the event. “The rally on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, like the rally near the White House that day, immediately preceded the violent attack on the seat of our democracy,” Thompson said. “Over the course of that day, demonstrations escalated to violence and protesters became rioters.” In the weeks before the attack, Alexander, a far-right activist and conspiracy theorist, made repeated reference during “Stop the Steal” events to the possible use of violence to achieve the organization’s goals, and he claimed to have been in communication with the White House and members of Congress regarding events planned to undermine the certification of the 2020 Electoral College results, the committee said. Alexander has claimed that he, along with Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama, Paul Gosar of Arizona and Andy Biggs of Arizona, all Republicans, set the events of Jan. 6 in motion. “We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” Alexander said in a since-deleted video posted online, “so that who we couldn’t lobby, we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.” Additionally, Alexander spoke at a rally on Jan. 5 held by the Eighty Percent Coalition at Freedom Plaza in Washington and led the crowd in a chant of “Victory or death,” the committee said. The committee has issued 18 subpoenas, many focusing on the funding, planning and organization of the rally that morphed into a violent rampage at the Capitol, where Congress was meeting to formalize Biden’s election victory. Participants chanted “Hang Mike Pence,” threatened to shoot Speaker Nancy Pelosi and forced lawmakers to evacuate the building. About 140 police officers were injured, and several people died in connection with the riot. The committee said it was trying to get to the bottom of the organizing of the Jan. 6 event, given the conflicting information its investigators have received. An organization named One Nation Under God submitted a permit application in December to the U.S. Capitol Police for a rally about “the election fraud in the swing states” on Jan. 6 that listed Martin’s phone number and email address among the contact information. But when a Capitol Police official spoke with Martin at the end of December, Martin claimed not to have any information about the rally and directed the official to speak with a vendor, the committee said. According to the police official, the vendor was “shocked” to learn this, because he was in “daily communication” with Martin about the event, the committee said. After the Jan. 6 attack, Alexander released a statement acknowledging that Stop the Steal had obtained the rally permit “for our ‘One Nation Under God’ event,” the committee said. He said it was the intention of Stop the Steal to direct attendees of the rally to march to Lot 8 on the U.S. Capitol grounds, which is the location for which the Capitol Police granted the permit for the “One Nation Under God” rally. The permit application estimated the event would have only 50 attendees, not the hundreds who marched on the Capitol. The subpoenas require Alexander and Martin to produce documents by Oct. 21 and testify at depositions next week. The committee’s latest action came as the Senate Judiciary Committee released a lengthy interim report about Trump’s efforts to pressure the Justice Department to do his bidding in the chaotic final weeks of his presidency. Thompson said he planned to incorporate the Senate’s findings into the House inquiry.

Trump tells former aides to defy subpoenas from Jan. 6 panel

Former US President Donald Trump dropped off the Forbes rich list in America as the magazine said his fortunes took a major hit as the pandemic hit the ex-president's big properties.

The report added that Trump is $400 million short of the target to make it to the list as his net worth reportedly dived by $600 million.

The magazine which released its list of 400 wealthiest Americans informed that Trump didn't make it to the list for the first time since 1996. Forbes stated that the bulk of Trump's fortune came from New York City real estate.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-wants-to-tweet-again-ex-us-president-requests-us-judge-to-force-twitter-into-restoring-account-417625">Also Read:&nbsp;</a><a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/trump-wants-to-tweet-again-ex-us-president-requests-us-judge-to-force-twitter-into-restoring-account-417625" hreflang="en">Trump wants to tweet again: Ex-US president requests US judge&nbsp;</a>

The famous billionaire also owns golf courses with his current net worth is estimated at $2.5 billion. However, Forbes had set &nbsp;$2.9 billion as the cutoff to enter the list and the former president fell short. Trump was ranked No. 399 on the list last year.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/harvard-poll-reveals-donald-trump-has-higher-positive-rating-than-biden-415194">Also Read:&nbsp;Harvard poll reveals Donald Trump has higher positive rating than Biden</a>

Talk show celebrity Oprah Winfrey was also knocked off the list as she was assessed to be worth $2.6 billion.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/rich-list-battle-musk-says-will-send-bezos-a-silver-medal-and-a-giant-statue-of-number-2-417011">Also Read:&nbsp;Musk says will send Bezos a 'silver medal' and a 'giant statue' of number 2</a>

Forbes' annual world's billionaires: Bezos, Musk top record-setting list

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos continued to dominate the list with his net worth estimated to be at $201 billion followed by his rival SpaceX chief Elon Musk who is worth $190.5 billion and Facebook Mark Zuckerberg founder at $134.5 billion.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates was ranked No: 4 in the list with a net worth of $134 billion with Google founder Larry Page ranked at No: 5 with an estimated net worth of $123 billion.

Page's colleague Google co-founder Sergey Brin was ranked No-6 with an estimated net worth of $118.5 billion. Oracle's Larry Ellison, Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffet, Steve Ballmer and Michael Bloomberg also made it to the top-10 list.

(With inputs from Agencies) 
&nbsp;

Former US President Donald Trump dropped off the Forbes rich list in America as the magazine said his fortunes took a major hit as the pandemic hit the ex-president's big properties.

Former US President Donald Trump dropped off the Forbes rich list in America as the magazine said his fortunes took a major hit as the pandemic hit the ex-president's big properties. The report added that Trump is $400 million short of the target to make it to the list as his net worth reportedly dived by $600 million. The magazine which released its list of 400 wealthiest Americans informed that Trump didn't make it to the list for the first time since 1996. Forbes stated that the bulk of Trump's fortune came from New York City real estate. Also Read: Trump wants to tweet again: Ex-US president requests US judge The famous billionaire also owns golf courses with his current net worth is estimated at $2.5 billion. However, Forbes had set $2.9 billion as the cutoff to enter the list and the former president fell short. Trump was ranked No. 399 on the list last year. Also Read: Harvard poll reveals Donald Trump has higher positive rating than Biden Talk show celebrity Oprah Winfrey was also knocked off the list as she was assessed to be worth $2.6 billion. Also Read: Musk says will send Bezos a 'silver medal' and a 'giant statue' of number 2 Forbes' annual world's billionaires: Bezos, Musk top record-setting list Amazon founder Jeff Bezos continued to dominate the list with his net worth estimated to be at $201 billion followed by his rival SpaceX chief Elon Musk who is worth $190.5 billion and Facebook Mark Zuckerberg founder at $134.5 billion. Microsoft founder Bill Gates was ranked No: 4 in the list with a net worth of $134 billion with Google founder Larry Page ranked at No: 5 with an estimated net worth of $123 billion. Page's colleague Google co-founder Sergey Brin was ranked No-6 with an estimated net worth of $118.5 billion. Oracle's Larry Ellison, Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffet, Steve Ballmer and Michael Bloomberg also made it to the top-10 list. (With inputs from Agencies)

Now, Trump drops off Forbes list amid pandemic downturn

The US House of Representatives Select Committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol has subpoenaed former Trump White House officials Mark Meadows and Steve Bannon, the panel's chairman said on Thursday (September 23).

Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino and former Defense Department official Kash Patel were also subpoenaed and instructed to produce materials and appear for depositions in the weeks ahead, committee Chairman Bennie Thompson said in a statement.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/risk-of-another-911-style-attack-on-us-very-real-former-nsa-john-bolton-to-wion-415498">Risk of another 9/11-style attack on US very real: Former NSA John Bolton to WION</a>

Meadows, a former congressman, served as former President Donald Trump's White House chief of staff. Bannon was a White House adviser to Trump.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/double-standards-while-kamala-harris-talks-of-pak-terror-role-blinken-appreciates-it-over-afghanistan-415485">Double standards? While Kamala Harris talks of Pak terror role, Blinken 'appreciates' it over Afghanistan</a>

A mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol as Congress was meeting to certify Democrat Joe Biden's election victory, delaying that process for several hours as then-Vice President Mike Pence, members of Congress, staff and journalists fled from rioters.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cia-vienna-station-chief-removed-amid-havana-syndrome-criticism-report-415559">CIA Vienna station chief removed amid 'Havana syndrome' criticism: Report</a>

Nearly 600 people have been arrested in connection with the attack. It was the worst violence at the seat of the US&nbsp;government since the British invasion during the War of 1812.

The US House of Representatives Select Committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol has subpoenaed former Trump White House officials Mark Meadows and Steve Bannon, the panel's chairman said on Thursday (September 23).

The US House of Representatives Select Committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol has subpoenaed former Trump White House officials Mark Meadows and Steve Bannon, the panel's chairman said on Thursday (September 23). Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino and former Defense Department official Kash Patel were also subpoenaed and instructed to produce materials and appear for depositions in the weeks ahead, committee Chairman Bennie Thompson said in a statement. Also Read | Risk of another 9/11-style attack on US very real: Former NSA John Bolton to WION Meadows, a former congressman, served as former President Donald Trump's White House chief of staff. Bannon was a White House adviser to Trump. Also Read | Double standards? While Kamala Harris talks of Pak terror role, Blinken 'appreciates' it over Afghanistan A mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol as Congress was meeting to certify Democrat Joe Biden's election victory, delaying that process for several hours as then-Vice President Mike Pence, members of Congress, staff and journalists fled from rioters. Also Read | CIA Vienna station chief removed amid 'Havana syndrome' criticism: Report Nearly 600 people have been arrested in connection with the attack. It was the worst violence at the seat of the US government since the British invasion during the War of 1812.

Trump allies Bannon, Meadows subpoenaed in US Congress' probe of Capitol riot

House Democrats are planning to introduce a package of proposed new limits on executive power Tuesday, beginning a post-Trump push to strengthen checks on the presidency that they hope will compare to the overhauls that followed the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War.

Democrats have spent months negotiating with the Biden White House to refine a broad set of proposals that amount to a point-by-point rebuke of the ways that Donald Trump shattered norms over the course of his presidency. Democrats have compiled numerous bills into a package they call the Protecting Our Democracy Act.

The legislation would make it harder for presidents to offer or bestow pardons in situations that raise suspicion of corruption, refuse to respond to oversight subpoenas, spend or secretly freeze funds contrary to congressional appropriations, and fire inspectors general or retaliate against whistleblowers, among many other changes.

The legislation’s lead sponsor, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said he hoped it would receive a floor vote “this fall.”

While the bill would constrain President Joe Biden and his successors, its implicit rebuke of Trump’s behaviour in the White House may limit how many Republicans are willing to vote for it. Under Senate rules, at least 10 Republicans would need to support it for that chamber to hold a vote on such a bill.

But supporters noted that Republican senators previously supported significant components of the bill, like requiring the Justice Department to turn over logs of contacts with White House officials and constraining a president’s ability to declare a national emergency and spend money in ways Congress did not approve.

The supporters said they expected the package would be taken up piecemeal in the Senate, with different parts attached to other bills.

“Many of the pieces of the Protecting Our Democracy Act have previously received substantial Republican support in the Senate, and we believe that they will again as part of other legislation there,” said Soren Dayton, a policy advocate with the group Protect Democracy, which consulted with lawmakers on the text of the bill and is promoting it.

For now, as proponents first try to get the measures through the House, Democrats are squarely framing it as a response to the Trump presidency.

Trump’s demonstration that a president can routinely flout previous norms of self-restraint in office “has really put our republic on a very tenuous footing,” Schiff said. “Our democracy turns out to be much more fragile than we understood, and this is an effort to put into law that which we thought was already mandatory.”

On instructions from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the bill compiles components developed by numerous lawmakers and House committees.

While many of the proposals have been floating around for years, they took on new urgency among Democrats and some Republicans amid the controversies of the Trump era.

For example, in pushing a proposal to give greater force to the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in campaign politics at work, supporters of the legislation cited an episode in which a Trump White House aide, Kellyanne Conway, was cited by an independent agency for flagrant violations of that law. The Trump administration ignored the agency’s request to sanction her and she dismissed the finding as “blah, blah, blah.”

Other sections address issues that were obscure before the Trump era. One section, for instance, proposes to strengthen the Constitution’s ban on presidents taking “emoluments,” or payments, by declaring in statute that the anti-corruption prohibition extends to commercial transactions and making it easier to enforce that rule.

Trump’s refusal to divest from his hotels and resorts raised the question of whether lobbying groups and foreign governments that began paying for numerous rooms at Trump properties — and sometimes did not even use them — were trying to purchase his favor.

Another proposal would address a problem that arose in November, when a Trump appointee running the General Services Administration refused to formally “ascertain” that Biden was the president-elect. That failure to take a previously routine step prevented Biden’s transition staff from receiving briefings from agencies his new administration was about to take over, obstructing an orderly transition of power.

To prevent any recurrence, the bill says that if the head of the General Services Administration makes no decision by 10 days after the election, both campaigns can start transitions.

Schiff introduced a version of the bill in October 2020 to send a political message heading into the election. Democrats this time intend to pass the legislation and have spent months negotiating with the White House over elements that administration officials were concerned would intrude on traditional executive branch prerogatives.

House Democrats made some adjustments to the previous version in response to concerns raised by aides to Biden while leaving others in, according to people familiar with those negotiations.

The House dropped a proposal to require the White House to give Congress its internal communications with the president about pardons, which raised executive privilege concerns. But it kept another idea to which the administration is said to have objected, requiring the Justice Department to turn over its investigative files about clemency recipients.

Lawmakers also partly backed down from a proposal to make executive branch officials pay any court fines for defying subpoenas out of their own pockets. The revised bill will exclude cases in which presidents, in writing, had invoked executive privilege and instructed subordinates not to comply.

The administration is also said to have expressed concerns about a proposal to speed up court review of congressional lawsuits over subpoenas. Lawmakers added a provision requiring Congress to show a court, in such lawsuits, that it had made good-faith efforts to negotiate a compromise.

But even though the administration is also said to have raised separation-of-powers concerns about a proposal to bar presidents from firing inspectors general without a specific cause like misconduct, House Democrats kept it in the bill.

A White House spokesperson has previously said that the administration broadly supports most of the provisions “to restore guardrails” to American democracy, while pledging to work with Congress on the details.

Many components have already been the subject of committee hearings in the House or put into legislative language, and it is not clear whether Pelosi will send the bill to any committee — and if so, which one — or when she will bring it to a House floor.

In a statement, Pelosi called the legislation “a robust, transformative package of democracy reforms that will restore democratic norms and institutions and put in place essential safeguards to prevent any president, regardless of party, from abusing the public trust or desecrating our democracy.”

Democrats have also been coordinating with several government ethics groups to develop what they hope will be at least some bipartisan support. The groups include Stand Up America, which was founded after Trump’s surprise win in the 2016 election.

Its founder, Sean Eldridge, said in an interview that Stand Up America is planning to run digital ads promoting the bill, including on Facebook; to distribute explanations of the bill to the group’s members; and to ask them to write letters-to-the-editor and call lawmakers.

“Our plan is to engage our 2 million members and build a grassroots pressure campaign to help this across the finish line,” Eldridge said.

House Democrats are planning to introduce a package of proposed new limits on executive power Tuesday, beginning a post-Trump push to strengthen checks on the presidency that they hope will compare to the overhauls that followed the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War.

House Democrats are planning to introduce a package of proposed new limits on executive power Tuesday, beginning a post-Trump push to strengthen checks on the presidency that they hope will compare to the overhauls that followed the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War. Democrats have spent months negotiating with the Biden White House to refine a broad set of proposals that amount to a point-by-point rebuke of the ways that Donald Trump shattered norms over the course of his presidency. Democrats have compiled numerous bills into a package they call the Protecting Our Democracy Act. The legislation would make it harder for presidents to offer or bestow pardons in situations that raise suspicion of corruption, refuse to respond to oversight subpoenas, spend or secretly freeze funds contrary to congressional appropriations, and fire inspectors general or retaliate against whistleblowers, among many other changes. The legislation’s lead sponsor, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said he hoped it would receive a floor vote “this fall.” While the bill would constrain President Joe Biden and his successors, its implicit rebuke of Trump’s behaviour in the White House may limit how many Republicans are willing to vote for it. Under Senate rules, at least 10 Republicans would need to support it for that chamber to hold a vote on such a bill. But supporters noted that Republican senators previously supported significant components of the bill, like requiring the Justice Department to turn over logs of contacts with White House officials and constraining a president’s ability to declare a national emergency and spend money in ways Congress did not approve. The supporters said they expected the package would be taken up piecemeal in the Senate, with different parts attached to other bills. “Many of the pieces of the Protecting Our Democracy Act have previously received substantial Republican support in the Senate, and we believe that they will again as part of other legislation there,” said Soren Dayton, a policy advocate with the group Protect Democracy, which consulted with lawmakers on the text of the bill and is promoting it. For now, as proponents first try to get the measures through the House, Democrats are squarely framing it as a response to the Trump presidency. Trump’s demonstration that a president can routinely flout previous norms of self-restraint in office “has really put our republic on a very tenuous footing,” Schiff said. “Our democracy turns out to be much more fragile than we understood, and this is an effort to put into law that which we thought was already mandatory.” On instructions from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the bill compiles components developed by numerous lawmakers and House committees. While many of the proposals have been floating around for years, they took on new urgency among Democrats and some Republicans amid the controversies of the Trump era. For example, in pushing a proposal to give greater force to the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in campaign politics at work, supporters of the legislation cited an episode in which a Trump White House aide, Kellyanne Conway, was cited by an independent agency for flagrant violations of that law. The Trump administration ignored the agency’s request to sanction her and she dismissed the finding as “blah, blah, blah.” Other sections address issues that were obscure before the Trump era. One section, for instance, proposes to strengthen the Constitution’s ban on presidents taking “emoluments,” or payments, by declaring in statute that the anti-corruption prohibition extends to commercial transactions and making it easier to enforce that rule. Trump’s refusal to divest from his hotels and resorts raised the question of whether lobbying groups and foreign governments that began paying for numerous rooms at Trump properties — and sometimes did not even use them — were trying to purchase his favor. Another proposal would address a problem that arose in November, when a Trump appointee running the General Services Administration refused to formally “ascertain” that Biden was the president-elect. That failure to take a previously routine step prevented Biden’s transition staff from receiving briefings from agencies his new administration was about to take over, obstructing an orderly transition of power. To prevent any recurrence, the bill says that if the head of the General Services Administration makes no decision by 10 days after the election, both campaigns can start transitions. Schiff introduced a version of the bill in October 2020 to send a political message heading into the election. Democrats this time intend to pass the legislation and have spent months negotiating with the White House over elements that administration officials were concerned would intrude on traditional executive branch prerogatives. House Democrats made some adjustments to the previous version in response to concerns raised by aides to Biden while leaving others in, according to people familiar with those negotiations. The House dropped a proposal to require the White House to give Congress its internal communications with the president about pardons, which raised executive privilege concerns. But it kept another idea to which the administration is said to have objected, requiring the Justice Department to turn over its investigative files about clemency recipients. Lawmakers also partly backed down from a proposal to make executive branch officials pay any court fines for defying subpoenas out of their own pockets. The revised bill will exclude cases in which presidents, in writing, had invoked executive privilege and instructed subordinates not to comply. The administration is also said to have expressed concerns about a proposal to speed up court review of congressional lawsuits over subpoenas. Lawmakers added a provision requiring Congress to show a court, in such lawsuits, that it had made good-faith efforts to negotiate a compromise. But even though the administration is also said to have raised separation-of-powers concerns about a proposal to bar presidents from firing inspectors general without a specific cause like misconduct, House Democrats kept it in the bill. A White House spokesperson has previously said that the administration broadly supports most of the provisions “to restore guardrails” to American democracy, while pledging to work with Congress on the details. Many components have already been the subject of committee hearings in the House or put into legislative language, and it is not clear whether Pelosi will send the bill to any committee — and if so, which one — or when she will bring it to a House floor. In a statement, Pelosi called the legislation “a robust, transformative package of democracy reforms that will restore democratic norms and institutions and put in place essential safeguards to prevent any president, regardless of party, from abusing the public trust or desecrating our democracy.” Democrats have also been coordinating with several government ethics groups to develop what they hope will be at least some bipartisan support. The groups include Stand Up America, which was founded after Trump’s surprise win in the 2016 election. Its founder, Sean Eldridge, said in an interview that Stand Up America is planning to run digital ads promoting the bill, including on Facebook; to distribute explanations of the bill to the group’s members; and to ask them to write letters-to-the-editor and call lawmakers. “Our plan is to engage our 2 million members and build a grassroots pressure campaign to help this across the finish line,” Eldridge said.

Democrats begin effort to curb post-Trump presidential powers

Five months before the World Health Organization designated the virus a pandemic, American leaders were purportedly notified of a new coronavirus circulating in Wuhan.

However, alarming new claims by a Chinese whistleblower suggest that the important early warning – which arrived six weeks before China recognised an outbreak had happened – went unheeded even as the bodies began to pile up.

That's according to Wei Jingsheng, a defector and democracy activist who makes the shocking disclosure in a new documentary, 'What Really Happened in Wuhan'.&nbsp;

Wei Jingsheng revealed in the documentary that he took his concerns about the unfolding situation to senior figures within the Trump administration but was subsequently ignored.

'I felt they were not as concerned as I was, so I tried my best to provide more detail and information,' he said.

Even as an unknown number of bodies began flooding the city's hospitals, Xi Jinping's authoritarian dictatorship worked desperately to silence whistle-blowers and any discussion of the virus in the early stages of the Wuhan outbreak.

Any mention of a new SARS virus or 'outbreak' on social media was blocked, and brave medical personnel who tried to speak out and warn the world were jailed and forced to sign bogus confessions of panic-stirring.

Jingsheng, who had been exiled to the United States for years, said he was aware of what was going on because to Beijing Communist Party insiders who expressed their concerns and outlined the central government cover-up.

(With inputs from agencies)

Five months before the World Health Organization designated the virus a pandemic, American leaders were purportedly notified of a new coronavirus circulating in Wuhan.

Five months before the World Health Organization designated the virus a pandemic, American leaders were purportedly notified of a new coronavirus circulating in Wuhan. However, alarming new claims by a Chinese whistleblower suggest that the important early warning – which arrived six weeks before China recognised an outbreak had happened – went unheeded even as the bodies began to pile up. That's according to Wei Jingsheng, a defector and democracy activist who makes the shocking disclosure in a new documentary, 'What Really Happened in Wuhan'. Wei Jingsheng revealed in the documentary that he took his concerns about the unfolding situation to senior figures within the Trump administration but was subsequently ignored. 'I felt they were not as concerned as I was, so I tried my best to provide more detail and information,' he said. Even as an unknown number of bodies began flooding the city's hospitals, Xi Jinping's authoritarian dictatorship worked desperately to silence whistle-blowers and any discussion of the virus in the early stages of the Wuhan outbreak. Any mention of a new SARS virus or 'outbreak' on social media was blocked, and brave medical personnel who tried to speak out and warn the world were jailed and forced to sign bogus confessions of panic-stirring. Jingsheng, who had been exiled to the United States for years, said he was aware of what was going on because to Beijing Communist Party insiders who expressed their concerns and outlined the central government cover-up. (With inputs from agencies)

Chinese defector tried to warn Trump about COVID-19 five months before pandemic 

USA's former First Lady Melania Trump declined to condemn Capitol Hill attack and appeal for peace even when she was asked by her aide, CNN reported citing sources. CNN further reported that when on January 6, Melania Trump's aide Stephanie Grisham asked Trump whether she would tweet to appeal for calm, Trump said "No" on text message.

Stephanie Grisham has reportedly mentioned the incident in her book "I'll take your questions now".

As per CNN's report in January, Melania Trump was at the White House overseeing photoshoot of a carpet when the attack on US Congress took place. She did not call off the photoshoot. On that day, she did not speak about the atrocities committed by Trump supporters at the Capitol Hill. She condemned the attack in part on January 11.

A portion of Grisham's book was published in Politico. Melania Trump's office responded to Grisham's claims and sent a statement to Politico.

“The intent behind this book is obvious. It is an attempt to redeem herself after a poor performance as press secretary, failed personal relationships, and unprofessional behavior in the White House. Through mistruth and betrayal, she seeks to gain relevance and money at the expense of Mrs. Trump,” read the statement as published by Politico.

On January 6, 2021 hundreds of Donald Trump supporters attacked US Congress on Capitol Hill after he addressed them in a rally. Trump had been making unsubstantiated allegations of election fraud in US Presidential Election 2020. At the time of the attack, US Congress was in the process of certifying Joe Biden's victory.

USA's former First Lady Melania Trump declined to condemn Capitol Hill attack and appeal for peace even when she was asked by her aide, CNN reported citing sources.

USA's former First Lady Melania Trump declined to condemn Capitol Hill attack and appeal for peace even when she was asked by her aide, CNN reported citing sources. CNN further reported that when on January 6, Melania Trump's aide Stephanie Grisham asked Trump whether she would tweet to appeal for calm, Trump said "No" on text message. Stephanie Grisham has reportedly mentioned the incident in her book "I'll take your questions now". As per CNN's report in January, Melania Trump was at the White House overseeing photoshoot of a carpet when the attack on US Congress took place. She did not call off the photoshoot. On that day, she did not speak about the atrocities committed by Trump supporters at the Capitol Hill. She condemned the attack in part on January 11. A portion of Grisham's book was published in Politico. Melania Trump's office responded to Grisham's claims and sent a statement to Politico. “The intent behind this book is obvious. It is an attempt to redeem herself after a poor performance as press secretary, failed personal relationships, and unprofessional behavior in the White House. Through mistruth and betrayal, she seeks to gain relevance and money at the expense of Mrs. Trump,” read the statement as published by Politico. On January 6, 2021 hundreds of Donald Trump supporters attacked US Congress on Capitol Hill after he addressed them in a rally. Trump had been making unsubstantiated allegations of election fraud in US Presidential Election 2020. At the time of the attack, US Congress was in the process of certifying Joe Biden's victory.

Melania Trump refused to condemn Capitol Hill attack despite a chance

A US Congressional committee probing January 6 Capitol Hill attack has asked &nbsp;35 telephone, email and social media companies to preserve records which can be relevant to its investigation. Reuters quoted source to say that these records include those of US President Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

In a statement revealing the data preservation requests, a spokesperson for the House of Representatives' Jan. 6 investigation committee, led by Democrat Bennie Thompson, said it had "sent letters to 35 private-sector entities, including telecommunications, email, and social media companies, instructing them to preserve records" which could be "relevant" to the committee's inquiry.

"The Select Committee is at this point gathering facts, not alleging wrongdoing by any individual," the statement added.

This marked the House committee's latest round of requests after last week ordering federal agencies and social media companies to hand over records related to the violence and the events leading up to it.

Trump supporters stormed the Capitol as Congress was meeting to certify Biden's victory. Nearly 600 people have been arrested in connection with the attack.

(With inputs from agencies)

A US Congressional committee probing January 6 Capitol Hill attack has asked 35 telephone, email and social media companies to preserve records which can be relevant to its investigation.

A US Congressional committee probing January 6 Capitol Hill attack has asked 35 telephone, email and social media companies to preserve records which can be relevant to its investigation. Reuters quoted source to say that these records include those of US President Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. In a statement revealing the data preservation requests, a spokesperson for the House of Representatives' Jan. 6 investigation committee, led by Democrat Bennie Thompson, said it had "sent letters to 35 private-sector entities, including telecommunications, email, and social media companies, instructing them to preserve records" which could be "relevant" to the committee's inquiry. "The Select Committee is at this point gathering facts, not alleging wrongdoing by any individual," the statement added. This marked the House committee's latest round of requests after last week ordering federal agencies and social media companies to hand over records related to the violence and the events leading up to it. Trump supporters stormed the Capitol as Congress was meeting to certify Biden's victory. Nearly 600 people have been arrested in connection with the attack. (With inputs from agencies)

Capitol Hill attack: Congress committee asks telecom companies to preserve Trump's call records

Just before nuclear talks with world powers in Vienna&nbsp;to get rid of sanctions, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei has compared US President Joe Biden with his predecessor Donald Trump. Khamenei said Biden is no different from Trump and called him 'predatory wolf'. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The supreme leader slammed the behaviour of the US on Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal on Saturday. He said the country behaved as if Iran had left the accord as the US unilaterally withdrew from it in 2018 and imposed harsh sanctions. &nbsp;

Watch:&nbsp;Iranian, Gulf Arab officials meet in Baghdad

<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="http://13.235.153.162/videos/iranian-gulf-arab-officials-meet-in-baghdad-409135/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Talking about the signatories to the deal from Europe, Khamenei said, “they are like the US as well, but in words and rhetoric they are always demanding, as if it was Iran that for long ridiculed and undermined negotiations”.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The remarks came when he met with President Ebrahim Raisi’s cabinet, which had earlier gained a sweeping vote of confidence in the parliament on Wednesday.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hurricane-ida-strengthens-louisiana-braces-for-severe-blow-409120" hreflang="en">Hurricane Ida strengthens, Louisiana braces for severe blow</a>

Earlier, Iran's supreme leader declared Tehran would not accept Washington's "stubborn" demands in talks to revive a 2015 nuclear deal and said the United States had failed to guarantee that it would never abandon the pact again. &nbsp;

"The Americans acted completely cowardly and maliciously," state TV quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying. &nbsp;

"They once violated the nuclear deal at no cost by exiting it. Now they explicitly say that they cannot give guarantees that it would not happen again." &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Just before nuclear talks with world powers in Vienna to get rid of sanctions, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei has compared US President Joe Biden with his predecessor Donald Trump.

Just before nuclear talks with world powers in Vienna to get rid of sanctions, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei has compared US President Joe Biden with his predecessor Donald Trump. Khamenei said Biden is no different from Trump and called him 'predatory wolf'. The supreme leader slammed the behaviour of the US on Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal on Saturday. He said the country behaved as if Iran had left the accord as the US unilaterally withdrew from it in 2018 and imposed harsh sanctions. Watch: Iranian, Gulf Arab officials meet in Baghdad × Talking about the signatories to the deal from Europe, Khamenei said, “they are like the US as well, but in words and rhetoric they are always demanding, as if it was Iran that for long ridiculed and undermined negotiations”. The remarks came when he met with President Ebrahim Raisi’s cabinet, which had earlier gained a sweeping vote of confidence in the parliament on Wednesday. Also Read: Hurricane Ida strengthens, Louisiana braces for severe blow Earlier, Iran's supreme leader declared Tehran would not accept Washington's "stubborn" demands in talks to revive a 2015 nuclear deal and said the United States had failed to guarantee that it would never abandon the pact again. "The Americans acted completely cowardly and maliciously," state TV quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying. "They once violated the nuclear deal at no cost by exiting it. Now they explicitly say that they cannot give guarantees that it would not happen again." (With inputs from agencies)

Before talks, Iran's supreme leader says 'predatory wolf' Biden no different from Trump  

Lieutenant general Sami Sadat of Afghanistan army launched a harsh attack on the US and Afghan governments, saying that politics and presidents had failed his Army.

In his opinion article for The New York Times, Sami Sadat wrote that Joe Biden’s full and accelerated withdrawal has only made matters worse. The US president&nbsp;ignored the conditions on the ground, wrote Sadat.

"The last days of the fighting were surreal. We engaged in an intense exchange of fire on the ground against the Taliban as American fighter jets circled above us, in fact spectators. Our sense of abandonment and betrayal was matched only by the frustration the American pilots felt and conveyed to us – being forced to witness the war on the ground, seemingly unable to help us," he wrote. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nearly-100-afghan-evacuees-may-have-ties-with-isis-reports-408262">Also read | Nearly 100 Afghan evacuees may have ties with ISIS: Reports</a> 
 
"We have been betrayed by politics and presidents. It wasn’t just an Afghan war; it was an international war, with many military personnel involved. It would have been impossible for a single army, ours, to resume work and fight. It was a military defeat, but it stemmed from a political failure," he wrote. 
 
Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/anticipated-taliban-takeover-but-timeline-surprised-us-cds-bipin-rawat-408238" hreflang="en">Anticipated Taliban takeover but timeline surprised us: CDS Bipin Rawat</a>

Appreciating his soldiers he wrote that "My corps, which had carried on even after I was called away to Kabul, was one of the last to give up its arms — only after the capital fell." 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/opinion-panjshir-valley-a-graveyard-for-invaders-408018">Also Read |&nbsp;&nbsp;Panjshir Valley: A graveyard for invaders</a>

"The Taliban had a firm American end date and feared no military retaliation for anything they had done in the meantime, sensing the unwillingness of the United States. And so the Taliban continued to gain strength. My soldiers and I suffered up to seven Taliban car bombings per day in July and the first week of August in Helmand province," he wrote. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/watch-taliban-will-help-pakistan-conquer-kashmir-leader-of-imran-khans-party-408045">Watch | Taliban will help Pakistan conquer Kashmir: Leader of Imran Khan’s party</a>

Sadat had been using firepower as well as social media to wage a war against the Taliban, especially in its heartland. 
 
In Lashkar Gah, the capital of the southern province of Helmand, the 36-year-old commander of the country's Special Forces had been fighting the Taliban and keeping them out. 
&nbsp; 
In southwestern Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Sami Sadat led the Afghan National Army's 215th Maiwand Corps. 
&nbsp; 
Prior to that, he was the Afghan National Intelligence Agency's Senior Director.

Lieutenant general Sami Sadat of Afghanistan army launched a harsh attack on the US and Afghan governments, saying that politics and presidents had failed his Army.

Lieutenant general Sami Sadat of Afghanistan army launched a harsh attack on the US and Afghan governments, saying that politics and presidents had failed his Army. In his opinion article for The New York Times, Sami Sadat wrote that Joe Biden’s full and accelerated withdrawal has only made matters worse. The US president ignored the conditions on the ground, wrote Sadat. "The last days of the fighting were surreal. We engaged in an intense exchange of fire on the ground against the Taliban as American fighter jets circled above us, in fact spectators. Our sense of abandonment and betrayal was matched only by the frustration the American pilots felt and conveyed to us – being forced to witness the war on the ground, seemingly unable to help us," he wrote. Also read | Nearly 100 Afghan evacuees may have ties with ISIS: Reports "We have been betrayed by politics and presidents. It wasn’t just an Afghan war; it was an international war, with many military personnel involved. It would have been impossible for a single army, ours, to resume work and fight. It was a military defeat, but it stemmed from a political failure," he wrote. Also read | Anticipated Taliban takeover but timeline surprised us: CDS Bipin Rawat Appreciating his soldiers he wrote that "My corps, which had carried on even after I was called away to Kabul, was one of the last to give up its arms — only after the capital fell." Also Read | Panjshir Valley: A graveyard for invaders "The Taliban had a firm American end date and feared no military retaliation for anything they had done in the meantime, sensing the unwillingness of the United States. And so the Taliban continued to gain strength. My soldiers and I suffered up to seven Taliban car bombings per day in July and the first week of August in Helmand province," he wrote. Watch | Taliban will help Pakistan conquer Kashmir: Leader of Imran Khan’s party Sadat had been using firepower as well as social media to wage a war against the Taliban, especially in its heartland. In Lashkar Gah, the capital of the southern province of Helmand, the 36-year-old commander of the country's Special Forces had been fighting the Taliban and keeping them out. In southwestern Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Sami Sadat led the Afghan National Army's 215th Maiwand Corps. Prior to that, he was the Afghan National Intelligence Agency's Senior Director.

Commander of Afghan army speaks out: We were betrayed by politics and presidents

A horse-drawn caisson with a flag-draped coffin passed slowly through the gates of Arlington National Cemetery on Monday, a hushed tableau against a city loud with recriminations about the lost war in Afghanistan.

The cortège carried Donald Rumsfeld, a hard-charging, two-time secretary of defense and one of the war’s chief architects, whose burial on a sweltering August afternoon served as another coda to the 20-year conflict.

Rumsfeld died June 29, at 88, of complications related to multiple myeloma. The date for his interment and an earlier private funeral service Monday at Fort Myer, Virginia, had been set long before, but the timing meant that Rumsfeld was laid to rest during the same kind of shell shock as on Oct. 7, 2001, when the United States launched its first airstrikes in Afghanistan.

And yet, the ceremonies seemed to take place in a contained, parallel universe, sealed off from the strife of Washington. “This was very much about the man and his times, and not any particular issue of the day,” said Larry Di Rita, a top deputy to Rumsfeld at the Pentagon during the George W. Bush administration.

Say what you will about the man known as “Rummy,” and many have, harshly, for turning away from Afghanistan and waging a war in Iraq that left thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and ultimately wrecked the end of Rumsfeld’s political life. But at Memorial Chapel at Fort Myers, the eulogists recalled a different man.

“Our capital city has many familiar types,” former Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld’s longtime ally, recalled of his closest friend, according to his prepared remarks and confirmed by guests at the funeral. “Yet in all my years around this company town, I have never heard anyone described as ‘the Rumsfeld type.’ There is no such thing because nothing about Don was typical or derivative or standard-issue.”

Cheney also brought up some of Rumsfeld’s signature maxims, which Rumsfeld would sometimes adapt from familiar Washington sayings. “Harry Truman supposedly said, ‘If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog,’ ” Cheney said. “To this, Don added the Rumsfeld corollary: Get a small dog — he might turn on you.”

The words “Afghanistan” or “Iraq” were barely spoken by Cheney and a procession of other eulogists, among them Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the outset of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Victoria Clarke, Rumsfeld’s longtime communications aide at the Pentagon.

Clarke invoked one of Rumsfeld’s favorite sayings, or so-called Rumsfeld Rules. “Cemeteries are filled with irreplaceable people,” Clarke said before the burial, quoting her former boss, but amending the rule in his honor. “Arlington National Cemetery will soon have someone who is truly irreplaceable.”

Details of the funeral and burial were closely held by the Rumsfeld family and none were released publicly after it was over. Guests included Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who knelt before Rumsfeld’s widow, Joyce, who was in a wheelchair, and presented her with the flag from her husband’s coffin.

Others there were Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s No 2 at the Pentagon who pushed hard for the war in Iraq.

“Mostly, it was just a lot of people who hadn’t seen each other in a long time, in some cases since Rumsfeld left the Pentagon,’’ said David Hume Kennerly, a presidential photographer whom Rumsfeld brought on as the official chronicler of President Gerald Ford’s White House when Rumsfeld was Ford’s chief of staff. “And there were a lot of stories being shared.”

The stories surfaced in the eulogies, which were often drawn from the inside of the Pentagon, where Rumsfeld served as defense secretary to Ford in the 1970s and a quarter century later to President George W. Bush.

“There’s 9/11, of course,” Clarke recalled, when Rumsfeld left his office to assist rescue crews after a hijacked American Airlines plane crashed into the western side of the Pentagon, killing all 64 people aboard the jet and an additional 125 inside. “Many of us were in the building trying to figure out what had happened,” Clarke said. “He’s the one who went and found out.”

A former Navy pilot, Princeton-educated wrestler and competitive squash player into his 80s, Rumsfeld’s aggressive style was well-established. “He gave no quarter, and there was often blood at the end of the match,” said Di Rita, a frequent squash opponent of his boss. “When you played with him, it was basically just Don Rumsfeld being Don Rumsfeld.”

Clarke also told the story of seeing Rumsfeld walk down to the Pentagon briefing room and pick up a misshapen paper clip he spotted in the hallway. He spent the meeting twisting and reworking the lonely paper clip back into fighting shape.

“Good as new,” he told Clarke, holding up the paper clip as he left the briefing room.

A few hours later, a document was sent down to Clarke’s office, held together with that same paper clip. “Saving the taxpayers’ money,” Rumsfeld scrawled on a yellow Post-it note affixed to the restored object.

Cheney described the tumultuous period after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in 1974, and Ford was about to name his own vice president. Rumsfeld was a finalist for the job, and happened to be at Cheney’s home in Bethesda, Maryland, listening on a kitchen radio as the process culminated.

“We heard news reports describing the scene at the Rockefeller estate,” Cheney recalled, referring to Ford’s eventual choice, former New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. There was a fleet of sedans outside the mansion, Cheney noted, with family jets primed to fly the Rockefeller entourage to Washington.

“Don laughed at the superior resources Rockefeller brought to the competition,” Cheney remembered. “He said to me, ‘Here’s Nelson Rockefeller with planeloads of people flying down from New York, and all I’ve got is you, Cheney.’ ”

Participants said the assembly erupted into laughter, led by the chuckling Cheney himself. It took a few seconds for solemnity to be restored. “Until we meet again, goodbye, old friend,” Cheney said at the close of his remarks, his voice catching, according to a guest, in a rare hint of public emotion.

“I had responsibilities and experiences far beyond anything I could have ever known,” Cheney said, crediting Rumsfeld for all of them. “He decided he could trust me and it changed my life.”

Left unsaid, for better or for worse: It changed history, too.

A horse-drawn caisson with a flag-draped coffin passed slowly through the gates of Arlington National Cemetery on Monday, a hushed tableau against a city loud with recriminations about the lost war in Afghanistan.

A horse-drawn caisson with a flag-draped coffin passed slowly through the gates of Arlington National Cemetery on Monday, a hushed tableau against a city loud with recriminations about the lost war in Afghanistan. The cortège carried Donald Rumsfeld, a hard-charging, two-time secretary of defense and one of the war’s chief architects, whose burial on a sweltering August afternoon served as another coda to the 20-year conflict. Rumsfeld died June 29, at 88, of complications related to multiple myeloma. The date for his interment and an earlier private funeral service Monday at Fort Myer, Virginia, had been set long before, but the timing meant that Rumsfeld was laid to rest during the same kind of shell shock as on Oct. 7, 2001, when the United States launched its first airstrikes in Afghanistan. And yet, the ceremonies seemed to take place in a contained, parallel universe, sealed off from the strife of Washington. “This was very much about the man and his times, and not any particular issue of the day,” said Larry Di Rita, a top deputy to Rumsfeld at the Pentagon during the George W. Bush administration. Say what you will about the man known as “Rummy,” and many have, harshly, for turning away from Afghanistan and waging a war in Iraq that left thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and ultimately wrecked the end of Rumsfeld’s political life. But at Memorial Chapel at Fort Myers, the eulogists recalled a different man. “Our capital city has many familiar types,” former Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld’s longtime ally, recalled of his closest friend, according to his prepared remarks and confirmed by guests at the funeral. “Yet in all my years around this company town, I have never heard anyone described as ‘the Rumsfeld type.’ There is no such thing because nothing about Don was typical or derivative or standard-issue.” Cheney also brought up some of Rumsfeld’s signature maxims, which Rumsfeld would sometimes adapt from familiar Washington sayings. “Harry Truman supposedly said, ‘If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog,’ ” Cheney said. “To this, Don added the Rumsfeld corollary: Get a small dog — he might turn on you.” The words “Afghanistan” or “Iraq” were barely spoken by Cheney and a procession of other eulogists, among them Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the outset of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Victoria Clarke, Rumsfeld’s longtime communications aide at the Pentagon. Clarke invoked one of Rumsfeld’s favorite sayings, or so-called Rumsfeld Rules. “Cemeteries are filled with irreplaceable people,” Clarke said before the burial, quoting her former boss, but amending the rule in his honor. “Arlington National Cemetery will soon have someone who is truly irreplaceable.” Details of the funeral and burial were closely held by the Rumsfeld family and none were released publicly after it was over. Guests included Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who knelt before Rumsfeld’s widow, Joyce, who was in a wheelchair, and presented her with the flag from her husband’s coffin. Others there were Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s No 2 at the Pentagon who pushed hard for the war in Iraq. “Mostly, it was just a lot of people who hadn’t seen each other in a long time, in some cases since Rumsfeld left the Pentagon,’’ said David Hume Kennerly, a presidential photographer whom Rumsfeld brought on as the official chronicler of President Gerald Ford’s White House when Rumsfeld was Ford’s chief of staff. “And there were a lot of stories being shared.” The stories surfaced in the eulogies, which were often drawn from the inside of the Pentagon, where Rumsfeld served as defense secretary to Ford in the 1970s and a quarter century later to President George W. Bush. “There’s 9/11, of course,” Clarke recalled, when Rumsfeld left his office to assist rescue crews after a hijacked American Airlines plane crashed into the western side of the Pentagon, killing all 64 people aboard the jet and an additional 125 inside. “Many of us were in the building trying to figure out what had happened,” Clarke said. “He’s the one who went and found out.” A former Navy pilot, Princeton-educated wrestler and competitive squash player into his 80s, Rumsfeld’s aggressive style was well-established. “He gave no quarter, and there was often blood at the end of the match,” said Di Rita, a frequent squash opponent of his boss. “When you played with him, it was basically just Don Rumsfeld being Don Rumsfeld.” Clarke also told the story of seeing Rumsfeld walk down to the Pentagon briefing room and pick up a misshapen paper clip he spotted in the hallway. He spent the meeting twisting and reworking the lonely paper clip back into fighting shape. “Good as new,” he told Clarke, holding up the paper clip as he left the briefing room. A few hours later, a document was sent down to Clarke’s office, held together with that same paper clip. “Saving the taxpayers’ money,” Rumsfeld scrawled on a yellow Post-it note affixed to the restored object. Cheney described the tumultuous period after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in 1974, and Ford was about to name his own vice president. Rumsfeld was a finalist for the job, and happened to be at Cheney’s home in Bethesda, Maryland, listening on a kitchen radio as the process culminated. “We heard news reports describing the scene at the Rockefeller estate,” Cheney recalled, referring to Ford’s eventual choice, former New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. There was a fleet of sedans outside the mansion, Cheney noted, with family jets primed to fly the Rockefeller entourage to Washington. “Don laughed at the superior resources Rockefeller brought to the competition,” Cheney remembered. “He said to me, ‘Here’s Nelson Rockefeller with planeloads of people flying down from New York, and all I’ve got is you, Cheney.’ ” Participants said the assembly erupted into laughter, led by the chuckling Cheney himself. It took a few seconds for solemnity to be restored. “Until we meet again, goodbye, old friend,” Cheney said at the close of his remarks, his voice catching, according to a guest, in a rare hint of public emotion. “I had responsibilities and experiences far beyond anything I could have ever known,” Cheney said, crediting Rumsfeld for all of them. “He decided he could trust me and it changed my life.” Left unsaid, for better or for worse: It changed history, too.

Donald Rumsfeld, architect of war in Afghanistan, is laid to rest

A ‘Save America’ rally in Cullman, Alabama on Saturday night witnessed a change of heart in former US president Donald Trump towards coronavirus vaccine after he encouraged his supporters to get it. But in response, Trump was met with a round of boos. &nbsp;&nbsp;

While hosting the rally, he touted the benefit of the shot, saying vaccines are 'good'. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Trump said, “I believe totally in your freedoms, I do, you've got to do what you've got to do. But I recommend that you take the vaccines.” The crowd replied with jeers. &nbsp;

After the booing stopped, Trump said that you would be the 'first to know' if the vaccine was ineffective. &nbsp;

"If it doesn't work, you'll be the first to know. Ok? I'll call up Alabama and say, hey, you know what?... But, it is working. But you do have your freedoms. You have to keep -- you have to maintain that,” the president said. &nbsp;

"But I happened to take the vaccine," he added. He also said that families need to get [their] kids back to school. &nbsp;&nbsp;

On social media, Trump's remarks were also met with immense opposition.&nbsp;

A ‘Save America’ rally in Cullman, Alabama on Saturday night witnessed a change of heart in former US president Donald Trump towards coronavirus vaccine after he encouraged his supporters to get it.

A ‘Save America’ rally in Cullman, Alabama on Saturday night witnessed a change of heart in former US president Donald Trump towards coronavirus vaccine after he encouraged his supporters to get it. But in response, Trump was met with a round of boos. While hosting the rally, he touted the benefit of the shot, saying vaccines are 'good'. Trump said, “I believe totally in your freedoms, I do, you've got to do what you've got to do. But I recommend that you take the vaccines.” The crowd replied with jeers. After the booing stopped, Trump said that you would be the 'first to know' if the vaccine was ineffective. "If it doesn't work, you'll be the first to know. Ok? I'll call up Alabama and say, hey, you know what?... But, it is working. But you do have your freedoms. You have to keep -- you have to maintain that,” the president said. "But I happened to take the vaccine," he added. He also said that families need to get [their] kids back to school. On social media, Trump's remarks were also met with immense opposition.

Trump gets booed on advising Alabama rally supporters to take Covid vaccine shot

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been ordered by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) on Friday to hand over Donald Trump’s tax returns to a House committee, saying the panel had 'invoked sufficient reasons' for requesting them.&nbsp;

In a matter of hours, it seems to be a second blow for Trump after leaked DoJ memos revealed that he pressured top officials to falsely label the 2020 election as corrupt as a part of his campaign to overturn the election defeat at the hands of Joe Biden. He also told them, “Leave the rest to me.”&nbsp;

The order to release Trump’s tax returns to the ways and means committee was applauded by House speaker Nancy Pelosi.&nbsp;

In a statement, Pelosi said, “Today, the Biden administration has delivered a victory for the rule of law, as it respects the public interest by complying with Chairman (Richard) Neal’s request for Donald Trump’s tax returns.”&nbsp;

“Access to former President Trump’s tax returns is a matter of national security. The American people deserve to know the facts of his troubling conflicts of interest and undermining of our security and democracy as president.”&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been ordered by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) on Friday to hand over Donald Trump’s tax returns to a House committee, saying the panel had 'invoked sufficient reasons' for requesting them.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been ordered by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) on Friday to hand over Donald Trump’s tax returns to a House committee, saying the panel had 'invoked sufficient reasons' for requesting them. In a matter of hours, it seems to be a second blow for Trump after leaked DoJ memos revealed that he pressured top officials to falsely label the 2020 election as corrupt as a part of his campaign to overturn the election defeat at the hands of Joe Biden. He also told them, “Leave the rest to me.” The order to release Trump’s tax returns to the ways and means committee was applauded by House speaker Nancy Pelosi. In a statement, Pelosi said, “Today, the Biden administration has delivered a victory for the rule of law, as it respects the public interest by complying with Chairman (Richard) Neal’s request for Donald Trump’s tax returns.” “Access to former President Trump’s tax returns is a matter of national security. The American people deserve to know the facts of his troubling conflicts of interest and undermining of our security and democracy as president.” (With inputs from agencies)

US DoJ orders IRS to hand over Trump’s tax returns to a House panel 

To write three books in four years about Donald Trump has been an immersion into his obsessions and fixations. This is why I know the obvious: Donald Trump will run for president again.

This spring, in another of his compulsive bids for attention — indifferent to whether it is good or bad — he hosted me at Mar-a-Lago, even after I had written two unflattering books about him (one whose publication he tried to stop), for an interview and dinner. After dinner, I asked about his plans for a presidential library, the traditional retirement project and fund-raising scheme of ex-presidents. There was a flash of confusion on his uniquely readable face, and then anger, aroused, I figured, by the implication of what I seemed to be saying — that his time in office was past.

“No way, no way,” he snarled, “no way.”

It is an existential predicament: He can’t be Donald Trump without a claim on the presidency. He can’t hold the attention and devotion of the Republican Party if he is not both once and future king — and why would he ever give that up? Indeed, it seemed to be that I was strategically seated in the lobby of Mar-a-Lago when I arrived precisely so I could overhear the efforts by a Republican delegation to court and grovel before Mr. Trump and to observe his dismissive dominance over them.

More than a bit of his subsequent conversation with me was about his contempt for any Republican that might be less than absolute in his or her devotion to him — after all, he had the power to make or break the people who have since disappointed him (like Senator Mitch McConnell and Justice Brett Kavanaugh). He seemed not so much paranoid about challenges to him but warlike, savoring his future retributions.

He repeatedly returns to his grudge against his once obsequious vice president with relish; Mike Pence has become more public about his own political ambitions. In his telling, it is Mr. Pence whose actions confirmed “the steal,” by his refusal to overturn the electoral vote count, over which he presided in January in the Senate. I believe he will run again just to stop the men who, in his view, helped take the presidency from him from trying to get it for themselves. The reports that reach him of the West Wing and members of his administration who refuse to subscribe to the idea of “the steal” only feeds his fury and determination to punish all doubters — “some very weak people who have worked for me but won’t in the future,” as he told me.

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has become another frequent subject at Mr. Trump’s Bedminster, N.J., golf club, where the former president is spending the summer away from the Florida heat. Many members of TrumpWorld believe Mr. DeSantis, who came in second to Mr. Trump in a CPAC straw poll this month, might, unbelievably, run for the 2024 nomination even if Mr. Trump runs. The idea that Mr. DeSantis, who Mr. Trump believes he “made” by his endorsement, might not accept his dependence on and obligation to Mr. Trump would be a personal affront that must be met. Mr. Trump pointedly blew off the governor’s request that he postpone a Florida rally in the aftermath of the Surfside building collapse. Clear message: The governor is not the boss of him. (Mr. DeSantis has denied making this request.)

The continued career of Mr. McConnell, to whom Mr. Trump has not spoken since vilifying him with a heap of obscenity after Mr. McConnell acknowledged Joe Biden’s victory, is unfinished business. (Trump aides believe the two are likely to never speak again.)

Mr. Trump believes that Mr. McConnell retained his Senate seat in 2020 only because of his support. The war against Mr. McConnell is a war about who controls the Republican Party — if it’s Mr. Trump’s party, it can’t be Mr. McConnell’s. If candidates win because of his endorsements, thereby making Mr. Trump himself the ultimate winner, and inevitable front-runner, then it’s surely his party. Mr. Trump, whose political muscle helped oust some Republican enemies from office in 2018, will be confident about evicting Mr. McConnell once he is back in power. (I doubt he pays attention to the fact that Mr. McConnell was re-elected to a six-year term and has a reasonable chance of becoming the Senate majority leader again.)

Many Democrats believe that the legal pursuit of the former president’s family business in New York, and other cases, including the investigation of his attempt to overturn election results in Georgia, might seriously impede his political future. But in Mr. Trump’s logic, this will run the opposite way: Running for president is the best way to directly challenge the prosecutors.

Mr. Trump also believes he has a magic bullet. In his telling, the Republicans almost took back the House in 2020 because of his “telerallies,” telephone conference calls in congressional districts that attracted in some instances tens of thousands of callers. Who has that draw? he asked me, nearly smacking his lips. In 2022, with his draw, the Republicans, he is certain, will retake the House with his chosen slate of candidates. And indeed, this actually might be true.

But perhaps most important, there is his classic hucksterism, and his synoptic U.S.P. — unique selling proposition. In 2016 it was “the wall.” For 2022 and 2024 he will have another proposition available: “the steal,” a rallying cry of rage and simplicity.

For Democrats, who see him exiled to Mar-a-Lago, stripped of his key social media platforms and facing determined prosecutors, his future seems risible if not pathetic. But this is Donald Trump, always ready to strike back harder than he has been struck, to blame anyone but himself, to silence any doubts with the sound of his own voice, to take what he believes is his and, most of all, to seize all available attention. Sound the alarm.

To write three books in four years about Donald Trump has been an immersion into his obsessions and fixations. This is why I know the obvious: Donald Trump will run for president again.

To write three books in four years about Donald Trump has been an immersion into his obsessions and fixations. This is why I know the obvious: Donald Trump will run for president again. This spring, in another of his compulsive bids for attention — indifferent to whether it is good or bad — he hosted me at Mar-a-Lago, even after I had written two unflattering books about him (one whose publication he tried to stop), for an interview and dinner. After dinner, I asked about his plans for a presidential library, the traditional retirement project and fund-raising scheme of ex-presidents. There was a flash of confusion on his uniquely readable face, and then anger, aroused, I figured, by the implication of what I seemed to be saying — that his time in office was past. “No way, no way,” he snarled, “no way.” It is an existential predicament: He can’t be Donald Trump without a claim on the presidency. He can’t hold the attention and devotion of the Republican Party if he is not both once and future king — and why would he ever give that up? Indeed, it seemed to be that I was strategically seated in the lobby of Mar-a-Lago when I arrived precisely so I could overhear the efforts by a Republican delegation to court and grovel before Mr. Trump and to observe his dismissive dominance over them. More than a bit of his subsequent conversation with me was about his contempt for any Republican that might be less than absolute in his or her devotion to him — after all, he had the power to make or break the people who have since disappointed him (like Senator Mitch McConnell and Justice Brett Kavanaugh). He seemed not so much paranoid about challenges to him but warlike, savoring his future retributions. He repeatedly returns to his grudge against his once obsequious vice president with relish; Mike Pence has become more public about his own political ambitions. In his telling, it is Mr. Pence whose actions confirmed “the steal,” by his refusal to overturn the electoral vote count, over which he presided in January in the Senate. I believe he will run again just to stop the men who, in his view, helped take the presidency from him from trying to get it for themselves. The reports that reach him of the West Wing and members of his administration who refuse to subscribe to the idea of “the steal” only feeds his fury and determination to punish all doubters — “some very weak people who have worked for me but won’t in the future,” as he told me. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has become another frequent subject at Mr. Trump’s Bedminster, N.J., golf club, where the former president is spending the summer away from the Florida heat. Many members of TrumpWorld believe Mr. DeSantis, who came in second to Mr. Trump in a CPAC straw poll this month, might, unbelievably, run for the 2024 nomination even if Mr. Trump runs. The idea that Mr. DeSantis, who Mr. Trump believes he “made” by his endorsement, might not accept his dependence on and obligation to Mr. Trump would be a personal affront that must be met. Mr. Trump pointedly blew off the governor’s request that he postpone a Florida rally in the aftermath of the Surfside building collapse. Clear message: The governor is not the boss of him. (Mr. DeSantis has denied making this request.) The continued career of Mr. McConnell, to whom Mr. Trump has not spoken since vilifying him with a heap of obscenity after Mr. McConnell acknowledged Joe Biden’s victory, is unfinished business. (Trump aides believe the two are likely to never speak again.) Mr. Trump believes that Mr. McConnell retained his Senate seat in 2020 only because of his support. The war against Mr. McConnell is a war about who controls the Republican Party — if it’s Mr. Trump’s party, it can’t be Mr. McConnell’s. If candidates win because of his endorsements, thereby making Mr. Trump himself the ultimate winner, and inevitable front-runner, then it’s surely his party. Mr. Trump, whose political muscle helped oust some Republican enemies from office in 2018, will be confident about evicting Mr. McConnell once he is back in power. (I doubt he pays attention to the fact that Mr. McConnell was re-elected to a six-year term and has a reasonable chance of becoming the Senate majority leader again.) Many Democrats believe that the legal pursuit of the former president’s family business in New York, and other cases, including the investigation of his attempt to overturn election results in Georgia, might seriously impede his political future. But in Mr. Trump’s logic, this will run the opposite way: Running for president is the best way to directly challenge the prosecutors. Mr. Trump also believes he has a magic bullet. In his telling, the Republicans almost took back the House in 2020 because of his “telerallies,” telephone conference calls in congressional districts that attracted in some instances tens of thousands of callers. Who has that draw? he asked me, nearly smacking his lips. In 2022, with his draw, the Republicans, he is certain, will retake the House with his chosen slate of candidates. And indeed, this actually might be true. But perhaps most important, there is his classic hucksterism, and his synoptic U.S.P. — unique selling proposition. In 2016 it was “the wall.” For 2022 and 2024 he will have another proposition available: “the steal,” a rallying cry of rage and simplicity. For Democrats, who see him exiled to Mar-a-Lago, stripped of his key social media platforms and facing determined prosecutors, his future seems risible if not pathetic. But this is Donald Trump, always ready to strike back harder than he has been struck, to blame anyone but himself, to silence any doubts with the sound of his own voice, to take what he believes is his and, most of all, to seize all available attention. Sound the alarm.

Why I’m sure Trump will run for president in 2024

According to the excerpts of a new book,&nbsp;the&nbsp;then-US&nbsp;President Donald Trump told&nbsp;several&nbsp;of his advisers&nbsp;that whoever leaked information about his stay in the White House bunker in May&nbsp;2020&nbsp;had committed treason and should be executed for sharing details with the press.&nbsp;

According to the&nbsp;CNN report,&nbsp;the&nbsp;excerpts have been&nbsp;obtained by&nbsp;the channel&nbsp;from Wall Street Journal reporter Michael Bender, who has written the book.&nbsp;The name of the book is&nbsp;'Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost’.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-told-chief-of-staff-hitler-did-good-things-book-396485">Trump told Chief of Staff, 'Hitler did good things': Book</a>

Trump, the then-first lady Melania Trump and their son, Barron, were&nbsp;taken to the bunker for some time&nbsp;after the protesters gathered outside the building to&nbsp;protest&nbsp;against&nbsp;the killing of George&nbsp;Floyd.&nbsp;

In the book,&nbsp;Bender&nbsp;writes&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;held a meeting with top military, law enforcement and West Wing advisers&nbsp;following the time in the bunker. The former president had aired grievances over the leak in the meeting.&nbsp;

As per the&nbsp;Bender,&nbsp;"Trump boiled over about the bunker story as soon as they arrived and shouted at them to smoke out whoever had leaked it. It was the most upset some aides had ever seen the president."&nbsp;&nbsp;

The book reads,&nbsp;"'Whoever did that, they should be charged with treason!' Trump yelled. 'They should be executed!'”.&nbsp;

According to the excerpts of a new book, the then-US President Donald Trump told several of his advisers that whoever leaked information about his stay in the White House bunker in May 2020 had committed treason and should be executed for sharing details with the press.

According to the excerpts of a new book, the then-US President Donald Trump told several of his advisers that whoever leaked information about his stay in the White House bunker in May 2020 had committed treason and should be executed for sharing details with the press. According to the CNN report, the excerpts have been obtained by the channel from Wall Street Journal reporter Michael Bender, who has written the book. The name of the book is 'Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost’. Also Read | Trump told Chief of Staff, 'Hitler did good things': Book Trump, the then-first lady Melania Trump and their son, Barron, were taken to the bunker for some time after the protesters gathered outside the building to protest against the killing of George Floyd. In the book, Bender writes Trump held a meeting with top military, law enforcement and West Wing advisers following the time in the bunker. The former president had aired grievances over the leak in the meeting. As per the Bender, "Trump boiled over about the bunker story as soon as they arrived and shouted at them to smoke out whoever had leaked it. It was the most upset some aides had ever seen the president." The book reads, "'Whoever did that, they should be charged with treason!' Trump yelled. 'They should be executed!'”.

Trump said White House bunker stay info leaker should be 'executed', claims new book  

President Biden removed Trump-era Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul on Friday morning for weakening and politicising Social Security payments.

According to the official, the president requested Saul's and Deputy Commissioner David Black's resignations. Black agreed to resign, but Saul refused, and his position was terminated as a result.

During his time at the White House, an official accused Saul of taking actions that "undermined and politicised Social Security disability benefits," "harmed relationships with federal employee unions," and were "contrary to the agency's mandate and the President's policy goal."

Saul's six-year term as head of the Social Security Administration was set to end in January 2025, but the White House argued that the president has the authority to replace him, citing recent Supreme Court rulings.

Kilolo Kijakazi, the deputy commissioner for retirement and disability policy, has been named acting commissioner by the president, according to a White House spokesman. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

President Biden removed Trump-era Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul on Friday morning for weakening and politicising Social Security payments. According to the official, the president requested Saul's and Deputy Commissioner David Black's resignations.

President Biden removed Trump-era Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul on Friday morning for weakening and politicising Social Security payments. According to the official, the president requested Saul's and Deputy Commissioner David Black's resignations. Black agreed to resign, but Saul refused, and his position was terminated as a result. During his time at the White House, an official accused Saul of taking actions that "undermined and politicised Social Security disability benefits," "harmed relationships with federal employee unions," and were "contrary to the agency's mandate and the President's policy goal." Saul's six-year term as head of the Social Security Administration was set to end in January 2025, but the White House argued that the president has the authority to replace him, citing recent Supreme Court rulings. Kilolo Kijakazi, the deputy commissioner for retirement and disability policy, has been named acting commissioner by the president, according to a White House spokesman. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden fires the Trump-era Social Security commissioner after he refuses to resign

According to spending data compiled by The Washington Post, former president Donald Trump's New Jersey golf club charged the US Secret Service more than $10,000 for accommodations in May.&nbsp;

The Secret Service was charged about $10,200 by former President Donald Trump's golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, for guest rooms used by his protection detail during Trump's first month there this summer.&nbsp;

The expenses for an 18-day stay in May totalled $10,199.52, or nearly $566 per night at the facility.&nbsp;

According to documents, taxpayers have paid Trump's businesses more than $50,000 for rooms used by Secret Service personnel since he left office in January.&nbsp;

The agency has not disclosed the reason behind those charges, which were placed before Trump’s arrival.

According to the Washington Post, Trump has charged the Secret Service for rooms used by its officers on numerous occasions, even during his presidency.&nbsp;

According to the Post's study of spending records, Trump charged the government more than $2.5 million throughout his presidency, including the Secret Service, State Department, and Defense Department.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

According to spending data compiled by The Washington Post, former president Donald Trump's New Jersey golf club charged the US Secret Service more than $10,000 for accommodations in May.

According to spending data compiled by The Washington Post, former president Donald Trump's New Jersey golf club charged the US Secret Service more than $10,000 for accommodations in May. The Secret Service was charged about $10,200 by former President Donald Trump's golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, for guest rooms used by his protection detail during Trump's first month there this summer. The expenses for an 18-day stay in May totalled $10,199.52, or nearly $566 per night at the facility. According to documents, taxpayers have paid Trump's businesses more than $50,000 for rooms used by Secret Service personnel since he left office in January. The agency has not disclosed the reason behind those charges, which were placed before Trump’s arrival. According to the Washington Post, Trump has charged the Secret Service for rooms used by its officers on numerous occasions, even during his presidency. According to the Post's study of spending records, Trump charged the government more than $2.5 million throughout his presidency, including the Secret Service, State Department, and Defense Department. (With inputs from agencies)

Since leaving office in January, Trump charged $50,000 from secret service agents protecting him

The last time a US secretary of state visited the Vatican, the diplomatic sparks flew and Pope Francis declined to receive Mike Pompeo.

When Antony Blinken meets the pope and top Vatican officials on Monday, the new secretary of state's visit will put relations between Washington and Holy See on a new footing.

It will also set the scene for a visit to the pope by Joe Biden, only the second Catholic US president, expected for October.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-blinken-to-meet-israels-top-diplomat-lapid-amid-iran-moves-394294" hreflang="en">US Blinken to meet Israel's top diplomat Lapid, amid Iran moves</a>

The visit follows a conference at which US Roman Catholic bishops voted to draft a statement on Communion that may admonish Catholic politicians, including Biden, who support abortion rights despite opposing the practice personally.

Pompeo's visit last September was widely seen as a diplomatic blunder.

He irked the Vatican before arriving, saying on Twitter and in an editorial that it was "endangering its moral authority" by continuing a bilateral deal with China over the appointment of bishops there.

Pompeo published the editorial in a conservative Catholic journal that has been highly critical of Pope Francis and whose editor in 2019 wrote a long critique titled "A Failing Papacy".

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/vatican-endangers-its-moral-authority-pompeo-on-deal-with-china-331174">'Vatican endangers its moral authority': Pompeo on deal with China</a>

One Vatican official rebuked Pompeo for violating "one of the rules of diplomacy" by making public demands. Another said his request for an audience with the pope was denied because it was too close to the US presidential election and the Vatican did not want it used for domestic political purposes.

"Pompeo did an own goal on China. The way he broached it in such a brusque, arrogant way made it easier for the Vatican to justify the renewal of the deal," said Massimo Franco, a columnist for Italy's Corriere della Sera who has written extensively on US-Vatican relations.

"The Biden administration will be much more subtle in reminding the Vatican about freedom of religion in China," Franco told Reuters.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/vatican-accuses-pompeo-of-playing-politics-pope-francies-refuses-to-meet-him-331608">Vatican accuses Pompeo of playing politics, Pope Francies refuses to meet him</a>

After NATO took a tough line on China at Biden's debut summit, Washington could press the Vatican to be more outspoken on human rights in China and Hong Kong, said Alberto Melloni, an Italian Church historian and advisor to the European Commission.

"The question is 'will the US let the Vatican be exempt from criticising China just because of its deal on the bishops'?" he told Reuters.

Climate Change

One of the main points of contention between the Vatican and the White House, while <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> was US president, was climate change. Trump was dismissive of the problem as he dismantled climate policies and regulations on fossil fuels.

The pope criticised Trump's withdrawal of the United States from the 2015 Paris accord to limit global warming. The Vatican welcomed Biden's return to the accord.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-envoy-kerry-calls-pope-powerful-voice-on-climate-385271">US envoy Kerry calls pope 'powerful voice' on climate</a>

Francis, who in May received Biden's climate envoy, Roman Catholic John Kerry, has urged nations to work together to save the planet.

"We see working together (with the Vatican) as an opportunity to raise countries' collective ambition and to address the climate crisis by raising and implementing national emissions reduction targets, for instance," said Philip Reeker, acting assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

The Vatican will host world religious leaders and scientists before the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in November in Britain, which many expect the pope to attend.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pope-francis-criticizes-those-who-build-walls-sow-fear-about-strangers-192644">Pope Francis criticises those who 'build walls', 'sow fear'</a>

In another scratchy moment, the pope criticised Trump's pledge to build a wall along the US-Mexican border as "not Christian". Trump said it was "disgraceful" for the pope to question his faith but later called him "a wonderful guy". They met at the Vatican in 2017.

Blinken and Vatican officials are also expected to discuss ways to combat human trafficking and encouraging debt relief for poor countries.&nbsp;

The last time a US secretary of state visited the Vatican, the diplomatic sparks flew and Pope Francis declined to receive Mike Pompeo. When Antony Blinken meets the pope and top Vatican officials on Monday, the new secretary of state's visit will put relations between Washington and Holy See on a new footing.

The last time a US secretary of state visited the Vatican, the diplomatic sparks flew and Pope Francis declined to receive Mike Pompeo. When Antony Blinken meets the pope and top Vatican officials on Monday, the new secretary of state's visit will put relations between Washington and Holy See on a new footing. It will also set the scene for a visit to the pope by Joe Biden, only the second Catholic US president, expected for October. Also read | US Blinken to meet Israel's top diplomat Lapid, amid Iran moves The visit follows a conference at which US Roman Catholic bishops voted to draft a statement on Communion that may admonish Catholic politicians, including Biden, who support abortion rights despite opposing the practice personally. Pompeo's visit last September was widely seen as a diplomatic blunder. He irked the Vatican before arriving, saying on Twitter and in an editorial that it was "endangering its moral authority" by continuing a bilateral deal with China over the appointment of bishops there. Pompeo published the editorial in a conservative Catholic journal that has been highly critical of Pope Francis and whose editor in 2019 wrote a long critique titled "A Failing Papacy". Also read | 'Vatican endangers its moral authority': Pompeo on deal with China One Vatican official rebuked Pompeo for violating "one of the rules of diplomacy" by making public demands. Another said his request for an audience with the pope was denied because it was too close to the US presidential election and the Vatican did not want it used for domestic political purposes. "Pompeo did an own goal on China. The way he broached it in such a brusque, arrogant way made it easier for the Vatican to justify the renewal of the deal," said Massimo Franco, a columnist for Italy's Corriere della Sera who has written extensively on US-Vatican relations. "The Biden administration will be much more subtle in reminding the Vatican about freedom of religion in China," Franco told Reuters. Also read | Vatican accuses Pompeo of playing politics, Pope Francies refuses to meet him After NATO took a tough line on China at Biden's debut summit, Washington could press the Vatican to be more outspoken on human rights in China and Hong Kong, said Alberto Melloni, an Italian Church historian and advisor to the European Commission. "The question is 'will the US let the Vatican be exempt from criticising China just because of its deal on the bishops'?" he told Reuters. Climate Change One of the main points of contention between the Vatican and the White House, while Donald Trump was US president, was climate change. Trump was dismissive of the problem as he dismantled climate policies and regulations on fossil fuels. The pope criticised Trump's withdrawal of the United States from the 2015 Paris accord to limit global warming. The Vatican welcomed Biden's return to the accord. Also read | US envoy Kerry calls pope 'powerful voice' on climate Francis, who in May received Biden's climate envoy, Roman Catholic John Kerry, has urged nations to work together to save the planet. "We see working together (with the Vatican) as an opportunity to raise countries' collective ambition and to address the climate crisis by raising and implementing national emissions reduction targets, for instance," said Philip Reeker, acting assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. The Vatican will host world religious leaders and scientists before the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in November in Britain, which many expect the pope to attend. Also read | Pope Francis criticises those who 'build walls', 'sow fear' In another scratchy moment, the pope criticised Trump's pledge to build a wall along the US-Mexican border as "not Christian". Trump said it was "disgraceful" for the pope to question his faith but later called him "a wonderful guy". They met at the Vatican in 2017. Blinken and Vatican officials are also expected to discuss ways to combat human trafficking and encouraging debt relief for poor countries.

Blinken visit to pope will reset US-Vatican ties after Trump years

Former US president Donald Trump on Saturday reprised his baseless election grievances and painted a dystopian picture of the country under Democratic control in his first campaign-style rally since leaving the White House. 
His mission, in part, was to exact revenge on one of the Republicans, who voted for his historic second impeachment.

Trump's event on Saturday night at Ohio's Lorain County Fairgrounds, not far from Cleveland, was held to support Max Miller, a former White House aide, who is challenging Republican Rep&nbsp;Anthony Gonzalez for his congressional seat. Gonzalez was one of 10 GOP House members, who voted to impeach Trump for his role in inciting the deadly January&nbsp;6 insurrection at the Capitol building. Trump wants them to pay.&nbsp;

In his remarks, Trump revisited some of the false claims familiar from his fruitless challenges of President Joe Biden's election victory. "On the evening of November&nbsp;3, the election was over and then all of a sudden things started closing down all over," he said of election night. "We took a massive victory, they did, into something that should never be allowed."

In fact, Trump was describing a legitimate vote counting process that saw Biden take the lead as the night wore on, as Democratic-leaning cities in key states and results from mail-in ballots were reported. Trump administration election officials and top election officials in Republican-led states affirmed the validity of the election outcome. In another echo of the past, the crowd chanted 'Lock her up' at the mention of Hillary Clinton, the Democrat he defeated in 2016.

Traffic was backed up from the fairgrounds into town, where pro-Trump signs dotted residents' lawns. On street corners, vendors sold 'Trump 2024' flags and other merchandise as supporters arrived.

The rally, held five months after Trump left office under a cloud of violence, marks the beginning of a new, more public phase of his post-presidency. After spending much of his time behind closed doors building a political operation and fuming about the last election, Trump is planning a flurry of public appearances in the coming weeks. He'll hold another rally in Florida over the July Fourth weekend unattached to a midterm candidate and will travel to the southern border in the coming week to protest President Joe Biden's immigration policies.

(With inputs from agencies)

Former US president Donald Trump on Saturday reprised his baseless election grievances and painted a dystopian picture of the country under Democratic control in his first campaign-style rally since leaving the White House.

Former US president Donald Trump on Saturday reprised his baseless election grievances and painted a dystopian picture of the country under Democratic control in his first campaign-style rally since leaving the White House. His mission, in part, was to exact revenge on one of the Republicans, who voted for his historic second impeachment. Trump's event on Saturday night at Ohio's Lorain County Fairgrounds, not far from Cleveland, was held to support Max Miller, a former White House aide, who is challenging Republican Rep Anthony Gonzalez for his congressional seat. Gonzalez was one of 10 GOP House members, who voted to impeach Trump for his role in inciting the deadly January 6 insurrection at the Capitol building. Trump wants them to pay. In his remarks, Trump revisited some of the false claims familiar from his fruitless challenges of President Joe Biden's election victory. "On the evening of November 3, the election was over and then all of a sudden things started closing down all over," he said of election night. "We took a massive victory, they did, into something that should never be allowed." In fact, Trump was describing a legitimate vote counting process that saw Biden take the lead as the night wore on, as Democratic-leaning cities in key states and results from mail-in ballots were reported. Trump administration election officials and top election officials in Republican-led states affirmed the validity of the election outcome. In another echo of the past, the crowd chanted 'Lock her up' at the mention of Hillary Clinton, the Democrat he defeated in 2016. Traffic was backed up from the fairgrounds into town, where pro-Trump signs dotted residents' lawns. On street corners, vendors sold 'Trump 2024' flags and other merchandise as supporters arrived. The rally, held five months after Trump left office under a cloud of violence, marks the beginning of a new, more public phase of his post-presidency. After spending much of his time behind closed doors building a political operation and fuming about the last election, Trump is planning a flurry of public appearances in the coming weeks. He'll hold another rally in Florida over the July Fourth weekend unattached to a midterm candidate and will travel to the southern border in the coming week to protest President Joe Biden's immigration policies. (With inputs from agencies)

Trump airs old election grievances at campaign-style rally

In a rare appearance at the North Carolina Republican Party Convention, the former US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> attacked the US infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic in the US.

Labelling him as "not a great doctor but a great promoter", he, ironically, accused Fauci of solely caring about his own image by promoting himself through videos and television appearances.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-hits-out-at-biden-for-bowing-down-to-china-urges-him-to-put-america-first-389769" hreflang="en">Trump hits out at Biden for 'bowing down' to China, urges him to 'put America first'</a>

He also alleged that the expert has "been wrong on almost every issue and he was wrong on Wuhan and the lab also,"&nbsp;Trump said.

Prepping for midterms

Happy with his introduction as "our president" by the North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Michael Whatley, Trump urged his supporters to continue trusting him and his party in order to make sure he can 'make America great again'.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/insult-to-75-million-voters-donald-trump-banned-for-two-years-from-facebook-389539" hreflang="en">'Insult to 75 million voters': Donald Trump banned for two years from Facebook</a>

He asked his supporters to lend support to the party candidates in the midterms next year. "The survival of America depends upon our ability to elect Republicans at every level, starting with the midterms next year,"&nbsp;Trump said.

Reiterating the false claims of voter fraud in the US election 2020, he said, "the 2020 presidential election, that election, the 2020 presidential election was by far the most corrupt election in the history of our country. There's never been anything like this. They use Covid and they used the mail-in ballots to steal an election. It was the Third World country election like we've never seen before. Look at what took place."

'Witch hunt'

The former reality TV star also accused his opponents of chasing him in a "witch hunt".

"It's a disgrace to our country. It's prosecutorial misconduct. They're in search of a crime. It's a fishing expedition and the Supreme Court of the United States should not have allowed it to happen, shouldn't have allowed it. And they mention it can't be a fishing expedition. This is the ultimate fishing expedition. It's been a five-year-long witch hunt, hoax after hoax. Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, the Mueller hoax. Look at the Mueller scam," Trump said at the convention.

He also hinted at a possible re-run in the US election 2024 and claimed he was excitedly waiting for that year. He also alleged that his opponents will not give up the 'witch hunt'&nbsp;till 2024.

Bitcoin

Trump also voiced his opinion about bitcoin recently. "Bitcoin, it just seems like a scam. I don’t like it because it’s another currency competing against the dollar ... I want the dollar to be the currency of the world. That’s what I’ve always said," he said.

In a rare appearance at the North Carolina Republican Party Convention, the former US President Donald Trump attacked the US infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic in the US.

In a rare appearance at the North Carolina Republican Party Convention, the former US President Donald Trump attacked the US infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic in the US. Labelling him as "not a great doctor but a great promoter", he, ironically, accused Fauci of solely caring about his own image by promoting himself through videos and television appearances. Also read | Trump hits out at Biden for 'bowing down' to China, urges him to 'put America first' He also alleged that the expert has "been wrong on almost every issue and he was wrong on Wuhan and the lab also," Trump said. Prepping for midterms Happy with his introduction as "our president" by the North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Michael Whatley, Trump urged his supporters to continue trusting him and his party in order to make sure he can 'make America great again'. Also read | 'Insult to 75 million voters': Donald Trump banned for two years from Facebook He asked his supporters to lend support to the party candidates in the midterms next year. "The survival of America depends upon our ability to elect Republicans at every level, starting with the midterms next year," Trump said. Reiterating the false claims of voter fraud in the US election 2020, he said, "the 2020 presidential election, that election, the 2020 presidential election was by far the most corrupt election in the history of our country. There's never been anything like this. They use Covid and they used the mail-in ballots to steal an election. It was the Third World country election like we've never seen before. Look at what took place." 'Witch hunt' The former reality TV star also accused his opponents of chasing him in a "witch hunt". "It's a disgrace to our country. It's prosecutorial misconduct. They're in search of a crime. It's a fishing expedition and the Supreme Court of the United States should not have allowed it to happen, shouldn't have allowed it. And they mention it can't be a fishing expedition. This is the ultimate fishing expedition. It's been a five-year-long witch hunt, hoax after hoax. Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, the Mueller hoax. Look at the Mueller scam," Trump said at the convention. He also hinted at a possible re-run in the US election 2024 and claimed he was excitedly waiting for that year. He also alleged that his opponents will not give up the 'witch hunt' till 2024. Bitcoin Trump also voiced his opinion about bitcoin recently. "Bitcoin, it just seems like a scam. I don’t like it because it’s another currency competing against the dollar ... I want the dollar to be the currency of the world. That’s what I’ve always said," he said.

'Our president': Donald Trump attacks Fauci, hints at re-run in 2024 election

A little after the rumours of the former reality TV star and the 45th US President, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump?page=1">Donald Trump</a>, coming back on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/facebook">Facebook</a> were dismissed, the social media platform has decided to continue the ban on the Republican leader for the next two years, at least.

The former president was banned from Facebook and other social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat after he was accused of motivating his supporters to start a riot at the US Capitol building.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/is-donald-trump-back-on-facebook-heres-the-truth-behind-deletefacebook-389235" hreflang="en">Is Donald Trump back on Facebook? Here's the truth behind '#DeleteFacebook'</a>

After losing the US election 2020 to Joe Biden, Trump asked his supporters to charge to the Capitol building and take back what was theirs. He had also used his social media accounts,&nbsp;especially on Twitter and Facebook, to incite violence on the country through his supporters.

Considering the seriousness and the harm done to the country and people, Facebook decided to ban the former president’s account for at least the next two years.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trumps-blog-page-shuts-down-a-month-after-launch-389068" hreflang="en">Donald Trump's blog page shuts down a month after launch</a>

"Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump's suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols," Facebook vice president of global affairs Nick Clegg said in a post.

Trump, as expected, has not taken the decision well and has called it an 'insult' to his 75 million voters.

"Facebook's ruling is an insult to the record-setting 75M people, plus many others, who voted for us in the 2020 Rigged Presidential Election," Trump said in a statement. "They shouldn't be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing, and ultimately, we will win. Our Country can’t take this abuse anymore!"

Facebook has also made it clear that two years is the suspension limit for now, but the authorities will re-evaluate the risk Trump poses and accordingly decided to lift or extend the ban after two years.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/dark-day-mike-pence-says-trump-and-him-can-never-see-eye-to-eye-on-capitol-riots-389478" hreflang="en">'Dark day': Mike Pence says Trump and him can never see eye-to-eye on Capitol riots</a>

"If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded," Clegg said.

Even if his ban is lifted by Facebook, the former president will have to face strict sanctions and his account will be closely monitored for any kind of violation. If he ends up posting something that violates the platform’s rules again, Trump’s account will be permanently suspended.

"We know today's decision will be criticized by many people on opposing sides of the political divide," Clegg said. "But, our job is to make a decision in as proportionate, fair and transparent a way as possible, in keeping with the instruction given to us by the Oversight Board."

This has come almost a day after Trump’s personal blog page "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump" was shut down within a month of its launch.

A little after the rumours of the former reality TV star and the 45th US President, Donald Trump, coming back on Facebook were dismissed, the social media platform has decided to continue the ban on the Republican leader for the next two years, at least.

A little after the rumours of the former reality TV star and the 45th US President, Donald Trump, coming back on Facebook were dismissed, the social media platform has decided to continue the ban on the Republican leader for the next two years, at least. The former president was banned from Facebook and other social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat after he was accused of motivating his supporters to start a riot at the US Capitol building. Also read | Is Donald Trump back on Facebook? Here's the truth behind '#DeleteFacebook' After losing the US election 2020 to Joe Biden, Trump asked his supporters to charge to the Capitol building and take back what was theirs. He had also used his social media accounts, especially on Twitter and Facebook, to incite violence on the country through his supporters. Considering the seriousness and the harm done to the country and people, Facebook decided to ban the former president’s account for at least the next two years. Also read | Donald Trump's blog page shuts down a month after launch "Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump's suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols," Facebook vice president of global affairs Nick Clegg said in a post. Trump, as expected, has not taken the decision well and has called it an 'insult' to his 75 million voters. "Facebook's ruling is an insult to the record-setting 75M people, plus many others, who voted for us in the 2020 Rigged Presidential Election," Trump said in a statement. "They shouldn't be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing, and ultimately, we will win. Our Country can’t take this abuse anymore!" Facebook has also made it clear that two years is the suspension limit for now, but the authorities will re-evaluate the risk Trump poses and accordingly decided to lift or extend the ban after two years. Also read | 'Dark day': Mike Pence says Trump and him can never see eye-to-eye on Capitol riots "If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded," Clegg said. Even if his ban is lifted by Facebook, the former president will have to face strict sanctions and his account will be closely monitored for any kind of violation. If he ends up posting something that violates the platform’s rules again, Trump’s account will be permanently suspended. "We know today's decision will be criticized by many people on opposing sides of the political divide," Clegg said. "But, our job is to make a decision in as proportionate, fair and transparent a way as possible, in keeping with the instruction given to us by the Oversight Board." This has come almost a day after Trump’s personal blog page "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump" was shut down within a month of its launch.

'Insult to 75 million voters': Donald Trump banned for two years from Facebook

The Trump Justice Department secretly seized the phone records of four New York Times reporters spanning nearly four months in 2017 as part of a leak investigation, the Biden administration disclosed Wednesday.

It was the latest in a series of revelations about the Trump administration secretly obtaining reporters’ communications records in an effort to uncover their sources. Last month, the Biden Justice Department disclosed Trump-era seizures of the phone logs of reporters who work for The Washington Post and the phone and email logs for a CNN reporter.

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, condemned the action by the Trump administration.

“Seizing the phone records of journalists profoundly undermines press freedom,” he said in a statement. “It threatens to silence the sources we depend on to provide the public with essential information about what the government is doing.”

Last month, after the disclosures about the seizures of communications records involving Post and CNN reporters, President Joe Biden said he would not allow the department to take such a step during his administration, calling it “simply, simply wrong.”

Referring to that declaration, Baquet added: “President Biden has said this sort of interference with a free press will not be tolerated in his administration. We expect the Department of Justice to explain why this action was taken and what steps are being taken to make certain it does not happen again in the future.”

Anthony Coley, a Justice Department spokesperson, said that law enforcement officials obtained the records in 2020, and added that “members of the news media have now been notified in every instance” of leak investigations from the 2019-2020 period in which their records were sought.

The department informed The Times that law enforcement officials had seized phone records from Jan. 14 to April 30, 2017, for four Times reporters: Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eric Lichtblau and Michael S. Schmidt. The government also secured a court order to seize logs — but not contents — of their emails, it said, but “no records were obtained.”

The Justice Department did not say which article was being investigated. But the lineup of reporters and the timing suggested that the leak investigation related to classified information reported in an April 22, 2017, article the four reporters wrote about how James Comey, then the FBI director, handled politically charged investigations during the 2016 presidential election.

Discussing Comey’s unorthodox decision to announce in July 2016 that the FBI was recommending against charging Hillary Clinton in relation to her use of a private email server to conduct government business while secretary of state, the April 2017 article mentioned a document obtained from Russia by hackers working for Dutch intelligence officials. The document, whose existence was classified, was said to have played a key role in Comey’s thinking about the Clinton case.

The document has been described as a memo or email written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that the attorney general at the time, Loretta Lynch, would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far. Russian hackers had obtained the document, but it is apparently not among those that Russia sent to WikiLeaks, intelligence officials concluded.

Comey was said to be worried that if Lynch were to be the one who announced a decision not to charge Clinton, and Russia then made the document public, it would be used to raise doubts about the independence of the investigation and the legitimacy of the outcome.

The Times reported in January 2020 that Trump-era investigators had pursued a leak investigation into whether Comey had been the source of the unauthorized disclosure in that 2017 article.

Comey had been under scrutiny since 2017, after Trump fired him as the director of the FBI. After his dismissal, Comey engineered — through his friend Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor — the disclosure to The Times of accounts of several of his conversations with the president related to the Russia investigation.

The inquiry into Comey, according to three people briefed on that investigation, was eventually code-named Arctic Haze. Its focus was said to evolve over time, as investigators shifted from scrutinizing whether they could charge Comey with a crime for disclosing his conversations with Trump, to whether he had anything to do with the disclosure of the existence of the document.

As part of that effort, law enforcement officials had seized Richman’s phone and computer, according to a person familiar with the matter. They are said to have initially searched them for material about Comey’s conversations with Trump, and later obtained a court’s permission to search them again, apparently about the Russia document matter.

Separately, according to a person briefed on the investigation, the FBI is also said to have subpoenaed Google in 2020, seeking information relevant to any emails between Richman and The Times. A spokesman for Google did not respond to a request for comment.

But by November 2020, some prosecutors felt that the FBI had not found evidence that could support any charges against Comey, and they discussed whether the investigation should be closed.

At the beginning of this year, prosecutors were informed that the FBI was not willing to close the case — in part because agents still wanted to interview Comey, according to a person familiar with the FBI’s inquiry. Interviewing the subject of an investigation is typically considered a final step before closing a matter or bringing charges.

Last month, the FBI asked Comey’s lawyer whether he would be willing to sit down for an interview, a request that Comey declined, according to a person familiar with the case.

Starting midway through the George W. Bush administration, and extending through the Barack Obama and Donald Trump administrations, the Justice Department became more aggressive about pursuing criminal leak investigations.

Lichtblau — who is no longer with The Times — came under scrutiny early in that period because he co-wrote a 2005 Times article disclosing the warrantless surveillance program that Bush had secretly authorized after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Bush administration convened a special task force to hunt for the sources of that article, and its new approach spilled over into unrelated cases during the Obama administration.

In 2013, Apuzzo and Goldman — who were then working for The Associated Press and had broken news about a bomb plot by a Qaida affiliate in Yemen — were notified that the Obama-era department had secretly subpoenaed two months of their phone records, along with those of other reporters and editors at the AP.

That same month, it also emerged that in a leak investigation about a Fox News article involving North Korea’s nuclear program, the Obama Justice Department had used a search warrant to obtain a Fox News reporter’s emails — and characterized the reporter as a criminal conspirator.

The disclosures prompted a bipartisan uproar, and Obama instructed the attorney general at the time, Eric Holder, to review rules for criminal investigations that affect the news media.

Holder tightened them, including strengthening a preference for notifying a news organization in advance about a planned subpoena so it could negotiate or fight in court over its scope. After the changes, the rate of new leak cases dropped significantly during Obama’s second term.

But under Trump, who liked to attack the news media as the “enemy of the people,” the practice resurged.

In August 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that the number of leak inquiries had tripled. And under his successor, Attorney General William Barr, it is now clear, the department further escalated its aggressive approach to leak investigations.

The Trump Justice Department secretly seized the phone records of four New York Times reporters spanning nearly four months in 2017 as part of a leak investigation, the Biden administration disclosed Wednesday.

The Trump Justice Department secretly seized the phone records of four New York Times reporters spanning nearly four months in 2017 as part of a leak investigation, the Biden administration disclosed Wednesday. It was the latest in a series of revelations about the Trump administration secretly obtaining reporters’ communications records in an effort to uncover their sources. Last month, the Biden Justice Department disclosed Trump-era seizures of the phone logs of reporters who work for The Washington Post and the phone and email logs for a CNN reporter. Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, condemned the action by the Trump administration. “Seizing the phone records of journalists profoundly undermines press freedom,” he said in a statement. “It threatens to silence the sources we depend on to provide the public with essential information about what the government is doing.” Last month, after the disclosures about the seizures of communications records involving Post and CNN reporters, President Joe Biden said he would not allow the department to take such a step during his administration, calling it “simply, simply wrong.” Referring to that declaration, Baquet added: “President Biden has said this sort of interference with a free press will not be tolerated in his administration. We expect the Department of Justice to explain why this action was taken and what steps are being taken to make certain it does not happen again in the future.” Anthony Coley, a Justice Department spokesperson, said that law enforcement officials obtained the records in 2020, and added that “members of the news media have now been notified in every instance” of leak investigations from the 2019-2020 period in which their records were sought. The department informed The Times that law enforcement officials had seized phone records from Jan. 14 to April 30, 2017, for four Times reporters: Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eric Lichtblau and Michael S. Schmidt. The government also secured a court order to seize logs — but not contents — of their emails, it said, but “no records were obtained.” The Justice Department did not say which article was being investigated. But the lineup of reporters and the timing suggested that the leak investigation related to classified information reported in an April 22, 2017, article the four reporters wrote about how James Comey, then the FBI director, handled politically charged investigations during the 2016 presidential election. Discussing Comey’s unorthodox decision to announce in July 2016 that the FBI was recommending against charging Hillary Clinton in relation to her use of a private email server to conduct government business while secretary of state, the April 2017 article mentioned a document obtained from Russia by hackers working for Dutch intelligence officials. The document, whose existence was classified, was said to have played a key role in Comey’s thinking about the Clinton case. The document has been described as a memo or email written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that the attorney general at the time, Loretta Lynch, would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far. Russian hackers had obtained the document, but it is apparently not among those that Russia sent to WikiLeaks, intelligence officials concluded. Comey was said to be worried that if Lynch were to be the one who announced a decision not to charge Clinton, and Russia then made the document public, it would be used to raise doubts about the independence of the investigation and the legitimacy of the outcome. The Times reported in January 2020 that Trump-era investigators had pursued a leak investigation into whether Comey had been the source of the unauthorized disclosure in that 2017 article. Comey had been under scrutiny since 2017, after Trump fired him as the director of the FBI. After his dismissal, Comey engineered — through his friend Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor — the disclosure to The Times of accounts of several of his conversations with the president related to the Russia investigation. The inquiry into Comey, according to three people briefed on that investigation, was eventually code-named Arctic Haze. Its focus was said to evolve over time, as investigators shifted from scrutinizing whether they could charge Comey with a crime for disclosing his conversations with Trump, to whether he had anything to do with the disclosure of the existence of the document. As part of that effort, law enforcement officials had seized Richman’s phone and computer, according to a person familiar with the matter. They are said to have initially searched them for material about Comey’s conversations with Trump, and later obtained a court’s permission to search them again, apparently about the Russia document matter. Separately, according to a person briefed on the investigation, the FBI is also said to have subpoenaed Google in 2020, seeking information relevant to any emails between Richman and The Times. A spokesman for Google did not respond to a request for comment. But by November 2020, some prosecutors felt that the FBI had not found evidence that could support any charges against Comey, and they discussed whether the investigation should be closed. At the beginning of this year, prosecutors were informed that the FBI was not willing to close the case — in part because agents still wanted to interview Comey, according to a person familiar with the FBI’s inquiry. Interviewing the subject of an investigation is typically considered a final step before closing a matter or bringing charges. Last month, the FBI asked Comey’s lawyer whether he would be willing to sit down for an interview, a request that Comey declined, according to a person familiar with the case. Starting midway through the George W. Bush administration, and extending through the Barack Obama and Donald Trump administrations, the Justice Department became more aggressive about pursuing criminal leak investigations. Lichtblau — who is no longer with The Times — came under scrutiny early in that period because he co-wrote a 2005 Times article disclosing the warrantless surveillance program that Bush had secretly authorized after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Bush administration convened a special task force to hunt for the sources of that article, and its new approach spilled over into unrelated cases during the Obama administration. In 2013, Apuzzo and Goldman — who were then working for The Associated Press and had broken news about a bomb plot by a Qaida affiliate in Yemen — were notified that the Obama-era department had secretly subpoenaed two months of their phone records, along with those of other reporters and editors at the AP. That same month, it also emerged that in a leak investigation about a Fox News article involving North Korea’s nuclear program, the Obama Justice Department had used a search warrant to obtain a Fox News reporter’s emails — and characterized the reporter as a criminal conspirator. The disclosures prompted a bipartisan uproar, and Obama instructed the attorney general at the time, Eric Holder, to review rules for criminal investigations that affect the news media. Holder tightened them, including strengthening a preference for notifying a news organization in advance about a planned subpoena so it could negotiate or fight in court over its scope. After the changes, the rate of new leak cases dropped significantly during Obama’s second term. But under Trump, who liked to attack the news media as the “enemy of the people,” the practice resurged. In August 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that the number of leak inquiries had tripled. And under his successor, Attorney General William Barr, it is now clear, the department further escalated its aggressive approach to leak investigations.

Trump administration secretly seized phone records of Times reporters

A grand jury has convened in New York on Tuesday to start investigating the criminal charges on former US president <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> regarding his business dealings and hush money.

The investigation will be focusing on Trump’s wide range of criminal accusations, mainly involving matters of hush money paid to women, tax evasions, improper property valuations and more.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/reforms-assurance-and-cheetos-floyds-family-meets-biden-on-georges-death-anniversary-387389">Reforms, assurance and Cheetos: Floyd's family meets Biden on George's death anniversary</a>

Cyrus Vance Jr, Manhattan district attorney, has been conducting an investigation into Trump’s malpractices.

The grand jury will be looking into the matters where Trump has been accused of paying hush women to tackle his hidden sexual relationships with women also his improper relations with lenders. It will also look into the donations the Trump empire has made to evade tax.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-washington-post-cnn-alleges-trump-of-spying-on-reporters-386653" hreflang="en">After Washington Post, CNN alleges Trump of spying on reporters</a>

Trump, however, has labelled this investigation as a “witch hunt” and has claimed he is being “unfairly attacked and abused by a corrupt political system”.

As the former president plans to re-run for White House in 2024 elections, he has accused opponents of carrying out this "witch hunt" to slim down his chances of winning the next election and misleading his supporters.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/former-us-president-donald-trump-sued-for-referring-to-covid-19-as-china-virus-386663" hreflang="en">Former US President Donald Trump sued for referring to COVID-19 as 'China virus'</a>

Vance will also be investigating whether Trump’s employees were paid off-the-books compensations for their apartments, school tuitions and more.

&nbsp;

A grand jury has convened in New York on Tuesday to start investigating the criminal charges on former US president Donald Trump regarding his business dealings and hush money.

A grand jury has convened in New York on Tuesday to start investigating the criminal charges on former US president Donald Trump regarding his business dealings and hush money. The investigation will be focusing on Trump’s wide range of criminal accusations, mainly involving matters of hush money paid to women, tax evasions, improper property valuations and more. Also read | Reforms, assurance and Cheetos: Floyd's family meets Biden on George's death anniversary Cyrus Vance Jr, Manhattan district attorney, has been conducting an investigation into Trump’s malpractices. The grand jury will be looking into the matters where Trump has been accused of paying hush women to tackle his hidden sexual relationships with women also his improper relations with lenders. It will also look into the donations the Trump empire has made to evade tax. Also read | After Washington Post, CNN alleges Trump of spying on reporters Trump, however, has labelled this investigation as a “witch hunt” and has claimed he is being “unfairly attacked and abused by a corrupt political system”. As the former president plans to re-run for White House in 2024 elections, he has accused opponents of carrying out this "witch hunt" to slim down his chances of winning the next election and misleading his supporters. Also read | Former US President Donald Trump sued for referring to COVID-19 as 'China virus' Vance will also be investigating whether Trump’s employees were paid off-the-books compensations for their apartments, school tuitions and more.

Grand jury starts investigating Donald Trump's tax evasions, hush money

US Capitol stood unprotected by National Guard for the first time in about five months on Monday. Last 2149 out of 26,000 troops departed on Monday their mission to protect Congress formally ended.

The troops were mobilized after hundreds of supporters of then-president Donald Trump stormed the Capitol, halting the joint session to confirm Trump's rival Joe Biden as winner of the presidential election.

Some broke into lawmakers' offices, and called for the killing of lawmakers and vice president Mike Pence, who was presiding over the session.

Amid fears of more threats around and following the January 20 inauguration of Biden, thousands of Guard troops were mobilized, patrolling the Capitol area day and night while a large fence encircled the grounds, making it appear a building under siege.

The troops remained in Washington for months after the inauguration as what many dubbed an insurrection was investigated.

Trump, who was impeached for encouraging the assault, later claimed the attackers were "zero threat" to lawmakers and downplayed the episode.

The FBI has arrested and charged about 440 people involved in January 6 attacks. Dozens of them are associated with armed militia groups.

(With inputs from agencies)

US Capitol stood unprotected by National Guard for the first time in about five months on Monday. Last 2149 out of 26,000 troops departed on Monday their mission to protect Congress formally ended.

US Capitol stood unprotected by National Guard for the first time in about five months on Monday. Last 2149 out of 26,000 troops departed on Monday their mission to protect Congress formally ended. The troops were mobilized after hundreds of supporters of then-president Donald Trump stormed the Capitol, halting the joint session to confirm Trump's rival Joe Biden as winner of the presidential election. Some broke into lawmakers' offices, and called for the killing of lawmakers and vice president Mike Pence, who was presiding over the session. Amid fears of more threats around and following the January 20 inauguration of Biden, thousands of Guard troops were mobilized, patrolling the Capitol area day and night while a large fence encircled the grounds, making it appear a building under siege. The troops remained in Washington for months after the inauguration as what many dubbed an insurrection was investigated. Trump, who was impeached for encouraging the assault, later claimed the attackers were "zero threat" to lawmakers and downplayed the episode. The FBI has arrested and charged about 440 people involved in January 6 attacks. Dozens of them are associated with armed militia groups. (With inputs from agencies)

National Guard troops exit US Capitol months after January 6 attack

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday it would repeal the changes made by the Trump administration to an important law made to stop banks from discriminating against racial minorities and the poor. &nbsp;

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the nation's bank regulators, said it plans to reconsider the regulations it wrote in 2020 governing a law known as the Community Reinvestment Act. The Civil Rights Era law requires banks to document how well they are lending to the communities that surround their branches, in an effort to make sure that banks are not just lending to the wealthy or to white customers. &nbsp;

The OCC said it plans to start from scratch, and told banks to effectively ignore the 2020 changes while the agency rewrites the regulations. &nbsp;

Trump's Comptroller of the Currency, Joseph Otting, had made revising the Community Reinvestment Act a cornerstone of his tenure. The law is widely respected by the industry and activists alike, but both sides have agreed for years that law was out of date. Many banks now operate entirely online, ATMs are ubiquitous, and it was increasingly more difficult to define what a ‘community' was in order to comply with the law. &nbsp;

But the changes the OCC made last year were considered too broad for many activists and for Congressional Democrats, who oversee banks on the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee.&nbsp;

For example, banks would have been given credit under the law for issuing credit cards and personal loans something banks were already doing, particularly the largest institutions. &nbsp;

The regulations would have also given banks credit, under certain circumstances, for loans they make to build or improve facilities such as sports stadiums and hospitals.&nbsp;

The argument from activists was that the changes would have made it easier for many banks to pass their CRA exams, and would disincentivise them from opening branches or approving mortgages in low income neighbourhoods.&nbsp;

"CRA was, and still is, a civil rights bill," said Black Rep Gregory Meeks, D-New York, last year at a Congressional committee to review Otting's changes. "Your proposal would undermine that."&nbsp;

The changes proposed by Otting were so drastic that the other two bank regulators that have authority under the law, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, refused to sign on. This left banks wondering, which regulator to follow when it came to compliance. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday it would repeal the changes made by the Trump administration to an important law made to stop banks from discriminating against racial minorities and the poor.

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday it would repeal the changes made by the Trump administration to an important law made to stop banks from discriminating against racial minorities and the poor. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the nation's bank regulators, said it plans to reconsider the regulations it wrote in 2020 governing a law known as the Community Reinvestment Act. The Civil Rights Era law requires banks to document how well they are lending to the communities that surround their branches, in an effort to make sure that banks are not just lending to the wealthy or to white customers. The OCC said it plans to start from scratch, and told banks to effectively ignore the 2020 changes while the agency rewrites the regulations. Trump's Comptroller of the Currency, Joseph Otting, had made revising the Community Reinvestment Act a cornerstone of his tenure. The law is widely respected by the industry and activists alike, but both sides have agreed for years that law was out of date. Many banks now operate entirely online, ATMs are ubiquitous, and it was increasingly more difficult to define what a ‘community' was in order to comply with the law. But the changes the OCC made last year were considered too broad for many activists and for Congressional Democrats, who oversee banks on the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee. For example, banks would have been given credit under the law for issuing credit cards and personal loans something banks were already doing, particularly the largest institutions. The regulations would have also given banks credit, under certain circumstances, for loans they make to build or improve facilities such as sports stadiums and hospitals. The argument from activists was that the changes would have made it easier for many banks to pass their CRA exams, and would disincentivise them from opening branches or approving mortgages in low income neighbourhoods. "CRA was, and still is, a civil rights bill," said Black Rep Gregory Meeks, D-New York, last year at a Congressional committee to review Otting's changes. "Your proposal would undermine that." The changes proposed by Otting were so drastic that the other two bank regulators that have authority under the law, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, refused to sign on. This left banks wondering, which regulator to follow when it came to compliance.

Biden reverses Trump changes to law that prevented racial discrimination by banks 

Michael McConnell, the co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board, criticized the social media platform in the wake of its indefinite ban on former President Donald Trump, saying Facebook's rules are in "shambles."

McConnell did note that the board also have made recommendations to the company to increase transparency.

"They needed some time because their rules are shambles, they are not transparent, they are unclear, they are internally inconsistent," McConnell said.

He added, "we gave a series of recommendations about how to make their rules clearer and more consistent."

The Oversight Board upheld Facebook's current ban on Trump for his posts on Jan. 6, with some caveats.

"Trump is subject to the same rules on Facebook as everyone else, and the Oversight Board held that this was, in fact, a violation and thus Facebook was justified in taking them down," McConnell said.&nbsp;

"What we did say, though, was that they were not justified in taking him down indefinitely, that they did not provide any reasons for that, that is not a provision in their rules. That was wrong."

Meanwhile, The ex-President has launched his own communications platform called From the Desk of Donald J Trump. The platform which is a subsection of Trump’s official website was launched on May 5. The announcement comes months after Trump was kicked out of all major social platforms including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and more.

(With inputs from agencies)

Michael McConnell, the co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board, criticized the social media platform in the wake of its indefinite ban on former President Donald Trump, saying Facebook's rules are in "shambles.

Michael McConnell, the co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board, criticized the social media platform in the wake of its indefinite ban on former President Donald Trump, saying Facebook's rules are in "shambles." McConnell did note that the board also have made recommendations to the company to increase transparency. "They needed some time because their rules are shambles, they are not transparent, they are unclear, they are internally inconsistent," McConnell said. He added, "we gave a series of recommendations about how to make their rules clearer and more consistent." The Oversight Board upheld Facebook's current ban on Trump for his posts on Jan. 6, with some caveats. "Trump is subject to the same rules on Facebook as everyone else, and the Oversight Board held that this was, in fact, a violation and thus Facebook was justified in taking them down," McConnell said. "What we did say, though, was that they were not justified in taking him down indefinitely, that they did not provide any reasons for that, that is not a provision in their rules. That was wrong." Meanwhile, The ex-President has launched his own communications platform called From the Desk of Donald J Trump. The platform which is a subsection of Trump’s official website was launched on May 5. The announcement comes months after Trump was kicked out of all major social platforms including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and more. (With inputs from agencies)

Facebook rules are internally inconsistent, says oversight board leader

Facebook’s Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld the social network’s temporary suspension of Donald Trump but declined to decide when, or whether, that ban should be lifted. The decision dashed the former president’s hopes for a swift reinstatement by a body charged with reviewing the platform’s content moderation practices. But it also sent a message that the scope of the board’s power is limited and that the ultimate responsibility for these questions still lies with Mark Zuckerberg and company.

The London-based body of about 20 outside experts — former political leaders, human rights activists and journalists — called for the company to re-examine the penalty within six months and decide whether to reinstate him, impose a finite suspension or ban him for good. The board was also careful to note that Mr. Trump’s indefinite suspension has no basis in Facebook’s stated policies. “In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.”

Assuming Facebook follows its ruling — as it pledged it would when it established the charter for the semi-independent board in 2019 — it’s a setback for Mr. Trump and his allies, who relied heavily on social media to rally support, raise money and spread their polarizing messages. It ensures that he will remain without one of the world’s loudest megaphones in his continuing campaign to undermine the relevance of American democracy by casting Joe Biden’s electoral victory as fraudulent.

It is also, in a sense, a setback for Facebook: Declining to permanently rule on Mr. Trump’s fate on the platform sends the ball back to Mr. Zuckerberg’s court. That’s exactly where he seemed not to want it.

As the decision ricochets across the political world, there will be ample debate as to whether the board made the right call. Upholding Mr. Trump’s suspension sets a precedent for applying the same rules to world leaders as Facebook does to ordinary users, at least in cases of imminent harm — or perhaps even tougher ones, as some communications scholars had suggested. Overturning it, even conditionally, would have militated for a hands-off approach to newsworthy political speech, which seemed to be Mr. Zuckerberg’s own inclination before the winds of power shifted.

While these arguments tend to break mostly along partisan lines, they sometimes come with awkward political role reversals on the deeper questions concerning corporate power over speech. For instance, after Facebook and Twitter banned Mr. Trump in January, some on the left framed the deplatforming as the inviolable prerogative of companies exercising their First Amendment rights, while Trump supporters argued that the companies had a public duty to let him speak. With Wednesday’s announcement, the right may turn with renewed vigor to government intervention.

Then there are the debates about the board’s legitimacy and what legitimacy it confers on Facebook. Does its qualified rebuke of Facebook’s indefinite suspension, which it called “arbitrary,” prove the board’s independence? Or does its refusal to decide Mr. Trump’s future on the platform reinforce its limitations?

What each of these scenarios leaves out, and the entire project of the Oversight Board obscures, is that the problems with Mr. Trump’s presence on Facebook — the lies, the propaganda, the incitements — are not just Trump problems. They’re Facebook problems (and to be fair, Twitter problems).

Manipulation, misinformation, fear and loathing are endemic to today’s social media platforms, whose engagement-driven algorithms are built to spread whatever messages tap into users’ viscera and provoke a quick “like” or an angry comment. Yet the platforms have delegated much of the work of moderating this content to overwhelmed contractors and fallible artificial intelligence software. The tide of hogwash and bile may recede when a super-spewer such as Mr. Trump is deplatformed. But the dynamics that enabled him endure.

It is those underlying dynamics, and not solely Mr. Trump’s right to use the platform, that any truly independent oversight of Facebook would address. Last month, the U.S. Senate began deliberating over how social media algorithms and design choices mold political discourse. While its hearing was inconclusive at best, it at least served notice that they’re a topic of potential regulatory interest.

Facebook endowed the Oversight Board with a measure of autonomy. It funded the board with an irrevocable trust, promised operational independence and pledged to treat its content decisions (though not its policy recommendations) as binding. Yet it did not empower the board to watch over its products or systems — only its rules and how it applies them.

That’s why some communication scholars have dismissed the board as a red herring, substituting a simulacrum of due process in certain high-profile cases for substantive reform. While the term “oversight board” suggests accountability for the institution it oversees, this board’s function is essentially the opposite: to shift accountability for Facebook’s decisions away from the company itself. The board’s power to adjudicate individual content decisions may be real, but it’s a power that Mr. Zuckerberg never wanted in the first place.

That’s not to say it’s a total sham. Wednesday’s decision aside, putting weighty decisions about online speech in the hands of an accomplished group of outsiders would seem more likely to lead to thoughtful and consistent rulings than leaving them to Facebook’s employees and executives. Both today and in previous decisions, the board has revealed itself to be nothing if not thorough, carefully documenting its rationale and the implications of its decisions for similar cases. But its impotence in holding Facebook to account, more than the ruling on Mr. Trump’s suspension, is what makes Wednesday’s announcement unsatisfying.

Among the many public comments that poured in when the board announced it would take the case, a submission from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University best articulated the crux of the matter. Warning that the board’s decision on Mr. Trump would serve as a “fig leaf” for Facebook’s own failures, the institute’s scholars implored the company to delay issuing a ruling until Facebook commissioned an independent study into its own role in the events leading up to the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

There had been at least a sliver of hope that the board might take such a stand. One of its members, Alan Rusbridger, a British journalist, had called publicly in March for the board to examine Facebook’s algorithms, though he acknowledged it might not do so right away. “We’re already a bit frustrated by just saying ‘take it down’ or ‘leave it up,’” Mr. Rusbridger said, according to The Guardian.

Evelyn Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School who has chronicled the board’s evolution, told me she’s seen evidence in its early decisions that “the board is chafing against the very limited remit that Facebook has given it so far.” She would like it to go farther in pushing for transparency. For instance, she said, it could call on Facebook to reveal the Trump ban’s impact on an internal metric that it calls “violence and incitement trends.”

The board did take a small step in that direction on Wednesday. Among its policy recommendations, it called for Facebook to undertake a “comprehensive review of its potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and the exacerbated tensions that culminated in the violence in the United States on January 6.” This review, the board said, “should be an open reflection on the design and policy choices that Facebook has made that may allow its platform to be abused.”

But the board’s policy recommendations, unlike its ruling on the case itself, are nonbinding. And by suggesting that Facebook conduct the review itself, it overlooked the company’s long history of generously grading its own homework.

What Facebook needs to solve its Trump problem is not a binding decision from an appeals court but aggressive investigation into how it shapes the flow of political information. That must include insight into both the workings of its algorithms and moderation processes. It may be just one company, but its unilateral power over the public square became untenable long ago. The long-term solution must involve either stronger checks on its power or reducing its scale.

Perhaps the board will eventually channel its frustration into more substantive action, using the leverage it enjoys as a highly public emblem of Facebook’s bid to self-regulate. But on Wednesday, with the world watching, it opted to accept its limitations rather than challenge them. And that says more about its relevance at this moment than anything in the 12,000-word decision it issued.

Facebook’s Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld the social network’s temporary suspension of Donald Trump but declined to decide when, or whether, that ban should be lifted.

Facebook’s Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld the social network’s temporary suspension of Donald Trump but declined to decide when, or whether, that ban should be lifted. The decision dashed the former president’s hopes for a swift reinstatement by a body charged with reviewing the platform’s content moderation practices. But it also sent a message that the scope of the board’s power is limited and that the ultimate responsibility for these questions still lies with Mark Zuckerberg and company. The London-based body of about 20 outside experts — former political leaders, human rights activists and journalists — called for the company to re-examine the penalty within six months and decide whether to reinstate him, impose a finite suspension or ban him for good. The board was also careful to note that Mr. Trump’s indefinite suspension has no basis in Facebook’s stated policies. “In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.” Assuming Facebook follows its ruling — as it pledged it would when it established the charter for the semi-independent board in 2019 — it’s a setback for Mr. Trump and his allies, who relied heavily on social media to rally support, raise money and spread their polarizing messages. It ensures that he will remain without one of the world’s loudest megaphones in his continuing campaign to undermine the relevance of American democracy by casting Joe Biden’s electoral victory as fraudulent. It is also, in a sense, a setback for Facebook: Declining to permanently rule on Mr. Trump’s fate on the platform sends the ball back to Mr. Zuckerberg’s court. That’s exactly where he seemed not to want it. As the decision ricochets across the political world, there will be ample debate as to whether the board made the right call. Upholding Mr. Trump’s suspension sets a precedent for applying the same rules to world leaders as Facebook does to ordinary users, at least in cases of imminent harm — or perhaps even tougher ones, as some communications scholars had suggested. Overturning it, even conditionally, would have militated for a hands-off approach to newsworthy political speech, which seemed to be Mr. Zuckerberg’s own inclination before the winds of power shifted. While these arguments tend to break mostly along partisan lines, they sometimes come with awkward political role reversals on the deeper questions concerning corporate power over speech. For instance, after Facebook and Twitter banned Mr. Trump in January, some on the left framed the deplatforming as the inviolable prerogative of companies exercising their First Amendment rights, while Trump supporters argued that the companies had a public duty to let him speak. With Wednesday’s announcement, the right may turn with renewed vigor to government intervention. Then there are the debates about the board’s legitimacy and what legitimacy it confers on Facebook. Does its qualified rebuke of Facebook’s indefinite suspension, which it called “arbitrary,” prove the board’s independence? Or does its refusal to decide Mr. Trump’s future on the platform reinforce its limitations? What each of these scenarios leaves out, and the entire project of the Oversight Board obscures, is that the problems with Mr. Trump’s presence on Facebook — the lies, the propaganda, the incitements — are not just Trump problems. They’re Facebook problems (and to be fair, Twitter problems). Manipulation, misinformation, fear and loathing are endemic to today’s social media platforms, whose engagement-driven algorithms are built to spread whatever messages tap into users’ viscera and provoke a quick “like” or an angry comment. Yet the platforms have delegated much of the work of moderating this content to overwhelmed contractors and fallible artificial intelligence software. The tide of hogwash and bile may recede when a super-spewer such as Mr. Trump is deplatformed. But the dynamics that enabled him endure. It is those underlying dynamics, and not solely Mr. Trump’s right to use the platform, that any truly independent oversight of Facebook would address. Last month, the U.S. Senate began deliberating over how social media algorithms and design choices mold political discourse. While its hearing was inconclusive at best, it at least served notice that they’re a topic of potential regulatory interest. Facebook endowed the Oversight Board with a measure of autonomy. It funded the board with an irrevocable trust, promised operational independence and pledged to treat its content decisions (though not its policy recommendations) as binding. Yet it did not empower the board to watch over its products or systems — only its rules and how it applies them. That’s why some communication scholars have dismissed the board as a red herring, substituting a simulacrum of due process in certain high-profile cases for substantive reform. While the term “oversight board” suggests accountability for the institution it oversees, this board’s function is essentially the opposite: to shift accountability for Facebook’s decisions away from the company itself. The board’s power to adjudicate individual content decisions may be real, but it’s a power that Mr. Zuckerberg never wanted in the first place. That’s not to say it’s a total sham. Wednesday’s decision aside, putting weighty decisions about online speech in the hands of an accomplished group of outsiders would seem more likely to lead to thoughtful and consistent rulings than leaving them to Facebook’s employees and executives. Both today and in previous decisions, the board has revealed itself to be nothing if not thorough, carefully documenting its rationale and the implications of its decisions for similar cases. But its impotence in holding Facebook to account, more than the ruling on Mr. Trump’s suspension, is what makes Wednesday’s announcement unsatisfying. Among the many public comments that poured in when the board announced it would take the case, a submission from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University best articulated the crux of the matter. Warning that the board’s decision on Mr. Trump would serve as a “fig leaf” for Facebook’s own failures, the institute’s scholars implored the company to delay issuing a ruling until Facebook commissioned an independent study into its own role in the events leading up to the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6. There had been at least a sliver of hope that the board might take such a stand. One of its members, Alan Rusbridger, a British journalist, had called publicly in March for the board to examine Facebook’s algorithms, though he acknowledged it might not do so right away. “We’re already a bit frustrated by just saying ‘take it down’ or ‘leave it up,’” Mr. Rusbridger said, according to The Guardian. Evelyn Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School who has chronicled the board’s evolution, told me she’s seen evidence in its early decisions that “the board is chafing against the very limited remit that Facebook has given it so far.” She would like it to go farther in pushing for transparency. For instance, she said, it could call on Facebook to reveal the Trump ban’s impact on an internal metric that it calls “violence and incitement trends.” The board did take a small step in that direction on Wednesday. Among its policy recommendations, it called for Facebook to undertake a “comprehensive review of its potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and the exacerbated tensions that culminated in the violence in the United States on January 6.” This review, the board said, “should be an open reflection on the design and policy choices that Facebook has made that may allow its platform to be abused.” But the board’s policy recommendations, unlike its ruling on the case itself, are nonbinding. And by suggesting that Facebook conduct the review itself, it overlooked the company’s long history of generously grading its own homework. What Facebook needs to solve its Trump problem is not a binding decision from an appeals court but aggressive investigation into how it shapes the flow of political information. That must include insight into both the workings of its algorithms and moderation processes. It may be just one company, but its unilateral power over the public square became untenable long ago. The long-term solution must involve either stronger checks on its power or reducing its scale. Perhaps the board will eventually channel its frustration into more substantive action, using the leverage it enjoys as a highly public emblem of Facebook’s bid to self-regulate. But on Wednesday, with the world watching, it opted to accept its limitations rather than challenge them. And that says more about its relevance at this moment than anything in the 12,000-word decision it issued.

Trump is a problem Facebook’s oversight board was built not to solve

The new US position in support of lifting&nbsp;patents&nbsp;on&nbsp;Covid-19&nbsp;vaccines&nbsp;has&nbsp;taken attention away from an equally significant change by Washington, which plans to open up trade in the raw materials used to make them.

After&nbsp;having recently taken heat for blocking such exports, Commerce Secretary Katherine Tai said Wednesday that the US government would "work to increase the raw materials needed to produce those&nbsp;vaccines".

The assertion was hidden at the bottom of the statement unveiling Washington's remarkable reversal of its position&nbsp;on&nbsp;Covid-19&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;patents, which coincides with a shortage of doses in emerging and developing nations as cases surge in some countries.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-backs-india-led-fight-to-waive-covid-vaccines-patents-383092">US backs India-led fight to waive Covid vaccines patents</a>

Long legal and economic policy debates likely lie ahead about waiving&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;patents, particularly at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Meanwhile, the difficulties faced by some laboratories in obtaining components to manufacture&nbsp;vaccines&nbsp;look set to stymie the drive to ramp up production.

Two labs have recently spoken out about their difficulties, laying the blame at Washington's door.

Germany's Curevac said it could&nbsp;not secure supplies of certain materials from the United States.

Several days earlier, India's Serum Institute, the world's largest&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;manufacturer, called&nbsp;on&nbsp;US President Joe Biden to step in.

"Respected @POTUS, if we are to truly unite in beating this virus,&nbsp;on&nbsp;behalf of the&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;industry outside the US, I humbly request you to lift the embargo of raw material exports out of the US so that&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;production can ramp up," the company's president Adar Poonawalla wrote&nbsp;on&nbsp;Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Respected <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>, if we are to truly unite in beating this virus, on behalf of the vaccine industry outside the U.S., I humbly request you to lift the embargo of raw material exports out of the U.S. so that vaccine production can ramp up. Your administration has the details. 🙏🙏
— Adar Poonawalla (@adarpoonawalla) <a href="https://twitter.com/adarpoonawalla/status/1382978713302683653?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 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>

There is no actual embargo&nbsp;on&nbsp;exporting&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;components. Instead, Biden, like his predecessor Donald Trump, invoked the Defense Production Act,&nbsp;which normally concerns wartime,&nbsp;to confront the pandemic.

While it does not explicitly ban exports, it puts the US government first in line to buy certain products made in the country.

US officials have previously played down the possible effect of the law&nbsp;on&nbsp;global&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;production.

"There's just more global manufacturing happening everywhere in the world than suppliers can currently support,"&nbsp;a US official told a White House briefing late last month&nbsp;on&nbsp;condition of anonymity.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/germany-opposes-us-backed-global-waiver-on-protection-for-covid-19-vaccines-383353/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Dry ice and sorbitol

Over the past two months, a number of public and private actors have noted the shrinking supply of components needed to manufacture&nbsp;vaccines.

At least 50 components, perhaps as many as 100, go into the jabs.

They include items like the glass vials to ship them, as well as certain types of plastics needed for containers used in the manufacturing process.

Then there are the ingredients themselves.&nbsp;

Curevac is particularly concerned about nucleotides, a building block for the messenger RNA&nbsp;vaccines&nbsp;like the one it is developing.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-germany-rift-on-covid-vaccine-waiver-endangers-fight-against-deadly-virus-383349">US-Germany rift on Covid vaccine waiver endangers fight against deadly virus</a>

The shortage of raw materials is hardly surprising as the pharmaceutical industry expects to double production to 10 billion doses this year.

Richard Hatchett, who heads the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), which along with the World Health Organization and Gavi co-runs the Covax&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;distribution initiative, spoke already in March of seeing "increasing signs of strain within supply chains".

Companies were "beginning to report spot shortages of critical materials, raw materials, critical consumables, even equipment that is necessary for&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;manufacturing," he said.

He was speaking at a meeting of the principal actors in the sector, including WHO and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA).

Already the consensus was that the free circulation of&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;components was critical, given that a large number of countries are involved in their production.

OECD data from 2018 show how thoroughly&nbsp;component&nbsp;production is intertwined across the globe.

China dominates production of the glass storage vials, while the United States leads in the manufacturing of syringes.

France is a major producer of certain stabilisers like sorbitol, while Germany is big in the production of&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;preservatives, and Mexico and China both are important manufacturers of additives that enhance the effects of&nbsp;vaccines.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands is a leader in the production of dry ice used to transport&nbsp;vaccines&nbsp;that need to be kept at ultra-low temperatures.

The new US position in support of lifting patents on Covid-19 vaccines has taken attention away from an equally significant change by Washington, which plans to open up trade in the raw materials used to make them.

The new US position in support of lifting patents on Covid-19 vaccines has taken attention away from an equally significant change by Washington, which plans to open up trade in the raw materials used to make them. After having recently taken heat for blocking such exports, Commerce Secretary Katherine Tai said Wednesday that the US government would "work to increase the raw materials needed to produce those vaccines". The assertion was hidden at the bottom of the statement unveiling Washington's remarkable reversal of its position on Covid-19 vaccine patents, which coincides with a shortage of doses in emerging and developing nations as cases surge in some countries. Also read | US backs India-led fight to waive Covid vaccines patents Long legal and economic policy debates likely lie ahead about waiving vaccine patents, particularly at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Meanwhile, the difficulties faced by some laboratories in obtaining components to manufacture vaccines look set to stymie the drive to ramp up production. Two labs have recently spoken out about their difficulties, laying the blame at Washington's door. Germany's Curevac said it could not secure supplies of certain materials from the United States. Several days earlier, India's Serum Institute, the world's largest vaccine manufacturer, called on US President Joe Biden to step in. "Respected @POTUS, if we are to truly unite in beating this virus, on behalf of the vaccine industry outside the US, I humbly request you to lift the embargo of raw material exports out of the US so that vaccine production can ramp up," the company's president Adar Poonawalla wrote on Twitter. Respected @POTUS, if we are to truly unite in beating this virus, on behalf of the vaccine industry outside the U.S., I humbly request you to lift the embargo of raw material exports out of the U.S. so that vaccine production can ramp up. Your administration has the details. 🙏🙏 — Adar Poonawalla (@adarpoonawalla) April 16, 2021 × There is no actual embargo on exporting vaccine components. Instead, Biden, like his predecessor Donald Trump, invoked the Defense Production Act, which normally concerns wartime, to confront the pandemic. While it does not explicitly ban exports, it puts the US government first in line to buy certain products made in the country. US officials have previously played down the possible effect of the law on global vaccine production. "There's just more global manufacturing happening everywhere in the world than suppliers can currently support," a US official told a White House briefing late last month on condition of anonymity. Dry ice and sorbitol Over the past two months, a number of public and private actors have noted the shrinking supply of components needed to manufacture vaccines. At least 50 components, perhaps as many as 100, go into the jabs. They include items like the glass vials to ship them, as well as certain types of plastics needed for containers used in the manufacturing process. Then there are the ingredients themselves. Curevac is particularly concerned about nucleotides, a building block for the messenger RNA vaccines like the one it is developing. Also read | US-Germany rift on Covid vaccine waiver endangers fight against deadly virus The shortage of raw materials is hardly surprising as the pharmaceutical industry expects to double production to 10 billion doses this year. Richard Hatchett, who heads the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), which along with the World Health Organization and Gavi co-runs the Covax vaccine distribution initiative, spoke already in March of seeing "increasing signs of strain within supply chains". Companies were "beginning to report spot shortages of critical materials, raw materials, critical consumables, even equipment that is necessary for vaccine manufacturing," he said. He was speaking at a meeting of the principal actors in the sector, including WHO and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA). Already the consensus was that the free circulation of vaccine components was critical, given that a large number of countries are involved in their production. OECD data from 2018 show how thoroughly component production is intertwined across the globe. China dominates production of the glass storage vials, while the United States leads in the manufacturing of syringes. France is a major producer of certain stabilisers like sorbitol, while Germany is big in the production of vaccine preservatives, and Mexico and China both are important manufacturers of additives that enhance the effects of vaccines. Meanwhile, the Netherlands is a leader in the production of dry ice used to transport vaccines that need to be kept at ultra-low temperatures.

After shift on vaccine patents, US backs freer flow of components

trump-0

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

trump 0