Michael Winship writes the daily Bill Moyers & Co. blog.

Here he suggests a dozen classic American films about demagogues.

These will help you get through the weekend.

There is, of course, “Elmer Gantry.”

And “Citizen Kane.”

My favorite on the list, appropriate for now, is “The Manchurian Candidate.” Think of it as “The Siberian Candidate.”

On the eve of Trump’s inauguration, the New York Times published a startling story: close associates of Trump are under investigation by American intelligence agencies for possible contacts with the Russian government.

“American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

 
“The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.

 
“It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. The American government has concluded that the Russian government was responsible for a broad computer hacking campaign, including the operation against the D.N.C.

 
The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.

 
“Mr. Manafort is among at least three Trump campaign advisers whose possible links to Russia are under scrutiny. Two others are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign, and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.

 
“The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”

Trump has the power to shut down the investigation after he is sworn in.

Amy Goodman and Juan González interview journalist Matt Taibbi about Trump’S election.

Key comment:

“MATT TAIBBI: Yeah, and I think that was kind of a big oversight by a lot of the media. Trump—look, how do politicians get elected? There’s a very simple formula that people on both sides have followed for ages. They tell people that, you know, things are bad, and we’re going to give you somebody to blame. You know, on the right, they’ve traditionally pointed the fingers at minorities and foreigners. And on the left, we point at corporations, you know, the pharma companies, insurance companies, etc., etc.

“Trump did all of those things. He appropriated all of those bogeymen, both the liberal and the conservative bogeymen, but he also made the campaign process itself a villain. He said, “These people, these reporters, these donors, these two entrenched political parties, they are against you.” And unfortunately for us reporters, we were the only people from that particular group who were actually in the room during these events. So what he would do is he would say, “Look at these people. Look at these bloodsuckers. You know, they’ve never come so far for an event. And they didn’t want to come. They all said I was going to lose,” etc., etc. And the crowds would physically turn toward us and start, you know, sort of hissing and booing. And he made us part of this kind of WWE act. And it was—in a way, it was brilliant theater. And I think that the people on the campaign plane didn’t understand the significance of what he was doing. He was villainizing the process. And it was really effective.”

OK, this is not a foreign affairs blog, it is an education blog. But these days we can’t wall ourselves off from the fact that the incoming president of the United States is ignorant, destructive, and ready to throw away the rest of the world, except for Russia.

Trump stunned European leaders by belittling NATO and the European Union. The breakup of NATO is a long-treasured goal of Vladimir Putin. Europe is our most important trading partner in the world.

We have an incoming president who is indifferent to our allies, and to the agreements that maintained peace on the European continent since 1945.

He is a rogue president. He is ignorant and dangerous.

Is this the “change” that Trump voters wanted? Destabilization of the Transatlantic alliance? The world becomes more frightening by the minute as we approach the inauguration of this wild card, the joker in the deck.

Thanks, Susan Schwartz, for calling my attention to this column by Paul Krugman and a new word for my vocabulary.

He writes about whether civil rights hero John Lewis showed “disrespect” to Trump by saying that his election was not legitimate.

Of course not. Many questions hang over this election:

By any reasonable standard, the 2016 election was deeply tainted. It wasn’t just the effects of Russian intervention on Mr. Trump’s behalf; Hillary Clinton would almost surely have won if the F.B.I. hadn’t conveyed the false impression that it had damaging new information about her, just days before the vote. This was grotesque, delegitimizing malfeasance, especially in contrast with the agency’s refusal to discuss the Russia connection.

Was there even more to it? Did the Trump campaign actively coordinate with a foreign power? Did a cabal within the F.B.I. deliberately slow-walk investigations into that possibility? Are the lurid tales about adventures in Moscow true? We don’t know, although Mr. Trump’s creepy obsequiousness to Vladimir Putin makes it hard to dismiss these allegations. Even given what we do know, however, no previous U.S. president-elect has had less right to the title. So why shouldn’t we question his legitimacy?

And talking frankly about how Mr. Trump gained power isn’t just about truth-telling. It may also help to limit that power.

Will Trump destroy NATO? Will he wreck government healthcare? Will he turn environmental policy over to the fossil fuel industry? Will he ruin public education? This is what is meant by kakistocracy.