US Politics

Donald Trump is facing a historic second impeachment after Democrats in the House of Representatives formally charged him with one count of “incitement of insurrection” over the Capitol Hill riot.
Five people died in the attack last week, including a police officer, which Trump prompted when he told supporters to “fight like hell” in his attempt to overturn election defeat by Joe Biden. Emerging video footage has revealed just how close the mob came to a potentially deadly confrontation with members of Congress.
On Monday, security officials scrambled to ensure that Biden’s inauguration next week would not be marred by further violence.
The US Secret Service will begin carrying out its special security arrangements for the inauguration this Wednesday, almost a week earlier than originally planned.
And ABC News said it had obtained an internal FBI bulletin which detailed plans for “armed protests” and calls for the “storming” of state, local and federal courthouses and buildings across the country if Trump was removed from power before then.
On Capitol Hill, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who in an interview on Sunday called Trump “a deranged, unhinged, dangerous president”, initiated a plan in two parts.
“The president’s threat to America is urgent, and so too will be our action,” she said.
An initial resolution called on Mike Pence, the vice-president, to support removing Trump under the 25th amendment.
A clause in the amendment, never before invoked, describes how members of the cabinet can agree to remove a president under extreme circumstances. Pence, a staunch loyalist until the climax of Trump’s effort to overturn the election, has signaled no intention of joining such a move.
Republicans in the House duly blocked the Democratic resolution.
But it was followed by the introduction of an impeachment article citing “incitement of insurrection”. Trump was charged to have “engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the government of the United States” and thus having violated his oath of office.
The article cites 14th amendment prohibitions against any person “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the US from “hold[ing] any office … under the United States”.
The House could bring the single article to the floor for a vote by midweek. The Democratic congressman David Cicilline of Rhode Island, who introduced the measure, tweeted that Democrats now have sufficient votes to pass it and impeach Trump a second time – a first in American history. But for him to be removed would require conviction in the Senate.
The Senate is in recess until after the inauguration, and Democratic leaders have said they will not take up impeachment until after the Biden administration has had time to try to have nominees confirmed and to pass key legislation in its first 100 days.
A small number of Republicans in the Senate and House have joined Democrats’ effort to remove Trump.
Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee and a key figure in the first Trump impeachment, tweeted: “Every day Trump stays in office, he’s a threat to our democracy. Congress must act, and with urgency.”
But conviction in the Senate would be a long shot, as it was last time the president was impeached. Some Republicans have indicated support this time but about a dozen more will be needed for success.
Trump was charged with two articles of impeachment in December 2019 and acquitted in February 2020.
If Trump were convicted after he had left office, the Senate could decide to punish him by barring him from seeking office again, as opponents fear is his plan in 2024.
Since the attack on the US Capitol, the president has retreated from the public eye and been banned from Facebook and Twitter, condemned by former allies and vowed not to attend Biden’s inauguration on 20 January.
His silence was filled by full-throated calls from Democrats for his ejection from office – and meek pushback from some Republicans calling for national “unity” after their attempt to overturn the November election produced one of the most egregious acts of violence on Capitol Hill in two centuries.
There are now signs that diehard Trump loyalists are planning to march on the Capitol yet again, on inauguration day, in an event branded online as “A Million Militia March”.
The FBI has arrested dozens of participants in last week’s rioting and continued to circulate wanted posters of suspects, potentially dampening participation in another rally.
But with nine days to go to the inauguration, officials were planning to secure the area. The mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, asked the Department of Homeland Security to put new restrictions in place and urged people to avoid the city on 20 January.
The Pentagon, FBI, Secret Service and other agencies were reportedly placed on alert and the national guard said it would increase troops in Washington to at least 10,000 by Saturday. The National Park Service temporarily closed the Washington Monument “in response to credible threats to visitors and park resources”.
The inauguration will be attended by Barack and Michelle Obama, George and Laura Bush and Bill and Hillary Clinton. Biden, the incoming Vice-President, Kamala Harris, and their families will be joined by the former presidents and their families in a visit to Arlington national cemetery, ABC reported.
Such plans were made as the nation struggled to come to terms with the violence last week in which five died and dozens were injured.
On Monday, the 75-year-old New Jersey Democratic congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman said she had tested positive for coronavirus and believed she had become infected while locked down for hours at the Capitol during the riot last week with colleagues who were not wearing face masks.
Coleman is awaiting a more comprehensive Covid test, noting that she had already received the first shot of the two-dose vaccine. More

The defining image of the storming of the US Capitol on January 6 was undoubtedly that of a bare-chested man posing resplendent in a horned fur hat and face paint. Images of him in his weird costume have been shared across the globe – he seems to perfectly encapsulate the absurdity of the mob takeover of America’s sacred seat of power.
The individual in question has since been identified in the media as a far-right activist from Arizona by the name of Jacob Chansley (also known as Jake Angeli). He was quickly alleged to be an adherent of the QAnon conspiracy theory – though not before fake rumours spread that he was actually an antifa “plant”.
One thing that should make it very clear where Angeli’s politics lie are his tattoos. On his torso he has a large Thor’s hammer, known as Mjölnir, and what appears to be an image of the Norse world tree, Yggdrasill.
The ‘Mjölnir’: a hammer wielded by Thor, the Norse god of thunder. Carsten Musch via Shutterstock
Mjölnir is one symbol we can be pretty sure was used by the original adherents of the Norse belief system, perhaps to summon the protection of the god Thor. Yggdrasill is the giant ash tree that supports the Norse cosmos, its branches reaching into sky realms inaccessible to humans, and its roots to the subterranean realm of the dead. Unlike Thor’s hammer, it was only rarely depicted by the Vikings, and representations such as the one below are modern interpretations.

The ‘Yggdrasil’ or Tree of Life, from Norse mythology has been co-opted by some far-right groups. Marco Klaue via Shutterstock.
Above these tattoos with a central place in Norse mythology is one that is more contentious. It depicts a valknut – an image that appears on two Viking-Age stones from Sweden carved with scenes from Norse mythology, including the Stora Hammars I stone on the island of Gotland.
The symbol’s original meaning is unclear, but it appears in close proximity to the father of the gods, Odin, on the stones. As Odin is closely connected with the gathering of fallen warriors to Valhalla, the valknut may be a symbol of death in battle.
The Norse ‘Valknut’ symbol is usually linked to the god Odin and may refer to the glory of death in battle. Anne Mathiasz via Shutterstock
Snorri Sturluson, a medieval Icelandic collector of myths, tells us in his “Language of Poetry” that a famous giant called Hrungnir had a stone heart “pointed with three corners”, and so the valknut is sometimes also called “Hrungnir’s Heart”. Whatever its original meaning, it has been used in more recent times by various neo-pagan groups – and increasingly by some white supremacists as a coded message of their belief in violent struggle.
Borrowed symbols
Angeli claims that he wears his bizarre costume to draw attention to himself – but there’s surely another reason for the bare chest and precariously low-slung pants. He is displaying these tattoos to full effect, and wants them to be seen.
Many people have similar tattoos which express their neo-pagan belief, Scandinavian heritage, or interest in the myths. But there is no doubt that these symbols have also been co-opted by a growing far-right movement. A hint at where Angeli lies on this continuum is in a tattoo that is less visible on his left shoulder, but which several academics including archaeologist Kevin Philbrook Smith have pointed out seems to be a version of the Sonnenrad, or sun-wheel.
The Norse ‘Sonnenrad’ or sun-wheel, widely co-opted by far-right groups. robin.ph via Shutterstock
This is a symbol listed by the Anti-Defamation League as “one of a number of ancient European symbols appropriated by the Nazis in their attempt to invent an idealised Aryan or Norse heritage”. Often it contains a swastika or other hate symbol – but worn with nothing inside, it is very easy for other white supremacists to fill in the blank.
Dog whistles
There is, of course, a long history of the co-opting of Norse imagery by the far right. Beloved of Himmler, the runic script inspired the insignia of the SS, while the swastika is another of those “ancient European symbols” that features in various forms on picture stones and runic inscriptions.
This misappropriation continued after the fall of the Third Reich, though in a more muted form. Neo-Nazis – at least those not brazen enough to wear a swastika – tend to opt for less recognisable symbols. These include numbers representing “Heil Hitler” (88 – H is the eighth letter of the alphabet) or “Aryan Brotherhood” (12 – letters one and two). Far-right adherents also favour other characters from the Germanic runic writing system which communicate similar messages.
Othala: an Old Scandinavian runic symbol referring to ‘inherited land’ that is often used by far-right groups. Nattasid Thapsang via Shutterstock
One of these is the Othala runic letter – its name means “inherited land”, and so it frequently appears in the emblems of white nationalist groups from Ukraine to the US.
These “coded” symbols, and others newly borrowed from Norse myth, are even harder to spot and condemn. Sky recently cancelled a reality TV show after viewers complained one contestant was covered in tattoos – including on his face – that could be seen as having far-right connotations. But if certain symbols are hard for the general public to spot, they are certainly dog whistles to members of an increasingly global white supremacist movement who know exactly what they mean.

Many scholars argue that the best way to counter far-right misuse is to drown it out with positive and accurate representations of Norse myth – the position I took in my recent retelling. But in the wake of the mass shooting in Norway in 2011 by Anders Breivik, who named his guns after weapons of the Norse gods, as well as the 2019 Christchurch mass shooter Brenton Tarrant, with his allusions to Valhalla, and of this latest poster-boy of far-right insurrection, we have to think very hard about whether this is the right approach to counter a truly global extremist movement. At the very least, academics – and anyone else with a genuine interest in Norse mythology – need to be far more involved in countering these abuses of our subject on the ground.
Otherwise, we run the risk of ceding the field to those who see the vague concept of “Norse heritage” as a way to further unite an international fraternity of violent white supremacists. More

Michigan banned the open carry of guns inside its Capitol building on Monday, following mob violence last week at the US Capitol and last year’s storming of the Michigan statehouse.The Michigan ban came as reports detailed FBI warnings about possible violence at state capitols and in Washington in the run-up to the 20 January inauguration of Joe Biden.An FBI report on 29 December, quoted by Yahoo News, warned that “some [Trump] followers indicated willingness to commit violence in support of their ideology, created contingency plans in the event violence occurred at the events, and identified law enforcement security measures and possible countermeasures”.In Washington last Wednesday, a US Capitol police officer and four others were killed in an attack by Trump supporters. Political fallout from that event continues in parallel with a federal effort to arrest participants in the insurrection.Donald Trump has said he will leave power but has not dropped his baseless claim that his election defeat was caused by voter fraud.Security officials are preparing for a large crowd in Washington for the inauguration, and state officials are preparing for protests.On Monday, ABC News reported a similar FBI bulletin warning of armed protests “at all 50 state capitols” and in Washington, but neither the date of that bulletin nor the evidentiary basis for its advice was given.ABC reported that the FBI was monitoring plans for armed protests against Trump’s election defeat between Saturday and 20 January. The outlet said it had obtained an internal bulletin that detailed calls for the “storming” of state, local and federal courthouses and buildings, if Trump is removed from power before inauguration day.House Democrats formally introduced an article of impeachment on Monday, charging Trump with inciting an insurrection in regard to the riot at the US Capitol, which has led to multiple arrests.Democrats also called on Vice-President Mike Pence to implement the 25th amendment to the constitution and remove Trump from power. That effort seems unlikely to succeed. Any impeachment trial in the Senate is not likely to be held until after Trump has left office.Nonetheless, the ABC reporter Aaron Katersky said the FBI had “received information about an identified armed group intending to travel to Washington DC on 16 January [Saturday]. They have warned that if Congress attempts to remove [Trump] via the 25th amendment a huge uprising will occur.”Security around the Capitol has been stepped up.Armed men stormed the Michigan capitol in April, protesting social restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of Covid-19. It later emerged that a group had plotted to kidnap and perhaps kill the governor, the Democrat Gretchen Whitmer. More

As rioters were gathering around the US Capitol last Wednesday, a familiar question began to echo around the offices of the large social networks: what should they do about Donald Trump and his provocative posts?The answer has been emphatic: ban him.First he was suspended from Twitter, then from Facebook. Snapchat, Spotify, Twitch, Shopify, and Stripe have all followed suit, while Reddit, TikTok, YouTube and even Pinterest announced new restrictions on posting in support of the president or his actions. Parler, a social media platform that sells itself on a lack of moderation, was removed from app stores and refused service by Amazon.The action has sparked a huge debate about free speech and whether big technology companies – or, to be more precise, their billionaire chief executives – are fit to act as judge and jury in high-profile cases.So what are the arguments on both sides – and who is making them?FORFor many, such social media bans were the right thing to do – if too late. After all, the incitement has already occurred and the Capitol has already been stormed.“While I’m pleased to see social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube take long-belated steps to address the president’s sustained misuse of their platforms to sow discord and violence, these isolated actions are both too late and not nearly enough,” said Mark Warner, a Democratic senator from Virginia. “Disinformation and extremism researchers have for years pointed to broader network-based exploitation of these platforms.”Greg Bensinger, a member of the editorial board of the New York Times, said what happened on 6 January “ought to be social media’s day of reckoning”.He added: “There is a greater calling than profits, and Mr Zuckerberg and Twitter’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, must play a fundamental role in restoring truth and decency to our democracy and democracies around the world.“That can involve more direct, human moderation of high-profile accounts; more prominent warning labels; software that can delay posts so that they can be reviewed before going out to the masses, especially during moments of high tension; and a far greater willingness to suspend or even completely block dangerous accounts like Mr Trump’s.”Even observers who had previously argued against taking action had changed their mind by the weekend. “Turn off Trump’s account,” wrote tech analyst Ben Thompson.“My preferred outcome to yesterday’s events is impeachment. Encouraging violence to undo an election result that one disagrees with is sedition, surely a high crime or misdemeanor, and I hold out hope that Congress will act over the next few days, as unlikely as that seems … Sometimes, though, the right level doesn’t work, yet the right thing needs to be done.” Free speech activist Jillian C York agreed that action had to be taken, but, she said on Monday: “I’m cautious about praising any of these companies, to be honest. I think that in particular Facebook deserves very little praise. They waited until the last moment to do anything, despite months of calls.“When it comes to Twitter, I think we can be a little bit more forgiving. They tried for many, many months to take cautious decisions. Yes, this is a sitting president; taking them down is a problem. And it is problematic, even if there is a line at which it becomes the right choice.” Some have wondered whether the platforms’ convenient decision to grow a backbone has less to do with the violence of the day and more with political manoeuvring.“It took blood & glass in the halls of Congress – and a change in the political winds – for the most powerful tech companies to recognise, at the last possible moment, the threat of Trump,” tweeted Senator Richard Blumenthal, from Connecticut.AGAINSTPredictably, opposition to Trump’s ban came from his own family. “Free speech is dead and controlled by leftist overlords,” tweeted his son Donald Jr. “The ayatollah and numerous other dictatorial regimes can have Twitter accounts with no issue despite threatening genocide to entire countries and killing homosexuals etc… but The President of the United States should be permanently suspended. Mao would be proud.”But the ban, and the precedent that it could set, has worried some analysts and media experts.“Banning a sitting president from social media platforms is, whichever way you look at it, an assault on free speech,” the Sunday Times wrote in an editorial. “The fact that the ban was called for by, among others, Michelle Obama, who said on Thursday that the Silicon Valley platforms should stop enabling him because of his ‘monstrous behaviour’, will add to the suspicion that the ban was politically motivated.”On Monday, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel – hardly known for her affection for the US president – made it clear that she thought it was “problematic” that Trump had been blocked. Her spokesperson, Steffen Seibert, called freedom of speech “a fundamental right of elementary significance”.She said any restriction should be “according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators – not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms”.The ban has also worried those who are already concerned about the strength of Silicon Valley.“The institutions of American democracy have consistently failed to hold President Trump’s unrestrained authoritarianism, hate and racism accountable,” says Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, “but this corporate power grab does nothing to benefit American democracy in practice or in principle.”“American democracy is in peril if it relies on a corporate denial of service to protect the nation from its own president, rather than rely on accountable institutions of justice and democracy,” Carlo added.For York, such concerns are valid, but risk an over-emphasis on US politics and concerns. “The majority of the public doesn’t care about these issues on a day-to-day basis,” she says, citing world leaders such as Jair Bolsonaro and Narendra Modi as others who have engaged in hate speech and incitement on Twitter.“It’s only when it hits Trump, and that’s the problem. Because we should be thinking about this as a society day to day.” More

When Theresa May appeared in US Vogue in 2017, even her deliberately anodyne choice of a posh-end-of-the-high-street dress by British label LK Bennett did not prevent this newspaper calling the Annie Leibovitz shoot a “defining moment” which, “like Margaret Thatcher in the tank turret looking like a cross between Boudicca and Lawrence of Arabia … might easily become a signifier of all that is flawed in her prime ministerial style”. Michelle Obama’s bare upper arms appeared no fewer than three times on the cover of Vogue during her White House years, causing pearl-clutching uproar at the sight of her toned triceps.A political Vogue appearance is such a white-hot issue that it causes controversy even when it doesn’t happen. Donald Trump recently weighed in to complain about “elitist” Vogue having snubbed Melania, notable by her absence from the magazine over the past four years. Vice-president-elect Kamala Harris’s Vogue debut, in the February issue of the magazine’s US edition, is the latest in a long line of political covers to have caused a media storm. Sunday’s release on social media of the rather different newsstand and digital covers quickly fuelled a wave of criticism. Had Harris’s skin tone been “washed-out” by thoughtless or even culturally insensitive lighting? Was it disrespectful, on the newsstand cover, to present Harris wearing her battered Converse trainers, rather than giving her a stately makeover? Was Harris’s team led to believe that the more formal portrait in Michael Kors tailoring, apparently destined for digital editions, would appear on newsstands, too?Vogue has sprung to the defence of images that show Harris at “her casual best” in “styling choices that were her own”. Tyler Mitchell, who in 2018 became the first African American photographer to shoot a US Vogue cover, explains in an accompanying online article that a much-maligned pink-and-green backdrop was chosen to honour Harris’s sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, of which Mitchell’s aunt was also a member. Mitchell, who “grew up from a young age deeply understanding the rich history of these sororities and their significance … wanted the set design to pay homage to that history, to [Harris’] status as an AKA, and Black sororities and sisterhoods worldwide.”A Vogue appearance is rarely anything but controversial for women in politics, but the invitation remains apparently irresistible, nonetheless. To be a cover star – and especially for Vogue – is to be the avatar of a cultural moment. To have your image publicly displayed beneath that Vogue font is perhaps the closest any public figure will ever get to having their profile on a stamp or, while still living, their face on a banknote. And in an increasingly atomised media landscape, a Vogue cover is one of the few platforms with the cut-through to reach disparate audiences. It is shared on Instagram, discussed in newspapers, and on display at the supermarket checkout.When Hillary Clinton appeared on the cover of Vogue in 1998 it was in a floor-length velvet gown and pearl drop earrings, smiling beatifically from a stateroom banquette beside an urn spilling red roses. The letters of Vogue were spelt out – in gold – directly on top of the curlicued gilt frame of one of the wall’s oil paintings. The message was clear: a Vogue cover is as close to an official portrait as pop culture gets. Which is why the row around Vogue’s latest cover is not really about Mitchell’s lighting rig, or Harris’s shoes. Rather, these portraits are a lightning rod for a country grappling with a moment of cultural reckoning around gender, race and power.Harris’s stretchy black trousers are a little wrinkled around the knees, the kind of imperfection you might expect to have been smoothed out by a watchful assistantThe relaxed and smiling images were taken in the dizzy post-election relief of November, but landed online a few days after the storming of the Capitol had dialled the emotional tone of politics back up to febrile. This, perhaps, has left them out of step with the particular moment. In the more casual of the two portraits, Harris’s stretchy black trousers are a little wrinkled around the knees – just a tiny imperfection, but the kind that you might expect to have been smoothed out by a watchful assistant before the shutter clicked. Perhaps the informality was judged by the editorial team to chime better with the era of WFH dressing than slick tailoring. Perhaps it was intended to channel Harris’s now famous leggings-clad victory moment. (“We did it, Joe!”).Certainly, any likeness to the 2009 cover for Newsweek of Republican former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, posing in her gym gear, is unintentional. Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, who after a close relationship with the Obamas has been in self-imposed exile from the circles of political power during Trump’s presidency, will surely be looking to align herself as friend and ally of the incoming Democrat administration.The current British Vogue is more overtly political than ever before, and wears its activist heart on its cover – the magazine equivalent of its sleeve. Recent cover stars have included frontline workers and the Man United and England striker Marcus Rashford who, as one of the most high-profile public figures driving legislation for progressive social change, surely counts as a political figure – and the prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, who was featured among 15 Forces for Change on the August 2019 cover.British politicians, however, have been notable by their absence. And should a flattering invitation find its way to a Westminster in-tray, it should be approached with caution. A Vogue cover is always a moment, but not always a flattering one. More

A group of House Democrats has formally introduced an article of impeachment against Donald Trump. They have charged the president with ‘incitement to insurrection’ in connection to the violent riot at the Capitol last week
Article charges Trump with ‘incitement to insurrection’ More

The veteran diplomat William Burns is to become the new director of the CIA, Joe Biden announced on Monday, in an “apolitical” appointment that marks a clear break with the partisan use of intelligence under Donald Trump.The US president-elect hailed Burns as an “exemplary diplomat” and said that the American people will be able to “sleep soundly with him as our next CIA director”. If confirmed, Burns would become the first leader in the agency’s history whose career was spent at the US state department.A former ambassador to Russia and Jordan, Burns led the US delegation in secret talks in 2013 with Iran over its nuclear programme. He has served under Republican and Democratic presidents and is expected to gain some bipartisan support. In 2014 he retired from the foreign service to run the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace.Burns is a well-regarded figure in diplomatic circles, known for his intellect, deep experience of foreign affairs and analytical gifts. In 2017 he wrote a stinging opinion piece calling out Vladimir Putin’s “aggressive meddling” in the US presidential election of the previous year – something Trump refuses to acknowledge.Another recent blogpost was prescient. Burns predicted that Trump was unlikely to accept a “traditional bipartisan commitment to effective transition” if he lost the 2020 race to Biden. “The costs of confusion, mixed signals, and bureaucratic turmoil could be very high,” he wrote.Burns has been a staunch critic of the Trump administration’s often erratic and isolationist foreign policy. He has stressed the importance of international alliances, in particular with European allies and with Nato, and has called for the rebuilding of the US foreign service.“He shares my profound belief that intelligence must be apolitical and that the dedicated intelligence professionals serving our nation deserve our gratitude and respect,” Biden said in a statement. “Ambassador Burns will bring the knowledge, judgment, and perspective we need to prevent and confront threats before they can reach our shores,” he added.Biden has a good working relationship with Burns over foreign policy issues, dating back to the Obama administration and to when Biden was chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee. Burns was said to have been a candidate for US secretary of state. Biden chose Anthony Blinken instead.If confirmed by the Senate, Burns would succeed Gina Haspel. As the first female CIA director, Haspel guided the agency under Trump during a period of unprecedented turbulence. Trump and his Republican allies frequently portrayed the CIA as part of the “deep state”, intent on wrecking his presidencyTrump fired several career intelligence professionals in favour of loyalists, including some with little to no experience in the field. He also accused US spy agencies and their British counterparts of “illegally spying” on his 2016 presidential campaign.Burns has received three Presidential Distinguished Service Awards and the highest civilian honours from the Pentagon and the US intelligence community.A graduate of La Salle University in Philadelphia with advanced degrees from Oxford University, he joined the foreign service in 1982 and before being named ambassador to Russia in 2005 served as a top aide to secretaries William Christopher and Madeleine Albright as well as director of the policy planning office.In 2010 confidential diplomatic cables written by Burns and fellow US diplomats in Moscow were leaked. They revealed Burns’s gloomy assessment of Russian democracy under Putin and the ambassador’s literary talents. One cable described a wedding Burns attended in 2006, hosted by the Chechen warlord Ramzan Kadyrov.“Ramzan … danced clumsily with his gold-plated automatic stuck down in the back of his jeans,” Burns reported wryly. “After the dancing and a quick tour of the premises, Ramzan and his army drove off back to Chechnya.”During a 33-year diplomatic career Burns was a close adviser and confidant to Christopher, Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.In his 2019 book The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal, Burns called for a revamp of US diplomacy, while recalling his days in the field, including the early stages of the Obama administration’s Iran deal in 2013. More

There is a good reason for America’s Congress to humiliate Donald Trump this week, just days from his end of term. His incitement of violence against the Capitol merits his instant removal, as it does the alternative of impeachment. It would be a signal to the world that America is ashamed of this man and sees him as a mistake, a blip, a passing nightmare. The world should sigh with relief.Beyond that, all reasons for removing Trump are bad ones. They would deflect attention from Joe Biden’s victory and transition into office. And they would run a bigger risk.The single most significant feature of last November’s election was that Trump won 11 million more popular votes than he did in 2016, a rise from roughly 63 million to 74 million. He might be rich, crude, immoral and incompetent, but he became more popular in office with his base, not less. According to exit polls, support for Trump also increased among black and Latino voters.Analysts can debate these figures all night, but they are facts. Biden clearly owed his victory to a rise in support from college-educated and wealthier Democrats. Last week, Trump may have tested populism to destruction, but it remains to be seen if he destroyed the bedrock of his support.Trump’s 2016 desire to “drain the swamp” – of federal power, overseas alliances and political insiders – was undimmed after four years in office. At the end, as at the beginning, he loathed the old guard in Congress and abhorred the normal channels of communication with voters. In last year’s election, Trump portrayed his cause as incomplete and essential, and persuaded almost half of America that its ruling class was still out to balk him. An extra 11 million Americans voted to give him another try.Trump’s enemies may have hoped that his actions last week killed him politically. In which case, leave him dead. To pursue him now looks like a vendetta; not just against him, but against his cause and supporters. It is one thing to hate Trump but another to hate those who voted for him, and who in their hearts may yet admire Trump’s extremism and eccentricity and see him as their spokesman. Many are non-college-educated Americans who feel failed by those in power, those who Hillary Clinton in 2016 called a “basket of deplorables”.The outgoing president’s reputation among these people will only grow with each cry of glee from his enemies. Even if he vanishes into exile, his supporters will seek another saviour, another maverick from the rambling confederacy that is modern American democracy. That is why liberals everywhere should be careful how they react to Trump’s going. Losers should know how to lose well, but victors should know how to win wisely. So ignore Trump, and just count the minutes until he goes. More