TRUMP'S INAUGURATION: THE DAY IS FINALLY HERE, JANUARY 20TH 2017.

ICHEOKU says in about 10 hours 20 minutes, President-Elect Donald John Trump will be sworn in and officially becomes the 45th President Of The United States of America. Luckily this particular Ides comes in January and unlike that of March, will go without any snafu. Also it is Friday the 20th and not Friday the 13th and so no much worries either. May God bless and keep His anointed one safe as he assumes the office and help him Make America Great Again. 

ICHEOKU says it is a new day and a new beginning for America and the entire world as an adult would once again mount the saddle of American leadership and peradventure provide a leadership everyone will be proud of again. Icheoku says congratulations PE DJT.

DONALD TRUMP: THE GREAT SPEECH AT UNION STATION.

ICHEOKU says this guy is the same age with Buu, but can anyone tell? Now listen and hear a man who actually knows how to work the crowd; indeed an adult has at last come to the White House and he is going to serve for free - just 100 cents a year to avoid infringing laws on involuntary servitude. Needless to add that his other fellow billionaires numbering 7 in his cabinet will equally serve for free. Anyway, enjoy the thrill and make sure you watch it till the end to see why women voted for him against all odds. He is a lady's man and he knows how to make women blush.

THE CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE'S IGNOMINIOUS END - JIM GERAGHTY

The Clinton Foundation just vindicated its critics. The Clinton Foundation filed papers this week warning that 22 staffers will be laid off on April 15, when the Clinton Global Initiative is formally shut down.

The CGI is a program of the Clinton Foundation, centered around an annual meeting described as “the networking event of choice for corporations, nonprofits, nongovernmental organizations and wealthy philanthropists.” Before the election, when Hillary Clinton’s victory in the presidential race appeared likely, the Clinton Foundation declared that it would wind down the initiative no matter how the election turned out. At the time, those plans made sense: It would be unseemly to say the least if a corporate- and foreign-government-funded networking event was directly connected to the sitting president. But there was never much official explanation of why CGI would need to shut down in the case of a Clinton defeat. After all, the world didn’t run out of poor people or sick people on November 8. 

But after the election, some of the foundation’s donors acted as if the causes CGI supported were no longer worthy. The Australian government said it did not intend to continue its donations to the Clinton Foundation; it had given $88 million over ten years. After dramatically increasing its yearly donation in 2014 and 2015, the government of Norway chose to reduce its donation by 87 percent after the election. Why would foreign governments suddenly lose interest in the charitable work the Clinton Foundation purported to do? They wouldn’t, unless the Clinton Foundation and CGI had existed to give foreign governments and businessmen a way to curry favor with a future president from the beginning. The April shutdown, then, makes complete sense: Why keep operating if there’s no influence left to peddle? Clinton fans will vehemently deny that there’s anything to this cynical explanation, but the behavior of many foundation partners suggests that selling access and goodwill was a big part of the organization’s operations. 

Right before the election, one of the infamous WIkiLeaks documents revealed just how blurry the line was between the foundation’s non-profit activities and Bill Clinton’s for-profit activities. In a 2011 memo to Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, John Podesta, and other members of the foundation’s board, the ex-president’s longtime aide Doug Band attempted to “clarify my activities on behalf of the President — both on behalf of non-profit Foundation activities and the management of the his [sic] for-profit business opportunities.” Band’s firm, Teneo, had consulted and raised money for the Clinton Foundation while simultaneously securing lucrative speaking and consulting gigs for the former president: We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities — including speeches, books, and advisory service engagements. In that context, we have in effect served as agents, lawyers, managers and implementers to secure speaking, business and advisory service deals. 

In support of the President’s for-profit activity, we also have solicited and obtained, as appropriate, in-kind services for the President and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like. Neither Justin nor I are separately compensated for these activities (e.g., we do not receive a fee for, or percentage of, the more than $50 million in for-profit activity we have personally helped to secure for President Clinton to date or the $66 million in future contracts, should he choose to continue with those engagements). With respect to business deals for his advisory services, Justin and I found, developed and brought to President Clinton multiple arrangements for him to accept or reject. Of his current 4 arrangements, we secured all of them; and, we have helped manage and maintain all of his for-profit business relationships for the past 11 years. 

Since 2001, President Clinton’s business arrangements have yielded more than $30 million for him personally, with $66 million to be paid out over the next nine years should he choose to continue with the current engagements. In short, when Band and his colleagues called up wealthy individuals and institutions — all of whom would have a strong incentive to be on good terms with Hillary Clinton, the likely future president — they sought financial help for the foundation and lucrative work for Bill Clinton. The line between charitable giving and the Clintons’ personal enrichment was exceptionally blurry, and those involved knew it. The simplest, easiest way for the Clintons, foundation donors, staffers, and allies to prove all the cynics wrong was for the foundation to operate after the election the same way it did before, proving that its purpose was genuinely charitable and altruistic rather than political. Instead, they’ve chosen to shut down CGI. The rest of us can draw our own conclusions as to why.

BETTY WHITE AT 95, STILL LOOKING EVER REGAL

Icheoku says the last surviving cast member of the Golden Girls, the ever vivacious Betty White, at 95, is still going strong and looking every inch royal as ever. Icheoku wishes her all the best and many more years of that ever light-up face. Congratulations.

MLK: HE DREAMED SO THAT WE SHALL BE FREE.

Icheoku says happy birthday to the man whose tireless and courageous effort made it possible that all are equal in America today. Reverend (Dr) Martin Luther King would have been 88 years today and Icheoku, alongside millions of other very appreciative human beings, wishes the King a happy posthumous 88 birthday.  Icheoku says lets make him a saint; oh, forgot he is not a Catholic but he lives a saint in the hearts of millions worldwide anyway.

OBAMA'S 60 MINUTES CBS INTERVIEW, HIS LAST PRESIDENTIAL INTERVIEW.

Icheoku  says watched President Barack Hussein Obama's last presidential interview on CBS 60 Minutes and overall, it was a good interview. He was composed and self assured as usual and for most part the interview went on very well. However, Icheoku was taken aback by the president's evasiveness and refusal to answer categorically why he drew a redline in the sand for Syria's Bashir Assad and did nothing to enforce it when he crossed it. The interviewer Steve Kroft did not ask the president about Libya and Moummar Gaddafi and why he needed to have him killed after the former Libyan strongman has somewhat made a turn around, becoming a better world leader cum citizen. 

Icheoku expected such life changing event as the killing of Gaddafi to have factored into Mr Kroft questioning on foreign policy but it did not come up. Icheoku says no one can count Obama's many foreign policy blunders without factoring in the killing of Gaddafi. A man who gave up his nuclear weaponry program; paid compensation for the Lockerbie plane bombing; handed over two of his security operatives that were fingered in the bombing who were prosecuted and jailed; apologized, opened up his country's vast reserves of oil to Western oil companies and came to New York to call for a new beginning; he also called Obama his son and son of Africa; yet Obama's government agreed it was the right thing to do to kill him leading to the disaster in Europe with migration as well as the unending crisis in Libya and the Middle-east. 

Also Nigeria was under the threat of terrorism from the Boko Haram Islamists sect, killing the people and laying to waste a large swath of the country. The then Nigeria President Jonathan Goodluck made every effort for Obama to sell Nigeria weapons with which to fight those terrorists but Obama refused, hiding under lame excuse that Nigeria's military's human rights records was below par. Meanwhile the same Obama's government was supplying Saudi Arabia and other less disciplined governments throughout the world  with weapons, but would not sell to Nigeria under a Christian president, Jonathan Goodluck. Of the three issues that forced Icheoku to abandon the ship of support of Obama, only the Syrian redline in the sand made it in the interview and the answer Obama gave was not a satisfactory one either. It is unfortunate that the president for the umpteenth time refused to take responsibility for his miscalculations in Syria and went to great length to avoid answering why he did not follow it up with enforcement. He was completely evasive and defensive and simply put, refused to answer the question why he did not react when Assad crossed his drawn redline.

The things Icheoku took away from the interview include the president's admission that there is severity of partisanship in American politics and that it does not allow for any meaningful movement towards solving the peoples problems. Further that the thing America has going for it despite the gridlock in Washington DC which has almost risen to the level of near dysfunctional, is that America for most part, from states to counties to cities, still functions very well. The president also said that Trump was an exceptional change candidate whose campaign was unconventional, almost free styling; yet he won convincingly and probably might introduce his unique style into governance, but whether it will work or serve him well, the president did not say. Continuing the president agreed with Steve Kroft that Trump ran an improvised campaign but that improvised governing might be an impossible task. Icheoku says regardless, what the president said or did not say is now immaterial; it doesn't matter anymore. Paraphrasing Hillary Clinton, Icheoku says what difference does it make at this time anyway. His opinion is now no longer relevant, it is now flushed into history and before this time next week we shall have a new president named Donald John Trump who will Make America Great Again. So long President Obama; hello and welcome President Donald John Trump.

TRUMP V. LEWIS: CONGRESSMAN JOHN LEWIS IS THE PROVOCATEUR.

Icheoku says it is simply amazing the way people are piling up on President-Elect Donald John Trump, especially those far left loonies who have refused to accept the expressed will of majority of American people in the last November 8, 2016 presidential election who cast their votes as they wanted. Funny enough the same people who taunted Donald Trump severally before goading him into running for the presidency could not understand how he managed to pull the impossible off and today so full of it, they have gone into a tizzy and recovering from their shock is proving very problematic indeed. Donald Trump was minding his own business trying to form his cabinet when Congressman from Georgia John Lewis went on national television to decry President-Elect Donald Trump as illegitimate and in his own very own words stated "I don't see this president-elect as a legitimate president'; thus casting aspersion on the over 65 million Americans who voted for him. 

Icheoku says what exactly did John Lewis think Donald Trump was going to do following his unprovoked attack, aspersion and casting of doubt over his election? May be scamper away and hide in a dark tunnel, whimpering that the revered John Lewis has hit him below the belt and that he might not recover? No, not the Donald and not the fighter from the Borough of Queens New York, the only true blue color billionaire who is still walking the face of this earth. Now the whole liberal far left is crying blue murder that Donald attacked their civil rights icon but they forgot that Donald Trump is also an icon to the over 65 million American voters who voted for a change of direction as well as to drain the swamp in Washington DC in which John Lewis has stayed in for so long. These trouble makers also purposely forgot that it was John Lewis who provoked the fight and started it all when he publicly cast doubt and on national television and without any provocation on  Trump's presidency, stating that Trump's election was illegitimate because of the Russians. Icheoku says so did the Russians point .45 Magnum behind the ears of the over 65 million voters to either vote for Trump or have their brains on the table? The logicality of this pervasive claim is such that no reasonable rational person would sink their teeth in the bait. 

The other thing so nauseating about all this current righteous indignation of the liberal far left is that none of them cares a hoot about what those emails disclosed and revealed about the character of their irreparably damaged and irrecoverably flawed candidate Hillary Clinton. None of them too is prepared to see the tag team smackdown which Bernie Sanders got from the Democratic Party establishment including Dana Brazille leaking to Hillary Clinton CNN debate questions ahead of debates in order to give her undue advantage over Bernie Sanders. None of them also is questioning the criminal behavior of Hillary Clinton in using private servers and deleting over 33,000 emails. None of them is interested either in the lackluster campaign put up by the Hillary Clinton and see why she was rejected by the American people who wanted to move on from the Obama non working experiment of the past eight years and did in fact move on with the choice their made. But as far as they are concerned, it must be other peoples' fault but not the fault-personified herself. They have been gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair ever since last November 8, 2016 and instead of taking their chill pill or even checking into rehab to get over it, they are rather foaming in their mouths and looking for who to take down with them or at least blame for the shameful loss. 

The good news however is that these people are messing with the wrong guy as Donald Trump is not afraid to take on anyone ma-no a ma-no.  If these guys are not yet convinced that the man who took on and took down both the Clintons and the Bushes and dethroned them from the American political throne is not a man to mess with, then something is definitely wrong with their calculation. Possibly it is the senses overriding influence of prescription pills and the other readily available hallucinatory substances that is to blame. But regardless and irrespective of their petulance, indignation and provocation, come January 20, 2017, President-Elect Donald John Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America and there is nothing any of them can do about it or to change it. They should go and watch themselves during the period leading up to the last election to see how their boisterousness and unbridled arrogance turned off so many voters and how their unmarketable candidate could not put up a winning campaign. This might force them to come off their funk as it was a self brought about destruction and only a truthful soul-searching would help them begin to pick up the pieces. Until then, the choice is theirs to make, either to start now to learn how to live in a world and America with President Donald John Trump presidency or they will live a life of misery this next four years if not more. Icheoku is glad that President-Elect Donald John Trump as usual did not backdown in the smackdown but paid Congressman John Lewis exactly in kind. 

HOW WE FOOL OURSELVES ON RUSSIA - WILLIAM J. BURNS

In the quarter-century since the end of the Cold War, profound grievances, misperceptions and disappointments have often defined the relationship between the United States and Russia. I lived through this turbulence during my years as a diplomat in Moscow, navigating the curious mix of hope and humiliation that I remember so vividly in the Russia of Boris N. Yeltsin, and the pugnacity and raw ambition of Vladimir V. Putin’s Kremlin. And I lived through it in Washington, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations.

There have been more than enough illusions on both sides. The United States has oscillated between visions of an enduring partnership with Moscow and dismissing it as a sulking regional power in terminal decline. Russia has moved between notions of a strategic partnership with the United States and a later, deeper desire to upend the current international order, where a dominant United States consigns Russia to a subordinate role.

The reality is that our relationship with Russia will remain competitive, and often adversarial, for the foreseeable future. At its core is a fundamental disconnect in outlook and about each other’s role in the world.

It is tempting to think that personal rapport can bridge this disconnect and that the art of the deal can unlock a grand bargain. That is a foolish starting point for sensible policy. It would be especially foolish to think that Russia’s deeply troubling interference in our election can or should be played down, however inconvenient.

President Putin’s aggressive election meddling, like his broader foreign policy, has at least two motivating factors. The first is his conviction that the surest path to restoring Russia as a great power comes at the expense of an American-led order. He wants Russia unconstrained by Western values and institutions, free to pursue a sphere of influence.

The second motivating factor is closely connected to the first. The legitimacy of Mr. Putin’s system of repressive domestic control depends on the existence of external threats. Surfing on high oil prices, he used to be able to bolster his social contract with the Russian people through rising standards of living. That was clear in the boomtown Moscow I knew as the American ambassador a decade ago, full of the promise of a rising middle class and the consumption of an elite convinced that anything worth doing was worth overdoing. But Mr. Putin has lost that card in a world of lower energy prices and Western sanctions, and with a one-dimensional economy in which real reform is trumped by the imperative of political control and the corruption that lubricates it.

The ultimate realist, Mr. Putin understands Russia’s relative weakness, but regularly demonstrates that declining powers can be at least as disruptive as rising powers. He sees a target-rich environment all around him.

If he can’t easily build Russia up, he can take the United States down a few pegs, with his characteristic tactical agility and willingness to play rough and take risks. If he can’t have a deferential government in Kiev, he can grab Crimea and try to engineer the next best thing, a dysfunctional Ukraine. If he can’t abide the risk of regime upheaval in Syria, he can flex Russia’s military muscle, emasculate the West, and preserve Bashar al-Assad atop the rubble of Aleppo. If he can’t directly intimidate the European Union, he can accelerate its unraveling by supporting anti-Union nationalists and exploiting the wave of migration spawned in part by his own brutality. Wherever he can, he exposes the seeming hypocrisy and fecklessness of Western democracies, blurring the line between fact and fiction.

So what to do? Russia is still too big, proud and influential to ignore and still the only nuclear power comparable to the United States. It remains a major player on problems from the Arctic to Iran and North Korea. We need to focus on the critical before we test the desirable. The first step is to sustain, and if necessary amplify, the actions taken by the Obama administration in response to Russian hacking. Russia challenged the integrity of our democratic system, and Europe’s 2017 electoral landscape is the next battlefield.

A second step is to reassure our European allies of our absolute commitment to NATO. American politicians tell one another to “remember your base,” and that’s what should guide policy toward Russia. Our network of allies is not a millstone around America’s neck, but a powerful asset that sets us apart.

A third step is to stay sharply focused on Ukraine, a country whose fate will be critical to the future of Europe, and Russia, over the next generation. This is not about NATO or European Union membership, both distant aspirations. It is about helping Ukrainian leaders build the successful political system that Russia seeks to subvert.

Finally, we should be wary of superficially appealing notions like a common war on Islamic extremism or a common effort to “contain” China. Russia’s bloody role in Syria makes the terrorist threat far worse and despite long-term concerns about a rising China, Mr. Putin has little inclination to sacrifice a relationship with Beijing.

I’ve learned a few lessons during my diplomatic career, often the hard way. I learned to respect Russians and their history and vitality. I learned that it rarely pays to neglect or underestimate Russia, or display gratuitous disrespect. But I also learned that firmness and vigilance, and a healthy grasp of the limits of the possible, are the best way to deal with the combustible combination of grievance and insecurity that Vladimir Putin embodies. I’ve learned that we have a much better hand to play with Mr. Putin than he does with us. If we play it methodically, confident in our enduring strengths, and unapologetic about our values, we can eventually build a more stable relationship, without illusions.

THE DEEP STATES GOES TO WAR WITH TRUMP - GLENN GREENWALD.

....using unverifiable claims as the Democrats cheer.

iN JANUARY 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further. 

This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”

Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss, as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry, and damaging those behaviors might be.

The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There is a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combating those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.

But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.

Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from basic means of ensuring accuracy?

All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts, and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.

FOR MONTHS, THE CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” The CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton and went to the Washington Post to warn, in the week before the election, that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin,” adding that Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA’s proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war, while Trump denounced it. Clinton clearly wanted a harder line than Obama took against the CIA’s long-standing foes in Moscow, while Trump wanted improved relations and greater cooperation. In general, Clinton defended and intended to extend the decadeslong international military order on which the CIA and Pentagon’s preeminence depends, while Trump — through a still-uncertain mix of instability and extremist conviction — posed a threat to it.

Whatever one’s views are on those debates, it is the democratic framework — the presidential election, the confirmation process, congressional leaders, judicial proceedings, citizen activism and protest, civil disobedience — that should determine how they are resolved. All of those policy disputes were debated out in the open; the public heard them; and Trump won. Nobody should crave the rule of Deep State overlords.

Yet craving Deep State rule is exactly what prominent Democratic operatives and media figures are doing. Any doubt about that is now dispelled. Just last week, Chuck Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being “really dumb” by challenging the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare to stand up to them:

And last night, many Democrats openly embraced and celebrated what was, so plainly, an attempt by the Deep State to sabotage an elected official who had defied it: ironically, its own form of blackmail.

BACK IN OCTOBER, a political operative and former employee of the British intelligence agency MI6 was being paid by Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump (before that, he was paid by anti-Trump Republicans). He tried to convince countless media outlets to publish a long memo he had written filled with explosive accusations about Trump’s treason, business corruption, and sexual escapades, with the overarching theme that Trump was in servitude to Moscow because they were blackmailing and bribing him.

Despite how many had it, no media outlets published it. That was because these were anonymous claims unaccompanied by any evidence at all, and even in this more permissive new media environment, nobody was willing to be journalistically associated with it. As the New York Times’ Executive Editor Dean Baquet put it last night, he would not publish these “totally unsubstantiated” allegations because “we, like others, investigated the allegations and haven’t corroborated them, and we felt we’re not in the business of publishing things we can’t stand by.”

The closest this operative got to success was convincing Mother Jones’s David Corn to publish an October 31 article reporting that “a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country” claims that “he provided the [FBI] with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump.”

But because this was just an anonymous claim unaccompanied by any evidence or any specifics (which Corn withheld), it made very little impact. All of that changed yesterday. Why?

What changed was the intelligence community’s resolution to cause this all to become public and to be viewed as credible. In December, John McCain provided a copy of this report to the FBI and demanded they take it seriously.

At some point last week, the chiefs of the intelligence agencies decided to declare that this ex-British intelligence operative was “credible” enough that his allegations warranted briefing both Trump and Obama about them, thus stamping some sort of vague, indirect, and deniable official approval on these accusations. Someone — by all appearances, numerous officials — then went to CNN to tell the network they had done this, causing CNN to go on air and, in the gravest of tones, announce the “Breaking News” that “the nation’s top intelligence officials” briefed Obama and Trump that Russia had compiled information that “compromised President-elect Trump.”

CNN refused to specify what these allegations were on the ground that it could not “verify” them. But with this document in the hands of multiple media outlets, it was only a matter of time — a small amount of time — before someone would step up and publish the whole thing. BuzzFeed quickly obliged, airing all of the unvetted, anonymous claims about Trump.

Its editor-in-chief, Ben Smith, published a memo explaining that decision, saying that — although there was “serious reason to doubt the allegations” — BuzzFeed in general “errs on the side of publication” and “Americans can make up their own minds about the allegations.” Publishing this document predictably produced massive traffic (and thus profit) for the site, with millions of people viewing the article and presumably reading the “dossier.”

One can certainly object to BuzzFeed’s decision and, as the New York Times noted this morning, many journalists are doing so. It’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where it’s justifiable for a news outlet to publish a totally anonymous, unverified, unvetted document filled with scurrilous and inflammatory allegations about which its own editor-in-chief says there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations,” on the ground that they want to leave it to the public to decide whether to believe it.

But even if one believes there is no such case where that is justified, yesterday’s circumstances presented the most compelling scenario possible for doing this. Once CNN strongly hinted at these allegations, it left it to the public imagination to conjure up the dirt Russia allegedly had to blackmail and control Trump. By publishing these accusations, BuzzFeed ended that speculation. More importantly, it allowed everyone to see how dubious this document is, one the CIA and CNN had elevated into some sort of grave national security threat.

ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER it was published, the farcical nature of the “dossier” manifested. Not only was its author anonymous, but he was paid by Democrats (and, before that, by Trump’s GOP adversaries) to dig up dirt on Trump. Worse, he himself cited no evidence of any kind but instead relied on a string of other anonymous people in Russia he claims told him these things. Worse still, the document was filled with amateur errors.

While many of the claims are inherently unverified, some can be confirmed. One such claim — that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen secretly traveled to Prague in August to meet with Russian officials — was strongly denied by Cohen, who insisted he had never been to Prague in his life (Prague is the same place that foreign intelligence officials claimed, in 2001, was the site of a nonexistent meeting between Iraqi officials and 9/11 hijackers, which contributed to 70 percent of Americans believing, as late as the fall of 2003, that Saddam personally planned the 9/11 attack). This morning, the Wall Street Journal reported that “the FBI has found no evidence that [Cohen] traveled to the Czech Republic.”

None of this stopped Democratic operatives and prominent media figures from treating these totally unverified and unvetted allegations as grave revelations. From Vox’s Zack Beauchamp:

BuzzFeed’s Borzou Daragahi posted a long series of tweets discussing the profound consequences of these revelations, only occasionally remembering to insert the rather important journalistic caveat “if true” in his meditations:

Meanwhile, liberal commentator Rebecca Solnit declared this to be a “smoking gun” that proves Trump’s “treason,” while Daily Kos’s Markos Moulitsas sounded the same theme:

While some Democrats sounded notes of caution — party loyalist Josh Marshall commendably urged: “I would say in reviewing raw, extremely raw ‘intel,’ people shld retain their skepticism even if they rightly think Trump is the worst” — the overwhelming reaction was the same as all the other instances where the CIA and its allies released unverified claims about Trump and Russia: instant embrace of the evidence-free assertions as Truth, combined with proclamations that they demonstrated Trump’s status as a traitor (with anyone expressing skepticism designated a Kremlin agent or stooge). 

THERE IS A real danger here that this maneuver could harshly backfire, to the great benefit of Trump and to the great detriment of those who want to oppose him. If any of the significant claims in this “dossier” turn out to be provably false — such as Cohen’s trip to Prague — many people will conclude, with Trump’s encouragement, that large media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying “Fake News” to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit — render impotent — future journalistic exposés that are based on actual, corroborated wrongdoing.

Beyond that, the threat posed by submitting ourselves to the CIA and empowering it to reign supreme outside of the democratic process is — as Eisenhower warned — an even more severe danger. The threat of being ruled by unaccountable and unelected entities is self-evident and grave. That’s especially true when the entity behind which so many are rallying is one with a long and deliberate history of lying, propaganda, war crimes, torture, and the worst atrocities imaginable.

All of the claims about Russia’s interference in U.S. elections and ties to Trump should be fully investigated by a credible body, and the evidence publicly disclosed to the fullest extent possible. As my colleague Sam Biddle argued last week after disclosure of the farcical intelligence community report on Russian hacking — one that even Putin’s foes mocked as a bad joke — the utter lack of evidence for these allegations means “we need an independent, resolute inquiry.” But until then, assertions that are unaccompanied by evidence and disseminated anonymously should be treated with the utmost skepticism — not lavished with convenience-driven gullibility.

Most important of all, the legitimate and effective tactics for opposing Trump are being utterly drowned by these irrational, desperate, ad hoc crusades that have no cogent strategy and make his opponents appear increasingly devoid of reason and gravity. Right now, Trump’s opponents are behaving as media critic Adam Johnson described: as ideological jellyfish, floating around aimlessly and lost, desperately latching on to whatever barge randomly passes by.

There are solutions to Trump. They involve reasoned strategizing and patient focus on issues people actually care about. Whatever those solutions are, venerating the intelligence community, begging for its intervention, and equating its dark and dirty assertions as Truth are most certainly not among them. Doing that cannot possibly achieve any good and is already doing much harm.


FYI: The original article is titled: "The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer"; paraphrased to fit space.

CNN 'FAKE' NEWS NETWORK MONIKER, A KISS OF DEATH?

Icheoku says anyone who watched and followed the Cable News Network throughout the last American election knows that the Cable Network was heavily invested in a Hillary Clinton's presidency. From their election news coverage and reportage to their lack of interest in really reporting the Wikileaks leaked emails of Hillary Clinton and her campaign; to the type of people they invited on their network to give their paid ten cents opinions; everything was geared and tailored towards realizing only one objective - electing Hillary Clinton president. That much was obvious to even the uninvested casual observer or watcher of the network, who periodically tuned in and casually listened to the hogwash narrative which they pushed out. 

Icheoku says whether the Saudi oil billionaire Prince Alwaleed Ibn Talal who owns Time Warner the parent company of CNN used his influence to try and achieve the Saudi State objective in electing Hillary Clinton, there is no conclusive evidence known to Icheoku to so conclude. However, when the whole shebang of their election coverage leading up to the last November 8, 2016 presidential election is added up, it is a reasonable deduction to make that their skewed and one-sided heavily biased in favor of Hillary Clinton coverage was heavily motivated. The world saw what happened with the CNN during the last presidential election, from their coverage to commentaries to their refusal to wallpaper cover Julian Asange Wikileaks leaked Hillary Clinton's emails and the fact that one of their paid talking hack Dona Brasille leaked debate questions to Hillary Clinton and every other thing in between, CNN is guilty as hell in their objective to influence the election in favor of Hillary Clinton. Even on election night, they delayed calling the election even when it was obvious that their candidate has lost as they waited for Pennsylvania to somehow magically upturn the votes. 

Hillary Clinton did not hold a press conference for more than 235 days leading up to the election and walked away free. But in the eyes of CNN it was not a big deal as Hillary Clinton could do no wrong in their eyes and they never called her out on that nor forcefully demanded that she hold a press conference as is the normal etiquette of presidential candidates. Even some of the most damaging revelations of Wikileaks concerning Hillary Clinton did not germinate enough curiosity to want to follow up on the story to actually get to the root of the matter. It is obvious that CNN has been on the decline from their former Olympian heights during the days of Bernard Shaw and the first Iraqi Operation Freedom war when CNN was the holy grail of real breaking news. But a lot of waters have since passed under their bridge, including vapid political correctness, which literally appears that one has to be first an open homosexual to work for the network. That, Icheoku gets; but to skew their news in such a manner that the blatancy becomes completely repulsive is unacceptable. This is the reason why their ratings have tanked so much that even the rudderless MSNBC have surpassed them in ratings because so many people have since tuned out and many more are still changing channels. 

Icheoku has nothing against whatever direction the management of CNN want to take their network; but they should be man enough to own up and apologize when they are caught pants down with fake unsubstantiated news story, instead of mounting a rather  worthless defense thereof. They reported a fake news story about someone who is still alive and well; someone very well known to the network and who has appeared severally on the network's news programs  So if there was an unsubstantiated story concerning that person, why didn't a credible news network reach out to the person to confirm or at least hear his side of the story before going to town with it. From the gravity of the story, what if the wife of the accused person had broken his head upon hearing the story of how he traveled to Prague to cavort with prostitutes when he had told her earlier that he was going to Los Angeles? What if President Elect Donald John Trump has summarily and impulsively fired him before even investigating the alleged story that his lawyer traveled to Prague to engage with issues involving him, without first getting a clearance from him? What if the guy's international passport was lost and there was no other incontrovertible and credible means of verifying that he did not even travel outside the United States of America during the relevant time and period? 

But a network which wants its viewers to believe the stories they air disregarded every known rules of journalism by not first verifying the story or hearing from the other side and went on air with the story, that Michael Cohen was in Prague to negotiate issues involving Donald Trump with the Russians. Michael Cohen has never traveled to Czech nor to any of the territories formerly belonging to the old Soviet Union before and he produced his passport to show that there was no Czech immigration stamp on it. But the CNN are still holding their position and have refused to apologize, both to the wrongly defamed Michael Cohen and to President Elect Donald John Trump who was maligned by the story. Icheoku says it is not the way to go and CNN will not be the first news outlet to ever run a wrong story or retract a story and/or apologize for incorrect reportage. Icheoku says the correct thing to do and the only way CNN will repair its image is to issue an apology forthwith; and Icheoku hereby calls on CNN to tender unreserved apology to the two parties concerned, failing which they will cease to have any credibility left whatsoever. Viewers do not tune into CNN to hear "unsubstantiated" stories; nope, they tune in to hear the latest developing stories around the world including within the United States of America. CNN caused themselves a grievous harm by this caught-in-the-act fake story and it behooves on them to seek a revalidation of self and an apology is a good way to start. 

CELEBRITY APPRENTICE: HIRE OBAMA, TERMINATE THE TERMINATOR.

Icheoku says without a doubt, Arnold Schwarzenegger is definitely not Donald Trump and his "You're terminated" does not carry the same weight nor resonates as Donald's "You're fired" and the people have since tuned off even before it started. It would appear that his "You're Terminated" catch-phrase is not catchy enough and the solution would be to terminate the terminator. The best thing to do before the show becomes unwatchable and goes down the ratings drain is to honorably suspend or even cancel the show; or better still hire someone who could bring back viewers to the show. Icheoku says no other person will be most suited to host the show and be far would be the hottest host of the show than the soon to be former President Barack Obama or even Michelle Obama. 

Icheoku says President Barack Obama should have a go at the Celebrity Apprentice. With his freshness from the White House, many of his supporters will certainly tune in to have something to occupy their minds and keep them away from groaning because of the new occupant of the White House. That way, they can still tune in to television to watch their idol, Barack Obama. But Arnold Schwarzenegger is definitely not the it factor as he is not what the doctor ordered. A show which attracted over 11 million viewers when it debut with Donald Trump but has now plummeted to below 5 million viewers with Arnold Schwarzenegger shows a total rejection of the current host Mr Calu-foo-rnyna. Donald Trump is simply irreplaceable because there can only be one Donald Trump, the 'You're fired guy and now President-elect of the United States of America. If however the producers want to try, it is definitely not with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Donald Trump can be imitated but never duplicated; and if the producers of the show wants a ratings roof, they should hire the soon to be former President Barack Obama as only him currently have what it will take to revamp the show and take its ratings to the stratosphere. 

Icheoku says Arnold Schwarzenegger lost his appeal mojo after knocking up his house girl, leading up to his divorce from his wife Maria-Shriver Kennedy. The people have not forgiven him nor are they ready to warm up to him by tuning into whatever he has going on, either on television or elsewhere. Women who constitutes the majority of television show watching audience have not forgiven Arnold Schwarzenegger for what he did to one of their own favorite person; and until then, ratings of his hosted Celebrity Apprentice will remain where it is, in the cold doldrums and soon will descend further into the abyss. The only solution is to hire a freshman television face like Barack Obama and hope his fans will tune in to continue to see his face somewhere on television. Every other thing will not work and the producers of the show might as well as kill it rather than have the face of Arnold Schwarzenegger appear thereon, with his alien accent, which is now a turn-off to many Americans; especially in this new age of national pride and America First ideology. Icheoku says it is either to do away with Arnold Schwarzenegger or kill off The Celebrity Apprentice entirely. Nothing else will work or operate to save the show.

MERLY STREEP: ANOTHER HOLLYWOOD ELITE GONE OFF THE WAGON.

Icheoku says that the Hollywood elites who bankrolled Hillary Clinton's failed second bid for the White House have not recovered from the shellacking she received on November 8, 2016 once again manifested at the just held Golden Globe Awards 2016. This time the arrowhead was none other that the Devil who wears Prada herself, Mary Louise Streep aka Merly Streep. Still sore and mourning the botched feminist hostile takeover of the White House, the old lady went off on a tirade. She completely lost it and throwing every decorum and decency out the window, pilloried Donald Trump and denigrated millions of world wide Mixed Martial Arts enthusiasts. 

In the usual Hollywood 'am better than anyone else' character, Merly Streep, condemned Mixed Martial Arts as a no Art; holding up only those of them who actually do nothing other than lip through scripts and put up a make-brief facade on screens, as the only purveyors and professionals of the Art. In her very own words, Merly Streep said “Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners, if we kick them all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and Mixed Martial Arts – which are not the arts.” Icheoku says really and who made Merly Streep the sole authority on what constitutes Art and what does not. A tirade she began with taking a jab at President-Elect Donald John Trump, re-litigating an election which was since November 8, 2016 won by Trump and lost by her candidate Hillary Clinton; and rehashing a story of a supposed mocking of a disabled journalist which story has been since debunked. But she played it along and in her natural course of professional endeavor, injected acting into the story telling, inflecting her voices to reflect whatever pretentious pain she felt about it. 

This was a story that was severally and repeatedly presented to the American people during the campaign, which they evaluated and came to the conclusion that the country have to move on. Yet Merly Streep had nothing better to say in thanks and appreciation for the award she received but devoted her time slot disparaging President-Elect Donald John Trump and millions of Mixed Martial Arts loving world-wide audience. That she called into question the judgment and moral uprightness of the over 65 million Americans who voted for President-Elect Donald John Trump by regurgitating this tale of lack of compassion by the president-elect several months after the election tells a lot about her character. That she dismissed a sport engaged in by thousands of people worldwide and   millions of their fans and followers as no Art, says a lot too about her very condescending attitude. Why make so many millions of people mad and in so cavalier a manner that is beyond words or description. Is Merly Streep telling the world that she has is better than everyone else who voted for Trump or who is a lover or Mixed Martial Arts; or that she has never erred or ever did something below par and in other words, that she is infallible? 

This is exactly what is wrong with some of these elites who condescendingly look down on the rest of the people and think that they are very special simply because they can read and act scripted make-believe stories. Icheoku concedes that Merely Streep is a good actress and confesses too to having watched some of her movies including 'The Devil Wears Prada'; but does her acting ability make her wholesome in every aspect and facet of human life. If only Icheoku knows where to find her gardeners, cleaners, janitors, chauffeurs and other sundry staff of hers to find out from them how saintly in fact she is when they are left alone in the privacy of her fiefdom and utterly to her mercy. But no one actually needs to speak with any of her servants and attendants to know how mean spirited she really is after watching her broad condemnation of Mixed Martial Arts as no Art at all. Icheoku says what an uppity lady of entitlement, who would broad-brush Football and MMA as no arts. How dare she disparage millions of world citizens who participate in this two sports; yet this is the woman who some people listen to as an authority in morality. 

Icheoku is not beguiled by the emotive sentiment Merely Streep tried to whip up with the theater she put up. Every right thinking person knows the real source of the hurt inside her, that her candidate and the prospective first female president did not make it to the White House and peradventure with her advanced age, she might not ever witness the day when an electable female will eventually make it to the White House. Hurting for a lost cause or a departed dear one is an acceptable form of grieving; but Icheoku refuses to accept the subterfuge of holding advocacy for the disabled and illegals which she passed it off as reason for her unprovoked tirade. Nope, all the theatrics she put up on the podium will not be enough to hoodwink the vigilant as it is in their character to feel and see themselves as being all that matters and most important. These people did not have their way with winning the presidency, hence there will be no peace in America because against all odds, a candidate who no one gave the slightest chance of winning won and now the heavens have to be brought down on top of everyone's head. 

Icheoku says please let somebody tell Merly Streep that Americans and the world saw through her charade and that she did not sway any opinion nor got any sympathy from anyone other than the limited coolaid drinkers who were rejected alongside their Hillary Clinton on November 8, 2016. Icheoku did not buy into her rehearsed rendition and neither did millions of thinking Americans as well as the world audience who actually know the underlying reason which prompted her outburst. She was not truthful and she over-dramatized it and as a result lost more respect in the process. She is bitter; she is angry and she is heavily weighted down by the outcome of an election which did not go her way as she and her fellow Hollywood heavies had planned and arrogantly believed. Now what else could be more fiery than a psychologically traumatized old lady, grieving a lost opportunity which will never come again during her lifetime. What an aging old woman who just invited the disrespect of 33 million irredeemable deplorables and 30 million other Trump voters, whose judgment she called into question. She also will have to contend with the wrath and rage of millions of others who consider football and Mixed Martial Arts a germane Art. 

SIX QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RUSSIAN HACKING REPORT - BYRON YORK

Julia Ioffe, a writer for The Atlantic who watches Russia carefully, tweeted this about the intelligence community's unclassified report on Russian hacking released Friday: "It's hard to tell if the thinness of the #hacking report is because the proof is classified, or because the proof doesn't exist."* 

"Thin" is right. The report is brief — the heart of it is just five broadly-spaced pages. It is all conclusions and no evidence. In the introduction, the IC — the collective voice of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA — explains that it cannot supply evidence to the public, because doing so "would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future." 

The problem is, without evidence, it's hard for the public to determine just what happened in the hacking affair. So here are six questions the IC might consider answering in the days ahead:

1) When did the Russian hacking campaign begin? The report says Vladimir Putin "ordered an influence campaign in 2016." It also says Russia's intelligence services gained access to the Democratic National Committee's computer system in July 2015 as part of an effort targeting both Democrats and Republicans, as well as individual campaigns, think tanks, and lobbyists. The IC also notes that some of Russia's "professional trolls…started to advocate for President-elect Trump as early as December 2015." This could be a simple writing problem, or it could be something more significant. Is the report saying Putin ordered the 2016 campaign in 2015? Is it saying Russian activities in 2015 were routine operations to mess with U.S. institutions and then became part of the Putin-ordered campaign in 2016? Is it saying something else? 

2) Was the Russian campaign intended more to help candidate Donald Trump or to undermine President Hillary Clinton? The report says Putin ordered the 2016 campaign "to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." The report goes on to say that at some point Putin "developed a clear preference" for Trump. But it also says that, "Moscow's approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia's understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency." That suggests some sort of shift in the Russian campaign. But when? What does it mean when the report says, "When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win…"? Because if the Russians were following U.S. coverage and commentary, it always appeared that Clinton was likely to win — from the primaries through the Democratic convention through the general election. In other words, during the entire campaign, the consensus of the American commentariat was that Clinton was likely to win. Did the Russians disagree, or did they have a degree of insight into the polls, or simple clairvoyance, that Nate Silver didn't? Or was the Russian campaign overwhelmingly devoted to "undermining [Clinton's] expected presidency"?

3) How much of the Russian campaign was garden-variety propaganda? The IC report says, "Russia's state-run propaganda machine — comprised of its domestic media apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of quasi-government trolls — contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences." Indeed, the report devotes more space to analyzing RT, the Russian TV network, than it does to hacking. It's hard to know how much of the alleged Russian influence the IC attributes to hacking and how much to propaganda.

4) How and when did Russia transmit the hacked information to WikiLeaks? "We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets," the IC report says. "We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks." But when did that happen? Was it during the period when Putin supposedly thought the U.S. presidential race was anyone's game? Or during the time he thought Clinton was likely to win? And if it was the latter, did Russia transmit the information to WikiLeaks as part of an effort to undermine Clinton's "expected presidency"?

5) Just what did the Russians do to target Republicans? The IC report has one sentence devoted to Russian cyber efforts against the GOP: "Russia collected on some Republican-affiliated targets but did not conduct a comparable disclosure campaign." There have been reports that the Russians attempted to hack the Republican National Committee, but that those efforts were unsuccessful. The word "collected" in the IC report suggests some effort against GOP-related targets might have been successful, but what happened is not clear. And the report does not elaborate on the IC assessment that there was a big disparity between efforts targeting Democrats and Republicans.

6) Why can't the IC release more? Intelligence officials have already leaked classified parts of the report. For example, the Washington Post recently reported that U.S. intelligence agencies "intercepted communications in the aftermath of the election in which Russian officials congratulated themselves on the outcome." The Post also reported the intercepted messages "revealed that top officials in Russia anticipated that Clinton would win." There will likely be many more leaks to come. Why not at least release the information that has already been leaked? 

To the degree that there are partisan differences in assessing the Russia hacking affair, it's important that Republicans with access to the classified IC report leak as much as Democrats. A confused public will be trying to get a picture of what the full report says. Better to get both views of what's in there.