A group of scientists, in an open letter, have asked The World Health Organization to order another investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 or c<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">oronavirus</a>. According to them, a new investigation should look for the origins in sources other than those of the animal origin.

It was the third open letter from this group of more than 20 signatories. They propose specific steps on what a new probe should take into account. Ensuring that a team is free of “unnecessary presence” of government officials while undertaking the study, A mandate for broad access to records, samples and data, and removing veto powers from the member selection process are among the suggestions.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/unless-true-origin-of-coronavirus-is-identified-another-chinese-pandemic-is-in-the-offing-320236">Unless true origin of coronavirus is identified, another Chinese pandemic is in the offing</a>

Previously a joint mission that included Chinese scientists and WHO had conducted a study whose aim was defined as probing the zoonotic source of the virus. According to them, a laboratory incident was the least likely hypothesis. They conjectured that the coronavirus had probably spread from bats to humans via other animals. Because the aim was limited, “other theories didn’t receive the same attention and the team didn’t fully investigate labs”, Peter Ben Embarek, co-leader of the trip, said after a report was published in March.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/first-us-now-australia-to-investigate-coronavirus-origin-298717/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Afterwards, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General said that the probe failed to adequately analyse the possibility of a lab accident before reaching the conclusion that most likely, the spread of the pathogen was from bats to humans via another animal. He also said that he is ready to deploy additional missions that involve experts. But, that this will require China’s cooperation.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-postpones-coronavirus-origin-report-likely-to-be-out-next-week-370924">WHO postpones coronavirus origin report, likely to be out next week</a>

&nbsp;

The first Covid-19 outbreak site was identified in the Chinese city of Wuhan, which, is home to a high-security virus lab, and this proximity had triggered former US&nbsp;President Donald Trump and others speculation on the possibility of a leak from the said lab. Denying connection, China floated an alternative theory that the virus may have gained entry into the country via frozen-food imports.

A group of scientists, in an open letter, have asked The World Health Organization to order another investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 or coronavirus.

A group of scientists, in an open letter, have asked The World Health Organization to order another investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 or coronavirus. According to them, a new investigation should look for the origins in sources other than those of the animal origin. It was the third open letter from this group of more than 20 signatories. They propose specific steps on what a new probe should take into account. Ensuring that a team is free of “unnecessary presence” of government officials while undertaking the study, A mandate for broad access to records, samples and data, and removing veto powers from the member selection process are among the suggestions. Also read | Unless true origin of coronavirus is identified, another Chinese pandemic is in the offing Previously a joint mission that included Chinese scientists and WHO had conducted a study whose aim was defined as probing the zoonotic source of the virus. According to them, a laboratory incident was the least likely hypothesis. They conjectured that the coronavirus had probably spread from bats to humans via other animals. Because the aim was limited, “other theories didn’t receive the same attention and the team didn’t fully investigate labs”, Peter Ben Embarek, co-leader of the trip, said after a report was published in March. Afterwards, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General said that the probe failed to adequately analyse the possibility of a lab accident before reaching the conclusion that most likely, the spread of the pathogen was from bats to humans via another animal. He also said that he is ready to deploy additional missions that involve experts. But, that this will require China’s cooperation. Also read | WHO postpones coronavirus origin report, likely to be out next week The first Covid-19 outbreak site was identified in the Chinese city of Wuhan, which, is home to a high-security virus lab, and this proximity had triggered former US President Donald Trump and others speculation on the possibility of a leak from the said lab. Denying connection, China floated an alternative theory that the virus may have gained entry into the country via frozen-food imports.

Scientists urge WHO to look further into coronavirus origins

The Biden administration is considering a near wholesale rollback of some of the most stringent Trump-era sanctions imposed on Iran in a bid to get the Islamic Republic to return to compliance with a landmark 2015 nuclear accord, according to current and former US officials and others familiar with the matter.

As indirect talks continue this week in Vienna to explore the possibility of reviving the nuclear deal, American officials have become increasingly expansive about what they might be prepared to offer Iran, which has been driving a hard line on sanctions relief, demanding that all US penalties be removed, according to these people.

American officials have refused to discuss which sanctions are being considered for removal. But they have said they are open to lifting any sanctions that are inconsistent with the nuclear deal or that deny Iran the relief it would be entitled to should it return to compliance with the accord. Because of the complex nature of the sanctions architecture, that could include non-nuclear sanctions, such as those tied to terrorism, missile development and human rights.

Biden administration officials say this is necessary because of what they describe as a deliberate attempt by the Trump administration to stymie any return to the deal. Under the 2015 agreement, the United States was required to lift sanctions tied to Iran's nuclear programme, but not non-nuclear sanctions.

Administration officials deny they will remove all non-nuclear sanctions, but have declined to identify those which they believe Trump improperly imposed on terrorism and other grounds.

Any return to the JCPOA would require sanctions relief, but we are considering removing only those sanctions that are inconsistent with the JCPOA,&nbsp;said State Department spokesman Ned Price.

Even if we rejoin the JCPOA which remains hypothetical we would retain and continue to implement sanctions on Iran for activities not covered by the JCPOA, including Iran's missile proliferation, support for terrorism, and human rights abuses.

When President Donald Trump re-imposed sanctions after withdrawing from the deal in 2018, he not only put the nuclear sanctions back in but also added layers of terrorism and other sanctions on many of the same entities. In addition, the Trump administration imposed an array of new sanctions on previously unsanctioned entities.

This has put the current administration in an awkward position: Iran is demanding the removal of all sanctions. If the US doesn't lift at least some of them, Iran says it won't agree to halt its nuclear activities barred by the deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.

But if the Biden administration makes concessions that go beyond the nuclear-specific sanctions, Republican critics and others, including Israel and Gulf Arab states, are likely to seize on them as proof that the administration is caving to Iran. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has led the charge among Trump alumni to denounce any easing of sanctions.

Former Trump administration officials say all the sanctions are legitimate. Gabriel Noronha, a former State Department senior adviser on Iran, said all the Trump-era sanctions had been approved by career Justice Department lawyers and would have been rejected if they weren't legitimate.

But a senior State Department official involved in the negotiations said officials now have to go through every sanction to look at whether they were legitimate or not legitimately imposed.

The official, who like the others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, also said the US&nbsp;Would be prepared to lift sanctions that would otherwise deny Iran the benefits of the deal. Those sanctions could include restrictions on Iran's ability to access the international financial system, including dealing in dollar-based transactions.

There are sanctions that are inconsistent with the JCPOA and as we have said if Iran resumes its compliance with the nuclear deal ... We would be prepared to lift those sanctions that are inconsistent with the JCPOA,&nbsp;Price said last week. He declined to elaborate on what might be inconsistent&nbsp;with the deal.

Those comments suggest that sanctions imposed on Iran's Central Bank, its national oil and shipping companies, its manufacturing, construction and financial sectors are on the block. Deal critics briefed on aspects of the Vienna negotiations say they suspect that is indeed the case.

That's because the bank, oil, shipping and other sanctions, all ostensibly imposed by the Trump administration for terrorism, ballistic missile and human rights concerns, also affect nuclear sanctions relief.

Current officials say no decisions have yet been made and nothing will be agreed upon in Vienna until everything regarding sanctions relief and Iran's return to compliance with the nuclear deal has been settled.

But critics of the nuclear deal fear the administration will go beyond even what has been suggested by the administration's oblique comments. They suspect that sanctions on people, companies, government agencies or other entities identified for nuclear sanctions relief in the 2015 deal will be cleared; even if they were subsequently penalized on other grounds.&nbsp;

The Biden administration is considering a near wholesale rollback of some of the most stringent Trump-era sanctions imposed on Iran in a bid to get the Islamic Republic to return to compliance with a landmark 2015 nuclear accord, according to current and former US officials and others familiar with the matter.

The Biden administration is considering a near wholesale rollback of some of the most stringent Trump-era sanctions imposed on Iran in a bid to get the Islamic Republic to return to compliance with a landmark 2015 nuclear accord, according to current and former US officials and others familiar with the matter. As indirect talks continue this week in Vienna to explore the possibility of reviving the nuclear deal, American officials have become increasingly expansive about what they might be prepared to offer Iran, which has been driving a hard line on sanctions relief, demanding that all US penalties be removed, according to these people. American officials have refused to discuss which sanctions are being considered for removal. But they have said they are open to lifting any sanctions that are inconsistent with the nuclear deal or that deny Iran the relief it would be entitled to should it return to compliance with the accord. Because of the complex nature of the sanctions architecture, that could include non-nuclear sanctions, such as those tied to terrorism, missile development and human rights. Biden administration officials say this is necessary because of what they describe as a deliberate attempt by the Trump administration to stymie any return to the deal. Under the 2015 agreement, the United States was required to lift sanctions tied to Iran's nuclear programme, but not non-nuclear sanctions. Administration officials deny they will remove all non-nuclear sanctions, but have declined to identify those which they believe Trump improperly imposed on terrorism and other grounds. Any return to the JCPOA would require sanctions relief, but we are considering removing only those sanctions that are inconsistent with the JCPOA, said State Department spokesman Ned Price. Even if we rejoin the JCPOA which remains hypothetical we would retain and continue to implement sanctions on Iran for activities not covered by the JCPOA, including Iran's missile proliferation, support for terrorism, and human rights abuses. When President Donald Trump re-imposed sanctions after withdrawing from the deal in 2018, he not only put the nuclear sanctions back in but also added layers of terrorism and other sanctions on many of the same entities. In addition, the Trump administration imposed an array of new sanctions on previously unsanctioned entities. This has put the current administration in an awkward position: Iran is demanding the removal of all sanctions. If the US doesn't lift at least some of them, Iran says it won't agree to halt its nuclear activities barred by the deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. But if the Biden administration makes concessions that go beyond the nuclear-specific sanctions, Republican critics and others, including Israel and Gulf Arab states, are likely to seize on them as proof that the administration is caving to Iran. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has led the charge among Trump alumni to denounce any easing of sanctions. Former Trump administration officials say all the sanctions are legitimate. Gabriel Noronha, a former State Department senior adviser on Iran, said all the Trump-era sanctions had been approved by career Justice Department lawyers and would have been rejected if they weren't legitimate. But a senior State Department official involved in the negotiations said officials now have to go through every sanction to look at whether they were legitimate or not legitimately imposed. The official, who like the others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, also said the US Would be prepared to lift sanctions that would otherwise deny Iran the benefits of the deal. Those sanctions could include restrictions on Iran's ability to access the international financial system, including dealing in dollar-based transactions. There are sanctions that are inconsistent with the JCPOA and as we have said if Iran resumes its compliance with the nuclear deal ... We would be prepared to lift those sanctions that are inconsistent with the JCPOA, Price said last week. He declined to elaborate on what might be inconsistent with the deal. Those comments suggest that sanctions imposed on Iran's Central Bank, its national oil and shipping companies, its manufacturing, construction and financial sectors are on the block. Deal critics briefed on aspects of the Vienna negotiations say they suspect that is indeed the case. That's because the bank, oil, shipping and other sanctions, all ostensibly imposed by the Trump administration for terrorism, ballistic missile and human rights concerns, also affect nuclear sanctions relief. Current officials say no decisions have yet been made and nothing will be agreed upon in Vienna until everything regarding sanctions relief and Iran's return to compliance with the nuclear deal has been settled. But critics of the nuclear deal fear the administration will go beyond even what has been suggested by the administration's oblique comments. They suspect that sanctions on people, companies, government agencies or other entities identified for nuclear sanctions relief in the 2015 deal will be cleared; even if they were subsequently penalized on other grounds.

US eyes major rollback in Iran sanctions to revive nuke deal

It's an idea championed by US President Joe Biden, leading economists and even the International Monetary Fund -- make the rich pay more taxes to replenish public coffers and narrow huge wealth gaps.

Biden wants to end his predecessor Donald&nbsp;Trump's&nbsp;tax&nbsp;cuts for the rich and close what US officials see as loopholes benefiting the wealthiest Americans in order to fund a $1.8 trillion middle-class families spending programme.

But even as other governments seek to revive economies pummelled by the coronavirus pandemic, such initiatives would face an uphill battle as&nbsp;tax&nbsp;rates for the rich have been coming down everywhere for the past 40 years.

The prominent French economist Thomas Piketty called for a global&nbsp;tax&nbsp;of two per cent on all fortunes exceeding 10 million euros in a column in the newspaper Le Monde earlier this month.

Such a levy would raise 1.0 trillion euros ($1.2 trillion) per year, Piketty told AFP.

He said the funds could be used to narrow the gap between the world's richest and poorest nations since "the sums would be shared among all countries as a proportion of their population."

Also this month, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, professors at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote a column in The Washington Post titled "Don't wait for billionaires to sell their stock.&nbsp;Tax&nbsp;their riches now."&nbsp;

The combined fortunes of the 400 richest Americans amount to the equivalent of 18 per cent of US gross domestic product, twice the level seen in 2010.

But Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Elon Musk of Tesla, Larry Page of Google and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook "contribute little to the public coffers," the two Frenchmen wrote.

"They structure their affairs so as to have little taxable income," by forgoing huge salaries and holding on to shares in their companies to avoid capital gains taxes, the economists argued.

Saez and Zucman suggest therefore that billionaires should be taxed on "unrealised capital gains" in the form of an exceptional levy that could raise as much as $1.0 trillion.

Biden's plan, which he will present in his first speech to Congress on Wednesday evening, would nearly double the capital gains&nbsp;tax&nbsp;to 39.6 per cent for households making over $1 million, the top 0.3 per cent of Americans.

And it would also close what the White House says is a loophole allowing the wealthiest Americans to pass down their accumulated gains to their heirs&nbsp;tax-free.

The IMF has backed the idea of raising more revenue from individuals and companies which have thrived during the pandemic.

One option would be a "Covid-19 recovery contribution" in the form of a surcharge on the personal or corporate income&nbsp;tax&nbsp;given that some "have done very well and have done very well in terms of stock market valuation," said Vitor Gaspar, head of the IMF's Fiscal Affairs Department, earlier this month.

"There is an opportunity there, and that is one of the options that is on the table," he said while also suggesting closing loopholes in capital income taxation, property taxes and inheritance taxes.

In a blog in January, World Bank senior adviser Jim Brumby said most countries are "extremely hesitant" to introduce wealth taxes.

"But if ever there were a time that wealth taxes could help, it may be now," he wrote, noting that inequality was "out-of-hand", with the wealthy getting "far wealthier" while Covid-19 pushed 100 million people into poverty.

However, apart from Argentina and Bolivia which have introduced an exceptional "Covid contribution" on large fortunes,&nbsp;purely symbolic in the case of La Paz,&nbsp;few countries seem willing to impose a wealth&nbsp;tax, even in the form of a one-off levy.

It is certainly not on the table in Australia, Britain or Germany, even though 54 per cent of Britons are in favour, according to a recent poll.

France, which eliminated a wealth&nbsp;tax&nbsp;in 2018 after almost three decades, has ruled out fresh hikes.

But not all economists believe a wealth&nbsp;tax&nbsp;is a good idea.

Nobel prize-winning economist Angus Deaton told Bloomberg News earlier in April that such a&nbsp;tax&nbsp;would be "very difficult to implement" and give the wealthy "huge incentives to avoid it...and avoid it they will".

It's an idea championed by US President Joe Biden, leading economists and even the International Monetary Fund -- make the rich pay more taxes to replenish public coffers and narrow huge wealth gaps.

It's an idea championed by US President Joe Biden, leading economists and even the International Monetary Fund -- make the rich pay more taxes to replenish public coffers and narrow huge wealth gaps. Biden wants to end his predecessor Donald Trump's tax cuts for the rich and close what US officials see as loopholes benefiting the wealthiest Americans in order to fund a $1.8 trillion middle-class families spending programme. But even as other governments seek to revive economies pummelled by the coronavirus pandemic, such initiatives would face an uphill battle as tax rates for the rich have been coming down everywhere for the past 40 years. The prominent French economist Thomas Piketty called for a global tax of two per cent on all fortunes exceeding 10 million euros in a column in the newspaper Le Monde earlier this month. Such a levy would raise 1.0 trillion euros ($1.2 trillion) per year, Piketty told AFP. He said the funds could be used to narrow the gap between the world's richest and poorest nations since "the sums would be shared among all countries as a proportion of their population." Also this month, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, professors at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote a column in The Washington Post titled "Don't wait for billionaires to sell their stock. Tax their riches now." The combined fortunes of the 400 richest Americans amount to the equivalent of 18 per cent of US gross domestic product, twice the level seen in 2010. But Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Elon Musk of Tesla, Larry Page of Google and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook "contribute little to the public coffers," the two Frenchmen wrote. "They structure their affairs so as to have little taxable income," by forgoing huge salaries and holding on to shares in their companies to avoid capital gains taxes, the economists argued. Saez and Zucman suggest therefore that billionaires should be taxed on "unrealised capital gains" in the form of an exceptional levy that could raise as much as $1.0 trillion. Biden's plan, which he will present in his first speech to Congress on Wednesday evening, would nearly double the capital gains tax to 39.6 per cent for households making over $1 million, the top 0.3 per cent of Americans. And it would also close what the White House says is a loophole allowing the wealthiest Americans to pass down their accumulated gains to their heirs tax-free. The IMF has backed the idea of raising more revenue from individuals and companies which have thrived during the pandemic. One option would be a "Covid-19 recovery contribution" in the form of a surcharge on the personal or corporate income tax given that some "have done very well and have done very well in terms of stock market valuation," said Vitor Gaspar, head of the IMF's Fiscal Affairs Department, earlier this month. "There is an opportunity there, and that is one of the options that is on the table," he said while also suggesting closing loopholes in capital income taxation, property taxes and inheritance taxes. In a blog in January, World Bank senior adviser Jim Brumby said most countries are "extremely hesitant" to introduce wealth taxes. "But if ever there were a time that wealth taxes could help, it may be now," he wrote, noting that inequality was "out-of-hand", with the wealthy getting "far wealthier" while Covid-19 pushed 100 million people into poverty. However, apart from Argentina and Bolivia which have introduced an exceptional "Covid contribution" on large fortunes, purely symbolic in the case of La Paz, few countries seem willing to impose a wealth tax, even in the form of a one-off levy. It is certainly not on the table in Australia, Britain or Germany, even though 54 per cent of Britons are in favour, according to a recent poll. France, which eliminated a wealth tax in 2018 after almost three decades, has ruled out fresh hikes. But not all economists believe a wealth tax is a good idea. Nobel prize-winning economist Angus Deaton told Bloomberg News earlier in April that such a tax would be "very difficult to implement" and give the wealthy "huge incentives to avoid it...and avoid it they will".

Biden puts taxing rich back in spotlight

Former US president Donald Trump has urged his successor Joe Biden to reinstate the travel ban on certain Muslim countries in order to keep the country safe from radical Islamic terrorism. &nbsp;

"If Joe Biden wants to keep our country safe from radical Islamic terrorism, he should reinstitute the foreign country travel ban and all of the vetting requirements on those seeking admission that go with it, along with the refugee restrictions I successfully put in place," Trump said in a statement on Monday. &nbsp;

"Terrorists operate all over the world and recruit online. To keep terrorism and extremism out of our country, we need to have smart, commonsense rules in place so we don't repeat the many immigration mistakes made by Europe and the USA prior to ‘Trump'," said the former US president. &nbsp;

Trump had imposed a ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. However, Biden lifted the ban after assuming office. &nbsp; &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Former US president Donald Trump has urged his successor Joe Biden to reinstate the travel ban on certain Muslim countries in order to keep the country safe from radical Islamic terrorism.

Former US president Donald Trump has urged his successor Joe Biden to reinstate the travel ban on certain Muslim countries in order to keep the country safe from radical Islamic terrorism. "If Joe Biden wants to keep our country safe from radical Islamic terrorism, he should reinstitute the foreign country travel ban and all of the vetting requirements on those seeking admission that go with it, along with the refugee restrictions I successfully put in place," Trump said in a statement on Monday. "Terrorists operate all over the world and recruit online. To keep terrorism and extremism out of our country, we need to have smart, commonsense rules in place so we don't repeat the many immigration mistakes made by Europe and the USA prior to ‘Trump'," said the former US president. Trump had imposed a ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. However, Biden lifted the ban after assuming office. (With inputs from agencies)

Trump asks Biden to reinstate travel ban, to keep US safe from radical Islamic terrorism

The Biden administration plans to request $715 billion for the Pentagon this coming year, a modest increase from the current level but below the level projected by the Trump administration in its final budget, according to three people familiar with the proposal.

US military spending is $1.25 trillion per year across numerous departments. US military spending has been climbing for years, including during the Trump years, and is the equivalent of many of the world’s top military spenders combined, most of which are US allies, NATO members, and US weapons customers.

The Pentagon-only budget doesn’t include defence-related spending that goes to other agencies, primarily to the Energy Department, which maintains the nation’s nuclear weapons.

By comparison, what other countries pay their armed forces is often a fraction of the support provided to U.S. military members and their families.

The pay and benefits of American servicemen and women represent about a fourth of annual defence budgets.

Though a slight increase from the current level, the top line would still be less than the $722 billion forecast by the Trump administration in its final budget submission.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Biden administration plans to request $715 billion for the Pentagon this coming year, a modest increase from the current level but below the level projected by the Trump administration in its final budget, according to three people familiar with the proposal.

The Biden administration plans to request $715 billion for the Pentagon this coming year, a modest increase from the current level but below the level projected by the Trump administration in its final budget, according to three people familiar with the proposal. US military spending is $1.25 trillion per year across numerous departments. US military spending has been climbing for years, including during the Trump years, and is the equivalent of many of the world’s top military spenders combined, most of which are US allies, NATO members, and US weapons customers. The Pentagon-only budget doesn’t include defence-related spending that goes to other agencies, primarily to the Energy Department, which maintains the nation’s nuclear weapons. By comparison, what other countries pay their armed forces is often a fraction of the support provided to U.S. military members and their families. The pay and benefits of American servicemen and women represent about a fourth of annual defence budgets. Though a slight increase from the current level, the top line would still be less than the $722 billion forecast by the Trump administration in its final budget submission. (With inputs from agencies)

US President proposes $715 billion for the Pentagon, a slight increase from last year

Donald Trump is not in the White House anymore, but there are things still on his mind. But the selection of the right stage to say it all could keep&nbsp;him safe from online trolling.

The former US president took to stage to wish a couple getting married at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

It must have been a great moment for the couple to have a former US president speak at their&nbsp;wedding. But Trump went on a rant, talking about Iran, China, the border migrant crisis&nbsp;and Joe Biden.

"We were ready to make a deal [with Iran], they were ready to do anything, they would have done anything. And this guy [Biden] goes and drops the sanctions and then he says we'd like to negotiate now," Trump is heard saying in a video circulating online.&nbsp;

This was an apparent reference to Biden's effort to engage with Iran in order to re-enter the nuclear deal the US struck in 2015 under Barack Obama, and Trump unilaterally withdrew from in 2018.

Trump also spoke about the domestic situation in the US. "The border is not good. It's the worst that it has ever been," he said.

Trump had strived hard to&nbsp;build a wall along the US-Mexico border, one of his key campaign promises in&nbsp;2016.

Trump then went on to speak&nbsp;about his election loss to Biden in 2020. "They said get 66 million votes, sir, and the election is over. I got 75 million votes, and you saw what happened," he said.

Trump still maintains that he did not lose the elections and that there was widespread voting fraud. His claims have been refuted by US Supreme Court and election officials. Joe Biden got 80 million votes, 5 million more than what Trump bagged.

At the very end of his 400-word long address, Trump said, "It's an honour to have you at Mar-a-Lago, you are a beautiful couple...have fun".

The video has been posted online by TMZ.

Donald Trump is not in the White House anymore, but there are things still on his mind. But the selection of the right stage to say it all could keep him safe from online trolling.

Donald Trump is not in the White House anymore, but there are things still on his mind. But the selection of the right stage to say it all could keep him safe from online trolling. The former US president took to stage to wish a couple getting married at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. It must have been a great moment for the couple to have a former US president speak at their wedding. But Trump went on a rant, talking about Iran, China, the border migrant crisis and Joe Biden. "We were ready to make a deal [with Iran], they were ready to do anything, they would have done anything. And this guy [Biden] goes and drops the sanctions and then he says we'd like to negotiate now," Trump is heard saying in a video circulating online. This was an apparent reference to Biden's effort to engage with Iran in order to re-enter the nuclear deal the US struck in 2015 under Barack Obama, and Trump unilaterally withdrew from in 2018. Trump also spoke about the domestic situation in the US. "The border is not good. It's the worst that it has ever been," he said. Trump had strived hard to build a wall along the US-Mexico border, one of his key campaign promises in 2016. Trump then went on to speak about his election loss to Biden in 2020. "They said get 66 million votes, sir, and the election is over. I got 75 million votes, and you saw what happened," he said. Trump still maintains that he did not lose the elections and that there was widespread voting fraud. His claims have been refuted by US Supreme Court and election officials. Joe Biden got 80 million votes, 5 million more than what Trump bagged. At the very end of his 400-word long address, Trump said, "It's an honour to have you at Mar-a-Lago, you are a beautiful couple...have fun". The video has been posted online by TMZ.

Trump takes mic to wish a couple at wedding, starts talking about foreign policy

Former US President Donald Trump is planning to launch his own social media platform, his senior advisor told Fox News on Sunday. Trump has been banned from Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites after January 6 attack on Capitol Hill

Jason Miller, a spokesman for Trump's 2020 campaign, told the network that Trump would re-enter the social media space with a new platform of his own that would "completely redefine the game."

Twitter last week said it would seek public input on when and how it should ban world leaders, saying it was reviewing policy and considering whether the leaders should be held to the same rules as other users.

Twitter, Facebook and others have been under scrutiny for the way they handle accounts of politicians and government officials after their ban of Trump for inciting violence.

Facebook, which indefinitely suspended Trump in January, has asked its independent oversight board to decide whether the ban should stand.

Former US President Donald Trump is planning to launch his own social media platform, his senior advisor told Fox News on Sunday. Trump has been banned from Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites after January 6 attack on Capitol Hill Jason Miller, a spokesman for Trump's 2020 campaign, told the network that Trump would re-enter the social media space with a new platform of his own that would "completely redefine the game.

Former US President Donald Trump is planning to launch his own social media platform, his senior advisor told Fox News on Sunday. Trump has been banned from Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites after January 6 attack on Capitol Hill Jason Miller, a spokesman for Trump's 2020 campaign, told the network that Trump would re-enter the social media space with a new platform of his own that would "completely redefine the game." Twitter last week said it would seek public input on when and how it should ban world leaders, saying it was reviewing policy and considering whether the leaders should be held to the same rules as other users. Twitter, Facebook and others have been under scrutiny for the way they handle accounts of politicians and government officials after their ban of Trump for inciting violence. Facebook, which indefinitely suspended Trump in January, has asked its independent oversight board to decide whether the ban should stand.

Trump planning to return to social media with own platform, says his advisor

US elections 2020 are not the only thing that the former reality star <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> lost. The coronavirus pandemic hit his fortunes, bringing a decline in his net worth.

According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the former US president's net worth dropped by nearly $700 million and reached $2.3 billion.

The decline in his net worth was observed after Trump's office buildings, hotels and resorts reported loss in revenues and a decline in value. Trump's favoured golf courses and a fleet of planes also saw a decline in the value.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-asks-his-supporters-to-get-covid-vaccine-remains-non-committal-about-political-future-371014" hreflang="en">Trump asks his supporters to get Covid vaccine, remains non-committal about political future</a>

Bloomberg analysed Trump's financial documents and other filings between the period of May 2016 and January 2021, which revealed Trump's wealth before and after he became the US president.

The report has estimated a decline of 26 per cent in the value of Trump's main commercial property holdings.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/recording-of-trump-calling-georgia-election-officials-found-in-trash-370589" hreflang="en">Recording of Trump calling Georgia election officials found in 'trash'</a>

The decline in the value of Trump's golf courses has come as a surprise as the love for the game has seen an increase during the pandemic as a socially distanced outdoor sport.

Adding to the declining value, the Professional Golfers' Association (PGA) of America also ended its agreement to host the 2022 championship tournament in Trump's gold course after the Capitol riots, which tarnished Trump's image.

In addition to this, Trump also owns a fleet of planes that are decades old and have seen a decline in value over the years, as per the financial disclosures seen by Bloomberg.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinese-entrepreneur-selling-donald-trumps-buddha-statue-at-this-price-369704" hreflang="en">Chinese entrepreneur selling Donald Trump's Buddha statue at this price</a>

This has come after several experts reported that Trump's businesses may not be able to recover from his presidency ever.&nbsp;

"Trump will exit the presidency with a brutal set of targets surrounding the heart of his brand, which will be a danger to his survival economically and that of his children, and likely will lead to excruciating pain of the type he has really never faced," Eric Schiffer, a public relations expert told Insider.

His financial records have been a well-kept secret for the past few years while he was in the White House. However, last month, the Supreme Court ordered Trump to hand over his tax returns to New York prosecutors, which have now revealed the decline in his value.

US elections 2020 are not the only thing that the former reality star Donald Trump lost. The coronavirus pandemic hit his fortunes, bringing a decline in his net worth.

US elections 2020 are not the only thing that the former reality star Donald Trump lost. The coronavirus pandemic hit his fortunes, bringing a decline in his net worth. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the former US president's net worth dropped by nearly $700 million and reached $2.3 billion. The decline in his net worth was observed after Trump's office buildings, hotels and resorts reported loss in revenues and a decline in value. Trump's favoured golf courses and a fleet of planes also saw a decline in the value. Also read | Trump asks his supporters to get Covid vaccine, remains non-committal about political future Bloomberg analysed Trump's financial documents and other filings between the period of May 2016 and January 2021, which revealed Trump's wealth before and after he became the US president. The report has estimated a decline of 26 per cent in the value of Trump's main commercial property holdings. Also read | Recording of Trump calling Georgia election officials found in 'trash' The decline in the value of Trump's golf courses has come as a surprise as the love for the game has seen an increase during the pandemic as a socially distanced outdoor sport. Adding to the declining value, the Professional Golfers' Association (PGA) of America also ended its agreement to host the 2022 championship tournament in Trump's gold course after the Capitol riots, which tarnished Trump's image. In addition to this, Trump also owns a fleet of planes that are decades old and have seen a decline in value over the years, as per the financial disclosures seen by Bloomberg. Also read | Chinese entrepreneur selling Donald Trump's Buddha statue at this price This has come after several experts reported that Trump's businesses may not be able to recover from his presidency ever. "Trump will exit the presidency with a brutal set of targets surrounding the heart of his brand, which will be a danger to his survival economically and that of his children, and likely will lead to excruciating pain of the type he has really never faced," Eric Schiffer, a public relations expert told Insider. His financial records have been a well-kept secret for the past few years while he was in the White House. However, last month, the Supreme Court ordered Trump to hand over his tax returns to New York prosecutors, which have now revealed the decline in his value.

Donald Trump's net worth dropped by $700m during presidency

The Labour Department announced two moves Thursday to reverse rules issued under the Trump administration that narrowed the protection of federal law for millions of workers.

One of the rules was likely to have deemed millions of workers in industries like construction and transportation — many of them gig workers — to be contractors rather than employees.

The department had finalized the rule in January, two weeks before President Joe Biden’s inauguration. But the Biden administration has delayed the rule’s effective date until May, a step toward rescinding it. The rule would probably have made workers like Uber drivers ineligible for the federal minimum wage and overtime pay, which apply only to employees.

Industry officials have estimated that treating gig workers as employees can raise labour costs by 20% to 30%, and Uber and other gig companies have fought on multiple fronts over the years to classify workers as contractors.

In November, voters in California approved a ballot initiative freeing gig companies from a state law that had effectively required them to treat workers as employees, a campaign in which Uber, Lyft and DoorDash invested tens of millions of dollars. Biden opposed the effort to scale back the law, although some prominent supporters and advisers to him and Vice President Kamala Harris have ties to the gig companies.

In its proposal to rescind the Trump rule, the Labour Department said the rule had improperly narrowed the list of factors that courts have traditionally relied on to determine employee status.

The department said it was also moving to undo a second rule enacted by the Trump administration, this one governing when a company should be considered a so-called joint employer alongside franchisees or contractors that directly employ a worker.

Franchisees and contractors often have limited resources to pay legal penalties related to violations of minimum-wage and overtime laws, so a more expansive joint employer rule makes it more likely that employees can be made whole if a violation has occurred.

The Trump rule had narrowed the circumstances under which a company could be considered a joint employer. In September, a federal judge struck down most of the Trump rule, arguing that the administration had arbitrarily departed from the statute governing federal minimum-wage and overtime rules.

The public will have until April 12 to comment on the moves announced Thursday, after which the Labor Department can finalize them.

The Labour Department announced two moves Thursday to reverse rules issued under the Trump administration that narrowed the protection of federal law for millions of workers.

The Labour Department announced two moves Thursday to reverse rules issued under the Trump administration that narrowed the protection of federal law for millions of workers. One of the rules was likely to have deemed millions of workers in industries like construction and transportation — many of them gig workers — to be contractors rather than employees. The department had finalized the rule in January, two weeks before President Joe Biden’s inauguration. But the Biden administration has delayed the rule’s effective date until May, a step toward rescinding it. The rule would probably have made workers like Uber drivers ineligible for the federal minimum wage and overtime pay, which apply only to employees. Industry officials have estimated that treating gig workers as employees can raise labour costs by 20% to 30%, and Uber and other gig companies have fought on multiple fronts over the years to classify workers as contractors. In November, voters in California approved a ballot initiative freeing gig companies from a state law that had effectively required them to treat workers as employees, a campaign in which Uber, Lyft and DoorDash invested tens of millions of dollars. Biden opposed the effort to scale back the law, although some prominent supporters and advisers to him and Vice President Kamala Harris have ties to the gig companies. In its proposal to rescind the Trump rule, the Labour Department said the rule had improperly narrowed the list of factors that courts have traditionally relied on to determine employee status. The department said it was also moving to undo a second rule enacted by the Trump administration, this one governing when a company should be considered a so-called joint employer alongside franchisees or contractors that directly employ a worker. Franchisees and contractors often have limited resources to pay legal penalties related to violations of minimum-wage and overtime laws, so a more expansive joint employer rule makes it more likely that employees can be made whole if a violation has occurred. The Trump rule had narrowed the circumstances under which a company could be considered a joint employer. In September, a federal judge struck down most of the Trump rule, arguing that the administration had arbitrarily departed from the statute governing federal minimum-wage and overtime rules. The public will have until April 12 to comment on the moves announced Thursday, after which the Labor Department can finalize them.

Labour Department reverses two Trump-era rules

US President Joe Biden on Monday will order a review of changes the previous administration made to on rules on how colleges should handle sexual assault allegations and formally establish a White House Gender Policy Council, officials said.&nbsp;

A Biden executive order he will sign later on Monday will direct the US Education Department to review all its existing regulations, orders, guidance, and 'policies for consistency with the administration’s policy to guarantee education free from sexual violence', according to a White House fact sheet provided Sunday night.&nbsp;

In 2017, the Trump administration reversed Obama-era guidelines that had spelt out measures, schools should follow to try to prevent sexual assaults on campuses. Trump's Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, argued the Obama guidelines resulted in too many students being falsely charged and the accused being treated unfairly.&nbsp;

In May 2020, DeVos unveiled final regulations on how colleges should deal with sexual misconduct allegations on campuses. She said the rules would require 'schools to act in meaningful ways to support survivors of sexual misconduct, without sacrificing important safeguards to ensure a fair and transparent process'.&nbsp;

Biden's order directs a review of the 2020 regulation 'to determine whether the regulation and agency action are consistent with the policies of the Biden-Harris Administration', the fact sheet said.&nbsp;

A second executive order will formally establish a White House council gender equality council, officials said.&nbsp;

The council is part of 'a government-wide focus on uplifting the rights of women and girls in the United States and around the world', according to a White House fact sheet.&nbsp;

Jennifer Klein, chief strategy and policy officer at anti-sexual harassment activist group Time's Up, is cochairing the council with Julissa Reynoso, a lawyer, who previously served as a diplomat and deputy assistant secretary of state during the Obama administration.&nbsp;

As a candidate, Biden pledged to narrow the wage gap between men and women, invest in women-owned businesses and fight against workplace discrimination. His vice president, Kamala Harris, is the first woman to occupy the position.&nbsp;

The council will work with other parts of the administration to address 'barriers to women’s participation in the labour force, decreasing wage and wealth gaps, and addressing the caregiving needs of American families and supporting care workers', the fact sheet said.&nbsp;

As of January, women accounted for slightly more than half of the 10 million jobs lost during the coronavirus crisis, even though they typically make up a little less than half the workforce.&nbsp;

More than 2.5 million women left the labour force between February 2020 and January of this year, compared to 1.8 million men.&nbsp;

Biden will direct the council to submit a 'government-wide strategy to address gender in policies, programs and budgets' and an annual report on progress, the White House said.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden on Monday will order a review of changes the previous administration made to on rules on how colleges should handle sexual assault allegations and formally establish a White House Gender Policy Council, officials said.

US President Joe Biden on Monday will order a review of changes the previous administration made to on rules on how colleges should handle sexual assault allegations and formally establish a White House Gender Policy Council, officials said. A Biden executive order he will sign later on Monday will direct the US Education Department to review all its existing regulations, orders, guidance, and 'policies for consistency with the administration’s policy to guarantee education free from sexual violence', according to a White House fact sheet provided Sunday night. In 2017, the Trump administration reversed Obama-era guidelines that had spelt out measures, schools should follow to try to prevent sexual assaults on campuses. Trump's Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, argued the Obama guidelines resulted in too many students being falsely charged and the accused being treated unfairly. In May 2020, DeVos unveiled final regulations on how colleges should deal with sexual misconduct allegations on campuses. She said the rules would require 'schools to act in meaningful ways to support survivors of sexual misconduct, without sacrificing important safeguards to ensure a fair and transparent process'. Biden's order directs a review of the 2020 regulation 'to determine whether the regulation and agency action are consistent with the policies of the Biden-Harris Administration', the fact sheet said. A second executive order will formally establish a White House council gender equality council, officials said. The council is part of 'a government-wide focus on uplifting the rights of women and girls in the United States and around the world', according to a White House fact sheet. Jennifer Klein, chief strategy and policy officer at anti-sexual harassment activist group Time's Up, is cochairing the council with Julissa Reynoso, a lawyer, who previously served as a diplomat and deputy assistant secretary of state during the Obama administration. As a candidate, Biden pledged to narrow the wage gap between men and women, invest in women-owned businesses and fight against workplace discrimination. His vice president, Kamala Harris, is the first woman to occupy the position. The council will work with other parts of the administration to address 'barriers to women’s participation in the labour force, decreasing wage and wealth gaps, and addressing the caregiving needs of American families and supporting care workers', the fact sheet said. As of January, women accounted for slightly more than half of the 10 million jobs lost during the coronavirus crisis, even though they typically make up a little less than half the workforce. More than 2.5 million women left the labour force between February 2020 and January of this year, compared to 1.8 million men. Biden will direct the council to submit a 'government-wide strategy to address gender in policies, programs and budgets' and an annual report on progress, the White House said. (With inputs from agencies)

White House orders review of campus sexual misconduct rules changed by Trump 

The former US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> does not like his name being used in vain, especially when it comes to asking for money. Now, since the impeachment trial, he has once again opposed the actions of the Republican National Committee (RNC).

Trump has asked members of the RNC to stop using his name and 'fame' for fundraising, as reported by local reports.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-senate-passes-bidens-19-trillion-covid-bill-on-party-line-vote-368516" hreflang="en">US Senate passes Biden's $1.9 trillion Covid bill on party-line vote</a>

"President Trump remains committed to the Republican party and electing America First conservatives but that doesn’t give anyone – friend or foe – permission to use his likeness without explicit approval," an advisor close to the former reality TV star was quoted by Politico.

As per the reports, Trump has sent out a notice to Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Campaign and National Republican Senate Campaign to stop using his name and his likeness on fundraising emails and merchandise.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-to-be-allowed-back-on-youtube-when-risk-of-violence-falls-368337" hreflang="en">Trump to be allowed back on YouTube when 'risk of violence' falls</a>

Since the impeachment trial, where a handful of party members voted against their former leader, the Republican Party has been struggling to put a lid on the bubbling civil war inside the party. This notice by Trump has only given a push to that struggle.

While Trump has asked the Republican bodies to stop using his name and likeness to raise funds, he is using his Save America SuperPAC to raise money to assist the Republican candidates for 2022 congressional candidates, who have been hand-picked by the former President.

This has come after Trump's infamous speech at the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-teases-2024-presidential-run-in-cpac-2021-speech-366953">Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) </a>where he singled out Republicans Senators Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey and House lawmakers Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — who had protested against him in the impeachment trial.&nbsp;

During the speech, he also suggested that he will be making efforts to support the candidates opposing these Republicans and claimed that he is ready to beat the Democrats for the "third time" in the 2024 Presidential elections.

The former US President Donald Trump does not like his name being used in vain, especially when it comes to asking for money. Now, since the impeachment trial, he has once again opposed the actions of the Republican National Committee (RNC).

The former US President Donald Trump does not like his name being used in vain, especially when it comes to asking for money. Now, since the impeachment trial, he has once again opposed the actions of the Republican National Committee (RNC). Trump has asked members of the RNC to stop using his name and 'fame' for fundraising, as reported by local reports. Also read | US Senate passes Biden's $1.9 trillion Covid bill on party-line vote "President Trump remains committed to the Republican party and electing America First conservatives but that doesn’t give anyone – friend or foe – permission to use his likeness without explicit approval," an advisor close to the former reality TV star was quoted by Politico. As per the reports, Trump has sent out a notice to Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Campaign and National Republican Senate Campaign to stop using his name and his likeness on fundraising emails and merchandise. Also read | Trump to be allowed back on YouTube when 'risk of violence' falls Since the impeachment trial, where a handful of party members voted against their former leader, the Republican Party has been struggling to put a lid on the bubbling civil war inside the party. This notice by Trump has only given a push to that struggle. While Trump has asked the Republican bodies to stop using his name and likeness to raise funds, he is using his Save America SuperPAC to raise money to assist the Republican candidates for 2022 congressional candidates, who have been hand-picked by the former President. This has come after Trump's infamous speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) where he singled out Republicans Senators Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey and House lawmakers Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — who had protested against him in the impeachment trial. During the speech, he also suggested that he will be making efforts to support the candidates opposing these Republicans and claimed that he is ready to beat the Democrats for the "third time" in the 2024 Presidential elections.

Donald Trump asks Republicans to stop using his name to raise funds

Joe Biden administration told a federal court in the US that it needs more time to decide whether it will release Donald Trump's tax records, said credible media reports. As per media reports that cited a court filing from the govt, the Justice Department and Treasury Department said that they needed time to weigh how to respond to a subpoena by House Democrats. These Democrats are asking for six years of tax records to be released.

Government lawyers told the court that as transition was still going on at Justice and Treasury departments, they needed more time to respond to House Democrats' demand for release of Trump's tax records.

The legal battle dates back to 2019.

Donald Trump has always kept his tax records a secret. This has given reason to his critics to allege that he was evading taxes and has avoided paying millions of dollars to the government.

Trump has for years claimed that his business was "under audit" and that he would release his tax returns once the audit was completed. However, the "audit" seems to have gone on for years and there have been no concrete signs of Trump wanting to make his tax record public.

His tax records had become an issue both in 2016, as well as 2020 US Presidential elections with Democratic Party upping the ante against him.

Joe Biden administration told a federal court in the US that it needs more time to decide whether it will release Donald Trump's tax records, said credible media reports.

Joe Biden administration told a federal court in the US that it needs more time to decide whether it will release Donald Trump's tax records, said credible media reports. As per media reports that cited a court filing from the govt, the Justice Department and Treasury Department said that they needed time to weigh how to respond to a subpoena by House Democrats. These Democrats are asking for six years of tax records to be released. Government lawyers told the court that as transition was still going on at Justice and Treasury departments, they needed more time to respond to House Democrats' demand for release of Trump's tax records. The legal battle dates back to 2019. Donald Trump has always kept his tax records a secret. This has given reason to his critics to allege that he was evading taxes and has avoided paying millions of dollars to the government. Trump has for years claimed that his business was "under audit" and that he would release his tax returns once the audit was completed. However, the "audit" seems to have gone on for years and there have been no concrete signs of Trump wanting to make his tax record public. His tax records had become an issue both in 2016, as well as 2020 US Presidential elections with Democratic Party upping the ante against him.

Trump tax returns: Biden administration seeks more time to decide on release, say reports

Donald Trump is no longer in office of the US President. He is even banned from popular social media platforms like Twitter. He is making a lot less buzz than before. But he still commands political clout within the Republican Party and his gold-coloured statue at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference is being talked about as a symbol of the same. US conservatives praised Donald Trump at the annual gathering on Friday (February 26)

Prominent congressional conservatives - including Senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley and Representatives Steve Scalise and Matt Gaetz - were among the Trump loyalists speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida, which the former president will address on Sunday (February 28).

The gold-coloured statue of Donald Trump is dressed in a jacket, red tie and boxer shorts with Stars-and-Stripes. The statue was on display at the conference site.&nbsp;

Two participants wheeled the larger-than-life statue through the conference center lobby, according to a video on social media. It was initially unclear why the statue, showing a cartoonish version of Trump with an oversize head, was there.

The statue drew instant derision online, with commentators comparing it to the golden calf that enraged the prophet Moses in the Old Testament.

Later in the day, Tommy Zegan told Reuters he was the artist behind the statue and that he came up with the idea three years ago as a "more tasteful" antidote to some unflattering effigies of Trump at the time, such as the 'Baby Trump' balloons and the Trump 'golden toilet'.

Zegan said the statue contains several symbolic elements that convey the spirit of Trump: the suit is for Trump's status as a businessman, the red tie represents the Republican party, the sandals are because Zegan thinks this is the time for Trump to be vacationing "in the lap of luxury" and the magic wand?

"The magic wand basically represents what Obama had said. You know, 'how is he going to bring back all these jobs? What does he have, some sort of magic wand?' " Zegan told Reuters.

It is expected that Trump will talk at CPAC on Sunday. He will likely speak on future of Republican Party and lay out policy differences within a group riven by differences in the wake of his chaotic four years in office.

(With Reuters inputs)

Donald Trump is no longer in office of the US President. He is even banned from popular social media platforms like Twitter. He is making a lot less buzz than before.

Donald Trump is no longer in office of the US President. He is even banned from popular social media platforms like Twitter. He is making a lot less buzz than before. But he still commands political clout within the Republican Party and his gold-coloured statue at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference is being talked about as a symbol of the same. US conservatives praised Donald Trump at the annual gathering on Friday (February 26) Prominent congressional conservatives - including Senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley and Representatives Steve Scalise and Matt Gaetz - were among the Trump loyalists speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida, which the former president will address on Sunday (February 28). The gold-coloured statue of Donald Trump is dressed in a jacket, red tie and boxer shorts with Stars-and-Stripes. The statue was on display at the conference site. Two participants wheeled the larger-than-life statue through the conference center lobby, according to a video on social media. It was initially unclear why the statue, showing a cartoonish version of Trump with an oversize head, was there. The statue drew instant derision online, with commentators comparing it to the golden calf that enraged the prophet Moses in the Old Testament. Later in the day, Tommy Zegan told Reuters he was the artist behind the statue and that he came up with the idea three years ago as a "more tasteful" antidote to some unflattering effigies of Trump at the time, such as the 'Baby Trump' balloons and the Trump 'golden toilet'. Zegan said the statue contains several symbolic elements that convey the spirit of Trump: the suit is for Trump's status as a businessman, the red tie represents the Republican party, the sandals are because Zegan thinks this is the time for Trump to be vacationing "in the lap of luxury" and the magic wand? "The magic wand basically represents what Obama had said. You know, 'how is he going to bring back all these jobs? What does he have, some sort of magic wand?' " Zegan told Reuters. It is expected that Trump will talk at CPAC on Sunday. He will likely speak on future of Republican Party and lay out policy differences within a group riven by differences in the wake of his chaotic four years in office. (With Reuters inputs)

Donald Trump's golden statue at CPAC reflects his hold on Republican Party

Facebook began 16 years ago from a dorm-room at Harvard to connect college students. It has evolved into the biggest social media network in the world. &nbsp;

Facebook has driven revolutions but it has also fuelled anarchy, unrest and election fraud. And each time, it has gotten away with it. &nbsp;

Let’s explore the reasons why. &nbsp;

It started as a website for poking acquaintances and has now become one of the most powerful engines of communication in the world.&nbsp;

22% of the global population is on Facebook. Out of this, 1.85 billion are daily active users and 2.8 billion are monthly active users. &nbsp;

Facebook is the third-most visited website in the world and the fourth-most valuable brand in the world. It operates in over 190 countries and 111 different languages. &nbsp;

WATCH|

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-who-checks-facebooks-biases-364926/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

If Facebook were a country, it would be substantially bigger than China. And this tech giant is by all means more powerful than most countries. &nbsp;

Some biggest revolutions in the world have gained strength because of Facebook. &nbsp;

The Arab spring in West Asia, Euro-maidan revolution in Ukraine and even the ongoing protests in Myanmar, Facebook has also helped politicians seize power. In the 2016 US elections, the Trump campaign sent out 50,000 different messages in a day. Tweaking each one depending on how people reacted. The rest is history. Andrew Bosworth, a close friend of Mark Zuckerberg, once claimed that the company was responsible for Trump getting elected. &nbsp;

The Cambridge Analytica scandal served as a reminder of Facebook's power. The data of at least 87 million Facebook users was harvested without consent and then used to influence their voting behaviour. Now, Facebook has banned news in Australia. &nbsp;

Yet another reminder of its power and monopoly but how does this tech giant get away with such scandals &amp; misuse of power? &nbsp;

Much of it has do to with how the internet works. It is not controlled by anyone. There are not many consequences for the decisions of tech giants. No concrete punitive action in case of blunders, no accountability for their decisions and no system of keeping a check on their political biases. &nbsp;

In the last few years, Facebook along with Twitter and Google has been subjected to several grillings by the US Congress over its unchecked power. Each time, American lawmakers promised to restrict the power of Facebook but there has been little action.&nbsp;

Facebook began 16 years ago from a dorm-room at Harvard to connect college students. It has evolved into the biggest social media network in the world. Facebook has driven revolutions but it has also fuelled anarchy, unrest and election fraud.

Facebook began 16 years ago from a dorm-room at Harvard to connect college students. It has evolved into the biggest social media network in the world. Facebook has driven revolutions but it has also fuelled anarchy, unrest and election fraud. And each time, it has gotten away with it. Let’s explore the reasons why. It started as a website for poking acquaintances and has now become one of the most powerful engines of communication in the world. 22% of the global population is on Facebook. Out of this, 1.85 billion are daily active users and 2.8 billion are monthly active users. Facebook is the third-most visited website in the world and the fourth-most valuable brand in the world. It operates in over 190 countries and 111 different languages. WATCH| If Facebook were a country, it would be substantially bigger than China. And this tech giant is by all means more powerful than most countries. Some biggest revolutions in the world have gained strength because of Facebook. The Arab spring in West Asia, Euro-maidan revolution in Ukraine and even the ongoing protests in Myanmar, Facebook has also helped politicians seize power. In the 2016 US elections, the Trump campaign sent out 50,000 different messages in a day. Tweaking each one depending on how people reacted. The rest is history. Andrew Bosworth, a close friend of Mark Zuckerberg, once claimed that the company was responsible for Trump getting elected. The Cambridge Analytica scandal served as a reminder of Facebook's power. The data of at least 87 million Facebook users was harvested without consent and then used to influence their voting behaviour. Now, Facebook has banned news in Australia. Yet another reminder of its power and monopoly but how does this tech giant get away with such scandals & misuse of power? Much of it has do to with how the internet works. It is not controlled by anyone. There are not many consequences for the decisions of tech giants. No concrete punitive action in case of blunders, no accountability for their decisions and no system of keeping a check on their political biases. In the last few years, Facebook along with Twitter and Google has been subjected to several grillings by the US Congress over its unchecked power. Each time, American lawmakers promised to restrict the power of Facebook but there has been little action.

The real power of Facebook

A total of six US police officers have been suspended with pay and another 29 have been put under investigation over their conduct during the riots on Capitol Hill on January 6, according to a police department spokesperson.&nbsp;

"Acting Chief Yogananda Pittman has directed that any member of her department whose behaviour is not in keeping with the Department's Rules of Conduct will face appropriate discipline," said police spokesperson John Stolnis, as quoted by CNN.&nbsp;

Last month, CNN had reported that the Capitol police were investigating at least 10 officers, while two were suspended. &nbsp;

According to Tim Ryan, a member of the House of Representatives, one of the suspended officers took a selfie with a protester, while another officer was wearing a hat with then President Donald Trump's slogan 'Make America Great Again'. &nbsp;

On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the US Congress would establish a special commission to probe Capitol Hill attack. On January 6, a group of then US President Donald Trump's supports stormed the US Capitol building.&nbsp;

The unrest took place after Trump urged his supporters to protest what he claims is a stolen presidential election. Five people, four protesters and a police officer, were killed in the riots. &nbsp;

The last time, the Capitol was stormed was when British troops marched into Washington and set fire to the building in 1814. The deadly attack prompted the House Democrats to move to impeach Trump. The Senate trial that ended this weekend acquitted Trump.&nbsp;

A total of six US police officers have been suspended with pay and another 29 have been put under investigation over their conduct during the riots on Capitol Hill on January 6, according to a police department spokesperson.

A total of six US police officers have been suspended with pay and another 29 have been put under investigation over their conduct during the riots on Capitol Hill on January 6, according to a police department spokesperson. "Acting Chief Yogananda Pittman has directed that any member of her department whose behaviour is not in keeping with the Department's Rules of Conduct will face appropriate discipline," said police spokesperson John Stolnis, as quoted by CNN. Last month, CNN had reported that the Capitol police were investigating at least 10 officers, while two were suspended. According to Tim Ryan, a member of the House of Representatives, one of the suspended officers took a selfie with a protester, while another officer was wearing a hat with then President Donald Trump's slogan 'Make America Great Again'. On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the US Congress would establish a special commission to probe Capitol Hill attack. On January 6, a group of then US President Donald Trump's supports stormed the US Capitol building. The unrest took place after Trump urged his supporters to protest what he claims is a stolen presidential election. Five people, four protesters and a police officer, were killed in the riots. The last time, the Capitol was stormed was when British troops marched into Washington and set fire to the building in 1814. The deadly attack prompted the House Democrats to move to impeach Trump. The Senate trial that ended this weekend acquitted Trump.

Six cops suspended for misconduct during Capitol Hill riots

The White House and congressional Democrats are divided over a politically charged lawsuit that raises novel constitutional issues: the House’s long-running attempt to compel President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry.

When Democrats controlled only the House, it was simpler for their leaders to unite behind subpoenaing McGahn. But the officials who now run the executive branch, especially President Joe Biden’s White House lawyers, are hesitant about establishing a precedent that Republicans might someday use to force them to testify about their own internal matters.

A glimpse of the institutional disconnect became public late Wednesday, when the Justice Department — which under Trump had been representing McGahn in fighting the lawsuit — asked an appeals court to delay arguments in the case scheduled for Tuesday, citing the recent change in administrations.

“The new administration wishes to explore whether an accommodation might be available with respect to the committee’s request,” the filing said. “Discussions among the relevant parties have begun, and the new administration believes the parties would benefit from additional time to pursue these discussions.”

But Douglas N. Letter, a lawyer for House Democrats — and, effectively, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — opposed that motion, urging the full Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to press forward without delay.

“We appreciate the Biden administration’s efforts to settle this case, and we have actively participated in those efforts,” Letter wrote. “But we do not believe that postponing the argument will improve the prospect of a settlement or serve the interests of judicial efficiency or fairness to the parties.”

Late on Thursday, however, the appeals court granted the Justice Department’s request, moving back the scheduled day for arguments to April 27, and ordering the delivery of a “status report advising the court of the progress of the parties’ discussion” by March 25.

House Democrats were frustrated that the Trump administration’s uncompromising approach and litigation strategy succeeded in running out the clock, preventing any testimony by McGahn before the 2020 election. In his motion, Letter raised doubts that any compromise involving Trump would be possible, warning that delay could further thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight powers.

The case centers on McGahn’s role as an important witness in the report by special counsel Robert Mueller about efforts by Trump to obstruct the investigation. After the Justice Department made most of the report public, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn to testify at an oversight hearing. When he refused to appear, on Trump’s instructions, the committee sued.

The Justice Department under Trump had argued that McGahn was “absolutely immune” from any compelled appearance before Congress to testify about his work duties. But in August, the full District of Columbia Circuit rejected that theory.

Justice Department lawyers under the Trump administration continued to fight the subpoena on other legal grounds, however, arguing that Congress had no “cause of action” that authorized it to sue the executive branch. (The executive branch has taken that position under administrations of both parties, and the Justice Department said it was “prepared to proceed” with the argument as scheduled if the court denied its request for a delay.)

The dispute is further complicated by the fact that there are so many participants — House Democrats, McGahn, the Biden administration and potentially Trump. The former president has not been a party to the lawsuit, but he might try to intervene and assert executive privilege — yet another issue that has not yet been adjudicated in the matter — if the executive branch under Biden drops out of the case.

Patrick F. Philbin, a former deputy White House counsel who is one of the people Trump designated to deal with residual issues related to presidential records, declined to comment.

William A. Burck, a lawyer for McGahn, has previously said that his client intended to defer to the president’s instructions, pending a final judicial order. A person familiar with the deliberations said Burck had not taken a position on what McGahn would do if Biden were to instruct him to talk to Congress, but Trump still told him not to.

Stuart F. Delery, a deputy White House counsel, said in an interview that the negotiations are still preliminary but that the Biden administration would like more time to try to resolve the dispute while preserving the “institutional interests connected to the presidency.”

There are few legal precedents. A rare and limited guidepost is a 1977 case, Nixon v. General Services Administration. In it, the Supreme Court ruled that Richard M. Nixon could assert executive privilege claims over official records from his White House even though he was no longer the president — but it also weighed that assertion against the contrary view of the sitting president at the time, Jimmy Carter.

That dispute, however, centered on control of Nixon-era White House documents, not a subpoena for a former lawyer’s testimony. Another question is how attorney-client privilege works for a former White House lawyer when the presidency changes hands — and what would happen if Trump were to file a bar ethics complaint going after McGahn’s law license if he cooperates with the House at Biden’s request but over Trump’s objections.

Many such questions have no definitive answers because until recently, it was exceedingly rare for such disputes to be fought without compromise, leading to judicial rulings. But the McGahn subpoena lawsuit is one of an unprecedented number of lawsuits pitting the two branches against each other in court that arose after Democrats took over the House following the 2018 midterm election and Trump vowed to stonewall “all” subpoenas.

The lawsuit over the McGahn subpoena echoes a similar dispute that President Barack Obama inherited when he took over from President George W. Bush in 2009. House Democrats investigating Bush’s firings of U.S. attorneys had issued a subpoena for testimony by Harriet Miers, Bush’s White House counsel at the time, leading to a lawsuit.

Explaining that Obama did not want to weaken the presidency as an institution, Obama’s then White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, worked out a compromise with a representative of Bush, Emmet Flood, and the Judiciary Committee under which Democrats were able to confidentially interview Miers about the topic, with limits.

The settlement mooted the case, so the District of Columbia Circuit never issued a binding ruling, leaving the legal question unresolved. The result left the White House with more wiggle room in future disputes — including letting the Trump White House raise anew the idea that McGahn was absolutely immune after the House subpoenaed him.

But there are some important differences between 2009 and 2021. Helping ease the way to cooperation, Bush — unlike Trump — had overseen a smooth transition to his successor, and Craig and Flood were former law partners on friendly terms. It is far from clear that Trump will be as open to the idea of compromising.

Letter invoked Trump’s history of stonewalling in warning that it made no sense to delay the full District of Columbia Circuit’s consideration of the case since settlements discussions could fail.

Such a delay “could prevent the committee from securing McGahn’s testimony for much of the 117th Congress, just as it was prevented from securing that testimony for almost the entire duration of the 116th Congress,” he wrote.

The White House and congressional Democrats are divided over a politically charged lawsuit that raises novel constitutional issues: the House’s long-running attempt to compel President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry.

The White House and congressional Democrats are divided over a politically charged lawsuit that raises novel constitutional issues: the House’s long-running attempt to compel President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia inquiry. When Democrats controlled only the House, it was simpler for their leaders to unite behind subpoenaing McGahn. But the officials who now run the executive branch, especially President Joe Biden’s White House lawyers, are hesitant about establishing a precedent that Republicans might someday use to force them to testify about their own internal matters. A glimpse of the institutional disconnect became public late Wednesday, when the Justice Department — which under Trump had been representing McGahn in fighting the lawsuit — asked an appeals court to delay arguments in the case scheduled for Tuesday, citing the recent change in administrations. “The new administration wishes to explore whether an accommodation might be available with respect to the committee’s request,” the filing said. “Discussions among the relevant parties have begun, and the new administration believes the parties would benefit from additional time to pursue these discussions.” But Douglas N. Letter, a lawyer for House Democrats — and, effectively, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — opposed that motion, urging the full Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to press forward without delay. “We appreciate the Biden administration’s efforts to settle this case, and we have actively participated in those efforts,” Letter wrote. “But we do not believe that postponing the argument will improve the prospect of a settlement or serve the interests of judicial efficiency or fairness to the parties.” Late on Thursday, however, the appeals court granted the Justice Department’s request, moving back the scheduled day for arguments to April 27, and ordering the delivery of a “status report advising the court of the progress of the parties’ discussion” by March 25. House Democrats were frustrated that the Trump administration’s uncompromising approach and litigation strategy succeeded in running out the clock, preventing any testimony by McGahn before the 2020 election. In his motion, Letter raised doubts that any compromise involving Trump would be possible, warning that delay could further thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight powers. The case centers on McGahn’s role as an important witness in the report by special counsel Robert Mueller about efforts by Trump to obstruct the investigation. After the Justice Department made most of the report public, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn to testify at an oversight hearing. When he refused to appear, on Trump’s instructions, the committee sued. The Justice Department under Trump had argued that McGahn was “absolutely immune” from any compelled appearance before Congress to testify about his work duties. But in August, the full District of Columbia Circuit rejected that theory. Justice Department lawyers under the Trump administration continued to fight the subpoena on other legal grounds, however, arguing that Congress had no “cause of action” that authorized it to sue the executive branch. (The executive branch has taken that position under administrations of both parties, and the Justice Department said it was “prepared to proceed” with the argument as scheduled if the court denied its request for a delay.) The dispute is further complicated by the fact that there are so many participants — House Democrats, McGahn, the Biden administration and potentially Trump. The former president has not been a party to the lawsuit, but he might try to intervene and assert executive privilege — yet another issue that has not yet been adjudicated in the matter — if the executive branch under Biden drops out of the case. Patrick F. Philbin, a former deputy White House counsel who is one of the people Trump designated to deal with residual issues related to presidential records, declined to comment. William A. Burck, a lawyer for McGahn, has previously said that his client intended to defer to the president’s instructions, pending a final judicial order. A person familiar with the deliberations said Burck had not taken a position on what McGahn would do if Biden were to instruct him to talk to Congress, but Trump still told him not to. Stuart F. Delery, a deputy White House counsel, said in an interview that the negotiations are still preliminary but that the Biden administration would like more time to try to resolve the dispute while preserving the “institutional interests connected to the presidency.” There are few legal precedents. A rare and limited guidepost is a 1977 case, Nixon v. General Services Administration. In it, the Supreme Court ruled that Richard M. Nixon could assert executive privilege claims over official records from his White House even though he was no longer the president — but it also weighed that assertion against the contrary view of the sitting president at the time, Jimmy Carter. That dispute, however, centered on control of Nixon-era White House documents, not a subpoena for a former lawyer’s testimony. Another question is how attorney-client privilege works for a former White House lawyer when the presidency changes hands — and what would happen if Trump were to file a bar ethics complaint going after McGahn’s law license if he cooperates with the House at Biden’s request but over Trump’s objections. Many such questions have no definitive answers because until recently, it was exceedingly rare for such disputes to be fought without compromise, leading to judicial rulings. But the McGahn subpoena lawsuit is one of an unprecedented number of lawsuits pitting the two branches against each other in court that arose after Democrats took over the House following the 2018 midterm election and Trump vowed to stonewall “all” subpoenas. The lawsuit over the McGahn subpoena echoes a similar dispute that President Barack Obama inherited when he took over from President George W. Bush in 2009. House Democrats investigating Bush’s firings of U.S. attorneys had issued a subpoena for testimony by Harriet Miers, Bush’s White House counsel at the time, leading to a lawsuit. Explaining that Obama did not want to weaken the presidency as an institution, Obama’s then White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, worked out a compromise with a representative of Bush, Emmet Flood, and the Judiciary Committee under which Democrats were able to confidentially interview Miers about the topic, with limits. The settlement mooted the case, so the District of Columbia Circuit never issued a binding ruling, leaving the legal question unresolved. The result left the White House with more wiggle room in future disputes — including letting the Trump White House raise anew the idea that McGahn was absolutely immune after the House subpoenaed him. But there are some important differences between 2009 and 2021. Helping ease the way to cooperation, Bush — unlike Trump — had overseen a smooth transition to his successor, and Craig and Flood were former law partners on friendly terms. It is far from clear that Trump will be as open to the idea of compromising. Letter invoked Trump’s history of stonewalling in warning that it made no sense to delay the full District of Columbia Circuit’s consideration of the case since settlements discussions could fail. Such a delay “could prevent the committee from securing McGahn’s testimony for much of the 117th Congress, just as it was prevented from securing that testimony for almost the entire duration of the 116th Congress,” he wrote.

House Democrats and White House split over lawsuit for ex-Trump aide’s testimony

Former US President Donald Trump was acquitted by US Senate in impeachment trial on Sunday (Indian time). This put an end to political turmoil centered around the only US President who got impeached twice in his presidency. US Senate voted 53-47 in favour of conviction of Donald Trump but the number could not reach the two-thirds majority required to put a seal on impeachment. Several Republican Senators broke ranks and voted for Trump's conviction.

After Trump's acquittal, reactions poured in from prominent political figures in the US.

Sitting US President Joe Biden said that though Trump was acquitted, the substance of the charge was not in dispute. This indicated that Biden was in no mood to dissociate Trump from US Capitol attack.

"While the final vote did not lead to a conviction, the substance of the charge is not in dispute," Biden said in a statement.&nbsp;

"This sad chapter in our history has reminded us that democracy is fragile. That it must always be defended. That we must be ever vigilant."

Trump showed no signs of remorse after his acquittal.

&nbsp;Trump said the movement to "Make America Great Again" has just begun, suggesting not quitting politics and seeking another run for the presidency in 2024.&nbsp;

"Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun," Trump in a statement said.&nbsp;

US Senate Speaker Nancy Pelosi was more direct in her words to criticise those who supported Trump.

"I salute the Republican Senators who voted their conscience and for our Country. Other Senate Republicans’ refusal to hold Trump accountable will go down as one of the darkest days and most dishonorable acts in our nation’s history," she tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I salute the Republican Senators who voted their conscience and for our Country. 
 
Other Senate Republicans’ refusal to hold Trump accountable will go down as one of the darkest days and most dishonorable acts in our nation’s history.
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1360728544213688320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 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>

&nbsp;

During the Senate trail, top Republican Senator Mitch McConnell held Trump responsible for Capitol attack.

"There's no question -- none -- that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," McConnell said in a speech following the vote that led to Trump's acquittal.

"These criminals were carrying his banners. Hanging his flags. And screaming their loyalty to him."

He called Trump's actions leading up to the siege "a disgraceful dereliction of duty."

However, Republican Party under McConnell''s leadership closed ranks to defeat the impeachment motion.

Not all Republican voted to Support Trump, several Republicans broke the party line. Senator Bill Cassidy was among them. In his tweet, Cassidy said that Trump was 'guilty'

"Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty," he tweeted with a video message

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty. <a href="https://t.co/ute0xPc4BH">pic.twitter.com/ute0xPc4BH</a>
— U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (@SenBillCassidy) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenBillCassidy/status/1360697544293183488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 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>

&nbsp;

Democratic Party Senator Bernie Sanders said that it was 'sad' that 'only' 7 Republican Senators voted to convict Trump.

"It is truly sad and dangerous that only 7 Republicans voted to convict a president who is promoting a Big Lie, conspiracy theories and violence, and is aggressively trying to destroy American democracy," he tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
It is truly sad and dangerous that only 7 Republicans voted to convict a president who is promoting a Big Lie, conspiracy theories and violence, and is aggressively trying to destroy American democracy.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1360709157339475972?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 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>

&nbsp;

Former US President Donald Trump was acquitted by US Senate in impeachment trial on Sunday (Indian time). This put an end to political turmoil centered around the only US President who got impeached twice in his presidency.

Former US President Donald Trump was acquitted by US Senate in impeachment trial on Sunday (Indian time). This put an end to political turmoil centered around the only US President who got impeached twice in his presidency. US Senate voted 53-47 in favour of conviction of Donald Trump but the number could not reach the two-thirds majority required to put a seal on impeachment. Several Republican Senators broke ranks and voted for Trump's conviction. After Trump's acquittal, reactions poured in from prominent political figures in the US. Sitting US President Joe Biden said that though Trump was acquitted, the substance of the charge was not in dispute. This indicated that Biden was in no mood to dissociate Trump from US Capitol attack. "While the final vote did not lead to a conviction, the substance of the charge is not in dispute," Biden said in a statement. "This sad chapter in our history has reminded us that democracy is fragile. That it must always be defended. That we must be ever vigilant." Trump showed no signs of remorse after his acquittal. Trump said the movement to "Make America Great Again" has just begun, suggesting not quitting politics and seeking another run for the presidency in 2024. "Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun," Trump in a statement said. US Senate Speaker Nancy Pelosi was more direct in her words to criticise those who supported Trump. "I salute the Republican Senators who voted their conscience and for our Country. Other Senate Republicans’ refusal to hold Trump accountable will go down as one of the darkest days and most dishonorable acts in our nation’s history," she tweeted. I salute the Republican Senators who voted their conscience and for our Country. Other Senate Republicans’ refusal to hold Trump accountable will go down as one of the darkest days and most dishonorable acts in our nation’s history. — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) February 13, 2021 × During the Senate trail, top Republican Senator Mitch McConnell held Trump responsible for Capitol attack. "There's no question -- none -- that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," McConnell said in a speech following the vote that led to Trump's acquittal. "These criminals were carrying his banners. Hanging his flags. And screaming their loyalty to him." He called Trump's actions leading up to the siege "a disgraceful dereliction of duty." However, Republican Party under McConnell''s leadership closed ranks to defeat the impeachment motion. Not all Republican voted to Support Trump, several Republicans broke the party line. Senator Bill Cassidy was among them. In his tweet, Cassidy said that Trump was 'guilty' "Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty," he tweeted with a video message Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty. pic.twitter.com/ute0xPc4BH — U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (@SenBillCassidy) February 13, 2021 × Democratic Party Senator Bernie Sanders said that it was 'sad' that 'only' 7 Republican Senators voted to convict Trump. "It is truly sad and dangerous that only 7 Republicans voted to convict a president who is promoting a Big Lie, conspiracy theories and violence, and is aggressively trying to destroy American democracy," he tweeted. It is truly sad and dangerous that only 7 Republicans voted to convict a president who is promoting a Big Lie, conspiracy theories and violence, and is aggressively trying to destroy American democracy. — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 13, 2021 ×

Trump acquittal: US leaders on both sides react strongly

Former US President Donald Trump was acquitted by US Senate in the impeachment trial. Majority of Senate republicans closed ranks to aquit Trump in his second impeachment trial. During the five-day trial, Democratic Senators argued strongly in favour of impeaching Donald Trump who is the only US President to have been impeached twice. It follows logically that this Trump's second acquittal.

Majority of the Republicans expectedly declared Trump not guilty. This was a sign of the powerful grip Trump still has on the Republican party.

But while the 57-43 majority that voted to convict fell short of the two-thirds needed in the Senate, seven Republicans joined with Democrats to seek Trump's conviction, making it the most bipartisan impeachment trial in US history.

Trump welcomed the verdict and denounced the proceedings as&nbsp;"yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country." He has been secluded in his Florida club since leaving the presidency.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-senate-acquits-donald-trump-of-inciting-capitol-hill-riots-363554/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Despite the stain of a second impeachment, Trump hinted at a possible political future, saying that "our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun."

"We have so much work ahead of us, and soon we will emerge with a vision for a bright, radiant, and limitless American future," he said in a statement. 
Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives on January 13, a week after the chaotic assault that stunned the nation and provoked widespread bipartisan outrage.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/whats-next-for-trump-the-republican-party-and-biden-363484">What's next for Trump, the Republican Party and Biden?</a>

During the impeachment trial, Democratic Senators argued that Trump's behaviour was an&nbsp;"open and shut" case of impeachable conduct. They retraced how Trump spent two months repeating false allegations of election fraud before inciting his supporters to attack US Capitol building on January 6.

"He summoned his supporters to Washington, on the Ellipse, whipped them into a frenzy, and directed them at the Capitol," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said after the vote.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-lawyers-deny-he-incited-capitol-mob-363466">Trump’s lawyers deny he incited Capitol mob</a>

The defense team swatted the evidence away, arguing that Trump's appeal to supporters to "fight like hell, at the rally that preceded the attack," was merely rhetorical.

But their central argument was that the Senate had no constitutional jurisdiction to try a former president. Most Republican senators agreed.

(With AFP inputs)

Former US President Donald Trump was acquitted by US Senate in the impeachment trial. Majority of Senate republicans closed ranks to aquit Trump in his second impeachment trial.

Former US President Donald Trump was acquitted by US Senate in the impeachment trial. Majority of Senate republicans closed ranks to aquit Trump in his second impeachment trial. During the five-day trial, Democratic Senators argued strongly in favour of impeaching Donald Trump who is the only US President to have been impeached twice. It follows logically that this Trump's second acquittal. Majority of the Republicans expectedly declared Trump not guilty. This was a sign of the powerful grip Trump still has on the Republican party. But while the 57-43 majority that voted to convict fell short of the two-thirds needed in the Senate, seven Republicans joined with Democrats to seek Trump's conviction, making it the most bipartisan impeachment trial in US history. Trump welcomed the verdict and denounced the proceedings as "yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country." He has been secluded in his Florida club since leaving the presidency. × Despite the stain of a second impeachment, Trump hinted at a possible political future, saying that "our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun." "We have so much work ahead of us, and soon we will emerge with a vision for a bright, radiant, and limitless American future," he said in a statement. Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives on January 13, a week after the chaotic assault that stunned the nation and provoked widespread bipartisan outrage. Also Read | What's next for Trump, the Republican Party and Biden? During the impeachment trial, Democratic Senators argued that Trump's behaviour was an "open and shut" case of impeachable conduct. They retraced how Trump spent two months repeating false allegations of election fraud before inciting his supporters to attack US Capitol building on January 6. "He summoned his supporters to Washington, on the Ellipse, whipped them into a frenzy, and directed them at the Capitol," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said after the vote. Also Read | Trump’s lawyers deny he incited Capitol mob The defense team swatted the evidence away, arguing that Trump's appeal to supporters to "fight like hell, at the rally that preceded the attack," was merely rhetorical. But their central argument was that the Senate had no constitutional jurisdiction to try a former president. Most Republican senators agreed. (With AFP inputs)

Donald Trump acquitted by US Senate in his second impeachment trial 

A divided Senate voted Tuesday to proceed with Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial, narrowly rejecting constitutional objections after House prosecutors opened their case with a harrowing 13-minute video capturing the deadly Capitol riot he stands accused of inciting.

Though the presentation stunned senators who lived through the rampage into silence, only six Republicans joined Democrats in clearing the way for the case to be heard. The 56-44 vote was the second indication in two weeks that Trump was all but certain to be acquitted.

“The result of this trial is preordained,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said flatly. “President Trump will be acquitted.”

Even so, the nine House Democrats prosecuting the former president aimed their opening arguments squarely at Republicans who had the power to change the outcome. They cited an array of conservative legal scholars to argue that the Senate not only had the right to try a former president for official misconduct, but an obligation. And they offered a raw appeal from the well of the Senate, where a month before lawmakers had taken shelter as the pro-Trump mob closed in.

“Senators, this cannot be our future,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the lead manager, as he fought back tears. He described being locked inside the House chamber while colleagues called loved ones “to say goodbye” and his own daughter and son-in-law feared for their lives nearby.

“This cannot be the future of America,” he continued. “We cannot have presidents inciting and mobilizing mob violence against our government and our institutions because they refuse to accept the will of the people.”

It was a prelude to a case that Raskin and his team will begin prosecuting in full Wednesday. They seek to prove that Trump spent his final months in office trying to overthrow the election, using baseless claims of widespread voter fraud to rally supporters in Washington and then encourage them to march to the Capitol to try to confront Congress as it met to formalize President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

The House managers faced off against a hastily assembled legal team for Trump that offered an at-times meandering defense, before ultimately arguing that trying the former president would violate the Constitution. It began with a circuitous presentation from Bruce Castor, who complimented the compelling case made by the managers and then launched into a speech that appeared to confuse and bore some senators in both parties.

His partner David Schoen was sharper, asserting that Democrats were driven by an “insatiable lust” to destroy Trump. Schoen warned that they would instead damage the country by setting a new standard to pursue former officials, despite the fact that the House voted with bipartisan support to impeach Trump before he left office.

“Under their unsupportable constitutional theory, and tortured reading of the text, every civil officer who has served is at risk of impeachment if any given group elected to the House decides that what was thought to be important service to the country when they served now deserves to be canceled,” Schoen said.

The defense’s case drew perplexed reactions from Republicans, evidently including Trump, who — barred from Twitter and out of sight in Florida — lacks the public megaphone he frequently used to weigh in on his first trial. The performance prompted at least one Republican, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, to side with Democrats on the vote to allow the trial to proceed.

“Anyone who listened to President Trump’s legal team saw they were unfocused, they attempted to avoid the issue and they talked about everything but the issue at hand,” said Cassidy, who had voted last month in favor of a constitutional objection to the trial and was the only Republican to switch his position on the matter Tuesday. He quickly drew rebukes from the Louisiana Republican Party.

The debate reflected the historic nature of the undertaking. Though in the 19th century the Senate agreed to try a war secretary after he left office, it has never before sat in judgment of a former president. Trump is also the first president ever to be impeached and stand trial twice, and certainly the only one to require a court of impeachment to don masks and meet in the middle of a deadly pandemic.

With senators in both parties eager to conclude an undertaking whose outcome was clear, they agreed to rules that would allow for an extraordinarily rapid impeachment trial, with a verdict expected as soon as this weekend. It could conclude in as little as half the time of Trump’s first trial.

The speed reflected Democrats’ fears that pausing to judge Trump would spoil the momentum behind Biden’s agenda. Republicans, too, had good reason to want the trial over with, closing a chapter that has been divisive and damaging to their party.

By embracing the defense’s arguments for dismissal, Republicans gave themselves cover to acquit Trump without judging the case on its merits. Many Republican senators have said publicly and privately that they hold Trump at least partly responsible for the assault at the Capitol, but the former president retains a singular hold on their voters and their party. A vote to convict could be politically perilous.

Others, like Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, continue to insist they will serve as impartial jurors and are open to conviction even if they voted to dismiss the case on constitutional grounds. But the two positions are difficult to reconcile.

Seventeen Republicans would have to abandon Trump to reach the two-thirds threshold to convict him. In the vote Tuesday, the six Republicans who said the trial should go forward were Cassidy, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Still, it was clear the House managers had fulfilled their goal of forcing senators to stare down the reality of what unfolded on Jan. 6 and contemplate Trump’s role in the rampage. Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, had senators sitting silently in their chamber, reliving the assault through a slickly produced video — complete with graphic scenes of violence by the rioters, who were using the kinds of expletives seldom heard on the Senate floor.

At one point, the anguished screams of a police officer echoed through the Senate chamber as video showed that he was nearly crushed by the mob at the door. Raskin pointed out that five people, including an officer, had died.

His appeal followed a denser constitutional and historical argument in which Raskin warned senators that the president wanted them to create a dangerous “January exception” that would undermine the founders’ system of checks and balances. Drawing from the 1787 Constitutional Convention and political logic familiar to lawmakers, he insisted forgoing a trial would send the message that future presidents are immune from wrongdoing in their final weeks in office.

“Everyone can see immediately why this is so dangerous,” he said. “It is an invitation to the president to take his best shot at anything he may want to do on his way out the door, including using violent means to lock that door, to hang on to the Oval Office at all costs and to block the peaceful transfer of power.”

The words still hung in the Senate chamber as Raskin hit play on a video montage of the assault, interspersing the president’s own speech with footage of the pro-Trump throng mobbing the Capitol and marauding through its corridors.

“He would have you believe there is absolutely nothing the Senate can do about it,” Raskin said, gesturing at the images. “No trial. No facts. He wants you to decide that the Senate is powerless at that point. That can’t be right.”

Raskin said the framers had intended just the opposite. They had been perfectly comfortable with impeaching former officials, he said.

There were other, subtler nudges to pull Republicans into the trial. The managers repeatedly referred to conservatives’ favored approaches to analyzing the Constitution, cited legal scholars associated with the conservative Federalist Society and embraced an unlikely ally, Charles J. Cooper, an influential conservative lawyer allied with congressional leaders who made a forceful argument this week in The Wall Street Journal in favor of a trial.

As Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado walked senators through the chamber’s own precedent on the question, he said their predecessors had confronted and rejected the same argument as Trump’s in the case of the war secretary in 1876.

“Literally, they were sitting in the same chairs you all are sitting in today, they were outraged by that argument,” he said, looking out at the chamber.

The arguments from Trump’s three-person defense team, installed just two weeks ago, were less cohesive.

Perhaps to his benefit, Castor took the air out of the room after Raskin’s vivid description of Jan 6. with an ambling, and at times contradictory, monologue about the passions of the moment and senators’ love of country. After nearly an hour, he reached a conclusion, saying that as a private citizen, Trump should not be impeached, and that if the Justice Department believed he had done anything wrong, it would be prosecuting him.

“There is no opportunity where the president of the United States can run rampant in January at the end of his term and just go away scot free,” Castor said. “The Department of Justice does know what to do with such people.”

He argued that Democrats really just wanted to make sure that Trump could not run again.

Following him at the podium, Schoen took a more adversarial role. He called Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, who was presiding as the Senate’s president pro tempore in place of Chief Justice John Roberts, a biased judge. Previewing the defense's own presentation expected this week, he said that Trump’s admonition to his supporters on Jan. 6 to “fight like hell” was protected free speech.

Schoen derided the managers for hiring a “movie company” to stitch together the most gruesome scenes of the attack as if it were a “blood sport.” But he played his own video presentation of clips of Democratic lawmakers through the years calling for Trump to be impeached, as ominous music played in the background.

A divided Senate voted Tuesday to proceed with Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial, narrowly rejecting constitutional objections after House prosecutors opened their case with a harrowing 13-minute video capturing the deadly Capitol riot he stands accused of inciting.

A divided Senate voted Tuesday to proceed with Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial, narrowly rejecting constitutional objections after House prosecutors opened their case with a harrowing 13-minute video capturing the deadly Capitol riot he stands accused of inciting. Though the presentation stunned senators who lived through the rampage into silence, only six Republicans joined Democrats in clearing the way for the case to be heard. The 56-44 vote was the second indication in two weeks that Trump was all but certain to be acquitted. “The result of this trial is preordained,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said flatly. “President Trump will be acquitted.” Even so, the nine House Democrats prosecuting the former president aimed their opening arguments squarely at Republicans who had the power to change the outcome. They cited an array of conservative legal scholars to argue that the Senate not only had the right to try a former president for official misconduct, but an obligation. And they offered a raw appeal from the well of the Senate, where a month before lawmakers had taken shelter as the pro-Trump mob closed in. “Senators, this cannot be our future,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the lead manager, as he fought back tears. He described being locked inside the House chamber while colleagues called loved ones “to say goodbye” and his own daughter and son-in-law feared for their lives nearby. “This cannot be the future of America,” he continued. “We cannot have presidents inciting and mobilizing mob violence against our government and our institutions because they refuse to accept the will of the people.” It was a prelude to a case that Raskin and his team will begin prosecuting in full Wednesday. They seek to prove that Trump spent his final months in office trying to overthrow the election, using baseless claims of widespread voter fraud to rally supporters in Washington and then encourage them to march to the Capitol to try to confront Congress as it met to formalize President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. The House managers faced off against a hastily assembled legal team for Trump that offered an at-times meandering defense, before ultimately arguing that trying the former president would violate the Constitution. It began with a circuitous presentation from Bruce Castor, who complimented the compelling case made by the managers and then launched into a speech that appeared to confuse and bore some senators in both parties. His partner David Schoen was sharper, asserting that Democrats were driven by an “insatiable lust” to destroy Trump. Schoen warned that they would instead damage the country by setting a new standard to pursue former officials, despite the fact that the House voted with bipartisan support to impeach Trump before he left office. “Under their unsupportable constitutional theory, and tortured reading of the text, every civil officer who has served is at risk of impeachment if any given group elected to the House decides that what was thought to be important service to the country when they served now deserves to be canceled,” Schoen said. The defense’s case drew perplexed reactions from Republicans, evidently including Trump, who — barred from Twitter and out of sight in Florida — lacks the public megaphone he frequently used to weigh in on his first trial. The performance prompted at least one Republican, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, to side with Democrats on the vote to allow the trial to proceed. “Anyone who listened to President Trump’s legal team saw they were unfocused, they attempted to avoid the issue and they talked about everything but the issue at hand,” said Cassidy, who had voted last month in favor of a constitutional objection to the trial and was the only Republican to switch his position on the matter Tuesday. He quickly drew rebukes from the Louisiana Republican Party. The debate reflected the historic nature of the undertaking. Though in the 19th century the Senate agreed to try a war secretary after he left office, it has never before sat in judgment of a former president. Trump is also the first president ever to be impeached and stand trial twice, and certainly the only one to require a court of impeachment to don masks and meet in the middle of a deadly pandemic. With senators in both parties eager to conclude an undertaking whose outcome was clear, they agreed to rules that would allow for an extraordinarily rapid impeachment trial, with a verdict expected as soon as this weekend. It could conclude in as little as half the time of Trump’s first trial. The speed reflected Democrats’ fears that pausing to judge Trump would spoil the momentum behind Biden’s agenda. Republicans, too, had good reason to want the trial over with, closing a chapter that has been divisive and damaging to their party. By embracing the defense’s arguments for dismissal, Republicans gave themselves cover to acquit Trump without judging the case on its merits. Many Republican senators have said publicly and privately that they hold Trump at least partly responsible for the assault at the Capitol, but the former president retains a singular hold on their voters and their party. A vote to convict could be politically perilous. Others, like Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, continue to insist they will serve as impartial jurors and are open to conviction even if they voted to dismiss the case on constitutional grounds. But the two positions are difficult to reconcile. Seventeen Republicans would have to abandon Trump to reach the two-thirds threshold to convict him. In the vote Tuesday, the six Republicans who said the trial should go forward were Cassidy, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania. Still, it was clear the House managers had fulfilled their goal of forcing senators to stare down the reality of what unfolded on Jan. 6 and contemplate Trump’s role in the rampage. Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, had senators sitting silently in their chamber, reliving the assault through a slickly produced video — complete with graphic scenes of violence by the rioters, who were using the kinds of expletives seldom heard on the Senate floor. At one point, the anguished screams of a police officer echoed through the Senate chamber as video showed that he was nearly crushed by the mob at the door. Raskin pointed out that five people, including an officer, had died. His appeal followed a denser constitutional and historical argument in which Raskin warned senators that the president wanted them to create a dangerous “January exception” that would undermine the founders’ system of checks and balances. Drawing from the 1787 Constitutional Convention and political logic familiar to lawmakers, he insisted forgoing a trial would send the message that future presidents are immune from wrongdoing in their final weeks in office. “Everyone can see immediately why this is so dangerous,” he said. “It is an invitation to the president to take his best shot at anything he may want to do on his way out the door, including using violent means to lock that door, to hang on to the Oval Office at all costs and to block the peaceful transfer of power.” The words still hung in the Senate chamber as Raskin hit play on a video montage of the assault, interspersing the president’s own speech with footage of the pro-Trump throng mobbing the Capitol and marauding through its corridors. “He would have you believe there is absolutely nothing the Senate can do about it,” Raskin said, gesturing at the images. “No trial. No facts. He wants you to decide that the Senate is powerless at that point. That can’t be right.” Raskin said the framers had intended just the opposite. They had been perfectly comfortable with impeaching former officials, he said. There were other, subtler nudges to pull Republicans into the trial. The managers repeatedly referred to conservatives’ favored approaches to analyzing the Constitution, cited legal scholars associated with the conservative Federalist Society and embraced an unlikely ally, Charles J. Cooper, an influential conservative lawyer allied with congressional leaders who made a forceful argument this week in The Wall Street Journal in favor of a trial. As Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado walked senators through the chamber’s own precedent on the question, he said their predecessors had confronted and rejected the same argument as Trump’s in the case of the war secretary in 1876. “Literally, they were sitting in the same chairs you all are sitting in today, they were outraged by that argument,” he said, looking out at the chamber. The arguments from Trump’s three-person defense team, installed just two weeks ago, were less cohesive. Perhaps to his benefit, Castor took the air out of the room after Raskin’s vivid description of Jan 6. with an ambling, and at times contradictory, monologue about the passions of the moment and senators’ love of country. After nearly an hour, he reached a conclusion, saying that as a private citizen, Trump should not be impeached, and that if the Justice Department believed he had done anything wrong, it would be prosecuting him. “There is no opportunity where the president of the United States can run rampant in January at the end of his term and just go away scot free,” Castor said. “The Department of Justice does know what to do with such people.” He argued that Democrats really just wanted to make sure that Trump could not run again. Following him at the podium, Schoen took a more adversarial role. He called Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, who was presiding as the Senate’s president pro tempore in place of Chief Justice John Roberts, a biased judge. Previewing the defense's own presentation expected this week, he said that Trump’s admonition to his supporters on Jan. 6 to “fight like hell” was protected free speech. Schoen derided the managers for hiring a “movie company” to stitch together the most gruesome scenes of the attack as if it were a “blood sport.” But he played his own video presentation of clips of Democratic lawmakers through the years calling for Trump to be impeached, as ominous music played in the background.

Senate agrees trial is constitutional, as Trump consolidates votes for an acquittal

The office of Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, on Monday started an investigation into former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the state’s election results, including a phone call he made to Raffensperger in which Trump pressured him to “find” enough votes to reverse his loss.

Such inquiries are “fact-finding and administrative in nature,” the secretary’s office said, and are a routine step when complaints are received about electoral matters. Findings are typically brought before the Republican-controlled state board of elections, which decides whether to refer them for prosecution to the state attorney general or another agency.

The move comes as Fani Willis, the Democratic district attorney of Fulton County, which encompasses much of Atlanta, is weighing whether to begin a criminal inquiry of her own. A spokesperson for Willis declined to comment Monday.

The January call was one of several attempts Trump made to try to persuade top Republican officials in the state to uncover instances of voting fraud that might change the outcome, despite the insistence of voting officials that there was no widespread fraud to be found. He also called Gov. Brian Kemp in early December and pressured him to call a special legislative session to overturn his election loss. Later that month, Trump called a state investigator and pressed the official to “find the fraud,” according to those with knowledge of the call.

“The secretary of state’s office investigates complaints it receives,” Walter Jones, a spokesperson for the office, said in a statement Monday. “The investigations are fact-finding and administrative in nature. Any further legal efforts will be left to the attorney general.”

David Worley, the sole Democrat on the state elections board, said Monday that administrative inquiries by the secretary of state’s office could result in criminal charges.

“Any investigation of a statutory violation is a potential criminal investigation depending on the statute involved,” he said, adding that in the case of Trump, “The complaint that was received involved a criminal violation.”

Worley said that now that an inquiry had been started by the secretary of state’s office, he would not introduce a motion at Wednesday’s state board of election meeting, as he had originally planned to do, in an effort to refer the case to the Fulton County district attorney’s office.

Not long after the call to Raffensperger became public, several complaints were filed. One came from John F. Banzhaf III, a George Washington University law professor.

Former prosecutors said Trump’s calls might run afoul of at least three state laws. One is criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, which can be either a felony or a misdemeanor; as a felony, it is punishable by at least a year in prison. There is also a related conspiracy charge, which can be prosecuted either as a misdemeanor or a felony. A third law, a misdemeanor offense, bars “intentional interference” with another person’s “performance of election duties.”

Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, said in a statement: “There was nothing improper or untoward about a scheduled call between President Trump, Secretary Raffensperger and lawyers on both sides. If Mr. Raffensperger didn’t want to receive calls about the election, he shouldn’t have run for secretary of state.”

Biden’s victory in Georgia was reaffirmed after election officials recertified the state’s presidential election results in three separate counts of the ballots: the initial election tally; a hand recount ordered by the state; and another recount, which was requested by Trump’s campaign and completed by machines. The results of the machine recount show Biden won with a lead of about 12,000 votes.

Biden was the first Democrat to win the presidential election in Georgia since 1992. Trump accused Kemp and Raffensperger, both Republicans, of not doing enough to help him overturn the result in the weeks after the election. Kemp and Raffensperger had each resisted numerous attacks from Trump, who called the governor “hapless” and called on the secretary of state to resign. 
&nbsp;

The office of Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, on Monday started an investigation into former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the state’s election results, including a phone call he made to Raffensperger in which Trump pressured him to “find” enough votes to reverse his loss.

The office of Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, on Monday started an investigation into former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the state’s election results, including a phone call he made to Raffensperger in which Trump pressured him to “find” enough votes to reverse his loss. Such inquiries are “fact-finding and administrative in nature,” the secretary’s office said, and are a routine step when complaints are received about electoral matters. Findings are typically brought before the Republican-controlled state board of elections, which decides whether to refer them for prosecution to the state attorney general or another agency. The move comes as Fani Willis, the Democratic district attorney of Fulton County, which encompasses much of Atlanta, is weighing whether to begin a criminal inquiry of her own. A spokesperson for Willis declined to comment Monday. The January call was one of several attempts Trump made to try to persuade top Republican officials in the state to uncover instances of voting fraud that might change the outcome, despite the insistence of voting officials that there was no widespread fraud to be found. He also called Gov. Brian Kemp in early December and pressured him to call a special legislative session to overturn his election loss. Later that month, Trump called a state investigator and pressed the official to “find the fraud,” according to those with knowledge of the call. “The secretary of state’s office investigates complaints it receives,” Walter Jones, a spokesperson for the office, said in a statement Monday. “The investigations are fact-finding and administrative in nature. Any further legal efforts will be left to the attorney general.” David Worley, the sole Democrat on the state elections board, said Monday that administrative inquiries by the secretary of state’s office could result in criminal charges. “Any investigation of a statutory violation is a potential criminal investigation depending on the statute involved,” he said, adding that in the case of Trump, “The complaint that was received involved a criminal violation.” Worley said that now that an inquiry had been started by the secretary of state’s office, he would not introduce a motion at Wednesday’s state board of election meeting, as he had originally planned to do, in an effort to refer the case to the Fulton County district attorney’s office. Not long after the call to Raffensperger became public, several complaints were filed. One came from John F. Banzhaf III, a George Washington University law professor. Former prosecutors said Trump’s calls might run afoul of at least three state laws. One is criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, which can be either a felony or a misdemeanor; as a felony, it is punishable by at least a year in prison. There is also a related conspiracy charge, which can be prosecuted either as a misdemeanor or a felony. A third law, a misdemeanor offense, bars “intentional interference” with another person’s “performance of election duties.” Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, said in a statement: “There was nothing improper or untoward about a scheduled call between President Trump, Secretary Raffensperger and lawyers on both sides. If Mr. Raffensperger didn’t want to receive calls about the election, he shouldn’t have run for secretary of state.” Biden’s victory in Georgia was reaffirmed after election officials recertified the state’s presidential election results in three separate counts of the ballots: the initial election tally; a hand recount ordered by the state; and another recount, which was requested by Trump’s campaign and completed by machines. The results of the machine recount show Biden won with a lead of about 12,000 votes. Biden was the first Democrat to win the presidential election in Georgia since 1992. Trump accused Kemp and Raffensperger, both Republicans, of not doing enough to help him overturn the result in the weeks after the election. Kemp and Raffensperger had each resisted numerous attacks from Trump, who called the governor “hapless” and called on the secretary of state to resign.

Georgia officials review Trump phone call as scrutiny intensifies

US under President Joe Biden may soon revoke the designation of Houthis in Yemen as terrorists. Donald Trump administration had given the terror tag on the very last day in power. Meanwhile Twitter has condemned Myanmar's move to block the platform. China's Tianwen-1 probe has snapped first images of Mars. Read this and more in WION's morning news brief.

 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-revoke-terrorist-designation-of-houthis-in-yemen-361678">US to revoke terrorist designation of Houthis in Yemen</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-revoke-terrorist-designation-of-houthis-in-yemen-361678"><img alt="Joe Biden" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b113557d-6a70-472f-8e8a-67ddd95ed051" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Biden_5.JPG" /></a> 
 
The United Nations describes Yemen as the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis, with 80% of its people in need.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/twitter-condemns-myanmars-move-to-block-access-to-platform-361680">Twitter condemns Myanmar's move to block access to platform</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/twitter-condemns-myanmars-move-to-block-access-to-platform-361680"><img alt="Twitter" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="174d34e8-d395-4680-a543-fbebaeeb47c7" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Twitter_0.JPG" /></a> 
 
After the coup in Myanmar, social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have been blocked

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-should-not-receive-intelligence-briefings-joe-biden-feels-361686">Donald Trump should not receive intelligence briefings, Joe Biden feels</a>

<img alt="Donald Trump" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="1f607eb9-13c5-42a7-b13b-27a64ebbc79e" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Trump_12.JPG" /> 
 
When asked what was his concern about Trump getting the intelligence briefings, Biden said that he would "rather not speculate out loud"

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pure-anti-semitism-israels-netanyahu-slams-icc-decision-and-says-will-fight-it-361677">'Pure anti-semitism': Israel's Netanyahu slams ICC decision and says will fight it</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pure-anti-semitism-israels-netanyahu-slams-icc-decision-and-says-will-fight-it-361677"><img alt="Netanyahu" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="ffe232b0-4219-469d-919f-6115f0a7a4a5" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Netanyahu.JPG" /></a> 
 
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the ICC as a 'political body' while the United States said it had 'serious concerns' over the decision

<a href="World Health Organization says China granted it 'full access' for COVID-19 origin probe in Wuhan">World Health Organization says China granted it 'full access' for COVID-19 origin probe in Wuhan</a>

<img alt="WHO" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="379cc6a3-9e39-483f-9b2e-1dfd9783946f" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/WHO_1.JPG" />

The visit by the WHO team took months to negotiate after China only agreed to it amid massive international pressure at the World Health Assembly meeting last May, and Beijing has continued to deny calls for a strictly independent investigation

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/mars-ahead-chinas-tianwen-1-probe-snaps-first-photo-of-red-planet-361679C">Mars ahead! China's Tianwen-1 probe snaps first photo of red planet</a>

<img alt="Mars" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="8c36516a-ed03-4a2e-acbc-d6de4f7fcdb0" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Mars.JPG" /> 
 
The five-tonne Tianwen-1 includes a Mars orbiter, a lander and a rover that will study the planet's soil

Gravitas: The story of Alexei Navalny

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-the-story-of-alexei-navalny-361674/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

US under President Joe Biden may soon revoke the designation of Houthis in Yemen as terrorists. Donald Trump administration had given the terror tag on the very last day in power.

US under President Joe Biden may soon revoke the designation of Houthis in Yemen as terrorists. Donald Trump administration had given the terror tag on the very last day in power. Meanwhile Twitter has condemned Myanmar's move to block the platform. China's Tianwen-1 probe has snapped first images of Mars. Read this and more in WION's morning news brief. US to revoke terrorist designation of Houthis in Yemen The United Nations describes Yemen as the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis, with 80% of its people in need. Twitter condemns Myanmar's move to block access to platform After the coup in Myanmar, social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have been blocked Donald Trump should not receive intelligence briefings, Joe Biden feels When asked what was his concern about Trump getting the intelligence briefings, Biden said that he would "rather not speculate out loud" 'Pure anti-semitism': Israel's Netanyahu slams ICC decision and says will fight it Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the ICC as a 'political body' while the United States said it had 'serious concerns' over the decision World Health Organization says China granted it 'full access' for COVID-19 origin probe in Wuhan The visit by the WHO team took months to negotiate after China only agreed to it amid massive international pressure at the World Health Assembly meeting last May, and Beijing has continued to deny calls for a strictly independent investigation Mars ahead! China's Tianwen-1 probe snaps first photo of red planet The five-tonne Tianwen-1 includes a Mars orbiter, a lander and a rover that will study the planet's soil Gravitas: The story of Alexei Navalny ×

Morning news brief: US to revoke Houthi terror tag, Twitter fumes at Myanmar, more

As a second impeachment trial for Donald Trump approaches next month, Republicans in states across the country are lining up behind the former president with unwavering support.

Perhaps no state has demonstrated its fealty as tenaciously as Pennsylvania, where Republican officials have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep Trumpism at the center of their message as they bolster the president’s false claims of a “stolen” election.

Eight of nine Republicans in Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation voted to throw out their state’s own electoral votes for President Joe Biden on Jan. 6, just hours after a mob had stormed the Capitol.

A majority of Republicans in the state Legislature had endorsed that effort.

And one House member from the state, Scott Perry, was instrumental in promoting a plan in which Trump would fire the acting attorney general in an effort to stay in office.

In the weeks since the Nov. 3 election, Republicans in Pennsylvania have made loyalty to the defeated ex-president the sole organizing principle of the party, the latest chapter in a rightward populist march repeated across other states. As elsewhere, the Pennsylvania GOP was once led by mainstream conservatives, but it is now defined almost exclusively by Trumpism. It faces major statewide races in 2022, for offices including governor and the Senate, with an electorate that just rejected Trump in favor of Biden.

Far from engaging in self-examination, Pennsylvania Republicans are already jockeying before the 2022 primaries to prove that they fought the hardest for Trump, who, in spite of the losses by his party in the White House, the Senate and the House, still exerts a strong grip over elected Republicans and grassroots voters.

As the Republican base has shifted — suburbanites leaning more Democratic and rural white voters lining up behind Republicans over culture-war issues — GOP leaders recognize the extent to which the former president unleashed waves of support for their party. In Pennsylvania, just as in some Midwestern states, a surge of new Republican voters with grievances about a changing America was triggered by Trump, and only Trump.

“Donald Trump’s presidency and his popularity has been a big win for the Republican Party of Pennsylvania,” said Rob Gleason, a former chair of the state GOP. Even though numerous state and federal courts rejected the Trump campaign’s baseless claims of voter fraud, Gleason said the belief that the voting was rigged “lingers in the minds of a lot of people.”

He predicted it would drive Republican turnout in upcoming races. He said he had met this week with a prosecutor who “feels the election was stolen” and was pondering a run for a statewide judgeship this year.

Other Republicans are more skeptical that lock-step support of the former president is the best path forward in Pennsylvania, a critical battleground state that is likely to be up for grabs in the next several election cycles.

“We have become, over four years, the party of Trump, and it has been one test after the other,” said Ryan Costello, a former GOP House member from the Philadelphia suburbs who has been critical of Trump and is exploring a run for Senate. “It is not a sustainable growth strategy to double and triple and quadruple down on Trump when he gets divisive.”

Despite Costello’s apprehension, most Republicans thought to be mulling runs for Senate or governor have made it clear that they are prepared to pass a Trump loyalty test.

They include members of the Republican congressional delegation, hard-line members of the Legislature, and even Donald Trump Jr. The president’s oldest son is the subject of persistent rumors that he will run for high office in the state — mostly because of his ties to Pennsylvania, where he went to prep school and college. The Trump family spent an enormous amount of time campaigning in Pennsylvania in 2020, and as it seeks its next political stage, the state remains a big one.

The transformation of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania has been stark. Less than two decades ago, it was led by political centrists such as former Sen. Arlen Specter and former Gov. Tom Ridge, who became the first secretary of homeland security.

Now it is embodied by Perry, a member of the hard-line Freedom Caucus who won a fifth term in November for his Harrisburg-area seat. His Democratic opponent, Eugene DePasquale, said he lost the race “fair and square.” But he called the Republican congressman’s efforts on behalf of Trump in a scheme involving the Justice Department “a radical attempt to overthrow the election.”

Perry, a purveyor of misinformation about the presidential election, acknowledged Monday his role in introducing Trump to an official in the Justice Department. That official, Jeffrey Clark, was willing to abet Trump in pressing Georgia to invalidate its electoral votes for Biden.

The plan never unfolded. But Perry, a retired National Guard general who dodged the new metal detectors in the Capitol, rejected calls by Democrats to resign.

Just as resolute in their defense of Trump were the other Pennsylvania House Republicans who voted to reject the state’s electoral votes for Biden on Jan. 6. Rep. Conor Lamb, a Democrat from western Pennsylvania, said on the House floor that his Republican colleagues should be “ashamed of themselves” for spreading lies that led to the breach of the Capitol. His impassioned speech nearly precipitated a fistfight.

“The Trump people were putting out a message: ‘We better see you publicly fighting for us,’” Lamb said in an interview this week. “The 2022 midterm is shaping up to be choosing the candidate who loves Trump the most,” he said of GOP primary contests.

But he called that an opportunity for Democrats to talk about issues affecting people’s lives, such as the economy and the pandemic, while Republicans remain fixated on the 2020 election. “They’re making their main political argument at this point based on a fraud; they’re not making it based on real-world conditions,” he said. “The election was not stolen. Biden really beat Trump.”

Lamb, who has won three races in districts that voted for Trump, has been mentioned as a contender for the open Senate seat. “I would say I will be thinking about it,” he said.

Apart from the House delegation, much of the Trumpist takeover in Pennsylvania has occurred in the Legislature, where Republicans held their majorities in both chambers in November (a result that the party fails to mention in its vehement claims of election fraud in the presidential race).

In contrast to states such as Georgia and Arizona, where top Republican officials debunked disinformation from Trump and his allies, in Pennsylvania no senior Republicans in Harrisburg pushed back on false claims about election results, some of them created by lawmakers themselves or by Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

A majority of Republicans in the General Assembly urged the state’s congressional delegation in December to reject the state’s 20 electoral votes for Biden after the results were legally certified. Such was the pressure from grassroots Trump supporters that the majority leader of the state Senate, Kim Ward, said in an interview last month that if she refused to sign on to such an effort, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”

The full embrace of Trump’s lies about a “stolen” election followed months of Republican lawmakers’ echoing his dismissals of the coronavirus threat. Lawmakers who appeared at “ReOpen PA” rallies in Harrisburg in May, flouting masks and limits on crowd sizes, morphed into leading purveyors of disinformation about election fraud after Nov. 3.

One state senator, Doug Mastriano, who is widely believed to be considering a run for governor, paid for buses and offered rides to the “Save America” protests in Washington on Jan. 6 that preceded the breach of the Capitol. Mastriano has said he left before events turned violent.

As the Legislature convened its 2021 session, Republicans recommitted to a hard-line agenda. Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, a Democrat, was removed by the Republican majority as president of the state Senate at a legislative session Jan. 5. Fetterman had strenuously objected to Republicans’ refusal to seat a Democratic lawmaker whose narrow victory had been officially certified.

Republicans in the state House are seeking to change how judges are elected to ensure a Republican majority on the state Supreme Court, after the current court, with a Democratic lean, ruled against claims in election fraud cases last year.

Republican lawmakers have also plunged into a lengthy examination of the November election, even though no evidence of more than trivial fraud has surfaced, and courts rejected claims that election officials overstepped their legal mandates.

Republicans announced 14 hearings in the House. Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, was grilled in the first one last week. Dismissing the series of hearings as a “charade,” she called on Republicans not to sow further distrust in the integrity of the state’s election, which drew a record 71% turnout despite a pandemic.

“We need to stand together as Americans,” Boockvar said in an interview, “and tell the voters these were lies, that your votes counted, they were checked, they were audited, they were recounted many places, and the numbers added up and they were certified.”

As a second impeachment trial for Donald Trump approaches next month, Republicans in states across the country are lining up behind the former president with unwavering support.

As a second impeachment trial for Donald Trump approaches next month, Republicans in states across the country are lining up behind the former president with unwavering support. Perhaps no state has demonstrated its fealty as tenaciously as Pennsylvania, where Republican officials have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep Trumpism at the center of their message as they bolster the president’s false claims of a “stolen” election. Eight of nine Republicans in Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation voted to throw out their state’s own electoral votes for President Joe Biden on Jan. 6, just hours after a mob had stormed the Capitol. A majority of Republicans in the state Legislature had endorsed that effort. And one House member from the state, Scott Perry, was instrumental in promoting a plan in which Trump would fire the acting attorney general in an effort to stay in office. In the weeks since the Nov. 3 election, Republicans in Pennsylvania have made loyalty to the defeated ex-president the sole organizing principle of the party, the latest chapter in a rightward populist march repeated across other states. As elsewhere, the Pennsylvania GOP was once led by mainstream conservatives, but it is now defined almost exclusively by Trumpism. It faces major statewide races in 2022, for offices including governor and the Senate, with an electorate that just rejected Trump in favor of Biden. Far from engaging in self-examination, Pennsylvania Republicans are already jockeying before the 2022 primaries to prove that they fought the hardest for Trump, who, in spite of the losses by his party in the White House, the Senate and the House, still exerts a strong grip over elected Republicans and grassroots voters. As the Republican base has shifted — suburbanites leaning more Democratic and rural white voters lining up behind Republicans over culture-war issues — GOP leaders recognize the extent to which the former president unleashed waves of support for their party. In Pennsylvania, just as in some Midwestern states, a surge of new Republican voters with grievances about a changing America was triggered by Trump, and only Trump. “Donald Trump’s presidency and his popularity has been a big win for the Republican Party of Pennsylvania,” said Rob Gleason, a former chair of the state GOP. Even though numerous state and federal courts rejected the Trump campaign’s baseless claims of voter fraud, Gleason said the belief that the voting was rigged “lingers in the minds of a lot of people.” He predicted it would drive Republican turnout in upcoming races. He said he had met this week with a prosecutor who “feels the election was stolen” and was pondering a run for a statewide judgeship this year. Other Republicans are more skeptical that lock-step support of the former president is the best path forward in Pennsylvania, a critical battleground state that is likely to be up for grabs in the next several election cycles. “We have become, over four years, the party of Trump, and it has been one test after the other,” said Ryan Costello, a former GOP House member from the Philadelphia suburbs who has been critical of Trump and is exploring a run for Senate. “It is not a sustainable growth strategy to double and triple and quadruple down on Trump when he gets divisive.” Despite Costello’s apprehension, most Republicans thought to be mulling runs for Senate or governor have made it clear that they are prepared to pass a Trump loyalty test. They include members of the Republican congressional delegation, hard-line members of the Legislature, and even Donald Trump Jr. The president’s oldest son is the subject of persistent rumors that he will run for high office in the state — mostly because of his ties to Pennsylvania, where he went to prep school and college. The Trump family spent an enormous amount of time campaigning in Pennsylvania in 2020, and as it seeks its next political stage, the state remains a big one. The transformation of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania has been stark. Less than two decades ago, it was led by political centrists such as former Sen. Arlen Specter and former Gov. Tom Ridge, who became the first secretary of homeland security. Now it is embodied by Perry, a member of the hard-line Freedom Caucus who won a fifth term in November for his Harrisburg-area seat. His Democratic opponent, Eugene DePasquale, said he lost the race “fair and square.” But he called the Republican congressman’s efforts on behalf of Trump in a scheme involving the Justice Department “a radical attempt to overthrow the election.” Perry, a purveyor of misinformation about the presidential election, acknowledged Monday his role in introducing Trump to an official in the Justice Department. That official, Jeffrey Clark, was willing to abet Trump in pressing Georgia to invalidate its electoral votes for Biden. The plan never unfolded. But Perry, a retired National Guard general who dodged the new metal detectors in the Capitol, rejected calls by Democrats to resign. Just as resolute in their defense of Trump were the other Pennsylvania House Republicans who voted to reject the state’s electoral votes for Biden on Jan. 6. Rep. Conor Lamb, a Democrat from western Pennsylvania, said on the House floor that his Republican colleagues should be “ashamed of themselves” for spreading lies that led to the breach of the Capitol. His impassioned speech nearly precipitated a fistfight. “The Trump people were putting out a message: ‘We better see you publicly fighting for us,’” Lamb said in an interview this week. “The 2022 midterm is shaping up to be choosing the candidate who loves Trump the most,” he said of GOP primary contests. But he called that an opportunity for Democrats to talk about issues affecting people’s lives, such as the economy and the pandemic, while Republicans remain fixated on the 2020 election. “They’re making their main political argument at this point based on a fraud; they’re not making it based on real-world conditions,” he said. “The election was not stolen. Biden really beat Trump.” Lamb, who has won three races in districts that voted for Trump, has been mentioned as a contender for the open Senate seat. “I would say I will be thinking about it,” he said. Apart from the House delegation, much of the Trumpist takeover in Pennsylvania has occurred in the Legislature, where Republicans held their majorities in both chambers in November (a result that the party fails to mention in its vehement claims of election fraud in the presidential race). In contrast to states such as Georgia and Arizona, where top Republican officials debunked disinformation from Trump and his allies, in Pennsylvania no senior Republicans in Harrisburg pushed back on false claims about election results, some of them created by lawmakers themselves or by Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani. A majority of Republicans in the General Assembly urged the state’s congressional delegation in December to reject the state’s 20 electoral votes for Biden after the results were legally certified. Such was the pressure from grassroots Trump supporters that the majority leader of the state Senate, Kim Ward, said in an interview last month that if she refused to sign on to such an effort, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.” The full embrace of Trump’s lies about a “stolen” election followed months of Republican lawmakers’ echoing his dismissals of the coronavirus threat. Lawmakers who appeared at “ReOpen PA” rallies in Harrisburg in May, flouting masks and limits on crowd sizes, morphed into leading purveyors of disinformation about election fraud after Nov. 3. One state senator, Doug Mastriano, who is widely believed to be considering a run for governor, paid for buses and offered rides to the “Save America” protests in Washington on Jan. 6 that preceded the breach of the Capitol. Mastriano has said he left before events turned violent. As the Legislature convened its 2021 session, Republicans recommitted to a hard-line agenda. Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, a Democrat, was removed by the Republican majority as president of the state Senate at a legislative session Jan. 5. Fetterman had strenuously objected to Republicans’ refusal to seat a Democratic lawmaker whose narrow victory had been officially certified. Republicans in the state House are seeking to change how judges are elected to ensure a Republican majority on the state Supreme Court, after the current court, with a Democratic lean, ruled against claims in election fraud cases last year. Republican lawmakers have also plunged into a lengthy examination of the November election, even though no evidence of more than trivial fraud has surfaced, and courts rejected claims that election officials overstepped their legal mandates. Republicans announced 14 hearings in the House. Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, was grilled in the first one last week. Dismissing the series of hearings as a “charade,” she called on Republicans not to sow further distrust in the integrity of the state’s election, which drew a record 71% turnout despite a pandemic. “We need to stand together as Americans,” Boockvar said in an interview, “and tell the voters these were lies, that your votes counted, they were checked, they were audited, they were recounted many places, and the numbers added up and they were certified.”

Why Pennsylvania Republican leaders are all-in for Trump more than ever

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned of tech giants' increasing influence that he said competed with states. Lebanon has rolled out tanks amid anti-lockdown protests. Meanwhile, Youtube has suspended former US President Donald Trump's channel indefinitely. Read this and much more in Top 10 world news. &nbsp; &nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/astrazeneca-clarifies-will-attend-eu-meeting-on-covid-19-vaccine-delay-359668">AstraZeneca clarifies will attend EU meeting on Covid-19 vaccine delay</a>

<img alt="Astrazeneca" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="222a8569-457a-453c-a08d-7390d01533e7" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/astrazeneca.JPG" />

The EU contract with AstraZeneca is an advance purchase agreement for the supply of at least 300 million doses provided that the vaccine is approved as safe and effective.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-biden-putin-phone-call-russias-lower-house-of-parliament-approves-new-start-nuclear-control-treaty-359670">After Biden-Putin phone call, Russia's lower house of Parliament approves New START nuclear control treaty</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-biden-putin-phone-call-russias-lower-house-of-parliament-approves-new-start-nuclear-control-treaty-359670"><img alt="Biden Putin" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2d7f04d8-0ab5-40c2-93bc-626994acdacd" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Biden%20putin.JPG" /></a> 
 
The treaty which expires next week on February 5 sets the limits to the number of nuclear warheads, missiles and bombers that the US and Russia can possess.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-warns-against-influence-of-tech-giants-says-they-compete-with-states-359693">Putin warns against influence of tech giants, says they 'compete' with states</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-warns-against-influence-of-tech-giants-says-they-compete-with-states-359693"><img alt="Putin" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="4fc84eed-37e0-4543-b5b4-3994319ae61c" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Putin_2.JPG" /></a> 
 
Putin sounded the warning during his virtual address at Davos virtual economic summit

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/lebanon-rolls-out-tanks-amid-anti-lockdown-protests-359659">Lebanon rolls out tanks amid anti-lockdown protests</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/lebanon-rolls-out-tanks-amid-anti-lockdown-protests-359659"><img alt="Lebanon" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="40ec4eaf-bc37-43c6-ade8-37cdc7aefce7" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Lebanon.JPG" /></a> 
 
The coronavirus cases have spiked in the country after families reportedly gathered during the year-end holidays and authorities allowed bars to stay open until 3:00 am.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-deploys-anal-swabs-to-test-for-coronavirus-359649">China deploys anal swabs to test for coronavirus</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-deploys-anal-swabs-to-test-for-coronavirus-359649"><img alt="China" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="25a64ae8-5104-45e8-9777-dd8ade0e4376" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/china.JPG" /></a> 
 
Doctors in China say the said way can be more effective in detecting the virus.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-judge-blocks-president-bidens-100-day-pause-on-deportations-359694">US judge blocks President Biden's 100-day pause on deportations</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-judge-blocks-president-bidens-100-day-pause-on-deportations-359694"><img alt="Biden" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="af43fa11-f860-44fb-b1fd-554dbfdd2083" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/biden_0.JPG" /></a> 
 
Judge Drew Tipton granted a 14-day temporary restraining order until the case could be further examined on request by state’s Republican attorney-general Ken Paxton.

Youtube suspends Donald Trump from platform indefinitely 
https://www.wionews.com/world/youtube-suspends-donald-trump-from-platform-indefinitely-359653 
Number of social media platforms including Twitter, and Facebook have taken action against Trump after the January 6 Capitol Hill violence

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-waging-psychological-war-iran-says-359699">Israel waging 'psychological war', Iran says</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-waging-psychological-war-iran-says-359699"><img alt="Iran Israel" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="4cab3683-a30f-4f8b-8002-3c894c6422eb" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Iran_8.JPG" /></a> 
 
Mahmoud Vaezi, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's chief of staff, also vowed that his country was ready and willing to defend itself.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amazon-set-to-launch-in-poland-359689">Amazon set to launch in Poland</a>

<img alt="Amazon" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="f44c38d7-e8fa-4977-b912-2d7ae15b13c1" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/amazon_0.JPG" /> 
Poland, which has a population of 38 million people, is one of the last major European countries without a dedicated Amazon website.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-covid-variant-sufferers-cough-more-but-smell-less-affected-survey-359680">UK COVID variant sufferers cough more, but smell less affected: Survey</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-covid-variant-sufferers-cough-more-but-smell-less-affected-survey-359680"><img alt="Covid" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fa3833f4-be1b-4a83-a5bc-a75e6dea5bbc" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/covid_1.JPG" /></a> 
 
The variant, identified in southeast England in December, is thought to be more transmissible, and could also be associated with higher mortality, though data suggesting increased death rates are uncertain and not yet strong.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned of tech giants' increasing influence that he said competed with states. Lebanon has rolled out tanks amid anti-lockdown protests.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned of tech giants' increasing influence that he said competed with states. Lebanon has rolled out tanks amid anti-lockdown protests. Meanwhile, Youtube has suspended former US President Donald Trump's channel indefinitely. Read this and much more in Top 10 world news. AstraZeneca clarifies will attend EU meeting on Covid-19 vaccine delay The EU contract with AstraZeneca is an advance purchase agreement for the supply of at least 300 million doses provided that the vaccine is approved as safe and effective. After Biden-Putin phone call, Russia's lower house of Parliament approves New START nuclear control treaty The treaty which expires next week on February 5 sets the limits to the number of nuclear warheads, missiles and bombers that the US and Russia can possess. Putin warns against influence of tech giants, says they 'compete' with states Putin sounded the warning during his virtual address at Davos virtual economic summit Lebanon rolls out tanks amid anti-lockdown protests The coronavirus cases have spiked in the country after families reportedly gathered during the year-end holidays and authorities allowed bars to stay open until 3:00 am. China deploys anal swabs to test for coronavirus Doctors in China say the said way can be more effective in detecting the virus. US judge blocks President Biden's 100-day pause on deportations Judge Drew Tipton granted a 14-day temporary restraining order until the case could be further examined on request by state’s Republican attorney-general Ken Paxton. Youtube suspends Donald Trump from platform indefinitely https://www.wionews.com/world/youtube-suspends-donald-trump-from-platform-indefinitely-359653 Number of social media platforms including Twitter, and Facebook have taken action against Trump after the January 6 Capitol Hill violence Israel waging 'psychological war', Iran says Mahmoud Vaezi, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's chief of staff, also vowed that his country was ready and willing to defend itself. Amazon set to launch in Poland Poland, which has a population of 38 million people, is one of the last major European countries without a dedicated Amazon website. UK COVID variant sufferers cough more, but smell less affected: Survey The variant, identified in southeast England in December, is thought to be more transmissible, and could also be associated with higher mortality, though data suggesting increased death rates are uncertain and not yet strong.

Top 10 world news: Putin warns against tech giants, Youtube suspends Trump channel, and more

US Democrats' efforts to convict Donald Trump at his impeachment trial suffered a fresh blow Tuesday when almost all Republican senators backed dismissing the case, underlining the former president's continuing hold over the party.

The motion failed after all 50 Democrats and only five Republicans in the Senate did not support the push to throw out the case before the trial has begun.

The result confirmed Democrats will struggle to persuade 17 Republican senators -- the number needed for the required two-thirds majority -- to vote to convict Trump.

Rand Paul, the Republican senator from Kentucky, raised a point of order to hold a vote on the constitutionality of the impeachment trial as Trump has left office.

Democrats then called for a vote to kill the point of order, winning 55-45.

Paul said afterwards "that 45 Senators agreed that this sham of a 'trial' is unconstitutional... This 'trial' is dead on arrival in the Senate."

Patrick Leahy, the 80-year-old senator presiding over the trial, was hospitalized after Tuesday's proceedings during which he sounded hoarse and unwell as lawmakers were sworn in as jurors.

"The Attending Physician recommended that he be taken to a local hospital for observation, where he is now, and where he is being evaluated," his spokesman said.

Leahy, who was elected in 1974, is presiding as he is the senior senator of the party with the majority in the Senate, currently the Democrats.

The House of Representatives on Monday presented a single article of impeachment to the upper chamber accusing Trump of inciting the storming of the Capitol earlier this month, setting in motion the first-ever impeachment trial of a former president.

The trial of Trump, who was impeached by the Democratic-majority House for an unprecedented second time, is to begin the week of February 8.

Trump -- winner of 74 million votes in his loss to Biden on November 3 and reportedly sitting on some $70 million in campaign funds -- wants Republican senators to consider their own futures before they dare cross him.

Trump's main way of applying pressure while out of office is to threaten disloyal legislators with support for their challengers in party primary votes ahead of the 2022 midterms.

Trump's endorsement on Monday of his former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in her bid to become governor of Arkansas was the first flexing of political muscle.

US Democrats' efforts to convict Donald Trump at his impeachment trial suffered a fresh blow Tuesday when almost all Republican senators backed dismissing the case, underlining the former president's continuing hold over the party.

US Democrats' efforts to convict Donald Trump at his impeachment trial suffered a fresh blow Tuesday when almost all Republican senators backed dismissing the case, underlining the former president's continuing hold over the party. The motion failed after all 50 Democrats and only five Republicans in the Senate did not support the push to throw out the case before the trial has begun. The result confirmed Democrats will struggle to persuade 17 Republican senators -- the number needed for the required two-thirds majority -- to vote to convict Trump. Rand Paul, the Republican senator from Kentucky, raised a point of order to hold a vote on the constitutionality of the impeachment trial as Trump has left office. Democrats then called for a vote to kill the point of order, winning 55-45. Paul said afterwards "that 45 Senators agreed that this sham of a 'trial' is unconstitutional... This 'trial' is dead on arrival in the Senate." Patrick Leahy, the 80-year-old senator presiding over the trial, was hospitalized after Tuesday's proceedings during which he sounded hoarse and unwell as lawmakers were sworn in as jurors. "The Attending Physician recommended that he be taken to a local hospital for observation, where he is now, and where he is being evaluated," his spokesman said. Leahy, who was elected in 1974, is presiding as he is the senior senator of the party with the majority in the Senate, currently the Democrats. The House of Representatives on Monday presented a single article of impeachment to the upper chamber accusing Trump of inciting the storming of the Capitol earlier this month, setting in motion the first-ever impeachment trial of a former president. The trial of Trump, who was impeached by the Democratic-majority House for an unprecedented second time, is to begin the week of February 8. Trump -- winner of 74 million votes in his loss to Biden on November 3 and reportedly sitting on some $70 million in campaign funds -- wants Republican senators to consider their own futures before they dare cross him. Trump's main way of applying pressure while out of office is to threaten disloyal legislators with support for their challengers in party primary votes ahead of the 2022 midterms. Trump's endorsement on Monday of his former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in her bid to become governor of Arkansas was the first flexing of political muscle.

Republican senators signal opposition to Donald Trump impeachment

Former President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>, determined to remain a force in GOP politics, is gaining new opportunities with a crucial Senate seat unexpectedly coming open in Ohio, an ally announcing for governor of Arkansas, and rising pressure on Republicans in Congress who did not stand with him during this month’s impeachment vote.

The surprise announcement on Monday by Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio that he would not seek a third term sparked a political land rush, with top strategists in the state receiving a flood of phone calls from potential candidates testing their viability. One consultant said he had received calls from five would-be candidates by midday.

That opening, along with another statewide contest next year in which Gov. Mike DeWine is expected to face at least one Trump-aligned primary challenger, is likely to make Ohio a central battleground for control of the Republican Party, and an inviting one for Trump, who held on to Ohio in the election while losing three other northern battleground states.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/so-much-else-to-do-chuck-schumer-promises-a-fair-but-quick-impeachment-trial-for-trump-359246" hreflang="en">'So much else to do': Chuck Schumer promises a fair but quick impeachment trial for Trump</a>

Portman’s announcement came hours after Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s former White House press secretary, began her campaign for Arkansas governor. The Republican primary there already includes the state’s lieutenant governor and attorney general, but private polling indicates that Sanders is beginning well ahead, and Trump endorsed her candidacy on Monday night.

Trump has only been out of the presidential office five days and has little in the way of political infrastructure. He has told aides he would like to take a break for several months.

But the former president has remained the party’s strongest fundraiser, with tens of millions in PAC money at his disposal, and he retains an enduring base of Republican support across the country. Perhaps most importantly, he harbors a deep-seated desire to punish those he believes have crossed him and reward those who remain loyal.

So far he has focused primarily on Georgia, where he believes the Republican governor and secretary of state betrayed him by certifying his loss there. Both are up for reelection in 2022. And he took something of a test run over the weekend by getting involved in the leadership fight in Arizona’s Republican Party, after Kelli Ward, the firebrand chairwoman, asked for his help in gaining reelection, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-virus-task-force-adviser-describes-misinformation-and-denial-359174" hreflang="en">Trump’s virus task force adviser describes misinformation and denial</a>

Already there is a movement at the state and local levels to challenge incumbent members of Congress seen as breaking with the former president, starting with the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach him earlier this month.

The overwhelming consensus among Ohio Republicans is that a Trump-aligned candidate would be best positioned to win a competitive Senate primary, and no potential candidate has a better claim to Trump’s voters in the state than Rep. Jim Jordan, who was Trump’s chief defender during his first impeachment trial and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the former president’s final days in office.

“Jim is well positioned if in fact he’s ready to take that leap; I’m not sure there’s anybody that would beat him,” said Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio secretary of state and longtime Portman ally who last month served as an Electoral College voter for Trump. Referring to Trump’s legion of supporters, Blackwell added: “In Ohio, it’s going to be who has the track record to show that their agenda respects the newly realigned party base.”

Trump is now ensconced at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where aides are building something that can serve as an office. He’s been golfing several times, and was spotted by people at his club in Florida playing with the brother of former tennis star Anna Kournikova on Sunday.

His advisers have had discussions about whether to get him back on some form of social media platform, although they insist he does not need to be on Twitter or Facebook to raise money, and that his email solicitations continue to work well. On Monday he formally opened the Office of the Former President, to manage his “correspondence, public statements, appearances, and official activities.’’

As President Joe Biden’s inauguration approached, Trump began telling some allies that he was considering forming a third party if Republicans moved to convict him in the Senate trial. But by Saturday, after his own advisers said it was a mistake, Trump started sending out word that he was moving on from his threat.

“He understands that the best thing for his movement and conservatism is to move forward together, that third parties will lead to dominance by Democrats,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who is a close ally of Trump.

Advisers to the president say he has just over $70 million in his PAC, Save America, with few restrictions on what he can do with it. For now, most of his staff is on a government payroll afforded to former presidents for a period of time after they leave office.

Officials are working to mend Trump’s relationship with Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the House minority leader, whom Trump called a vulgarity for his House floor speech denouncing the former president’s rally address before the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6. A senior Republican said that aides to the two men were trying to arrange a meeting or a call in the coming days. And Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., spoke with McCarthy recently and the two are on good terms, a person briefed on the call said.

Trump would like to seek retribution against House members who voted against him, and he’s been particularly angry with Reps. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio and Fred Upton of Michigan, advisers said. He will also at some point focus on the governor’s race in Arizona, where Doug Ducey cannot seek reelection; Gov. Greg Abbott’s reelection bid in Texas; and the Senate race in North Carolina, as places where he can show strength, the advisers said. (One adviser disputed that Trump would have an interest in the Texas race.)

In Ohio, Gonzalez faces a potential primary challenge from Christina Hagan, a former state legislator whom he defeated in a 2018 primary. Hagan lost in the general election last year to Rep. Tim Ryan, a Democrat, in a neighboring district. She said in an interview Monday that she will decide which, if any, race to enter in 2022 after Ohio redraws its congressional districts; the state is likely to lose one seat and Republicans control all levers of redistricting.

“A lot of people elected what they thought was conservative leadership and now are witnessing somebody cutting against their values,” Hagan said, alluding to Gonzalez’s vote to impeach.

Gonzalez’s office did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Trump’s deepest hostility is reserved for Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, advisers said, and they expect he will expend the most energy trying to damage Kemp’s reelection bid. The governor’s original sin was in choosing Kelly Loeffler over Trump’s favored candidate, Doug Collins, to fill a vacant Senate seat in 2019, but it evolved into something more consuming as Trump repeated his debunked claims of widespread fraud in the state and held Kemp responsible for not doing enough to challenge the election results.

Collins, a hard-line Trump backer, hasn’t decided whether to challenge Kemp or seek the Republican nomination against Sen. Raphael Warnock, the Democrat who defeated Loeffler in a special election and will face voters again in 2022, or if he will choose not to run for anything, a Collins aide said Monday.

Next on Trump’s personal hit list is Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., people close to him said. Cheney was the only member of the House GOP leadership to vote to impeach. It’s unclear whether Trump will target her seat, or simply her leadership post in the House, but advisers said they anticipate he will take opportunities to damage her.

Sarah Longwell, the executive director of the Republican Accountability Project, an anti-Trump group, said she and her colleagues plan to raise and spend $50 million to defend the 10 pro-impeachment House Republicans in primary contests and attack those who voted to object to the Electoral College results after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. She said the group would aim to defeat Jordan in an Ohio Senate primary if he runs against an establishment-minded Republican.

Jordan’s spokesman did not respond to messages on Monday.

The 2022 map will be the first real test of Trump’s durability in the party. While Sanders is running for governor in Arkansas, rumors that his daughter Ivanka would run for Senate in Florida are unlikely to develop further. And though his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, was said to be considering a Senate run in North Carolina, people close to the family say it is less clear what she will do now that Donald Trump lost.

Trump’s advisers are more focused on the looming impeachment trial. He is working closely with Graham, who has argued to his colleagues that Trump’s Senate trial sets a bad precedent.

Graham helped him retain a South Carolina-based lawyer, Butch Bowers, who is also working to fill out a legal team with colleagues from the state, Graham and others said. Bowers is expected to work with a Trump adviser, Jason Miller, on some kind of response operation.

Unlike his first impeachment trial, when the Republican National Committee engaged in a constant defense of the president, including paying for his lawyers, this time it is expected to focus only on rapid response, including calling the Senate trial unconstitutional and a procedural overreach, two people familiar with the committee’s plans said.

Former President Donald Trump, determined to remain a force in GOP politics, is gaining new opportunities with a crucial Senate seat unexpectedly coming open in Ohio, an ally announcing for governor of Arkansas, and rising pressure on Republicans in Congress who did not stand with him during this month’s impeachment vote.

Former President Donald Trump, determined to remain a force in GOP politics, is gaining new opportunities with a crucial Senate seat unexpectedly coming open in Ohio, an ally announcing for governor of Arkansas, and rising pressure on Republicans in Congress who did not stand with him during this month’s impeachment vote. The surprise announcement on Monday by Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio that he would not seek a third term sparked a political land rush, with top strategists in the state receiving a flood of phone calls from potential candidates testing their viability. One consultant said he had received calls from five would-be candidates by midday. That opening, along with another statewide contest next year in which Gov. Mike DeWine is expected to face at least one Trump-aligned primary challenger, is likely to make Ohio a central battleground for control of the Republican Party, and an inviting one for Trump, who held on to Ohio in the election while losing three other northern battleground states. Also read| 'So much else to do': Chuck Schumer promises a fair but quick impeachment trial for Trump Portman’s announcement came hours after Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s former White House press secretary, began her campaign for Arkansas governor. The Republican primary there already includes the state’s lieutenant governor and attorney general, but private polling indicates that Sanders is beginning well ahead, and Trump endorsed her candidacy on Monday night. Trump has only been out of the presidential office five days and has little in the way of political infrastructure. He has told aides he would like to take a break for several months. But the former president has remained the party’s strongest fundraiser, with tens of millions in PAC money at his disposal, and he retains an enduring base of Republican support across the country. Perhaps most importantly, he harbors a deep-seated desire to punish those he believes have crossed him and reward those who remain loyal. So far he has focused primarily on Georgia, where he believes the Republican governor and secretary of state betrayed him by certifying his loss there. Both are up for reelection in 2022. And he took something of a test run over the weekend by getting involved in the leadership fight in Arizona’s Republican Party, after Kelli Ward, the firebrand chairwoman, asked for his help in gaining reelection, according to a person familiar with the discussions. Also read| Trump’s virus task force adviser describes misinformation and denial Already there is a movement at the state and local levels to challenge incumbent members of Congress seen as breaking with the former president, starting with the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach him earlier this month. The overwhelming consensus among Ohio Republicans is that a Trump-aligned candidate would be best positioned to win a competitive Senate primary, and no potential candidate has a better claim to Trump’s voters in the state than Rep. Jim Jordan, who was Trump’s chief defender during his first impeachment trial and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the former president’s final days in office. “Jim is well positioned if in fact he’s ready to take that leap; I’m not sure there’s anybody that would beat him,” said Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio secretary of state and longtime Portman ally who last month served as an Electoral College voter for Trump. Referring to Trump’s legion of supporters, Blackwell added: “In Ohio, it’s going to be who has the track record to show that their agenda respects the newly realigned party base.” Trump is now ensconced at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where aides are building something that can serve as an office. He’s been golfing several times, and was spotted by people at his club in Florida playing with the brother of former tennis star Anna Kournikova on Sunday. His advisers have had discussions about whether to get him back on some form of social media platform, although they insist he does not need to be on Twitter or Facebook to raise money, and that his email solicitations continue to work well. On Monday he formally opened the Office of the Former President, to manage his “correspondence, public statements, appearances, and official activities.’’ As President Joe Biden’s inauguration approached, Trump began telling some allies that he was considering forming a third party if Republicans moved to convict him in the Senate trial. But by Saturday, after his own advisers said it was a mistake, Trump started sending out word that he was moving on from his threat. “He understands that the best thing for his movement and conservatism is to move forward together, that third parties will lead to dominance by Democrats,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who is a close ally of Trump. Advisers to the president say he has just over $70 million in his PAC, Save America, with few restrictions on what he can do with it. For now, most of his staff is on a government payroll afforded to former presidents for a period of time after they leave office. Officials are working to mend Trump’s relationship with Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the House minority leader, whom Trump called a vulgarity for his House floor speech denouncing the former president’s rally address before the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6. A senior Republican said that aides to the two men were trying to arrange a meeting or a call in the coming days. And Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., spoke with McCarthy recently and the two are on good terms, a person briefed on the call said. Trump would like to seek retribution against House members who voted against him, and he’s been particularly angry with Reps. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio and Fred Upton of Michigan, advisers said. He will also at some point focus on the governor’s race in Arizona, where Doug Ducey cannot seek reelection; Gov. Greg Abbott’s reelection bid in Texas; and the Senate race in North Carolina, as places where he can show strength, the advisers said. (One adviser disputed that Trump would have an interest in the Texas race.) In Ohio, Gonzalez faces a potential primary challenge from Christina Hagan, a former state legislator whom he defeated in a 2018 primary. Hagan lost in the general election last year to Rep. Tim Ryan, a Democrat, in a neighboring district. She said in an interview Monday that she will decide which, if any, race to enter in 2022 after Ohio redraws its congressional districts; the state is likely to lose one seat and Republicans control all levers of redistricting. “A lot of people elected what they thought was conservative leadership and now are witnessing somebody cutting against their values,” Hagan said, alluding to Gonzalez’s vote to impeach. Gonzalez’s office did not respond to emails seeking comment. Trump’s deepest hostility is reserved for Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, advisers said, and they expect he will expend the most energy trying to damage Kemp’s reelection bid. The governor’s original sin was in choosing Kelly Loeffler over Trump’s favored candidate, Doug Collins, to fill a vacant Senate seat in 2019, but it evolved into something more consuming as Trump repeated his debunked claims of widespread fraud in the state and held Kemp responsible for not doing enough to challenge the election results. Collins, a hard-line Trump backer, hasn’t decided whether to challenge Kemp or seek the Republican nomination against Sen. Raphael Warnock, the Democrat who defeated Loeffler in a special election and will face voters again in 2022, or if he will choose not to run for anything, a Collins aide said Monday. Next on Trump’s personal hit list is Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., people close to him said. Cheney was the only member of the House GOP leadership to vote to impeach. It’s unclear whether Trump will target her seat, or simply her leadership post in the House, but advisers said they anticipate he will take opportunities to damage her. Sarah Longwell, the executive director of the Republican Accountability Project, an anti-Trump group, said she and her colleagues plan to raise and spend $50 million to defend the 10 pro-impeachment House Republicans in primary contests and attack those who voted to object to the Electoral College results after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. She said the group would aim to defeat Jordan in an Ohio Senate primary if he runs against an establishment-minded Republican. Jordan’s spokesman did not respond to messages on Monday. The 2022 map will be the first real test of Trump’s durability in the party. While Sanders is running for governor in Arkansas, rumors that his daughter Ivanka would run for Senate in Florida are unlikely to develop further. And though his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, was said to be considering a Senate run in North Carolina, people close to the family say it is less clear what she will do now that Donald Trump lost. Trump’s advisers are more focused on the looming impeachment trial. He is working closely with Graham, who has argued to his colleagues that Trump’s Senate trial sets a bad precedent. Graham helped him retain a South Carolina-based lawyer, Butch Bowers, who is also working to fill out a legal team with colleagues from the state, Graham and others said. Bowers is expected to work with a Trump adviser, Jason Miller, on some kind of response operation. Unlike his first impeachment trial, when the Republican National Committee engaged in a constant defense of the president, including paying for his lawyers, this time it is expected to focus only on rapid response, including calling the Senate trial unconstitutional and a procedural overreach, two people familiar with the committee’s plans said.

As Trump seeks to remain a political force, new targets emerge

After Joe Biden took over the White House as the US President, the US rejoiced. The happiness was also because the former President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> will now be facing the brunt of the atrocities performed in the four years of his presidency.

As the reality TV star is set to face the consequences of his actions, the Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer has promised a fair but quick trial.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-virus-task-force-adviser-describes-misinformation-and-denial-359174" hreflang="en">Trump’s virus task force adviser describes misinformation and denial</a>

"It will be a fair trial but it will move relatively quickly," Schumer said.

Trump will be facing his second impeachment trial — making him the first US President to have this proceeding — in the first few weeks of February. This time he is being charged for inciting and promoting riots in the US Capitol building.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-administration-had-no-coronavirus-vaccine-distribution-plan-white-house-says-359070" hreflang="en">Trump administration had no coronavirus vaccine distribution plan, White House says</a>

Schumer said the trial will be completely fair but will also be quick simply because "we have so much else to do".

On Monday, the single article of impeachment against Trump will be delivered to the Senate.&nbsp;

Pelosi will mark the formal and official start of the impeachment trial at 7 pm (ET) as she will take the article from the House to the Senate — through the Capitol.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/jim-carrey-bids-farewell-to-worst-first-lady-melania-trump-with-a-cartoon-thx-for-nothing-358980" hreflang="en">Jim Carrey bids farewell to 'Worst First Lady’ Melania Trump with a cartoon: ‘Thx For Nothing’</a>

While the official start will be marked on Monday evening, the whole process might take nearly two weeks.

"During that period, the Senate will continue to do other business for the American people, such as cabinet nominations and the Covid relief bill, which would provide relief for millions of Americans who are suffering during this pandemic," Schumer explained.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-impeachment-trial-put-off-until-early-february-358797" hreflang="en">Trump impeachment trial put off until early February</a>

His impeachment article also accuses him of asking the Georgia secretary Brad Raffensperger to "find" votes and help him overturn the US election results — which has been recorded in a phone call.

Now, in the recent weeks, it has also been advised that a new accusation should be added in the article. This new addition accuses Trump of working with a Justice Department lawyer to replace the then-acting attorney general to help him change the US election result. This report was first published in The New York Times.

After Joe Biden took over the White House as the US President, the US rejoiced. The happiness was also because the former President Donald Trump will now be facing the brunt of the atrocities performed in the four years of his presidency.

After Joe Biden took over the White House as the US President, the US rejoiced. The happiness was also because the former President Donald Trump will now be facing the brunt of the atrocities performed in the four years of his presidency. As the reality TV star is set to face the consequences of his actions, the Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer has promised a fair but quick trial. Also read| Trump’s virus task force adviser describes misinformation and denial "It will be a fair trial but it will move relatively quickly," Schumer said. Trump will be facing his second impeachment trial — making him the first US President to have this proceeding — in the first few weeks of February. This time he is being charged for inciting and promoting riots in the US Capitol building. Also read| Trump administration had no coronavirus vaccine distribution plan, White House says Schumer said the trial will be completely fair but will also be quick simply because "we have so much else to do". On Monday, the single article of impeachment against Trump will be delivered to the Senate. Pelosi will mark the formal and official start of the impeachment trial at 7 pm (ET) as she will take the article from the House to the Senate — through the Capitol. Also read| Jim Carrey bids farewell to 'Worst First Lady’ Melania Trump with a cartoon: ‘Thx For Nothing’ While the official start will be marked on Monday evening, the whole process might take nearly two weeks. "During that period, the Senate will continue to do other business for the American people, such as cabinet nominations and the Covid relief bill, which would provide relief for millions of Americans who are suffering during this pandemic," Schumer explained. Also read| Trump impeachment trial put off until early February His impeachment article also accuses him of asking the Georgia secretary Brad Raffensperger to "find" votes and help him overturn the US election results — which has been recorded in a phone call. Now, in the recent weeks, it has also been advised that a new accusation should be added in the article. This new addition accuses Trump of working with a Justice Department lawyer to replace the then-acting attorney general to help him change the US election result. This report was first published in The New York Times.

'So much else to do': Chuck Schumer promises a fair but quick impeachment trial for Trump

Republicans indicated on Monday that they intended to put up a fight in the Senate trial of former US President Donald Trump after his impeachment. Senate Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected on Monday to send senators a single article of impeachment passed in House of Representatives. This will be the first-ever impeachment trial of a former president.

As both sides prepared for what is expected to be a relatively quick trial, senior Republicans pushed back with both political and constitutional arguments, raising doubts that Democrats, who control 50 seats in the 100-seat chamber, can secure the 17 Republican votes needed to convict.

"I think the trial is stupid. I think it's counterproductive. We already have a flaming fire in this country and it's like taking a bunch of gasoline and pouring it on top of the fire," Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told&nbsp; "Fox News Sunday."

He acknowledged that Trump -- who had urged thousands of his supporters to flock to Washington and protest the congressional certification of Biden's victory -- "bears some responsibility for what happened."

But to "stir it up again" would be bad for the country, said Rubio, a presidential candidate beaten by Trump in the 2016 primary.

Constitutional question

Other Republicans argued that the Senate has no authority to put a private citizen -- as Trump now is -- on trial.

Senator Mike Rounds told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the constitution does not allow for the impeachment of a former president.&nbsp;

"There are other things we'd rather be working on," including confirming more of Biden's cabinet nominees, he said.

But Senator Mitt Romney, the Republicans' 2012 presidential candidate and a frequent Trump critic, told CNN that "the preponderance of legal opinion is that an impeachment trial after a president has left office is constitutional. I believe that's the case."

The Utah Republican -- the only member of his party to vote to convict Trump in his first impeachment trial -- hinted that he may be leaning the same way now.

He said he believed "that what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense. If not, what is?"

Hands-off approach

Biden himself has publicly taken a hands-off approach, eager to put Trump in the rear-view mirror and seek quick progress on fighting the coronavirus pandemic and reviving a devastated economy.

Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki has said the president "believes that it's up to the Senate and Congress to determine how they will hold the former president accountable."

As Democrats worked to prepare the case against Trump, one of those who will present it in the Senate -- Representative Madeleine Dean -- said she hoped it would move quickly.

"I would expect it would go faster" than the 2020 impeachment trial, which lasted 21 days, she told CNN.

Dean said she was in the House chamber during the "terrifying moment" when the invading mob began pounding on its doors, chanting: "Hang Vice President Pence." 
She said Democrats would demand accountability for Trump's role.

"It is an extraordinarily heinous presidential crime," she said.

Republicans indicated on Monday that they intended to put up a fight in the Senate trial of former US President Donald Trump after his impeachment. Senate Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected on Monday to send senators a single article of impeachment passed in House of Representatives.

Republicans indicated on Monday that they intended to put up a fight in the Senate trial of former US President Donald Trump after his impeachment. Senate Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected on Monday to send senators a single article of impeachment passed in House of Representatives. This will be the first-ever impeachment trial of a former president. As both sides prepared for what is expected to be a relatively quick trial, senior Republicans pushed back with both political and constitutional arguments, raising doubts that Democrats, who control 50 seats in the 100-seat chamber, can secure the 17 Republican votes needed to convict. "I think the trial is stupid. I think it's counterproductive. We already have a flaming fire in this country and it's like taking a bunch of gasoline and pouring it on top of the fire," Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told "Fox News Sunday." He acknowledged that Trump -- who had urged thousands of his supporters to flock to Washington and protest the congressional certification of Biden's victory -- "bears some responsibility for what happened." But to "stir it up again" would be bad for the country, said Rubio, a presidential candidate beaten by Trump in the 2016 primary. Constitutional question Other Republicans argued that the Senate has no authority to put a private citizen -- as Trump now is -- on trial. Senator Mike Rounds told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the constitution does not allow for the impeachment of a former president. "There are other things we'd rather be working on," including confirming more of Biden's cabinet nominees, he said. But Senator Mitt Romney, the Republicans' 2012 presidential candidate and a frequent Trump critic, told CNN that "the preponderance of legal opinion is that an impeachment trial after a president has left office is constitutional. I believe that's the case." The Utah Republican -- the only member of his party to vote to convict Trump in his first impeachment trial -- hinted that he may be leaning the same way now. He said he believed "that what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense. If not, what is?" Hands-off approach Biden himself has publicly taken a hands-off approach, eager to put Trump in the rear-view mirror and seek quick progress on fighting the coronavirus pandemic and reviving a devastated economy. Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki has said the president "believes that it's up to the Senate and Congress to determine how they will hold the former president accountable." As Democrats worked to prepare the case against Trump, one of those who will present it in the Senate -- Representative Madeleine Dean -- said she hoped it would move quickly. "I would expect it would go faster" than the 2020 impeachment trial, which lasted 21 days, she told CNN. Dean said she was in the House chamber during the "terrifying moment" when the invading mob began pounding on its doors, chanting: "Hang Vice President Pence." She said Democrats would demand accountability for Trump's role. "It is an extraordinarily heinous presidential crime," she said.

Republicans to put up resistance to Trump Senate trial

When Rep. Scott Perry joined his colleagues in a monthslong campaign to undermine the results of the presidential election, promoting “Stop the Steal” events and supporting an attempt to overturn millions of legally cast votes, he often took a back seat to higher-profile loyalists in President Donald Trump’s orbit.

But Perry, R-Pa., played a significant role in the crisis that played out at the top of the Justice Department this month, when Trump considered firing the acting attorney general and backed down only after top department officials threatened to resign en masse.

It was Perry, an outspoken member of the hard-line Freedom Caucus, who first made Trump aware that a relatively obscure Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, acting chief of the civil division, was sympathetic to Trump’s view that the election had been stolen, according to former administration officials who spoke with Clark and Trump.

Perry introduced the president to Clark, whose openness to conspiracy theories about election fraud presented Trump with a welcome change from the acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, who stood by the results of the election and had repeatedly resisted the president’s efforts to undo them.

Perry’s previously unreported role, and the quiet discussions between Trump and Clark that followed, underlined how much the former president was willing to use the government to subvert the election, turning to more junior and relatively unknown figures for help as ranking Republicans and Cabinet members rebuffed him.

Perry’s involvement is also likely to heighten scrutiny of House Republicans who continue to advance Trump’s false and thoroughly debunked claims of election fraud, even after President Joe Biden’s inauguration this past week and as Congress prepares for an impeachment trial that will examine whether such talk incited the Capitol riot.

It is unclear when Perry, who represents the Harrisburg area, met Clark, a Philadelphia native, or how well they knew each another before the introduction to Trump. Former Trump administration officials said it was only in late December that Clark told Rosen about the introduction brokered by Perry, who was among the scores of people feeding Trump false hope that he had won the election.

But it is highly unlikely that Trump would have known Clark otherwise. Department officials were startled to learn that the president had called Clark directly on multiple occasions and that the two had met in person without alerting Rosen, those officials said. Justice Department policy stipulates that the president initially communicates with the attorney general or the deputy attorney general on all matters, and then a lower-level official if authorized.

As the date for Congress to affirm Biden’s victory neared, Perry and Clark discussed a plan to have the Justice Department send a letter to Georgia state lawmakers informing them of an investigation into voter fraud that could invalidate the state’s Electoral College results. Former officials who were briefed on the plan said that the department’s dozens of voter fraud investigations nationwide had not turned up enough instances of fraud to alter the outcome of the election.

Perry and Clark also discussed the plan with Trump, setting off a chain of events that nearly led to the ouster of Rosen, who had refused to send the letter.

After The New York Times disclosed the details of the scheme Friday, the political fallout was swift. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told the Justice Department in a letter Saturday that he would investigate efforts by Trump and Clark to use the agency “to further Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, said that it was “unconscionable that a Trump Justice Department leader would conspire to subvert the people’s will.” He called on the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, to investigate “this attempted sedition.”

Horowitz has already opened an investigation into whether Trump administration officials improperly pressured Byung J. Pak, who abruptly resigned this month as the U.S. attorney in Atlanta after being pressed to take actions related to the election, according to a person briefed on the inquiry. Durbin is investigating that matter as well.

Trump also tried to force Justice Department officials, including Rosen and the acting solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall, to file a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that would challenge Biden’s victory, according to a person briefed on the request.

One of Trump’s outside lawyers even drafted a brief for the department to file to the court. Department officials and the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, told Trump that the plan would fail for several reasons, including the fact that the department did not have the grounds to challenge the outcome, the person said.

The fight between Trump and Justice Department officials over the Supreme Court filing was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The episode with Clark and Perry is yet another example at impeachment managers’ disposal as they put together their case that Trump should be disqualified from holding office again.

Clark declined to comment on his relationship with Perry, and he categorically denied devising any plan to oust Rosen. He said there had been “a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president” that had been inaccurately described by The Times, but he declined to provide details. He declined to say anything more about his conversations with Trump or Justice Department lawyers because of “the strictures of legal privilege.”

Asked whether his conversations with the president had violated the department policy governing contact with the president, he said that senior lawyers at the agency provided legal advice to the White House as part of their duties. “All my official communications were consistent with law,” he said.

Clark, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, had been appointed acting head of the civil division in September. He also oversaw the department’s environmental and natural resources division, where he had worked under President George W. Bush.

Neither Perry nor his top aides responded to repeated requests for comment.

Some Senate Republicans, including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have grown increasingly worried that if they do not intervene and distance themselves from Trump, the havoc wreaked by the former president could hurt Republicans’ political fortunes for years to come. The episode amounts to an unwelcome reminder that damaging information around his presidency could continue to emerge even though Trump is no longer in office.

And Perry’s role in the discussions could further escalate tensions in the House, where Democratic lawmakers were already livid at Republicans for fanning the flames before the Capitol riot, with some rank-and-file members calling for the expulsion of lawmakers who led efforts to overturn the election.

The pressure that Trump placed on the Justice Department, including any plan that he may have considered to remove Rosen, also raises legal questions for him. Trump’s duty as president was to ensure that “laws be faithfully executed for the benefit of the country,” and efforts to interfere in the election could be considered a violation of his constitutional duty, said Neil Eggleston, a partner at Kirkland &amp;amp; Ellis and a White House counsel under President Barack Obama.

There is little chance that a Justice Department letter sent to Georgia lawmakers would have prompted the state to invalidate its Electoral College votes. But the plan was consistent with the posture Perry had taken since November, when he began to falsely claim that there had been rampant fraud in the election, and throughout it all, Perry has remained defiant. Facing calls to resign over his role in the efforts to overturn the election, Perry issued a one-word response: “No.”

Perry, a retired brigadier general in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard and an Iraq War veteran, has been scrutinized for his openness to the conspiratorial. He baselessly suggested that the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas by a lone gunman could have been influenced by “terrorist infiltration through the southern border” and refused to support a resolution that condemned QAnon, a pro-Trump conspiracy movement. ( Perry said he believed that the resolution infringed on individuals’ right to free speech and that he did not personally subscribe to the movement.)

An early supporter of the “Stop the Steal” campaign, Perry was one of 126 House Republicans who joined a legal brief in December supporting an extraordinary lawsuit seeking to overturn Biden’s victory. And he joined over two dozen of his colleagues who urged Trump to direct William Barr, the attorney general, to “investigate irregularities in the 2020 election.”

He objected on behalf of 79 other House Republicans to certifying Pennsylvania’s electoral results, and was among 139 House Republicans who voted to reject Biden’s electoral victory, even though he later acknowledged Biden as president-elect.

The plan that Perry devised with Clark set off a crisis at the Justice Department. When Clark approached Rosen with the Georgia letter at the end of December, Rosen refused to send it, according to four former administration officials. On Jan. 3, Clark notified Rosen that he would be taking his job at Trump’s behest.

As Rosen prepared to meet Trump later that day and fight for his job, his top deputies, including the acting deputy attorney general, Richard Donoghue, and his outgoing chief of staff, Patrick Hovakimian, convened the department’s senior leaders on a conference call, according to five former officials with knowledge of the call.

They told the department leaders that Rosen’s job was in jeopardy because of Clark’s machinations and said they would resign if Rosen was removed. They ended the call by asking their colleagues to privately consider what they would do if that happened. Over the next 15 minutes, all of them emailed or texted Hovakimian, saying that they would quit.

While Rosen, Donoghue and other top department and White House lawyers spent nearly three hours with Trump and Clark, debating the merits of sending the letter to Georgia lawmakers, Hovakimian drafted an email to the department’s senior leaders, including those who were not aware of what was transpiring at the White House, in anticipation of Rosen’s removal, according to two people briefed on the letter.

In it, he explained that Rosen had resisted Trump’s repeated calls to use the department’s law enforcement powers for improper ends and that the president had removed him, according to a person who reviewed the email. He wrote that he and Donoghue were resigning immediately and encouraged his colleagues to think hard about what they would do and to always act in the interests of the United States.

When Hovakimian received word that Rosen had been allowed to stay, he drafted a new email that he sent to the anxiously awaiting officials: Rosen and the cause of justice had won.

When Rep. Scott Perry joined his colleagues in a monthslong campaign to undermine the results of the presidential election, promoting “Stop the Steal” events and supporting an attempt to overturn millions of legally cast votes, he often took a back seat to higher-profile loyalists in President Donald Trump’s orbit.

When Rep. Scott Perry joined his colleagues in a monthslong campaign to undermine the results of the presidential election, promoting “Stop the Steal” events and supporting an attempt to overturn millions of legally cast votes, he often took a back seat to higher-profile loyalists in President Donald Trump’s orbit. But Perry, R-Pa., played a significant role in the crisis that played out at the top of the Justice Department this month, when Trump considered firing the acting attorney general and backed down only after top department officials threatened to resign en masse. It was Perry, an outspoken member of the hard-line Freedom Caucus, who first made Trump aware that a relatively obscure Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, acting chief of the civil division, was sympathetic to Trump’s view that the election had been stolen, according to former administration officials who spoke with Clark and Trump. Perry introduced the president to Clark, whose openness to conspiracy theories about election fraud presented Trump with a welcome change from the acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, who stood by the results of the election and had repeatedly resisted the president’s efforts to undo them. Perry’s previously unreported role, and the quiet discussions between Trump and Clark that followed, underlined how much the former president was willing to use the government to subvert the election, turning to more junior and relatively unknown figures for help as ranking Republicans and Cabinet members rebuffed him. Perry’s involvement is also likely to heighten scrutiny of House Republicans who continue to advance Trump’s false and thoroughly debunked claims of election fraud, even after President Joe Biden’s inauguration this past week and as Congress prepares for an impeachment trial that will examine whether such talk incited the Capitol riot. It is unclear when Perry, who represents the Harrisburg area, met Clark, a Philadelphia native, or how well they knew each another before the introduction to Trump. Former Trump administration officials said it was only in late December that Clark told Rosen about the introduction brokered by Perry, who was among the scores of people feeding Trump false hope that he had won the election. But it is highly unlikely that Trump would have known Clark otherwise. Department officials were startled to learn that the president had called Clark directly on multiple occasions and that the two had met in person without alerting Rosen, those officials said. Justice Department policy stipulates that the president initially communicates with the attorney general or the deputy attorney general on all matters, and then a lower-level official if authorized. As the date for Congress to affirm Biden’s victory neared, Perry and Clark discussed a plan to have the Justice Department send a letter to Georgia state lawmakers informing them of an investigation into voter fraud that could invalidate the state’s Electoral College results. Former officials who were briefed on the plan said that the department’s dozens of voter fraud investigations nationwide had not turned up enough instances of fraud to alter the outcome of the election. Perry and Clark also discussed the plan with Trump, setting off a chain of events that nearly led to the ouster of Rosen, who had refused to send the letter. After The New York Times disclosed the details of the scheme Friday, the political fallout was swift. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told the Justice Department in a letter Saturday that he would investigate efforts by Trump and Clark to use the agency “to further Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election.” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, said that it was “unconscionable that a Trump Justice Department leader would conspire to subvert the people’s will.” He called on the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, to investigate “this attempted sedition.” Horowitz has already opened an investigation into whether Trump administration officials improperly pressured Byung J. Pak, who abruptly resigned this month as the U.S. attorney in Atlanta after being pressed to take actions related to the election, according to a person briefed on the inquiry. Durbin is investigating that matter as well. Trump also tried to force Justice Department officials, including Rosen and the acting solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall, to file a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that would challenge Biden’s victory, according to a person briefed on the request. One of Trump’s outside lawyers even drafted a brief for the department to file to the court. Department officials and the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, told Trump that the plan would fail for several reasons, including the fact that the department did not have the grounds to challenge the outcome, the person said. The fight between Trump and Justice Department officials over the Supreme Court filing was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. The episode with Clark and Perry is yet another example at impeachment managers’ disposal as they put together their case that Trump should be disqualified from holding office again. Clark declined to comment on his relationship with Perry, and he categorically denied devising any plan to oust Rosen. He said there had been “a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president” that had been inaccurately described by The Times, but he declined to provide details. He declined to say anything more about his conversations with Trump or Justice Department lawyers because of “the strictures of legal privilege.” Asked whether his conversations with the president had violated the department policy governing contact with the president, he said that senior lawyers at the agency provided legal advice to the White House as part of their duties. “All my official communications were consistent with law,” he said. Clark, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, had been appointed acting head of the civil division in September. He also oversaw the department’s environmental and natural resources division, where he had worked under President George W. Bush. Neither Perry nor his top aides responded to repeated requests for comment. Some Senate Republicans, including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have grown increasingly worried that if they do not intervene and distance themselves from Trump, the havoc wreaked by the former president could hurt Republicans’ political fortunes for years to come. The episode amounts to an unwelcome reminder that damaging information around his presidency could continue to emerge even though Trump is no longer in office. And Perry’s role in the discussions could further escalate tensions in the House, where Democratic lawmakers were already livid at Republicans for fanning the flames before the Capitol riot, with some rank-and-file members calling for the expulsion of lawmakers who led efforts to overturn the election. The pressure that Trump placed on the Justice Department, including any plan that he may have considered to remove Rosen, also raises legal questions for him. Trump’s duty as president was to ensure that “laws be faithfully executed for the benefit of the country,” and efforts to interfere in the election could be considered a violation of his constitutional duty, said Neil Eggleston, a partner at Kirkland &amp; Ellis and a White House counsel under President Barack Obama. There is little chance that a Justice Department letter sent to Georgia lawmakers would have prompted the state to invalidate its Electoral College votes. But the plan was consistent with the posture Perry had taken since November, when he began to falsely claim that there had been rampant fraud in the election, and throughout it all, Perry has remained defiant. Facing calls to resign over his role in the efforts to overturn the election, Perry issued a one-word response: “No.” Perry, a retired brigadier general in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard and an Iraq War veteran, has been scrutinized for his openness to the conspiratorial. He baselessly suggested that the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas by a lone gunman could have been influenced by “terrorist infiltration through the southern border” and refused to support a resolution that condemned QAnon, a pro-Trump conspiracy movement. ( Perry said he believed that the resolution infringed on individuals’ right to free speech and that he did not personally subscribe to the movement.) An early supporter of the “Stop the Steal” campaign, Perry was one of 126 House Republicans who joined a legal brief in December supporting an extraordinary lawsuit seeking to overturn Biden’s victory. And he joined over two dozen of his colleagues who urged Trump to direct William Barr, the attorney general, to “investigate irregularities in the 2020 election.” He objected on behalf of 79 other House Republicans to certifying Pennsylvania’s electoral results, and was among 139 House Republicans who voted to reject Biden’s electoral victory, even though he later acknowledged Biden as president-elect. The plan that Perry devised with Clark set off a crisis at the Justice Department. When Clark approached Rosen with the Georgia letter at the end of December, Rosen refused to send it, according to four former administration officials. On Jan. 3, Clark notified Rosen that he would be taking his job at Trump’s behest. As Rosen prepared to meet Trump later that day and fight for his job, his top deputies, including the acting deputy attorney general, Richard Donoghue, and his outgoing chief of staff, Patrick Hovakimian, convened the department’s senior leaders on a conference call, according to five former officials with knowledge of the call. They told the department leaders that Rosen’s job was in jeopardy because of Clark’s machinations and said they would resign if Rosen was removed. They ended the call by asking their colleagues to privately consider what they would do if that happened. Over the next 15 minutes, all of them emailed or texted Hovakimian, saying that they would quit. While Rosen, Donoghue and other top department and White House lawyers spent nearly three hours with Trump and Clark, debating the merits of sending the letter to Georgia lawmakers, Hovakimian drafted an email to the department’s senior leaders, including those who were not aware of what was transpiring at the White House, in anticipation of Rosen’s removal, according to two people briefed on the letter. In it, he explained that Rosen had resisted Trump’s repeated calls to use the department’s law enforcement powers for improper ends and that the president had removed him, according to a person who reviewed the email. He wrote that he and Donoghue were resigning immediately and encouraged his colleagues to think hard about what they would do and to always act in the interests of the United States. When Hovakimian received word that Rosen had been allowed to stay, he drafted a new email that he sent to the anxiously awaiting officials: Rosen and the cause of justice had won.

Pennsylvania lawmaker was key to Justice Dept scheme

Darrell Frazier believed he had found a path out of his life sentence in federal prison, with a president whose allies had advocated a broad use of pardons and a new clemency initiative. Frazier thought he seemed like a perfect candidate.

But when Barack Obama left office in 2017 having pardoned or commuted the sentences of more people than any other president, Frazier was not among them. The Justice Department had denied his application for clemency.

So when Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, took office, Frazier resolved to try a different path. Instead of only going through the formal channels, he also tried to get the attention of people with direct access to Trump.

After years of writing letters to celebrities, activist organizations and even Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Frazier got his break. An activist who had worked with the administration took Frazier’s case directly to Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who had been taking pardon requests to her father in his final days in office. And early Wednesday, Trump’s last day as president, Frazier’s counselor came to his cell to deliver the news: He had been pardoned and would soon be released.

Tears started to flow.

“It just blew me away,” said Frazier, 60, who had served 32 years of a life sentence after being convicted of a conspiracy to sell cocaine.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-ex-president-trumps-impeachment-trial-postponed-to-february-358759/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

While Trump was heavily criticized for issuing dozens of pardons to political allies and friends, there also were numerous cases that won the praise of activists for providing relief to people serving harsh sentences for relatively minor, nonviolent offenses.

Frazier’s case in many ways epitomized Trump’s mixed record on criminal justice. On the one hand, he did support some bipartisan reforms to reduce the prison population. On the other, the pardon process showed Trump’s ad hoc, somewhat capricious approach to justice, one that often required special access and was motivated by optics and political expediency during an election where he set out to target more Black voters, some activists said.

“Trump did nothing to actually address the racist practices of the prison industrial complex,” said Thenjiwe McHarris, a member of the leadership team for the Movement for Black Lives. “While we support those he pardoned, we just also want to acknowledge that it was done as a spectacle — an attempt to paint him as a savior while not actually addressing the harms of the actual system.”

The pardon process, and criminal justice reform more broadly, will be among the areas in which President Joe Biden is most closely scrutinized because of his previous record of promoting tough-on-crime policies. He was an architect of the 1994 crime bill, legislation that has since been criticized across the political spectrum for leading to overpopulated prisons and the devastation of Black families.

Although Biden has apologized for his past actions on criminal justice, activists say he will have to prove his sincerity.

“I think that for me the jury is still out,” said Syrita Steib, who was among those to receive a pardon from Trump on his final day and runs an organization that helps women who are currently and formerly incarcerated.

She added that Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took actions that helped to create the punitive justice system of today. “It’s my hope that this administration will begin to right the wrongs that they created years ago,” she said.

During the campaign, Biden promised to use his clemency power “broadly” to secure the release of individuals facing unduly long sentences for certain nonviolent and drug crimes. He said he would build on the legacy of Obama, under whom he served as vice president.

A White House spokesperson Friday declined to comment on the president’s plans.

Part of the challenge will be reforming a clemency system that many view as arcane and unfair.

The pardon attorney’s office, operating out of the Justice Department, is responsible for reviewing the petitions for pardons and sentence commutations and making recommendations for clemency to the president. That system has left thousands of petitions waiting for review with a small team of lawyers unable to keep up.

In the past, some advocates have argued that the pardon office should operate out of the White House. In an informal way, that is what Trump did in an operation that reflected the personal interests of his family members and appealed to Trump as an issue that he believed would please Black voters.

Jessica Jackson, a lawyer who advocated for clemencies during the Obama and Trump administrations, said pardons should be run by an independent office. It was a conflict of interest for the Justice Department to both prosecute cases and decide who gets pardoned, said Jackson, who brought Frazier’s case to Ivanka Trump.

There needed to be a systemic mechanism for granting clemencies so that they occur more frequently, she said, rather than presidents jamming them through before leaving office. Jackson said she felt there would be a real openness on the part of the incoming administration to reforming the pardon process and the criminal justice system more broadly.

“He’s looking for issues where he can find common ground on both sides of the aisle,” Jackson said of Biden. “I think this issue naturally presents itself.”

What that reform looks like, though, will be hotly debated and scrutinized in the months and years ahead.

Trump’s most notable legislation on criminal justice reform was the First Step Act, but even that was criticized by many activists as being far too modest to effect real change. Still, those intimately involved with Trump’s pardon process seemed unwilling to let his tough-on-crime approach — he oversaw more federal executions than any president in more than 120 years — derail the work on clemencies.

This week’s pardons included Chalana McFarland, who was sentenced in 2005 to 30 years for multiple counts of mortgage fraud, and Michael Pelletier, who was serving a life sentence in federal prison for a nonviolent marijuana conspiracy offense. But he also pardoned Al Pirro, the ex-husband of one of his favorite Fox News hosts, Jeanine Pirro; Steve Bannon, his former chief strategist; and Elliott Broidy, one of his top fundraisers in 2016.

Alice Johnson, a onetime drug convict, had served 22 years of a life sentence when her case caught the eyes of Trump because Kim Kardashian had brought it to his attention. Trump commuted her sentence in 2018 and then pardoned her after she praised him at the Republican National Convention in 2020.

Her path to the Trump White House had given her what she saw as a unique opportunity to make a difference, and she became a key part of the informal clemency process. The president personally asked her to help him find other people with stories like her own, she said.

“I took him up on it and stayed on top of them,” Johnson said. “There was no way I was going to let that opportunity pass.”

Working mostly with Kushner and, in the final days of the administration, Ivanka Trump, Johnson provided long lists of strong cases to the White House. Kushner and Ivanka Trump would select stories that resonated with them, and then take those cases to the White House Counsel’s Office and the Justice Department for vetting, before making their cases directly to the president.

Frazier said he felt he had a pretty good chance of getting on Trump’s radar more than a year ago when CAN-DO Justice Through Clemency, an organization that advocates for incarcerated nonviolent offenders, took his case. The organization had won other pardons.

But one thing that really made him think Trump would consider his case was when he heard the former president describing his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, as a rat for talking to prosecutors.

It made him think that Trump could empathize with people like him — Frazier’s ultimate downfall was someone from the drug operation testifying against him, he said. So when he heard about the comment, he said he turned to a fellow inmate and told him: “The president’s going to get me out. He sounds like us in here.”

Darrell Frazier believed he had found a path out of his life sentence in federal prison, with a president whose allies had advocated a broad use of pardons and a new clemency initiative.

Darrell Frazier believed he had found a path out of his life sentence in federal prison, with a president whose allies had advocated a broad use of pardons and a new clemency initiative. Frazier thought he seemed like a perfect candidate. But when Barack Obama left office in 2017 having pardoned or commuted the sentences of more people than any other president, Frazier was not among them. The Justice Department had denied his application for clemency. So when Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, took office, Frazier resolved to try a different path. Instead of only going through the formal channels, he also tried to get the attention of people with direct access to Trump. After years of writing letters to celebrities, activist organizations and even Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Frazier got his break. An activist who had worked with the administration took Frazier’s case directly to Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who had been taking pardon requests to her father in his final days in office. And early Wednesday, Trump’s last day as president, Frazier’s counselor came to his cell to deliver the news: He had been pardoned and would soon be released. Tears started to flow. “It just blew me away,” said Frazier, 60, who had served 32 years of a life sentence after being convicted of a conspiracy to sell cocaine. × While Trump was heavily criticized for issuing dozens of pardons to political allies and friends, there also were numerous cases that won the praise of activists for providing relief to people serving harsh sentences for relatively minor, nonviolent offenses. Frazier’s case in many ways epitomized Trump’s mixed record on criminal justice. On the one hand, he did support some bipartisan reforms to reduce the prison population. On the other, the pardon process showed Trump’s ad hoc, somewhat capricious approach to justice, one that often required special access and was motivated by optics and political expediency during an election where he set out to target more Black voters, some activists said. “Trump did nothing to actually address the racist practices of the prison industrial complex,” said Thenjiwe McHarris, a member of the leadership team for the Movement for Black Lives. “While we support those he pardoned, we just also want to acknowledge that it was done as a spectacle — an attempt to paint him as a savior while not actually addressing the harms of the actual system.” The pardon process, and criminal justice reform more broadly, will be among the areas in which President Joe Biden is most closely scrutinized because of his previous record of promoting tough-on-crime policies. He was an architect of the 1994 crime bill, legislation that has since been criticized across the political spectrum for leading to overpopulated prisons and the devastation of Black families. Although Biden has apologized for his past actions on criminal justice, activists say he will have to prove his sincerity. “I think that for me the jury is still out,” said Syrita Steib, who was among those to receive a pardon from Trump on his final day and runs an organization that helps women who are currently and formerly incarcerated. She added that Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took actions that helped to create the punitive justice system of today. “It’s my hope that this administration will begin to right the wrongs that they created years ago,” she said. During the campaign, Biden promised to use his clemency power “broadly” to secure the release of individuals facing unduly long sentences for certain nonviolent and drug crimes. He said he would build on the legacy of Obama, under whom he served as vice president. A White House spokesperson Friday declined to comment on the president’s plans. Part of the challenge will be reforming a clemency system that many view as arcane and unfair. The pardon attorney’s office, operating out of the Justice Department, is responsible for reviewing the petitions for pardons and sentence commutations and making recommendations for clemency to the president. That system has left thousands of petitions waiting for review with a small team of lawyers unable to keep up. In the past, some advocates have argued that the pardon office should operate out of the White House. In an informal way, that is what Trump did in an operation that reflected the personal interests of his family members and appealed to Trump as an issue that he believed would please Black voters. Jessica Jackson, a lawyer who advocated for clemencies during the Obama and Trump administrations, said pardons should be run by an independent office. It was a conflict of interest for the Justice Department to both prosecute cases and decide who gets pardoned, said Jackson, who brought Frazier’s case to Ivanka Trump. There needed to be a systemic mechanism for granting clemencies so that they occur more frequently, she said, rather than presidents jamming them through before leaving office. Jackson said she felt there would be a real openness on the part of the incoming administration to reforming the pardon process and the criminal justice system more broadly. “He’s looking for issues where he can find common ground on both sides of the aisle,” Jackson said of Biden. “I think this issue naturally presents itself.” What that reform looks like, though, will be hotly debated and scrutinized in the months and years ahead. Trump’s most notable legislation on criminal justice reform was the First Step Act, but even that was criticized by many activists as being far too modest to effect real change. Still, those intimately involved with Trump’s pardon process seemed unwilling to let his tough-on-crime approach — he oversaw more federal executions than any president in more than 120 years — derail the work on clemencies. This week’s pardons included Chalana McFarland, who was sentenced in 2005 to 30 years for multiple counts of mortgage fraud, and Michael Pelletier, who was serving a life sentence in federal prison for a nonviolent marijuana conspiracy offense. But he also pardoned Al Pirro, the ex-husband of one of his favorite Fox News hosts, Jeanine Pirro; Steve Bannon, his former chief strategist; and Elliott Broidy, one of his top fundraisers in 2016. Alice Johnson, a onetime drug convict, had served 22 years of a life sentence when her case caught the eyes of Trump because Kim Kardashian had brought it to his attention. Trump commuted her sentence in 2018 and then pardoned her after she praised him at the Republican National Convention in 2020. Her path to the Trump White House had given her what she saw as a unique opportunity to make a difference, and she became a key part of the informal clemency process. The president personally asked her to help him find other people with stories like her own, she said. “I took him up on it and stayed on top of them,” Johnson said. “There was no way I was going to let that opportunity pass.” Working mostly with Kushner and, in the final days of the administration, Ivanka Trump, Johnson provided long lists of strong cases to the White House. Kushner and Ivanka Trump would select stories that resonated with them, and then take those cases to the White House Counsel’s Office and the Justice Department for vetting, before making their cases directly to the president. Frazier said he felt he had a pretty good chance of getting on Trump’s radar more than a year ago when CAN-DO Justice Through Clemency, an organization that advocates for incarcerated nonviolent offenders, took his case. The organization had won other pardons. But one thing that really made him think Trump would consider his case was when he heard the former president describing his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, as a rat for talking to prosecutors. It made him think that Trump could empathize with people like him — Frazier’s ultimate downfall was someone from the drug operation testifying against him, he said. So when he heard about the comment, he said he turned to a fellow inmate and told him: “The president’s going to get me out. He sounds like us in here.”

Trump’s pardon process was a mix of mercy and favoritism

Donald Trump has been called by many to be someone with chronic case of denial. Even when US Election was called in favour of Joe Biden, Trump continued claiming that he was the winner. Now that he is gone, it's perhaps more than expected that Trump's supporters would whip something truly original to continue claiming that he is the real president of the US.

This has happened and fun fact is that the litigants have taken support from Lord Of The Rings (LOTR) to drive home their point.

So here's the deal, in LOTR, the Kingdom of Gondor had an empty throne, its king was exiled and the kingdom was ruled by a Steward, a temporary ruler. He was to rule till the rightful king returned.

So a lawsuit in Texas equates USA to Kingdom of Gondor. USA hasn't had a 'king' or anyone like that since 1776.

“This analogy is applicable since there is now in Washington DC a group of individuals calling themselves the president, vice-president and Congress who have no rightful claim to govern the American people,” the litigants state as per The Guardian.

“Since only the rightful king could sit on the throne of Gondor, a steward was appointed to manage Gondor until the return of the King, known as ‘Aragorn’, occurred at the end of the story.” they add.

Aragorn is the rightful king in LOTR. The character was played by Viggo Mortensen.

As it is apparent, President Joe Biden is like the Steward of Gondor, fit to rule only for a short time till the 'rightful king' (read Donald Trump) returns.

The litigants probably need a standing ovation for their courage for two thing

1. Continuing their journey through wonderland to still strongly believe that the election was rigged. This when even US Supreme Court trashed previous such litigation

2. Taking help of a fantasy kingdom to prove their point. Imagine the plight of their lawyer while arguing the case in a courtroom which only has place for cold hard facts and logic.

Aftereffects of four years of Trump-rule? Who knows.

Donald Trump has been called by many to be someone with chronic case of denial. Even when US Election was called in favour of Joe Biden, Trump continued claiming that he was the winner.

Donald Trump has been called by many to be someone with chronic case of denial. Even when US Election was called in favour of Joe Biden, Trump continued claiming that he was the winner. Now that he is gone, it's perhaps more than expected that Trump's supporters would whip something truly original to continue claiming that he is the real president of the US. This has happened and fun fact is that the litigants have taken support from Lord Of The Rings (LOTR) to drive home their point. So here's the deal, in LOTR, the Kingdom of Gondor had an empty throne, its king was exiled and the kingdom was ruled by a Steward, a temporary ruler. He was to rule till the rightful king returned. So a lawsuit in Texas equates USA to Kingdom of Gondor. USA hasn't had a 'king' or anyone like that since 1776. “This analogy is applicable since there is now in Washington DC a group of individuals calling themselves the president, vice-president and Congress who have no rightful claim to govern the American people,” the litigants state as per The Guardian. “Since only the rightful king could sit on the throne of Gondor, a steward was appointed to manage Gondor until the return of the King, known as ‘Aragorn’, occurred at the end of the story.” they add. Aragorn is the rightful king in LOTR. The character was played by Viggo Mortensen. As it is apparent, President Joe Biden is like the Steward of Gondor, fit to rule only for a short time till the 'rightful king' (read Donald Trump) returns. The litigants probably need a standing ovation for their courage for two thing 1. Continuing their journey through wonderland to still strongly believe that the election was rigged. This when even US Supreme Court trashed previous such litigation 2. Taking help of a fantasy kingdom to prove their point. Imagine the plight of their lawyer while arguing the case in a courtroom which only has place for cold hard facts and logic. Aftereffects of four years of Trump-rule? Who knows.

Pro-Trump lawsuit takes help of Lord of The Rings to make case stronger

President Joe Biden, vowing to restore environmental protections frayed over the past four years, has ordered the review of more than 100 rules and regulations on air, water, public lands, endangered species and climate change that were weakened or rolled back by his predecessor.

But legal experts warn that it could take two to three years — and in some cases, most of Biden’s term — to put many of the old rules back in place.

“People should temper their expectations about what can be done quickly,” said Kevin Minoli, who served as a lawyer at the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump administrations. He added, “It’s very possible, more possible than not, that some of the Trump rules will still be in effect for a couple of years.”

Biden has an array of legal tools to reinstate environmental protections that were dismantled by the Trump administration. Gina McCarthy, his top domestic climate change adviser, headed the EPA in the Obama administration and served as the chief author of some of the nation’s most comprehensive climate change rules. She has now reviewed every possible option to restore those protections, according to a White House official who is familiar with her thinking but was not authorized to speak on the record.

But those tools take time. Experts in environmental law who have spoken with top Biden administration officials said the process of rolling back the Trump-era rollbacks would quite likely fall into a few broad categories. In a limited set of cases, Biden will be able to use his executive authority immediately, for instance to cancel individual fossil fuel infrastructure projects or reinstate federal protections on distinct areas of land and water. He did that on Day One when he rescinded the construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried oil from Canadian oil sands across the American Midwest.

The White House announced Thursday that any new lease of drilling rights on public lands must have the personal approval of the highest-ranking officials at the Department of Interior — either the secretary or an assistant secretary.

Likewise, Biden is expected in the first months of his term to restore federal protections around at least two national monuments in Utah: Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. In 2017, Trump opened nearly 2 million acres around those monuments to mining, logging and drilling — at the time the largest rollback of federal land protection in the nation’s history.

On Thursday night, the White House released a fact sheet singling out its review of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase, along with one other, Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monuments off the New England coast, to “determine whether restoration of the monument boundaries and conditions would be appropriate.”

Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law with the Vermont Law School, said the Biden administration could also act quickly to block Trump’s push to drill in Alaska. In the last days of Trump’s administration, the Interior Department auctioned off oil and gas drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“The Biden administration can pretty quickly cancel those leases,” said Parenteau, although he noted that before doing so, the administration would quite likely want to conduct a legal review of whether it would need to compensate the companies that purchased the leases.

Biden’s team has also looked to Congress, where Democrats could potentially use their razor-thin House and Senate majorities to revoke some of the Trump administration’s last-minute regulatory rollbacks. Under the Congressional Review Act, any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of the end of a presidential term can be overturned with a simple congressional vote.

In the early days of the Trump administration, Republicans used that law to quickly wipe out 16 Obama-era rules.

But legal experts have warned Democrats that using that law to undo environmental policies could backfire: Once Congress has used it to wipe out a regulation, the administration is legally barred from enacting a substantially similar rule. That twist would bar the Biden administration from replacing a weak Trump-era rule with a similar but more stringent one.

“They don’t want to create roadblocks to creating future regulations,” said Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, who has closely studied the Trump administration’s rollbacks.

Vizcarra cited just one such rollback as a good candidate for rapid reversal under the Congressional Review Act: a January rule that reduced protections for migratory birds by ending penalties for energy and construction companies that harm the birds and their habitats in construction projects and oil spills.

Then there are the longer-term rollbacks. It could take two years or more for the administration to restore Obama-era climate change regulations, rolled back by the Trump administration, that were designed to cut emissions of planet-warming pollution across major sectors of the economy. It could also take that long to restore rules on industrial emissions of toxic pollutants such as mercury, as well as a major rule, Waters of the United States, designed to protect wetlands and waterways.

“When it comes to restoring the vast majority of these Obama environmental policies, the rollbacks were actually done by putting in place new regulations,” Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer representing fossil fuel companies who served in the EPA in both Bush administrations. “In some cases that took two to three years. They will have to be replaced with new regulations. There is a legal process that has to be followed.”

The work of reinstating the federal government’s more comprehensive regulations on air, water and climate pollution will take even longer. A key reason, explained legal experts: when the Trump administration rolled back those rules, it almost never eliminated them entirely. Rather, it replaced strict federal pollution regulations with new, weaker pollution regulations.

The Biden administration, in turn, will seek to legally undo those weak regulations and replace them with tougher ones. And that legal process typically takes two years or more. For example, the Trump EPA undid the Obama administration’s single largest policy aimed at curbing climate change, a rule that forced automakers to rapidly increase the fuel economy of passenger vehicles, and, in so doing, drastically lowering their pollution of heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution. To do that, the EPA had to follow a long legal path; formally publishing a proposal to change the rule; opening it to public comments; drafting legal, economic and scientific justifications for the rule; and performing complex technical analyses of the effects of the new rule on highway safety, air quality and consumer behavior.

Although the Trump administration began its rollback of the Obama auto pollution rule within Trump’s first days of taking office, it was not completed until last spring.

The same timetable could await Biden as he seeks to reinstate the rule.

“It’s a laborious, time-consuming process,” said Richard Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University, who was on Biden’s short list to run the EPA.

“No one doubts the EPA’s authority to put these regulations on auto pollution back in place,” Revesz said. “But they can’t just make the Trump rules go away by executive order. They have to follow the same process — preparing all the scientific and economic analyses, and you have to get all that right.”

Revesz noted that while the Obama administration had performed such analyses a decade ago when it first put the auto pollution rule in place, much has changed since then, including the economy, the auto industry and the amount of planet-warming carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. So Biden’s EPA staff will need to conduct all that work again, with present-day data.

And he noted that after four years in which the staff and budget of the EPA has shrunk, the agency is now being asked to do far more with far fewer resources.

“They want to do a lot, but they can’t do it all at the same time,” Revesz said. “EPA has suffered the loss of a lot of senior staff. They’ll need to prioritize. So they may not get to some of these until the end of a first term.”

Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at the Columbia Law School, said it could take even longer for the EPA to restore the Waters of the United States rule, which was designed to protect the streams, wetlands and smaller water systems that flow into larger bodies of water, such as lakes and rivers. The Trump administration replaced that rule last year with a new rule that stripped away protections of those wetlands and smaller water bodies.

“Replacing that water rule will take a very long time,” Gerrard said. “And they won’t want to rescind the Trump rule while they are working on the new rule, because then the waterways would be left with no protection.”

President Joe Biden, vowing to restore environmental protections frayed over the past four years, has ordered the review of more than 100 rules and regulations on air, water, public lands, endangered species and climate change that were weakened or rolled back by his predecessor.

President Joe Biden, vowing to restore environmental protections frayed over the past four years, has ordered the review of more than 100 rules and regulations on air, water, public lands, endangered species and climate change that were weakened or rolled back by his predecessor. But legal experts warn that it could take two to three years — and in some cases, most of Biden’s term — to put many of the old rules back in place. “People should temper their expectations about what can be done quickly,” said Kevin Minoli, who served as a lawyer at the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump administrations. He added, “It’s very possible, more possible than not, that some of the Trump rules will still be in effect for a couple of years.” Biden has an array of legal tools to reinstate environmental protections that were dismantled by the Trump administration. Gina McCarthy, his top domestic climate change adviser, headed the EPA in the Obama administration and served as the chief author of some of the nation’s most comprehensive climate change rules. She has now reviewed every possible option to restore those protections, according to a White House official who is familiar with her thinking but was not authorized to speak on the record. But those tools take time. Experts in environmental law who have spoken with top Biden administration officials said the process of rolling back the Trump-era rollbacks would quite likely fall into a few broad categories. In a limited set of cases, Biden will be able to use his executive authority immediately, for instance to cancel individual fossil fuel infrastructure projects or reinstate federal protections on distinct areas of land and water. He did that on Day One when he rescinded the construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried oil from Canadian oil sands across the American Midwest. The White House announced Thursday that any new lease of drilling rights on public lands must have the personal approval of the highest-ranking officials at the Department of Interior — either the secretary or an assistant secretary. Likewise, Biden is expected in the first months of his term to restore federal protections around at least two national monuments in Utah: Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. In 2017, Trump opened nearly 2 million acres around those monuments to mining, logging and drilling — at the time the largest rollback of federal land protection in the nation’s history. On Thursday night, the White House released a fact sheet singling out its review of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase, along with one other, Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monuments off the New England coast, to “determine whether restoration of the monument boundaries and conditions would be appropriate.” Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law with the Vermont Law School, said the Biden administration could also act quickly to block Trump’s push to drill in Alaska. In the last days of Trump’s administration, the Interior Department auctioned off oil and gas drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. “The Biden administration can pretty quickly cancel those leases,” said Parenteau, although he noted that before doing so, the administration would quite likely want to conduct a legal review of whether it would need to compensate the companies that purchased the leases. Biden’s team has also looked to Congress, where Democrats could potentially use their razor-thin House and Senate majorities to revoke some of the Trump administration’s last-minute regulatory rollbacks. Under the Congressional Review Act, any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of the end of a presidential term can be overturned with a simple congressional vote. In the early days of the Trump administration, Republicans used that law to quickly wipe out 16 Obama-era rules. But legal experts have warned Democrats that using that law to undo environmental policies could backfire: Once Congress has used it to wipe out a regulation, the administration is legally barred from enacting a substantially similar rule. That twist would bar the Biden administration from replacing a weak Trump-era rule with a similar but more stringent one. “They don’t want to create roadblocks to creating future regulations,” said Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, who has closely studied the Trump administration’s rollbacks. Vizcarra cited just one such rollback as a good candidate for rapid reversal under the Congressional Review Act: a January rule that reduced protections for migratory birds by ending penalties for energy and construction companies that harm the birds and their habitats in construction projects and oil spills. Then there are the longer-term rollbacks. It could take two years or more for the administration to restore Obama-era climate change regulations, rolled back by the Trump administration, that were designed to cut emissions of planet-warming pollution across major sectors of the economy. It could also take that long to restore rules on industrial emissions of toxic pollutants such as mercury, as well as a major rule, Waters of the United States, designed to protect wetlands and waterways. “When it comes to restoring the vast majority of these Obama environmental policies, the rollbacks were actually done by putting in place new regulations,” Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer representing fossil fuel companies who served in the EPA in both Bush administrations. “In some cases that took two to three years. They will have to be replaced with new regulations. There is a legal process that has to be followed.” The work of reinstating the federal government’s more comprehensive regulations on air, water and climate pollution will take even longer. A key reason, explained legal experts: when the Trump administration rolled back those rules, it almost never eliminated them entirely. Rather, it replaced strict federal pollution regulations with new, weaker pollution regulations. The Biden administration, in turn, will seek to legally undo those weak regulations and replace them with tougher ones. And that legal process typically takes two years or more. For example, the Trump EPA undid the Obama administration’s single largest policy aimed at curbing climate change, a rule that forced automakers to rapidly increase the fuel economy of passenger vehicles, and, in so doing, drastically lowering their pollution of heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution. To do that, the EPA had to follow a long legal path; formally publishing a proposal to change the rule; opening it to public comments; drafting legal, economic and scientific justifications for the rule; and performing complex technical analyses of the effects of the new rule on highway safety, air quality and consumer behavior. Although the Trump administration began its rollback of the Obama auto pollution rule within Trump’s first days of taking office, it was not completed until last spring. The same timetable could await Biden as he seeks to reinstate the rule. “It’s a laborious, time-consuming process,” said Richard Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University, who was on Biden’s short list to run the EPA. “No one doubts the EPA’s authority to put these regulations on auto pollution back in place,” Revesz said. “But they can’t just make the Trump rules go away by executive order. They have to follow the same process — preparing all the scientific and economic analyses, and you have to get all that right.” Revesz noted that while the Obama administration had performed such analyses a decade ago when it first put the auto pollution rule in place, much has changed since then, including the economy, the auto industry and the amount of planet-warming carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. So Biden’s EPA staff will need to conduct all that work again, with present-day data. And he noted that after four years in which the staff and budget of the EPA has shrunk, the agency is now being asked to do far more with far fewer resources. “They want to do a lot, but they can’t do it all at the same time,” Revesz said. “EPA has suffered the loss of a lot of senior staff. They’ll need to prioritize. So they may not get to some of these until the end of a first term.” Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at the Columbia Law School, said it could take even longer for the EPA to restore the Waters of the United States rule, which was designed to protect the streams, wetlands and smaller water systems that flow into larger bodies of water, such as lakes and rivers. The Trump administration replaced that rule last year with a new rule that stripped away protections of those wetlands and smaller water bodies. “Replacing that water rule will take a very long time,” Gerrard said. “And they won’t want to rescind the Trump rule while they are working on the new rule, because then the waterways would be left with no protection.”

Restoring environmental rules rolled back by Trump could take years

trump-0

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

trump 0