Samsung Heir Lee Jae-yong Escapes Arrest in Massive Bribery Scandal - TIME Business

Samsung Heir Lee Jae-yong Escapes Arrest in Massive Bribery Scandal

Posted: 19 Jan 2017 01:04 AM PST

(SEOUL)— A Seoul court on Thursday denied a request to arrest one of South Korea’s most powerful men, the heir to the Samsung Electronics juggernaut, in a setback to prosecutors investigating an influence-peddling scandal that toppled South Korea’s president.
The Seoul Central District Court said that a judge concluded that there was not enough justification to detain the 48-year-old billionaire Samsung vice chairman, Lee Jae-yong, at this stage.
The announcement, made around 5 a.m. local time, allowed Lee to return home after a long night. He had been waiting for the court’s decision at a detention center south of Seoul for more than 12 hours after a court hearing the previous day.

Samsung said “the merits of this case can now be determined without the need for detention.”
The decision means that Samsung avoids what could have been a stunning fall for the princeling of the country’s richest family, a man groomed to lead South Korea’s most successful company.
It came amid calls for caution from some business groups and newspapers worried that arresting Lee could hurt the economy because of Samsung’s huge role, both economically and psychologically, in the country.
It is not uncommon in South Korea for courts to issue an arrest warrant past midnight for important or contentious cases, said Shin Jae-hwan, a spokesman for the Seoul court. The long deliberation means the judge must have agonized over the decision, he added.
Prosecutors said Lee gave 43 billion won ($36 million) in bribes to President Park Geun-hye and Choi Soon-sil, her confidante, seeking support for a contentious merger. They also suspect him of embezzling and lying under oath during a parliamentary hearing last month.
The court’s decision may hurt prosecutors’ plan to expand the bribery probe to Park.
Prosecutors expressed strong disappointment and said they believe the court’s decision was caused by a difference in legal views on the nature of the allegations against the Samsung heir.
Samsung and other companies told investigators that they felt forced to make donations to foundations controlled by Choi in fear of retaliatory tax investigations and other unfair government treatment, according to state prosecutors who handed over the investigation to special prosecutors.
“The court’s rejection of the arrest warrant is very regrettable,” Lee Kyu-chul, a spokesman for a special prosecutors’ team investigating the political scandal, said. “We’ll take measures to continue an investigation unwaveringly,” he said, without elaborating.
South Korea’s main opposition party, which spearheaded Park’s impeachment, accused the court of being too lenient. “The president was impeached and Choi Soon-sil was arrested … but Samsung is still fine,” the Democratic Party said in a statement.
Lee has been serving as the de facto head of Samsung since his father suffered a heart attack in 2014. Shortly after the recalls of the Galaxy Note 7 smartphone last year, he joined the board of Samsung Electronics, the group’s crown jewel.
Conglomerates like Samsung, known as chaebol, dominate South Korea’s economy, jobs and investment. Samsung Electronics and its affiliated companies account for about a third of the market value in South Korea’s main stock market.
Civic groups had called for Lee’s arrest as a way to show that all are equal before the law.
Many were infuriated by the allegations that the government had pressured a pension fund, a major investor in Samsung, to help the Lee family’s succession plan. Moon Hyung-pyo, the former health minister was indicted on Monday for allegedly pressuring pension fund officials to support the merger.
Prosecutors said Moon, who now heads the pension fund, acted on behalf of President Park, who ordered him to make sure that the Samsung merger went smoothly. They plan to summon Park to question her about the bribery allegations.
Park has been suspended from her duties since the parliament impeached her in December. She is awaiting the Constitutional Court’s decision on whether her impeachment will be upheld. Choi is on trial for meddling in state affairs.
Educated in South Korea, Japan and the United States, Lee is the crown prince of the country’s richest family, one South Koreans often liken to royalty.
His father is South Korea’s richest individual whose net worth is estimated at $14.8 billion by Forbes Magazine. The younger Lee’s net worth is estimated at $5.8 billion.
The elder Lee was convicted twice on bribery, embezzlement and other charges in 1996 and 2008, but he was never imprisoned. He received suspended jail terms and was later pardoned by the country’s presidents both times.

Why you should not watch Trump's inauguration on TV - TIME

January 20, 2017, will be a pivotal day in American history. Donald J. Trump, the people’s billionaire, will be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. I do not expect the heavens to cry out or the four horsemen of the apocalypse to appear as he raises his right hand. Elections are what they are, and they often leave us with bad outcomes and questionable people. But I do believe his inauguration will signal a dramatic and dark shift in the direction of the country.
That’s about as nice as I can put it. My mother, who lives on the coast of Mississippi and doesn’t talk politics often, says it more baldly: “the country is going straight to hell.”
Trump will enter office with the lowest approval rating in four decades. In The Wall Street Journal, Janet Hook detailed the unprecedented opposition that awaits him after the inauguration. More than 200,000 women will march in Washington the day after he takes the oath of office. Progressives throughout the country are mobilizing to resist Sywhat they see, with every cabinet nomination and senseless tweet, as a radical attempt to undermine any substantive idea of the public good. Millions of dollars are flowing to grassroots and established organizations to resist Trumpism.
Meanwhile, many are saying, with Melville’s Bartleby, the Scrivener, “I would prefer not to.” Over 60 members of Congress have declared they will not attend the inauguration. Hollywood and the music industry have all but boycotted the event. Some, like Ashley Judd and Solange, will attend a “Peace Ball” at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture the night before Trump puts his hand on the Bible. The aim of the organizers is “to celebrate the accomplishments and successes of the last four years and vow to continue to be the change we want to see in the world” — a thumbing of the nose at Trump.
These are the grand gestures. And I am sure Trump is more than annoyed by the fact that celebrities, high school bands, members of Congress and a host of others have refused to acknowledge and celebrate his ascendance to the highest office of the land. But what can everyday people who reject Trump do on January 20th?
We should blank out: we should refuse to watch the Inauguration on television. Join the likes of Robert Reich and others and boycott Trump’s swearing-in. Engage in some sort of civic activity. Participate in the Facebook telethon and help raise funds for the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and Earthjustice. Spend time with the people you love. Disengage from the spectacle. Turn off the television.
In my book, Democracy in Black, I called for a blank-out campaign in the context of revitalizing democratic politics in black communities. I had grown tired of Democrats taking black voters for granted and Republicans exploiting our racial fears. If Democrats refused to address substantively the crisis in black communities, I argued, we should leave the presidential ballot blank and vote down ballot. To my mind — and I still believe this — something dramatic needed to happen. Well, Trump was elected and everything has been turned on its head.
But the hope behind the blank-out campaign still holds. At its heart is the belief that whatever this America is, it isn’t democracy, and that we — those of us who reject the value gap and are genuinely committed to democracy — must dismiss the wrong-headed view that our only choices are the ones right in front of us. We have to dare to imagine our world differently.
Small gestures, like turning off Trump’s Inauguration, are just the beginning. There is so much more that requires us to say, “I would prefer not to.” But lets start small, with the reality star who will be our president and who desperately wants our attention. Given Trump’s attention to polls, his craving for adulation, and his clear and present narcissism I can imagine that, of all the forms of protest on January 20th and afterwards, changing the channel on Inauguration Day might actually register.
Let’s blank out, remembering its broader purpose. Let’s make this the lowest rated Inauguration in televised presidential history. Let’s turn our backs on the world that made him possible and be truly revolutionary.

Why You Shouldn’t Watch Donald Trump’s Inauguration on TV

Time

How do conflict of interest rules apply to Trump ? - Wall Street Journal

By JOE PALAZZOLO and  JACOB GERSHMAN
Jan. 18, 2017 4:48 p.m. ET

0 COMMENTS
President-elect Donald Trump’s complex web of business holdings in the U.S. and abroad has raised a number of ethical questions without precedent in modern times, due to the breadth of the holdings and his plans to distance himself from them while in office.
What a president can and can’t do, ethically speaking, is a question defying easy answers, but below is a guide to help readers understand the laws and constitutional provisions that constrain the highest office in the land.
Which ethics laws apply to the president?
The president is bound by federal statutes that prohibit bribery and illegal gratuities, or things of value given to officials for the purpose of influencing them. The president is also subject to the federal Stock Act, which bars insider trading by government officials, and a federal anti-nepotism law that bans government officials from appointing relatives to or employing them in agencies controlled by the officials.
He must also file personal financial disclosures that include sources and amounts of income, as well as the approximate value of property held and liabilities owed, among other things.
What parts of the U.S. Constitution are at play here?
Mr. Trump’s business interests could potentially bump into an anticorruption provision of the Constitution known as the Foreign Emoluments Clause, said some legal scholars.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution states that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States] shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The framers, according to scholars, wanted to make sure that the country’s diplomatic corps wouldn’t be tainted by even the suspicion of divided loyalty. They had in mind the diamond-encrusted snuff boxes that Louis XVI had bestowed on Benjamin Franklin and other diplomats as retirement gifts.
Over time, the clause faded into obscurity. The Supreme Court has never clarified its scope, leaving the question of how it might apply to the president a matter of speculation.
What exactly does the Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibit?
It is an open question.
The most expansive interpretation of the clause reads it to ban any kind of payment to the president from a foreign government, except with congressional consent. “Even ordinary, fair market value transactions that result in any economic profit or benefit” are covered, said a Brookings Institution analysis from December by former White House ethics lawyers Norman L. Eisen and Richard W. Painter and Harvard Law School professor Laurence H. Tribe.
Other scholars said its reach is much narrower. University of Chicago law professor William Baude said he doesn’t think the clause would apply to routine transactions, like a foreign official renting out a Trump hotel room at a fair-market rate.
And a few scholars, notably Maynooth University law lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman, argue that the president isn’t covered by the provision at all. Mr. Tillman said the language of the clause suggests that it extends only to those holding federal appointed or statutory offices, such as cabinet members, but not to the president or vice president.
Mr. Trump’s legal advisers don’t believe the clause stretches as far as the Brookings authors would argue. The “Constitution does not forbid fair-market-value transactions with foreign officials,” said a “white paper” released by the law firm handling Mr. Trump’s conflict-of-interest business restructuring. But his lawyers haven’t disputed the applicability of the clause to the president and vice president.
How would a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause be enforced?
Many scholars are skeptical that a private party would have standing to bring a lawsuit against Mr. Trump that alleges a foreign emoluments clause violation, as no federal statute expressly creates a private right of action for a violation.
Beyond that obstacle, a plaintiff would have to show that an alleged gift or emolument caused the litigant to suffer harm and that the injury that could be remedied by the court. Clearing those hurdles would likely be difficult, according to legal experts.
Courts might deem Congress the more appropriate branch to be the enforcer, given that the emoluments clause already gives Congress the power of consent to certain gifts.
Congress could launch investigations into any alleged violations of the clause, block a president’s policies and nominees, and, in the most severe cases, open impeachment proceedings, said scholars. Assuming the emoluments clause applies to the president, a knowing violation could be an impeachable offense depending on the circumstances.
President-elect Trump has said on Twitter and elsewhere he can’t have a conflict of interest under federal law. Is he correct?
The president, vice president and members of Congress are exempt from a law that prohibits federal officials from participating in government matters in which they have a financial interest, said Kathleen Clark, an ethics expert and law professor at Washington University.
Still, Mr. Trump said in a November tweet that he believes it is “visually important, as President, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses.”
To that end, he and his lawyers announced a plan to put his assets into a trust and let his two adult sons run the Trump Organization.
How does that plan compare to arrangements made by previous presidents?
It is a departure from the practices of the past 40 years. “Every president in modern times has taken the strong medicine of divestiture,” Walter Shaub, head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, said in a recent speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Mr. Shaub and other ethics experts have said Mr. Trump should sell off his holdings, calling his plan to wall himself off from his businesses inadequate.
Sheri Dillon, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, said the selling of his assets presented its own problems and would be subject to “criticism and scrutiny,” regardless of the price paid.
Mr. Trump recently promoted clothing company L.L. Bean on Twitter. Is that allowed?
Yes. Federal ethics regulations ban government employees from using their office “for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise,” but they don't apply to the president.
Could Mr. Trump still face repercussions for any alleged conflicts of interest?
A president can’t be criminally prosecuted for violations of the conflict-of-interest law, but private citizens could use lawsuits involving his businesses to shed light on them and any favorable treatment they might have received as a result of his ascension to power, ethics experts said. Revelations of such conflicts could damage the president politically.
Under the broad rules that govern what is known as discovery, a phase of litigation in which parties exchange evidence, a president could be forced to surrender business records or even give testimony under oath. Mr. Trump’s many contractual relationships and business competitors expose his operations to a range of potential claims, like any organization of its size.
In the 1997 case Clinton vs. Jones, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that then President Bill Clinton could be sued while in office, siding with Paula Jones in her sexual-harassment case against Mr. Clinton. Mr. Clinton’s testimony in Ms. Jones’s case about his workplace relationships led to his impeachment for obstruction and perjury. Mr. Clinton was later acquitted in the Senate.
Much about Mr. Trump’s businesses may be under wraps now, but plaintiffs’ lawyers “are going to be able to get a whole lot of stuff, thanks to the Clinton v. Jones case,” said Mr. Painter, an ethics official in President George W. Bush’s administration who is now a professor at University of Minnesota.
Public-interest groups are likely to probe for conflicts inside the administration, using the Freedom of Information Act, a law governing the public release of government records.
Wall Street Journal

Trump aides deny planned Russian summit in Iceland - Bloomberg

Two senior aides to Donald Trump denied a report that his advisers had told U.K. officials the incoming president’s first foreign trip will be a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Reykjavik. Russian officials also derided the report.

The Sunday Times of London reported that advisers to Trump had told U.K. officials the president-elect might meet his Russian counterpart at a neutral venue such as Iceland, potentially within weeks of taking office.
The newspaper said, without providing details, that Trump planned to begin working on a deal to limit nuclear weapons. It cited an unidentified source for the summit plans, and added that Moscow is ready to agree to the meeting, based on comments from unnamed officials at the Russian embassy in London.

That embassy also knocked down the report on its Twitter feed on Sunday, and demanded an apology from the newspaper.
The Sunday Times cited an unidentified adviser to Trump that that the president-elect, who will be sworn in on Jan. 20, will meet with Putin at a neutral venue “very soon.” That is “100 percent false,” a Trump aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said late Sunday.
The suggestion of a meeting in Iceland evokes the Reagan-era nuclear agreement between 
President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, then general secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party. The pair held a two-day summit in Reykjavik in October 1986 to work on what eventually became a major nuclear disarmament treaty between the two superpowers in 1987.

Majority people think economic & political system fail them - Fortune

Davos 2017

The Majority of People Now Believe the Economic and Political System Is Failing Them

Reuters

Updated: Jan 16, 2017 4:53 PM AEDT

Trust in governments, companies and the media plunged last year as ballots from the United States to Britain to the Philippines rocked political establishments and scandals hit business.

The majority of people now believe the economic and political system is failing them, according to the annual Edelman Trust Barometer, released on Monday ahead of the Jan. 17-20 World Economic Forum (WEF).

"There's a sense that the system is broken," Richard Edelman, head of the communications marketing firm that commissioned the research, told Reuters.

"The most shocking statistic of this whole study is that half the people who are high-income, college-educated and well-informed also believe the system doesn't work."

The 3,000 business, political and academic leaders meeting in the Swiss Alps this week find themselves increasingly out of step with many voters and populist leaders around the world who distrust elites.

Governments and the media are now trusted by only 41% and 43% of people respectively, with confidence in news outlets down particularly sharply after a year in which "post-truth" become the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year.

Trust in business was slightly higher, at 52%, but it too has declined amid scandals, including Volkswagen's (VLKPF, +0.71%)rigged diesel emission tests and Samsung Electronics' (SSNLF, -12.28%) fire-prone smartphones.

executives has fallen in every country surveyed, reaching a low of 18% in Japan, while the German figure was 28% and the U.S. 38%.

Trust in governments fell in 14 of the countries surveyed, with South Africa, where Davos regular President Jacob Zuma has faced persistent corruption allegations, ranked bottom with just 15% support.

As the first Chinese president to attend the WEF's annual forum in Davos, Xi Jinping may be reassured to learn that his government was ranked as the most trusted, with a 76% rating among those questioned.

The annual survey, which has been running since 2001, took the opinions of 33,000 people in 28 countries from Oct. 13 to Nov. 16 last year.

Russian hacking what we know and don't know ? - BBC News

The latest - and perhaps most headline-grabbing - source of tension between Donald Trump and the US intelligence community is an unverified report, apparently compiled by a private intelligence firm, claiming Russia has gathered compromising data about the president-elect.

Those claims raise far more questions than they answer. Here is a summary of what we know so far.

Who wrote the report and why?

It has been widely attributed to Christopher Steele, a retired British intelligence officer. 

Mr Steele, who runs a London-based intelligence firm, was reportedly hired by anti-Trump Republicans to investigate Mr Trump's ties to Russia during the battle for the party's presidential nomination. In the general election campaign the research was funded by an anonymous Democratic donor.

But since Mr Steele has been in hiding since the report surfaced on Tuesday, there is no confirmation that he is the author.

What does the report say?

It consists of a series of memos dated from June to December, and said to be based on information from members of the Russian intelligence community.

It claims that Russian officials have cultivated Mr Trump for at least five years to encourage splits within the Western alliance, and shared intelligence information with him.

Most startlingly, it alleges that Russia has managed to compromise Mr Trump and is in a position to blackmail him. It says Russia's FSB agency has footage of the president-elect using prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow.

How did the public learn of the existence of the report?

CNN reported its existence on 10 January, and the Buzzfeed website published it in full.

How credible is the information it contains?

Since the report was published, Mr Trump has denounced it as "false and fictitious" and "made up, phony facts". Russian officials have also dismissed it as "pulp fiction".

All major media outlets have stressed that the report's allegations are unsubstantiated. Several, including the BBC, had knowledge of the claims before the election but were unable to verify them and therefore did not publish stories.

Newsweek says it "contains lots of Kremlin-related gossip" and points to factual errors and the misspelling of Russian names.

However, the reports were considered credible enough by the US intelligence community for a two-page summary to be given to both President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump in early January. 

US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has merely said the claims were still being assessed. He also strongly denied suggestions by Mr Trump that US intelligence agencies had been involved in leaking the report.

Trump continues to make private deals despite promise to stop - Hunffington Post

Donald Trump Expanding Scottish Golf Resort After Vowing Not To Make New Foreign Deals

"No new foreign deals ... whatsoever" apparently doesn't include this one.

A multimillion-dollar expansion of Donald Trump’s Scottish golf resort is proceeding despite a promise just days ago by his attorneys that “no new foreign deals will be made whatsoever” by the president-elect’s businesses, in an effort to avoid conflicts of interest during his presidency.

The Aberdeenshire Council has approved a second 18-hole golf course and more housing in the Trump International Golf Links Scotland operation. The expansion will substantially grow the complex and include a 450-room five-star hotel, timeshare complex and private housing estate, The Guardian reported Saturday. Changes are expected to significantly boost the value of the operation to the Trump Organization. 

Trump’s attorney Sheri Dillon announced at his press conference last week that in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest, her client has “ordered that all pending deals be terminated.” Trump is also arranging to turn over management of his companies to his adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, but will maintain ownership and investments in his American and global companies and real estate deals. It’s an arrangement that the head of the Office of Government Ethics said fails to meet an ethics standard met by every other president in the last four decades.

Trump owns 100 percent of the Trump International Golf Links Scotland, according to the Guardian.

A written statement later issued by Dillon’s law firm Morgan Lewis emphasized that Trump’s promise “prohibits — without exception — new foreign deals during the duration of President-elect Trump’s presidency.”

It added: “Specifically, the Trust and The Trump Organization will be prohibited at all times ... from engaging in any new deals with respect to the use of the ‘Trump’ brand or any trademark, trade name, or marketing intangibles associated with The Trump Organization or Donald J. Trump in any foreign jurisdictions.”

But now Trump’s transition team insists that the golf resort expansion doesn’t constitute a new deal.

“Implementing future phasing of existing properties does not constitute a new transaction so we intend to proceed,” a spokeswoman told the Scottish Sunday Herald.

Richard Painter, a former White House chief ethics adviser to George W. Bush, called the situation a “perfect example” of obvious conflicts of interest that Trump will apparently continue to attempt to obfuscate.

“He’s using language which is ambiguous. It clearly illustrates that around the world, he will simply expand around the various holdings and as they continue to expand, the conflicts of interest expand,” Painter told the Guardian. “It’s like [the board game] Monopoly: if you have one house on Boardwalk, it’s not a new deal to go for three hotels on Boardwalk.”

Trump’s Aberdeenshire golf resort is particularly notable because it dramatically raised early fears about his conflicts of interest — and concerns that he would push his own business interests as president ahead of what might be best for the public. In a meeting with British politician Nigel Farage shortly after Trump’s election, Trump complained that planned offshore wind farms providing environment-protecting alternative energy would mar the views at his course. He encouraged Farage and his entourage to lobby against the farms.

Scottish residents protested against Trump when he visited last June because of how he handled the golf resort development. Neighbors are suing him because he built a fence blocking a sea view at the house of homeowners who refused to sell to him, and then sent them a bill for it.

“You watch, Mexico won’t pay either,” homeowner David Milne told the New York Times.

The Guardian has reported that Trump hasn’t paid UK taxes on his courses in Aberdeenshire and Turnberry in Ayrshire because he has lost nearly $31 million on his Scottish golf empire on an investment of some $123 million.

Huffington Post

Trump's inauguration ceremony arrangements - NBC News

For a president-elect known for his showmanship and extravagant style, Donald Trump's inauguration is shaping up to be shorter, smaller and less star-studded than in years past. 

"We are going to have an unbelievable, perhaps record-setting turnout for the inauguration, and there will be plenty of movie and entertainment stars," Trump previously promised to the New York Times. "All the dress shops are sold out in Washington. It's hard to find a great dress for this inauguration." 

But despite the president-elect's boast, the director of homeland security for the District of Columbia has predicted 800,000 to 900,000 people will attend — about half of the record-breaking 1.8 million crowd at President Barack Obama's first inauguration. 

Related: All the Performers Confirmed for Donald Trump's Inauguration

As of a little over a week before the event, more entertainers have reportedly declined to perform than those who have accepted. Multiple reports found Washington's dress shops still well-stocked with ballgowns, and Trump is planning to reduce the length of the inaugural parade and the number of balls. 

Tom Barrack, chairman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC), told reporters that a more subdued tone is by design. 

"What we've done instead of trying to surround it with what people consider A-listers is say what we're gonna surround it with is the soft sensuality of the place. So we have all of that, but it's in a much more poetic cadence than having a circus-like celebration that's a coronation, and that's the way this president-elect won," he said. 

But what does an inauguration surrounded by "soft sensuality" look like? Here's what we know about the event so far. 

Check back for complete coverage and information on how to watch on NBCNews.com.

Inauguration Logistics — When and Where It Takes Place

The only specifics laid out in the Constitution for the inauguration are the date and time for the transfer of power to the new president: Noon on the 20th day of January, which in 2017 falls on a Friday. 

The rest is left up to tradition, but Barrack, told reporters that "mostly [Trump's] abiding by tradition, especially in the swearing-in ceremony." 

As is tradition, Trump will stay at Blair House on Thursday night, attend the traditional worship service at St. John's Church near the White House, and have coffee with President Obama Friday morning before riding with the president to the Capitol for his swearing-in. 

Obama is expected to leave for Chicago after Trump is sworn in, but the rest of the day is jam-packed for the newly-minted president. After giving his inaugural address, Trump is expected to attend the traditional luncheon hosted by Congressional leadership at the Capitol, before parading to the White House down Pennsylvania Ave. 

There, he'll take his seat in a viewing stand on the North Lawn of the White House to watch the inaugural parade go by.

Parade and Parties

Here's where Trump begins to break with tradition. His inaugural parade is expected to be considerably shorter than past parades, just an hour to 90 minutes long, according to organizers. Typically the parade includes representatives from every state and branch of the military, a lineup that can last hours — in 2009, President Obama's lasted about three. 

Trump is also cutting down on the number of balls he'll hold to celebrate the occasion. Where President Obama attended 10 around his first inauguration, President Trump will have only three, with one focused on the military. 

Boris Epshteyn, communications director for the Presidential Inaugural Committee, told Breitbart they're hosting fewer balls because "this president—Donald J. Trump—is all about getting to work and making sure Americans are safe in their homes, safe in their jobs." 

However, the inauguration doesn't start — or end — with the pomp and circumstance surrounding Trump's swearing-in on Friday. On Thursday, there will be a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery and a "Make America Great Again Welcome Celebration" at the Lincoln Memorial. 

And on Saturday, there will be a national prayer service held at Washington National Cathedral.

Inaugural Performers 

While buzz around recent inaugurations has been all about who would be attending — Beyoncé attended both of President Obama's while Ricky Martin performed at a pre-inaugural event for George W. Bush's first — for Trump, the news has been about who won't. 

A number of prominent entertainers have come out and said they were asked to perform but declined the offer, including Moby and Elton John. 

At least one Republican elected official — Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner — has said he won't attend the inauguration, while one Democratic congresswoman, Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, will break from tradition with her intention to "boycott" the event. 

But almost every living former president and first lady — including Trump's former opponent, Hillary Clinton — will attend. George H.W. Bush is skipping the event because of his health. 

And Trump has lined up some recognizable acts: The Mormon Tabernacle Choir will perform as will members of the Rockettes, and former "America's Got Talent" contestant Jackie Evancho will sing the National Anthem. 

Still, Trump insisted in a tweet last month that he'd rather have "the people" attend over celebrities. 

The Protesters

It's not just well-wishers, elected officials and performers in attendance at Trump's inauguration — thousands of protesters are expected to descend on the nation's capital over the course of the weekend, as well. 

The National Park Service has received requests for protest permits from around 30 organizations, and has already approved a few. Overall, officials have said they expect up to 750,000 demonstrators to protest the inauguration. 

That, coupled with the generally vitriolic — and at times violent — nature of the campaign that brought Trump to the White House, has made security a major focus for inauguration officials. 

"Security is my greatest concern," Republican Senator Roy Blunt, chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, has said. "No question that on inaugural day, this would be the most appealing target in the world." 

According to the New York Times, more than three dozen agencies are working together on security plans, and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has said more than 3,000 police officers from other regions and 5,000 National Guardsmen will be on-hand to help secure the parade route. 

US attorney general accused Chicago Police of unconstitutional behaviour - CNN

Why is Chicago so broken? Hundreds of newly released files detail violence
"The resulting deficit in trust and accountability is not just bad for residents -- it's also bad for dedicated police officers trying to do their jobs safely and effectively," Lynch said.
Read the full Justice Department report
Chicago's problems stem in part from severely insufficient training and accountability procedures, Lynch said.
"CPD has not provided officers with adequate guidance to understand how and when they may use force, or how to safely and effectively control and resolve encounters to reduce the need to use force," the report says.
'Misconduct will not be tolerated'
Mayor Rahm Emanuel said the police department has upgraded use-of-force policies, provided every officer with a body camera and made other changes.
"While the Chicago Police Department has made real progress and achieved meaningful reforms, the incidents described in this report are sobering to all of us," he said in prepared remarks. "Police misconduct will not be tolerated anywhere in this city and those who break the rules will be held accountable for their actions."
Dean C. Angelo Sr., president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7, expressed concerns about what he termed the "lightning speed" of the DOJ investigation.
"Completing an investigation into the 12,000 member Chicago Police Department, and in a city with more than 2 million citizens in less than one year, clearly brings to light that the outgoing DOJ wanted to issue a report before the new administration takes over on January 20, 2017," he said in a statement. "What also remains to be seen is whether or not the report might be considered compromised, or incomplete as a result of rushing to get it out before the Presidential Inauguration."
Friday's announcement came a day after the Justice Department announced a deal on a plan to reform police policies in Baltimore, after a similar investigation found that police there searched and arrested a disproportionate number of African-Americans and used excessive force against juveniles.
Shooting at fleeing suspects
The Justice Department's report detailed examples of what it said was excessive force by Chicago police officers, including:



Chicago police department accused of institutional racism
• The shooting of a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back.
"The officer told investigators the suspect had turned around to point a black object. This account did not square with the location of the shooting victim's gunshot wounds and appeared contrary to video footage that showed the suspect running away from the officer," the report says, without revealing the names or date involved.
The city's review panel, the Independent Police Review Authority, accepted the officer's account "despite the conflicting evidence," and issued a report that did not mention the video, the Justice Department says.
• The fatal shooting of a pedestrian who ran after being ordered to freeze "because he had been fidgeting with his waistband."
"Three officers gave chase and began shooting as they ran. In total, the officers fired 45 rounds, including 28 rifle rounds, toward the man," the report says. "Several rounds struck the man, killing him. The officers claimed the man fired at them during the pursuit. Officers found no gun on the man.
"However, officers reported recovering a handgun nearly one block away. The gun ... was later determined to be fully loaded and inoperable, and forensic testing determined there was no gunshot residue on the man's hand."
IPRA "found the officers' actions were justified without addressing the efficacy of the pursuit or the number of shots fired," the report says.
• Threats and force against boys who were accused of playing basketball on an officer's property, after a neighbor had called to report them.
"The officer pointed his gun at them, used profanity, and threatened to put their heads through a wall and to blow up their homes," the report says. "The boys claim that the officer forced them to kneel and lie face-down, handcuffed together, leaving visible injuries on their knees and wrists.
"Once released, one boy called his mother crying to tell her an officer had pointed a gun at his face; another boy went home and showed his mother his scraped leg and, visibly upset, said 'the police did this to me.' "
After the incident was reported to IPRA, the officer received a five-day suspension, but "was never interviewed and his reasons for not contesting the allegations are not documented in the file," the report says.
Chicago police under scrutiny for shootings
The Justice Department began investigating Chicago police in December 2015 in the wake of several high-profile cases of alleged police misconduct, including the death of McDonald, whose case spurred protests and helped fuel a national conversation about police officers' use of deadly force. The report said the department had violated safeguards in the Fourth Amendment.

McDonald, a black teen, was shot 16 times as he walked away from officers in October 2014. His death went largely unacknowledged until November 2015, when a judge ordered the release of dashboard camera footage that contradicted officers' accounts of the shooting.
Justice Department fact sheet on Chicago police probe
Just before the video was released, Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder; he pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.
The video outraged many Chicagoans, who took to the streets to protest what they felt was an excessive use of force and dishonesty by police who initially accused McDonald of threatening them.
In the fallout of the case, the police superintendent resigned and many called for Emanuel to do the same. But Emanuel held firm and vowed to repair the department's trust with the African-American community.
The mayor had said of the DOJ investigation back in 2015: "We accept it, and we need it."
'No regard for the sanctity of life'
The mayor created an independent task force to examine the police force, which released a report in April that accused the department of institutional racism and described its accountability system as broken.
That report said police "have no regard for the sanctity of life when it comes to people of color" and have alienated blacks and Hispanics with the use of force and a longstanding code of silence.



762 murders in 12 months: Chicago's deadly 2016
As the department has grappled with allegations of excessive force, it also has battled a soaring homicide rate. Chicago had a staggering 762 murders in 2016, marking the city's deadliest year in nearly two decades.
The Justice Department's report touched on the homicide surge, saying that for Chicago to find solutions, "it is imperative that the city rebuild trust between (the police department) and the people it serves."
Under increasing criticism, the Chicago Police Department has pledged changes, including how it trains officers on the use of force.
Last year, Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson announced that all police officers soon would be required to wear body cameras and that 970 additional sworn positions would be added over the next two years to provide "new blood" to the department.
In addition to the human toll, the alleged police misconduct has weighed heavily on the city coffers in terms of settlements. Chicago spent nearly $642 million on alleged police misconduct from 2004 through 2015, according to a Better Government Association analysis.
The Justice Department's 161-page report on the probe took issue with the city panel that reviews use of force. In a few cases where the Justice Department determined that force was unnecessary, the city panel found that officers' actions were justified.
Why is Chicago so broken? Hundreds of newly released files detail violence
"The resulting deficit in trust and accountability is not just bad for residents -- it's also bad for dedicated police officers trying to do their jobs safely and effectively," Lynch said.
Read the full Justice Department report
Chicago's problems stem in part from severely insufficient training and accountability procedures, Lynch said.
"CPD has not provided officers with adequate guidance to understand how and when they may use force, or how to safely and effectively control and resolve encounters to reduce the need to use force," the report says.
'Misconduct will not be tolerated'
Mayor Rahm Emanuel said the police department has upgraded use-of-force policies, provided every officer with a body camera and made other changes.
"While the Chicago Police Department has made real progress and achieved meaningful reforms, the incidents described in this report are sobering to all of us," he said in prepared remarks. "Police misconduct will not be tolerated anywhere in this city and those who break the rules will be held accountable for their actions."
Dean C. Angelo Sr., president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7, expressed concerns about what he termed the "lightning speed" of the DOJ investigation.
"Completing an investigation into the 12,000 member Chicago Police Department, and in a city with more than 2 million citizens in less than one year, clearly brings to light that the outgoing DOJ wanted to issue a report before the new administration takes over on January 20, 2017," he said in a statement. "What also remains to be seen is whether or not the report might be considered compromised, or incomplete as a result of rushing to get it out before the Presidential Inauguration."
Friday's announcement came a day after the Justice Department announced a deal on a plan to reform police policies in Baltimore, after a similar investigation found that police there searched and arrested a disproportionate number of African-Americans and used excessive force against juveniles.
Shooting at fleeing suspects
The Justice Department's report detailed examples of what it said was excessive force by the Chicago Police Department.
• The shooting of a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back.
"The officer told investigators the suspect had turned around to point a black object. This account did not square with the location of the shooting victim's gunshot wounds and appeared contrary to video footage that showed the suspect running away from the officer," the report says, without revealing the names or date involved.
The city's review panel, the Independent Police Review Authority, accepted the officer's account "despite the conflicting evidence," and issued a report that did not mention the video, the Justice Department says.
• The fatal shooting of a pedestrian who ran after being ordered to freeze "because he had been fidgeting with his waistband."
"Three officers gave chase and began shooting as they ran. In total, the officers fired 45 rounds, including 28 rifle rounds, toward the man," the report says. "Several rounds struck the man, killing him. The officers claimed the man fired at them during the pursuit. Officers found no gun on the man.
"However, officers reported recovering a handgun nearly one block away. The gun ... was later determined to be fully loaded and inoperable, and forensic testing determined there was no gunshot residue on the man's hand."
IPRA "found the officers' actions were justified without addressing the efficacy of the pursuit or the number of shots fired," the report says.
• Threats and force against boys who were accused of playing basketball on an officer's property, after a neighbor had called to report them.
"The officer pointed his gun at them, used profanity, and threatened to put their heads through a wall and to blow up their homes," the report says. "The boys claim that the officer forced them to kneel and lie face-down, handcuffed together, leaving visible injuries on their knees and wrists.
"Once released, one boy called his mother crying to tell her an officer had pointed a gun at his face; another boy went home and showed his mother his scraped leg and, visibly upset, said 'the police did this to me.' "
After the incident was reported to IPRA, the officer received a five-day suspension, but "was never interviewed and his reasons for not contesting the allegations are not documented in the file," the report says.
Chicago police under scrutiny for shootings
The Justice Department began investigating Chicago police in December 2015 in the wake of several high-profile cases of alleged police misconduct, including the death of McDonald, whose case spurred protests and helped fuel a national conversation about police officers' use of deadly force. The report said the department had violated safeguards in the Fourth Amendment.

McDonald, a black teen, was shot 16 times as he walked away from officers in October 2014. His death went largely unacknowledged until November 2015, when a judge ordered the release of dashboard camera footage that contradicted officers' accounts of the shooting.
Justice Department fact sheet on Chicago police probe
Just before the video was released, Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder; he pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.
The video outraged many Chicagoans, who took to the streets to protest what they felt was an excessive use of force and dishonesty by police who initially accused McDonald of threatening them.
In the fallout of the case, the police superintendent resigned and many called for Emanuel to do the same. But Emanuel held firm and vowed to repair the department's trust with the African-American community.
The mayor had said of the DOJ investigation back in 2015: "We accept it, and we need it."
'No regard for the sanctity of life'
The mayor created an independent task force to examine the police force, which released a report in April that accused the department of institutional racism and described its accountability system as broken.
That report said police "have no regard for the sanctity of life when it comes to people of color" and have alienated blacks and Hispanics with the use of force and a longstanding code of silence.

As the department has grappled with allegations of excessive force, it also has battled a soaring homicide rate. Chicago had a staggering 762 murders in 2016, marking the city's deadliest year in nearly two decades.
The Justice Department's report touched on the homicide surge, saying that for Chicago to find solutions, "it is imperative that the city rebuild trust between (the police department) and the people it serves."
Under increasing criticism, the Chicago Police Department has pledged changes, including how it trains officers on the use of force.
Last year, Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson announced that all police officers soon would be required to wear body cameras and that 970 additional sworn positions would be added over the next two years to provide "new blood" to the department.
In addition to the human toll, the alleged police misconduct has weighed heavily on the city coffers in terms of settlements. Chicago spent nearly $642 million on alleged police misconduct from 2004 through 2015, according to a Better Government Association analysis.

CNN

VW Emissions-Cheating Deal Could Put Employees In the Hot Seat - TIME

VW Emissions-Cheating Deal Could Put Employees In the Hot Seat

Posted: 10 Jan 2017 10:24 PM PST

DETROIT (AP) — The imminent criminal plea deal between Volkswagen and U.S. prosecutors in an emissions-cheating scandal could be bad news for one group of people: VW employees who had a role in the deceit or subsequent cover-up.
VW on Tuesday disclosed that it is in advanced talks to settle the criminal case by pleading guilty to unspecified charges and paying $4.3 billion in criminal and civil fines, a sum far larger than any recent case involving the auto industry.
It’s likely that VW will agree to cooperate in the probe, turning over documents and other information, said David M. Uhlmann, a former chief of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section who is now a University of Michigan law professor.

“Companies often face the dilemma of whether to protect their employees or cooperate with government investigations, but almost always end up deciding in the company’s best interest to share what information they have,” Uhlmann said.
Although VW’s communications with lawyers may be exempt, emails between employees and company executives should help prosecutors reach as far up VW’s organizational chart as the scandal went, he said. Prosecutors now have three witnesses giving them information and have arrested Oliver Schmidt, VW’s former head of U.S. environmental compliance who dealt with the EPA and California Air Resources Board after the scandal was uncovered.
The cooperation of witnesses and the company should help investigators determine if the scandal went beyond VW’s engineers, Uhlmann said. But extraditing any executives from Germany would be a problem.
Volkswagen has admitted equipping diesel cars with sophisticated software that turned on emissions controls when engines were being tested by the Environmental Protection Agency, then turned them off during normal driving. The software, called a “defeat device” because it defeated the emissions controls, improved engine performance but spewed out harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40 times above the legal limit.
Volkswagen has reached a $15 billion civil settlement with environmental authorities and car owners in the U.S. under which it agreed to buy back up to 500,000 vehicles. The company also faces an investor lawsuit and criminal probe in Germany. In all, some 11 million vehicles worldwide were equipped with the software.
The criminal investigation likely will continue into the administration of President-elect Donald Trump and attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions. Uhlmann, who served under Republican and Democratic attorneys general, doesn’t think the new administration will back off from the VW prosecution.
“All administrations want to be tough on crime, including corporate crime,” he said. “I doubt the Trump administration will be any different.”
A draft of the VW settlement with the government calls for the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee compliance and control measures for three years. The draft still must be approved by Volkswagen’s boards and U.S. courts.
The scandal was revealed in September 2015, when West Virginia University tested on-road diesel emissions. The EPA issued a notice of violation, and VW apologized and brought in U.S. law firm Jones Day to investigate.
If finalized, a $4.3 billion settlement would eclipse Toyota’s $1.2 billion penalty over unintended acceleration problems as well as General Motors’ $900 million payment to resolve a deadly ignition-switch scandal.
____
McHugh reported from Frankfurt, Germany.

US Senate probe into election hacking - CNN

Senate probe into election hacking to review possible links between Russia, campaigns

Washington (CNN)The Senate Intelligence Committee's review of Russian meddling in the 2016 election will include a look at any intelligence "regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns."
Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, the committee's chairman, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, the committee's vice chairman, said in a joint statement that the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the election also will focus on Russian cyberactivity and "active measures" against the US.
It was known that intelligence panels in both chambers of Congress were tapped by Republican leaders to probe the hacking, but Friday's announcement makes clear the scope and details about the review. It is also notable that the announcement was joined by Warner, as Democrats have clamored for a bipartisan look into what role, if any, Russia may have played in the election.
The statement said the committee will produce both a classified and unclassified report on its findings.
Burr and Warner said the committee will hold hearings examining Russian intelligence activity and interview senior officials within both President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump's administrations about the matter, and will issue subpoenas if necessary.
"We believe that it is critical to have a full understanding of the scope of Russian intelligence activities impacting the United States," they said.
The statement cited an announcement in early October by the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that publicly raised the specter of Russia interfering in the election. On January 6, the intelligence community issued an unclassified report detailing information that generally concluded Russia attempted to interfere with the outcome of the election.
Both Obama and Trump have publicly stated that they believe Russia was involved in the hacking, though Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism at the intelligence community's findings, particularly its conclusion that Russia interfered to boost his chances of victory.
Comey explains actions to Senate
Also on Friday, US officials told CNN that FBI Director James Comey explained in a Senate classified briefing Thursday why his bureau looked again into emails connected to the Hillary Clinton email server investigation in October.
Comey told them for the first time that investigators found new classified emails -- which were on a computer owned by Anthony Weiner -- though none were marked classified, the officials said. Many were ones they had seen before, but some were new, and the FBI didn't know what they were dealing with.
It appears Comey didn't provide as much information in a House briefing on Friday.
In the end, none of the emails changed the overall conclusion that Clinton had not acted illegally.

Volkswagen Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges in Emissions Scandal - TIME Business

Volkswagen Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges in Emissions Scandal Posted: 11 Jan 2017 11:02 AM PST (WASHINGTON) — Six high-level Volkswagen employees from Germany were indicted in the U.S. on Wednesday in the VW emissions-cheating scandal, while the company itself agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $4.3 billion — by far the biggest fine ever levied by the government against an automaker. In announcing the charges and the plea bargain, Justice Department prosecutors detailed a large and elaborate scheme inside the German automaker to commit fraud and then cover it up, with at least 40 employees allegedly involved in destroying evidence. “Volkswagen obfuscated, they denied and they ultimately lied,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. Prosecutors may have trouble bringing the executives to trial in the U.S. German law generally bars extradition of the country’s citizens except within the European Union. Privately, Justice Department officials expressed little optimism that the five VW executives still at large will be arrested, unless they surrender or travel outside Germany. Still, the criminal charges are a major breakthrough for a Justice Department that been under pressure to hold individuals accountable for corporate misdeeds ever since the 2008 financial crisis. Lynch held out the possibility of charges against more high-ranking VW executives. “We will continue to pursue the individuals responsible for orchestrating this damaging conspiracy,” she said. VW admitted installing software in diesel engines on nearly 600,000 VW, Porsche and Audi vehicles in the U.S. that activated pollution controls during government tests and switched them off in real-world driving. The software allowed the cars to spew harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40 times above the legal limit. U.S. regulators confronted VW about the software after university researchers discovered differences in testing and real-world emissions. Volkswagen at first denied the use of the so-called defeat device but finally admitted it in September 2015. Even after that admission, prosecutors said, company employees were busy deleting computer files and other evidence. The fines easily eclipse the $1.2 billion penalty levied against Toyota in 2014 over unintended acceleration in its cars. VW also agreed to pay an additional $154 million to California for violating its clean air laws. The penalties bring the cost of the scandal to VW in the United States to nearly $20 billion, not counting lost sales and damage to the automaker’s reputation. Volkswagen previously reached a $15 billion civil settlement with environmental authorities and car owners in the U.S. under which it agreed to repair or buy back as many as a half-million of the affected vehicles. The company pleaded guilty to conspiracy, obstruction of justice and importing vehicles by using false statements. Under the agreement, VW must cooperate in the continuing investigation let an independent monitor oversee its compliance for three years. The six supervisors indicted by a federal grand jury in Detroit were accused of lying to environmental regulators or destroying computer files containing evidence. All six are German citizens, and five remained in Germany. The only one under arrest was Oliver Schmidt, who was seized over the weekend in Miami during a visit to the U.S. Schmidt was in charge of VW’s compliance with U.S. environmental regulations. Those indicted also included two former chiefs of Volkswagen engine development and the former head of quality management and product safety. Prosecutors said one supervised 10,000 employees. All six were charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by making false statements to regulators and the public. Three were also charged with fraud and clean-air violations. Government documents say one engine development supervisor asked an assistant to search another supervisor’s office for a hard drive that contained emails between them. Then another assistant was asked to throw it away, prosecutors said. According to the plea agreement, Volkswagen officials began deceiving the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulators starting in 2006, when they realized new diesel engines wouldn’t meet 2007 emissions standards. Under the direction of supervisors, VW employees borrowed the defeat device idea from VW’s Audi luxury division, which was developing different engines with similar software. In November 2006, some employees raised objections to the defeat device to the head of VW-brand engine development, prosecutors said. That official allegedly directed the employees to continue and warned them “not to get caught.” In 2014, VW employees learned about a West Virginia University study that found emissions discrepancies in VWs. Three of the supervisors and other employees decided not to disclose the defeat device to U.S. regulators, prosecutors said. In August 2015, a VW employee ignored instructions from supervisors and told U.S. regulators about the device. VW also faces an investor lawsuit and criminal probe in Germany. In all, some 11 million vehicles worldwide were equipped with the software.