How will Trump deal with North Korea - CNN

(CNN)North Korean leader Kim Jong Un heads into 2017 with two things that loom ominous for the rest of the world -- he's tested a nuclear weapon, and no one really knows how willing he'd be to use one in anger.

North Korea conducted two nuclear tests in 2016, one in January and another, its most powerful ever, in September. Add that to a string of missile tests, both land- and sea-launched, and the world has plenty of reason for worry.

"Combining nuclear warheads with ballistic missile technology in the hands of a volatile leader like Kim Jong Un is a recipe for disaster," Adm. Harry Harris, the head of the US military's Pacific Command, said in a December speech.

Kim Jong Un might be considered the world's most dangerous man.

Bruce Bennett, senior defense analyst at the Rand Corporation think tank

Bruce Bennett, senior defense analyst at the Rand Corporation think tank, went further still, saying Kim "might be considered the world's most dangerous man."

But just how much of a threat does North Korea pose?

Pyongyang's September test put North Korea's nuclear program in its strongest position ever, at least according to the Kim regime, which claimed to have successfully detonated a nuclear warhead that could be mounted on ballistic rockets.

North Korean state media said the test would enable North Korea to produce "a variety of smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear warheads of higher strike power." Western experts fear that could expand the range of North Korea's nuclear weapons, possibly putting Alaska, Hawaii or even the US mainland in danger.

Combining nuclear warheads with ballistic missile technology in the hands of a volatile leader like Kim Jong Un is a recipe for disaster.

Adm. Harry Harris, the head of the US military's Pacific Command,

The warhead tested in September was estimated to have a 10-kiloton explosive power, almost twice as large as the one tested in January, said Kim Nam-wook of South Korea's Meteorological Administration. The atomic bomb dropped by the US on Hiroshima in 1945 is estimated at 15 kilotons.

Despite Pyongyang's apparent progress on a warhead, Bennett, the Rand analyst, points out that North Korea's test of its delivery systems, those missiles and rockets, weren't promising enough to make it a global threat -- at least not yet.

"To be such, the North would need to have developed some form of reliable delivery mechanism for its nuclear weapons that could reach anywhere in the world. And the North has not yet done that," Bennett said, pointing out that of the eight tests of longer range missiles (2,000 miles or more), seven were considered failures, and the other was tested only over a short range.

And despite testing a submarine-launched missile in August, the North has only one submarine capable of launching such a missile -- and its range is short, making it unlikely to get past Western defenses to pose a threat beyond Asia, added Bennett.

Doubts about its delivery capabilities notwithstanding, North Korea remains the only country on Earth to test a nuclear weapon in the 21st century -- and that offers Kim considerable leverage, analysts say, especially with his continued ability to tolerate the West's only real weapon short of military action, economic sanctions.

"The sanctions would undoubtedly deter North Korea's economy and make the country further isolated ... but Kim Jong Un and his associates believe it is still worth it for them to have an advanced nuclear capability," said Seung-Kyun Ko, a professor at Hawaii Pacific University and a former research commissioner in South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Nuclear weapons are "a tool for giving the oppressed people pride and hope," Ko said.

The voraciousness of Kim's "nukes at all costs" philosophy was hammered home just this week when a high-ranking North Korean diplomat who defected to the South earlier this year said Kim wouldn't back down even if offered huge sums of money by Western powers.

Thae Yong-ho, formerly No. 2 at the North Korean Embassy in London, said Kim is "racing ahead with nuclear development after setting up a plan to develop nuclear weapons at all costs by the end of 2017."

The suggestion that Kim can't be bought off is echoed by Boris Toucas, a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"Kim Jong Un has made the development of the nuclear program its main source of legitimacy, connecting his fate to what he sees as the greatness of his nation, well before economic progress," Toucas wrote in October, shortly after Pyongyang's second nuclear test of 2016.

Kim -- An unstable madman or a calculating mastermind?

Analysts agree that Kim is far from the unstable madman many present him to be. In fact, Ko, the former South Korean Foreign Ministry official, called the North Korean leader "cautious and calculating."

For instance, Ko said, Kim knows he can use the annual string of US-South Korean military exercises, involving thousands of troops and the latest US weaponry, to his advantage.

"He demands from his people and subordinates complete obedience to his leadership, because the country is on the verge of imminent invasion from the US and South Korea," Ko said. "He creates cohesion and unity among his people in facing the invasion."

While he keeps his people in line with talks of an impending invasion, he keeps his adversaries off balance by talking peace.

"Kim continues to pursue a peace treaty with United States," explained Bennett, the RAND expert. "And if he succeeds in getting such a treaty, it is entirely possible that US forces would be withdrawn from South Korea within a few years, likely to never return."

In other words, Kim wins if US troops get off his doorstep.

Is Kim smelling blood in a Trump-led U.S.?

Thae, the defected diplomat from the North, said this week that Kim senses weakness in the US and South Korea right now.

"Due to domestic political procedures, North Korea calculates that South Korea and the US will not be able to take physical or military actions to deter North Korea's nuclear development," the defector said at a news briefing in Seoul.

Those "domestic political procedures" include the impeachment case against South Korea President Park Geun-hye over a corruption scandal and the upcoming inauguration of Donald Trump as US President.

But Trump could be a wild card, perhaps as spontaneous as Kim is calculating.

Take Trump's comments on Taiwan and the South China Sea, for example. They might be helping mend the strained but traditional alliance between North Korea and China.

It's an interesting tale of two alpha males and how they're sniffing each other out at this point.

Jasper Kim, professor at of Ewha Women's University in Seoul

"While most observers argue that North Korea successfully exploits the distrust between China and the United States, they often overlook the fact that distrust between North Korea and China has grown at an even greater pace over the past few years, with North Korea constantly embarrassing its neighbor," Toucas, a former official in the French Foreign Ministry, wrote in October, reiterating that any Western deal with North Korea would need Beijing on board.

It's the kind of thing that could leave Kim wondering just what he is facing with the incoming leader of the free world.

"I think Kim Jong Un doesn't know how to size up this person, and vice versa," said Jasper Kim, a professor at of Ewha Women's University in Seoul. "It's an interesting tale of two alpha males and how they're sniffing each other out at this point."

So, what to expect in 2017?

The beginning of the year, at least, could be quiet.

"I heard from a North Korean official that they do not want to make any provocative actions until they know what kind of North Korean policies are in the next administration," said Park Hwee-Rhak, of Kookmin University in Seoul.

How will Trump handle North Korea? 02:42

That means the initiative may be Trump's. He's said he would consider pulling US troops from South Korea. He's even said he might be willing to meet the North Korean leader for discussions over a hamburger, something that would please Kim, who "craves recognition as much as he does nuclear weapons," according to Toucas.

But Trump has also called Kim "a maniac" who needs to be dealt with harshly -- a course of action Park thinks Trump should take.

"I think Mr. Trump should play hard ball. I think he should ask for a review and consideration of the military options, including pre-emptive strikes," Park said.

But if Kim thinks that's in the works, Ko said the North Korean leader could strike out fiercely.

"He tends to be blunt and a bit extreme in his responses to his perceived threats."

CNN's Paula Hancocks contributed to this report.

CNN

US agencies that will keep Trump in check - Huffington Post

WASHINGTON ― Republicans are taking control of the executive branch and both chambers of the legislative branch next month, giving them essentially full control of the federal government.

So besides journalists, who will track what Attorney General Jeff Sessions does to the Justice Department’s civil rights portfolio? Or watch for conflicts of interest involving Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon? Or keep an eye on what Rick Perry does at the Energy Department, which the former Texas governor famously forgot he wanted to eliminate? Or make sure the General Services Administration isn’t doing any special favors for the president-elect on his company’s lease of the Old Post Office, now home to the Trump International Hotel?

That’s where the inspectors general could come in. Presuming President Donald Trumplets them stick around.

The federal inspectors general system was formed some 38 years ago, tasking the appointed official with the job of rooting out fraud, waste and abuse within federal agencies, offering recommendations that could save taxpayers billions of dollars. Effective ones try to help the agency implement reform when issues are discovered, and keep track of the top management problems at each agency. Trump, whose incoming administration will face a huge number of potential conflicts of interest, could put the work of federal watchdogs front and center.

Inspectors general not only conduct oversight, they help build trust and confidence in government among the public in an era when trust in the federal government is low. Voters just elected a candidate who has painted the nation’s government as entirely corrupt, and who at random calls for the dismantling of agencies. And while inspectors general disagreements with politically appointed agency heads are typically limited to sternly worded letters, it isn’t tough to imagine Trump getting into a Twitter war with a government watchdog who issues a report critical of his administration.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, expects inspectors general to be busier than ever under Trump, expressing concern over a number of the people the businessman has picked for his cabinet.

in, inspectors general will be playing a very, very significant role because he seems to, in some instances, lack transparency and seems to want to engage in secrecy at times,” Cummings told The Huffington Post. 

Inspectors general are one of the “very few backstops” left, Cummings warned. 

“When you have the government now controlled by one party you really must have something, somebody to look over the shoulders of these agencies,” he said. 

There is, however, the potential that Trump could get rid of the inspectors general en masse. That’s something that hasn’t been tried since President Ronald Reagan firedmost of the country’s inspectors general on the second day of his presidency. Reagan’s move caused significant controversy, and several of the inspectors general were eventually hired back. 

“I think that left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth,” said Michael Bromwich, who formerly served as inspector general for the Justice Department. He noted that IGs were a “relatively new phenomenon” at the beginning of Reagan’s first term, and that there’s much broader recognition of the importance of IGs several decades later. Bromwich does not expect Trump to take the same approach.

“I think it’s unlikely that it would be repeated, because I think a lot of people are still around who remember that and what a fiasco it was,” Bromwich said. “But obviously one can’t be sure.”

Since Reagan’s move nearly 36 years ago, inspectors general have stayed on when presidential administrations change. But Trump has already broken with other longstanding traditions ― he’s the first major party candidate since 1976 not to release his full income tax returns, for example. If he wants, he could also decide to replace all of the inspectors general upon taking office.

“There is nothing stopping him from doing that,” says Nick Pacifico of the Project on Government Oversight, which tracks vacancies in inspectors general offices. “It’s sort of up in the air.”

If Trump did decide to discharge the inspectors general, he would have to provide an explanation to the House and Senate 30 days before any dismissal under current law. But his explanation to Congress doesn’t necessarily have to be very in-depth. When President Barack Obama dismissed the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service in 2009, he simply stated that he “no longer” had “the fullest confidence” in Gerald Walpin, who was a George W. Bush appointee.

There are 73 federal inspectors general, about half of whom are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They are required to be appointed based only on “integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.” Politics isn’t supposed to come into play.

Though their role is meant to be nonpartisan, most of the permanent inspectors general currently in place are Obama appointees. But there are 10 presidentially appointed IG vacancies, including at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency and the Office of Personnel Management. With just three weeks until Trump’s inauguration, it seems increasingly likely that the 45th president will eventually choose nominees to fill those key positions.

Leaving those positions open is a recipe for disaster, Bromwich said. “These are all very significant IG positions, and one concern I have based in part on what happened in the early days of the George W. Bush administration is the selection of nominees that kind of defy the nonpartisan requirement that’s in the statute,” Bromwich said. IG positions aren’t meant to be political handouts to allies and fundraisers, he said.

Bromwich also said there could be some increased friction between some inspectors general and agency heads given that many Trump nominees don’t have experience in the federal government. Individuals who worked in the private sector, for example, would not be used to having an independent watchdog on their back.

“I do think there’s a risk when you’re introducing so many people who have either never been in government service at all or who have never been in federal government service,” Bromwich said. “Getting them to understand and get used to what the requirements are, I think that will probably produce some additional work for IGs in terms of investigating allegations of misconduct.”

The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment on whether it expects to replace any or all of the inspectors general. 

A bill authored by Cummings and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chair of the oversight committee, gives an inspector general more access to documents necessary in determining waste, fraud and abuse at an agency he or she oversees. One downfall, Cummings said, is that a provision granting the watchdogs subpoena power didn’t make it into the final bill Obama ultimately signed this month. (Chaffetz was not available for an interview by the time of publication.)

Cummings expects a “whole slew” of career employees at each agency to start lining up to talk to their inspector general, and some to come to Congress directly. When that happens, he hopes his Republican colleagues will stand by their promises to protect whistleblowers. 

“When we show whistleblowers we are not going to protect them the whole whistleblower system falls apart,” Cummings said. “And if we don’t have whistleblowers we will have lost our last line of defense, and when I say ‘we’ I mean the American people.”

The role of the inspector general isn’t strictly adversarial. IGs can be an asset to an administration in that they can help head off potential problems before they balloon into scandals that change the course of history.

Take former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Her use of a personal email server to conduct State Department business became a major issue in her presidential campaign, and was a significant factor in her defeat.

One source who spent decades at the State Department pointed out that there was no permanent, confirmed inspector general during Clinton’s entire term as secretary of state. While there’s no way to know for sure, a permanent inspector general operating independently could have raised the private email server issue with Clinton’s team long before it dominated the political discourse as Americans chose the next commander in chief.

Now that Trump has been elected president, the role of inspectors general could potentially shift, as several potential agency heads appear to be opposed to the core mission of the agencies they wish to lead. Cummings said he’s troubled by some of Trump’s picks, like former Texas governor Perry to lead the Energy Department and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency. (The Energy Department, notably, currently lacks a permanent IG. Obama nominee Susan F. Beard has been awaiting confirmation since April.) Trump selected people who “are bent on basically taking apart the agencies that they are now being assigned to,” Cummings said.

But there are limits on an inspector general’s role. POGO’s Pacifico said IGs were an “invaluable check” ― particularly when one party controls the federal government ― and can give a unique perspective to an incoming administration to help ease a transition. It can get dicey, however, if IGs attempt to assert that an administration isn’t fulfilling its mission, as they are centrally focused on combatting waste, fraud and abuse.

“The problem is that there’s nothing in the law specifically that would allow them to make sure that an agency’s agenda is followed, and that is a main concern among many people,” Pacifico said. “The IGs don’t really have specific power aside from informing Congress what is going on.”

Bromwich said it’s “tricky” for IGs to look at whether an agency has fulfilled its mission because the executive branch has wide latitude to implement various statutes.

The problem is that there’s nothing in the law specifically that would allow them to make sure that an agency’s agenda is followed, and that is a main concern among many people.Nick Pacifico, Project on Government Oversight

“There certainly can be both program reviews and audits that an IG can do to get at whether a particular program authorized by Congress is in fact being implemented in the way envisioned by Congress and required by the statute,” Bromwich said. “But I think it may be trickier than most people think for an IG to go in and say ‘Oh, because he’s not devoting any resources to this program, he’s actually undermining the purposes of the agency.’”

Despite those limits, Daniel Feldman, co-author of The Art of The Watchdog and a criminal justice professor at CUNY, is hopeful they will prove themselves as a critical check in coming years. But it will all depend on who fills the posts. 

“The effectiveness as a watchdog depends at least as much on who you are as on what you know,” Feldman writes in his book, co-authored by David R. Eichenthal. “The best public watchdogs combine a powerful indignation with relentless persistence.” 

Feldman’s optimism for inspectors general is based on what he considers the inherent divisions between the different branches of government. “The legislative and executive are natural enemies,” he said in an interview. 

“Institutional factors will themselves result in some degree of effectiveness of IGs,” he said. “If history is any guide, but maybe it isn’t, there is an institutional conflict and my best prediction is that at a certain point in time, no more than a year from now, you will begin to see friction between the legislative branch and the executive branch.”

“Yeah, there will be a honeymoon period,” he said. “But I doubt that it will last forever.”

Trump's transition from Obama presidency hit snags - NBC News

Just three weeks from Inauguration Day, the once-cordial public relationship between the incoming and outgoing presidents is showing signs of strains.
It may seem like a lifetime ago that President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump, architect of the years-long "birther" movement aimed at delegitimizing the country's first black president, sat side-by-side in the Oval Office and shook hands after an hour-and-a-half long meeting. It was a show of unity after a bitter, divisive contest and a demonstration of one of the most important hallmarks of American democracy — the peaceful, and graceful, transition of power.
Seven weeks later, the relationship between the two leaders doesn't seem so rosy.
Trump, who famously said he wouldn't accept the results of the election unless he won, bristled at assessments from the intelligence community that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton. Soon after, Trump openly clashed with the White House over Israel, and he did not take kindly to Obama's contention he would have bested him in November's election.
Here's a timeline of how their relationship has developed in the early weeks:
Nov. 9 - The day after Trump's stunning victory, Obama pledges to aid Trump's transition into the White House and announces he will be meeting with Trump the next day.
"I have instructed my team to follow the example that President Bush's team set eight years ago, and work as hard as we can to make sure that this is a successful transition for the President-elect — because we are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country," Obama says in remarks from the Rose Garden.
Nov. 10 - Obama and Trump meet at the White House two days after the election. It is the first meeting between the two men. Trump calls it "a great honor" being with Obama, and says he looks forward to meeting with the president "many, many more times."
Nov. 20 - During his final foreign trip, Obama says he will not criticize the president-elect in order to give Trump "an opportunity to put forward his platform and his arguments without somebody popping off in every instance."
Nov. 22 - White House press secretary Josh Earnest tells reporters that Obama and Trump have spoken "at least once" since the Oval Office meeting.
Nov. 23 - In an interview with the New York Times, Trump says he and Obama had "great chemistry" when the two met.
"I didn't know if I'd like him. I probably thought that maybe I wouldn't, but I did, I did like him. I really enjoyed him a lot," Trump says. "I've spoken to him since the meeting."
Dec. 9 - A crowd in Louisiana jeer Trump for mentioning Obama during a rally for Republican Congressional candidates. "We've gotten along so well," Trump says as some members of the crowd boo. "He's really doing great, he's been so nice."
Dec. 11 - In an interview with "Fox News Sunday," Trump says he does not intend to take a "wrecking ball" to Obama's legacy. "No. I don't want to do that at all. I just want what's right." It is one of the rare interviews Trump has done since his election victory.
Dec. 15 - The Obama and Trump relationship begins to take a turn after U.S. intelligence agencies conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. The president-elect denies the assessments, and on December 15, questions why the White House waited until after his election victory to make the announcements. "Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?" Trump tweets.


Donald J. Trump
✔
‪@realDonaldTrump‬
If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?
1:24 AM - 16 Dec 2016
* 40,952 40,952 Retweets
124,634 124,634 likes
White House press secretary Josh Earnest insists it is a "basic fact" that during the campaign, Trump urged Russia to find information that would hurt Clinton. Trump's transition contended that Trump's pleas to Russia during a July press conference to find Clinton's missing emails were sarcastic.
Dec. 22 - The president-elect calls on the White House to veto a United Nations resolution condemning Israel for the construction of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. "This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis," Trump says in a statement. The move to take such a public position on a foreign policy issue as president-elect was striking.
Dec. 23 - The U.S. abstains from the UN vote on Israeli settlements.
Dec. 26 - Obama says in a podcast he is "confident" he could have won a third term in office. In an interview with former adviser David Axelrod, Obama insists he did not view the 2016 results as a rebuke of his policies or his presidency. "I am confident in this vision because I'm confident that if I — if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could've mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it," Obama said.
Shortly after, Trump responds "no way" on Twitter, and takes a swipe at Obama's signature campaign theme of hope.
Play

* Facebook
* Twitter
* Google Plus
* Embed
Pres.-Elect Trump Tweets Complaint About Transition, Later Praises Process 2:02
Just three weeks from Inauguration Day, the once-cordial public relationship between the incoming and outgoing presidents is showing signs of strains.
It may seem like a lifetime ago that President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump, architect of the years-long "birther" movement aimed at delegitimizing the country's first black president, sat side-by-side in the Oval Office and shook hands after an hour-and-a-half long meeting. It was a show of unity after a bitter, divisive contest and a demonstration of one of the most important hallmarks of American democracy — the peaceful, and graceful, transition of power.
Seven weeks later, the relationship between the two leaders doesn't seem so rosy.
Trump, who famously said he wouldn't accept the results of the election unless he won, bristled at assessments from the intelligence community that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton. Soon after, Trump openly clashed with the White House over Israel, and he did not take kindly to Obama's contention he would have bested him in November's election.
Here's a timeline of how their relationship has developed in the early weeks:
Nov. 9 - The day after Trump's stunning victory, Obama pledges to aid Trump's transition into the White House and announces he will be meeting with Trump the next day.
"I have instructed my team to follow the example that President Bush's team set eight years ago, and work as hard as we can to make sure that this is a successful transition for the President-elect — because we are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country," Obama says in remarks from the Rose Garden.
Play

* Facebook
* Twitter
* Google Plus
* Embed
Trump, Obama Meet at White House As Transition Process Continues 2:03
Nov. 10 - Obama and Trump meet at the White House two days after the election. It is the first meeting between the two men. Trump calls it "a great honor" being with Obama, and says he looks forward to meeting with the president "many, many more times."
Nov. 20 - During his final foreign trip, Obama says he will not criticize the president-elect in order to give Trump "an opportunity to put forward his platform and his arguments without somebody popping off in every instance."
Nov. 22 - White House press secretary Josh Earnest tells reporters that Obama and Trump have spoken "at least once" since the Oval Office meeting.
Nov. 23 - In an interview with the New York Times, Trump says he and Obama had "great chemistry" when the two met.
"I didn't know if I'd like him. I probably thought that maybe I wouldn't, but I did, I did like him. I really enjoyed him a lot," Trump says. "I've spoken to him since the meeting."
Dec. 9 - A crowd in Louisiana jeer Trump for mentioning Obama during a rally for Republican Congressional candidates. "We've gotten along so well," Trump says as some members of the crowd boo. "He's really doing great, he's been so nice."
Dec. 11 - In an interview with "Fox News Sunday," Trump says he does not intend to take a "wrecking ball" to Obama's legacy. "No. I don't want to do that at all. I just want what's right." It is one of the rare interviews Trump has done since his election victory.
Dec. 15 - The Obama and Trump relationship begins to take a turn after U.S. intelligence agencies conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. The president-elect denies the assessments, and on December 15, questions why the White House waited until after his election victory to make the announcements. "Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?" Trump tweets.


Donald J. Trump
✔
‪@realDonaldTrump‬
If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?
1:24 AM - 16 Dec 2016
* 40,952 40,952 Retweets
124,634 124,634 likes
White House press secretary Josh Earnest insists it is a "basic fact" that during the campaign, Trump urged Russia to find information that would hurt Clinton. Trump's transition contended that Trump's pleas to Russia during a July press conference to find Clinton's missing emails were sarcastic.
Dec. 22 - The president-elect calls on the White House to veto a United Nations resolution condemning Israel for the construction of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. "This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis," Trump says in a statement. The move to take such a public position on a foreign policy issue as president-elect was striking.
Dec. 23 - The U.S. abstains from the UN vote on Israeli settlements.
Dec. 26 - Obama says in a podcast he is "confident" he could have won a third term in office. In an interview with former adviser David Axelrod, Obama insists he did not view the 2016 results as a rebuke of his policies or his presidency. "I am confident in this vision because I'm confident that if I — if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could've mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it," Obama said.
Shortly after, Trump responds "no way" on Twitter, and takes a swipe at Obama's signature campaign theme of hope.


Donald J. Trump
✔
‪@realDonaldTrump‬
President Obama said that he thinks he would have won against me. He should say that but I say NO WAY! - jobs leaving, ISIS, OCare, etc.
8:36 AM - 27 Dec 2016
* 21,569 21,569 Retweets
85,744 85,744 likes


Donald J. Trump
✔
‪@realDonaldTrump‬
The world was gloomy before I won - there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10% and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!
10:32 AM - 27 Dec 2016
* 28,953 28,953 Retweets
120,222 120,222 likes
Dec. 27 - Trump returns to Twitter, criticizing the president for campaigning against him in swing states that Clinton lost.


Donald J. Trump
✔
‪@realDonaldTrump‬
President Obama campaigned hard (and personally) in the very important swing states, and lost.The voters wanted to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
8:52 AM - 28 Dec 2016
* 21,432 21,432 Retweets
88,689 88,689 likes
Dec. 28 - Trump tweets that he is "Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements." Rep. Chris Collins, a member of Trump's transition team, then says on Fox News that the Obama administration is "doing everything they can to make this a bumpy road."
Trump also takes a dig at the administration's relationship with Israel shortly before Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a speech defending the U.S. decision to abstain from the vote.


Donald J. Trump
✔
‪@realDonaldTrump‬
We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but.......
1:19 AM - 29 Dec 2016
* 24,430 24,430 Retweets
79,852 79,852 likes


Donald J. Trump
✔
‪@realDonaldTrump‬
not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!
1:25 AM - 29 Dec 2016
* 27,893 27,893 Retweets
88,476 88,476 likes
"We reject the criticism that this vote abandons Israel," Kerry says in his address.
Later in the day, Trump is asked by reporters gathered outside his Mar-a-Lago resort whether the transition is going smoothly. The president-elect responds, "I think very, very smoothly," adding, "good, very good. You don't think so?" He also tells reporters that he spoke with the president Wednesday and "we had a very nice conversation."
The White House released a statement regarding the call, saying it was "focused on continuing a smooth and effective transition."

By forcing voters show their ID, the UK Government has found another way to disenfranchise the poor - Independent

Renewing my passport recently, I came up against an irritatingly inconvenient side effect. Every time I tried to buy a bottle of wine in a supermarket, the cashiers seemingly refused to believe there wasn’t an outside possibility I might be a 17-year-old and turned me away. Arguments that 17-year-olds generally don’t plan wild nights around cat litter, fresh pasta, hoover bags and mid-price wine didn’t wash: the relative maturity I believed my basket contents conveyed wasn’t a watertight (or legal) indicator of age. And while many people have a driving licence to prove they’ve reached the age where they can destroy their own liver, the fact that I have epilepsy means I can’t even get a provisional licence.

Now that Eric Pickles has announced a pilot to force voters to show identification when voting, this inconvenience could mean that rather than missing out on the ability to buy a bottle of pinot noir, people in my position could end up completely disenfranchised. Explaining to friends that a passport is my only form of ID when I am shown up in a bar, it’s usually assumed I’m in a small minority: but the 2011 census shows that 24 per cent of the UK born population hold no passport at all.

Was 2016 the year the fat cats got their comeuppance?

To vote under these proposals, you’d need to show a passport, driving licence or utility bill. Three million more people hold driving licences than passport, but 10 million UK nationals still lack this form of photo ID. It’s not a stretch to assume many people who lack driving licences also lack passports, and would struggle to provide the necessary paperwork for Pickles’s pilot. Most utility companies have offered financial incentives for customers who choose to receive bills online. I haven’t received a utility bill or bank statement since I was at university in 2009. The Government’s assumption that these three forms of ID are easy to come by ignores the experience of several million potential voters.

Electoral fraud is a problem, though it is not thought to be widespread. What is widespread is voter apathy: even in last year’s general election, which had the highest turnout since Labour’s 1997 landslide, only 66 per cent of registered voters cast their ballot. At a time when a third of the country didn’t vote for any candidates, we’re now seeing a concerted effort to add several layers of difficulty to participation in democracy. For evidence of how voting ID laws disenfranchise communities, you only need to look to the United States, where states who require photo ID to vote have much lower turnout of poor, black, Latino and older voters.

For certain parties this is politically expedient: they argue that the aim is to make voting secure, and that an unexpected side effect is lower turnout amongst those in poverty, migrants and people in precarious jobs and housing. Traditional Conservative voters will have little problem, but for working-class people who are more likely to vote for Labour this will mean a significant number who could previously vote will now find themselves struggling to gather the necessary paperwork. Passports are expensive: £72.50 at the very least, while provisional driving licences cost £34. If you’re solvent, the cost will seem negligible; if you’re struggling to make your rent each month, deciding to spend £34 simply to vote will seem a hefty cost to pay if it means cutting down on your food and fuel budget for a week or two.

The message this move sends is that people can’t be trusted to vote. If you already feel as though the political system has forgotten you, and you feel voting makes little difference, planning weeks in advance to secure the ID you need to vote is unlikely to increase voter turnout. At the moment, campaigners on polling day battle to spread the message that you don’t need your polling card to vote, so that people who might otherwise not vote can drop into their polling station on the way home from work. Making voters jump through hoops is a retrograde step and assumes guilt on the part of voters. To properly combat electoral fraud, a properly funded police unit with the resources to investigate organised fraud makes far more sense.

Earlier this year, 800,000 people found they’d dropped off the electoral register. In the run up to the EU referendum, campaigners scrabbled to communicate this, and get people re-enrolled, since thousands had no idea they’d been disenfranchised quietly. Adding yet more layers of bureaucracy to the process of voting, and a requirement for a form of ID that costs voters is yet more gerrymandering, which will lead to the poorest, and most voiceless, without the prospect of a vote.

Russia's Vladimir Putin Poses Challenge to Donald Trump Administration - NBC News

 Russia's Vladimir Putin Poses Challenge to Donald Trump Administration

LONDON — Nobody is more likely to test the new administration than Russia's Vladimir Putin.
Putin has already overlapped with three other American presidents and his government's actions colored the U.S. campaign long before Trump's November win.
U.S. intelligence officials believe with "a high level of confidence" that Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere with the White House election, two senior officials told NBC News.
The CIA has assessed that Putin's government wanted to elect Trump, although the FBI and other agencies don't fully endorse that view. Few officials dispute that the Russian operation was intended to harm the candidacy of Trump's rival Hillary Clinton by leaking embarrassing emails about Democrats.
While no equivalent Republican leaks occurred during the campaign — and Trump and Putin have both spoken of each other warmly — the wind from the East has never been more chilly.
On Oct. 15, Russia's longstanding U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Washington-Kremlin tensions the "worst since 1973."
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev — the architect of glasnost or "openness" reform policies that hastened the end the Communist U.S.S.R. — has warned that U.S.-Russia ties were at "a dangerous point."
Related: Putin Congratulates Trump by Telegram After Win
Russia tore up a pact to get rid of plutonium that could be used in nuclear warheads, and moved nuclear weapons into Eastern Europe — which unnerved Western governments, including the U.S.
It is also venturing into regions it had neglected for decades, for example helping bomb Syria's Aleppo and holding military exercises with longtime U.S. ally Egypt.
Profound Distrust
It seems like Putin's Russia seems determined to challenge American leadership across the globe. Beneath the bold Russian moves, there is profound distrust between the two countries.
Secretary of State John Kerry's personally warm relationship with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has ensured areas of cooperation, even agreement — but this could end.
Putin won't be deterred from challenging the U.S. and with his economic woes growing at home he may be tempted to double down on risky military moves — nowhere more so than in the Middle East, where Syria is Putin's showcase for the Russian military.
The most profound challenge to the White House's new occupant would be if Moscow made a move in one of the Baltic states, which are members of NATO but are also home to substantial ethnic Russian minorities. This is seen as an extremely unlikely occurrence by experts but it cannot be completely ruled out.
Related: Three Years After U.S. Pulled Tanks From Europe, They're Back
Any incursion would challenge Trump, as NATO's biggest funder, to make a full-scale response based on the alliance's fundamental principle — that an attack against one of its members is considered an attack on all 28.
Another possible tripwire is the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, which lies between Lithuania and Poland and is home to the Russian Baltic fleet. Russia has now moved nuclear capable Iskander-M missile systems there.


Russian President Vladimir Putin Mikhail Svetlov / Getty Images
Their indefinite placement puts U.S. missile defense systems in Poland within range. Almost certainly, any Russian move to test America's new leader here would be small scale — the military tactic they call "maskirovka," or deception, seen most clearly in 2014 when mysterious soldiers appeared in Ukraine's Crimea. These soldiers, which Putin later admitted had been sent there by the Kremlin, hastened the eventual Russian annexation of the peninsula.
The World's Longest Border
Putin's regime has insisted it is antagonizing the United States in self-defense against what it perceives to be Washington's aggressive policies.
Russia, the country with the longest land border in the world, has historically been concerned about its neighbors' military activities.
Related: Trump Hints at New Relationship With NATO Allies
Russian leaders have for years watched with alarm as NATO expands eastward toward the country's borders. Especially alarming are plans for the U.S. missile defense elements in Eastern Europe.
Trump's own plans may prove as damaging to NATO as Russia's. As a candidate, he sent waves of alarm through Europe when he said he might not come to the aid of NATO allies if they were attacked.
So these are dangerous days.
Related: Why Obama Didn't Do More About Russian Hack
"Russia is still the only country that can destroy the United States as a functioning society in 30 minutes ... both sides maintain their nuclear forces on hair-trigger alert," Russia experts Thomas Graham and Matthew Rojansky wrote in Foreign Policy magazine in October.
There are few good options for the U.S. and all carry risks.
Tillerson's 'Vast experience'
Trump's nomination of oil giant ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state on Dec. 13 may signal the president-elect's strategy for dealing with Russia. While Tillerson has no government or diplomatic experience, he does have exceptionally close ties with Moscow and Putin.
While these links have drawn fire from both Democrats and Republicans, it is likely that Trump actually sees the connections as positive.
"The thing I like best about Rex Tillerson is that he has vast experience at dealing successfully with all types of foreign governments," Trump said via Twitter when the nomination was announced.
Whatever Tillerson's relationship with Russian officials, Putin is now positioning himself to make maximum demands on Trump.
Obama failed to follow through on his famous "red line" threat against the use of chemical weapons in Syria in 2013. With this, Russia and many other countries smelled weakness in Washington.
Related: Donald Trump's Call for 'Arms Race' Boggles Nuclear Experts
Trump has already proven bullish with his rhetoric, suggesting on Twitter last week that the U.S. should expand its nuclear capabilities and telling MSNBC: "Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all."
Putin, for his part, boasted during his annual press conference about the strength of his nuclear arsenal.
Trump's challenge is to show Moscow that America isn't withdrawing from the world, or unwilling to share the burdens of global leadership with a responsible Russia.
So after America and Europe both failed to deter Putin, perhaps the best Trump will be able to do is repeat the Cold War and ensure a balance of power through the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction — an uncomfortable policy that nonetheless provides stability.
Editor's note: This is part 3 of a series. Donald Trump was elected to president on a platform of politics not as usual, so it is fitting he inherits a world in flux. Post-World War II rules are dying, old alliances shifting and traditional roles shed. While Trump is a giant question mark on the world stage, NBC News' Chief Global Correspondent Bill Neelylooks at major international challenges the president-elect faces upon inauguration on Jan. 20.
NBC News

A Christmas song best representing 2016 - New York Times

A song most reflects 2016 X'mas - Have yourself a merry 2017

True, it’s not by Beyoncé or Adele or Rihanna. It’s not even by anyone still alive. But I would like to nominate “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” as song of the year, because if any single tune reflects the miseries of 2016, and the anxious uncertainty with which we greet 2017, it is this 72-year-old holiday chestnut.

The song was introduced by Judy Garland in the 1944 film “Meet Me in St. Louis,” a picture that was itself looking further backward, to the turn of the last century. If this sounds like a Russian nesting doll approach to nostalgia, well, that’s only one facet of the song’s 2016-ness.

Like you, I’ve probably heard “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” dozens of times since Thanksgiving, and hundreds if not thousands of times more across previous holiday seasons. (Mileage will vary depending on how much time you log at Starbucks and CVS.) With its pretty, winding, bittersweet melody, which its co-author likened to a madrigal, and its lyrics about making the best of a rocky present with hopes for a better future, this unusually ambiguous Christmas song falls on the melancholy side of the moody-merry Yuletide music divide (the so-called Guaraldi Line).

To my taste, that is the side to be on, but until last weekend, I hadn’t paid much more attention to “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” than I had to “Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree” or the odious “Frosty the Snowman.” The occasion was one of the Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra’s annual Big Band Holidays concerts, where I found tears running down my cheeks during an especially plaintive version of “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” sung by Catherine Russell and arranged by the tenor saxophonist Victor Goines. Introducing the song, Ms. Russell mentioned that she was going to use its seldom-sung original lyrics, and indeed they proved not only unfamiliar but also — surprising in this generally jolly context — provocative.

New York Times