The Story Of Lewis And Bark

Donald Trump is a walking orange chancre and I dislike him immensely.  

That was my opinion of the man before he made the mistake of going after Rep. John Lewis on Twitter this morning.

President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday morning returned fire on a top Democrat who said he was not a “legitimate president.”

A day after Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said Trump was not legitimate, the president-elect told him to worry about his own district instead.

“Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results. Sad!” Trump wrote in a series of tweets.

What set off the Tantrum Of The United States this time?  The fact that Rep. Lewis came out of the Comey briefing Friday with a very dim view of the President-elect.

Lewis on Friday told NBC News he wouldn’t attend next week’s inauguration, saying he doesn’t believe Trump is a "legitimate president."

"I believe in forgiveness. I believe in trying to work with people. It will be hard. It's going to be very difficult. I don't see this president-elect as a legitimate president,” Lewis said.

“I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton,” he added.

“I don't plan to attend the inauguration. It will be the first one that I miss since I’ve been in Congress. You cannot be at home with something that you feel that is wrong, is not right.”

Trump's assumption that Georgia's 5th Congressional district is "in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested)" because all black Congressmen from urban districts are from the goddamn ghetto to this piece of human excrement is classic racism, and this man is going to be President in a week.

Let that sink in.  By the way, GA-5, which includes Atlanta and some surrounding areas?  According to the US Census Bureau, it's a majority black district with a median income of $48,000 and a mean income of $73,200 or so, with 40% of the district having a bachelor's or higher and 88% having a high school diploma.  That actually makes it one of the highest-educated districts in the nation, and it should, with multiple colleges and universities like Georgia Tech, Emory, Georgia State, Morehouse and Spelman.

It's not falling apart, unless by that Trump means "The Atlanta Falcons".  They're having a bad year.

You know, like Trump is about to.

Russian To Judgment, Con't

Looks like whatever intelligence briefings members of Congress have gotten late this week have been enough to finally get Senate Republicans to agree to open an investigation of the incoming President.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said late Friday that his committee will investigate possible contacts between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, reversing himself one day after telling reporters that the issue would be outside of his panel’s ongoing probe into Moscow’s election-disruption efforts.

Burr and the intelligence panel’s top Democrat, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, said in a joint statement that the committee's probe would touch on "intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns" as well as Russian cyberattacks and other election meddling outlined in an intelligence report released last week.

The committee will use “subpoenas if necessary” to secure testimony from Obama administration officials as well as Trump’s team, Burr and Warner said.

The bipartisan Senate announcement came hours after several House Democrats aired their frustrations with FBI Director James Comey following a classified briefing on Russian election disruption. The Democrats were livid that Comey refused to confirm whether he is conducting an inquiry into potential Trump ties to Russia — a question that he publicly declined to answer earlier this week.

Note that Burr was going to ignore Trump's Russia connections completely until the concerns about incoming National Security Adviser Mike Flynn and FBI Director James Comey became too much to take.

Burr said late Thursday that he did not plan to touch on possible contacts between Trump emissaries and Russia, asserting that the issue likely falls under the FBI's purview. "We don't have anything to do with political campaigns," the Republican said.

But Warner had said during a Tuesday committee hearing that he wanted the probe to touch on possible contacts between Moscow or its emissaries and political campaigns, putting the two senators potentially at odds. Warner told reporters late Thursday that his view hadn't changed, meaning that the Friday joint announcement effectively brought Burr around to the Democrat's perspective.

Also note that the House side still won't budge on hearings, as the chair of the House Intelligence Committee is on the Trump transition team.

The Senate move also creates a split with the House, where intelligence panel chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told POLITICO earlier on Friday that Congress should not be investigating any possible contacts between Russia and the Trump camp.

"House committees don't go operational like that, that I know of," said Nunes, who is a member of Trump's transition team. "It's a law enforcement issue."

A Nunes spokesman said late Friday that the Senate's decision had not changed the House chairman's view.

The joint announcement from Burr and Warner commits the Senate intelligence panel not only to probing possible Trump-Russia ties, but also to releasing "both classified and unclassified reports" that will include its conclusions and holding some open hearings. However, "the bulk of the committee's business" during the investigation will be tackled in private, the senators said.

Again, I have abysmally low expectations of this investigation, but there's always the chance that Mark Warner may actually find something.

Last Call For Heartbeat (Bill) Of America, Con't

Folks, you knew this was coming, and I've been warning you about it for months. Republicans are making their move early to eliminate legal abortion in America, and of course the man behind it is Steve King.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) on Thursday introduced the first federal “heartbeat bill” modeled on a failed Ohio attempt to end legal abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy—before many people know they’re pregnant.

“Heartbeat bills” amount to total abortion bans. They have been declared unconstitutional in federal court.

King’s office confirmed that HR 490 marked the first introduction of a so-called heartbeat bill in the U.S. Congress. Former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) introduced a forced ultrasound bill in 2011, but her measure did not ban abortion—King’s stated goal.

A King press release called Roe v. Wade unconstitutional, adding that under HR 490, “if a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected.”

His spokesperson provided Rewire with legislative text specifying that an abortion provider “who knowingly performs an abortion and thereby kills a human fetus” without determining a heartbeat, informing the patient of a heartbeat, or proceeding regardless of a heartbeat would face fines and up to five years in prison. The bill includes limited exceptions for the physical health of the pregnant person but not for “psychological or emotional conditions.”

King worked on the bill with anti-choice activist Janet Porter, the Faith2Action leader deemed too extreme for Christian talk radio, the congressman’s spokesperson said. Porter was behind Ohio Republicans’ recent failed attempt to push through a total abortion ban. Anti-choice Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) vetoed the measure the same day he signed a 20-week ban into law, reasoning that the 20-week ban would be more constitutionally prudent. It’s not.

Porter persuaded King to act while both attended the funeral of Phyllis Schlafly, the notorious Equal Rights Amendment opponent, as People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch first reported in October.

“I gave him a packet and he has agreed to introduce a federal Heartbeat Bill, which would protect every baby whose heartbeat can be detected,” Porter said on a conference call at the time. “That will actually end abortion in nearly every case. Ninety to 95 percent of the abortions will be ended with that bill.”

It's bad enough that this will probably pass the House (and hopefully dies screaming in the Senate) but King outright calling Roe unconstitutional is nonsense.  It's pretty clear what King expects, that this will be the vehicle to destroy Roe and end legal, safe abortion in America and move it to back alleys and illegal clinics.

How far it will go, we'll see.  But expect many more attempts to end Roe over the next two years, minimum.

Comey Chameleon, Con't

Meanwhile over on the domestic side of things, it's not turning out to be a good day for FBI Director James Comey as intelligence officials briefed the House on Russian interference in November's election, and suddenly quite a lot of House Democrats want his head on a pike.

A number of House Democrats left Friday's confidential briefing on Russian hacking fuming over the actions of FBI Director James Comey and convinced he's unfit to lead the agency. 

"I was nonjudgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him," Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said as he left the meeting in the Capitol. 

"Some of the things that were revealed in this classified briefing — my confidence has been shook." 

Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), senior Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, delivered a similar condemnation.

"I'm extremely concerned — extremely," he said. 

"I'll just — I'm very angry," echoed Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.).

Ahh, but it gets worse for Comey as now he's being investigated by the Justice Department.

The Justice Department inspector general on Thursday announced that it will launch an investigation into the FBI’s conduct leading up to the 2016 elections. 

The probe, which comes in response to requests from numerous chairmen and ranking members of congressional oversight committees, will look into allegations that Director James Comey broke bureau policy with his various public disclosures regarding the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The FBI’s role in Clinton’s unexpected defeat in November has remained a subject of fierce debate — with Comey himself in the middle of the controversy. Clinton's campaign has blamed Comey and the FBI for her loss to President-elect Donald Trump.
Eleven days before Election Day, Comey sent a letter to lawmakers telling them investigators had uncovered emails that appeared to be pertinent to the bureau’s probe, considered completed at the time, of Clinton's private email server and her handling of classified material while secretary of State. 

The announcement exploded in the final days of the campaign. And with a subsequent missive from Comey, a Republican nominated by Obama to his position, saying the emails had turned up no new evidence did little to quell the storm. 

“In the matter of the email investigation, it was our my judgment — my judgment, the rest of the FBI’s judgment — that those were exceptional circumstances where the public needed information,” Comey told the House Judiciary Committee in September.
But critics have called the disclosure an unprecedented break with bureau policy. The FBI typically does not comment publicly on ongoing investigations. 

The internal review will not change the outcome of the FBI’s findings in the probe against Clinton, Justice Department Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz told lawmakers in his announcement of the probe.

Further details of todays briefing meant things just kept getting worse for him.

One source in the meeting said Comey would not answer “basic questions” about the FBI’s current investigative activities. The FBI chief was grilled “over and over again,” according to the source, about his standards for acknowledging FBI investigations, with legislators repeatedly bringing up Comey’s dramatic public confirmation that the bureau was revisiting classification issues with Hillary Clinton’s private email server days before the election, as well as his summer press conference announcing that he would not seek indictment. 

Clinton is said to blame Comey’s intervention, which contravened longstanding justice department rules, for her electoral defeat. 

Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who had pressed Comey during a September hearing about his criteria for acknowledging an investigation, sharply asked Comey if the director was applying a double standard to Trump. 

Comey had said in September testimony that his standard was a “a need for public to be reassured, [and] when it’s obvious, it’s apparent, given our activities, public activities that the investigation is ongoing”. 

Nadler, according to a different source, then asked Comey in the Friday meeting: “Do you believe that standard has been met with reference to the possible investigation of the Trump campaign’s possible connections to the Russian government? And if not, why not?” 

Comey dodged the question, sparking anger amongst attendees. 

A spokesman for Nadler confirmed the congressman pressed Comey on the issue.

So we'll see where things end up.  But between this and Mike Flynn, things just got brutal a week before Trump takes office.  We've got a FBI chief who and an incoming National Security Adviser who are both looking more and more like co-conspirators with our president-elect.

Again, I expect things will move very quickly now.

Skinned Like Flynn

My political scandal radar is screaming at David Ignatius's op-ed this morning in the Washington Post involving the unanswered questions about Trump and Russia.  Ignatius has four big questions, including "Why didn't Obama make this public before the election?" to "What do the Russians truly have on Trump?" but the ones that immediately set off the alarm bells are the last two:

Question 3: What discussions has the Trump team had with Russian officials about future relations? Trump said Wednesday that his relationship with President Vladimir Putin is “an asset, not a liability.” Fair enough, but until he’s president, Trump needs to let Obama manage U.S.-Russia policy.

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s choice for national security adviser, cultivates close Russian contacts. He has appeared on Russia Today and received a speaking fee from the cable network, which was described in last week’s unclassified intelligence briefing on Russian hacking as “the Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet.”

According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

If the Trump team’s contacts helped discourage the Russians from a counter-retaliation, maybe that’s a good thing. But we ought to know the facts.

Question 4: Finally, what’s the chance that Russian intelligence has gamed its covert action more subtly than we realize? Applying a counter-intelligence lens, it’s worth asking whether the Russians hoped to be discovered, and whether Russian operatives fed the former MI6 officer’s controversial dossier deliberately, to sow further chaos.

These questions need to be answered — not to undermine Trump, but to provide a factual base to help the country recover from an attack on its political system. As Trump rightly says, “fake news” threatens our democracy. Truth will protect it.

The big thing here is Mike Flynn, incoming National Security Adviser, contacting the Russian ambassador multiple times on the day President Obama announced that nearly three dozen Russian spies were being booted from the country.  That right there is enough to absolutely deny Flynn the position, but the evidence against Flynn of his Russian involvement is already pretty substantial even if he wasn't already a crackpot tinfoil hat lunatic who's likely to get us into a shooting war.

Also, this is a warning shot that the IC knows full damn well every word Flynn said to Ambassador Kislyak, as the notion that the NSA sure as hell wouldn't have those lines tapped is silly to the point of institutional gross negligence on the part of the Puzzle Palace.  Not only does the piece confirm that, but it almost certainly means that either A) there's a FISA warrant out on those conversations or B) the NSA is happily leaking this to the press to make a point. If Flynn was making side deals on behalf of the Trump administration, what Ignatius above calls "discouraging the Russians from counter-retaliation" that's pretty much the definition of treason, guys.

Again, it's only a matter of time before the contents of Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador is leaked.  The story is giving Flynn notice that he's basically a dead man walking, and that maybe he wants to cooperate.  The larger issue is whether or not Flynn was making deals with the knowledge of Trump. Flynn only has so much protection, you see.  Should his armor be stripped, either by leaks, by an angry GOP Congress, or by Trump serving him up as a blood sacrifice, this cannot end well for him. He knows this. So what does he do?

Believe me, a lot of people are asking these exact questions right now around Washington, and I'm betting more than a few folks are going to be advising The Donald to fall on his sword over this. Whether or not Trump decides to do the right thing, well I wouldn't put good money on that.  I'm betting he figures once he takes office, all this goes away.

He's probably right.  This time.  And that will remain true until the base turns on both Trump and Republicans in Congress.  But if enough Republicans join with the Dems, Trump's support on Capitol Hill could collapse quickly.

After that, all bets are off.

New tags, long overdue: Michael Flynn, and The Big T.

StupidiNews!

• GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan is promising that Republicans will "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act "as quickly as they can", the House takes a procedural repeal vote today.
• President Obama is immediately ending the long-time "wet foot, dry foot" Cuba policy that allowed Cuban immigrants that reached US shores to stay indefinitely as asylum seekers.
• New North Dakota GOP Gov. Doug Burgum says he expects the controversial Dakota Access pipeline to be built through Sioux lands once the Trump administration takes office.
• The scandal that saw South Korean President Park Geun-hye impeached has now reached the country's National Pension Service and global corporate giant Samsung.
• Nintendo's newest hardware platform, the combination handheld/console Nintendo Switch, will launch worldwide on March 3 for $299.

Last Call For The Colors Of Money

I'm pretty sure Trump's more...confederate...supporters are going to have a mild stroke when this happens later this spring.

For the first time in American history, Lady Liberty will be portrayed as a woman of color on United States currency.

In celebration of the U.S. Mint and Treasury's 225th anniversary, the new $100 coin was unveiled on Thursday featuring Lady Liberty as an African-American woman.

Since the passage of the Coinage Act in 1792, all coins are required to feature an "impression emblematic of liberty," in either words or images. Until the new coin designed by Justin Kunz was unveiled, Lady Liberty had always been depicted as a white woman.

Treasury & Mint officials unveiled the 2017 American Liberty High Relief Gold Coin! https://t.co/HkfcPN5Enq #USMint225 @USTreasury pic.twitter.com/0ShGHPn5oF

— United States Mint (@usmint) January 12, 2017

I think I'm going to take up the fine art of numismatics later this year.

"As we as a nation continue to evolve, so does liberty's representation," said Elisa Basnight, U.S. Mint chief of staff, at a ceremony unveiling the new coin. "We live in a nation that affords us the opportunity to dream big and try to accomplish the seemingly impossible."

The new 24-karat gold coin, which is set to be released in April and is meant primarily for collectors, is one of a series of new, diverse commemorative coins the Mint will unveil in the coming years. Future depictions of Lady Liberty, according to the Mint, will also feature designs to represent Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Indian Americans, and others "to reflect the cultural and ethnic diversity of the United States."

And I think I'm going to make it a yearly thing at that.

Regulation Obliteration In Trump Nation

While everyone's looking at the Senate right now for confirmation hearing antics and Trump giving arguably the worst press conference ever, please keep an eye on where the real evil is being manufactured: Paul Ryan and the House.

Republicans on Wednesday passed a bill in the House of Representatives that touched on nearly every step U.S. agencies take in creating and applying new rules, continuing their blitz to radically reform "abusive" federal regulation of areas from the environment to the workplace.

In a 238-183 vote, the House passed the "Regulatory Accountability Act," which combined eight bills aimed at changing how the vast government bureaucracy runs. Only five Democrats voted for it.

The legislation would give President-elect Donald Trump tools "to wipe out abusive regulation," said Bob Goodlatte, the Judiciary Committee chairman who is among the many House leaders calling for lighter regulation and saying the costs to comply with federal rules are too high.

Republicans say there is little accountability for regulations that apply to almost every aspect of American life because they are created by appointed officials and not elected representatives. Federal agencies operate either independently or under the president's authority.

The current reform push is part of Trump's campaign promise to "drain the swamp," House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said on Wednesday.

As House Republicans push for reform - last week they passed bills requiring Congressional approval of major rules and giving Congress power to kill dozens of recently enacted ones - Democrats are fighting back.

Democrats have said the many extra procedures required by the reform bills would stall agencies' work, making it impossible to create needed regulations on the environment, financial markets and other areas. Democrats contend that slowing down rulemaking is intended to help big businesses escape oversight.

The accountability act would jeopardize the government's capability "to safeguard public health and safety, the environment, workplace safety and consumer financial protections," the Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, John Conyers, said before the vote.

"Worse yet, many of these new requirements are intended to facilitate the ability of regulated entities - such as well-funded corporate interests - to intervene and derail regulatory protections they oppose," Conyers said.

Specifically, the bill would require agencies to post more detailed information on proposals for an extended period of time, limit judge's interpretations in legal challenges, and require agencies to enact the lowest-cost version of a rule. 

That's the big one, folks.  This legislation would allow corporate lobbyists the final say on which regulations they should be subject to.  In other words, the EPA, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, SEC, FDA and FCC?  The regulation they'd make would be rendered toothless.  They wouldn't be watchdog agencies to protect Americans, they'd be government industry groups designed to protect corporations. 

The Bush administration made this the default before the Obama administration used these regulatory agencies for their intended purpose.  Now the GOP is changing their intended purpose by law to be nothing more than government industry advocacy groups, wholly subject to Congress.

Hopefully Senate Dems can block this with a filibuster, but I can think of a couple of Senate Dems would would be more than happy to destroy the EPA or the CFPA or to defang the FCC or FDA.  Don't count on them saving us from this.

We'll see where this legislation goes, but expect the shock and awe portion of the Trump regime in earnest in a couple weeks.  Things will move quickly after his inauguration, and America will be inundated by a deluge of GOP garbage like this.  I'm betting a healthy chunk of it will become law.

That's Real White of You, Con't

At least one GOP lawmaker, furious that anyone would dare to question GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions over his long career of attacking civil rights, already believes the "race war" is on, and it's being led by Democrats against the white nation of America.

Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks said in a radio interview on Tuesday that criticism of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who is Donald Trump's pick to be attorney general, is part of an ongoing "war on whites" by Democrats.

"It's really about political power and racial division and what I've referred to on occasion as the 'war on whites.' They are trying to motivate the African-American vote to vote-bloc for Democrats by using every 'Republican is a racist' tool that they can envision," the Republican congressman said on "The Morning Show With Toni & Gary" on WBHP 800 Alabama radio. "Even if they have to lie about it." 

Got news for you Mo, assuming all black voters are stupid dupes being manipulated by evil Democrats into thinking Republicans are racist?  That's actually a really good case for saying "Hey, Republicans are racists and we're not going to vote for them."

Brooks was responding to a question about criticism of Sessions' record on civil rights, which has come under renewed scrutiny as he seeks confirmation to head the Justice Department. Sessions was denied a federal judgeship in 1986 in part because of comments he allegedly made about organizations like the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union. Sessions, a Republican, also criticized the 1965 Voting Rights Act as "intrusive" in the 1980s. 

In his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Sessions called charges of racism "damnably false," saying that he had prosecuted a voter fraud case in response to "pleas from African-American, incumbent, elected officials." 

Brooks, who said in Tuesday's radio interview that he was under consideration by Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley to replace Sessions in the US Senate, was defending Sessions in regard to his position on voting rights. 

"Well, to get right down to it, it's all about political power, and the Democrats are not shy about lying in order to achieve their political goals," he said. "And if they have to besmirch the reputation of a good man, Jeff Sessions, in order to achieve their political goals, they as a group are not hesitant to do so."

Who are you going to believe, Mo Brooks or your lying eyes?

In all seriousness, if Mo Brooks believes there's a "war on whites" in America by Democrats, what happens after January 20th when Republicans have control of the federal government and can "fight" that war?

StupidiNews!

• Trump Defense Secretary pick Gen. James Mattis has canceled his appearance before House Democrats who want to hear from him before they pass legislation to allow him to serve.
• A Massachusetts judge is ordering ExxonMobil to turn over research documents related to climate change to state AG Maura Healey as part of the state's ongoing investigation.
• The US Senate took the first steps towards repeal of Obamacare by instructing committees to draft repeal legislation in a 51-48 vote.
• Drugmaker and biotech stocks dropped by as much as 3% as Donald Trump warned the industry that he would force price bidding for government contracts, a Democratic position.
• Video footage showed a commercial drone crashed into the top observation platform of Seattle's Space Needle on New Year's Eve, the platform was full of pyrotechnics.

Last Call For The Disrespect Never Ends

It seems Obama Derangement Syndrome won't come to an end once Barack Obama leaves office. In fact, it may be far easier starting next week to treat him like the help.

President Obama’s clashes with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may cost him a membership at an exclusive golf club, sources said.

Obama is looking to join the elite Woodmont Country Club in Maryland once he becomes a private citizen.

But members of the mostly Jewish club are at each other’s throats over whether to accept the golf-loving president, with many saying he deserves to be snubbed for not blocking an anti-Israel vote at the United Nations, according to the sources.

Obama’s UN decision was followed by a speech by Secretary of State John Kerry that was seen by many in the Jewish community as hostile to Israel.

“In light of the votes at the UN and the Kerry speech and everything else, there’s this major uproar with having him part of the club, and a significant portion of the club has opposed offering him membership,” a source told The Post.

Obama’s complimentary membership in the club — which charges regular members an $80,000 initiation fee — would have begun after he leaves the White House on Jan. 20, Inauguration Day.

The Obamas will continue to live in Washington, DC — and the Rockville club would offer a relaxing respite just miles from his new home. It would also offer a chance for Obama to hit the links on “two premiere golf courses . . . known across the country for their spectacular championship play and . . . rave reviews by golfers throughout the years,” according to the club’s Web site.

“It’s a very exclusive, high-end club,” a source said.

If I were President Obama, I'd delightfully tell these assholes to go stick their golf clubs where the sun doesn't shine and decline their invitation if offered, but that's why he's a better person than I'll ever be.

But the hatred and massive disrespect for the man will never end, will it?  America will treat Barack Obama like just another ni-CLANG for as long as he's alive, and then some.

The Donald Does Not Like Questions

His Imperial Orangeness would like you to know that media critical of the Trump administration will not be tolerated in any way.

President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday would not let a reporter from CNN ask him a question during a press conference, saying that he worked for a “fake news” company.

The contentious exchange happened after Trump trashed a report CNN published Tuesday that said the U.S. intelligence community had presented him with allegations that the Russian government had compromising, but unverified, information about him.

“Could you give us a chance, you're attacking our news organization, can you give us a chance to ask a question, sir?” CNN's Jim Acosta asked him.

“Don’t be rude. I’m not going to give you a question,” Trump responded. “You are fake news.”

After the news conference, Acosta said on air that Sean Spicer, the incoming White House press secretary, told him that “if I were to do that again, I was going to be thrown out of this press conference.”

What happens when Trump has the power of the state to not just throw journalists out his press conferences, but to start jailing them at will?

Might be something CNN wants to start asking. Heck, he almost covered up the real story at his presser: that he still refuses to release his tax returns, and refuses to resolve his painfully obvious conflicts of interest.  Greg Sargent:

We appear to be entering into truly uncharted territory. The vast extent of Trump’s global holdings, combined with their opacity, create both a level of potential for conflicts, and an inability for us to track those conflicts, that render all efforts to predict the consequences utterly hopeless.

It is hard to say what will happen now. The role of the press in trying to keep track of those conflicts will be crucial. But on that front, too, what we saw at today’s presser was cause for alarm. Trump tore into CNN as “fake news” for publishing a careful if provocative and envelope-pushing story on unverified claims that Russian intelligence gathered compromising information on him. Trump ferociously attacked Buzzfeed for publishing a dossier of those claims, pointedly noting that Buzzfeed would “suffer the consequences.”

That would be worrisome enough on its own. But combine it with Trump’s unprecedented dishonesty and his refusal to revise his claims when they are widely called out as false, and it all starts to smack of an effort to stamp out the very possibility of shared agreement on the legitimate institutional role of the news media or even on reality itself. It’s easy to imagine that, if and when a news organization uncover potential conflicts, Trump will simply deny the reality of what’s been uncovered (“fake news”) and begin threatening “consequences” towards that organization.

One thing that remains clear: Congressional Republicans are not going to step up and try to mitigate this situation. Republicans are not going to take any of the steps they could be taking to try to prod Trump into showing more transparency about his holdings, which would make conflicts and corruption less likely. It’s hard to see that changing, unless, perhaps, intensified media scrutiny shakes loose enough scandalous stories to make the lack of congressional action untenable. That will also require public pressure — of the sort that forced Republicans to reverse recently on their plan to gut an independent ethics oversight office, but probably a lot more.

Right now, serious pessimism appears to be a reasonable default setting. I could be entirely wrong about this — maybe Trump really will surprise us. If not, our institutions are going to be tested in unforeseen ways, and it will be on us — through vigilance, organizing, and political action — to make sure they are up to the task.

We're a week and change away from the most terrifying administration in recent history, and odds are very good that things will begin to disintegrate in America very quickly.

President Obama Says Goodbye

President Obama's farewell address was one for the ages, Obama being Obama, unrepentant and unbowed after eight years, the professor sharing his thoughts with the class.

That's what I want to focus on tonight: The state of our democracy. Understand, democracy does not require uniformity. Our founders argued. They quarreled. Eventually they compromised. They expected us to do the same. But they knew that democracy does require a basic sense of solidarity --- the idea that for all our outward differences, we're all in this together; that we rise or fall as one. (Applause.) 

There have been moments throughout our history that threatens that solidarity. And the beginning of this century has been one of those times. A shrinking world, growing inequality; demographic change and the specter of terrorism --- these forces haven't just tested our security and our prosperity, but are testing our democracy, as well. And how we meet these challenges to our democracy will determine our ability to educate our kids, and create good jobs, and protect our homeland. In other words, it will determine our future. 

To begin with, our democracy won't work without a sense that everyone has economic opportunity. And the good news is that today the economy is growing again. Wages, incomes, home values, and retirement accounts are all rising again. Poverty is falling again. (Applause.) The wealthy are paying a fairer share of taxes even as the stock market shatters records. The unemployment rate is near a 10-year low. The uninsured rate has never, ever been lower. (Applause.) Health care costs are rising at the slowest rate in 50 years. And I've said and I mean it -- if anyone can put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we've made to our health care system and that covers as many people at less cost, I will publicly support it. (Applause.) 

Because that, after all, is why we serve. Not to score points or take credit, but to make people's lives better. (Applause.)

But he also spoke on the America yet to come and our role in it, a multicultural America.

But we're not where we need to be. And all of us have more work to do. (Applause.) If every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hardworking white middle class and an undeserving minority, then workers of all shades are going to be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves. (Applause.) If we're unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don't look like us, we will diminish the prospects of our own children -- because those brown kids will represent a larger and larger share of America's workforce. (Applause.) And we have shown that our economy doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Last year, incomes rose for all races, all age groups, for men and for women. 

So if we're going to be serious about race going forward, we need to uphold laws against discrimination -- in hiring, and in housing, and in education, and in the criminal justice system. (Applause.) That is what our Constitution and our highest ideals require. (Applause.) 

But laws alone won't be enough. Hearts must change. It won't change overnight. Social attitudes oftentimes take generations to change. But if our democracy is to work in this increasingly diverse nation, then each one of us need to try to heed the advice of a great character in American fiction -- Atticus Finch -- (applause) -- who said "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view...until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." 

For blacks and other minority groups, it means tying our own very real struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country face -- not only the refugee, or the immigrant, or the rural poor, or the transgender American, but also the middle-aged white guy who, from the outside, may seem like he's got advantages, but has seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change. We have to pay attention, and listen. (Applause.) 

For white Americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn't suddenly vanish in the '60s -- (applause) -- that when minority groups voice discontent, they're not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness. When they wage peaceful protest, they're not demanding special treatment but the equal treatment that our Founders promised. (Applause.) 

For native-born Americans, it means reminding ourselves that the stereotypes about immigrants today were said, almost word for word, about the Irish, and Italians, and Poles -- who it was said we're going to destroy the fundamental character of America. And as it turned out, America wasn't weakened by the presence of these newcomers; these newcomers embraced this nation's creed, and this nation was strengthened. (Applause.) 

So regardless of the station that we occupy, we all have to try harder. We all have to start with the premise that each of our fellow citizens loves this country just as much as we do; that they value hard work and family just like we do; that their children are just as curious and hopeful and worthy of love as our own. (Applause.)

The president spoke frankly on race, saying the post-racial America envisioned has definitely not come to pass.  It's the kind of thing he should have said eight years ago (or at least seven and some change after he was elected.)  The fact he's saying it now is amazing.

Needless to say, not everyone's a fan of the speech.

I am.  Listen to the man one last time.

StupidiNews!

• President Obama gave his final farewell address to the nation last night in Chicago, where he warned Americans that "democracy can buckle when we give into fear."
• The brother of the man who along with his wife killed 14 in San Bernardino last year plead guilty to immigration fraud in a California court this week, he faces five years in prison.
• Iceland's new center-right coalition government wants a referendum on joining the EU, will lift regulations on banks and may peg the country's currency to a more stable one.
• The US, Canada, and Mexico will combine for a joint North American bid to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup as soccer's governing body will expand the event from 32 to 48 teams.
• The Department of Justice has released new guidelines for identifying suspects in photo layouts to include "blind administration" of line-ups, the changes will affect federal law enforcement.

Last Call For Pissing Off Donald

I was wondering when the contents of what the Russians presumably had on Trump would leak, and it looks like that nasty bit of business dropped tonight as multiple news outlets are reporting that Trump was indeed confronted by the nation's top intelligence directors with the knowledge that the Russians had compromising material on him.

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.

That's bad enough.  What this compromising material is, and the relationship the Trump campaign supposedly had with the Russians in order to leak information on the Clinton campaign?  That's far, far worse.

An official in the US administration who spoke to the Guardian described the source who wrote the intelligence report as consistently reliable, meticulous and well-informed, with a reputation for having extensive Russian contacts.

Some of the reports – which are dated from 20 June to 20 October last year – also proved to be prescient, predicting events that happened after they were sent.

One report, dated June 2016, claims that the Kremlin has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years, with the aim of encouraging “splits and divisions in western alliance”.

It claims that Trump had declined “various sweetener real estate deals offered him in Russia” especially in developments linked to the 2018 World Cup finals but that “he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.”

Most explosively, the report alleges: “FSB has compromised Trump through his activities in Moscow sufficiently to be able to blackmail him.” The president-elect has not responded to the allegations.

And then the information gets into, well, actual treason.  The kind where Trump's folks met with Russian agents in Prague to work out the details.

Apparently this story has been shopped around for months now as opposition research against Trump, but none of the media outlets in America would touch it.  None.  It may mean it's utter fiction.  But CNN is apparently running with it now, as is BuzzFeed and the Guardian.

If this is false, then the media has failed us one last time.

If this is true, well....the media failed us one last time.

Either way, we're screwed.