The official National Parks Service (NPS) Twitter account retweeted two posts critical of President Trump during his inauguration yesterday, one unfavorably comparing the crowd size at Trump's event to President Obama's 2009 inauguration and one noting changes to the White House website's issue pages.

The Trump team seems to have noticed, and, in an email obtained by Gizmodo, grounded the Parks Service from Twitter "until further notice." Parks that use Twitter for emergency announcements were ordered to "alter their contingency plans to accommodate this requirement" because the "expectation is that there will be absolutely no posts to Twitter."

The "Twitter stand down means we will cease use of Twitter immediately," the email summarized. "However, there is no need to suspend or delete government accounts until directed." The note does not mention the two critical retweets, both of which have been deleted, but a park ranger told Gizmodo agency employees believe those posts are what prompted the directive.

Saturday morning, the main NPS account posted an apology tweet, seen below, suggesting the ban may be temporary. Bonnie Kristian

Nevada is keeping things on brand for the state's Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday.

As everyone saw in Iowa, caucuses are susceptible to precinct-level ties, and when there's a tie, well, you need a tie-breaker. In the Hawkeye state, they resorted to a good old-fashioned coin flip to determine which candidate received the up-for-grabs delegate. In Nevada, though, they'll use playing cards, which makes sense considering the state's relationship to card games.

In tie-breaking situations, the precinct leader must shuffle an unopened deck of cards at least seven times and remove extra cards like Jokers and directional cards. Then each group representing a tied candidate will draw from the deck and the high card wins (if cards of the same rank are drawn, it'll resort to suit, with spades being the highest.)

May the best card win. Tim O'Donnell

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. underperformed in 2019, but its boss is playing it cool.

The conglomerate's stock rose 11 percent compared to a 31.5 percent total return in the S&P 500, but CEO and chair Warren Buffett sought to reassure investors in his annual shareholder Saturday, which is in line with his longstanding opinion that long-term performance should be prioritized over short-term fluctuations in the stock market.

He defended the company's decision to invest heavily in stocks even though it's been several years since Berkshire Hathaway made a major acquisition of a company. He said while he'd prefer to buy a whole company, the "fickle" stock market means stocks are the safer bet.

The 89-year-old Buffett also said the company is well-prepared for the future should he or his 96-year-old business partner and Berkshire vice chair Charlie Munger die. “Charlie and I long ago entered the urgent zone,” Buffett wrote. “That’s not exactly great news for us. But Berkshire shareholders need not worry: Your company is 100% prepared for our departure.” Read more at The Wall Street Journal and Reuters. Tim O'Donnell

President Trump wants the Democratic presidential candidates to be careful Saturday during the Nevada caucuses.

After it was reported Friday that U.S. intelligence officials told Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is considered the Democratic frontrunner by many, that Russia was in some way attempting to interfere with the election process and aid his campaign (Sanders denounced the efforts), Trump sent a tweet Saturday warning the Democrats about Moscow's motives.

So apparently Trump, who also reportedly recently learned Russia was attempting to interfere on behalf of his 2020 re-election bid, doesn't think the Sanders story is a hoax. That word, it seems, is reserved for him. Tim O'Donnell

Saturday was a "momentous day" in South Sudan, but experts caution the young country still has a very difficult to path peace ahead of it.

Rebel leader Riek Machar was sworn in as vice president Saturday in Juba, the capital, as part of a unity government with rival President Salva Kiir. The two sides are hoping to end a years-long civil war that has led to at least 400,000 deaths and left millions of people homeless. The civil war was preceded by the country's bloody conflict to secede from Sudan in 2011.

Two previous peace attempts between Machar and Kiir had failed, but key concessions were made last week which prompted the agreement. "This action signifies the official end of the war and we can now declare a new dawn in South Sudan," Kiir said at the ceremony. "Peace has come to stay, not to be shaken again ever in this nation."

Still, there's a long way to go, argued Alan Boswell of the International Crisis Group, who was in Juba for Saturday's ceremony. "In other ways, though, it is a crawling step forward and doesn't drastically change the situation in this country," he told The Washington Post. "South Sudan isn't going to emerge from being a failed state overnight. It will take the work of generations to put its shattered pieces back together — even to get it back to where it was at independence." Read more at The Washington Post and Al Jazeera. Tim O'Donnell

The United States and the Taliban are inching closer to a peace settlement, but it won't be easy, The Associated Press reports.

A reduction in violence agreement between the two sides went into effect early Saturday in Afghanistan, and the U.S. has halted offensive operations. If it's successful, the week-long truce will be followed by a peace accord, scheduled to be signed Feb. 29, wrapping up the 18-year conflict and paving the way for American troops to gradually head home. If that deal is signed, the Afghan government plans to launch its own negotiations with the Taliban.

But U.S. military officials do not anticipate a smooth process. It will reportedly be challenging to determine if any attacks — which are anticipated to be carried by so-called "spoilers" who are opposed to peace talks from happening at all — in the next week will breach the truce because of the decentralized nature of the Taliban's operations. "There are going to be a lot of opportunities for any militia commander, element of the Taliban, the Haqqani network, and other local forces who don't want to seal a deal, to conduct violence," said Seth Jones, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Officials said Washington, Kabul, and the Taliban will maintain a channel to discuss any issues, such as allowing the Taliban to deny responsibility for an attack. Still, the "case-by-case" assessment will likely be difficult, and nobody is precisely sure how the U.S. will measure success. Read more at The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal. Tim O'Donnell

President Trump is telling his staff he wants to block the publication of former National Security Adviser John Bolton's forthcoming book until after he leaves office, The Washington Post reports.

The book, titled The Room Where It Happened promises to reveal a firsthand account of interactions between Trump and Bolton (which reportedly includes a conversation in which Trump said he ordered the Ukraine quid pro quo), has a scheduled release date of March 17. But the National Security Council warned Bolton last month after reviewing his draft that it contains "significant amounts of classified information." Still, Bolton was told the council will try to make sure it gets published.

Trump, on the other hand, has reportedly privately called Bolton a "traitor" and argues every conversation in the book between Bolton and Trump should be considered classified. He also reportedly brings the book up frequently with his team, asking for news on whether Bolton will be allowed to go forward with publication.

Two sources familiar with the matter told the Post that Trump has insisted the book remain on the backburner until at least after the November the election, while Trump himself reportedly told television news anchors during an off-the-record lunch earlier this month that Bolton "can do this" after his presidency, "but not in the White House."

Bolton is reportedly growing concerned the White House will claim a large amount of details are classified without specifying why, which could set up a long legal battle over the publication. Read more at The Washington Post. Tim O'Donnell