Jemal Countess/Getty

Donald Trump reportedly threatened Megyn Kelly before the first Republican debate.

Kelly’s upcoming memoir Settle For More has been under strict embargo until its release date—next Tuesday, November 15—but The New York Times got its mitts on a copy, as it always does. Jennifer Senior’s review illuminates what is almost certainly the most anticipated book of the last two months of 2016. (With apologies to George Saunders.)

Kelly’s book recounts her experience of being sexually harassed by Roger Ailes, who was forced out of the network after two decades in charge by a raft of similar accusations. “He made sexual comments to me, offers of professional advancement in exchange for sexual favors,” Kelly writes.

And here’s Senior’s recounting of Kelly’s description of the beginning of her conflict with Donald Trump, which began shortly before the first Republican primary debate in August:

Ms. Kelly writes that her problems started in August, the Monday before the first Republican presidential primary debate. She had just done a segment on her show, “The Kelly File,” that infuriated Mr. Trump. He refused to make his own scheduled appearance on her show unless she phoned him personally.

“I almost unleashed my beautiful Twitter account against you,” she says he told her, “and I still may.”

Then, the day before the first presidential debate, Mr. Trump was in a lather again, Ms. Kelly writes. He called Fox executives, saying he’d heard that her first question “was a very pointed question directed at him.” This disconcerted her, because it was true: It was about his history of using disparaging language about women.

Kelly took to Twitter shortly after the review dropped to insist that she is not suggesting that Fox executives gave Trump a debate question before the first debate—just that he had become broadly aware of its subject.

If that seems like an academic distinction, that’s because it is.

Kelly’s book—at least what we can gather from a short review in the Times—also seems to point at the identity crisis in Fox that arose from Trump’s rise and Ailes’s departure, and will surely only be deepened by Trump’s election. Back in August, New York’s Gabriel Sherman reported that Ailes first began reaching out to Trump out of fear for what he could do to Fox and its credibility. “According to two high-level Fox sources, Ailes’s diplomacy was the result of increasing concern inside Fox News that Trump could damage the network.” Ailes is gone now but the rift in Fox is still there. There are those like Kelly, who (aside from a puff piece “makeup” interview) see him as dangerous and those like Sean Hannity, who has worked as an unofficial arm of the campaign for months. And Trump already brought Fox to its knees multiple times during the primaries. He will go after the network again and, given the contents of Kelly’s book, maybe sooner rather than later.

December 07, 2016

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Joe Biden is the only person enjoying Trump’s transition.

While most everyone else, including the president-elect, seems to be in a foul mood amid the formation of a new cabinet, the outgoing vice president is having a ball, engaging in multiple consecutive days of trolling. Last night, he joked about making an improbable third run for the presidency against Trump in 2020—at which point Biden will be 77 years old. “I mean, hell, Donald Trump’s gonna be 74. I’ll be 77 and in better shape,” he told Stephen Colbert. “I mean, what the hell?”

Biden was even more provocative on Capitol Hill Monday, saying, “I’m going to run,” while also adding, for good measure, “What the hell, man.”

“I’m not committing not to run,” he told reporters. “I’m not committing to anything.”

No one’s quite sure what Biden’s playing at here, but maybe he’s simply resolved to enjoy himself in his final days in office. As I’ve previously argued, his legacy is better off if he doesn’t ever seek the White House again, but floating the idea is certainly one way to make sure he’s not forgotten in the administration’s waning days.

When NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell pressed him on a run as he walked into a meeting with House Democrats Tuesday, Biden smiled and joked, “I’m going to announce right now.”

Know who else was Time’s Person of the Year?

Bono. But also Hitler, in 1938, as was pointed out repeatedly on Wednesday. Remember, the Person of the Year isn’t necessarily heroic or even admirable. Time simply bestows the distinction on “the person who had the greatest influence, for better or worse, on the events of the year.”

Some, however, are noting some similarities between Trump’s Person of the Year cover and a separate Time cover of Hitler from April 14, 1941. Coincidence?

Donald Trump saved Christmas!

At least, that’s how reporter-grabber and professional mad person Corey Lewandowski sees it:

Lewandowski is not exactly known for his sense of humor—he can charitably be described as “intense”—but it is tempting to say that he’s joking here. (You can’t ever tell if Lewandowski is joking because his blood is 85 percent Monster energy drink and that has an effect on the nerves.) Lewandowski goes on to say that America will need immigrants by the time Trump is done because he’ll be creating so many jobs, seemingly ignoring the fact that the unemployment rate is at its lowest point in a decade. Elsewhere in the interview he claims that Trump will have done more in four years than Obama did in eight years. Lewandowski and his boss have one thing in common: a love of hyperbole.

But with all of the fuss over more important issues (racism, conflicts of interest, Pizzagate), we’ve forgotten that Trump’s anti-Happy Holidays position is among his strangest and longest-held, even if he isn’t particularly consistent on that front. However, Trump’s attraction to “Merry Christmas” was never based on his religious belief, it was based on it being a (practically audible) dog whistle to those who believe that America is being threatened by multiculturalism. Lewandowski declaring victory over the SJWs who won’t write “Trump” on a coffee cup carries a separate message: He’s telling his followers—white people—that “we” won.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Is Ohio about to ban abortion?

It’s close. Both chambers of the state legislature have now passed the so-called Heartbeat Bill, which would ban abortion after doctors can detect a fetal heartbeat. If Gov. John Kasich signs it, or allows it to become law by refusing to act, Ohio women will find it virtually impossible to access abortion. 

Via WCMH-TV Columbus:

NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio said the move would block access to abortion before most women even know they’re pregnant. “This bill would effectively outlaw abortion and criminalize physicians that provide this care to their patients,” said Kellie Copeland, the group’s executive director.

The Heartbeat Bill has existed in different iterations since it was originally introduced during Ohio’s 2011-2012 legislative session. But its supporters always had the same goal: banning abortion. “This is just flat out the right thing to do,” its current sponsor, state Rep. Kris Jordan (R), told the press. “It affords the most important liberty of all—the opportunity to live.”

The Heartbeat Bill does not provide an exception for rape or incest. It’s so extreme it even divided Ohio’s pro-life activists. Ohio Right to Life has refused to endorse the bill in any of its iterations, citing its probable unconstitutionality. Kasich refused to sign its earlier versions for similar reasons.  

But the situation is different now. Jordan and his fellow extremists have attached it as an amendment to a child-welfare bill, and that puts Kasich in a difficult position. If he fails to act in 10 days, it automatically becomes law. Donald Trump is also president, and Republicans control both chambers of Congress. A conservative replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia could give the Heartbeat Bill a fighting chance if it ever reaches the nation’s highest court.

Giphy

Donald Trump has already neutered the deficit hawks in the GOP.

TIME magazine announced its 2016 Person of the Year on Wednesday and it was not at all surprising. Moving away from “you” and “person ruining Germany,” the magazine selected Trump. They also made him sit in a ratty chair.

The accompanying cover story is good. There’s talk about the gulf between Trump and his voters (he’s rich, they’re not); the power of Trump’s gut instinct, which both propelled him to the presidency and will likely be his biggest liability in the White House; and Trump’s total inability to take responsibility for the horrific forces his candidacy has unleashed. Reflecting on Trump’s insistence that crime is out of control, despite a wealth of statistical evidence to the contrary, Michael Scherer distills Trump’s worldview: “The world is zero-sum, full of the irredeemable killers that Obama’s idealism fails to see.”

But Scherer also gets at what may have been the second-most important force driving Trump’s victory: his departure from decades of party orthodoxy. This paragraph is key:

While Trump offered public words of support for the Iraq War at the time, he sees George W. Bush’s great adventure as a disaster now. He rejects wholesale the social conservative campaign to keep transgender people out of the bathrooms they choose, but promises to reward conservative ideologues with a Supreme Court Justice of their liking. And he has little patience for the organizing principle of the Tea Party: the idea that the federal government must live within its means and lower its debts. Instead, he seems to favor expensive new infrastructure spending and tax cuts as economic stimulus, much like Obama did in 2009. “Well, sometimes you have to prime the pump,” he says. “So sometimes in order to get jobs going and the country going, because, look, we’re at 1% growth.” The next day, the third-quarter gross-domestic-product estimates would be released, showing an increase of 3.2%, up from 1.4% earlier in the year.

If the unified government that will take over Washington on January 20 has a fault line, this is it. Thanks to polarization, gerrymandering, and dark money, Congress is full of conservative ideologues and Trump has made it clear that he has little patience for ideologues. You can see that Trump is willing to carrot-and-stick it with Congress, giving them a conservative Supreme Court justice—perhaps the biggest prize there is—with the expectation that they will follow his tune when it comes to the economy. Deficit hawks, after all, tend not to be so hawkish when they’re in control. Carping about America’s balance sheet is a political tactic as much as anything else, a clever way of arguing that the other party is irresponsible.

For Republicans, it’s also been a dog whistle—the deficit means “the government is spending too much on nonwhite people”—and Trump’s knack for demagogic scapegoating makes it less relevant than it has been in decades. That dog whistle was key to the Tea Party’s success, and while Trump may differ from that group ideologically, he’s speaking their language when it comes to identity.

Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images

The report that the Pope condemned fake news as a sin is itself a kind of fake news.

This morning, Reuters published a story with the catchy headline, “Pope warns media over ‘sin’ of spreading fake news, smearing politicians.” To go by the headline, you might think the Pope is weighing in on how fake news contributed to the election of Donald Trump. But a closer inspection of Francis’s actual words show they have nothing to do with fake news at all, but rather are a standard warning against slander and scandal-mongering. It’s hardly news for a clergyman to condemn slander, which has been a sin since at least the biblical injunction against bearing false witness.

Tellingly, the Pope condemned even truthful scandal-mongering. As quoted by Reuters, he said, “I think the media have to be very clear, very transparent, and not fall into—no offense intended—the sickness of coprophilia, that is, always wanting to cover scandals, covering nasty things, even if they are true.” Coprophagia literally meaning eating excrement. The Pope doesn’t seem to care whether that excrement is real or not; he is saying that the love of spreading damaging and hurtful information about other people is morally dubious.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Thomas Piketty’s latest opus paints a grim picture of income inequality in America.

Piketty and the economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have released a study showing that fully one half of the American population has been “completely shut off from economic growth since the 1970s.” This means that while while the economy has nearly doubled in size in that time period, roughly 120 million working adults have seen no income growth, even when you factor in the income transfers they receive from the government. While other studies have shown similar findings, this is considered the most sweeping, revealing “the full impact that tax payments, government spending, noncash benefits, and nontaxable income together have on inequality,” according to The New York Times.

The vast majority of the wealth produced in the last three and a half decades went, of course, to the very rich, who largely made their money through investments, as opposed to salary.

The dynamic on display here, exacerbated by the 2008 financial crisis, at least partly explains the deep economic dissatisfaction that turned 2016 into a change election—despite the fact that President Barack Obama is leaving the economy in ostensibly good shape. The punch line is that Donald Trump’s proposed policies will only broaden inequality in this country: His tax cuts would deprive the government’s coffers of $6.2 trillion in revenue over the course of ten years, according to the Tax Policy Center. This is an almost comically bad proposal. “There have never been any legislative proposals that I’m aware of that would come anywhere near $5 (trillion) to $6 trillion in deficits over a decade,” Len Burman, one of the report’s authors, told The San Francisco Chronicle in October.

Whether Trump will follow through on his wild pledges now that he’s about to take control of the White House is another question. But it’s worth noting that there was only one candidate who was actually going to try to reverse this state of affairs.

Donald Trump is Time’s Man of the Year and he’s still complaining.

Appearing on The Today Show Wednesday, the president-elect called the magazine’s accolade “a great honor,” but griped that it was “snarky” for the publication to call him “President of the Divided States of America.”

Trump told Matt Lauer, “I’m not president yet, so I didn’t do anything to divide,” ignoring that his entire campaign for the White House was built on the denigration of undocumented Mexican immigrants and included assaults on Muslims, women, the disabled, and virtually every other marginalized group in the United States.

Naturally, this isn’t the first time Trump has complained about Time’s choices:

December 06, 2016

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The press has to stop echoing Trump’s talking points without checking them.

Donald Trump’s tweets move the stock market. He tweeted this morning: “Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!” This caused a sharp sell-off in Boeing stock, even though the company later claimed that it was under a $170 million contract to “help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the president of the United States.”

The tweet naturally raised the question of whether Trump himself could personally benefit from stock market shifts caused by his pronouncements. His spokespeople re-assured the press this was not a problem because Trump sold off all his stocks in June. But as Amy Sullivan of Yahoo News noted, the press coverage was too credulous, simply taking what the Trump team said at face value without getting any documents to confirm it. For example, a Washington Post tweet read: “The move will help combat conflict-of-interest worries about his $40 million portfolio.”

Given Trump’s history of deception, the challenge going forward will be to come up with headlines and push notifications that make clear which statements are mere claims and which have actually been verified.

Youtube

David Brock isn’t going away.

Points to Brock for stubbornness, if nothing else. The Clinton operative is soliciting donations for a new anti-Trump war room run by his super PAC, American Bridge. From The Hill:

Brock claims to have the largest archive of Trump opposition research in the Democratic Party, including thousands of hours of footage that operatives are mining for damaging material.

“The Trump administration is shaping up to be one of the most corrupt since the Gilded Age,” Brock said. “American Bridge will use everything at its disposal to hold it accountable.”

The Trump administration merits watchdogs, and if Brock has the footage he says he does, there’s obvious value in putting it to use. But there’s not a lot of evidence to suggest that a Brock-engineered Trump resistance will be effective.

Let’s look at his record. He runs Media Matters for America, which effectively functioned as a Clinton campaign surrogate during the election and failed to wrest the narrative away from Donald Trump. He runs Shareblue, a more blatant propaganda outlet, which similarly failed to damage Trump’s momentum. And in an anti-establishment age, Brock, as a devoted ally of the Clintons, represents nearly everything voters rejected.

The Democratic Party needs a new direction. It’s not going to come from David Brock. And if the Democratic donor class doesn’t recognize this soon, it’s in for another terrible surprise in 2020.