The outgoing US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> has issued several pardons in his four years of presidency, especially in the past few months. Now, he is set to issue more than 100 presidential pardons on his last day in the White House, as per reports.

A day before the President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration ceremony, Trump will be making history by issuing nearly 100 presidential pardons.&nbsp;

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-is-said-to-have-discussed-pardoning-himself-355373">Trump is said to have discussed pardoning himself</a>

However, the twice-impeached President has decided not to pardon himself, or his family members, as per reports.

Trump had privately had discussions (and debates) with his close aides and family members to decide whether or not he should pardon himself, White House officials told local media.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/rappers-lil-wayne-kodak-black-in-line-for-donald-trumps-pardons-for-these-crimes-355311" hreflang="en">Rappers Lil Wayne, Kodak Black in line for Trump's pardons for these crimes</a>

Administration insiders, however, warned him against such a step and explained how it would be another 'extraordinary' decision taken by him that will attract a lot of criticism.

Following that decision, Trump had a closed-door meeting with his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner to churn out a list of people the Trump family wants to pardon. While the meeting ran for the whole day, it was reported that the infamous President was personally involved with details of every single case.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/pamela-anderson-pleads-to-donald-trump-to-pardon-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-before-he-leaves-office-357715">Pamela Anderson pleads to Donald Trump to pardon WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange before he leaves office</a>

The list is being described to be extensive, however, his long-time friends and personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, will not get pardoned for attempting to overturn the result of November's election.&nbsp;

His friend-turned-foe Steve Bannon will also not be a part of this list after he was charged with defrauding donators of the controversial US-Mexico border wall.

"Everything is a transaction. He likes pardons because it is unilateral. And he likes doing favours for people he thinks will owe him," a source told the local media house.

The outgoing US President Donald Trump has issued several pardons in his four years of presidency, especially in the past few months. Now, he is set to issue more than 100 presidential pardons on his last day in the White House, as per reports.

The outgoing US President Donald Trump has issued several pardons in his four years of presidency, especially in the past few months. Now, he is set to issue more than 100 presidential pardons on his last day in the White House, as per reports. A day before the President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration ceremony, Trump will be making history by issuing nearly 100 presidential pardons. Also read| Trump is said to have discussed pardoning himself However, the twice-impeached President has decided not to pardon himself, or his family members, as per reports. Trump had privately had discussions (and debates) with his close aides and family members to decide whether or not he should pardon himself, White House officials told local media. Also read| Rappers Lil Wayne, Kodak Black in line for Trump's pardons for these crimes Administration insiders, however, warned him against such a step and explained how it would be another 'extraordinary' decision taken by him that will attract a lot of criticism. Following that decision, Trump had a closed-door meeting with his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner to churn out a list of people the Trump family wants to pardon. While the meeting ran for the whole day, it was reported that the infamous President was personally involved with details of every single case. Also read| Pamela Anderson pleads to Donald Trump to pardon WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange before he leaves office The list is being described to be extensive, however, his long-time friends and personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, will not get pardoned for attempting to overturn the result of November's election. His friend-turned-foe Steve Bannon will also not be a part of this list after he was charged with defrauding donators of the controversial US-Mexico border wall. "Everything is a transaction. He likes pardons because it is unilateral. And he likes doing favours for people he thinks will owe him," a source told the local media house.

Donald Trump to issue 100 presidential pardons on last day: Reports

President &nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;exits stage right this week, dethroned, denounced and, most painful to him perhaps, de-platformed.

But his unfinished business will outlast his physical presence, in the boot-falls of National Guard troops, the drumbeat of dark coronavirus news and in a proliferation of questions about his second impeachment and how his absence will change the power dynamics in the newly Democratic-controlled Washington.

As inauguration week dawned, one set of worries dissipated, while others intensified: The feared mobs engulfing state capitals Sunday did not materialize.

Also read|<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-set-to-talk-about-unity-in-his-inaugural-speech-amid-backdrop-of-riots-357548">&nbsp;Joe Biden set to talk about unity in his inaugural speech, amid backdrop of riots</a>

But anxieties flared dramatically around 10:15 a.m. Eastern on Monday when a lockdown order was issued after a small fire broke out at a homeless encampment near the Capitol grounds, illustrating both the long-term societal problems, and short-term logistical challenges, faced by the incoming administration.

Despite the presence of thousands of National Guard troops in Washington, there was a jolt of panic, with cellphone footage showing workers evacuating the site of a run-through of Inauguration Day plans on the side of the Capitol, as brown smoke rose into blue sky beyond the dome.

Lawmakers are set to return to a militarized Capitol this week, with a number of serious questions remaining about the course of Trump’s second impeachment trial and the future of a new Democratic-controlled Senate that will be quickly tested during confirmation hearings for five of Biden’s Cabinet appointees.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/20-indian-americans-who-are-chosen-by-biden-administration-to-rebuild-america-357567" hreflang="en">20 Indian Americans who are chosen by Biden administration to rebuild America</a>

For several lawmakers, it will be their first trip back to Washington since the joint session Jan. 6 when they were temporarily forced to flee the chambers as a mob stormed the Capitol.

It remains unclear when Speaker Nancy Pelosi will formally send to the Senate the article of impeachment charging Trump with “incitement of insurrection.” Once the House sends the article to the Senate, the chamber has to immediately move to begin the trial.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/fbi-vets-national-guard-troops-fearing-insider-attack-during-biden-inauguration-report-357417" hreflang="en">Biden inauguration: FBI vets National Guard troops fearing 'insider attack'</a>

Three new Democratic senators — Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, the two newly elected senators from Georgia, and Alex Padilla, California’s secretary of state who is set to replace Vice President-elect Kamala Harris — could be sworn in as early as this week, cementing a majority enabled by Harris’ tiebreaking vote.

On Sunday, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who will lead the prosecution of Trump in the Senate trial, and Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, declined to offer details about when the impeachment article against Trump would be brought to the Senate or whether Democrats would push to call witnesses in the trial.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-set-to-talk-about-unity-in-his-inaugural-speech-amid-backdrop-of-riots-357548" hreflang="en">Joe Biden to talk about unity in his inaugural speech, amid backdrop of riots</a>

Biden has said he hopes the Senate can pursue a dual walk-and-chew-gum strategy that would allow the chamber to hold an impeachment trial while also processing both his administration nominations and pandemic relief legislation, although that would most likely require consent from both parties.

But there is one area, potentially, in which there will be less drama and more certainty.

The Democrats’ control of the Senate takes away some, if not all, of the fretting for the Biden team over the confirmation of appointments. Senators are scheduled to begin initial confirmation hearings this week for a number of Biden’s Cabinet nominees.

To do so, they will file past a phalanx of heavily armed National Guard troops, some standing at the ready to protect, others sleeping in cots in their new marble barrack

President Donald Trump exits stage right this week, dethroned, denounced and, most painful to him perhaps, de-platformed. But his unfinished business will outlast his physical presence, in the boot-falls of National Guard troops, the drumbeat of dark coronavirus news and in a proliferation of questions about his second impeachment and how his absence will change the power dynamics in the newly Democratic-controlled Washington.

President Donald Trump exits stage right this week, dethroned, denounced and, most painful to him perhaps, de-platformed. But his unfinished business will outlast his physical presence, in the boot-falls of National Guard troops, the drumbeat of dark coronavirus news and in a proliferation of questions about his second impeachment and how his absence will change the power dynamics in the newly Democratic-controlled Washington. As inauguration week dawned, one set of worries dissipated, while others intensified: The feared mobs engulfing state capitals Sunday did not materialize. Also read| Joe Biden set to talk about unity in his inaugural speech, amid backdrop of riots But anxieties flared dramatically around 10:15 a.m. Eastern on Monday when a lockdown order was issued after a small fire broke out at a homeless encampment near the Capitol grounds, illustrating both the long-term societal problems, and short-term logistical challenges, faced by the incoming administration. Despite the presence of thousands of National Guard troops in Washington, there was a jolt of panic, with cellphone footage showing workers evacuating the site of a run-through of Inauguration Day plans on the side of the Capitol, as brown smoke rose into blue sky beyond the dome. Lawmakers are set to return to a militarized Capitol this week, with a number of serious questions remaining about the course of Trump’s second impeachment trial and the future of a new Democratic-controlled Senate that will be quickly tested during confirmation hearings for five of Biden’s Cabinet appointees. Also read| 20 Indian Americans who are chosen by Biden administration to rebuild America For several lawmakers, it will be their first trip back to Washington since the joint session Jan. 6 when they were temporarily forced to flee the chambers as a mob stormed the Capitol. It remains unclear when Speaker Nancy Pelosi will formally send to the Senate the article of impeachment charging Trump with “incitement of insurrection.” Once the House sends the article to the Senate, the chamber has to immediately move to begin the trial. Also read| Biden inauguration: FBI vets National Guard troops fearing 'insider attack' Three new Democratic senators — Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, the two newly elected senators from Georgia, and Alex Padilla, California’s secretary of state who is set to replace Vice President-elect Kamala Harris — could be sworn in as early as this week, cementing a majority enabled by Harris’ tiebreaking vote. On Sunday, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who will lead the prosecution of Trump in the Senate trial, and Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, declined to offer details about when the impeachment article against Trump would be brought to the Senate or whether Democrats would push to call witnesses in the trial. Also read| Joe Biden to talk about unity in his inaugural speech, amid backdrop of riots Biden has said he hopes the Senate can pursue a dual walk-and-chew-gum strategy that would allow the chamber to hold an impeachment trial while also processing both his administration nominations and pandemic relief legislation, although that would most likely require consent from both parties. But there is one area, potentially, in which there will be less drama and more certainty. The Democrats’ control of the Senate takes away some, if not all, of the fretting for the Biden team over the confirmation of appointments. Senators are scheduled to begin initial confirmation hearings this week for a number of Biden’s Cabinet nominees. To do so, they will file past a phalanx of heavily armed National Guard troops, some standing at the ready to protect, others sleeping in cots in their new marble barrack

Questions about Trump’s fate, new dynamics in Washington remain as inauguration week begins

A few days later, the US will host the much-awaited inauguration ceremony of the President-elect <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a> and give him control of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/the-white-house">White House</a>.

Biden will be replacing the outgoing President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> but unlike him, he will be promoting national unity in his inaugural speech.

The preview of his speech's theme was provided to the local US media channels a few days before his inauguration ceremony.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-will-wait-for-recommendation-on-sharing-secrets-with-trump-357374" hreflang="en">Biden will wait for recommendation on sharing secrets with Trump</a>

"It’s a message of moving this country forward, it’s a message of unity, it’s a message of getting things done," Ron Klain, the incoming White House chief of staff told local media.

Biden will be talking about restoring the soul of America and the importance of coming together as a nation rather than following his predecessor's alleged policy of 'divide and rule'.

"There’s no question we’ve seen the most divisive four years in over a century from President Trump, it’s one reason Joe Biden ran, to restore the soul of America. The events of the past few weeks have proven out just how damaged the soul of America has been, and how important it is to restore it. That work starts on Wednesday," Klain said.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/rioters-who-attacked-us-capitol-seek-pardons-from-president-trump-357327" hreflang="en">Rioters who attacked US Capitol seek pardons from President Trump</a>

Soon after taking control of the White House, Biden will get to work on reversing the most controversial policies and infamous decisions introduced and taken by Donald Trump.

In earlier reports, it was reported by an aide of Biden that the President-elect will be signing at least a dozen of executive orders within the first ten days of his presidency, including US' return to the Paris climate agreement and relaxation on immigration policies.

However, the ray of hope will be delivered while the country will observe strict surveillance by the National Guards who will be guarding the Washington city against any possibility of a terrorist attack — after the Capitol riots by Trump supporters.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/washington-on-high-alert-ahead-of-biden-inauguration-357513">WATCH|</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/washington-on-high-alert-ahead-of-biden-inauguration-357513/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Many officials have compared the present environment of Washington to war zones such as Baghdad and Syria. "I never thought I would see that in our own capital or that it would be necessary, but there was a profound threat from domestic violent extremists of the nature we saw on 6 January," Adam Schiff, the Democratic chair of the House intelligence committee told local reporters.

Trump had declared a state of emergency in the city after the FBI warned another similar riot during the inauguration week of Joe Biden.

A few days later, the US will host the much-awaited inauguration ceremony of the President-elect Joe Biden and give him control of the White House. Biden will be replacing the outgoing President Donald Trump but unlike him, he will be promoting national unity in his inaugural speech.

A few days later, the US will host the much-awaited inauguration ceremony of the President-elect Joe Biden and give him control of the White House. Biden will be replacing the outgoing President Donald Trump but unlike him, he will be promoting national unity in his inaugural speech. The preview of his speech's theme was provided to the local US media channels a few days before his inauguration ceremony. Also read| Biden will wait for recommendation on sharing secrets with Trump "It’s a message of moving this country forward, it’s a message of unity, it’s a message of getting things done," Ron Klain, the incoming White House chief of staff told local media. Biden will be talking about restoring the soul of America and the importance of coming together as a nation rather than following his predecessor's alleged policy of 'divide and rule'. "There’s no question we’ve seen the most divisive four years in over a century from President Trump, it’s one reason Joe Biden ran, to restore the soul of America. The events of the past few weeks have proven out just how damaged the soul of America has been, and how important it is to restore it. That work starts on Wednesday," Klain said. Also read| Rioters who attacked US Capitol seek pardons from President Trump Soon after taking control of the White House, Biden will get to work on reversing the most controversial policies and infamous decisions introduced and taken by Donald Trump. In earlier reports, it was reported by an aide of Biden that the President-elect will be signing at least a dozen of executive orders within the first ten days of his presidency, including US' return to the Paris climate agreement and relaxation on immigration policies. However, the ray of hope will be delivered while the country will observe strict surveillance by the National Guards who will be guarding the Washington city against any possibility of a terrorist attack — after the Capitol riots by Trump supporters. WATCH| Many officials have compared the present environment of Washington to war zones such as Baghdad and Syria. "I never thought I would see that in our own capital or that it would be necessary, but there was a profound threat from domestic violent extremists of the nature we saw on 6 January," Adam Schiff, the Democratic chair of the House intelligence committee told local reporters. Trump had declared a state of emergency in the city after the FBI warned another similar riot during the inauguration week of Joe Biden.

Joe Biden set to talk about unity in his inaugural speech, amid backdrop of riots

In a first, a few days after Twitter launched a new Twitter account '@PresElectBiden' for the incoming US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a>, the social media platform has done the same for the Vice-President's husband.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/kamala-harris">Kamala Harris'</a> husband Douglas Emhoff will be the first Second Gentleman in the history of the US. Harris recently made history by becoming the first woman Vice President and first South Asian, African-American VP of the US.&nbsp;

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/joe-biden-kamala-harris-drop-inaugural-playlist-featuring-beyonce-dua-lipa-more-357296" hreflang="en">Joe Biden, Kamala Harris drop inaugural playlist featuring Beyonce, Dua Lipa &amp; more</a>

Now, her husband, too, has made history by becoming the first-ever 'Second Gentleman' of the country. This is also the first time Twitter has launched an official account for the partner of the VP.

Emhoff's new Twitter account's bio reads "Future Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff. Devoted dad. Proud husband to Vice President-elect Harris."

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-vice-president-elect-kamala-harris-gets-covid-19-vaccine-353218" hreflang="en">US Vice President-elect Kamala Harris gets COVID-19 vaccine</a>

The incoming President also gave a warm welcome to Emhoff — along with the VP and FLOTUS — through his first tweet on his new official account.

"While you're here, follow @FLOTUSBiden @SenKamalaHarris @SecondGentleman and @Transition46," he tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Folks — This will be the account for my official duties as President. At 12:01 PM on January 20th, it will become <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>. Until then, I'll be using <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a>. And while you're here, follow <a href="https://twitter.com/FLOTUSBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FLOTUSBiden</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/SenKamalaHarris?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenKamalaHarris</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/SecondGentleman?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecondGentleman</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/Transition46?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Transition46</a>.
— President-elect Biden (@PresElectBiden) <a href="https://twitter.com/PresElectBiden/status/1349918127413407747?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 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>

Biden will be sworn in as the new US President in an inauguration ceremony on January 20 and the outgoing President&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> will be surrendering the control of the White House on the same day.

The 56-year-old has left his private law practice to focus on his role at the White House, and had described it as an 'honour' to be able to serve as the Second Gentleman of the US.&nbsp;

"I think it would be an incredible honour… I’m going to hopefully work on things like access to justice and access to opportunity and access to the American dream."

In a first, a few days after Twitter launched a new Twitter account '@PresElectBiden' for the incoming US President Joe Biden, the social media platform has done the same for the Vice-President's husband.

In a first, a few days after Twitter launched a new Twitter account '@PresElectBiden' for the incoming US President Joe Biden, the social media platform has done the same for the Vice-President's husband. Kamala Harris' husband Douglas Emhoff will be the first Second Gentleman in the history of the US. Harris recently made history by becoming the first woman Vice President and first South Asian, African-American VP of the US. Also read| Joe Biden, Kamala Harris drop inaugural playlist featuring Beyonce, Dua Lipa & more Now, her husband, too, has made history by becoming the first-ever 'Second Gentleman' of the country. This is also the first time Twitter has launched an official account for the partner of the VP. Emhoff's new Twitter account's bio reads "Future Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff. Devoted dad. Proud husband to Vice President-elect Harris." Also read| US Vice President-elect Kamala Harris gets COVID-19 vaccine The incoming President also gave a warm welcome to Emhoff — along with the VP and FLOTUS — through his first tweet on his new official account. "While you're here, follow @FLOTUSBiden @SenKamalaHarris @SecondGentleman and @Transition46," he tweeted. Folks — This will be the account for my official duties as President. At 12:01 PM on January 20th, it will become @POTUS. Until then, I'll be using @JoeBiden. And while you're here, follow @FLOTUSBiden @SenKamalaHarris @SecondGentleman and @Transition46. — President-elect Biden (@PresElectBiden) January 15, 2021 × Biden will be sworn in as the new US President in an inauguration ceremony on January 20 and the outgoing President Donald Trump will be surrendering the control of the White House on the same day. The 56-year-old has left his private law practice to focus on his role at the White House, and had described it as an 'honour' to be able to serve as the Second Gentleman of the US. "I think it would be an incredible honour… I’m going to hopefully work on things like access to justice and access to opportunity and access to the American dream."

Kamala Harris' husband appears as '@SecondGentleman' on Twitter before Inauguration

The incoming president of the United States, Joe Biden, will sign about a dozen executive orders on his first day in office, his top aide has said.

Incoming Biden chief of staff Ron Klain said in&nbsp;a memo to new White House senior staff that the executive orders would address the pandemic, the ailing US economy, climate change and racial injustice in America.

As he inherits the White House from Donald Trump, Biden's plate is overflowing with acute challenges.

The US is fast approaching 400,000 deaths from the Covid-19 crisis and logging well over a million new cases a week as the coronavirus spreads out of control.

The economy is ailing, with 10 million fewer jobs available compared to the start of the pandemic.

Biden this week unveiled plans to seek $1.9 trillion to revive the economy through new stimulus payments and other aid, and plans a blitz to accelerate America's stumbling Covid vaccine rollout effort.

Biden will also sign orders including ones for the US to rejoin the Paris climate accord and reverse Trump's ban on entry of people from certain Muslim majority countries, Klain said.

Meanwhile, Washington was under a state of high alert after a mob of President Donald Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol on January 6. The assault left five people dead, including a police officer.

The inauguration of the 46th president of the nation is happening amid fears of violence from Trump supporters. To this end, security forces even staged a nationwide security operation ahead of the ceremony.

Authorities in Washington, where Wednesday's inauguration will take place, said they arrested a man with a loaded handgun and more than 500 rounds of ammunition at a security checkpoint, underscoring the tension in the US capital which is resembling a war zone.

However, the man's family told US media he was a security guard, rejecting the idea he was intent on causing harm.

The Virginia man at a security checkpoint tried to use an "unauthorised" credential to access the restricted area where Biden will be inaugurated.

As officers checked the credential against the authorised access list, one noticed decals on the back of Wesley Beeler's pick-up truck that said "Assault Life," with an image of a rifle, and another with the message: "If they come for your guns, give 'em your bullets first," according to a document filed in Washington, DC Superior Court.

Under questioning, Beeler told officers he had a Glock handgun in the vehicle. A search uncovered a loaded handgun, more than 500 rounds of ammunition, shotgun shells and a magazine for the gun, the court document said.

Beeler was arrested on charges including possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.

Security officials have warned that armed pro-Trump extremists, possibly carrying explosives, pose a threat to Washington as well as state capitals over the coming week.

Thousands of National Guard troops have been deployed in Washington and streets have been blocked off downtown with concrete barriers.

In addition to the heavy security presence in Washington, law enforcement was out in force in state capitals around the country to ward off potential political violence.

Mass protests that had been planned for the weekend did not materialise on Saturday, with security far outnumbering Trump supporters at several fortified statehouses, US media reported.

BIDEN'S POA

As previously announced, Biden will ask the Department of Education to extend the existing pause on student loan payments and interest for millions of Americans with federal student loans, re-join the Paris Agreement, and reverse the Muslim Ban.

Biden will launch his "100 Day Masking Challenge" by issuing a mask mandate on federal property and inter-state travel --&nbsp;part of a critical effort to begin to bend the curve on COVID.&nbsp;

The next day, on January 21, Biden will sign a number of executive actions to move aggressively to change the course of the COVID-19 crisis and safely re-open schools and businesses, including by taking action to mitigate spread through expanding testing, protecting workers, and establishing clear public health standards.

On January 22, the president will direct his Cabinet agencies to take immediate action to deliver economic relief to working families bearing the brunt of this crisis.

Klein said that between January 25 and February 1, the president-elect will sign additional executive actions, memoranda and Cabinet directives. The president-elect will fulfil his promises to strengthen Buy American provisions so the future of America is made in America.

He will take significant early actions to advance equity and support communities of colour and other underserved communities. He will take action to begin fulfilling campaign promises related to reforming the criminal justice system.

Biden will sign additional executive actions to address the climate crisis with the urgency the science demands and ensure that science guides the administration's decision making.

He will take first steps to expand access to health care - including for low-income women and women of colour.

(with inputs from agencies)

The incoming president of the United States, Joe Biden, will sign about a dozen executive orders on his first day in office, his top aide has said. Incoming Biden chief of staff Ron Klain said in a memo to new White House senior staff that the executive orders would address the pandemic, the ailing US economy, climate change and racial injustice in America.

The incoming president of the United States, Joe Biden, will sign about a dozen executive orders on his first day in office, his top aide has said. Incoming Biden chief of staff Ron Klain said in a memo to new White House senior staff that the executive orders would address the pandemic, the ailing US economy, climate change and racial injustice in America. As he inherits the White House from Donald Trump, Biden's plate is overflowing with acute challenges. The US is fast approaching 400,000 deaths from the Covid-19 crisis and logging well over a million new cases a week as the coronavirus spreads out of control. The economy is ailing, with 10 million fewer jobs available compared to the start of the pandemic. Biden this week unveiled plans to seek $1.9 trillion to revive the economy through new stimulus payments and other aid, and plans a blitz to accelerate America's stumbling Covid vaccine rollout effort. Biden will also sign orders including ones for the US to rejoin the Paris climate accord and reverse Trump's ban on entry of people from certain Muslim majority countries, Klain said. Meanwhile, Washington was under a state of high alert after a mob of President Donald Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol on January 6. The assault left five people dead, including a police officer. The inauguration of the 46th president of the nation is happening amid fears of violence from Trump supporters. To this end, security forces even staged a nationwide security operation ahead of the ceremony. Authorities in Washington, where Wednesday's inauguration will take place, said they arrested a man with a loaded handgun and more than 500 rounds of ammunition at a security checkpoint, underscoring the tension in the US capital which is resembling a war zone. However, the man's family told US media he was a security guard, rejecting the idea he was intent on causing harm. The Virginia man at a security checkpoint tried to use an "unauthorised" credential to access the restricted area where Biden will be inaugurated. As officers checked the credential against the authorised access list, one noticed decals on the back of Wesley Beeler's pick-up truck that said "Assault Life," with an image of a rifle, and another with the message: "If they come for your guns, give 'em your bullets first," according to a document filed in Washington, DC Superior Court. Under questioning, Beeler told officers he had a Glock handgun in the vehicle. A search uncovered a loaded handgun, more than 500 rounds of ammunition, shotgun shells and a magazine for the gun, the court document said. Beeler was arrested on charges including possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. Security officials have warned that armed pro-Trump extremists, possibly carrying explosives, pose a threat to Washington as well as state capitals over the coming week. Thousands of National Guard troops have been deployed in Washington and streets have been blocked off downtown with concrete barriers. In addition to the heavy security presence in Washington, law enforcement was out in force in state capitals around the country to ward off potential political violence. Mass protests that had been planned for the weekend did not materialise on Saturday, with security far outnumbering Trump supporters at several fortified statehouses, US media reported. BIDEN'S POA As previously announced, Biden will ask the Department of Education to extend the existing pause on student loan payments and interest for millions of Americans with federal student loans, re-join the Paris Agreement, and reverse the Muslim Ban. Biden will launch his "100 Day Masking Challenge" by issuing a mask mandate on federal property and inter-state travel -- part of a critical effort to begin to bend the curve on COVID. The next day, on January 21, Biden will sign a number of executive actions to move aggressively to change the course of the COVID-19 crisis and safely re-open schools and businesses, including by taking action to mitigate spread through expanding testing, protecting workers, and establishing clear public health standards. On January 22, the president will direct his Cabinet agencies to take immediate action to deliver economic relief to working families bearing the brunt of this crisis. Klein said that between January 25 and February 1, the president-elect will sign additional executive actions, memoranda and Cabinet directives. The president-elect will fulfil his promises to strengthen Buy American provisions so the future of America is made in America. He will take significant early actions to advance equity and support communities of colour and other underserved communities. He will take action to begin fulfilling campaign promises related to reforming the criminal justice system. Biden will sign additional executive actions to address the climate crisis with the urgency the science demands and ensure that science guides the administration's decision making. He will take first steps to expand access to health care - including for low-income women and women of colour. (with inputs from agencies)

Biden to sign executive orders on Day 1, security beefed up across Washington

Two days before the US President-elect<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden"> Joe Biden's</a> inauguration ceremony, the incoming Vice President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/kamala-harris">Kamala Harris</a> will be resigning from the Senate.

An aide close to Harris told the local media that the incoming Vice President and a current US Senator will be resigning to prepare for her takeover of the VP position, after she defeated the Republican candidate, Mike Pence, in the recently-concluded US election 2020.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/joe-biden-kamala-harris-drop-inaugural-playlist-featuring-beyonce-dua-lipa-more-357296" hreflang="en">Joe Biden, Kamala Harris drop inaugural playlist featuring Beyonce, Dua Lipa &amp; more</a>

As per the reports, the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, is aware of Harris' decision and has elected Democrat Alex Padilla, now California's secretary of state, to replace Harris in her remaining two terms in the office.

She will not be giving any farewell speech, as per reports, as the Senate is not scheduled to reconvene until the eve of Biden's inauguration ceremony.&nbsp;

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-to-sign-executive-orders-on-day-1-security-beefed-up-across-washington-357191" hreflang="en">Biden to sign executive orders on Day 1, security beefed up across Washington</a>

Harris won the November 2015 elections and took over the office by defeating Loretta Sanchez in the general election.

Padilla is currently the 32nd Secretary of State. He took over the position in 2015 and will be the first Latino senator from California. While his selection is conformed, his date of joining has not yet been made clear.

Two days before the US President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration ceremony, the incoming Vice President Kamala Harris will be resigning from the Senate. An aide close to Harris told the local media that the incoming Vice President and a current US Senator will be resigning to prepare for her takeover of the VP position, after she defeated the Republican candidate, Mike Pence, in the recently-concluded US election 2020.

Two days before the US President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration ceremony, the incoming Vice President Kamala Harris will be resigning from the Senate. An aide close to Harris told the local media that the incoming Vice President and a current US Senator will be resigning to prepare for her takeover of the VP position, after she defeated the Republican candidate, Mike Pence, in the recently-concluded US election 2020. Also read| Joe Biden, Kamala Harris drop inaugural playlist featuring Beyonce, Dua Lipa & more As per the reports, the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, is aware of Harris' decision and has elected Democrat Alex Padilla, now California's secretary of state, to replace Harris in her remaining two terms in the office. She will not be giving any farewell speech, as per reports, as the Senate is not scheduled to reconvene until the eve of Biden's inauguration ceremony. Also read| Biden to sign executive orders on Day 1, security beefed up across Washington Harris won the November 2015 elections and took over the office by defeating Loretta Sanchez in the general election. Padilla is currently the 32nd Secretary of State. He took over the position in 2015 and will be the first Latino senator from California. While his selection is conformed, his date of joining has not yet been made clear.

Kamala Harris set to resign from Senate on Monday: Aides

When President Donald Trump faced (and overcame) the gravest crisis of his first campaign, he defended his boasts of sexual assault on the “Access Hollywood” tape as ultimately harmless gabbing.

“Locker room talk,” he said — nothing to dwell on.

When the president faced (and overcame) impeachment in 2019 after pressing the Ukrainian president to investigate President-elect Joe Biden, he insisted it was merely an innocuous case of two guys talking.

“A perfect call,” he said, not a high crime.

And when Trump leaves the White House no later than Wednesday — amid the impeachment sequel and uncommon comeuppance he has encountered since inciting a riotous mob in Washington on Jan. 6 — he will surrender a valued perk: an executive phone system, he once enthused, that made it feel as if his words would self-destruct before they became self-destructive.

“The world’s most secure system,” Trump marveled in a 2017 interview during his first week in office, observing that no one was listening in and recording. “The words just explode in the air.”

Poof. Gone. Just as he likes it.

For most of Trump’s 74 years, the relationship between his words and their consequences has been fairly straightforward: He says what he wants, and nothing particularly durable tends to happen to him.

But in the final frames of his presidency, Trump is confronting an unfamiliar fate. He is being held to account as never before for things he has said, finding his typical defenses — denial, obfuscation, powerful friends, claiming it was all a big joke — insufficient in explaining away a violent mob acting in his name.

(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)

Aides could not do it for him, anonymously offering more palatable accounts.

Allies could not argue that he had been misunderstood.

His own words were all anyone needed to hear on this one.

(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)

In almost certainly the most expansive series of penalties he has incurred in his life, Trump’s Twitter account has been banned, his business brand badly dented, his presidency doomed to the historical infamy of a second impeachment. His largest lender, Deutsche Bank, is moving to create distance from him. His New Jersey golf club was stripped of a major tournament. Some once-reliable Republican congressional loyalists are revisiting their commitment, threatening his grip on the party, even as the president’s popularity with much of his support base remains undimmed.

Those who have known and watched Trump across the years cannot shake the irony of a president felled by the very formula that powered his rise: inflammatory speech and a self-regard that has congealed at times into functional self-delusion.

He has never considered words to be as significant as actions, or even in the same category of prospective offense. Words were whatever got him through the next interaction, people who worked with him say. Words were not deemed important enough to invite serious trouble.

So well-developed were Trump’s survival instincts, in theory, that he had all but perfected the art of semiplausible deniability — an upside of being on seemingly every side of every major political issue at various points in his adult life.

Hadn’t he said the right thing that one time? That was what he meant.

Hadn’t he winked at the crowd a bit? Everyone takes him too seriously.

Hadn’t he used the word “peacefully” one time in that address before the Capitol riot, tucked between the more dominant instructions to “fight” and “show strength” and “go by very different rules” as he whipped up anger against elected officials, including his own vice president, who were disinclined to subvert the will of the electorate?

“He has had a habit of saying outrageous things and then saying he was being sarcastic, he was kidding, that people shouldn’t take him literally — and in fact, if you do, what an idiot you are,” said Gwenda Blair, a biographer of the Trump family. “It’s both deniability for himself, but it’s also deniability for his followers. He gives &lt;em&gt;them&lt;/em&gt; something to hold onto so that they can then continue to believe in him.”

But Trump and much of the political class that was shocked and disoriented by his 2016 win have sometimes conflated his reputational resilience with a notion that nothing he says can hurt him, no matter how ostensibly damaging.

His term has been pocked with episodes — from his equivocation on white supremacy after the deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, to his downplaying the unambiguous risks of COVID-19 — that made him an unpopular president whose contract was not renewed. Less assured is his capacity to recognize the link between his conduct and this outcome.

In fact, since entering politics, Trump has often delighted in cutting down opponents who sounded too practiced or restrained.

“Just words,” he said of Joe Biden as the Democrat accepted his party’s nomination last summer.

“It’s just words, folks,” Trump said of Hillary Clinton at an October 2016 debate days after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, at once deflecting any denunciation of his own remarks and calling Clinton’s empty. “It’s just words.”

As president, Trump benefited daily from an army of defenders in Congress and across the conservative media who dedicated themselves to interpreting his often-inexplicable words as charitably as possible.

And since his time as a private citizen, Trump has generally been insulated from the fallout from his words because associates have been left to navigate it instead.

“He said stupid things, and we did damage control, and that was it,” said Barbara Res, a former executive vice president of the Trump Organization. “He never gave it a thought.”

Experts in the Trump canon have struggled to summon an analogy for his present conditions, when his words or deeds had caused things he cared about to be taken from him.

“Ivana during that first divorce kind of got back at him a bit,” Blair recalled of the amply chronicled dissolution of his first marriage, before reconsidering. “In fact, he loved that whole thing because it got him more ink.”

Tony Schwartz, who ghostwrote “Trump: The Art of the Deal” and has in recent years become a ferocious critic, said Trump’s relative evasion of consequences until now “has progressively increased his conviction that he can and should get away with anything he does.”

It is no surprise, then, that since last week, as in much of his White House tenure, Trump has proved himself capable of only temporary modulation, defaulting to defiance but snapping to attention when advisers impressed upon him that he could face legal exposure for his incitements.

In a video Wednesday, he condemned “violence and vandalism” and held up his “true” supporters as champions of law enforcement — a message aimed, perhaps, at unnerved Senate Republicans before his impeachment trial.

Yet for all the things Trump did not say — that he lost the election, that Biden would be inaugurated, that he assumed any responsibility for the state of affairs — and all the things he has said before, it was impossible to believe the president’s heart was in it, implausible to assume the words were meant to last, to hang rather than explode in the White House air.

“All of us can choose by our actions to rise above the rancor … ” he said dutifully this time.

“ … to overcome the passions of the moment … ”

“ … to move forward united … ”

Anyone listening knew that these were just words.

When President Donald Trump faced (and overcame) the gravest crisis of his first campaign, he defended his boasts of sexual assault on the “Access Hollywood” tape as ultimately harmless gabbing.

When President Donald Trump faced (and overcame) the gravest crisis of his first campaign, he defended his boasts of sexual assault on the “Access Hollywood” tape as ultimately harmless gabbing. “Locker room talk,” he said — nothing to dwell on. When the president faced (and overcame) impeachment in 2019 after pressing the Ukrainian president to investigate President-elect Joe Biden, he insisted it was merely an innocuous case of two guys talking. “A perfect call,” he said, not a high crime. And when Trump leaves the White House no later than Wednesday — amid the impeachment sequel and uncommon comeuppance he has encountered since inciting a riotous mob in Washington on Jan. 6 — he will surrender a valued perk: an executive phone system, he once enthused, that made it feel as if his words would self-destruct before they became self-destructive. “The world’s most secure system,” Trump marveled in a 2017 interview during his first week in office, observing that no one was listening in and recording. “The words just explode in the air.” Poof. Gone. Just as he likes it. For most of Trump’s 74 years, the relationship between his words and their consequences has been fairly straightforward: He says what he wants, and nothing particularly durable tends to happen to him. But in the final frames of his presidency, Trump is confronting an unfamiliar fate. He is being held to account as never before for things he has said, finding his typical defenses — denial, obfuscation, powerful friends, claiming it was all a big joke — insufficient in explaining away a violent mob acting in his name. (BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.) Aides could not do it for him, anonymously offering more palatable accounts. Allies could not argue that he had been misunderstood. His own words were all anyone needed to hear on this one. (END OPTIONAL TRIM.) In almost certainly the most expansive series of penalties he has incurred in his life, Trump’s Twitter account has been banned, his business brand badly dented, his presidency doomed to the historical infamy of a second impeachment. His largest lender, Deutsche Bank, is moving to create distance from him. His New Jersey golf club was stripped of a major tournament. Some once-reliable Republican congressional loyalists are revisiting their commitment, threatening his grip on the party, even as the president’s popularity with much of his support base remains undimmed. Those who have known and watched Trump across the years cannot shake the irony of a president felled by the very formula that powered his rise: inflammatory speech and a self-regard that has congealed at times into functional self-delusion. He has never considered words to be as significant as actions, or even in the same category of prospective offense. Words were whatever got him through the next interaction, people who worked with him say. Words were not deemed important enough to invite serious trouble. So well-developed were Trump’s survival instincts, in theory, that he had all but perfected the art of semiplausible deniability — an upside of being on seemingly every side of every major political issue at various points in his adult life. Hadn’t he said the right thing that one time? That was what he meant. Hadn’t he winked at the crowd a bit? Everyone takes him too seriously. Hadn’t he used the word “peacefully” one time in that address before the Capitol riot, tucked between the more dominant instructions to “fight” and “show strength” and “go by very different rules” as he whipped up anger against elected officials, including his own vice president, who were disinclined to subvert the will of the electorate? “He has had a habit of saying outrageous things and then saying he was being sarcastic, he was kidding, that people shouldn’t take him literally — and in fact, if you do, what an idiot you are,” said Gwenda Blair, a biographer of the Trump family. “It’s both deniability for himself, but it’s also deniability for his followers. He gives them something to hold onto so that they can then continue to believe in him.” But Trump and much of the political class that was shocked and disoriented by his 2016 win have sometimes conflated his reputational resilience with a notion that nothing he says can hurt him, no matter how ostensibly damaging. His term has been pocked with episodes — from his equivocation on white supremacy after the deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, to his downplaying the unambiguous risks of COVID-19 — that made him an unpopular president whose contract was not renewed. Less assured is his capacity to recognize the link between his conduct and this outcome. In fact, since entering politics, Trump has often delighted in cutting down opponents who sounded too practiced or restrained. “Just words,” he said of Joe Biden as the Democrat accepted his party’s nomination last summer. “It’s just words, folks,” Trump said of Hillary Clinton at an October 2016 debate days after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, at once deflecting any denunciation of his own remarks and calling Clinton’s empty. “It’s just words.” As president, Trump benefited daily from an army of defenders in Congress and across the conservative media who dedicated themselves to interpreting his often-inexplicable words as charitably as possible. And since his time as a private citizen, Trump has generally been insulated from the fallout from his words because associates have been left to navigate it instead. “He said stupid things, and we did damage control, and that was it,” said Barbara Res, a former executive vice president of the Trump Organization. “He never gave it a thought.” Experts in the Trump canon have struggled to summon an analogy for his present conditions, when his words or deeds had caused things he cared about to be taken from him. “Ivana during that first divorce kind of got back at him a bit,” Blair recalled of the amply chronicled dissolution of his first marriage, before reconsidering. “In fact, he loved that whole thing because it got him more ink.” Tony Schwartz, who ghostwrote “Trump: The Art of the Deal” and has in recent years become a ferocious critic, said Trump’s relative evasion of consequences until now “has progressively increased his conviction that he can and should get away with anything he does.” It is no surprise, then, that since last week, as in much of his White House tenure, Trump has proved himself capable of only temporary modulation, defaulting to defiance but snapping to attention when advisers impressed upon him that he could face legal exposure for his incitements. In a video Wednesday, he condemned “violence and vandalism” and held up his “true” supporters as champions of law enforcement — a message aimed, perhaps, at unnerved Senate Republicans before his impeachment trial. Yet for all the things Trump did not say — that he lost the election, that Biden would be inaugurated, that he assumed any responsibility for the state of affairs — and all the things he has said before, it was impossible to believe the president’s heart was in it, implausible to assume the words were meant to last, to hang rather than explode in the White House air. “All of us can choose by our actions to rise above the rancor … ” he said dutifully this time. “ … to overcome the passions of the moment … ” “ … to move forward united … ” Anyone listening knew that these were just words.

A first for an American president, and a first for Donald Trump

The U.S. Capitol Police arrested a man at a security checkpoint in Washington on Friday after he flashed what an officer described as an “unauthorized” inauguration credential and a search of his truck found an unregistered handgun and more than 500 rounds of ammunition, authorities said.

A federal law enforcement official said that the man, Wesley A. Beeler, 31, worked as a contractor, and that his credential was not fake, but was not recognized by the police officer. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the arrest.

Beeler’s father, Paul Beeler, said in an interview that his son was part of a security team working alongside the Capitol Police and the National Guard, and that his son must have simply left his personal gun in his truck. Wesley Beeler has an active private security license in Virginia and was approved to have a handgun, shotgun or patrol rifle while on assignments, according to a state website.

“It was an honest mistake,” Wesley Beeler told The Washington Post after being released Saturday afternoon. He said he had been working a security job in Washington, was running late to work, and had forgotten that his firearm was in his truck. He denied having 500 rounds of ammunition, as listed in the police report.

“I pulled up to a checkpoint after getting lost in D.C. because I’m a country boy,” he told The Post. “I showed them the inauguration badge that was given to me.”

The arrest comes as law enforcement officials have tried to fortify Washington before Inauguration Day on Wednesday, when they fear that extremists emboldened by the attack on the Capitol by President Donald Trump’s supporters on Jan. 6 could seek to cause violence. A militarized “green zone” is being established downtown, National Guard members are flooding the city, and a metal fence has gone up around the Capitol grounds in advance of the swearing-in of President-elect Joe Biden.

Wesley Beeler, of Front Royal, Virginia, had driven up to a security checkpoint less than half a mile from the Capitol grounds Friday evening and presented “an unauthorized inauguration credential,” according to a statement from a Capitol Police officer filed in a District of Columbia court Saturday. The officer, Roger Dupont, said that he had checked the credential against a list and found that it did not give Beeler authority to enter the restricted area.

A spokesperson for the Capitol Police later described the credential that Beeler had shown as “nongovernment issued.”

Officers searched his truck, which had several gun-related bumper stickers, and found a loaded Glock pistol, 509 rounds for the pistol and 21 shotgun shells, police said. Beeler had admitted having the Glock in the truck’s center console when he was asked if there were weapons in the car, they said.

Beeler was charged with five crimes, including possessing a weapon and ammunition in Washington without having it registered as required. He and his lawyer did not respond to requests for comment Saturday.

Paul Beeler said his son, a father of four, had held other security jobs over the years. “He was proud of the work he was doing with the police and the National Guard,” the father said.

Asked if he thought his son supported a peaceful transition of power, Paul Beeler said, “That’s the reason he’s there.”

The elder Beeler said he had grown worried about his son when he did not return his text messages Friday night, and that he had called him Saturday morning, when he thought his son would be returning to Virginia after his shift. He and his wife discovered that Wesley Beeler had been arrested when she received a call from a reporter, he said.

Law enforcement officials have said they are alarmed by chatter among far-right groups and other racist extremists who are threatening to target the nation’s capital to protest Biden’s electoral victory. Federal agencies have tried to keep some people who breached the Capitol with weapons earlier this month from returning to the city, including by restricting their ability to board commercial planes, according to an administration official.

Biden has resisted calls to move the inauguration ceremony indoors for the sake of safety. His inauguration committee had already been planning a scaled-back celebration with virtual components because of the coronavirus.

The U.S. Capitol Police arrested a man at a security checkpoint in Washington on Friday after he flashed what an officer described as an “unauthorized” inauguration credential and a search of his truck found an unregistered handgun and more than 500 rounds of ammunition, authorities said.

The U.S. Capitol Police arrested a man at a security checkpoint in Washington on Friday after he flashed what an officer described as an “unauthorized” inauguration credential and a search of his truck found an unregistered handgun and more than 500 rounds of ammunition, authorities said. A federal law enforcement official said that the man, Wesley A. Beeler, 31, worked as a contractor, and that his credential was not fake, but was not recognized by the police officer. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the arrest. Beeler’s father, Paul Beeler, said in an interview that his son was part of a security team working alongside the Capitol Police and the National Guard, and that his son must have simply left his personal gun in his truck. Wesley Beeler has an active private security license in Virginia and was approved to have a handgun, shotgun or patrol rifle while on assignments, according to a state website. “It was an honest mistake,” Wesley Beeler told The Washington Post after being released Saturday afternoon. He said he had been working a security job in Washington, was running late to work, and had forgotten that his firearm was in his truck. He denied having 500 rounds of ammunition, as listed in the police report. “I pulled up to a checkpoint after getting lost in D.C. because I’m a country boy,” he told The Post. “I showed them the inauguration badge that was given to me.” The arrest comes as law enforcement officials have tried to fortify Washington before Inauguration Day on Wednesday, when they fear that extremists emboldened by the attack on the Capitol by President Donald Trump’s supporters on Jan. 6 could seek to cause violence. A militarized “green zone” is being established downtown, National Guard members are flooding the city, and a metal fence has gone up around the Capitol grounds in advance of the swearing-in of President-elect Joe Biden. Wesley Beeler, of Front Royal, Virginia, had driven up to a security checkpoint less than half a mile from the Capitol grounds Friday evening and presented “an unauthorized inauguration credential,” according to a statement from a Capitol Police officer filed in a District of Columbia court Saturday. The officer, Roger Dupont, said that he had checked the credential against a list and found that it did not give Beeler authority to enter the restricted area. A spokesperson for the Capitol Police later described the credential that Beeler had shown as “nongovernment issued.” Officers searched his truck, which had several gun-related bumper stickers, and found a loaded Glock pistol, 509 rounds for the pistol and 21 shotgun shells, police said. Beeler had admitted having the Glock in the truck’s center console when he was asked if there were weapons in the car, they said. Beeler was charged with five crimes, including possessing a weapon and ammunition in Washington without having it registered as required. He and his lawyer did not respond to requests for comment Saturday. Paul Beeler said his son, a father of four, had held other security jobs over the years. “He was proud of the work he was doing with the police and the National Guard,” the father said. Asked if he thought his son supported a peaceful transition of power, Paul Beeler said, “That’s the reason he’s there.” The elder Beeler said he had grown worried about his son when he did not return his text messages Friday night, and that he had called him Saturday morning, when he thought his son would be returning to Virginia after his shift. He and his wife discovered that Wesley Beeler had been arrested when she received a call from a reporter, he said. Law enforcement officials have said they are alarmed by chatter among far-right groups and other racist extremists who are threatening to target the nation’s capital to protest Biden’s electoral victory. Federal agencies have tried to keep some people who breached the Capitol with weapons earlier this month from returning to the city, including by restricting their ability to board commercial planes, according to an administration official. Biden has resisted calls to move the inauguration ceremony indoors for the sake of safety. His inauguration committee had already been planning a scaled-back celebration with virtual components because of the coronavirus.

A man with a gun arrested by Capitol Police calls it an ‘honest mistake’

Few presidents have exploited the theatrical grandeur of the job quite as enthusiastically or as cynically as Donald Trump, from his proliferating forests of flags to his gilding of the Oval Office. Few have been as strategic about the power of caricature or had such a complicit wife and court to bolster the spectacle. As a group, they tapped into the dregs of “Dynasty” and “The Bonfire of the Vanities” past that sits nestled in our lizard brains. For four years, we parsed soap opera chic instead of “The West Wing.” The visuals demanded attention, just like the tweets.

But while we will not have that final photo-op closure as the outgoing first family welcomes the new residents to the White House — that norm, like so many others, has been trampled — the Trumps leave behind a legacy of image-making and manipulation that will be as much a reference for political pundits and style strategists as that of the Reagans, the Kennedys and the Obamas.

The political costume department of our collective imagination will never be the same.

There was a reason the president complained, publicly, about Vogue never giving his wife Melania a cover (at least not after he entered politics). A reason he complained, too, about designers vociferously announcing early in his term that they would not dress the first lady. (Who cares? The Trumps could always buy the stuff.) A reason he and his family built chunks of their empire on the wardrobe of ersatz aspiration. They understood the mythmaking power of appearance and how it sends tendrils of connection to us all.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-to-leave-washington-on-morning-of-bidens-inauguration-357019" hreflang="en">Trump to leave Washington on morning of Biden’s inauguration</a>

There was no better example than Trump himself. He didn’t just sell his own merch; he wore it. Except, that is, for the oversize suits, which matched the overlong ties (if they were Scotch-taped together, who cared; they looked good from the outside) and became symbols of the overwhelming ego. Those were Brioni.

His willingness to make himself into an orange-tinted, vanilla-custard-combover meme invited mockery — until some realized that, silly as the president’s appearance may have seemed, it was also, in its singularity and consistency, unforgettable. As Doug Mills, a photographer for The New York Times who has covered every president since Ronald Reagan, said, the result was “iconic.”

Adding to the effect was Melania Trump, his ornamental equal, able to manipulate public perception strategically on her own. And cast in the supporting roles were, first and foremost, Ivanka and Jared, the effective prom king and queen, skin and hair and teeth polished to an impenetrable sheen. Arrayed beside them, like a Foxified Greek chorus, Tiffany Trump, Lara Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Hope Hicks and Kayleigh McEnany. Plus Don Jr. and Eric.

They were embodiments of the president’s ideas of outmoded gender norms and what it meant to “dress like a woman” — and as a man for that matter — in matching red, white and blue Chiara Boni wrap dresses and pumps, false eyelashes batting against their cheeks, carefully tended locks blowing in the breeze, artfully cultivated stubble like an advertisement for masculinity from the school of Axe body spray.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amid-security-concerns-joe-bidens-inauguration-rehearsal-postponed-356952" hreflang="en">Amid security concerns, Joe Biden's inauguration rehearsal postponed</a>

Donald Trump is vacating office with the look, if not his reputation, intact, although increasingly it has taken on a whole new cast. What was once seen, on screens and in many the mind’s eye, as the brazen self-branding and narcissism of a reality TV star looks more like simple mendacity. From the beginning, Trump’s appearance was a sham. We should have known that such artifice was as much a part of his moral makeup as his cosmetic kit, and there was more to come. It was always part of the picture.

When Clothes Speak

The scene was set even before Trump entered the White House, when Melania Trump wore a fuchsia pussy-bow Gucci blouse to watch her husband debate Hillary Clinton just days after The Washington Post released the now notorious “Access Hollywood” audio tape. Immediately the gleeful speculation started: She was trolling her husband. She was using clothes to send a message.

If it wasn’t the message we expect potential first ladies to send through fashion — that would be about political outreach and economic boosterism, not marital discord — still, it seemed like a message of some sort, suggesting that Melania Trump was attuned to the tools of her potential job.

Besides, if it wasn’t a message, what was it? A wardrobe coincidence? Could such willful disregard of external perception be possible for a woman who had been a model? Or was it all meta-commentary on our own expectations of first ladies? Who, exactly, was she toying with?

She remained enigmatically silent, and thus began a popular addiction to reading her clothes for clues.

Next up was the inauguration, when Donald Trump wore a Brooks Brothers overcoat like so many presidents before him: Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama. Beside him, his wife wore a powder blue Ralph Lauren suit and matching gloves, her hair in a decorous twist. The reference was also Kennedy: Jacqueline. The designer was American. The interpretation was positive. Her husband said he wanted to bolster Made in America. Both were wearing his words on their back.

That lasted a hot second — until Melania Trump chose a black Dolce &amp; Gabbana jacket for her official portrait.

It was one thing when she wore a Dolce lace mantilla to meet the pope on her first international tour; one thing even when she wore the label’s $51,000 floral jacket at the G-7 summit in Sicily; one thing to choose an Italian luxury brand — even one run by designers known for their own egregious comments on weight, sexuality, ethnicity — while making appearances in Italy. (That could be spun as local outreach.)

It was another thing entirely to choose that brand for the photo that would adorn the East Wing website for an entire term. That was more like a riposte to first lady tradition and a statement of intent: I will not be forced into the mold that was made for me.

And so it went.

For every New Look Dior red suit Trump wore to accompany her husband on his state visit in France, for every brand worn to flirt with diplomatic dress, there was a completely unrelated brand worn to reassert the primacy of her own taste, as opposed to any political exigency. For every Burberry shirt and Michael Kors skirt worn to deplane in England and gesture to the special relationship between the United States and Britain, a moment like the pith helmet in Kenya, a colonial costume that seemed like an affront. For every pro-mask PSA, a let-them-eat-cake moment like the spike heels she wore when she left the White House to visit the post-Hurricane Harvey, Texas disaster scene.

Her brand was glamour, of the most inaccessible, resting-on-a-pedestal, celluloid kind; her aesthetic, overwhelmingly armored or royal. (She famously wore her coats like a coronation robe, draped elegantly over her shoulders.). Her wardrobe was like a stroll down the stores of Fifth Avenue, from Trump Tower to Saks via Dior, Givenchy, Chanel, Celine, Dolce &amp; Gabbana and Gucci. It was as if the American dream had been redefined as a closet stuffed full of European luxury labels.

But whatever the names inside, the waists were often tightly belted, the suits military, the gowns caped, the hats throwing shade. By the time the Republican National Convention rolled around in August, the images had reached their apogee in the Army-green Alexander McQueen suit Trump wore for her speech, and the fluorescent lime Valentino dress she wore to watch her husband accept his party’s presidential nomination for the second time, trains flying out from each shoulder like wings.

In between there were choices that seemed calculated to disrupt: the white suit Trump wore to the State of the Union in 2018, just after the Stormy Daniels scandal, when such a style had become the uniform of the Trump resistance; the “I really don’t care, do u?” jacket worn on a trip to the southern border that practically broke the internet with a scrawl that seemed like a middle finger to the watching world. But perhaps the final Trump Christmas card was most revealing.

Featuring the first couple in matching tuxedos, it suggested: We’re in this together and always have been. (That’s what Trump’s former best friend Stephanie Winston Wolkoff kept saying, too, after she published a tell-all on her own traumatic experience with the first family.) Even if the conspiracy theorists who thought the portrait had been Photoshopped were right.

Maybe especially if the conspiracy theorists were right.

All the President’s Profiting

Now the Trumps are expected to fall back to Florida, with the gold-plated environs of Mar-a-Lago as their empire in exile. They still have their trademarks, and a potential consumer base clutching their MAGA hats, even as the real estate and hospitality industries begin to publicly distance themselves from the family name, as some financial institutions and major companies disavow the president’s actions, and Donald Trump is shut out of social media. Television and talk radio may be their natural habitats — but then, so is fashion.

This emperor will likely don some new clothes.

The president did cut the ribbon on the Louis Vuitton factory in Texas. Vuitton is owned by LVMH, which now owns Tiffany, which is snuggled up in the shadow of Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. The group, the largest luxury conglomerate in the world, has not commented on the riots in Washington. Indeed, Shopify aside, the industry is one of the few major business sectors that has remained notably silent on the subject of the president, despite some designers having been so vocal four years ago.

And the Trumps haven’t exactly made a secret of their vision when it comes to product potential.

Remember the libel lawsuit Melania Trump filed in 2017 against the Daily Mail? In the suit, her lawyers argued that an article it published insinuating that her modeling career had involved more than just posing had endangered her potential to “launch a broad-based commercial line in multiple product categories,” thanks to her position as “one of the most photographed women in the world.” (The allegations were retracted, an apology was issued, and a settlement was made.)

At the time, her office said she had no such plans to use her “position for profit.” But when she is no longer in that position, it’s not hard to imagine the potential (particularly for someone who once upon a time had a QVC jewelry line). After all, some of the categories the lawsuit mentioned include “apparel, accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care and fragrance.” A coffee-table book is apparently already being considered, the better to memorialize (and monetize) her style.

Ivanka Trump, of course, has her own history with fashion, having effectively begun her time as her father’s surrogate while doubling as her company’s own best model in ladder-climbing sheath dresses, statement bangles, and Cinderella court shoes. Her business may have been dissolved after the blowback about her using her position for profit — not to mention her let-them-eat-cake evening gown Instagram shots — but it could easily return.

Meantime, her increasingly unshaven brothers have also increasingly positioned themselves as the avatars of the hunter-gatherer set.

The Trumps may be leaving the White House, but their personal brands will live on, even with the shine tarnished, the substance beneath revealed as fool’s gold. It is up to us whether we buy them.

Few presidents have exploited the theatrical grandeur of the job quite as enthusiastically or as cynically as Donald Trump, from his proliferating forests of flags to his gilding of the Oval Office.

Few presidents have exploited the theatrical grandeur of the job quite as enthusiastically or as cynically as Donald Trump, from his proliferating forests of flags to his gilding of the Oval Office. Few have been as strategic about the power of caricature or had such a complicit wife and court to bolster the spectacle. As a group, they tapped into the dregs of “Dynasty” and “The Bonfire of the Vanities” past that sits nestled in our lizard brains. For four years, we parsed soap opera chic instead of “The West Wing.” The visuals demanded attention, just like the tweets. But while we will not have that final photo-op closure as the outgoing first family welcomes the new residents to the White House — that norm, like so many others, has been trampled — the Trumps leave behind a legacy of image-making and manipulation that will be as much a reference for political pundits and style strategists as that of the Reagans, the Kennedys and the Obamas. The political costume department of our collective imagination will never be the same. There was a reason the president complained, publicly, about Vogue never giving his wife Melania a cover (at least not after he entered politics). A reason he complained, too, about designers vociferously announcing early in his term that they would not dress the first lady. (Who cares? The Trumps could always buy the stuff.) A reason he and his family built chunks of their empire on the wardrobe of ersatz aspiration. They understood the mythmaking power of appearance and how it sends tendrils of connection to us all. Also read| Trump to leave Washington on morning of Biden’s inauguration There was no better example than Trump himself. He didn’t just sell his own merch; he wore it. Except, that is, for the oversize suits, which matched the overlong ties (if they were Scotch-taped together, who cared; they looked good from the outside) and became symbols of the overwhelming ego. Those were Brioni. His willingness to make himself into an orange-tinted, vanilla-custard-combover meme invited mockery — until some realized that, silly as the president’s appearance may have seemed, it was also, in its singularity and consistency, unforgettable. As Doug Mills, a photographer for The New York Times who has covered every president since Ronald Reagan, said, the result was “iconic.” Adding to the effect was Melania Trump, his ornamental equal, able to manipulate public perception strategically on her own. And cast in the supporting roles were, first and foremost, Ivanka and Jared, the effective prom king and queen, skin and hair and teeth polished to an impenetrable sheen. Arrayed beside them, like a Foxified Greek chorus, Tiffany Trump, Lara Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Hope Hicks and Kayleigh McEnany. Plus Don Jr. and Eric. They were embodiments of the president’s ideas of outmoded gender norms and what it meant to “dress like a woman” — and as a man for that matter — in matching red, white and blue Chiara Boni wrap dresses and pumps, false eyelashes batting against their cheeks, carefully tended locks blowing in the breeze, artfully cultivated stubble like an advertisement for masculinity from the school of Axe body spray. Also read| Amid security concerns, Joe Biden's inauguration rehearsal postponed Donald Trump is vacating office with the look, if not his reputation, intact, although increasingly it has taken on a whole new cast. What was once seen, on screens and in many the mind’s eye, as the brazen self-branding and narcissism of a reality TV star looks more like simple mendacity. From the beginning, Trump’s appearance was a sham. We should have known that such artifice was as much a part of his moral makeup as his cosmetic kit, and there was more to come. It was always part of the picture. When Clothes Speak The scene was set even before Trump entered the White House, when Melania Trump wore a fuchsia pussy-bow Gucci blouse to watch her husband debate Hillary Clinton just days after The Washington Post released the now notorious “Access Hollywood” audio tape. Immediately the gleeful speculation started: She was trolling her husband. She was using clothes to send a message. If it wasn’t the message we expect potential first ladies to send through fashion — that would be about political outreach and economic boosterism, not marital discord — still, it seemed like a message of some sort, suggesting that Melania Trump was attuned to the tools of her potential job. Besides, if it wasn’t a message, what was it? A wardrobe coincidence? Could such willful disregard of external perception be possible for a woman who had been a model? Or was it all meta-commentary on our own expectations of first ladies? Who, exactly, was she toying with? She remained enigmatically silent, and thus began a popular addiction to reading her clothes for clues. Next up was the inauguration, when Donald Trump wore a Brooks Brothers overcoat like so many presidents before him: Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama. Beside him, his wife wore a powder blue Ralph Lauren suit and matching gloves, her hair in a decorous twist. The reference was also Kennedy: Jacqueline. The designer was American. The interpretation was positive. Her husband said he wanted to bolster Made in America. Both were wearing his words on their back. That lasted a hot second — until Melania Trump chose a black Dolce & Gabbana jacket for her official portrait. It was one thing when she wore a Dolce lace mantilla to meet the pope on her first international tour; one thing even when she wore the label’s $51,000 floral jacket at the G-7 summit in Sicily; one thing to choose an Italian luxury brand — even one run by designers known for their own egregious comments on weight, sexuality, ethnicity — while making appearances in Italy. (That could be spun as local outreach.) It was another thing entirely to choose that brand for the photo that would adorn the East Wing website for an entire term. That was more like a riposte to first lady tradition and a statement of intent: I will not be forced into the mold that was made for me. And so it went. For every New Look Dior red suit Trump wore to accompany her husband on his state visit in France, for every brand worn to flirt with diplomatic dress, there was a completely unrelated brand worn to reassert the primacy of her own taste, as opposed to any political exigency. For every Burberry shirt and Michael Kors skirt worn to deplane in England and gesture to the special relationship between the United States and Britain, a moment like the pith helmet in Kenya, a colonial costume that seemed like an affront. For every pro-mask PSA, a let-them-eat-cake moment like the spike heels she wore when she left the White House to visit the post-Hurricane Harvey, Texas disaster scene. Her brand was glamour, of the most inaccessible, resting-on-a-pedestal, celluloid kind; her aesthetic, overwhelmingly armored or royal. (She famously wore her coats like a coronation robe, draped elegantly over her shoulders.). Her wardrobe was like a stroll down the stores of Fifth Avenue, from Trump Tower to Saks via Dior, Givenchy, Chanel, Celine, Dolce & Gabbana and Gucci. It was as if the American dream had been redefined as a closet stuffed full of European luxury labels. But whatever the names inside, the waists were often tightly belted, the suits military, the gowns caped, the hats throwing shade. By the time the Republican National Convention rolled around in August, the images had reached their apogee in the Army-green Alexander McQueen suit Trump wore for her speech, and the fluorescent lime Valentino dress she wore to watch her husband accept his party’s presidential nomination for the second time, trains flying out from each shoulder like wings. In between there were choices that seemed calculated to disrupt: the white suit Trump wore to the State of the Union in 2018, just after the Stormy Daniels scandal, when such a style had become the uniform of the Trump resistance; the “I really don’t care, do u?” jacket worn on a trip to the southern border that practically broke the internet with a scrawl that seemed like a middle finger to the watching world. But perhaps the final Trump Christmas card was most revealing. Featuring the first couple in matching tuxedos, it suggested: We’re in this together and always have been. (That’s what Trump’s former best friend Stephanie Winston Wolkoff kept saying, too, after she published a tell-all on her own traumatic experience with the first family.) Even if the conspiracy theorists who thought the portrait had been Photoshopped were right. Maybe especially if the conspiracy theorists were right. All the President’s Profiting Now the Trumps are expected to fall back to Florida, with the gold-plated environs of Mar-a-Lago as their empire in exile. They still have their trademarks, and a potential consumer base clutching their MAGA hats, even as the real estate and hospitality industries begin to publicly distance themselves from the family name, as some financial institutions and major companies disavow the president’s actions, and Donald Trump is shut out of social media. Television and talk radio may be their natural habitats — but then, so is fashion. This emperor will likely don some new clothes. The president did cut the ribbon on the Louis Vuitton factory in Texas. Vuitton is owned by LVMH, which now owns Tiffany, which is snuggled up in the shadow of Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. The group, the largest luxury conglomerate in the world, has not commented on the riots in Washington. Indeed, Shopify aside, the industry is one of the few major business sectors that has remained notably silent on the subject of the president, despite some designers having been so vocal four years ago. And the Trumps haven’t exactly made a secret of their vision when it comes to product potential. Remember the libel lawsuit Melania Trump filed in 2017 against the Daily Mail? In the suit, her lawyers argued that an article it published insinuating that her modeling career had involved more than just posing had endangered her potential to “launch a broad-based commercial line in multiple product categories,” thanks to her position as “one of the most photographed women in the world.” (The allegations were retracted, an apology was issued, and a settlement was made.) At the time, her office said she had no such plans to use her “position for profit.” But when she is no longer in that position, it’s not hard to imagine the potential (particularly for someone who once upon a time had a QVC jewelry line). After all, some of the categories the lawsuit mentioned include “apparel, accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care and fragrance.” A coffee-table book is apparently already being considered, the better to memorialize (and monetize) her style. Ivanka Trump, of course, has her own history with fashion, having effectively begun her time as her father’s surrogate while doubling as her company’s own best model in ladder-climbing sheath dresses, statement bangles, and Cinderella court shoes. Her business may have been dissolved after the blowback about her using her position for profit — not to mention her let-them-eat-cake evening gown Instagram shots — but it could easily return. Meantime, her increasingly unshaven brothers have also increasingly positioned themselves as the avatars of the hunter-gatherer set. The Trumps may be leaving the White House, but their personal brands will live on, even with the shine tarnished, the substance beneath revealed as fool’s gold. It is up to us whether we buy them.

A farewell to the Trump aesthetic

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-to-leave-washington-on-morning-of-bidens-inauguration-357019">Trump to leave Washington on morning of Biden’s inauguration</a>

US President Donald Trump is planning to helicopter out of the White House a last time early on the morning of the day his successor, Joe Biden, takes oath as the 46th US president of the country | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-to-leave-washington-on-morning-of-bidens-inauguration-357019">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-begins-mega-rollout-of-covid-vaccine-357022">India begins mega-rollout of Covid vaccine</a>

India begins one of the world's biggest coronavirus vaccine programmes on Saturday | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-begins-mega-rollout-of-covid-vaccine-357022">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/whatsapp-delays-privacy-policy-update-signal-faces-glitches-357021">WhatsApp delays privacy policy update, Signal faces glitches</a>

WhatsApp on Friday said that it was delaying its data-sharing change as the rush to rival messaging apps seriously appeared to dent its near-monopoly in several global markets | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/whatsapp-delays-privacy-policy-update-signal-faces-glitches-357021">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/state-capitols-across-us-tighten-security-to-repel-possible-attacks-357025">State capitols across US tighten security to repel possible attacks</a>

In the wake of FBI's warning of possible armed protests before Joe Biden's inauguration, the security around state capitols across the US has been tightened | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/state-capitols-across-us-tighten-security-to-repel-possible-attacks-357025">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-health-secretary-azar-resigns-cites-capitol-attack-as-the-reason-357041">US health secretary Azar resigns, cites Capitol attack as the reason</a>

US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar has resigned, citing last week’s attack on the Capitol | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-health-secretary-azar-resigns-cites-capitol-attack-as-the-reason-357041">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/poland-works-on-law-limiting-powers-of-facebook-twitter-and-other-social-platforms-357029">Poland works on law limiting powers of Facebook, Twitter and other social platforms</a>

Poland's government said on Friday that it was working on legislation to limit the power of social media platforms to delete content or ban users | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/poland-works-on-law-limiting-powers-of-facebook-twitter-and-other-social-platforms-357029">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-on-cuba-citing-human-rights-violations-357027">US imposes sanctions on Cuba citing human rights violations</a>

The United States has slapped sanctions on Cuba’s interior ministry and its leaders, accusing them of serious human rights abuses | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-on-cuba-citing-human-rights-violations-357027">READ MORE</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-elevates-role-of-science-names-geneticist-lander-for-new-cabinet-level-post-357023">Biden elevates role of science, names geneticist Lander for new Cabinet-level post</a>

US President-elect Joe Biden has elevated the post of a geneticist to Cabinet-level status for first time, naming pioneering Eric Lander as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on Friday | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-elevates-role-of-science-names-geneticist-lander-for-new-cabinet-level-post-357023">READ MORE</a> 
&nbsp;

Trump to leave Washington on morning of Biden’s inauguration US President Donald Trump is planning to helicopter out of the White House a last time early on the

Trump to leave Washington on morning of Biden’s inauguration US President Donald Trump is planning to helicopter out of the White House a last time early on the morning of the day his successor, Joe Biden, takes oath as the 46th US president of the country | READ MORE India begins mega-rollout of Covid vaccine India begins one of the world's biggest coronavirus vaccine programmes on Saturday | READ MORE WhatsApp delays privacy policy update, Signal faces glitches WhatsApp on Friday said that it was delaying its data-sharing change as the rush to rival messaging apps seriously appeared to dent its near-monopoly in several global markets | READ MORE State capitols across US tighten security to repel possible attacks In the wake of FBI's warning of possible armed protests before Joe Biden's inauguration, the security around state capitols across the US has been tightened | READ MORE US health secretary Azar resigns, cites Capitol attack as the reason US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar has resigned, citing last week’s attack on the Capitol | READ MORE Poland works on law limiting powers of Facebook, Twitter and other social platforms Poland's government said on Friday that it was working on legislation to limit the power of social media platforms to delete content or ban users | READ MORE US imposes sanctions on Cuba citing human rights violations The United States has slapped sanctions on Cuba’s interior ministry and its leaders, accusing them of serious human rights abuses | READ MORE Biden elevates role of science, names geneticist Lander for new Cabinet-level post US President-elect Joe Biden has elevated the post of a geneticist to Cabinet-level status for first time, naming pioneering Eric Lander as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on Friday | READ MORE

Morning news brief: US scrambles for a new president, India for Covid vaccine

US President-elect Joe Biden has elevated the post of a geneticist to Cabinet-level status for first time, naming pioneering Eric Lander as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on Friday.

Lander, a Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who helped lead the Human Genome Project, will also serve in the role of presidential science advisor, Biden’s team said.

“Science will always be at the forefront of my administration — and these world-renowned scientists will ensure everything we do is grounded in science, facts, and the truth,” Biden said in a statement, which announced several personnel appointments to the White House science team.

“Their trusted guidance will be essential as we come together to end this pandemic, bring our economy back, and pursue new breakthroughs to improve the quality of life of all Americans,” Biden said.

Lander will succeed meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier, who was named director by President Donald Trump in 2019 after the role was left vacant for nearly two years.

Biden, who will be sworn in as president on January 20, excoriated Trump repeatedly during the election campaign for undermining faith in science, whether it was Trump’s downplaying of evidence of climate change or suggesting injecting disinfectants might treat COVID-19.

Biden has pledged to increase funding in US research and development, including medical research and clean energy. He also appointed former Secretary of State John Kerry as a special presidential envoy for climate.

“Tremendously excited to work alongside so many bright minds to advise the President-elect and push the boundaries of what we dare to believe is possible. We need everyone,” Lander said in a tweet.

The duties of OSTP, the White House’s top body for space policy formation under former President Barack Obama, could clash with the National Space Council that Trump revived in 2017.

Biden’s transition team is, hence, weighing whether to disband or keep the council.

(with inputs)

US President-elect Joe Biden has elevated the post of a geneticist to Cabinet-level status for first time, naming pioneering Eric Lander as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on Friday.

US President-elect Joe Biden has elevated the post of a geneticist to Cabinet-level status for first time, naming pioneering Eric Lander as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on Friday. Lander, a Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who helped lead the Human Genome Project, will also serve in the role of presidential science advisor, Biden’s team said. “Science will always be at the forefront of my administration — and these world-renowned scientists will ensure everything we do is grounded in science, facts, and the truth,” Biden said in a statement, which announced several personnel appointments to the White House science team. “Their trusted guidance will be essential as we come together to end this pandemic, bring our economy back, and pursue new breakthroughs to improve the quality of life of all Americans,” Biden said. Lander will succeed meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier, who was named director by President Donald Trump in 2019 after the role was left vacant for nearly two years. Biden, who will be sworn in as president on January 20, excoriated Trump repeatedly during the election campaign for undermining faith in science, whether it was Trump’s downplaying of evidence of climate change or suggesting injecting disinfectants might treat COVID-19. Biden has pledged to increase funding in US research and development, including medical research and clean energy. He also appointed former Secretary of State John Kerry as a special presidential envoy for climate. “Tremendously excited to work alongside so many bright minds to advise the President-elect and push the boundaries of what we dare to believe is possible. We need everyone,” Lander said in a tweet. The duties of OSTP, the White House’s top body for space policy formation under former President Barack Obama, could clash with the National Space Council that Trump revived in 2017. Biden’s transition team is, hence, weighing whether to disband or keep the council. (with inputs)

Biden elevates role of science, names geneticist Lander for new Cabinet-level post

US President Donald Trump is planning to helicopter out of the White House a last time early on the morning of the day his successor, Joe Biden, takes oath as the 46th US president of the country.

Trump will be the first president in a century and a half to snub the inauguration of his successor.

Multiple reports say Trump would go to his Mar-a-Lago golf club in Florida, which is his legal residence and will become home after the White House.

He is expected to be out of town well before Biden is sworn in on the steps of the Capitol building at exactly noon.

After spending more than two months trying to overturn the results of the November election, pushing false conspiracy theories about fraud, Trump's presence had not been expected at the inauguration.

The final straw came on January 6 when Trump gathered a huge crowd of supporters on the National Mall and once more claimed that they had to fight to stop a fraudulent election. A mob then stormed Congress, halting proceedings underway to certify Biden's win.

For longer than anyone can remember, outgoing presidents have stood by their replacement on the Capitol steps, watching them take the oath -- and in so doing showing visible support for the peaceful transfer of power.

Trump, who was impeached for a record second time in the wake of the Congress storming, has also broken with more discreet protocol by refusing to invite Biden and his wife Jill Biden to the White House for a traditional cup of tea in the Oval Office.

On Friday, Vice President Mike Pence, however, did make the gesture of telephoning his incoming counterpart Kamala Harris.

The New York Times said Pence offered his congratulations and belated assistance to Harris, describing the exchange as "gracious and pleasant" -- although this came only five days before inauguration day -- and more than two months after the election.

Meanwhile, security has been beefed up in the wake of the Congress attack. Thousands of National Guard troops have taken up position around central Washington. And even before the security nightmare, organisers had been forced by Covid-19 safety measures to nix the traditional big crowds and long guest lists.

For Biden, the subdued ceremonies will quickly be followed by a mammoth To Do list. His administration faces multiple crises on day one, including the stumbling national Covid vaccination project, a precarious economic recovery and Trump's looming impeachment trial in the Senate.

At the same time, Biden will have to cajole the Senate into rapidly confirming his cabinet appointees, allowing him to form a government and bring stability back to the country.

(with inputs)

US President Donald Trump is planning to helicopter out of the White House a last time early on the morning of the day his successor, Joe Biden, takes oath as the 46th US president of the country.

US President Donald Trump is planning to helicopter out of the White House a last time early on the morning of the day his successor, Joe Biden, takes oath as the 46th US president of the country. Trump will be the first president in a century and a half to snub the inauguration of his successor. Multiple reports say Trump would go to his Mar-a-Lago golf club in Florida, which is his legal residence and will become home after the White House. He is expected to be out of town well before Biden is sworn in on the steps of the Capitol building at exactly noon. After spending more than two months trying to overturn the results of the November election, pushing false conspiracy theories about fraud, Trump's presence had not been expected at the inauguration. The final straw came on January 6 when Trump gathered a huge crowd of supporters on the National Mall and once more claimed that they had to fight to stop a fraudulent election. A mob then stormed Congress, halting proceedings underway to certify Biden's win. For longer than anyone can remember, outgoing presidents have stood by their replacement on the Capitol steps, watching them take the oath -- and in so doing showing visible support for the peaceful transfer of power. Trump, who was impeached for a record second time in the wake of the Congress storming, has also broken with more discreet protocol by refusing to invite Biden and his wife Jill Biden to the White House for a traditional cup of tea in the Oval Office. On Friday, Vice President Mike Pence, however, did make the gesture of telephoning his incoming counterpart Kamala Harris. The New York Times said Pence offered his congratulations and belated assistance to Harris, describing the exchange as "gracious and pleasant" -- although this came only five days before inauguration day -- and more than two months after the election. Meanwhile, security has been beefed up in the wake of the Congress attack. Thousands of National Guard troops have taken up position around central Washington. And even before the security nightmare, organisers had been forced by Covid-19 safety measures to nix the traditional big crowds and long guest lists. For Biden, the subdued ceremonies will quickly be followed by a mammoth To Do list. His administration faces multiple crises on day one, including the stumbling national Covid vaccination project, a precarious economic recovery and Trump's looming impeachment trial in the Senate. At the same time, Biden will have to cajole the Senate into rapidly confirming his cabinet appointees, allowing him to form a government and bring stability back to the country. (with inputs)

Trump to leave Washington on morning of Biden’s inauguration

ATLANTA — Prosecutors in Georgia appear increasingly likely to open a criminal investigation of President Donald Trump over his attempts to overturn the results of the state’s 2020 election, an inquiry into offenses that would be beyond his federal pardon power.

The new Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, is already weighing whether to proceed, and among the options she is considering is the hiring of a special assistant from outside to oversee the investigation, according to people familiar with her office’s deliberations.

At the same time, David Worley, the lone Democrat on Georgia’s five-member election board, said this week he would ask the board to make a referral to the Fulton County district attorney by next month. Among the matters he will ask prosecutors to investigate is a phone call Trump made in which he pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to overturn the state’s election results.

Jeff DiSantis, a district attorney spokesman, said the office had not taken any action to hire outside counsel and declined to comment further on the case.

Some veteran Georgia prosecutors said they believed Trump had clearly violated state law.

“If you took the fact out that he is the president of the United States and look at the conduct of the call, it tracks the communication you might see in any drug case or organized crime case,” said Michael J. Moore, the former U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. “It’s full of threatening undertone and strong-arm tactics.”

The White House declined to comment.

Worley said that if no investigation had been announced by Feb. 10, the day of the election board’s next scheduled meeting, he would make a motion for the board to refer the matter of Trump’s phone calls to Willis’ office. Worley, a lawyer, believes that such a referral should, under Georgia law, automatically prompt an investigation.

If the board declines to make a referral, Worley said he would ask Willis’ office himself to start an inquiry.

Worley said he would introduce the motion based on an outside complaint filed with the state election board by John F. Banzhaf III, a George Washington University law professor.

ATLANTA — Prosecutors in Georgia appear increasingly likely to open a criminal investigation of President Donald Trump over his attempts to overturn the results of the state’s 2020 election, an inquiry into offenses that would be beyond his federal pardon power.

ATLANTA — Prosecutors in Georgia appear increasingly likely to open a criminal investigation of President Donald Trump over his attempts to overturn the results of the state’s 2020 election, an inquiry into offenses that would be beyond his federal pardon power. The new Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, is already weighing whether to proceed, and among the options she is considering is the hiring of a special assistant from outside to oversee the investigation, according to people familiar with her office’s deliberations. At the same time, David Worley, the lone Democrat on Georgia’s five-member election board, said this week he would ask the board to make a referral to the Fulton County district attorney by next month. Among the matters he will ask prosecutors to investigate is a phone call Trump made in which he pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to overturn the state’s election results. Jeff DiSantis, a district attorney spokesman, said the office had not taken any action to hire outside counsel and declined to comment further on the case. Some veteran Georgia prosecutors said they believed Trump had clearly violated state law. “If you took the fact out that he is the president of the United States and look at the conduct of the call, it tracks the communication you might see in any drug case or organized crime case,” said Michael J. Moore, the former U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. “It’s full of threatening undertone and strong-arm tactics.” The White House declined to comment. Worley said that if no investigation had been announced by Feb. 10, the day of the election board’s next scheduled meeting, he would make a motion for the board to refer the matter of Trump’s phone calls to Willis’ office. Worley, a lawyer, believes that such a referral should, under Georgia law, automatically prompt an investigation. If the board declines to make a referral, Worley said he would ask Willis’ office himself to start an inquiry. Worley said he would introduce the motion based on an outside complaint filed with the state election board by John F. Banzhaf III, a George Washington University law professor.

Atlanta prosecutor appears to move closer to Trump inquiry

&nbsp;

It looks like the outgoing US President&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>'s name is everywhere, and sadly it is also leaving a negative impact on nature and wildlife. The wildlife authorities in Florida recently reported that a manatee was spotted with 'Trump' etched on its side.

The&nbsp;Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) made an appeal on Monday asking people to help identify the people who were responsible for scratching this on&nbsp;to the hide of a manatee.

This incident came to light after the Citrus County Chronicle published a video which shows Donald Trump's name etched on the back of the marine mammal. While no details have been revealed as of now as this is an ongoing investigation,&nbsp;Craig Cavanna, an investigating officer for the federal service has said the person responsible for this inhumane act will have to pay up a fine of&nbsp;up to $50,000 and a year in federal prison for harming a protected species.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Can this even be real? A manatee was discovered in Florida with the word “Trump” scraped on its back. <a href="https://t.co/PH8YcmGRnz">pic.twitter.com/PH8YcmGRnz</a>
— George StroumbouloPHÒulos 🐺 (@strombo) <a href="https://twitter.com/strombo/status/1348695307832483841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The manatee was spotted on Sunday&nbsp;swimming in the waters of the Homosassa River on the west coast of Florida. The region is a hotspot for animals to gather at this time of the year as the mammals search for warm waters.

Manatees are counted in the list of&nbsp;the Endangered Species Act and are usually found in the&nbsp;fresh water in the Gulf of Mexico, Amazon River and the west coast of Africa.

This attack has been spotted a few days after Trump supporters took over the Capitol building with th aim to intervene offical certification of Joe Biden's wictory in the US election and destroy government property.

"It's clear that whoever harmed this defenceless, gentle giant is capable of doing grave violence and needs to be apprehended immediately,"&nbsp;said Jaclyn Lopez, the non-profit group’s Florida director.

It looks like the outgoing US President Donald Trump's name is everywhere, and sadly it is also leaving a negative impact on nature and wildlife. The wildlife authorities in Florida recently reported that a manatee was spotted with 'Trump' etched on its side.

It looks like the outgoing US President Donald Trump's name is everywhere, and sadly it is also leaving a negative impact on nature and wildlife. The wildlife authorities in Florida recently reported that a manatee was spotted with 'Trump' etched on its side. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) made an appeal on Monday asking people to help identify the people who were responsible for scratching this on to the hide of a manatee. This incident came to light after the Citrus County Chronicle published a video which shows Donald Trump's name etched on the back of the marine mammal. While no details have been revealed as of now as this is an ongoing investigation, Craig Cavanna, an investigating officer for the federal service has said the person responsible for this inhumane act will have to pay up a fine of up to $50,000 and a year in federal prison for harming a protected species. Can this even be real? A manatee was discovered in Florida with the word “Trump” scraped on its back. pic.twitter.com/PH8YcmGRnz — George StroumbouloPHÒulos 🐺 (@strombo) January 11, 2021 × The manatee was spotted on Sunday swimming in the waters of the Homosassa River on the west coast of Florida. The region is a hotspot for animals to gather at this time of the year as the mammals search for warm waters. Manatees are counted in the list of the Endangered Species Act and are usually found in the fresh water in the Gulf of Mexico, Amazon River and the west coast of Africa. This attack has been spotted a few days after Trump supporters took over the Capitol building with th aim to intervene offical certification of Joe Biden's wictory in the US election and destroy government property. "It's clear that whoever harmed this defenceless, gentle giant is capable of doing grave violence and needs to be apprehended immediately," said Jaclyn Lopez, the non-profit group’s Florida director.

Watch: Manatee carved with 'Trump' on its back found in Florida days after Capitol riots

Since the day the supporters of the to-be-impeached&nbsp;US President&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;marched into the Capitol building,&nbsp;it was being reported that Trump and the Vie President Mike Pence had not had even a single conversation.

However, things seem to have changed now as a senior official has told the local media that Trump and Pence met in the Oval Office on Monday and had a conversation amid rising pressure on Pence to get the President impeached. "The two had a good conversation," the official said.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/homeland-security-chief-chad-wolf-resigns-after-capitol-riots-concerns-over-security-in-washington-rise-356133" hreflang="en">Homeland Security chief, Chad Wolf, resigns after Capitol riots; concerns over security in Washington rise</a>

As per the official, Donald Trump, as expected, does not intend to resign before his term officially ends on January 20. The official also reported that Trump's deputy, Mike Pence, also has not hinted towards any plans&nbsp;invoking the 25th Amendment of the Constitution to remove Trump.

The Two Republicans "reiterated that those who broke the law and stormed the Capitol last week do not represent the America first movement backed by 75 million Americans," the official said. The also "pledged to continue the work on behalf of the country for the remainder of their term."

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-will-donald-trump-be-impeached-356125/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

It was also been calculated that Trump had, in a way, specifically shown the way to his supporters to attack the VP of the country as he knew Pence was present in the Capitol building on Wednesday when the rioters took control of the building. He was present there to confirm the win of the President-elect&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a>&nbsp;against the Republican candidate and former reality TV star Donald Trump.&nbsp;

During one of his usual angry speeches that day, Trump had urged his supporters to march to the Capitol and demand Mike Pence to stop the process of certifying Joe Biden's win in the recently-concluded&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/us-election">US election</a>.

This had also led to chants of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/twitter-blocks-phrase-hang-mike-pence-as-trump-supporters-turn-against-him-355959">"Hang Mike Pence"</a> echoing in the halls of the Capitol, which had also then become a trending phrase on trump's favourite social media platform Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Video of the mob chanting “hang Mike Pence.” <a href="https://t.co/K4EcKK2rab">pic.twitter.com/K4EcKK2rab</a>
— American Times Film (@ExportedFromMI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ExportedFromMI/status/1347763885646827522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 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>

"We blocked the phrase and other variations of it from trending," a Twitter spokesperson said. "We want trends to promote healthy discussions on Twitter. This means that at times, we may prevent certain content from trending. As per our Help Center, there are rules for trends — if we identify accounts that violate these rules, we’ll take enforcement action."

Since the day the supporters of the to-be-impeached US President Donald Trump marched into the Capitol building, it was being reported that Trump and the Vie President Mike Pence had not had even a single conversation.

Since the day the supporters of the to-be-impeached US President Donald Trump marched into the Capitol building, it was being reported that Trump and the Vie President Mike Pence had not had even a single conversation. However, things seem to have changed now as a senior official has told the local media that Trump and Pence met in the Oval Office on Monday and had a conversation amid rising pressure on Pence to get the President impeached. "The two had a good conversation," the official said. Also read| Homeland Security chief, Chad Wolf, resigns after Capitol riots; concerns over security in Washington rise As per the official, Donald Trump, as expected, does not intend to resign before his term officially ends on January 20. The official also reported that Trump's deputy, Mike Pence, also has not hinted towards any plans invoking the 25th Amendment of the Constitution to remove Trump. The Two Republicans "reiterated that those who broke the law and stormed the Capitol last week do not represent the America first movement backed by 75 million Americans," the official said. The also "pledged to continue the work on behalf of the country for the remainder of their term." It was also been calculated that Trump had, in a way, specifically shown the way to his supporters to attack the VP of the country as he knew Pence was present in the Capitol building on Wednesday when the rioters took control of the building. He was present there to confirm the win of the President-elect Joe Biden against the Republican candidate and former reality TV star Donald Trump. During one of his usual angry speeches that day, Trump had urged his supporters to march to the Capitol and demand Mike Pence to stop the process of certifying Joe Biden's win in the recently-concluded US election. This had also led to chants of "Hang Mike Pence" echoing in the halls of the Capitol, which had also then become a trending phrase on trump's favourite social media platform Twitter. Video of the mob chanting “hang Mike Pence.” pic.twitter.com/K4EcKK2rab — American Times Film (@ExportedFromMI) January 9, 2021 × "We blocked the phrase and other variations of it from trending," a Twitter spokesperson said. "We want trends to promote healthy discussions on Twitter. This means that at times, we may prevent certain content from trending. As per our Help Center, there are rules for trends — if we identify accounts that violate these rules, we’ll take enforcement action."

Days after Capitol riots, Donald Trump and Mike Pence meet in Oval Office: Sources

The mob swarmed the home of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, succeeding in temporarily interrupting a formal vote to confirm Democratic President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

U.S. Capitol Siege: Mob included far-right extremist groups convicted criminals

US President Donald Trump may turn to Rudy Giuliani to defend him against possible impeachment over his role in last week’s violent siege of the Capitol.

Giuliani has been an outspoken Trump supporter since his first run for president. He became a personal lawyer for him during the Mueller probe, which found that Trump impeded the investigation but stopped short of concluding he had committed a crime.

Giuliani's own pressure on Ukraine helped lead to Trump's impeachment trial last year and he also played a role in events leading to the violence at the Capitol, which led to the deaths of five people, including a police officer.

Democratic members of the House of Representatives are expected to introduce articles of impeachment this week, accusing Trump of inciting a mob of his supporters to storm the US Capitol last Wednesday.

According to a report in Reuters, Giuliani is expected to play a lead role in case a impeachment process is kicked in.&nbsp;

He had led the legal team that tried unsuccessfully to overturn Trump's election defeat. It failed to produce any evidence of significant fraud and lost dozens of court cases in key battleground states and at the Supreme Court before President-elect Joe Biden's victory was confirmed.

Giuliani's own reputation was battered during the often chaotic legal campaign. In one news conference, brown dye dripped down his face as he laid out false claims of election fraud, and he was ridiculed for another event held in the parking lot of a Pennsylvania landscaping company next to a sex shop.

If the House votes to impeach Trump, he would then face a trial in the Senate. While a House vote could come quickly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has suggested that there would be no Senate trial until after Trump leaves office.

Lawmakers might wait to send the impeachment article to the US Senate for a trial to give Congress time to approve Biden’s Cabinet nominees and other agenda items.

Trump's choice of lawyers to defend him may, however, be limited.

White House counsel Pat Cipollone helped lead the defence team during an impeachment trial last year, when Trump was accused of abusing his power by asking Ukraine's government to announce investigations to discredit Biden, his Democratic political rival.

But Cipollone considered resigning last week after the siege at the Capitol, according to a source, and he and other White House lawyers will be out of their jobs anyway when Trump leaves office on January 20.

Longtime personal lawyers for Trump such as Jay Sekulow are not expected to defend the president, the Reuters report added.

(with inputs from Reuters)

US President Donald Trump may turn to Rudy Giuliani to defend him against possible impeachment over his role in last week’s violent siege of the Capitol. Giuliani has been an outspoken Trump supporter since his first run for president.

US President Donald Trump may turn to Rudy Giuliani to defend him against possible impeachment over his role in last week’s violent siege of the Capitol. Giuliani has been an outspoken Trump supporter since his first run for president. He became a personal lawyer for him during the Mueller probe, which found that Trump impeded the investigation but stopped short of concluding he had committed a crime. Giuliani's own pressure on Ukraine helped lead to Trump's impeachment trial last year and he also played a role in events leading to the violence at the Capitol, which led to the deaths of five people, including a police officer. Democratic members of the House of Representatives are expected to introduce articles of impeachment this week, accusing Trump of inciting a mob of his supporters to storm the US Capitol last Wednesday. According to a report in Reuters, Giuliani is expected to play a lead role in case a impeachment process is kicked in. He had led the legal team that tried unsuccessfully to overturn Trump's election defeat. It failed to produce any evidence of significant fraud and lost dozens of court cases in key battleground states and at the Supreme Court before President-elect Joe Biden's victory was confirmed. Giuliani's own reputation was battered during the often chaotic legal campaign. In one news conference, brown dye dripped down his face as he laid out false claims of election fraud, and he was ridiculed for another event held in the parking lot of a Pennsylvania landscaping company next to a sex shop. If the House votes to impeach Trump, he would then face a trial in the Senate. While a House vote could come quickly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has suggested that there would be no Senate trial until after Trump leaves office. Lawmakers might wait to send the impeachment article to the US Senate for a trial to give Congress time to approve Biden’s Cabinet nominees and other agenda items. Trump's choice of lawyers to defend him may, however, be limited. White House counsel Pat Cipollone helped lead the defence team during an impeachment trial last year, when Trump was accused of abusing his power by asking Ukraine's government to announce investigations to discredit Biden, his Democratic political rival. But Cipollone considered resigning last week after the siege at the Capitol, according to a source, and he and other White House lawyers will be out of their jobs anyway when Trump leaves office on January 20. Longtime personal lawyers for Trump such as Jay Sekulow are not expected to defend the president, the Reuters report added. (with inputs from Reuters)

Trump may turn to Rudy Giuliani again to defend him in case he is impeached

The history of the United States is rife with episodes of political violence far bloodier and more destructive than the one that President Donald Trump incited at the Capitol on Wednesday. Nevertheless, ignorance of a grisly past well documented by historians like W.E.B. DuBois, John Hope Franklin and Richard Hofstadter was painfully evident in the aftermath of the mob invasion of Congress. Talking heads queued up to tell the country again and again that the carnage was an aberration and “not who we are” as a people.

This willful act of forgetting — compounded by the myth of American innocence — has shown itself to be dangerous on a variety of counts. For starters, it allowed many Americans to view the president’s insistence that he had won an election in which he was actually trounced, and his simultaneous embrace of right-wing extremism, as political theater that will pass uneventfully from the stage when Joe Biden is inaugurated.

“What’s the harm in humoring him?” the argument went. “Mr. Trump will soon be gone.”

As it turns out, Republicans in Congress who played along with the ruse encouraged a mob weaned on presidential lies to believe the fiction that Trump had been robbed of a victory. The resulting invasion of the government — which has thus far reportedly taken at least five lives — should make clear to everyone that the potential for political violence is a proverbial river of gasoline, waiting for a demagogue like Trump to drop the lighted match.

The circumstances that led up to the sacking of the Capitol are reminiscent of the 19th century, when Southerners rolled back the period of Black self-determination known as Reconstruction, unleashing a reign of racial tyranny. During the November election, Trump echoed Southern white supremacists of a bygone era when he falsely asserted that there had been widespread voting fraud in majority-Black cities.

This month, a coalition of Republican senators led by Ted Cruz of Texas summoned up this blood-drenched history when they parroted the voting fraud lie and demanded that Congress appoint an electoral commission to sort out the 2020 election.

Cruz inappropriately cited as a precedent a commission created to adjudicate the election of 1876. At the time, it was unclear who had won the election; some states submitted multiple election returns, a set for the Republican, Rutherford B. Hayes, and a set for the Democrat, Samuel J. Tilden.

Cruz’s analogy was dishonest on its face, given that there is no valid dispute about electoral votes today. But by bringing up 1876, the senator unwittingly pointed to the ancestry of the voter suppression practices in which his party is heavily invested. The 1876 election, as historians Rachel Shelden and Erik B. Alexander noted this past week in The Washington Post, was riddled with bloodshed and intimidation. White terror organizations targeted African Americans throughout the South in the run-up to Election Day. In the Black stronghold of Hamburg, South Carolina, the authors write, “hundreds of gun-toting whites from South Carolina and nearby Georgia descended on the town, executing members of the militia and ransacking Black homes and shops.”

The federal government eventually withdrew the troops that were protecting Black rights in the South. This set the stage for the system of slavery by another name that persisted until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The days leading up to the mob invasion of the Capitol presented several echoes of the intricately planned coup d’état carried out against the city government of Wilmington, North Carolina, in 1898. White supremacists overthrew a government that had been elected through an alliance that included African Americans and white progressives.

As Hofstadter and Michael Wallace report in “American Violence: A Documentary History,” military units poured into Wilmington from other places to assist the new regime: “African continued to cringe before Caucasian as the troops paraded the streets, as the guns barked and the bayonets flared, for a new municipal administration of the ‘White Supremacy’ persuasion.”

Untold numbers of Black citizens were killed, and well-known Wilmingtonians were banished from the city under pain of death. As was the case at the Capitol on Wednesday, the Wilmington mob was especially keen to silence journalists who had resisted the rising tide of racism. To that end, the marauders burned the Black-owned Daily Record, whose editor, Alexander Manly, fled the city.

White supremacists eventually took control of the state, bringing down the curtain on Black political participation. Given this history, it is in no way a coincidence that North Carolina remains a battleground where African Americans continue to struggle against the effects of gerrymandering and other forms of suppression.

Large and small, these violent assaults on Black self-determination continued into the 20th century. While sometimes expressly intended to destroy Black electoral power, they were just as often deployed to crush Black economic independence by destroying homes and, particularly, businesses that competed with white-owned ones in the marketplace.

Perhaps the most pointed example of such an assault was the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 in Oklahoma. A white mob unleashed partly by the Tulsa police murdered at will while incinerating 35 square blocks of the Black enclave of Greenwood, reducing to ashes a muscular business strip known as the Negro Wall Street.

As historian Jelani Cobb noted in The New Yorker two months before the election, America’s record of willfully ignoring the violent suppression of Black voting rights is much more extensive than its record of protecting Black voters. While the public tends to view instances of election violence “as a static record of the past,” he wrote, “historians tend to look at them the way that meteorologists look at hurricanes: as a predictable outcome when a number of recognizable variables align in familiar ways.” As Cobb said last fall — when political violence was clearly trending upward — the metaphorical hurricane was close at hand indeed.

The mob assault on the Capitol was an outgrowth of what came before. It followed a heavily racialized campaign by a president who falsely portrayed African American cities as hot spots of voting fraud, while endearing himself to white supremacists. Republicans who subscribe to this toxic strategy deserve to be held responsible for the chaos it reaps. For shades of things to come, they need look no further than the damaged Capitol and the dead and injured who were hauled away on gurneys.

(Brent Staples is a member of The Times' editorial board.)

The history of the United States is rife with episodes of political violence far bloodier and more destructive than the one that President Donald Trump incited at the Capitol on Wednesday.

The history of the United States is rife with episodes of political violence far bloodier and more destructive than the one that President Donald Trump incited at the Capitol on Wednesday. Nevertheless, ignorance of a grisly past well documented by historians like W.E.B. DuBois, John Hope Franklin and Richard Hofstadter was painfully evident in the aftermath of the mob invasion of Congress. Talking heads queued up to tell the country again and again that the carnage was an aberration and “not who we are” as a people. This willful act of forgetting — compounded by the myth of American innocence — has shown itself to be dangerous on a variety of counts. For starters, it allowed many Americans to view the president’s insistence that he had won an election in which he was actually trounced, and his simultaneous embrace of right-wing extremism, as political theater that will pass uneventfully from the stage when Joe Biden is inaugurated. “What’s the harm in humoring him?” the argument went. “Mr. Trump will soon be gone.” As it turns out, Republicans in Congress who played along with the ruse encouraged a mob weaned on presidential lies to believe the fiction that Trump had been robbed of a victory. The resulting invasion of the government — which has thus far reportedly taken at least five lives — should make clear to everyone that the potential for political violence is a proverbial river of gasoline, waiting for a demagogue like Trump to drop the lighted match. The circumstances that led up to the sacking of the Capitol are reminiscent of the 19th century, when Southerners rolled back the period of Black self-determination known as Reconstruction, unleashing a reign of racial tyranny. During the November election, Trump echoed Southern white supremacists of a bygone era when he falsely asserted that there had been widespread voting fraud in majority-Black cities. This month, a coalition of Republican senators led by Ted Cruz of Texas summoned up this blood-drenched history when they parroted the voting fraud lie and demanded that Congress appoint an electoral commission to sort out the 2020 election. Cruz inappropriately cited as a precedent a commission created to adjudicate the election of 1876. At the time, it was unclear who had won the election; some states submitted multiple election returns, a set for the Republican, Rutherford B. Hayes, and a set for the Democrat, Samuel J. Tilden. Cruz’s analogy was dishonest on its face, given that there is no valid dispute about electoral votes today. But by bringing up 1876, the senator unwittingly pointed to the ancestry of the voter suppression practices in which his party is heavily invested. The 1876 election, as historians Rachel Shelden and Erik B. Alexander noted this past week in The Washington Post, was riddled with bloodshed and intimidation. White terror organizations targeted African Americans throughout the South in the run-up to Election Day. In the Black stronghold of Hamburg, South Carolina, the authors write, “hundreds of gun-toting whites from South Carolina and nearby Georgia descended on the town, executing members of the militia and ransacking Black homes and shops.” The federal government eventually withdrew the troops that were protecting Black rights in the South. This set the stage for the system of slavery by another name that persisted until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The days leading up to the mob invasion of the Capitol presented several echoes of the intricately planned coup d’état carried out against the city government of Wilmington, North Carolina, in 1898. White supremacists overthrew a government that had been elected through an alliance that included African Americans and white progressives. As Hofstadter and Michael Wallace report in “American Violence: A Documentary History,” military units poured into Wilmington from other places to assist the new regime: “African continued to cringe before Caucasian as the troops paraded the streets, as the guns barked and the bayonets flared, for a new municipal administration of the ‘White Supremacy’ persuasion.” Untold numbers of Black citizens were killed, and well-known Wilmingtonians were banished from the city under pain of death. As was the case at the Capitol on Wednesday, the Wilmington mob was especially keen to silence journalists who had resisted the rising tide of racism. To that end, the marauders burned the Black-owned Daily Record, whose editor, Alexander Manly, fled the city. White supremacists eventually took control of the state, bringing down the curtain on Black political participation. Given this history, it is in no way a coincidence that North Carolina remains a battleground where African Americans continue to struggle against the effects of gerrymandering and other forms of suppression. Large and small, these violent assaults on Black self-determination continued into the 20th century. While sometimes expressly intended to destroy Black electoral power, they were just as often deployed to crush Black economic independence by destroying homes and, particularly, businesses that competed with white-owned ones in the marketplace. Perhaps the most pointed example of such an assault was the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 in Oklahoma. A white mob unleashed partly by the Tulsa police murdered at will while incinerating 35 square blocks of the Black enclave of Greenwood, reducing to ashes a muscular business strip known as the Negro Wall Street. As historian Jelani Cobb noted in The New Yorker two months before the election, America’s record of willfully ignoring the violent suppression of Black voting rights is much more extensive than its record of protecting Black voters. While the public tends to view instances of election violence “as a static record of the past,” he wrote, “historians tend to look at them the way that meteorologists look at hurricanes: as a predictable outcome when a number of recognizable variables align in familiar ways.” As Cobb said last fall — when political violence was clearly trending upward — the metaphorical hurricane was close at hand indeed. The mob assault on the Capitol was an outgrowth of what came before. It followed a heavily racialized campaign by a president who falsely portrayed African American cities as hot spots of voting fraud, while endearing himself to white supremacists. Republicans who subscribe to this toxic strategy deserve to be held responsible for the chaos it reaps. For shades of things to come, they need look no further than the damaged Capitol and the dead and injured who were hauled away on gurneys. (Brent Staples is a member of The Times' editorial board.)

The myth of American innocence

From the start, John Matze had positioned Parler as a “free speech” social network where people could mostly say whatever they wanted. It was a bet that had recently paid off big as millions of President Donald Trump’s supporters, fed up with what they deemed censorship on Facebook and Twitter, flocked to Parler instead.

On the app, discussions over politics had ramped up. But so had conspiracy theories that falsely said the election had been stolen from Trump, with users urging aggressive demonstrations last week when Congress met to certify the election of President-elect Joe Biden.

Those calls for violence soon came back to haunt Matze, 27, a software engineer from Las Vegas and Parler’s chief executive. By Saturday night, Apple and Google had removed Parler from their app stores and Amazon said it would no longer host the site on its computing services, saying it had not sufficiently policed posts that incited violence and crime. As a result, Parler was set to disappear from the web on Monday.

That set off a furious effort to keep Parler online. Matze said on Sunday that he was racing to save the data of Parler’s roughly 15 million users from Amazon’s computers. He was also calling company after company to find one willing to support Parler with hundreds of computer servers.

“I believe Amazon, Google, Apple worked together to try and ensure they don’t have competition,” Matze said on Parler late Saturday. “They will NOT win! We are the worlds last hope for free speech and free information.” He said the app would probably shut down “for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch.”

Parler’s plight immediately drew condemnation from those on the right, who compared the big tech companies to authoritarian overlords. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox News on Sunday that “Republicans have no way to communicate” and asked his followers to text him to stay in touch. Lou Dobbs, the right-wing commentator, wrote on Parler that the app had a strong antitrust case against the tech companies amid such “perilous times.”

Parler has now become a test case in a renewed national debate over free speech on the internet and whether tech giants such as Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon have too much power. That debate has intensified since Trump was barred from posting on Twitter and Facebook last week after a violent mob, urged on by the president and his social media posts, stormed the Capitol.

For years, Facebook and Twitter had defended people’s ability to speak freely on their sites, while Amazon, Apple, Google and others had stayed mostly hands-off with apps like Parler. That allowed misinformation and falsehoods to flow across online networks.

The tech companies’ actions last week to limit such toxic content with Trump and Parler have since been applauded by liberals and others. But the moves have also raised questions about how private enterprises get to decide who stays online and who doesn’t, especially when it is politically convenient, with Biden set to take office on Jan. 20 and Democrats gaining control of Congress.

The tech companies’ newly proactive approach also provides grist for Trump in the waning days of his administration. Even as he faces another potential impeachment, Trump is expected to try stoking anger at Twitter, Facebook and others this week, potentially as a launchpad for competing with Silicon Valley head on when he leaves the White House. After he was barred from Twitter, Trump said in a statement that he would “look at the possibilities of building out our own platform in the near future.”

Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was understandable that no company wanted to be associated with the “repellent speech” that encouraged the breaching of the Capitol. But he said Parler’s situation was troubling.

That was because Apple and Google’s removal of Parler from their app stores and Amazon’s halting its web hosting went beyond what Twitter or Facebook do when they curtail a user’s account or their posts, he said. “I think we should recognize the importance of neutrality when we’re talking about the infrastructure of the internet,” he said.

In earlier statements, Apple, Amazon and Google said they had warned Parler about the violent posts on its site and that it had not done enough to consistently remove them. The companies said they required sites like Parler to systematically enforce its rules. They declined to comment further on Sunday.

Tech companies pulling support for certain websites is not new. In 2018, Gab, another alternative to Facebook and Twitter that is popular among the far right, was forced offline after it lost support from other companies, including PayPal and GoDaddy, because it had hosted anti-Semitic posts from a man who shot and killed 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue. Gab later came back online with the help of a Seattle company, Epik, which hosts other far-right websites.

Even if Parler goes dark, right-wing personalities like Nunes who have built followings on the app do not lack other communication channels. Many still have ample followings on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, which welcome any user who doesn’t violate their rules, including by threatening violence or posting hate speech.

Parler was founded in 2018 by Matze and a fellow programmer, one of several social-media upstarts that aimed to capitalize on the growing anger of Trump’s supporters with Silicon Valley. But Parler had a significant advantage: money. Rebekah Mercer, one of Trump’s largest donors, helped bankroll the site. Other investors include Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent and Fox News pundit. It plans to eventually make money by selling ads.

The app is essentially a Twitter clone. It enables people to broadcast messages — known as “parleys,” not “tweets” — to followers. Users can also comment on and “echo” — not “retweet” — other users’ posts. When signing up for a new account, people are asked to select their favorite color and are urged to follow a list of conservative voices, including Nunes, the Fox News host Sean Hannity and the actress Kirstie Alley.

These “influencers” dominate the experience on the site. On Sunday, the Parler newsfeed was a stream of their angry “parleys,” railing at Big Tech and pleading with their followers to follow them elsewhere.

“Please sign up for my daily newsletter today, before the tech totalitarians ban everything,” wrote Bongino, who also controls one of Facebook’s most popular pages.

Parler grew slowly until early 2020, when Twitter began labeling Trump’s tweets as inaccurate and some of his supporters joined Parler in protest. After November’s election, Parler grew even more quickly as Facebook and Twitter clamped down on false claims that the vote had been rigged. So many users signed up that, at times, they overloaded the company’s systems and forced it to pause new registrations.

In total, people downloaded Parler’s app more than 10 million times last year, with 80% in the United States, according to Sensor Tower, the app data firm.

Last Wednesday, Trump encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol to pressure lawmakers to overturn his election loss, starting a riot that left five people dead. The rally was planned on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere. On Parler, people posted advice on which streets to take to avoid police; some posted about carrying guns inside the Capitol.

In an interview with The New York Times hours after the riot, Matze said, “I don’t feel responsible for any of this and neither should the platform, considering we’re a neutral town square that just adheres to the law.”

But on Friday, Apple and Google told Parler that it needed to more consistently remove posts that encouraged violence. By Saturday, Apple and Google had removed Parler from their app stores, limiting its ability to reach new users on virtually all of the world’s smartphones.

“There is no place on our platform for threats of violence and illegal activity,” Apple said in a statement. Google said, “We do require that apps implement robust moderation for egregious content.”

Late Saturday, Amazon told Parler that it would need to find a new place to host its site. Amazon said it had sent Parler 98 examples of posts on its site that encouraged violence, but many remained active.

“We cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others,” Amazon said.

Amazon was scheduled to pull its support for Parler just before midnight Sunday on the West Coast. Amazon said it would preserve Parler’s data so it could move it to other computer servers.

“It’s devastating,” Matze told Fox News on Sunday. “And it’s not just these three companies. Every vendor, from text message services to email providers to our lawyers, all ditched us, too, on the same day.” He said he was struggling to find another company to host Parler’s website.

But Jeffrey Wernick, Parler’s chief operating officer, said in an interview that the app had heard from several companies that wanted to help. He declined to name them.

“What Parler will look like a month from now, I can’t tell you,” he said. “But Parler will not be gone.”

From the start, John Matze had positioned Parler as a “free speech” social network where people could mostly say whatever they wanted. It was a bet that had recently paid off big as millions of President Donald Trump’s supporters, fed up with what they deemed censorship on Facebook and Twitter, flocked to Parler instead.

From the start, John Matze had positioned Parler as a “free speech” social network where people could mostly say whatever they wanted. It was a bet that had recently paid off big as millions of President Donald Trump’s supporters, fed up with what they deemed censorship on Facebook and Twitter, flocked to Parler instead. On the app, discussions over politics had ramped up. But so had conspiracy theories that falsely said the election had been stolen from Trump, with users urging aggressive demonstrations last week when Congress met to certify the election of President-elect Joe Biden. Those calls for violence soon came back to haunt Matze, 27, a software engineer from Las Vegas and Parler’s chief executive. By Saturday night, Apple and Google had removed Parler from their app stores and Amazon said it would no longer host the site on its computing services, saying it had not sufficiently policed posts that incited violence and crime. As a result, Parler was set to disappear from the web on Monday. That set off a furious effort to keep Parler online. Matze said on Sunday that he was racing to save the data of Parler’s roughly 15 million users from Amazon’s computers. He was also calling company after company to find one willing to support Parler with hundreds of computer servers. “I believe Amazon, Google, Apple worked together to try and ensure they don’t have competition,” Matze said on Parler late Saturday. “They will NOT win! We are the worlds last hope for free speech and free information.” He said the app would probably shut down “for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch.” Parler’s plight immediately drew condemnation from those on the right, who compared the big tech companies to authoritarian overlords. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox News on Sunday that “Republicans have no way to communicate” and asked his followers to text him to stay in touch. Lou Dobbs, the right-wing commentator, wrote on Parler that the app had a strong antitrust case against the tech companies amid such “perilous times.” Parler has now become a test case in a renewed national debate over free speech on the internet and whether tech giants such as Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon have too much power. That debate has intensified since Trump was barred from posting on Twitter and Facebook last week after a violent mob, urged on by the president and his social media posts, stormed the Capitol. For years, Facebook and Twitter had defended people’s ability to speak freely on their sites, while Amazon, Apple, Google and others had stayed mostly hands-off with apps like Parler. That allowed misinformation and falsehoods to flow across online networks. The tech companies’ actions last week to limit such toxic content with Trump and Parler have since been applauded by liberals and others. But the moves have also raised questions about how private enterprises get to decide who stays online and who doesn’t, especially when it is politically convenient, with Biden set to take office on Jan. 20 and Democrats gaining control of Congress. The tech companies’ newly proactive approach also provides grist for Trump in the waning days of his administration. Even as he faces another potential impeachment, Trump is expected to try stoking anger at Twitter, Facebook and others this week, potentially as a launchpad for competing with Silicon Valley head on when he leaves the White House. After he was barred from Twitter, Trump said in a statement that he would “look at the possibilities of building out our own platform in the near future.” Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was understandable that no company wanted to be associated with the “repellent speech” that encouraged the breaching of the Capitol. But he said Parler’s situation was troubling. That was because Apple and Google’s removal of Parler from their app stores and Amazon’s halting its web hosting went beyond what Twitter or Facebook do when they curtail a user’s account or their posts, he said. “I think we should recognize the importance of neutrality when we’re talking about the infrastructure of the internet,” he said. In earlier statements, Apple, Amazon and Google said they had warned Parler about the violent posts on its site and that it had not done enough to consistently remove them. The companies said they required sites like Parler to systematically enforce its rules. They declined to comment further on Sunday. Tech companies pulling support for certain websites is not new. In 2018, Gab, another alternative to Facebook and Twitter that is popular among the far right, was forced offline after it lost support from other companies, including PayPal and GoDaddy, because it had hosted anti-Semitic posts from a man who shot and killed 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue. Gab later came back online with the help of a Seattle company, Epik, which hosts other far-right websites. Even if Parler goes dark, right-wing personalities like Nunes who have built followings on the app do not lack other communication channels. Many still have ample followings on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, which welcome any user who doesn’t violate their rules, including by threatening violence or posting hate speech. Parler was founded in 2018 by Matze and a fellow programmer, one of several social-media upstarts that aimed to capitalize on the growing anger of Trump’s supporters with Silicon Valley. But Parler had a significant advantage: money. Rebekah Mercer, one of Trump’s largest donors, helped bankroll the site. Other investors include Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent and Fox News pundit. It plans to eventually make money by selling ads. The app is essentially a Twitter clone. It enables people to broadcast messages — known as “parleys,” not “tweets” — to followers. Users can also comment on and “echo” — not “retweet” — other users’ posts. When signing up for a new account, people are asked to select their favorite color and are urged to follow a list of conservative voices, including Nunes, the Fox News host Sean Hannity and the actress Kirstie Alley. These “influencers” dominate the experience on the site. On Sunday, the Parler newsfeed was a stream of their angry “parleys,” railing at Big Tech and pleading with their followers to follow them elsewhere. “Please sign up for my daily newsletter today, before the tech totalitarians ban everything,” wrote Bongino, who also controls one of Facebook’s most popular pages. Parler grew slowly until early 2020, when Twitter began labeling Trump’s tweets as inaccurate and some of his supporters joined Parler in protest. After November’s election, Parler grew even more quickly as Facebook and Twitter clamped down on false claims that the vote had been rigged. So many users signed up that, at times, they overloaded the company’s systems and forced it to pause new registrations. In total, people downloaded Parler’s app more than 10 million times last year, with 80% in the United States, according to Sensor Tower, the app data firm. Last Wednesday, Trump encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol to pressure lawmakers to overturn his election loss, starting a riot that left five people dead. The rally was planned on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere. On Parler, people posted advice on which streets to take to avoid police; some posted about carrying guns inside the Capitol. In an interview with The New York Times hours after the riot, Matze said, “I don’t feel responsible for any of this and neither should the platform, considering we’re a neutral town square that just adheres to the law.” But on Friday, Apple and Google told Parler that it needed to more consistently remove posts that encouraged violence. By Saturday, Apple and Google had removed Parler from their app stores, limiting its ability to reach new users on virtually all of the world’s smartphones. “There is no place on our platform for threats of violence and illegal activity,” Apple said in a statement. Google said, “We do require that apps implement robust moderation for egregious content.” Late Saturday, Amazon told Parler that it would need to find a new place to host its site. Amazon said it had sent Parler 98 examples of posts on its site that encouraged violence, but many remained active. “We cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others,” Amazon said. Amazon was scheduled to pull its support for Parler just before midnight Sunday on the West Coast. Amazon said it would preserve Parler’s data so it could move it to other computer servers. “It’s devastating,” Matze told Fox News on Sunday. “And it’s not just these three companies. Every vendor, from text message services to email providers to our lawyers, all ditched us, too, on the same day.” He said he was struggling to find another company to host Parler’s website. But Jeffrey Wernick, Parler’s chief operating officer, said in an interview that the app had heard from several companies that wanted to help. He declined to name them. “What Parler will look like a month from now, I can’t tell you,” he said. “But Parler will not be gone.”

How Parler, a chosen app of Trump fans, became a test of free speech

US Vice-President Mike Pence&nbsp;will attend the upcoming inauguration of Joe Biden, multiple media reports said Saturday.

It is now being implied&nbsp;that the vice-president has become the latest longtime loyalist to abandon an increasingly isolated President Donald Trump.

Relations between Trump and Pence -- previously one of the mercurial president's staunchest defenders -- have nosedived since Wednesday, when the vice president formally announced Biden's victory in November's election.

A mob of far-right demonstrators stormed the US Capitol the same day in a failed bid to stop Congress from certifying Biden's win, in a riot blamed on Trump that left five dead.

Outgoing US President Donald Trump -- for the first time ever -- acknowledged Biden won, on Thursday, but said he would not attend the January 20 inauguration. He, however, pledged there would be an "orderly transition" to Biden's presidency.

"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th," Trump wrote on Twitter on Friday.

Biden, to this end, welcomed Trump's announcement, calling it a "good thing."

"I was told on the way over here that he indicated he wasn't going to show up at the inauguration. One of the few things he and I have ever agreed on," Biden said, adding, "it's a good thing, him not showing up."

"He's been an embarrassment to the country," Biden said.

"He's not fit to serve," the president-elect added of Trump, who is facing the possibility of being impeached next week for inciting his supporters to storm the US Capitol.

"He exceeded even my worst notions about him," Biden said.&nbsp;

"He's one of the most incompetent presidents in the history of the United States of America."

Biden added Vice-President Mike Pence would be welcome at his inauguration.

Trump's bowing down to the results came shortly after his supporters rioted at the US Capitol on Wednesday night, drawing sharp criticism from across the world.

Biden said those who stormed the US Capitol were a bunch of thugs, white supremacists, domestic terrorists and they should be prosecuted.

(with inputs)

US Vice-President Mike Pence will attend the upcoming inauguration of Joe Biden, multiple media reports said Saturday. It is now being implied that the vice-president has become the latest longtime loyalist to abandon an increasingly isolated President Donald Trump.

US Vice-President Mike Pence will attend the upcoming inauguration of Joe Biden, multiple media reports said Saturday. It is now being implied that the vice-president has become the latest longtime loyalist to abandon an increasingly isolated President Donald Trump. Relations between Trump and Pence -- previously one of the mercurial president's staunchest defenders -- have nosedived since Wednesday, when the vice president formally announced Biden's victory in November's election. A mob of far-right demonstrators stormed the US Capitol the same day in a failed bid to stop Congress from certifying Biden's win, in a riot blamed on Trump that left five dead. Outgoing US President Donald Trump -- for the first time ever -- acknowledged Biden won, on Thursday, but said he would not attend the January 20 inauguration. He, however, pledged there would be an "orderly transition" to Biden's presidency. "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th," Trump wrote on Twitter on Friday. Biden, to this end, welcomed Trump's announcement, calling it a "good thing." "I was told on the way over here that he indicated he wasn't going to show up at the inauguration. One of the few things he and I have ever agreed on," Biden said, adding, "it's a good thing, him not showing up." "He's been an embarrassment to the country," Biden said. "He's not fit to serve," the president-elect added of Trump, who is facing the possibility of being impeached next week for inciting his supporters to storm the US Capitol. "He exceeded even my worst notions about him," Biden said. "He's one of the most incompetent presidents in the history of the United States of America." Biden added Vice-President Mike Pence would be welcome at his inauguration. Trump's bowing down to the results came shortly after his supporters rioted at the US Capitol on Wednesday night, drawing sharp criticism from across the world. Biden said those who stormed the US Capitol were a bunch of thugs, white supremacists, domestic terrorists and they should be prosecuted. (with inputs)

Vice-President Mike Pence may attend Biden's inauguration on January 20

Another horrifying video from Wednesday's riots at the US Capitol Hill has emerged, which shows a policeman crushed between the pro-Trump mob and officers defending the building.

The said policeman was pinned between a door and the masses of people as per the video captured by investigative outlet Status Coup.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
HORRIFYING Footage Shot by <a href="https://twitter.com/JonFarinaPhoto?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JonFarinaPhoto</a> of Trump’s Army Storming Inside the Capitol and Attacking Cops. 
 
FULL VIDEO: <a href="https://t.co/DwqQd1HuBM">https://t.co/DwqQd1HuBM</a> <a href="https://t.co/c8GHiWAEfp">pic.twitter.com/c8GHiWAEfp</a>
— Status Coup News (@StatusCoup) <a href="https://twitter.com/StatusCoup/status/1347230708721451008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 7, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

It can also be seen that at least one individual attempted to rip away the officer's mask while he was wedged.

What follows is even more ghastly. The officer reenters the frame of the video stuck in the same position, now maskless and bloodied, screaming for help.

A low voice can be heard amid the fray, yelling, "Let him back, let him out!"

The officer eventually was able to free himself from the door.

According to a report published on CNN, Jon Farina, who noted the clash between police and rioters was constant, said the rioters "just kept rotating in and out. They would say 'We need fresh patriots.'"

Farina said police eventually repelled rioters from that location.

Wednesday's storming of the Capitol left five people dead, including Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.

Federal agents in US have arrested two more Capitol Hill rioters whose images had gone viral. One of them carried the House speaker's lectern and another wore horns and a fur pelt.

Dozens of people have been charged in the aftermath, and the FBI has been asking the public to help identify participants given the proliferation of images of the riots on the internet.&nbsp;

The FBI and the Washington police department's homicide unit are jointly investigating the death of &nbsp;Sicknick, who was injured while defending the Capitol. He had just been sworn in with the US Capitol Police Department, fulfilling a lifelong dream.

Another horrifying video from Wednesday's riots at the US Capitol Hill has emerged, which shows a policeman crushed between the pro-Trump mob and officers defending the building.

Another horrifying video from Wednesday's riots at the US Capitol Hill has emerged, which shows a policeman crushed between the pro-Trump mob and officers defending the building. The said policeman was pinned between a door and the masses of people as per the video captured by investigative outlet Status Coup. HORRIFYING Footage Shot by @JonFarinaPhoto of Trump’s Army Storming Inside the Capitol and Attacking Cops. FULL VIDEO: https://t.co/DwqQd1HuBM pic.twitter.com/c8GHiWAEfp — Status Coup News (@StatusCoup) January 7, 2021 × It can also be seen that at least one individual attempted to rip away the officer's mask while he was wedged. What follows is even more ghastly. The officer reenters the frame of the video stuck in the same position, now maskless and bloodied, screaming for help. A low voice can be heard amid the fray, yelling, "Let him back, let him out!" The officer eventually was able to free himself from the door. According to a report published on CNN, Jon Farina, who noted the clash between police and rioters was constant, said the rioters "just kept rotating in and out. They would say 'We need fresh patriots.'" Farina said police eventually repelled rioters from that location. Wednesday's storming of the Capitol left five people dead, including Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. Federal agents in US have arrested two more Capitol Hill rioters whose images had gone viral. One of them carried the House speaker's lectern and another wore horns and a fur pelt. Dozens of people have been charged in the aftermath, and the FBI has been asking the public to help identify participants given the proliferation of images of the riots on the internet. The FBI and the Washington police department's homicide unit are jointly investigating the death of Sicknick, who was injured while defending the Capitol. He had just been sworn in with the US Capitol Police Department, fulfilling a lifelong dream.

Video shows officer crushed against door by mob storming US Capitol

Dozens of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump have been criminally charged in connection with the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol building earlier this week, and many more cases are expected.

Five people died as a result of the riot, including a Capitol Police officer. No one has been charged yet in connection with any of those deaths.

Several different criminal statutes and theories of liability could be used against the rioters, legal experts said.

Here is an overview of some of the potential charges, including seditious conspiracy and felony murder.

What criminal charges have been filed so far?

Some of the more than 50 defendants in the federal district and superior courts have been charged with gun-related offenses. There are federal laws against carrying a gun in the Capitol building, and possessing an unregistered firearm or unlicensed ammunition in the District of Columbia.

A Seattle man, Mark Leffingwell, has been charged with assaulting a federal law enforcement officer, a federal crime. He is accused of punching a Capitol Police officer in a separate incident from the one that led to an officer`s death. A lawyer for Leffingwell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Several dozen individuals have been charged with unlawful entry on the Capitol grounds, which is a crime under the Washington D.C. criminal code and federal law. Those include Nicholas Ochs, a member of the far-right group Proud Boys, who posted a photo of himself inside the Capitol building. A lawyer for Ochs could not be identified.

Could multiple people be charged with killing a police officer?

Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died on Thursday. Sicknick "was injured while physically engaging with protesters," the police department said in a statement. He collapsed after he returned to his divisional office, the statement said.

Sicknick was one of the five people to die as a result of the riot.

A top priority for law enforcement will be identifying anyone responsible for Sicknick`s death, said Matt Jones, a former federal prosecutor in Washington now at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

If someone assaulted Sicknick, that person could be charged with murder or manslaughter.

Anyone who assisted the main perpetrator could face criminal charges for "aiding and abetting" murder or manslaughter.

If Sicknick was killed as part of a coordinated plot to attack individuals inside the Capitol, individuals involved in that scheme could be charged as co-conspirators, Jones said.

"Prosecutors are no doubt scouring every phone and social media post they can," Jones said. "And, to the extent they show an intent to cause harm to an officer, or member of Congress or their staff, that will dramatically move the ball forward."

Jay Town, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, said rioters who were simply present in the room when Sicknick was engaged with protesters are far less likely to be charged.

"To assign culpability beyond the actual assailant, or those that aided or abetted them, would normally require proof that other individuals knew that the commission of their criminal acts might likely lead to death or serious bodily injury," Town said.

Could there be felony murder charges?

There is a doctrine of U.S. law, recognized in Washington, called felony murder, which allows prosecutors to charge people with murder even if they did not intend to kill. 
Typically, a defendant is charged with felony murder if they engage in a violent crime and a death indirectly results from their actions.

Ken Kohl, a top prosecutor on the case, said at a news conference on Friday that felony murder "is always in play in something like this."

Legal experts said more facts were needed to determine if this theory of liability would apply.

Jones said it could be difficult to bring felony murder charges. To do so, prosecutors may need to prove certain underlying offenses such as armed robbery or kidnapping, which do not appear to be present here. What about sedition?

It is very possible individuals will be charged with a federal law that bans efforts to overthrow the government, legal experts said.

That law prohibits conspiring to "overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force" the U.S. government.

The statute "will absolutely apply once the investigation is completed," said Justo Mendez, a criminal defense attorney at Holland &amp; Knight in Texas and a former federal prosecutor. "The evidence of `conspire to overthrow` is all over social media."

Who is bringing the criminal cases?

All of the criminal charges so far have been brought by the U.S. Attorney`s Office for the District of Columbia, part of the U.S. Justice Department. These prosecutors enforce federal laws, as well as the District of Columbia`s criminal code.

Federal prosecutors around the country could also bring charges if plans to carry out violence were made within their jurisdictions.

Dozens of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump have been criminally charged in connection with the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol building earlier this week, and many more cases are expected.

Dozens of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump have been criminally charged in connection with the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol building earlier this week, and many more cases are expected. Five people died as a result of the riot, including a Capitol Police officer. No one has been charged yet in connection with any of those deaths. Several different criminal statutes and theories of liability could be used against the rioters, legal experts said. Here is an overview of some of the potential charges, including seditious conspiracy and felony murder. What criminal charges have been filed so far? Some of the more than 50 defendants in the federal district and superior courts have been charged with gun-related offenses. There are federal laws against carrying a gun in the Capitol building, and possessing an unregistered firearm or unlicensed ammunition in the District of Columbia. A Seattle man, Mark Leffingwell, has been charged with assaulting a federal law enforcement officer, a federal crime. He is accused of punching a Capitol Police officer in a separate incident from the one that led to an officer`s death. A lawyer for Leffingwell did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Several dozen individuals have been charged with unlawful entry on the Capitol grounds, which is a crime under the Washington D.C. criminal code and federal law. Those include Nicholas Ochs, a member of the far-right group Proud Boys, who posted a photo of himself inside the Capitol building. A lawyer for Ochs could not be identified. Could multiple people be charged with killing a police officer? Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died on Thursday. Sicknick "was injured while physically engaging with protesters," the police department said in a statement. He collapsed after he returned to his divisional office, the statement said. Sicknick was one of the five people to die as a result of the riot. A top priority for law enforcement will be identifying anyone responsible for Sicknick`s death, said Matt Jones, a former federal prosecutor in Washington now at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. If someone assaulted Sicknick, that person could be charged with murder or manslaughter. Anyone who assisted the main perpetrator could face criminal charges for "aiding and abetting" murder or manslaughter. If Sicknick was killed as part of a coordinated plot to attack individuals inside the Capitol, individuals involved in that scheme could be charged as co-conspirators, Jones said. "Prosecutors are no doubt scouring every phone and social media post they can," Jones said. "And, to the extent they show an intent to cause harm to an officer, or member of Congress or their staff, that will dramatically move the ball forward." Jay Town, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, said rioters who were simply present in the room when Sicknick was engaged with protesters are far less likely to be charged. "To assign culpability beyond the actual assailant, or those that aided or abetted them, would normally require proof that other individuals knew that the commission of their criminal acts might likely lead to death or serious bodily injury," Town said. Could there be felony murder charges? There is a doctrine of U.S. law, recognized in Washington, called felony murder, which allows prosecutors to charge people with murder even if they did not intend to kill. Typically, a defendant is charged with felony murder if they engage in a violent crime and a death indirectly results from their actions. Ken Kohl, a top prosecutor on the case, said at a news conference on Friday that felony murder "is always in play in something like this." Legal experts said more facts were needed to determine if this theory of liability would apply. Jones said it could be difficult to bring felony murder charges. To do so, prosecutors may need to prove certain underlying offenses such as armed robbery or kidnapping, which do not appear to be present here. What about sedition? It is very possible individuals will be charged with a federal law that bans efforts to overthrow the government, legal experts said. That law prohibits conspiring to "overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force" the U.S. government. The statute "will absolutely apply once the investigation is completed," said Justo Mendez, a criminal defense attorney at Holland & Knight in Texas and a former federal prosecutor. "The evidence of `conspire to overthrow` is all over social media." Who is bringing the criminal cases? All of the criminal charges so far have been brought by the U.S. Attorney`s Office for the District of Columbia, part of the U.S. Justice Department. These prosecutors enforce federal laws, as well as the District of Columbia`s criminal code. Federal prosecutors around the country could also bring charges if plans to carry out violence were made within their jurisdictions.

Explainer: What crimes can the US Capitol rioters be charged with?

Federal agents in US have arrested two more Capitol Hill rioters whose images had gone viral. One of them carried the House speaker's lectern and another wore horns and a fur pelt.

Five people have died, including a police officer, following the storming of the Capitol on Wednesday.

Dozens of people have been charged in the aftermath, and the FBI has been asking the public to help identify participants given the proliferation of images of the riots on the internet.&nbsp;

Jacob Anthony Chansley, who featured prominently on social media wearing horns, a fur pelt, face paint and brandishing a spear adorned with the US flag, turned himself in to police, the Department of Justice said.

Chansley, also known as Jake Angeli, called the FBI's Washington office on Thursday and later told agents "he came as part of a group effort with other 'patriots' from Arizona, at the request of the President that all 'patriots' come to DC on January 6," the DOJ said in a release.

Before his arrest, NBC network reported, Chansley gloated about how the crowd infiltrated the Capitol, forcing lawmakers to flee.

Federal agents also arrested Adam Christian Johnson, whose photo as he smiled and waved as he carried off House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lectern also went viral.&nbsp;

Johnson, of Parrish, Florida, also streamed live video on Facebook of himself as he walked the halls of the Capitol, according to the Tampa Bay Times. The video has been removed from online platforms and all of Johnson's pages have been taken down.

One man who was arrested in connection with the events at the Capitol and threats to lawmakers told FBI agents he arrived in Washington on Thursday, a day late for the rally, after being delayed en route in Ohio, federal court documents showed.

Cleveland Meredith was found with a Tavor X95 assault rifle, a Glock pistol, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and was detained in connection with making threats to Pelosi after an FBI agent read January 7 text messages in which Meredith talked about "putting a bullet in her noggin on Live TV" and running her over with his truck.

At least a dozen other people were facing criminal charges in US District Court for the District of Columbia in connection to the riot, and at least another 40 people faced lesser charges in the District of Columbia Superior Court, a local venue. Many of them were arraigned on Thursday and released, with an order from the judge not to return to Washington unless for court appearances or meetings with their attorneys.

They included Richard Barnett, the Gravette, Arkansas, man who was photographed sitting at Pelosi's desk, his feet up on the furniture.

Also, the FBI and the Washington police department's homicide unit are jointly investigating the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who was injured while defending the Capitol. Sicknick had just been sworn in with the US Capitol Police Department, fulfilling a lifelong dream.

(with inputs from agencies)

Federal agents in US have arrested two more Capitol Hill rioters whose images had gone viral. One of them carried the House speaker's lectern and another wore horns and a fur pelt.

Federal agents in US have arrested two more Capitol Hill rioters whose images had gone viral. One of them carried the House speaker's lectern and another wore horns and a fur pelt. Five people have died, including a police officer, following the storming of the Capitol on Wednesday. Dozens of people have been charged in the aftermath, and the FBI has been asking the public to help identify participants given the proliferation of images of the riots on the internet. Jacob Anthony Chansley, who featured prominently on social media wearing horns, a fur pelt, face paint and brandishing a spear adorned with the US flag, turned himself in to police, the Department of Justice said. Chansley, also known as Jake Angeli, called the FBI's Washington office on Thursday and later told agents "he came as part of a group effort with other 'patriots' from Arizona, at the request of the President that all 'patriots' come to DC on January 6," the DOJ said in a release. Before his arrest, NBC network reported, Chansley gloated about how the crowd infiltrated the Capitol, forcing lawmakers to flee. Federal agents also arrested Adam Christian Johnson, whose photo as he smiled and waved as he carried off House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lectern also went viral. Johnson, of Parrish, Florida, also streamed live video on Facebook of himself as he walked the halls of the Capitol, according to the Tampa Bay Times. The video has been removed from online platforms and all of Johnson's pages have been taken down. One man who was arrested in connection with the events at the Capitol and threats to lawmakers told FBI agents he arrived in Washington on Thursday, a day late for the rally, after being delayed en route in Ohio, federal court documents showed. Cleveland Meredith was found with a Tavor X95 assault rifle, a Glock pistol, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and was detained in connection with making threats to Pelosi after an FBI agent read January 7 text messages in which Meredith talked about "putting a bullet in her noggin on Live TV" and running her over with his truck. At least a dozen other people were facing criminal charges in US District Court for the District of Columbia in connection to the riot, and at least another 40 people faced lesser charges in the District of Columbia Superior Court, a local venue. Many of them were arraigned on Thursday and released, with an order from the judge not to return to Washington unless for court appearances or meetings with their attorneys. They included Richard Barnett, the Gravette, Arkansas, man who was photographed sitting at Pelosi's desk, his feet up on the furniture. Also, the FBI and the Washington police department's homicide unit are jointly investigating the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who was injured while defending the Capitol. Sicknick had just been sworn in with the US Capitol Police Department, fulfilling a lifelong dream. (with inputs from agencies)

US House Democrats to introduce Trump impeachment article on Monday

Major technology companies like Google and Microsoft, as well as telecommunications giants like Comcast and Verizon, are among the nearly 1,000 people and groups that have donated at least $200 to the committee organizing President-elect Joe Biden’s scaled-back inauguration celebration this month.

The donor list, released Saturday evening by the committee, was filled mostly with individual donors, including major givers to Democrats such as Arthur Blank, the owner of the Atlanta Falcons; Richard Blum, the husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California; and Donald Sussman, a hedge fund mogul.

The inaugural committee did not list any of the amounts that these 959 donors had given as of Dec. 31, the end of the period covered in the voluntary disclosure.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indoguration-for-major-biden-as-joe-biden-prepares-white-house-move-355817" hreflang="en">'Indoguration' for Major Biden as Joe Biden prepares White House move</a>

The actual donor amounts may not be known until 90 days after the inauguration when the committee will be required under law to disclose the names and amounts of all donations over $200. Biden’s committee limited contributions by individuals to $500,000 and by corporations to $1 million.

Technology and telecommunications industries are well represented on the list, with donations also coming from Qualcomm, a semiconductor and software company based in California, and Charter Communications, a cable company.

Google was included on the list because it provided online security protections without charge to the inaugural committee, said José Castañeda, a Google spokesman.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/george-w-bushs-childhood-home-eyed-for-national-park-service-inclusion-355813" hreflang="en">George W. Bush’s childhood home eyed for national park service inclusion</a>

Other corporate donations came from the Enterprise Holdings political action committee, which is associated with the company that owns the Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental and Alamo Rent A Car brands.

Health care companies also are prominent on the list, including Anthem Inc., the health insurance giant, MedPoint Management, which provides management services to physicians groups, and Masimo Corp., a maker of electronic patient monitoring devices.

Boeing Co., the aerospace and military contracting giant, is also listed as a donor.

Labor unions including American Federation of Teachers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers union made contributions.

There was also a sprinkling of celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, on the list.

A spokesman for the inauguration declined to comment when asked Saturday how much in total Biden’s committee had raised.

Biden has urged his supporters not to travel to Washington for the inauguration Jan. 20, because outside of the swearing-in ceremony, there will be few large-scale in-person events.

Major technology companies like Google and Microsoft, as well as telecommunications giants like Comcast and Verizon, are among the nearly 1,000 people and groups that have donated at least $200 to the committee organizing President-elect Joe Biden’s scaled-back inauguration celebration this month.

Major technology companies like Google and Microsoft, as well as telecommunications giants like Comcast and Verizon, are among the nearly 1,000 people and groups that have donated at least $200 to the committee organizing President-elect Joe Biden’s scaled-back inauguration celebration this month. The donor list, released Saturday evening by the committee, was filled mostly with individual donors, including major givers to Democrats such as Arthur Blank, the owner of the Atlanta Falcons; Richard Blum, the husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California; and Donald Sussman, a hedge fund mogul. The inaugural committee did not list any of the amounts that these 959 donors had given as of Dec. 31, the end of the period covered in the voluntary disclosure. Also read| 'Indoguration' for Major Biden as Joe Biden prepares White House move The actual donor amounts may not be known until 90 days after the inauguration when the committee will be required under law to disclose the names and amounts of all donations over $200. Biden’s committee limited contributions by individuals to $500,000 and by corporations to $1 million. Technology and telecommunications industries are well represented on the list, with donations also coming from Qualcomm, a semiconductor and software company based in California, and Charter Communications, a cable company. Google was included on the list because it provided online security protections without charge to the inaugural committee, said José Castañeda, a Google spokesman. Also read| George W. Bush’s childhood home eyed for national park service inclusion Other corporate donations came from the Enterprise Holdings political action committee, which is associated with the company that owns the Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental and Alamo Rent A Car brands. Health care companies also are prominent on the list, including Anthem Inc., the health insurance giant, MedPoint Management, which provides management services to physicians groups, and Masimo Corp., a maker of electronic patient monitoring devices. Boeing Co., the aerospace and military contracting giant, is also listed as a donor. Labor unions including American Federation of Teachers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers union made contributions. There was also a sprinkling of celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, on the list. A spokesman for the inauguration declined to comment when asked Saturday how much in total Biden’s committee had raised. Biden has urged his supporters not to travel to Washington for the inauguration Jan. 20, because outside of the swearing-in ceremony, there will be few large-scale in-person events.

Major technology companies join list of Biden inaugural donors

WASHINGTON — When Simon &amp;amp; Schuster canceled its plans this week to publish Sen. Josh Hawley’s book, he called the action “a direct assault on the First Amendment.”

And when Twitter permanently banned President Donald Trump’s account Friday, his family and his supporters said similar things. “We are living Orwell’s 1984,” Donald Trump Jr. said — on Twitter. “Free-speech no longer exists in America.”

The companies’ decisions may have been unwise, scholars who study the First Amendment said, but they were perfectly lawful. That is because the First Amendment prohibits government censorship and does not apply to decisions made by private businesses.

It is certainly possible to violate the values embodied in the First Amendment without violating the First Amendment itself. But the basic legal question could hardly be more straightforward, said RonNell Andersen Jones, a law professor at the University of Utah. And, she said, it should not have been lost on Hawley, who graduated from Yale Law School and served as a law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts.

“It’s become popular — even among those who plainly know better — to label all matters restricting anyone’s speech as a ‘First Amendment issue,’” she said. “But the First Amendment limits only government actors, and neither a social media company nor a book publisher is the government. Indeed, they enjoy their own First Amendment rights not to have the government require them to associate with speech when they prefer not to do so.”

But many in the legal community were nonetheless uneasy about the developments, which underscored the enormous power of a handful of social media companies that are largely insulated from accountability and may change positions on what speech is acceptable as executives come and go.

“I want a wide range of ideas, even those I loathe, to be heard, and I think Twitter especially holds a concerning degree of power over public discourse,” said Gregory Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

But Magarian said the president and Hawley were in particularly poor positions to complain.

“The First Amendment doesn’t require any private forum to publish anyone’s speech,” he said. “Neither Twitter nor Simon &amp;amp; Schuster has any obligations under the First Amendment.” He added: “Any suggestion that people like Trump and Hawley, and the viewpoints they espouse, will ever lack meaningful access to public attention is ludicrous. We should worry about private power over speech, but presidents and senators are the last speakers we need to worry about.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, too, said the free-speech interests involved in suspending Trump’s Twitter account were complicated.

“We understand the desire to permanently suspend him now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions,” said Kate Ruane, an ACLU lawyer. “President Trump can turn to his press team or Fox News to communicate with the public, but others — like the many Black, brown and LGBTQ activists who have been censored by social media companies — will not have that luxury.”

Hawley’s book, titled “The Tyranny of Big Tech,” was to have been published in June. In canceling it, Simon &amp;amp; Schuster said that “it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints” but that Hawley had crossed a line in light of “the disturbing, deadly insurrection that took place on Wednesday in Washington.”

“We take seriously our larger public responsibility as citizens,” the company said, “and cannot support Sen. Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom.”

The publisher was free to make that decision, legal experts said, but that does not mean it was the right one.

As it happens, the Supreme Court may decide as soon as Monday whether to hear a case about Trump’s Twitter account, one that nicely illustrates some of the distinctions raised by the recent developments. Lower courts have ruled that Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking users from his account.

Since Trump is a government official who used the account to conduct official business, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York, ruled in 2019 that the account was a public forum from which he was powerless to exclude people based on their viewpoints.

“We conclude that the evidence of the official nature of the account is overwhelming,” Judge Barrington Parker wrote for the court. “We also conclude that once the president has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with.”

Had the account been private, Parker wrote, Trump could have blocked whomever he wanted — for instance, the user who observed that “the same guy who doesn’t proofread his Twitter handles the nuclear button.”

But since he used the account in his official role as a government official, he was subject to the First Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on viewpoints.

Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which sued Trump over his handling of his account, explained the distinction.

“We sued the president, not Twitter, and this makes all the difference, legally,” he said. “Government actors have to comply with the First Amendment, but private corporations don’t.”

“As a result,” Jaffer said, “the president can’t block people from his social media accounts based on their political views, but Twitter can ban people from its platform for pretty much whatever reasons it wants to. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Twitter was right to ban Trump, but there’s no question it was legally entitled to do it.”

Internet platforms should voluntarily embrace First Amendment values, he said, and generally allow citizens to assess the statements of politicians for themselves. But there are limits, he said, and incitement to violence is among them.

“To take an account down in these circumstances is not an affront to free speech, as some have suggested,” Jaffer said. “To the contrary, it’s the responsible exercise of a First Amendment right.”

Twitter’s permanent suspension of Trump may make the pending case moot, leaving Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area a work in progress.

In 2017, for instance, the court considered the constitutionality of a North Carolina law that barred registered sex offenders from using Facebook, Twitter and similar services in Packingham v. North Carolina. When the case was argued, the justices discussed just how thoroughly social media had transformed American civic discourse.

Justice Elena Kagan said that Trump, every governor and every member of Congress had Twitter accounts.

“So this has become a crucially important channel of political communication,” she said. “And a person couldn’t go onto those sites and find out what these members of our government are thinking or saying or doing.”

Justice Samuel Alito said, a little incredulously, “I know there are people who think that life is not possible without Twitter and Facebook.”

In the end, the court unanimously struck down the law, though the justices could not agree on a rationale. Writing for the majority in his characteristically cryptic manner, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in 2018, said the internet was poised to transform First Amendment jurisprudence.

“While we now may be coming to the realization that the cyberage is a revolution of historic proportions, we cannot appreciate yet its full dimensions and vast potential to alter how we think, express ourselves and define who we want to be,” he wrote. “The forces and directions of the internet are so new, so protean and so far-reaching that courts must be conscious that what they say today might be obsolete tomorrow.”

WASHINGTON — When Simon &amp; Schuster canceled its plans this week to publish Sen. Josh Hawley’s book, he called the action “a direct assault on the First Amendment.

WASHINGTON — When Simon &amp; Schuster canceled its plans this week to publish Sen. Josh Hawley’s book, he called the action “a direct assault on the First Amendment.” And when Twitter permanently banned President Donald Trump’s account Friday, his family and his supporters said similar things. “We are living Orwell’s 1984,” Donald Trump Jr. said — on Twitter. “Free-speech no longer exists in America.” The companies’ decisions may have been unwise, scholars who study the First Amendment said, but they were perfectly lawful. That is because the First Amendment prohibits government censorship and does not apply to decisions made by private businesses. It is certainly possible to violate the values embodied in the First Amendment without violating the First Amendment itself. But the basic legal question could hardly be more straightforward, said RonNell Andersen Jones, a law professor at the University of Utah. And, she said, it should not have been lost on Hawley, who graduated from Yale Law School and served as a law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts. “It’s become popular — even among those who plainly know better — to label all matters restricting anyone’s speech as a ‘First Amendment issue,’” she said. “But the First Amendment limits only government actors, and neither a social media company nor a book publisher is the government. Indeed, they enjoy their own First Amendment rights not to have the government require them to associate with speech when they prefer not to do so.” But many in the legal community were nonetheless uneasy about the developments, which underscored the enormous power of a handful of social media companies that are largely insulated from accountability and may change positions on what speech is acceptable as executives come and go. “I want a wide range of ideas, even those I loathe, to be heard, and I think Twitter especially holds a concerning degree of power over public discourse,” said Gregory Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. But Magarian said the president and Hawley were in particularly poor positions to complain. “The First Amendment doesn’t require any private forum to publish anyone’s speech,” he said. “Neither Twitter nor Simon &amp; Schuster has any obligations under the First Amendment.” He added: “Any suggestion that people like Trump and Hawley, and the viewpoints they espouse, will ever lack meaningful access to public attention is ludicrous. We should worry about private power over speech, but presidents and senators are the last speakers we need to worry about.” The American Civil Liberties Union, too, said the free-speech interests involved in suspending Trump’s Twitter account were complicated. “We understand the desire to permanently suspend him now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions,” said Kate Ruane, an ACLU lawyer. “President Trump can turn to his press team or Fox News to communicate with the public, but others — like the many Black, brown and LGBTQ activists who have been censored by social media companies — will not have that luxury.” Hawley’s book, titled “The Tyranny of Big Tech,” was to have been published in June. In canceling it, Simon &amp; Schuster said that “it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints” but that Hawley had crossed a line in light of “the disturbing, deadly insurrection that took place on Wednesday in Washington.” “We take seriously our larger public responsibility as citizens,” the company said, “and cannot support Sen. Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom.” The publisher was free to make that decision, legal experts said, but that does not mean it was the right one. As it happens, the Supreme Court may decide as soon as Monday whether to hear a case about Trump’s Twitter account, one that nicely illustrates some of the distinctions raised by the recent developments. Lower courts have ruled that Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking users from his account. Since Trump is a government official who used the account to conduct official business, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York, ruled in 2019 that the account was a public forum from which he was powerless to exclude people based on their viewpoints. “We conclude that the evidence of the official nature of the account is overwhelming,” Judge Barrington Parker wrote for the court. “We also conclude that once the president has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with.” Had the account been private, Parker wrote, Trump could have blocked whomever he wanted — for instance, the user who observed that “the same guy who doesn’t proofread his Twitter handles the nuclear button.” But since he used the account in his official role as a government official, he was subject to the First Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on viewpoints. Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which sued Trump over his handling of his account, explained the distinction. “We sued the president, not Twitter, and this makes all the difference, legally,” he said. “Government actors have to comply with the First Amendment, but private corporations don’t.” “As a result,” Jaffer said, “the president can’t block people from his social media accounts based on their political views, but Twitter can ban people from its platform for pretty much whatever reasons it wants to. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Twitter was right to ban Trump, but there’s no question it was legally entitled to do it.” Internet platforms should voluntarily embrace First Amendment values, he said, and generally allow citizens to assess the statements of politicians for themselves. But there are limits, he said, and incitement to violence is among them. “To take an account down in these circumstances is not an affront to free speech, as some have suggested,” Jaffer said. “To the contrary, it’s the responsible exercise of a First Amendment right.” Twitter’s permanent suspension of Trump may make the pending case moot, leaving Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area a work in progress. In 2017, for instance, the court considered the constitutionality of a North Carolina law that barred registered sex offenders from using Facebook, Twitter and similar services in Packingham v. North Carolina. When the case was argued, the justices discussed just how thoroughly social media had transformed American civic discourse. Justice Elena Kagan said that Trump, every governor and every member of Congress had Twitter accounts. “So this has become a crucially important channel of political communication,” she said. “And a person couldn’t go onto those sites and find out what these members of our government are thinking or saying or doing.” Justice Samuel Alito said, a little incredulously, “I know there are people who think that life is not possible without Twitter and Facebook.” In the end, the court unanimously struck down the law, though the justices could not agree on a rationale. Writing for the majority in his characteristically cryptic manner, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in 2018, said the internet was poised to transform First Amendment jurisprudence. “While we now may be coming to the realization that the cyberage is a revolution of historic proportions, we cannot appreciate yet its full dimensions and vast potential to alter how we think, express ourselves and define who we want to be,” he wrote. “The forces and directions of the internet are so new, so protean and so far-reaching that courts must be conscious that what they say today might be obsolete tomorrow.”

Can Twitter legally bar Trump? The first amendment says yes

Concerns on Friday over US President Donald Trump's mental state have drawn focus on his power to unleash a nuclear attack.

Two days after Trump supporters, under his encouragement, stormed the US Capitol and shut down Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had contacted the Pentagon's top general, Mark Milley, to understand how to prevent "an unhinged president" from using the secret nuclear launch codes to order a nuclear strike.

As Milley presumably told her, the US constitution gives the president the sole power to launch a nuclear weapon.

Congress cannot interfere, and the leaders of the Pentagon, the generals and civilians, are bound to transmit his order, whether they agree with it or not.

Everywhere he travels, the president is accompanied by an aide carrying the "nuclear football", a bag containing instructions, attack plans and codes for initiating a nuclear strike that only the president can use.&nbsp;

Given the need to consider the justification, what equipment to use and what targets are chosen, such a decision would normally be done in consultation with defense chiefs.

But once the president decides -- whether after much deliberation or in a fit of anger -- "neither the military nor Congress can overrule these orders," said a December report on nuclear command and control from the Congressional Research Service.

- Strike must be 'legal' -

The only restriction on the US leader in this case is the legality of the strike. The laws of war would allow a military official to refuse to execute an order to do something illegal.

"But questions about the legality of the order -- &nbsp;whether it is consistent with the requirements, under the laws of armed conflict for necessity, proportionality, and distinction -- are more likely to lead to consultations and changes in the president’s order than to a refusal by the military to execute the order," according to the Congressional Research Service report.

If the president does decide to order a strike, he would normally consult the military chiefs for his options.

In the "football", he would find options for the attack and communications equipment to formally order it.

He would make use of a card of codes unique to himself, called the "biscuit", to certify his identification as the commander-in-chief empowered to order a launch.

The launch order would then be transmitted to the US Strategic Command, where an officer would confirm it came from the president and execution would take place.

It could be as little as two minutes from order to the launch of a ground-based nuclear-tipped missile, or 15 minutes from a submarine.

"People in the chain of command might technically refuse to obey an order, but a verified order is presumed to be legal," said Derek Johnson of the anti-nuclear organization Global Zero.

"Pressure to obey would be massive."

In all of this, there are no exceptions in the system of nuclear command and control for a scenario in which the president is seen to be mentally unstable and ignores the advice of his generals.

In that case, the only option -- which Pelosi has called for in the case of Trump -- is to invoke the constitution's 25th amendment on removing a president from power.

Concerns on Friday over US President Donald Trump's mental state have drawn focus on his power to unleash a nuclear attack. Two days after Trump supporters, under his encouragement, stormed the US Capitol and shut down Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had contacted the Pentagon's top general, Mark Milley, to understand how to prevent "an unhinged president" from using the secret nuclear launch codes to order a nuclear strike.

Concerns on Friday over US President Donald Trump's mental state have drawn focus on his power to unleash a nuclear attack. Two days after Trump supporters, under his encouragement, stormed the US Capitol and shut down Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had contacted the Pentagon's top general, Mark Milley, to understand how to prevent "an unhinged president" from using the secret nuclear launch codes to order a nuclear strike. As Milley presumably told her, the US constitution gives the president the sole power to launch a nuclear weapon. Congress cannot interfere, and the leaders of the Pentagon, the generals and civilians, are bound to transmit his order, whether they agree with it or not. Everywhere he travels, the president is accompanied by an aide carrying the "nuclear football", a bag containing instructions, attack plans and codes for initiating a nuclear strike that only the president can use. Given the need to consider the justification, what equipment to use and what targets are chosen, such a decision would normally be done in consultation with defense chiefs. But once the president decides -- whether after much deliberation or in a fit of anger -- "neither the military nor Congress can overrule these orders," said a December report on nuclear command and control from the Congressional Research Service. - Strike must be 'legal' - The only restriction on the US leader in this case is the legality of the strike. The laws of war would allow a military official to refuse to execute an order to do something illegal. "But questions about the legality of the order -- whether it is consistent with the requirements, under the laws of armed conflict for necessity, proportionality, and distinction -- are more likely to lead to consultations and changes in the president’s order than to a refusal by the military to execute the order," according to the Congressional Research Service report. If the president does decide to order a strike, he would normally consult the military chiefs for his options. In the "football", he would find options for the attack and communications equipment to formally order it. He would make use of a card of codes unique to himself, called the "biscuit", to certify his identification as the commander-in-chief empowered to order a launch. The launch order would then be transmitted to the US Strategic Command, where an officer would confirm it came from the president and execution would take place. It could be as little as two minutes from order to the launch of a ground-based nuclear-tipped missile, or 15 minutes from a submarine. "People in the chain of command might technically refuse to obey an order, but a verified order is presumed to be legal," said Derek Johnson of the anti-nuclear organization Global Zero. "Pressure to obey would be massive." In all of this, there are no exceptions in the system of nuclear command and control for a scenario in which the president is seen to be mentally unstable and ignores the advice of his generals. In that case, the only option -- which Pelosi has called for in the case of Trump -- is to invoke the constitution's 25th amendment on removing a president from power.

In focus: US president has sole power to launch nuclear strike

An increasingly isolated President Donald Trump sought on Friday to stave off a new drive to impeach him, two days after his supporters stormed the US Capitol in an assault on American democracy.

Trump quite apparently exhorted thousands of supporters to march on the Capitol as Congress met to certify his defeat to Democrat Joe Biden, prompting chaos in which crowds breached the building, forced the evacuation of both chambers and left a police officer and four others dead in their wake.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday that if Trump did not resign, she had instructed the House Rules Committee to move ahead with a motion for impeachment and legislation on the US Constitution's 25th Amendment, which provides for removal of a president who is unable to discharge his official duties.

Democrats, who said a House vote on impeachment could come next week, hope the impeachment threat will intensify pressure on Pence and the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment before Trump's term ends in less than two weeks.

"Impeaching President Donald Trump with 12 days remaining in his presidency would only serve to further divide the country," said White House spokesman Judd Deere.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Thursday and Friday found 57 per cent of Americans want Trump to be removed immediately from office following the violence. Nearly 70 per cent also disapproved of Trump's actions in the run-up to the Capitol rampage.

Trump's role in encouraging Wednesday's chaos has opened a growing rift within the Republican Party too.

Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, a frequent Trump critic, told CBS News he would "definitely consider" impeachment because the president "disregarded his oath of office." 
'I WANT HIM OUT'

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski said Friday Trump should resign immediately and that if the party cannot separate itself from him, she is not certain she has a future with it. 
"I want him to resign. I want him out. He has caused enough damage," the Alaska Senator told the Anchorage Daily News.

It is unclear whether lawmakers would be able to remove Trump from office, as any impeachment would prompt a trial in the Senate, where his fellow Republicans still hold power and two-thirds of the 100 members must vote to convict for his removal.

Articles of impeachment, which are formal charges of misconduct, have been crafted by Democratic Representatives David Cicilline, Ted Lieu and Jamie Raskin.

A copy circulating among members of Congress charges Trump with "inciting violence against the government of the United States" in a bid to overturn his loss to Biden in the 2020 presidential election.

Pelosi said she had spoken with the nation's top general, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley, about preventing Trump from initiating military hostilities or launching a nuclear weapon.

Pelosi told members on a Democratic conference call that she had gotten assurances from Milley that there are safeguards in place.

"Sadly the person that's running executive branch is a deranged, unhinged, dangerous president of the United States," she said in an excerpt of an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes" programme.

(with inputs)

An increasingly isolated President Donald Trump sought on Friday to stave off a new drive to impeach him, two days after his supporters stormed the US Capitol in an assault on American democracy.

An increasingly isolated President Donald Trump sought on Friday to stave off a new drive to impeach him, two days after his supporters stormed the US Capitol in an assault on American democracy. Trump quite apparently exhorted thousands of supporters to march on the Capitol as Congress met to certify his defeat to Democrat Joe Biden, prompting chaos in which crowds breached the building, forced the evacuation of both chambers and left a police officer and four others dead in their wake. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday that if Trump did not resign, she had instructed the House Rules Committee to move ahead with a motion for impeachment and legislation on the US Constitution's 25th Amendment, which provides for removal of a president who is unable to discharge his official duties. Democrats, who said a House vote on impeachment could come next week, hope the impeachment threat will intensify pressure on Pence and the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment before Trump's term ends in less than two weeks. "Impeaching President Donald Trump with 12 days remaining in his presidency would only serve to further divide the country," said White House spokesman Judd Deere. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Thursday and Friday found 57 per cent of Americans want Trump to be removed immediately from office following the violence. Nearly 70 per cent also disapproved of Trump's actions in the run-up to the Capitol rampage. Trump's role in encouraging Wednesday's chaos has opened a growing rift within the Republican Party too. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, a frequent Trump critic, told CBS News he would "definitely consider" impeachment because the president "disregarded his oath of office." 'I WANT HIM OUT' Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski said Friday Trump should resign immediately and that if the party cannot separate itself from him, she is not certain she has a future with it. "I want him to resign. I want him out. He has caused enough damage," the Alaska Senator told the Anchorage Daily News. It is unclear whether lawmakers would be able to remove Trump from office, as any impeachment would prompt a trial in the Senate, where his fellow Republicans still hold power and two-thirds of the 100 members must vote to convict for his removal. Articles of impeachment, which are formal charges of misconduct, have been crafted by Democratic Representatives David Cicilline, Ted Lieu and Jamie Raskin. A copy circulating among members of Congress charges Trump with "inciting violence against the government of the United States" in a bid to overturn his loss to Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Pelosi said she had spoken with the nation's top general, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley, about preventing Trump from initiating military hostilities or launching a nuclear weapon. Pelosi told members on a Democratic conference call that she had gotten assurances from Milley that there are safeguards in place. "Sadly the person that's running executive branch is a deranged, unhinged, dangerous president of the United States," she said in an excerpt of an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes" programme. (with inputs)

US Speaker says House can move to impeach Trump if he doesn’t resign

Federal authorities in the United States of America found a pickup truck packed with 11 homemade bombs, an assault rifle, and a handgun just two blocks away from the Capitol building. CNN reported that the truck was parked there for hours before coming under the radar of the authorities. 
 
Recently, a group of protesters, who were&nbsp;allegedly Trump supporters attacked the Capitol which led to the deaths of five people, including a police officer.

Prosecutors claimed that another man had claimed to have shown up with an assault rifle with hundreds of rounds worth of ammunition. Additionally, he claimed that he wanted to shoot/run over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-congress-confirms-bidens-victory-after-harrowing-capitol-hill-assault-355514/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Federal documents that revealed the existence of the weapons were in regard to the charges against Lonnie Leroy Coffman of Alabama. The cache of weapons was found by a bomb squad as they tried to secure the building.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/majority-of-americans-want-immediate-removal-of-president-trump-poll-finds-355599" hreflang="en">Majority of Americans want immediate removal of President Trump, poll finds</a>

Hundreds of rioters, many of them donning Confederate flags pushed into the US Capitol. Soon after, House and Senate floors were evacuated by the police.

As rioters entered the Capitol, US President Donald Trump released a clip urging them to ''go home''. Even then, Trump continued to push his baseless claims of a stolen election. Owing to his tweets, Twitter had permanently disabled Trump's account, with Facebook also announcing an indefinite ban. 
 
According to the 70-year-old Coffman, he had filled mason jars with "melted Styrofoam and gasoline''. He told the police the same, who believe that if exploded it would have produced a reaction like Napalm, a controversial substance used in bombs which stick to the skin of those hit by it.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/theft-of-nancy-pelosis-laptop-in-capitol-riots-raises-security-concern-355602" hreflang="en">Theft of Nancy Pelosi's laptop in Capitol riots raises security concern</a>

13 charges were announced by the Department of Justice in relation to the riots that took place. These included a lawmaker from West Virginia, along with a man who had entered House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office and had also sat at her desk.

Many other individuals have been accused of taking ammunition to the Capitol building. As federal agencies undertake further investigation, more details are expected to pop up.

Federal authorities in the United States of America found a pickup truck packed with 11 homemade bombs, an assault rifle, and a handgun just two blocks away from the Capitol building.

Federal authorities in the United States of America found a pickup truck packed with 11 homemade bombs, an assault rifle, and a handgun just two blocks away from the Capitol building. CNN reported that the truck was parked there for hours before coming under the radar of the authorities. Recently, a group of protesters, who were allegedly Trump supporters attacked the Capitol which led to the deaths of five people, including a police officer. Prosecutors claimed that another man had claimed to have shown up with an assault rifle with hundreds of rounds worth of ammunition. Additionally, he claimed that he wanted to shoot/run over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Federal documents that revealed the existence of the weapons were in regard to the charges against Lonnie Leroy Coffman of Alabama. The cache of weapons was found by a bomb squad as they tried to secure the building. Also read: Majority of Americans want immediate removal of President Trump, poll finds Hundreds of rioters, many of them donning Confederate flags pushed into the US Capitol. Soon after, House and Senate floors were evacuated by the police. As rioters entered the Capitol, US President Donald Trump released a clip urging them to ''go home''. Even then, Trump continued to push his baseless claims of a stolen election. Owing to his tweets, Twitter had permanently disabled Trump's account, with Facebook also announcing an indefinite ban. According to the 70-year-old Coffman, he had filled mason jars with "melted Styrofoam and gasoline''. He told the police the same, who believe that if exploded it would have produced a reaction like Napalm, a controversial substance used in bombs which stick to the skin of those hit by it. Also read: Theft of Nancy Pelosi's laptop in Capitol riots raises security concern 13 charges were announced by the Department of Justice in relation to the riots that took place. These included a lawmaker from West Virginia, along with a man who had entered House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office and had also sat at her desk. Many other individuals have been accused of taking ammunition to the Capitol building. As federal agencies undertake further investigation, more details are expected to pop up.

Federal authorities found truck loaded with explosives near US Capitol: Report

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration politicized the intelligence around foreign election interference in 2020, resulting in significant errors in its reports last year to Congress and the public, a report by the intelligence community ombudsman concluded.

Barry A. Zulauf, the analytic ombudsman in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, found there was a “a loss of objectivity” and politicization of intelligence in the election threat reporting last year.

“Analysis on foreign election interference was delayed, distorted or obstructed out of concern over policymaker reactions or for political reasons,” said the report, which was submitted to Congress on Thursday.

The formal validation dovetails with widespread perceptions about the Trump administration’s handling of intelligence and underscores the challenge awaiting the Biden administration as it prepares to take over the nation’s spy agencies. The report will be sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Still, because it was completed under an intelligence director viewed skeptically by Democrats, it is unlikely to be seen as the final word on what happened.

The Senate committee plans to review the report and will work with the new administration “to stop any politicization of intelligence and rectify the failures of the Trump administration,” said Rachel Cohen, a spokeswoman for Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who is set to lead the panel after the inauguration.

Some of most damaging material in the report concerns a briefing to Congress in March, soon after Richard Grenell, then the ambassador to Germany, took over as the acting director of national intelligence.

The March talking points, an unclassified version of which was made public, stated that the Kremlin was not aiding “any candidate’s reelection” — a stance at odds with what intelligence officers had told Congress previously: that Russia favored President Donald Trump.

Zulauf said he was not able to determine who wrote the talking points for the briefing, but found they were “shaped by” Grenell and other officials in his office.

“Analysts point out that there were substantive differences between the talking points and what the IC actually thought,” the report said, referring to the intelligence community.

The reluctance of intelligence professionals to deliver the talking points “should have been a red flag,” Zulauf wrote, “but did not stop the statement from being issued.”

The report also said that Grenell held up a memo in May from the National Intelligence Council about election security threats. His office revised a draft that emphasized intelligence gaps over what was known about those threats. Zulauf’s report said the revised version “buried the lead.”

Zulauf said he did not interview Grenell because he was no longer under his purview as ombudsman. Asked for a response, Grenell criticized the ombudsman for not talking to him.

“I never once made an edit to intelligence,” he said. “Any criticism of intel sharing or working during my tenure is a criticism of the amazing career officials in charge of the process.”

The intelligence ombudsman, established as part of a post-Sept. 11 overhaul, is charged with identifying lapses in tradecraft and practices. Unlike an inspector general, ombudsmen do not look for waste, fraud or abuse.

Zulauf also examined how the intelligence agencies analyzed Russia’s and China’s intentions and activities in relation to the 2020 election for an assessment in August of foreign election interference. (The August assessment also raised a warning about Iran, but his letter did not mention that category of intelligence.)

Analysts believed that the final published version of the August assessment — after interventions by John Ratcliffe, the current director of national intelligence, to add the warning about China — was an “outrageous misrepresentation of their analysis,” he reported.

They believed that during a drawn-out review process, senior leaders had “watered down” their conclusions about Russia to make it sound “not too controversial” while diverting attention to China by bolstering the perception of its threat.

Still, some intelligence officials noted on Friday that the August statement — issued in the name of William R. Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center — accurately treated the two countries differently. It said Russia was taking steps to hurt the candidacy of Joe Biden; while it also said China hoped Biden would win, it did not claim that China had similarly taken any steps to intervene.

In his own letter to Zulauf, Evanina asserted that he “accurately conveyed what I believed to be” the intelligence community’s thinking, adding: “I have never politicized intelligence during my career and any suggestion I would is a personal affront to me.”

In another letter, Ratcliffe defended his interventions, and argued that the intelligence assessment about China’s election influence efforts fell “short of the mark.”

Even as Zulauf reported that Russia analysts were upset that the agencies’ political leaders seemed to be delaying and suppressing their conclusions, he also suggested that there was politicization of intelligence not just from above but also “from below.”

China analysts, he wrote, “appeared hesitant to assess Chinese actions as undue influence or interference.”

“These analysts appeared reluctant to have their analysis on China brought forward because they tended to disagree with the administration’s policies, saying in effect, ‘I don’t want our intelligence used to support those policies,’” he continued.

But Zulauf did not cite any evidence to support the striking notion that analysts underplayed China threat analysis for political reasons, and he later wrote that the differences between the two “were not intentional, but a result of different collection and analysis rhythms and interpretations by analysts that do not cross-pollinate between regional issues.”

Some of the findings of the ombudsman, focused on allegations that intelligence about China was not properly examined, were earlier reported by The Washington Examiner.

The ombudsman’s inquiry appeared to be narrowly focused on the handling of information and analysis about Russian and Chinese actions related to the 2020 election, and the letter did not address other instances in which the Trump administration has drawn accusations of politicizing intelligence.

It does not address, for example, a memo produced by Ratcliffe’s office over the summer, days after The New York Times reported that the CIA had assessed that Russia covertly offered reward payments to an Afghan criminal-militant network to incentivize more frequent attacks on American troops but that the White House had not acted on that analysis.

The new memo — a so-called sense of the community memorandum produced by the National Intelligence Council, which reports to Ratcliffe — contained no new information. Instead it reanalyzed the same data the CIA had already examined and instead emphasized uncertainties and gaps in the available evidence, according to officials familiar with it, bolstering the administration’s attempts to justify its inaction on the months-old assessment.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration politicized the intelligence around foreign election interference in 2020, resulting in significant errors in its reports last year to Congress and the public, a report by the intelligence community ombudsman concluded.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration politicized the intelligence around foreign election interference in 2020, resulting in significant errors in its reports last year to Congress and the public, a report by the intelligence community ombudsman concluded. Barry A. Zulauf, the analytic ombudsman in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, found there was a “a loss of objectivity” and politicization of intelligence in the election threat reporting last year. “Analysis on foreign election interference was delayed, distorted or obstructed out of concern over policymaker reactions or for political reasons,” said the report, which was submitted to Congress on Thursday. The formal validation dovetails with widespread perceptions about the Trump administration’s handling of intelligence and underscores the challenge awaiting the Biden administration as it prepares to take over the nation’s spy agencies. The report will be sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Still, because it was completed under an intelligence director viewed skeptically by Democrats, it is unlikely to be seen as the final word on what happened. The Senate committee plans to review the report and will work with the new administration “to stop any politicization of intelligence and rectify the failures of the Trump administration,” said Rachel Cohen, a spokeswoman for Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who is set to lead the panel after the inauguration. Some of most damaging material in the report concerns a briefing to Congress in March, soon after Richard Grenell, then the ambassador to Germany, took over as the acting director of national intelligence. The March talking points, an unclassified version of which was made public, stated that the Kremlin was not aiding “any candidate’s reelection” — a stance at odds with what intelligence officers had told Congress previously: that Russia favored President Donald Trump. Zulauf said he was not able to determine who wrote the talking points for the briefing, but found they were “shaped by” Grenell and other officials in his office. “Analysts point out that there were substantive differences between the talking points and what the IC actually thought,” the report said, referring to the intelligence community. The reluctance of intelligence professionals to deliver the talking points “should have been a red flag,” Zulauf wrote, “but did not stop the statement from being issued.” The report also said that Grenell held up a memo in May from the National Intelligence Council about election security threats. His office revised a draft that emphasized intelligence gaps over what was known about those threats. Zulauf’s report said the revised version “buried the lead.” Zulauf said he did not interview Grenell because he was no longer under his purview as ombudsman. Asked for a response, Grenell criticized the ombudsman for not talking to him. “I never once made an edit to intelligence,” he said. “Any criticism of intel sharing or working during my tenure is a criticism of the amazing career officials in charge of the process.” The intelligence ombudsman, established as part of a post-Sept. 11 overhaul, is charged with identifying lapses in tradecraft and practices. Unlike an inspector general, ombudsmen do not look for waste, fraud or abuse. Zulauf also examined how the intelligence agencies analyzed Russia’s and China’s intentions and activities in relation to the 2020 election for an assessment in August of foreign election interference. (The August assessment also raised a warning about Iran, but his letter did not mention that category of intelligence.) Analysts believed that the final published version of the August assessment — after interventions by John Ratcliffe, the current director of national intelligence, to add the warning about China — was an “outrageous misrepresentation of their analysis,” he reported. They believed that during a drawn-out review process, senior leaders had “watered down” their conclusions about Russia to make it sound “not too controversial” while diverting attention to China by bolstering the perception of its threat. Still, some intelligence officials noted on Friday that the August statement — issued in the name of William R. Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center — accurately treated the two countries differently. It said Russia was taking steps to hurt the candidacy of Joe Biden; while it also said China hoped Biden would win, it did not claim that China had similarly taken any steps to intervene. In his own letter to Zulauf, Evanina asserted that he “accurately conveyed what I believed to be” the intelligence community’s thinking, adding: “I have never politicized intelligence during my career and any suggestion I would is a personal affront to me.” In another letter, Ratcliffe defended his interventions, and argued that the intelligence assessment about China’s election influence efforts fell “short of the mark.” Even as Zulauf reported that Russia analysts were upset that the agencies’ political leaders seemed to be delaying and suppressing their conclusions, he also suggested that there was politicization of intelligence not just from above but also “from below.” China analysts, he wrote, “appeared hesitant to assess Chinese actions as undue influence or interference.” “These analysts appeared reluctant to have their analysis on China brought forward because they tended to disagree with the administration’s policies, saying in effect, ‘I don’t want our intelligence used to support those policies,’” he continued. But Zulauf did not cite any evidence to support the striking notion that analysts underplayed China threat analysis for political reasons, and he later wrote that the differences between the two “were not intentional, but a result of different collection and analysis rhythms and interpretations by analysts that do not cross-pollinate between regional issues.” Some of the findings of the ombudsman, focused on allegations that intelligence about China was not properly examined, were earlier reported by The Washington Examiner. The ombudsman’s inquiry appeared to be narrowly focused on the handling of information and analysis about Russian and Chinese actions related to the 2020 election, and the letter did not address other instances in which the Trump administration has drawn accusations of politicizing intelligence. It does not address, for example, a memo produced by Ratcliffe’s office over the summer, days after The New York Times reported that the CIA had assessed that Russia covertly offered reward payments to an Afghan criminal-militant network to incentivize more frequent attacks on American troops but that the White House had not acted on that analysis. The new memo — a so-called sense of the community memorandum produced by the National Intelligence Council, which reports to Ratcliffe — contained no new information. Instead it reanalyzed the same data the CIA had already examined and instead emphasized uncertainties and gaps in the available evidence, according to officials familiar with it, bolstering the administration’s attempts to justify its inaction on the months-old assessment.

Trump administration politicized some intelligence on foreign election influence, report finds

On Friday, Twitter permanently suspended President Donald Trump’s account. According to the company, one of the tweets that sealed the deal was “President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the inauguration” and its implication that the results of the 2020 election were not legitimate. After years of using the platform to spread lies and conspiracies, after countless tweets amplifying white supremacists and QAnon believers, and after attempting to provoke both North Korea and Iran, the justification feels a bit like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. And yet the damage is irrefutable.

Reflexively, it feels a bit odd to care so much about a 74-year-old man losing access to the app he uses to complain about cable news. But the Trump presidency, and indeed almost all of his political career, is inextricable from the platform. He tweeted and tweeted, and the rest of us rejoiced or grimaced in equal measure. Either way, his tweets made news. His account, for better or worse (spoiler: worse), acted as the national media’s assignment editor for a half decade. And here we are.

Now it’s gone.

The obvious question now is: What does this mean for Trump’s future? Can a disgraced president addicted to outrage and innately governed by the same forces as the attention economy survive without his primary outlet?

I think it all depends on whether Trump is, himself, a platform as formidable as some of the platforms he uses. I’ve spent the last four years thinking about this guy — almost subconsciously — as the ultimate social media influencer. But, occasionally, I wonder if maybe I’ve had it backward. Yes, Trump is at times the influencer. But does he also behave like the platform?

To think of Trump as an influencer is to suggest that his message can be contained. That his ideas live and die with him and his ability to broadcast them. To suggest that Trumpism is something bigger — that it is a platform itself — is to argue that Trump and his followers have constructed a powerful, parallel information ecosystem that is as strong and powerful (one could argue even more powerful) than any system built to oppose it. But anyone plugged into the pro-Trump universe realizes that Trumpism is bigger than the figurehead.

So which is Trump: the influencer or the platform?

Like a good platform, Trump has found a way to bring communities with relevant interests together while not thinking too much about the long-term costs.

Like all platforms, Trump is a natural engine of radicalization — for those who support him and those who oppose him. Consuming more of him leads only to a hardening of one’s ideology. Each rally and every successive tweet is more extreme than the last, propelling most of Trump’s followers deeper down the rabbit hole and intensifying their enthusiasm or disgust for the president. For this reason, like any good platform, Trump is a time suck. Evenings, weekends, holidays, you name it — are all derailed by his demand for your time and attention. Both are the ultimate currency to the Trump platform, allowing him to remain the central figure in American life.

And then there’s our relationship to the Trump platform, which should feel familiar to tech observers. It arrives unexpectedly and is nothing quite like what came before it. The shiny object becomes a media darling. Since it’s a novel experience, the new platform is not taken seriously as a world-changing force. The new platform announces itself with a catchy motto explicitly stating its intentions: “Make the world more open and connected,” as Facebook declared in its early days; “Make America Great Again,” as the president declares today. But still we avoid asking the hard question: What would happen if the nascent platform achieves those goals? We don’t think too hard about any of it. Even those who don’t like it partake in the platform, feeding it our attention. What’s the harm? After all, it’s free.

In time, we learn that’s not the case. The platform, we find, demands a great deal. Slowly and sneakily it takes and takes little pieces of us. Our data, our attention. It’s not until it’s too late that we learn the platform isn’t free — it only appears so. We learn, to our dismay, that in fact we’ve paid a great price.

Traditionally, a platform is a software framework for others to build on top of. In the case of the social media platforms, their fundamental role is to amass a base of users, connect them and provide people with ways to reach those audiences at scale. Influencers and creators provide the content but live at the whims of the platforms and their rules. They rely on the platforms for audience, and even a subtle tweak of an algorithm can mean fading to obscurity.

It is a precarious existence. When you serve at the pleasure of the platforms, you can be de-platformed. We’re about to see if Trump can truly be de-platformed.

On Friday, Twitter permanently suspended President Donald Trump’s account. According to the company, one of the tweets that sealed the deal was “President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the inauguration” and its implication that the results of the 2020 election were not legitimate.

On Friday, Twitter permanently suspended President Donald Trump’s account. According to the company, one of the tweets that sealed the deal was “President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the inauguration” and its implication that the results of the 2020 election were not legitimate. After years of using the platform to spread lies and conspiracies, after countless tweets amplifying white supremacists and QAnon believers, and after attempting to provoke both North Korea and Iran, the justification feels a bit like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. And yet the damage is irrefutable. Reflexively, it feels a bit odd to care so much about a 74-year-old man losing access to the app he uses to complain about cable news. But the Trump presidency, and indeed almost all of his political career, is inextricable from the platform. He tweeted and tweeted, and the rest of us rejoiced or grimaced in equal measure. Either way, his tweets made news. His account, for better or worse (spoiler: worse), acted as the national media’s assignment editor for a half decade. And here we are. Now it’s gone. The obvious question now is: What does this mean for Trump’s future? Can a disgraced president addicted to outrage and innately governed by the same forces as the attention economy survive without his primary outlet? I think it all depends on whether Trump is, himself, a platform as formidable as some of the platforms he uses. I’ve spent the last four years thinking about this guy — almost subconsciously — as the ultimate social media influencer. But, occasionally, I wonder if maybe I’ve had it backward. Yes, Trump is at times the influencer. But does he also behave like the platform? To think of Trump as an influencer is to suggest that his message can be contained. That his ideas live and die with him and his ability to broadcast them. To suggest that Trumpism is something bigger — that it is a platform itself — is to argue that Trump and his followers have constructed a powerful, parallel information ecosystem that is as strong and powerful (one could argue even more powerful) than any system built to oppose it. But anyone plugged into the pro-Trump universe realizes that Trumpism is bigger than the figurehead. So which is Trump: the influencer or the platform? Like a good platform, Trump has found a way to bring communities with relevant interests together while not thinking too much about the long-term costs. Like all platforms, Trump is a natural engine of radicalization — for those who support him and those who oppose him. Consuming more of him leads only to a hardening of one’s ideology. Each rally and every successive tweet is more extreme than the last, propelling most of Trump’s followers deeper down the rabbit hole and intensifying their enthusiasm or disgust for the president. For this reason, like any good platform, Trump is a time suck. Evenings, weekends, holidays, you name it — are all derailed by his demand for your time and attention. Both are the ultimate currency to the Trump platform, allowing him to remain the central figure in American life. And then there’s our relationship to the Trump platform, which should feel familiar to tech observers. It arrives unexpectedly and is nothing quite like what came before it. The shiny object becomes a media darling. Since it’s a novel experience, the new platform is not taken seriously as a world-changing force. The new platform announces itself with a catchy motto explicitly stating its intentions: “Make the world more open and connected,” as Facebook declared in its early days; “Make America Great Again,” as the president declares today. But still we avoid asking the hard question: What would happen if the nascent platform achieves those goals? We don’t think too hard about any of it. Even those who don’t like it partake in the platform, feeding it our attention. What’s the harm? After all, it’s free. In time, we learn that’s not the case. The platform, we find, demands a great deal. Slowly and sneakily it takes and takes little pieces of us. Our data, our attention. It’s not until it’s too late that we learn the platform isn’t free — it only appears so. We learn, to our dismay, that in fact we’ve paid a great price. Traditionally, a platform is a software framework for others to build on top of. In the case of the social media platforms, their fundamental role is to amass a base of users, connect them and provide people with ways to reach those audiences at scale. Influencers and creators provide the content but live at the whims of the platforms and their rules. They rely on the platforms for audience, and even a subtle tweak of an algorithm can mean fading to obscurity. It is a precarious existence. When you serve at the pleasure of the platforms, you can be de-platformed. We’re about to see if Trump can truly be de-platformed.

Can Donald Trump survive without Twitter?

us-election-2020

Us Election 2020, News on Us Election 2020, stories on Us Election 2020, articles on Us Election 2020, Us Election 2020 stories at Wion, Us Election 2020 news, Us Election 2020 latest news

us election-2020

Donald Trump to issue 100 presidential pardons on last day: Reports

Questions about Trump’s fate, new dynamics in Washington remain as inauguration week begins

Joe Biden set to talk about unity in his inaugural speech, amid backdrop of riots

Kamala Harris' husband appears as '@SecondGentleman' on Twitter before Inauguration

Biden to sign executive orders on Day 1, security beefed up across Washington

Kamala Harris set to resign from Senate on Monday: Aides

A first for an American president, and a first for Donald Trump

A man with a gun arrested by Capitol Police calls it an ‘honest mistake’

A farewell to the Trump aesthetic

Morning news brief: US scrambles for a new president, India for Covid vaccine

Biden elevates role of science, names geneticist Lander for new Cabinet-level post

Trump to leave Washington on morning of Biden’s inauguration

Atlanta prosecutor appears to move closer to Trump inquiry

Atlanta prosecutor appears to move closer to Trump inquiry

Watch: Manatee carved with 'Trump' on its back found in Florida days after Capitol riots

Days after Capitol riots, Donald Trump and Mike Pence meet in Oval Office: Sources

U.S. Capitol Siege: Mob included far-right extremist groups convicted criminals

Trump may turn to Rudy Giuliani again to defend him in case he is impeached

The myth of American innocence

How Parler, a chosen app of Trump fans, became a test of free speech

Vice-President Mike Pence may attend Biden's inauguration on January 20

Video shows officer crushed against door by mob storming US Capitol

Explainer: What crimes can the US Capitol rioters be charged with?

More US Capitol rioters in viral posts arrested