(SEE ALSO SEPARATE BLOG FOR TODAY CALLED:
“LIFE IN TRUMPLAND.”)

January 12 and 13, 2017


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-mattis-defends-nato-calls-russia-a-threat-at-confirmation-hearing/

James Mattis defends NATO, calls Russia a threat at confirmation hearing
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS
January 12, 2017, 12:55 PM

Video – Confirmation Hearing


At his confirmation hearing to become defense secretary Thursday, Retired Gen. James Mattis defended the importance of NATO, called Russia a “principal threat” facing the U.S. and differed from President-elect Donald Trump on whether Jerusalem should be considered the capital of Israel.

After his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the panel approved a waiver that said Mattis could serve as secretary of defense, if confirmed by the Senate. Current law limits the appointment of a defense secretary within seven years of relief from duty.

All Republicans and most Democrats on the panel voted in favor of the waiver except Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut and Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, who opposed it. Gillibrand and Warren are both considered possible 2020 presidential contenders.

Check out our live blog of the hearing and check back here soon for more highlights.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/obamacare-replace-repeal-trump-impact

The Brutal (and Fact-Checked) Numbers on Killing Obamacare
More than 23 million people could lose coverage. And the superrich will get a $197,000 tax cut.

MEAGAN DAY AND DAVE GILSON
JAN. 6, 2017 6:00 AM


Donald Trump and congressional Republicans emerged victorious in November thanks in part to their repeated denunciations of Obamacare. At a rally in July, Trump noted the efficacy of attacks on the Affordable Care Act: "One of the things that gets constantly…the biggest applause is a repeal and replacement of Obamacare." Since the election, some Republican lawmakers have softened their stance a bit, suggesting that Obamacare may simply be "scaled back." But there's little doubt that they will still make a show of upholding their promise to chip away at, if not totally repeal, Obamacare. Trump, who once advocated universal health coverage, has said he will replace the existing plan with "something terrific," though he has yet to offer a serious alternative.

Here's another catch: While most Americans say they dislike Obamacare, they actually like most of its provisions. According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, every major part of the Affordable Care Act is exceedingly popular except for one—the imposition of fines for not having health coverage. This might explain why some Trump voters are reacting with alarm now that they realize some kind of ACA repeal looks likely.

If Obamacare is fully repealed, most Americans will see a modest tax cut, while tens of millions will face a loss of coverage or become uninsurable. And thousands could die from lack of access to medical care. As Obamacare slips back into critical condition, here's a look at these and other consequences of its possible demise.

Sources

Map and uninsured rates: Department of Heath and Human Services, Urban Institute
Uninsured if fully repealed: ACASignups
Currently uninsured; uninsured if partially repealed: Urban Institute
Breakdown of future uninsured: ACASignups
Preexisting conditions: Kaiser Family Foundation
Estimated annual deaths: Urban Institute, Annals of Internal Medicine
Support for Obamacare repeal: Kaiser Family Foundation
Approval ratings for Obamacare provisions: Kaiser Family Foundation
Tax cuts: Tax Policy Center



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-angry-james-comey-john-lewis-maxine-waters-hank-johnson/

Tensions boil up between Democrats and FBI director
By NANCY CORDES CBS NEWS
January 13, 2017, 7:14 PM

…. Video – CBS evening news with Scott Pelley, cordes-fbi-briefing-3-2017-1-13.jpg
…. Photograph -- U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia. CBS NEWS
…. Photograph -- cordes-fbi-briefing-2017-1-13.jpg, James Comey spoke before Congress on January 13, 2017. CBS NEWS
…. Photograph -- James Comey spoke before Congress on January 13, 2017. CBS NEWS
…. Photograph -- “The FBI director has no credibility,” said Rep. Maxine Waters of California said Friday, Jan. 13, 2017. CBS NEWS
RELATED: cordes-fbi-briefing-2-2017-1-13.jpg -- 2 hours ago - Comey briefing: John Lewis, Maxine Waters and more Democrats slam FBI director after closed-door ... cordes-fbi-briefing-2-2017-1-13.jpg.


The Senate intelligence committee announced late Friday an investigation of Russian interference with the U.S. election. Many Democrats believe Russian hacking cost Hillary Clinton the presidency.

Separetly, [sic] many Democrats also blame FBI Director James Comey -- for re-opening an investigation of Clinton’s emails -- just 10 days before the election. And on Friday, Congressional Democrats let loose on him.

Democrats stormed out of a briefing on Russian hacking -- furious with one of the briefers, Comey.

“The FBI director has no credibility,” said Rep. Maxine Waters of California.

“My confidence in the FBI director’s ability to lead this agency has been shaken,” said Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia.

“The FBI director has no credibility,” said Rep. Maxine Waters of California said Friday, Jan. 13, 2017. CBS NEWS

The closed-door briefing for all House members was confidential. But multiple lawmakers tell CBS News that the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz asked Comey repeatedly why he never called her personally to inform her that the DNC’s servers may have been breached by the Russians.

Comey balked, eventually admitting “no, we didnt.”

“There was some heat. There was some heat,” said Rep. Johnson.

The FBI and President-elect Trump have suggested the DNC was lax and uncooperative.

“The [sic] did a very poor job,” Mr. Trump has said.

DNC officials tell CBS News that from September 2015 until April 2016, the only person the FBI spoke to at the DNC was an outside vendor who provided IT services.

Hackers began posting the stolen emails online in June. The unguarded exchanges cost Wasserman Schultz her chairmanship.

Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails were posted three months later.

“I don’t see the president-elect as a legitimate president,” said Rep. John Lewis of Georgia to NBC. “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.”

He and at least at least seven other Democrats have announced they will boycott the inauguration.

One of them is Arizona’s Raul Grijalva.

”I will at home, in Arizona,” said Rep. Grijalva.

Democrats on Friday accused Comey of a double standard: Speaking publicly pre-election about the Clinton investigation even as he stayed mum about Russia’s attempts to help Mr. Trump. But they have been reluctant to call for him to step down, because some worry about who Mr. Trump will appoint if he leaves.


© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
52 Comment Share Tweet Stumble Email

Nancy Cordes
ON TWITTER»
Nancy Cordes is CBS News' congressional correspondent.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/13/justice-dept-to-announce-results-of-investigation-into-chicago-police/?utm_term=.3adba6e22ac8

Post Nation
Chicago police officers have pattern of using excessive force, scathing Justice Dept. report says
By Mark Berman and Matt Zapotosky
January 13 at 7:05 PM

RELATED:
[Here are 12 key takeaways from the Justice Department’s scathing report on Chicago’s police]
[Read the scathing Justice Department report on the Chicago Police Department]
[In Obama administration’s waning days, a push to cement legacy of police reform]
[After a blistering report, what’s next for the embattled Chicago police?]
PHOTOGRAPH -- Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, left, with Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson. (Kamil Krzaczynski/Reuters)
[Baltimore officials and Justice Department announce agreement to revamp police practices]
Dashcam -- laquan mcdonald -- An image from the video showing the shooting of Laquan McDonald.
[Forced reforms, mixed results]


A federal investigation into the Chicago police found that the department routinely uses excessive force and violates the constitutional rights of residents, particularly those who are black and Latino.

The blistering 164-page report by the Justice Department, released Friday, put an unwelcome spotlight on Chicago, a city already struggling with a surge in gun violence that has pushed homicide numbers to their highest level in two decades.

The report, and a pledge by city officials to reform the police department, come in the last days of the Obama administration, which has aggressively pursued investigations of abuse by local law enforcement.

On Friday, Chicago leaders said they had promised to negotiate with the federal government an order, enforceable by a judge, that would reform how the police department handles training, accountability and the way officers use force. A similar agreement is in place for the city of Baltimore.

But President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has criticized government lawsuits that force police reforms. And Trump himself has been a staunch defender of police officers, who he has called the “most mistreated people in this country,” and he has said that crime in this country is on the rise and requires a forceful response.

When asked whether the Chicago action would retain its strength under a Trump administration, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Friday she expected the agreement with Chicago to live on beyond Obama’s term.

“Yes, the top people at the Department of Justice move on, but this agreement is not dependent on one, or two, or three people,” she said.

The report details a grim succession of anecdotes.

Officers are described as running after people who they had no reason to believe committed serious crimes. Some of those chases ended in fatal gunfire. In one case, officers began chasing a man who was described as “fidgeting with his waistband.” Police fired a total of 45 rounds at him, hitting and killing him. No gun was found on the man, the report states, and a gun found almost a block away was both “fully-loaded and inoperable.”

These anecdotes were not limited to fatal incidents. A 16-year-old girl is described as being struck with a baton and shocked with a Taser for not leaving school when she was found carrying a cellphone. A 12-year-old Latino boy was “forcibly handcuffed” without explanation while riding his bike near his father.

Federal officials were also told about officers taking young people to the neighborhood of a rival gang to either leave them there “or display the youth,” putting their lives in danger by suggesting they had given information to police.

While the federal officials on Friday noted that city officials have made efforts recently to enact reforms, they said “complicated and entrenched” causes of the problems could only be fixed with outside help.

The report is the culmination of a 13-month investigation into the country’s second-biggest local law enforcement agency, which has a grim history that includes a former police commander who spent decades leading a torture ring until he was suspended and then fired in the early 1990s.

During the news conference on Friday, Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said “some of the findings in the report are difficult to read.” But he also said that many of the problems had already been identified and officials were working to correct them.

“Quite simply, as a department, we need to do better, and you have my promise, and commitment, that we will do better,” Johnson said.

Officers are described as lying, both as part of a “code of silence” but also in cases where they had little reason to lie, the report states.

But investigators also described an utter absence of morale in the police force, as officers increasingly feel they are adrift and unsupported, and the report describes suicides and suicide threats among officers as “a significant problem.”

Many “officers feel abandoned by the public and often by their own department,” the report states. “We found profoundly low morale nearly every place we went within CPD. Officers generally feel that they are insufficiently trained and supported to do their work effectively.”

Dean C. Angelo Sr., president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police, did not respond to a message seeking comment Friday.

The Justice Department began its Chicago investigation in December 2015, just weeks after authorities in the city released video footage showing an officer fatally shooting Laquan McDonald, a black 17-year-old.

This dashboard-camera recording, withheld for more than a year by city officials, showed Officer Jason Van Dyke firing 16 shots into McDonald, some after the teenager had already crumpled to the ground, despite initial accounts that the teenager had lunged at the officer. The video unleashed a torrent of anger on the streets of Chicago, which became the latest in a series of cities that boiled over in recent years after a fatal encounter involving police.

The recording has continued to reverberate in the city. Not long after it was made public, the Justice Department announced that it would begin what is known as a “pattern or practice investigation” into the police department. Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D), facing intense criticism, ousted Garry F. McCarthy as police superintendent, while voters decisively dismissed Anita Alvarez, the prosecutor in the case, in an election that highlighted the McDonald shooting.

Emanuel also created a task force to review how the Chicago police handled accountability, training and oversight, and the group released a highly critical report last year, describing the McDonald video as a tipping point giving “voice to long-simmering anger.”

In what some viewed as a prelude to the Justice Department’s findings, the task force’s report described repeatedly hearing from people who felt some police officers are racist and said the police force’s own data “gives validity to the widely held belief the police have no regard for the sanctity of life when it comes to people of color.”

Chicago officials have vowed to pursue police reforms and increased transparency, and have also announced plans to beef up the policing ranks as the city confronts an explosion of bloodshed and just saw its deadliest year in two decades. Johnson, the police superintendent, called for Van Dyke and four other officers to be fired over the episode, accusing them of lying about the shooting. Van Dyke was arrested and charged with murder the day the McDonald footage was released.

McCarthy, Johnson’s predecessor, had criticized the Justice Department before the report was released and said investigators never contacted him. Asked about that on Friday, Lynch said that investigators had tried but he was “unavailable,” although she did not elaborate.

Reached after the news conference, McCarthy declined to discuss the contents of the report — saying he still had to review it with his lawyer — but disputed that Justice Department investigators attempted to reach him.

“That is a lie,” McCarthy said. “With all the investigative resources of the federal government, they couldn’t find me here, in River North, which is a neighborhood in Chicago. That is absurd.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois said that the findings confirmed “what we have known for decades” about policing in Chicago.

“The Chicago Urban League believes that the report must be viewed as a milestone,” Shari Runner, president and chief executive of the group, said in a statement. “It is verification of the worst of what we’ve been and continue to be, but offers a viable path to what we want to become.”

Distrust remains an issue between police officers and residents in Chicago. In a poll taken last year, one in three residents said the city’s police officers were doing an excellent or good job; far fewer black residents (12 percent) felt that way then white residents (47 percent) or Hispanic residents (37 percent). The new report also states that police use force almost 10 times as often against black people as white people. Complaints filed against officers by white people were substantially more likely to be substantiated than those filed by black people or Latinos.

Federal investigators said their inquiry found that Chicago police force did not provide officers with suitable guidance for using force, investigate improper uses of force or hold officers accountable for such incidents. Investigators also faulted the city’s methods of handling officer discipline, saying the process “lacks integrity,” while saying that in the rare case where misconduct complaints are sustained, discipline is “haphazard and unpredictable.”

Training is repeatedly described as woefully inadequate, with the report describing officers in a class on deadly force being shown a video made more than three decades ago that depicted tactics “clearly out of date.”

Emanuel acknowledged Friday that there were questions were surrounding what the next administration would do, but vowed to continue working with the government.

“We will continue on the path of reform, because that is the path of progress,” he said. Emanuel later added, “We’re going to continue to work with that new Justice Department.”

Speaking on Capitol Hill during his confirmation hearing this week, Sessions suggested that entire departments filled with good officers could be tarred by the work of individuals and was critical of lawsuits that force reforms.

“These lawsuits undermine the respect for police officers and create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work consistent with fidelity to law and fairness, and we need to be careful before we do that,” Sessions said. He would not commit to leaving unchanged agreements that are in place when he takes over, though he said he would enforce them until changes are made.

The Justice Department can investigate and force systemic changes­ on local police departments and sue them if they do not comply. This authority was given to the federal agency in 1994, when Congress acted in the wake of the 1991 beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers and subsequent unrest following the acquittal of the officers involved.

During the Obama administration, the Civil Rights Division has opened 25 investigations into law enforcement agencies, according to the Justice Department. Probes have found patterns of excessive force used in police departments including Portland, Ore., Cleveland, Albuquerque, New Orleans, Seattle and Puerto Rico, among others.

The Chicago probe was among the the largest pattern and practices investigations in the Justice Department’s history, involving a force that has 12,000 officers, trailing only the New York police force among local law enforcement agencies in the United States.

The announcement in Chicago came the same day that Justice Department officials also said that the Philadelphia Police Department was making “tremendous progress” in implementing findings from an assessment last year examining how officers use deadly force there.

A day before Lynch spoke in Chicago, she had traveled to Baltimore for officials to outline efforts to revamp policing there. Baltimore’s agreement on reforms came after the Justice Department released, last year, a blistering report accusing the city of discriminatory policies targeting black residents.

Angelo, the head of Chicago’s police union, has said he was concerned federal investigators were rushing to finish the probe before Trump’s inauguration. When asked Friday about the timing of the report’s release, Lynch noted the investigation had begun more than a year ago, though she acknowledged lawyers had worked “quickly” to bring it to fruition.

“This is not a political process, this is an investigative process,” Lynch said.

This story has been updated since it was first published at 9:06 a.m.

Further reading:

Chicago residents think kids growing up there are as likely to be violent-crime victims as college graduates

Chicago will make some changes to its police department as a ‘down payment’ on reform

Chicago releases ‘unprecedented’ evidence from nearly 100 investigations into police shootings, use of force

Chicago’s staggering rise in gun violence

Mark Berman covers national news for The Washington Post and anchors Post Nation, a destination for breaking news and stories from around the country. Follow @markberman
Matt Zapotosky covers the Justice Department for the Washington Post's National Security team. Follow @mattzap



https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-walking-minefield-blindfolded-experts-195850501.html

PoliticsCNBC
Trump is 'walking through a minefield blindfolded': Experts say his business plan is not enough
Jacob Pramuk Wed, Jan 11 11:58 AM PST


Donald Trump 's plan to separate himself from his business empire does not go far enough and could create major ethics and even constitutional problems on the first day of his administration, experts said.

A Trump lawyer on Wednesday told reporters in New York that Trump will separate from his global business assets by putting them into a trust run by his two eldest sons and a Trump Organization executive. The company will also hire an ethics advisor to clear any new domestic deals, and Trump will donate any hotel profits generated from foreign governments to avoid the appearance of gifts.

With this structure, Trump is "walking through a minefield blindfolded" when he takes office Jan. 20, said Norman Eisen, a former top White House ethics lawyer under President Barack Obama who has led calls for Trump to divest his businesses, along with former George W. Bush lawyer Richard Painter.

"The president-elect's disregard for ethics and precedent and the Constitution in his press conference today are going to precipitate an ethics and constitutional crisis from the day he's sworn in," he told MSNBC on Wednesday.

Many ethics experts had called on Trump to divest his business or give his assets to a truly independent trustee to avoid the potential for him or his family to profit from the presidency. The U.S. Office of Government Ethics, an independent executive branch agency, previously said the involvement of Trump's children would not go far enough to reduce conflicts.

The president is exempt from the main federal conflict of interest law, though the OGE says past presidents have always acted like they were bound by it. Sheri Dillon, a tax attorney at Morgan Lewis, contended that Trump did not even need to take the steps he announced Wednesday to reduce possible conflicts.

Dillon contended that divesting the business would have been too complicated and could have created even more conflicts. She also argued that a constitutional clause barring gifts from foreign officials should not apply to foreign diplomats staying at Trump's Washington hotel. Reports of officials wanting to be seen at Trump's hotel raised concerns that the transactions could be seen as gifts, violating the so-called Emoluments Clause.

Eisen said, though, that this structure still leaves the possibility for emoluments violations or leaves the door open to running afoul of rules prohibiting bribery or insider trading, for example.

"This is a guarantee of scandal, corruption, controversy," he said, noting that action to check Trump's possible conflicts could come from all three branches of government.

Trump's involvement in his businesses does not matter if he continues to own them, added Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a public advocacy group. Trump "knows what he owns, and he knows how policy choices will affect his business," he said in a statement.
Trevor Potter, president of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, also said in a statement that "there is no reason why Trump would not be affected by the fortunes of a business he founded and still owns, which is run by his adult children."

Elizabeth Warren and Democrats in the Senate and House have already introduced a bill aimed to push Trump to divest his businesses . Still, it may not gain traction with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress and Trump assuming the presidency in nine days.
View Reactions (619)



https://www.laprogressive.com/putin-trump-partnership/

Old Whine, New Orange Bottle
BY TOM HALL
POSTED ON JANUARY 11, 2017

<i>Trump caricature By “Bill Pay”

In 1823, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams penned what we now think of as the Monroe Doctrine. The Napoleonic Wars were over, monarchists across Europe were trying to reestablish the strength of their governments, and colonies of European nations, particularly in the “New World”, were restive. The Monroe Doctrine meant to set out the concept that colonies in the New World that broke from their European rulers could look to the U.S. for “protection” and “guidance” and all the other “benefits” that colonial rulers provide.

The Monroe Doctrine was part of the normal diplomatic process of colonial powers making claims about their areas of control and then negotiating decisions about that control. In 1821, the Czarist Russian government issued an edict (the Ukase of 1821) that stated Russia’s sovereignty over the northwest of the North American continent, including Alaska, Vancouver Island and a lot of the mainland of what is now Canada, down to the Columbia River. Britain, the U.S. and Russia then negotiated territorial control, leaving Alaska to Russia, Vancouver and the mainland to Britain, and the U.S. and Britain to struggle later over the Columbia River.

In traditional colonial fashion, the natives who already lived on the land were not consulted.

President Teddy Roosevelt used the Monroe Doctrine to assert the right of the U.S. to intervene anywhere in Latin America, thus guaranteeing U.S. protection and support of corporate “Banana Republics”.

After WW-I, the European masters sought to divvy up the spoils of war, which included the colonies that Germany had had at the start of the war. The Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain, France and Czarist Russia divided the Middle East into areas controlled by France and Britain, with Turkey given to Russia. No concern was shown to any local concepts of national borders, tribal relationships, religion, etc.

As with the negotiations about Northwestern North America, the locals were not consulted.

Revealing his “deal making” chops, the Donald started, even before the election, by giving Czar Vlad a greenlight for his conquest of Crimea and the Ukraine, getting, in return, Czar Vlad’s help in the election.

Colonialism is not exclusively a white European habit. Japan was a British ally in WW-I, and used the war to seize the limited territories Germany had in the Pacific. Japan ignored the rights and interests of local natives as it took over German colonies, and pushed its way into more influence in tottering Imperial China.

After WW-I, any issues the world had with Japan’s actions were discussed between Japan and European powers. Without any need to consult the locals Japan sought to control. Japan only became a German ally during the 1930s, when European nations cut it out of negotiations on access to raw materials and natural resources, like rubber.

The end of WW-II saw more of the same pattern. A weakened Europe left the U.S. to rule the Pacific, including an effort to install Chiang Kai-Shek as a new (puppet) emperor in China, and to have suzerainty over all of Central and South America.

But realities introduced in WW-I now began to haunt colonialists. WW-I saw horses replaced by mechanized armies. And gaudy uniforms and polished sabers replaced by cheap, accurate, automated small arms. By the end of WW-II, such small arms had suffused the world, democratizing military power.

Resistance movements, made up of the long ignored local populations, sprang up across Africa, and Southeast Asia, and Latin America. When the Chinese people adopted a Constitutional Democracy government after WW-II, it was opposed by the Communists and by the U.S. The U.S. backed Chiang Kai-Shek’s effort to take over as a new emperor.

But just as Algerians didn’t allow France to dictate to them, the Chinese people didn’t allow the U.S. to choose their new emperor. Even Chiang Kai-Shek’s own troops deserted to join the Communist forces, once Chiang Kai-Shek showed what sort of brutal, dictatorial emperor he planned to be.

The locals, who had never been consulted, used their access to modern small arms to force colonial powers to deal with them, almost always leading to new negotiated settlements, and an end to colonial rule. And the weakened European powers, like France, were forced to give up colonial privileges they had long enjoyed. This set the stage for the emergence of two “superpowers” in the 1950s, the USSR and the U.S.

The two superpowers tried to exploit their new colonial opportunities. The USSR grabbed and surrounded itself with a ring of “client states”. And the U.S. gave control of its colonial governments in Latin America, Korea (and after France left) Vietnam to corporate interests that ran the governments like plantations.

But the superpowers struggled. The USSR got pushed out of Afghanistan, in much the same way the U.S. got whipped in Vietnam and stalemated in Korea. The Hungarians revolted, as did almost every banana republic south of the Rio Grande. Every one of these struggles was fueled by corporate sales of small arms that would then be used to attack the very corporate interests that sold them. While the USSR fought its own internal battles, and to maintain control of its client states, the U.S. struggled internally with minorities who no longer wanted to live like colonized foreigners in their own nation.

The Middle East was just one battlefield in the ongoing process of superpower power struggles. Neither side particularly cared what the locals wanted.

And neither side seems to care now, even as the region has blown up into a maelstrom of violence, religious discord and fabulous opportunities for war profiteers. But the traditional process of negotiating continues unabated.

Now, the negotiations are between narcissistic billionaires. The USSR having disintegrated, Russia has a new czar. And Republican Party chair Reince Priebus, at Christmas, labeled the Donald America’s “new king”. These two are negotiating how to divvy up the world. Russia comes to the negotiation with a stumbling economy, but a world-wise, educated and ruthless ruler. The U.S. brings internal dissension, international fatigue with endless corporate wars, and a ruler who brags about his contempt for science, foreigners and facts.

Revealing his “deal making” chops, the Donald started, even before the election, by giving Czar Vlad a greenlight for his conquest of Crimea and the Ukraine, getting, in return, Czar Vlad’s help in the election.

After the U.S. destroyed governance in Iraq, with no plan or effort to replace it, Iran started to wield its influence, and is now helping Iraqis to rebuild their nation. As Daesh, the movement started by Cheney/Bush came in on the side of Syrian rebels, thus guaranteeing that the U.S. would not help the rebels, Iran stepped in to help Bashar Assad, and then invited its traditional enemy, Russia, to join it.

Now that the U.S. has committed itself to helping Israel extend its Apartheid policies over more Palestinian areas, and to protecting the Saudi royal family from its own citizens, while it tries to conquer and colonize Yemen, Czar Vlad has offered the Donald a “settlement” to achieve peace (or at least a new stability) in the area.

Under Czar Vlad’s terms, Iran and Russia will help Assad wipe out popular resistance to his dictatorship, while the U.S. backs off from its miniscule aid to rebels. Long-time U.S. ally Turkey, having watched U.S. fumbling since 2001, and having listened to the promises of future ineptitude from the Pence-Ryan-McConnell administration, will switch its allegiance from the U.S. to Russia.

In ‘exchange’, the Donald will allow Czar Vlad freedom to re-conquer Estonia, Latvia and any other of the client states he wants. And Czar Vlad will not interfere as the U.S.-Israel-Saudi alliance wages colonial war against Palestinians, Lebanon, and maybe Tunisia.

The Donald is, naturally, going to present this as a triumph of HIS “deal making” skills, and his ability to manage Czar Vlad. The real world will see this as a repeat of an endless pattern. In 1823, the U.S. was too weak to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, and the rest of the world ignored it. In 2017, the Donald is too weak to refuse Czar Vlad’s demands. The rest of the world will watch to see how long the scared, isolationist Pence-Ryan-McConnell administration continues to let Russian Czar Vlad push it around.



https://gop.com/rnc-message-celebrating-christmas-2016/

“Merry Christmas to all! Over two millennia ago, a new hope was born into the world, a Savior who would offer the promise of salvation to all mankind. Just as the three wise men did on that night, this Christmas heralds a time to celebrate the good news of a new King. We hope Americans celebrating Christmas today will enjoy a day of festivities and a renewed closeness with family and friends.


TRUMP HIMSELF A WEEK OR SO AGO REFERRED TO HIS EXPECTED TERM OF OFFICE AS HIS "REIGN," (OR WAS SO QUOTED, "FAKE NEWS," PERHAPS) AND RICHARD NIXON MADE THE SAME MISTAKE BACK IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS. DON'T THEY UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE? THAT IS REALLY EMBARRASSING.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-sets-potential-obamacare-repeal-in-motion-during-vote-a-rama-that-lasted-into-wee-hours/

Senate sets potential Obamacare repeal in motion
CBS/AP
January 12, 2017, 1:38 AM


WASHINGTON -- The Senate has passed the first step in what Republicans intend to be the dismantling of President Obama’s health care law.

The nearly party-line 51-48 vote, in Thursday’s wee hours during an hours-long “vote-a-rama,” came on a nonbinding Republican-backed budget measure that eases the way for subsequent repeal legislation that could come to a vote next month.

Republican senators were responding to pressure to move quickly even as the GOP and President-elect Trump grapple with what the replace it with.

“We must act quickly to bring relief to the American people,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The House is slated to vote on the measure on Friday, though some Republicans there have misgivings about setting the repeal effort in motion without a better idea of the replacement plan.

Mr. Trump oozed confidence during a news conference Wednesday, promising his incoming administration would soon reveal a plan to both repeal so-called Obamacare and replace it with legislation to “get health care taken care of in this country.”

“We’re going to do repeal and replace, very complicated stuff,” Mr. Trump told reporters, adding that both elements would pass at virtually at the same time. That promise, however, will be almost impossible to achieve in the complicated web of Congress, where GOP leaders face navigating complex Senate rules, united Democratic opposition and substantive policy disagreements among Republicans.

Senate Republicans are maneuvering to repeal big chunks of the health care law with a simple majority, not the 60 votes and the Democratic help it would take to get them.

House passage of Thursday’s measure would permit follow-up legislation to escape the threat of a filibuster by Senate Democrats. But Republicans aren’t close to agreement among themselves on what any “Obamacare” replacement would look like.

Republicans plan to get legislation voiding Mr. Obama’s law and replacing parts of it to Mr. Trump by the end of February, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said Wednesday on “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” a conservative radio program. Other Republicans have said they expect the process to take longer.

The 2010 law extended health insurance to some 20 million Americans, prevented insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and steered billions of dollars to states for the Medicaid health program for the poor. Republicans fought the effort tooth and nail and voter opposition to Obamacare helped carry the party to impressive wins in 2010, 2014 and last year.

Thursday’s Senate procedural vote will set up special budget rules that will allow the repeal vote to take place with a simple majority in the 100-member Senate, instead of the 60 votes required to move most legislation.

That means Republicans, who control 52 seats, can push through repeal legislation without Democratic cooperation. They’re also discussing whether there are some elements of a replacement bill that could get through at the same time with a simple majority. But for many elements of a new health care law, Republicans are likely to need 60 votes and Democratic support, and at this point the two parties aren’t even talking.

Increasing numbers of Republicans have expressed anxiety over obliterating the law without a replacement to show voters.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she wants to at least see “a detailed framework” of a GOP alternative health care plan before voting on repeal. She said Republicans would risk “people falling through the cracks or causing turmoil in insurance markets” if lawmakers voided Obama’s statute without a replacement in hand.

Collins was among a handful of Republicans to occasionally break ranks to back some Democratic messaging amendments aimed at supporting such things as rural hospitals and a mandate to cover patients with pre-existing medical conditions. They were all shot down by majority Republicans anyway.

House leaders planned a Friday vote on the budget, though Republicans in that chamber also had misgivings.

Many members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus were insisting on first learning details about what a GOP substitute would look like -- or putting some elements of the replacement measure in the repeal bill.

“We need to be voting for a replacement plan at the same time that we vote for repeal,” said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., an influential conservative.

Some GOP senators have discussed a phase-in of three years or longer to give lawmakers more time to replace Obama’s overhaul and make sure people now covered by that law can adjust to a new program.

Some more moderate House Republicans were unhappy, too, including Rep. Tom MacArthur, R-N.J., a leader of GOP centrists in the House Tuesday Group. He said he would oppose the budget because there was too little information about the replacement, including whether people receiving expanded Medicaid coverage or health care subsidies under the existing law would be protected.

“We’re loading a gun here,” MacArthur said. “I want to know where it’s pointed before we start the process.”



INTELLIGENCE MEMO ON TRUMP – “FAKE NEWS” – NOT!

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia

These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia
Originally posted on Jan. 10, 2017, at 6:20 p.m.
Updated on Jan. 10, 2017, at 9:09 p.m.

Photo of Donald Trump Drew Angerer / Getty Images
FULL 35 PAGES ARE BELOW. SCROLL DOWN TO READ IT.

A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.

A dossier making explosive — but unverified — allegations that the Russian government has been “cultivating, supporting and assisting” President-elect Donald Trump for years and gained compromising information about him has been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks.

The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians. BuzzFeed News reporters in the US and Europe have been investigating various alleged facts in the dossier but have not verified or falsified them. CNN reported Tuesday that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Obama and Trump.

Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government.

The document was prepared for political opponents of Trump by a person who is understood to be a former British intelligence agent. It is not just unconfirmed: It includes some clear errors. The report misspells the name of one company, “Alpha Group,” throughout. It is Alfa Group. The report says the settlement of Barvikha, outside Moscow, is “reserved for the residences of the top leadership and their close associates.” It is not reserved for anyone, and it is also populated by the very wealthy.

The Trump administration’s transition team did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News’ request for comment. However, the president-elect’s attorney, Michael Cohen, told Mic that the allegations were absolutely false.

“It’s so ridiculous on so many levels,” he said. “Clearly, the person who created this did so from their imagination or did so hoping that the liberal media would run with this fake story for whatever rationale they might have.”

And Trump shot back against the reports a short time later on Twitter.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!
8:19 PM - 10 Jan 2017
29,239 29,239 Retweets 89,777 89,777 likes

His former campaign manager and current senior White House adviser, Kellyanne Conway, also denied the claims during an appearance on Late Night With Seth Meyers, adding that “nothing has been confirmed.” She also said Trump was “not aware” of any briefing on the matter.

The documents have circulated for months and acquired a kind of legendary status among journalists, lawmakers, and intelligence officials who have seen them. Mother Jones writer David Corn referred to the documents in a late October column.

Harry Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson tweeted Tuesday that the former Senate Democratic leader had seen the documents before writing a public letter to FBI Director James Comey about Trump’s ties to Russia. And CNN reported Tuesday that Arizona Republican John McCain gave a “full copy” of the memos to Comey on Dec. 9, but that the FBI already had copies of many of the memos.

If you have tips related to this story, write us at trumpstories@buzzfeed.com. To send us information confidentially, go here.

Go to website to read the report here:
FULL DOCUMENT 35 PAGES


http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/

Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him
By Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein, CNN

Updated 8:21 AM ET, Thu January 12, 2017
Video Update, January 12, 2017

…. Video -- Conway reacts to intel claims on Russia 05:22

RELATED:
…. Russia denies having "Kompromat" on Donald Trump – search on Google for three similar articles


(CNN)Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.

The classified briefings last week were presented by four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs -- Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.

One reason the nation's intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN.

These senior intelligence officials also included the synopsis to demonstrate that Russia had compiled information potentially harmful to both political parties, but only released information damaging to Hillary Clinton and Democrats. This synopsis was not an official part of the report from the intelligence community case about Russian hacks, but some officials said it augmented the evidence that Moscow intended to harm Clinton's candidacy and help Trump's, several officials with knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

Sources tell CNN that these same allegations about communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians, mentioned in classified briefings for congressional leaders last year, prompted then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to send a letter to FBI Director Comey in October, in which he wrote, "It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States."

CNN has confirmed that the synopsis was included in the documents that were presented to Mr. Trump but cannot confirm if it was discussed in his meeting with the intelligence chiefs.

The Trump transition team declined repeated requests for comment.

Appearing on Late Night with Seth Meyers, Kellyanne Conway, a senior Trump adviser, dismissed the memos, as unverified and untrue.

CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos have since been published by Buzzfeed. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.

Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.

On the same day that the President-elect was briefed by the intelligence community, the top four Congressional leaders, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees -- the so-called "Gang of Eight" -- were also provided a summary of the memos regarding Mr. Trump, according to law enforcement, intelligence and administration sources.

The two-page summary was written without the detailed specifics and information about sources and methods included in the memos by the former British intelligence official. That said, the synopsis was considered so sensitive it was not included in the classified report about Russian hacking that was more widely distributed, but rather in an annex only shared at the most senior levels of the government: President Obama, the President-elect, and the eight Congressional leaders.

CNN has also learned that on December 9, Senator John McCain gave a full copy of the memos -- dated from June through December, 2016 -- to FBI Director James Comey. McCain became aware of the memos from a former British diplomat who had been posted in Moscow. But the FBI had already been given a set of the memos compiled up to August 2016, when the former MI6 agent presented them to an FBI official in Rome, according to national security officials.

The raw memos on which the synopsis is based were prepared by the former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm. His investigations related to Mr. Trump were initially funded by groups and donors supporting Republican opponents of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries, multiple sources confirmed to CNN. Those sources also said that once Mr. Trump became the nominee, further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton.

Spokespeople for the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment. Officials who spoke to CNN declined to do so on the record given the classified nature of the material.

Some of the allegations were first reported publicly in Mother Jones one week before the election.

One high level administration official told CNN, "I have a sense the outgoing administration and intelligence community is setting down the pieces so this must be investigated seriously and run down. I think [the] concern was to be sure that whatever information was out there is put into the system so it is evaluated as it should be and acted upon as necessary."



https://www.yahoo.com/tv/fox-news-defends-rival-cnn-against-donald-trump-213951823.html

Watch Fox News Defend Rival CNN Against Donald Trump’s ‘Fake News’ Claim (Video)
Brian Flood
January 11, 2017 5 hours ago

Photograph -- Watch Fox News Defend Rival CNN Against Donald Trump’s ‘Fake News’ Claim (Video)
Also Read: CNN Denies Donald Trump's 'Fake News' Allegations: 'We Are Fully Confident in Our Reporting'
Also Read: BuzzFeed Responds to Trump With 'Failing Pile of Garbage' Merchandise
Related stories from TheWrap:
CNN Denies Donald Trump's 'Fake News' Allegations: 'We Are Fully Confident in Our Reporting'
Trump Defends Nazi Comparison, Attacks CNN and BuzzFeed as 'Fake News,' 'Disgrace'


Fox News anchor Shepard Smith defended CNN on Wednesday after Donald Trump accused the network of being “fake news” at a news conference for reporting on the existence of a Russian dossier of unverified allegations about the president-elect.

“President-elect Trump today told CNN’s Jim Acosta that his organization amounts to fake news. CNN’s exclusive reporting on the Russian matter was separate and distinctly different from the document dump executed by an online news property,” Smith said, drawing a distinction between CNN’s reporting and that of BuzzFeed News, which released the entire contents of the Russian dossier.

“Though we at Fox News cannot confirm CNN’s report, it is our observation that its correspondents followed journalistic standards,” Smith said. “Neither they, nor any other journalists, should be subjected to belittling and delegitimizing by the president-elect of the United States.”

Follow
Shepard Smith ✔ @ShepNewsTeam
Here’s what Shep had to say about @realDonaldTrump 's criticism of the media #TrumpPressConference
4:45 PM - 11 Jan 2017
1,880 1,880 Retweets 3,215 3,215 likes

Earlier in the day, CNN released a statement responding to Trump’s allegation that CNN is “fake news” during his first press conference as president-elect.

“CNN’s decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than BuzzFeed’s decision to publish unsubstantiated memos,” the network said. “The Trump team knows this. They are using BuzzFeed’s decision to deflect from CNN’s reporting, which has been matched by the other major news organizations.”

“We are fully confident in our reporting,” the statement continued. “It represents the core of what the First Amendment protects, informing the people of the inner workings of their government; in this case, briefing materials prepared for President Obama and President-elect Trump last week. We made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report’s allegations. Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.”

Trump scolded the network during his press conference on Wednesday and refused to take a question from CNN’s Jim Acosta.

“Your organization is terrible, don’t be rude,” the president-elect said. “No, I’m not going to give you a question. You are fake news.”

Trump accused CNN of reporting details from a 35-page intelligence document that the reporters were not able to independently corroborate.




http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fbis-james-comey-still-has-some-explaining-do

The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog
FBI’s James Comey still has some explaining to do
01/11/17 08:53 AM
By Steve Benen

Photograph -- FBI Director James B. Comey listens to a question from a reporter during a media conference in San Francisco, Calif., Feb. 27, 2014. Photo by Ben Margot/AP


The political world was jolted last night with new, unverified allegations about Donald Trump and Russia, which both the president-elect and President Obama have been made aware of. We don’t yet know which, if any, of the allegations are true.

We do know, however, that FBI Director James Comey has been aware of the allegations for quite a while, and with this in mind, The Guardian reported on a notable exchange on Capitol Hill yesterday.

The director of the FBI – whose high-profile interventions in the 2016 election are widely seen to have helped tip the balance of against Hillary Clinton – has refused to say if the bureau is investigating possible connections between associates of President-elect Donald Trump and Russia.

Testifying before the Senate intelligence committee on Tuesday, James Comey said he could not comment in public on a possible investigation into allegations of links between Russia and the Trump campaign.

“I would never comment on investigations – whether we have one or not – in an open forum like this, so I really can’t answer one way or another,” said Comey, at a hearing into the US intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia intervened in the election to benefit Trump.
Right. We certainly wouldn’t want the FBI director to comment on the status of a possible, politically sensitive investigation in public. Heaven forbid.

Look, this isn’t complicated. As recently as late October, James Comey was aware of allegations that Russia intervened in the American presidential election through an illegal espionage operation and might also have damaging, compromising information on Donald Trump. At the exact same time, Comey believed Anthony Weiner’s laptop might have emails from Hillary Clinton.

The FBI director, just days before Election Day and with early voting already underway across much of the country, found it necessary to share with Americans damaging information about the Democratic candidate, but not the Republican candidate.

As it turns out, of course, the damaging information about Clinton was benign: the emails on Weiner’s laptop were meaningless, and the political world’s hair-on-fire freak-out – which very likely cost Clinton the election – was spectacularly misplaced. The damaging information related to Trump may yet have merit.

But the point remains the same: Comey went public with provocative information about one candidate, not both.

That’s a decision that warrants a thorough explanation.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-renewed-relevance-russias-alleged-talks-team-trump?cid=eml_mra_20170111

The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog
The renewed relevance of Russia’s alleged talks with Team Trump
01/11/17 09:22 AM
By Steve Benen

Photograph -- Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump listens to his mobile phone during a lunch stop, Feb. 18, 2016, in North Charleston, S.C. Photo by Matt Rourke/AP


The new, unverified allegations about Donald Trump and Russia create a controversy with several interconnected parts, but more questions than answers. At this point, we don’t yet know what’s true and what’s not, but we do know U.S. intelligence agencies made President Obama and the president-elect aware of the allegations in briefing materials last week.

There’s one thread from the CNN report, however, that I’m especially eager to pull on.

The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.
This detail, like everything else that’s emerged since yesterday afternoon, has not yet been substantiated or verified. But it raises a question in need of an answer.

On Nov. 10, just two days after the American Election Day, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said “there were contacts” between the Russian government and Trump’s campaign team before the U.S. presidential election. In fact, Ryabkov said “quite a few” members of Trump’s team had been “staying in touch with Russian representatives” before Americans cast their ballots.

The Republican’s transition team has insisted that these conversations never happened. Kellyanne Conway was especially emphatic when asked about possible, pre-election communications between the campaign and Moscow. “Absolutely not,” she told CBS News’ John Dickerson in December. She added the conversations “never happened” and any suggestions to the contrary “undermine our democracy.”

This angle to the broader controversy quietly faded – replaced with other revelations – but the new reporting should return the question to the fore. Did the pre-election communications happen or not?

Either Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister is telling the truth or the Trump transition team is. They can’t both be right.



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/the-age-of-fake-policy.html?mwrsm=Facebook&_r=0

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Age of Fake Policy
Paul Krugman JAN. 6, 2017

Trivial interventions won’t do much to change a $19 trillion economy, despite the public relations hype. Credit Sam Hodgson for The New York Times

On Thursday, at a rough estimate, 75,000 Americans were laid off or fired by their employers. Some of those workers will find good new jobs, but many will end up earning less, and some will remain unemployed for months or years.

If that sounds terrible to you, and you’re asking what economic catastrophe just happened, the answer is, none. In fact, I’m just assuming that Thursday was a normal day in the job market.

The U.S. economy is, after all, huge, employing 145 million people. It’s also ever-changing: Industries and companies rise and fall, and there are always losers as well as winners. The result is constant “churn,” with many jobs disappearing even as still more new jobs are created. In an average month, there are 1.5 million “involuntary” job separations (as opposed to voluntary quits), or 75,000 per working day. Hence my number.

But why am I telling you this? To highlight the difference between real economic policy and the fake policy that has lately been taking up far too much attention in the news media.

Real policy, in a nation as big and rich as America, involves large sums of money and affects broad swaths of the economy. Repealing the Affordable Care Act, which would snatch away hundreds of billions in insurance subsidies to low- and middle-income families and cause around 30 million people to lose coverage, would certainly qualify.

Consider, by contrast, the story that dominated several news cycles a few weeks ago: Donald Trump’s intervention to stop Carrier from moving jobs to Mexico. Some reports say that 800 U.S. jobs were saved; others suggest that the company will simply replace workers with machines. But even accepting the most positive spin, for every worker whose job was saved in that deal, around a hundred others lost their jobs the same day.

In other words, it may have sounded as if Mr. Trump was doing something substantive by intervening with Carrier, but he wasn’t. This was fake policy — a show intended to impress the rubes, not to achieve real results.

The same goes for the hyping of Ford’s decision to add 700 jobs in Michigan — or for that matter, Mr. Trump’s fact-challenged denunciation of General Motors for manufacturing the Chevy Cruze in Mexico (that factory mainly serves foreign markets, not the U.S.).

Did the incoming administration have anything to do with Ford’s decision? Can political pressure change G.M.’s strategy? It hardly matters: Case-by-case intervention from the top is never going to have a significant impact on a $19 trillion economy.

So why are such stories occupying so much of the media’s attention?

The incoming administration’s incentive to engage in fake policy is obvious: It’s the natural counterpart to fake populism. Mr. Trump won overwhelming support from white working-class voters, who believed that he was on their side. Yet his real policy agenda, aside from the looming trade war, is standard-issue modern Republicanism: huge tax cuts for billionaires and savage cuts to public programs, including those essential to many Trump voters.

So what can Mr. Trump do to keep the scam going? The answer is, showy but trivial interventions that can be spun as saving a few jobs here or there. Substantively, this will never amount to more than a rounding error in a giant nation. But it may well work as a P.R. strategy, at least for a while.

Bear in mind that corporations have every incentive to go along with the spin. Suppose that you’re a C.E.O. who wants to curry favor with the new administration. One thing you can do, of course, is steer business to Trump hotels and other businesses. But another thing you can do is help generate Trump-friendly headlines.

Keeping a few hundred jobs in America for a couple of years is a pretty cheap form of campaign contribution; pretending that the administration persuaded you to add some jobs you actually would have added anyway is even cheaper.

Still, none of this would work without the complicity of the news media. And I’m not talking about “fake news,” as big a problem as that is becoming; I’m talking about respectable, mainstream news coverage.

Sorry, folks, but headlines that repeat Trump claims about jobs saved, without conveying the essential fakeness of those claims, are a betrayal of journalism. This is true even if, as often happens, the articles eventually, quite a few paragraphs in, get around to debunking the hype: many if not most readers will take the headline as validation of the claim.

And it’s even worse if headlines inspired by fake policy crowd out coverage of real policy.

It is, I suppose, possible that fake policy will eventually produce a media backlash — that news organizations will begin treating stunts like the Carrier episode with the ridicule they deserve. But nothing we’ve seen so far inspires optimism.

Read my blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, and follow me on Twitter, @PaulKrugman.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.




TRUMP REALLY IS A VERY POOR SPORT!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38611474

Donald Trump blasts Clinton after probe of FBI launched
7 hours ago
JANUARY 13, 2017

REUTERS: PHOTOGRAPH -- Donald Trump fired off a series of tweets on various subjects on Friday -- President-elect Donald Trump has turned his fire on beaten rival Hillary Clinton, after an investigation was launched into the action taken by the FBI during the election campaign
Photograph -- Hillary Clinton, Dec 2016 Image copyright GETTY IMAGES, Image caption No charges have been recommended against Mrs Clinton
Image caption -- A series of tweets on the "compromising material" story

RELATED:
…. Trump's theatre of the absurd
…. 10 things we learnt from Trump press event
…. Full transcript of press conference
…. All the Trump news in one place
…. Can US election hack be traced to Russia?
…. Trump 'compromising' claims - how did we get here?
…. Trump and his nominees compared
…. Trump and brands - an uneasy relationship
…. When presidents and spies fall out, 6 January 2017
…. 'No truth in journalism': Trump voters cast wide net for news, 5 December 2016 Last updated at 22:26 GMT

CLICKABLE INSET: A series of tweets on the "compromising material" story


The FBI and justice department face questions over their handling of her use of a private email server.

FBI director James Comey's decision to reopen an investigation 11 days before the election shook up the race.

Mr Trump tweeted that Mrs Clinton was "guilty as hell".

The president-elect continues to fire out tweets on a range of subjects just a week before his inauguration.

In the latest batch his anger over alleged compromising material held on him by Russia shows no sign of abating, again calling it "fake news" and "phony allegations" put together by "my political opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued".

He then turned to Thursday's announcement that a US government watchdog was to investigate the actions taken by the FBI and the justice department during the election campaign.

After he won the election, Mr Trump had toned down his rhetoric against his opponent, refusing to follow up on his election mantra that she should be "locked up" for criminal behaviour.

On Friday, he tweeted: "What are Hillary Clinton's people complaining about with respect to the FBI. Based on the information they had she should never have been allowed to run - guilty as hell.

"They were VERY nice to her. She lost because she campaigned in the wrong states - no enthusiasm!"

Comey role

On Thursday, the Department of Justice (DoJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz said he would look into "certain actions" by the FBI and DoJ.

Although Mrs Clinton was cleared of any wrongdoing days before the US voted, her team blamed Mr Comey's announcement as a key factor in her defeat.

Mr Horowitz said his review would look at a news conference in July 2016 when Mr Comey said he would not recommend charges against Mrs Clinton.

A letter to Congress on 28 October, in which Mr Comey said there were more emails to look at, will also be subject to this new inquiry.

The inspector general said his investigation had come in response to "numerous" requests from the public and from members of Congress.

Mrs Clinton said she had set up a home email server for reasons of convenience, but admitted it was a mistake.

In clearing her in July, the FBI said Mrs Clinton and her staff were "extremely careless" in handling classified materials. But there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing, it said.

Then in October they briefly reopened the investigation after finding new related emails but nothing was found on them and the case was closed for a second time.

'Clear preference'
In another of his tweets Mr Trump repeated that: "My people will have a full report on hacking within 90 days!"
Can US election hack be traced to Russia?
Trump 'compromising' claims - how did we get here?
Trump and his nominees compared
Trump and brands - an uneasy relationship


In his press conference on Wednesday, Mr Trump said he wanted a report into hacking of all types, including defence and industry.

He also admitted for the first time "I think it was Russia" when asked about hacking of the election campaign, but said many others had also hacked the US.

US intelligence agencies this month released an unclassified version of a report alleging that the Russian government had a "clear preference" for Mr Trump to win the US election.

The report says Russian President Vladimir Putin "ordered" a campaign aimed at influencing the outcome.

US intelligence agencies are also weighing claims that Moscow is holding compromising information about Mr Trump.

Unsubstantiated allegations suggest his election team colluded with Russia and that there were salacious videos of his private life, including claims of using prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow.

In his series of tweets on Friday, the president-elect called the claims "made-up facts by sleazebag political operatives".



WELL, MAYBE AND MAYBE NOT. IT'S REALLY TOO EARLY TO TELL. MAYBE THIS NEW INVESTIGATION -- THE ONE THAT TRUMP HATES SO MUCH -- WILL GIVE US THE SMOKING GUN. I CAN'T WAIT TO FIND MORE NEWS ON THE SUBJECT. THE ALMOST COY TEASING BETWEEN TRUMP AND PUTIN IS SICKENING TO ME, BECAUSE THIS REALLY IS A SERIOUS SUBJECT. IT'S NOTHING SHORT OF TREASON.