Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Schewe on April 13, 2018, 01:33:25 am
-
Time did an interesting thing...they had an artist do an updated illustration from last year's Feb 27th cover for the April 23 cover...ouch!
The Story Behind TIME's 'Stormy' Donald Trump Cover (http://time.com/5236647/donald-trump-stormy-time-cover/)
(https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2018%2F04%2Ftrumpstorm.jpg&w=800&q=85)
Nothing to See Here, Feb. 27, 2017 Stormy, April, 23, 2018 Illustrations by Tim O'Brien for TIME
The April 23 TIME cover, depicting the growing chaos within the Trump White House, may look familiar to some readers: We asked longtime TIME collaborator Tim O’Brien to reimagine a cover he did for us just over a year ago.
With his inventive style and fine hairline brush, Tim’s updated piece shows the rising water from the storms swirling inside the Oval Office.
“When I painted the ‘Nothing to See Here’ cover art, like many, I assumed the level of chaos could not last, that patriots on both sides of the aisle would step forward to control much of what transpired in the past year,” says O’Brien, a Brooklyn-based artist whose work has appeared on over two dozen TIME covers since 1989, covering subjects ranging from the Catholic church to Osama Bin Laden.
“As the never-ending flood of breaking news washed over the White House, and the firings, the scandals and the general mayhem filled each news cycle, I felt the storm metaphor was as relevant as ever,” says O’Brien, who used air brush, pencil, gouache and oil paint to create the piece.” “I mostly thought about how water would fill the space, how it would be transparent in some areas and reflective in others.”
The cover article is pretty scathing as well...
Donald Trump Relied on Michael Cohen to Weather the Storm. Now The President Is On His Own (http://time.com/magazine/)
But hey, this is old news...now we have Jim Comey's new book A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.
I predict that the Trumpeter is gonna be hitting the ol' Twitter pretty hard between no and when it ship next Trues (course, it's already been leaked and much comment from tonite's cable shows.
Never a dull moment at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave the all-American TV Reality Show starring Donnie Trump as the capo otherwise known as The Don.
Actually reminds me of our own little mob we started a few years ago: http://pixelmafia.org (http://pixelmafia.org)
(http://pixelmafia.org/graphics/PM-hand.gif)
T h e R u l e s o f O m e r t á A p p l y.
-
Actually, there is even less to see in the second picture, but those big waves could turn out disastrous.
-
Thanks for the pixelmafia link; explains a lot about this particular family...
Rob
-
While on the stormy situation, last night there was a very interesting and illuminating talkshow by Maybritt Illner from Germany (english subtitles available through the youtube Setting and Autotranslate options). Civilized and balanced discussion by knowledgeable participants primarily on Syria and Skripals. Well worth watching it for one hour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty2CAnIS1fY
[EDIT]
I watched part of the talkshow a second time, this time looking at the english subtitles, and have to say that the translation was lousy. Automatic, by sound, very mechanical (focusing on the individual words, not on the phrases or meaning), and often incomplete and worse yet, even misleading. Especially the names seem to be a challenge for the Google's AI, i.e. the name Skripal was translated as Skriba, script all, Clipper, and possibly other forms. In another instance, "sanctions against oligarchs" was translated as "he laughs rain Russian". Very interesting in German, but abominable in the English translation.
So if this leads to a WWIII, blame Google and not Putin.
I wouldn't want to sit in a Google autonomous car whose camera reads and translates the road signs. Or tries to interpret the signage on an incoming missile.
-
The subject line reminded me of a cartoon I saw 2-3 weeks ago. The Pres and VP were standing at a window looking out at a looming windswept image of the porn actress by that name.
-
...
-
These are the same guys who never said a thing about John Kennedy (also known as Mattress Jack), who'd jump anything that walked by. Nor did they ever bring up FDR's affairs. Nor did they ever jump on Chappaquiddick, where Teddy abandoned a girl to drown and slinked away. And of course we'll never hear about the details of the Bill Clinton extramarital sexual activities from this outfit, even though he was actually doing the stuff as President of the U.S., rather than ten or twelve years earlier.
But, of course, that's unbiased news according to the left.
-
These are the same guys who never said a thing about John Kennedy (also known as Mattress Jack), who'd jump anything that walked by. Nor did they ever bring up FDR's affairs. Nor did they ever jump on Chappaquiddick, where Teddy abandoned a girl to drown and slinked away. And of course we'll never hear about the details of the Bill Clinton extramarital sexual activities from this outfit, even though he was actually doing the stuff as President of the U.S., rather than ten or twelve years earlier.
But, of course, that's unbiased news according to the left.
You left out Clinton's rape of Juanita Broderick, when he was attorney general of Arkansas.
Kent in SD
-
I find this obsession over sexual escapades a little nuts, funny cartoons aside. When that singer exposed her nipple a few years ago, it seemed like the entire country lost its mind for a week. Reactions to school and concert shootings are almost subdued by comparison. Given the amount of sin whose origins are American, porn and porn sites, Las Vegas, huge market for illegal drugs, worrying about how who the Pres had sex with seems beside the point to me. Why does anyone care? Actually, that's one of the things that confuses me about the so-called "right", how they claim to stand for individualism then freak over who the neighbours have sex with. I guess individualism is ok so long as it conforms.
The pay-offs and later cover-ups in these situations look bad, they always do, and I don't understand why politicians get caught up in them. It's high arrogance to believe that the info won't get out. I think the Pres played this all wrong. He should have come out swinging. In much the same way that he bragged about not paying taxes, he should have just sent out a few tweets bragging about the episode, and not paid out the hush money. It would have more honest, and I bet lots of people would have had a good laugh and thought to themselves, "Way to go!" I don't even think that his religious right support would have suffered much. If they've stuck with him this far, how moralistic can they really be?
-
You left out Clinton's rape of Juanita Broderick, when he was attorney general of Arkansas.
Kent in SD
Right, Kent. But I could go on and on. I also left out Gary Hart who was caught in flagrante delicto on the Monkey Business. When it comes to sexual misbehavior Democrats leave Republicans far behind in the dust.
-
These are the same guys who never said a thing about John Kennedy (also known as Mattress Jack), who'd jump anything that walked by. Nor did they ever bring up FDR's affairs. Nor did they ever jump on Chappaquiddick, where Teddy abandoned a girl to drown and slinked away. And of course we'll never hear about the details of the Bill Clinton extramarital sexual activities from this outfit, even though he was actually doing the stuff as President of the U.S., rather than ten or twelve years earlier.
But, of course, that's unbiased news according to the left.
To be fair, although you're correct about JFK and FDR, I don't think you could say that Clinton's affair was exactly kept secret.
(And as an aside, are you suggesting that only Democrats have sex flings?)
But this just points out the pointlessness of worrying about this stuff. We don't know anything about the personal lives of these people, and I don't want to. It's none of my business.
-
Right, Kent. But I could go on and on. I also left out Gary Hart who was caught in flagrante delicto on the Monkey Business. When it comes to sexual misbehavior Democrats leave Republicans far behind in the dust.
I sincerely doubt that.
-
Okay, Robert. Go ahead and document your reasons for doubt. But I warn you, I've only scraped the surface. And yeah, everybody knew about Clinton's sexual fiascoes because they were too far over the edge to hide, though Hillary tried her best. But Time magazine minimized the whole thing.
I've never stopped laughing about the Gary Hart thing. It belonged in a comic book.
-
I was going to let this go because I am actually not interested in the subject, but since you insisted, a simple google search brought this up: https://www.ranker.com/list/republican-sex-scandals/web-infoguy (https://www.ranker.com/list/republican-sex-scandals/web-infoguy).
And because it seems to be necessary to say so, I am not implying that I think that Repubs are any worse than Dems, more that I am trying to say that this little tangent is nonsense.
-
... But this just points out the pointlessness of worrying about this stuff. We don't know anything about the personal lives of these people, and I don't want to. It's none of my business.
I finally found something to agree with Robert ;) As I said above, who cares?
-
I was going to let this go because I am actually not interested in the subject, but since you insisted, a simple google search brought this up: https://www.ranker.com/list/republican-sex-scandals/web-infoguy (https://www.ranker.com/list/republican-sex-scandals/web-infoguy).
And because it seems to be necessary to say so, I am not implying that I think that Repubs are any worse than Dems, more that I am trying to say that this little tangent is nonsense.
Oooohhh! George H.W. Bush "was accused of touching. . . during a promotion event. . ." Great guns! That's really raunchy, especially compared with letting a girl drown in a submerged car.
And then there's Roy Moore. Nine women accused him of "sexual misconduct." That's a bad one, especially when compared with what Clinton did to Juanita Broderick and others.
And there's Jeff Hoover in Kentucky, with "multiple sexual harassment allegations." Oh my. And when we go on we find allegations about Jeff Kruse, an Oregon state senator.
I could run on down through the list, but I don't see a single one that comes close to a Jack Kennedy, Teddy Kennedy, or Gary Hart, all of whom were caught with their red (blue?) hands in the cookie jar (so to speak.) Do you really want me to go on? I just checked out Democrat sexual scandals available on the web. I could post those, but I'll avoid doing it unless you insist.
But I agree with you 100 percent about "the pointlessness of worrying about this stuff." Somebody needs to explain that to Jeff.
-
"I THINK I can see the whole destiny of America contained in the first Puritan who landed on those shores", the French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville wrote after visiting the United States in the 1830s.
Were Tocqueville to land on our shores today, with a bit of squinting he would probably see some of the same evidence of our Puritan destiny as he did nearly two centuries ago.
Speaking about shores, I think it has also something to do with those ridiculously long men's swimming trunks.
If presidents stand as symbols of their nations, it is useful to contrast the portrait of former French President François Mitterand’s family life with that of United States President Bill Clinton. Before Mitterand died in January 1996, he made meticulous plans for his death and funeral. Upon his wishes, his “two families” were present: his legal wife Danielle Mitterand with their two sons, and his mistress Anne Pingeot with their twenty-one year-old daughter. While some may have disapproved of the gesture, the French press reported the event either neutrally or approvingly. Danielle Mitterand defended her husband’s liaison. In an interview with L'Express magazine (quoted in The Fresno Bee, March 1), she said simply: “So yes, I was married to a seducer. I had to make do. That's part of life. What woman can say, ‘I’ve never been cheated on,’ or that she never cheated in her own love life?” In contrast, when American President Bill Clinton was accused of having a mistress – Gennifer Flowers, Bill and Hillary Clinton tried to pre-empt campaign controversy in a television interview where they presented themselves as an empathetic couple working together on their problems. This strategy consisted of seeking pardon and forgiveness for behavior that is widely condemned.
-
I find this obsession over sexual escapades a little nuts, funny cartoons aside. When that singer exposed her nipple a few years ago, it seemed like the entire country lost its mind for a week.
The Onion had, as so often, an amusing article (https://www.theonion.com/u-s-children-still-traumatized-one-year-after-seeing-p-1819567718) on that.
Jeremy
-
... news according to the left.
Can I just point out that you don't really have a 'left' in the US, just a less extreme form of a 'right' in politics?
-
It'd be interesting to see you document that one, Bill.
-
It'd be interesting to see you document that one, Bill.
Compare Sanders and Corbyn, Russ. It's a start.
Jeremy
-
Can I just point out that you don't really have a 'left' in the US, just a less extreme form of a 'right' in politics?
Well, maybe in comparison to the Loony Left (a British parliamentarian term) ;)
-
Oooohhh! George H.W. Bush "was accused of touching. . . during a promotion event. . ." Great guns! That's really raunchy, especially compared with letting a girl drown in a submerged car.
And then there's Roy Moore. Nine women accused him of "sexual misconduct." That's a bad one, especially when compared with what Clinton did to Juanita Broderick and others.
And there's Jeff Hoover in Kentucky, with "multiple sexual harassment allegations." Oh my. And when we go on we find allegations about Jeff Kruse, an Oregon state senator.
I could run on down through the list, but I don't see a single one that comes close to a Jack Kennedy, Teddy Kennedy, or Gary Hart, all of whom were caught with their red (blue?) hands in the cookie jar (so to speak.) Do you really want me to go on? I just checked out Democrat sexual scandals available on the web. I could post those, but I'll avoid doing it unless you insist.
But I agree with you 100 percent about "the pointlessness of worrying about this stuff." Somebody needs to explain that to Jeff.
It's curious that you're quick to dismiss "allegations" against the Rs but equally ready assume the most salacious conclusions about the Ds are true (Broderick). To anyone not blinded by partisan nonsense, its obvious that for every Gary Hart there's a David Vitter. For every Anthony Weiner there's a Dennis Hastert. And the reverse is true as well.
The difference, of course, is that the Dems haven't spent every Sunday morning for the last 30 years braying their holy sanctimony from the pulpit before they sneak off on Monday to pay for abortions they claim to want to make illegal, or to pay off the teenage boys they were busy "mentoring" after those Sunday services.
-
You left out Clinton's rape of Juanita Broderick, when he was attorney general of Arkansas.
Kent in SD
And pizzagate too! Oh, the humanity.
-
But seriously - Trump's loathsome personality aside, what's more important is that the whole administration is utterly crawling with people that make utterly despicable decisions. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/13/the-trump-administration-officially-clipped-the-wings-of-the-migratory-bird-treaty-act/?utm_term=.1389efa85a88)
Just massive, massive stupidity and cruelty top to bottom, every day.
-
It'd be interesting to see you document that one, Bill.
Well your Democratic Party are at least as right-wing as our Conservative Party on most things, and they're pretty horribly right-wing. All things are relative.
-
Well your Democratic Party are at least as right-wing as our Conservative Party on most things, and they're pretty horribly right-wing. All things are relative.
No, the problem is that the ridiculously right is a small but powerful groupìng. It fights way above its weight - or at least gesticulates that way - because of one factor: the irrational fear that the rest of the Conservative party politicians seem to have of that group.
May should have fired the lot of them. But then, in its current position, that same group of crazies is drawing its strength not only from the cowed Conservatives, but from the mixed bag that voted for Brexit, a bag that contains all the rest of the nutters who believe that times have not changed, that Birmingham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne are still the machine shops to the world.
-
No, the problem is that the ridiculously right is a small but powerful groupìng. It fights way above its weight - or at least gesticulates that way - because of one factor: the irrational fear that the rest of the Conservative party politicians seem to have of that group.
May should have fired the lot of them. But then, in its current position, that same group of crazies is drawing its strength not only from the cowed Conservatives, but from the mixed bag that voted for Brexit, a bag that contains all the rest of the nutters who believe that times have not changed, that Birmingham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne are still the machine shops to the world.
Yeah, that's a fair assessment
-
It's curious that you're quick to dismiss "allegations" against the Rs but equally ready assume the most salacious conclusions about the Ds are true (Broderick). To anyone not blinded by partisan nonsense, its obvious that for every Gary Hart there's a David Vitter. For every Anthony Weiner there's a Dennis Hastert. And the reverse is true as well.
The difference, of course, is that the Dems haven't spent every Sunday morning for the last 30 years braying their holy sanctimony from the pulpit before they sneak off on Monday to pay for abortions they claim to want to make illegal, or to pay off the teenage boys they were busy "mentoring" after those Sunday services.
Sex scandals are the ones they trot out for TV ratings, but it doesn't end there obviously. Did you see that John Boerner will be a Director of a cannabis-industry company? A similar thing happened here in Canada, where two ex-police officials (one an ex-chief of police in Toronto, can't remember the other) have ended up on the boards of some cannabis corporation or other after speaking out for years against the dangers of illegal drugs. I don't begrudge them those jobs, they have every right to take them, but still.
If I were still working, I'd be tempted to start an office pool for when Jeff Sessions gets appointed to such a job, he who remains outspoken about cannabis, still trying to jail people, at least in the headlines.
Anyway, this is straying pretty far from the OP topic.
-
As much as I think that Trump is a living disaster and a disgrace for the US and politicians as a whole, I couldn’t care less about who he sleeps with.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Compare Sanders and Corbyn, Russ. It's a start.
Jeremy
You're right, Jeremy. Each is like a hurricane out at sea, moving your way. Let's hope neither storm ever touches land.
-
As much as I think that Trump is a living disaster and a disgrace for the US and politicians as a whole, I couldn’t care less about who he sleeps with.
Cheers,
Bernard
Nor, particularly, do I. I'm fairly certain that you could go through the list of United States presidents (and other politicians) and find absolutely no correlation between their ability and performance in office and their personal sexual issues/histories/peccadillos regardless of party.
I've held that position for decades. Some people, unfortunately, seem to believe the same, or not, depending on whether their "team" is in office - sort of like the deficit/national debt. The problem isn't that conservatives and liberals can't reconcile fundamental philosophies to reach compromise on matters of importance, it's that tribalism (especially on the right for the last decade plus, but the left is sadly catching up very quickly) has seemingly eradicated any sort of moderation.
-
Yeah, that's a fair assessment
Indeed, it is. It holds true here as well.
-
Sex scandals are the ones they trot out for TV ratings, but it doesn't end there obviously. Did you see that John Boerner will be a Director of a cannabis-industry company? A similar thing happened here in Canada, where two ex-police officials (one an ex-chief of police in Toronto, can't remember the other) have ended up on the boards of some cannabis corporation or other after speaking out for years against the dangers of illegal drugs. I don't begrudge them those jobs, they have every right to take them, but still.
If I were still working, I'd be tempted to start an office pool for when Jeff Sessions gets appointed to such a job, he who remains outspoken about cannabis, still trying to jail people, at least in the headlines.
Anyway, this is straying pretty far from the OP topic.
Far from the OP topic, but full of truth. Sessions is also the guy that wants to ramp up civil asset forfeiture again. The whole lot of them need to be gone. (Except Mattis - he's been doing a pretty good job by all indications, and Nikki Haley seems more than competent, even if I don't like her politics).
-
It's curious that you're quick to dismiss "allegations" against the Rs but equally ready assume the most salacious conclusions about the Ds are true (Broderick). To anyone not blinded by partisan nonsense, its obvious that for every Gary Hart there's a David Vitter. For every Anthony Weiner there's a Dennis Hastert. And the reverse is true as well.
The difference, of course, is that the Dems haven't spent every Sunday morning for the last 30 years braying their holy sanctimony from the pulpit before they sneak off on Monday to pay for abortions they claim to want to make illegal, or to pay off the teenage boys they were busy "mentoring" after those Sunday services.
The stuff on Mattress Jack wasn't just an allegation. It was confirmed by a multitude. Neither was the stuff on Clinton just an allegation when he actually got caught red-handed by the dress upon which he'd left his calling card. You can argue about Broderick (and a raft of his other "conquests") all day, but you can't deny the evidence on the dress. Same thing with Gary Hart -- caught red-handed with a boatful of trollops on the Monkey Business after he dared the press to follow him around. Then there was Teddy Kennedy; another case where we aren't simply talking about "accusations" or marital infidelity. We're talking about a truly serious crime.
Yes, David Vitter went with trollops, but he didn't dare the press to follow him around or turn out for blow jobs in the Oval Office. Dennis Hastert is a disgusting case, and I'm certainly not going to try to defend him. Weiner, on the other hand, being a Democrat, got let off a couple times and went right back to exposing himself. This guy is about as sick as they come, but he's probably going to have to become a Republican before they'll put him away for good.
Probably the worst case among the Democrats was John Edwards who chased every skirt in sight while he was a Dem vice-presidential candidate and his wife was dying of cancer.
I could go on and on, James if you'd like me to. I probably have an advantage because I'm old enough to remember this crap when it was going on. I see your age is N/A, so you're probably too young to have known about any of this first-hand.
Oh yeah. We might also want to talk about the stuff the Dems did to blacks in the deep South before the Republicans got things under control. I was there for that too.
-
The stuff on Mattress Jack wasn't just an allegation. It was confirmed by a multitude. Neither was the stuff on Clinton just an allegation when he actually got caught red-handed by the dress upon which he'd left his calling card. You can argue about Broderick (and a raft of his other "conquests") all day, but you can't deny the evidence on the dress. Same thing with Gary Hart -- caught red-handed with a boatful of trollops on the Monkey Business after he dared the press to follow him around. Then there was Teddy Kennedy; another case where we aren't simply talking about "accusations" or marital infidelity. We're talking about a truly serious crime.
Yes, David Vitter went with trollops, but he didn't dare the press to follow him around or turn out for blow jobs in the Oval Office. Dennis Hastert is a disgusting case, and I'm certainly not going to try to defend him. Weiner, on the other hand, being a Democrat, got let off a couple times and went right back to exposing himself. This guy is about as sick as they come, but he's probably going to have to become a Republican before they'll put him away for good.
Probably the worst case among the Democrats was John Edwards who chased every skirt in sight while he was a Dem vice-presidential candidate and his wife was dying of cancer.
I could go on and on, James if you'd like me to. I probably have an advantage because I'm old enough to remember this crap when it was going on. I see your age is N/A, so you're probably too young to have known about any of this first-hand.
Please do Russ, because despite what you think you know, for every Clinton there's a Gingrich prosecuting him while having an affair on the side, and there's a John Ensign and Mark Sanford carrying on the grand GOP tradition of massive moral hypocrisy.
No one - absolutely no one - is claiming that liberals are any less prone to moral failings than are conservatives. The difference is that liberals are a whole lot less likely to be hypocritical weasels about it.
Oh yeah. We might also want to talk about the stuff the Dems did to blacks in the deep South before the Republicans got things under control. I was there for that too.
As for Jim Crow democrats like George Wallace, to hell with them and their disgusting platforms. See, I have zero problem saying that. If you and those like you could only be so critical of your own "tribe" we wouldn't all be stuck with the incompetent child currently occupying the white house.
-
It's a little hard for me to believe that anyone smart enough to operate a camera could defend Donald Trump.
-
It's a little hard for me to believe that anyone smart enough to operate a camera could defend Donald Trump.
Have a look at photos around the Net, John. You're setting the bar pretty low.
Jeremy
-
Please do Russ, because despite what you think you know, for every Clinton there's a Gingrich prosecuting him while having an affair on the side, and there's a John Ensign and Mark Sanford carrying on the grand GOP tradition of massive moral hypocrisy.
There's plenty of moral hypocrisy among politicians, James -- on both sides of the aisle. That's politics. But I'm not really concerned about hypocrisy as much as I'm concerned about misdemeanors and felonies, the second of which, by the way is what we call a failure properly to secure top secret, limited access material. With very few exceptions, the actionable crimes seem to be carried out by those on the left.
-
It's a little hard for me to believe that anyone smart enough to operate a camera could defend Donald Trump.
Thanks for the belly-laugh.
But then I started thinking about point-and-shoots and iPhones, they're pretty easy to use. :)
-
But then I started thinking about point-and-shoots and iPhones, they're pretty easy to use. :)
According to Brooks Jensen, that's what's killing fine art photography. Anybody -- just anybody -- can do it nowadays.
-
According to Brooks Jensen, that's what's killing fine art photography. Anybody -- just anybody -- can do it nowadays.
Not only fine art photography, even movies. Some Hollywood directors are nowadays shooting full-length motion pictures with iphones. :o
At the same time, lot of crap is still generated by expensive dSLR's.
-
It's a little hard for me to believe that anyone smart enough to operate a camera could defend Donald Trump.
Heeeyy!? Are you trying to insult my camera skills? ;)
-
Heeeyy!? Are you trying to insult my camera skills? ;)
If the lens fits ...
-
If the lens fits ...
Surely you meant the lens cap?
;-)
-
Surely you meant the lens cap?
;-)
Good point. ;*)
-
...utterly despicable decisions. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/13/the-trump-administration-officially-clipped-the-wings-of-the-migratory-bird-treaty-act/?utm_term=.1389efa85a88)...
One man's "despicable" is another man's reasonable. You don't really want Captain Sully to go to jail, do you?
-
According to Brooks Jensen, that's what's killing fine art photography. Anybody -- just anybody -- can do it nowadays.
When the Brownie came out, people said the same thing too.
-
When the Brownie came out, people said the same thing too.
Thus one has to keep up with the times. Which means, currently, Instagram :)
-
Talk about Stormy Weather!
Dems File Suit ... (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/20/politics/democrats-lawsuit-russia/index.html)
Reading through this, I have to wonder exactly what are they thinking? Just when so many have forgotten about the internal emails and all the in-fighting amongst the party before the convention and Hillary's mistreatment of Bernie and the DNC not only allowing it but being a part of it, they are going to bring it all back into the lime light before the midterms. ???
Considering there is still no proof of Russian collusion, I feel like this is going to have a more negative impact on the Dems then Trump from both highlighting bad acts committed by the DNC, again, and making them look like even bigger sore losers.
-
You gotta understand, Joe, that these are not the most intelligent people around. A lot of them are heavily credentialed but that's not the same thing as intelligence.
But I'd say: "Good on you guys. Keep it up. The midterm election's not that far off, and your stupidity will have a salutary effect on the outcome of that election."
-
You gotta understand, Joe, that these are not the most intelligent people around. A lot of them are heavily credentialed but that's not the same thing as intelligence.
But I'd say: "Good on you guys. Keep it up. The midterm election's not that far off, and your stupidity will have a salutary effect on the outcome of that election."
Russ, I could make sense of this if it was filed in December or January as a way to rile up the base for the primaries. But for the actual elections where the general electorate, aka the non-wing-nuts, makes the decisions.
The only way this actually makes sense is if Mueller suddenly and miraculously finds clear evidence of collusion, after more then a year of searching, otherwise they are going to loose the suit against Trump.
Since I doubt Russia or Wikileaks are going to show up to court, I guess the Dems will automatically wins those, but I doubt anyone will really look at that as a victory.
Oh my. What a PR gamble.
-
The only way this actually makes sense is if Mueller suddenly and miraculously finds clear evidence of collusion, after more then a year of searching, otherwise they are going to loose the suit against Trump.
I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. I doubt "winning" the suit is even a primary objective. Also, I don't think that it's at all clear that there's no evidence of collusion, and I don't think the suit depends on a sudden miraculous finding of such by Mueller. FWIW, my personal opinion is that it will be hard to prove collusion by Trump himself, but substantially easier to do so for some of his cronies. I also think that, even if there is evidence of collusion by Trump himself, there's no reason at all that that would be public knowledge at this point, but I digress...
Anyway, I think the actual goal is a bit more strategic. It's not at all clear that Mueller is going to be allowed to complete the investigation, and it's even less clear that even in the case of a finding of wrongdoing by a president that Mueller can hand down an indictment. Rather, it's my understanding that he has to refer over to the House, and we all know where that will go, regardless of what the report says. It's not even clear, in fact, that any report, regardless of the findings, must be made public. Literally, Mueller could find direct evidence that Trump committed scores of illegal acts, and there is potentially no Constitutional authority to prosecute (though I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion, there seem to be at least 2 DoJ opinions that support it) nor is there any legal mandate that Congress make the conclusions public.
The filing of the suit allows, theoretically, for Trump to be deposed. The suit allows other relevant evidence to be entered into the public record. We know a certain percentage of the population won't be moved, because no matter what a conservative might have done, somehow "the liberals" are worse. (We can call those people RUSSians ;) ) We know that another certain percentage will believe that Trump is a full on Ruskie no matter what the evidence shows. Then there are people like me (and I think you) that will make their decisions based on whatever evidence they are allowed to see. THOSE are the people this is aimed at, and those are the people that this might make a difference to, and the people who will make a difference in November. I think it's likely, in fact, that the timing of this is designed specifically to have those depos, records and evidence in the public sphere just around election time, or at least to keep the issues in the public eye until then even if Mueller is shut down.
So, no, I don't think it's stupid at all. (Stupid would be when your own guy gets wasted and starts blabbing about how he's gonna collab with Vladimir to get your opponent ;) (https://www.vox.com/2017/12/30/16833954/george-papadopoulos-trump-times) )
-
I agree with James. This is all about gaining access to information and people and making it public (including deposing people so if it can be proven later that they lied they can be prosecuted). It also keeps a spotlight on things like the current investigation, so Trump and the GOP can't push it out of the news cycle so easily. It may even provide a means to obtain details of the investigation if it ends up being shelved.
-
I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. I doubt "winning" the suit is even a primary objective. Also, I don't think that it's at all clear that there's no evidence of collusion, and I don't think the suit depends on a sudden miraculous finding of such by Mueller. FWIW, my personal opinion is that it will be hard to prove collusion by Trump himself, but substantially easier to do so for some of his cronies. I also think that, even if there is evidence of collusion by Trump himself, there's no reason at all that that would be public knowledge at this point, but I digress...
Anyway, I think the actual goal is a bit more strategic. It's not at all clear that Mueller is going to be allowed to complete the investigation, and it's even less clear that even in the case of a finding of wrongdoing by a president that Mueller can hand down an indictment. Rather, it's my understanding that he has to refer over to the House, and we all know where that will go, regardless of what the report says. It's not even clear, in fact, that any report, regardless of the findings, must be made public. Literally, Mueller could find direct evidence that Trump committed scores of illegal acts, and there is potentially no Constitutional authority to prosecute (though I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion, there seem to be at least 2 DoJ opinions that support it) nor is there any legal mandate that Congress make the conclusions public.
The filing of the suit allows, theoretically, for Trump to be deposed. The suit allows other relevant evidence to be entered into the public record. We know a certain percentage of the population won't be moved, because no matter what a conservative might have done, somehow "the liberals" are worse. (We can call those people RUSSians ;) ) We know that another certain percentage will believe that Trump is a full on Ruskie no matter what the evidence shows. Then there are people like me (and I think you) that will make their decisions based on whatever evidence they are allowed to see. THOSE are the people this is aimed at, and those are the people that this might make a difference to, and the people who will make a difference in November. I think it's likely, in fact, that the timing of this is designed specifically to have those depos, records and evidence in the public sphere just around election time, or at least to keep the issues in the public eye until then even if Mueller is shut down.
So, no, I don't think it's stupid at all. (Stupid would be when your own guy gets wasted and starts blabbing about how he's gonna collab with Vladimir to get your opponent ;) (https://www.vox.com/2017/12/30/16833954/george-papadopoulos-trump-times) )
Those are all good thoughts, but it all depends on compelling evidence being brought to light. This is uncertain, and unlikely at this point. It's been more then a year and if Mueller had something compelling on collusion, it would have been leaked by now, considering how leaky his ship has been.
(That, or the extra legal pressure will make Trump break and go off the rails, of which would have worse reproductions considering he is commander and chief of the largest army in the world. This would certainly sink him, but more then likely take down some Dems along the way.)
But what is certain is that this suit opens closed wounds of the Democrats. Plus, if they loose or fail to show compelling evidence that wins over the majority, it makes them look like even bigger sore losers.
It's a gamble, and not a very well thought out one. They really need a Hail Mary to pull this off.
-
It's been more then a year and if Mueller had something compelling on collusion, it would have been leaked by now, considering how leaky his ship has been.
Mueller's ship hasn't leaked...the only "leaks" have been people who have been interviewed...and the only hints of what Mueller may have found are found in the unrelated portions of court filings related to various charges against various people–which is very far from being finished.
There are still people who likely have exposure like Kushner (what was he thinking meeting with a banker under US sanctions and why did he want a secret Russian back channel at Russia's embassy?) and Donny Jr. (who did actually try to collude and we still have no idea what came of that meeting).
So, no, you have no friggin' clue what Mueller may or may not have...and these things take time. Look how long Watergate took: The complete Watergate timeline (it took longer than you realize) (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/complete-watergate-timeline-took-longer-realize)
And that's just The Russian Thingie and doesn't count the whole Michael Cohen thingie which seems to have The Big Cheeto particularly vexed :~)
-
Yeah, Mueller has been so leaky that Trump didn't know his lawyer was about to get raided...
-
Mueller's ship hasn't leaked...the only "leaks" have been people who have been interviewed...and the only hints of what Mueller may have found are found in the unrelated portions of court filings related to various charges against various people–which is very far from being finished.
There are still people who likely have exposure like Kushner (what was he thinking meeting with a banker under US sanctions and why did he want a secret Russian back channel at Russia's embassy?) and Donny Jr. (who did actually try to collude and we still have no idea what came of that meeting).
So, no, you have no friggin' clue what Mueller may or may not have...and these things take time. Look how long Watergate took: The complete Watergate timeline (it took longer than you realize) (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/complete-watergate-timeline-took-longer-realize)
And that's just The Russian Thingie and doesn't count the whole Michael Cohen thingie which seems to have The Big Cheeto particularly vexed :~)
Sure, but that has nothing to do with this lawsuit.
I think Slobo brought up changing the subject when you know you are loosing in another thread.
The reality is, as it stands in the here and now, this does more damage to the Dems then Trump. For this to work, the Dems need compelling evidence, which does not exist or is public yet. It is a gamble that only works if, and only if, Mueller actually finds evidence on collusion. Evidence of any other unrelated crime will have no influence what so ever since it will not be admissible in court.
Even if they manage to bring down associates, it still does not touch Trump. How do I know this?
From experience with Mayor Street in Philly (who I despised). Every person in his administration was corrupt and proven to be so in court, yet he still got elected, and some still talk favorably about him.
Plus, look at the bigger picture, the Dems are making the same mistake that Hillary did. They have nothing to sell except that Trump is bad.
Name one policy fight they have won. Immigration, nope. The Schumer Shutdown failed miserably. Tax reform, nope. It still got passed and more and more people are finding out it actually helps them, especially with a growing self employed economy. Gun control, nope. Even if the Reps are against gun control, Trump is for it, negating any counter the Dems could create against Trump.
PS, and on all this non-policy related bad PR, it was shown in a study published on CNN a couple of months ago that most citizens don't need to like a politician to vote for him or her. So long as he or she does a good job they will vote for him, proving what I have always thought, that morality in politics is nothing but a talking point for both sides.
-
... We know a certain percentage of the population won't be moved, because no matter what a conservative might have done, somehow "the liberals" are worse. (We can call those people RUSSians ;) ) ...
Finally something we agree on, James ;)
Nice one: Russians :)
Then again, perhaps "the certain percentage of the population" simply knows they didn't vote for Trump because of whatever Russians did or didn't do, of Facebook did or didn't do, but because they wanted to (and because "'the liberals' are worse").
-
Name one policy fight they have won.
Uh, healthcare? While the mandate bit the dust, the rest remains because, well, the Republicans couldn't bring themselves to repeal and replace.
And tell me again about that spending bill Trump signed? Instead of a CR, Congress actually passed a bipartisan spending bill (yeah, shocked me too).
I think Slobo brought up changing the subject when you know you are loosing in another thread.
Pot, meet kettle...
-
It's a gamble, and not a very well thought out one. They really need a Hail Mary to pull this off.
Interesting you mention this because back in the early 1970's suing the Committee to Elect the President is exactly what the Democrats did over the Watergate break in...and don't ya know that the day Nixon left Washington in disgrace, the Committee for the Reelection of the President paid the DNC $775,000 to settle that lawsuit.
So, it seems, silly as you may think this might be, there is a pretty compelling legal precedent for suing...(and no, I didn't remember but Rachel Maddow just had it on her show so I looked it up).
8)
-
Oooooh...it get even better.
The judge that has been assigned to the current Democratic lawsuit is...Hon. John G. Koeltl...who served as an assistant special prosecutor in the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in the DOJ from 1973-1974.
Things that make you go hum...
History does tend to repeat itself.
-
https://politics.theonion.com/dnc-files-lawsuit-alleging-nation-should-never-ever-st-1825424101
Jeremy
-
Nice portrait of Tom Perez.
-
Nice portrait of Tom Perez.
I’ve always found it totally perplexing that Democrats thought that the best strategy to respond to the electoral victory of someone who, in their view, hates Mexicans and Muslims, and has half the country apparently agreeing, is to elect a... Mexican and a Muslim to lead the party to their desired electoral victory!?
-
I’ve always found it totally perplexing that Democrats thought that the best strategy to respond to the electoral victory of someone who, in their view, hates Mexicans and Muslims, and has half the country apparently agreeing, is to elect a... Mexican and a Muslim to lead the party to their desired electoral victory!?
Funny, I thought they were Americans.
-
Uh, healthcare? While the mandate bit the dust, the rest remains because, well, the Republicans couldn't bring themselves to repeal and replace.
And tell me again about that spending bill Trump signed? Instead of a CR, Congress actually passed a bipartisan spending bill (yeah, shocked me too).
Pot, meet kettle...
You got me on Healthcare, (edit) but that was not really a win for the Dems. More like a failure on the part of the Reps, which is not the same thing.
The spending bill though, I see that as a win win for all around.
-
Interesting you mention this because back in the early 1970's suing the Committee to Elect the President is exactly what the Democrats did over the Watergate break in...and don't ya know that the day Nixon left Washington in disgrace, the Committee for the Reelection of the President paid the DNC $775,000 to settle that lawsuit.
So, it seems, silly as you may think this might be, there is a pretty compelling legal precedent for suing...(and no, I didn't remember but Rachel Maddow just had it on her show so I looked it up).
8)
So?
Just because putting all on black won before does not mean it will again. Plus, at the time, that suit did not open already closed wounds of the Dems. It was not self wounding; this one is.
I just don't see the logic here. As I said before, there is no evidence of collusion as it stand now; this suit does more harm to the Dems then Trump by keeping past wrongs of the DNC in the lime light.
If you want, you can keep on looking at this through rose colored glasses, but that did not work in 2016 either.
The only thing I see from the Dems are, "Trump is bad, we are better, don't dare ask why, just trust us!" Such a winning message.
-
https://politics.theonion.com/dnc-files-lawsuit-alleging-nation-should-never-ever-st-1825424101
Jeremy
This is great.
-
Does anyone know the legal meaning of "collusion"? Does it require active participation in an act or is it enough to benefit from the actions of others?
-
Does anyone know the legal meaning of "collusion"? Does it require active participation in an act or is it enough to benefit from the actions of others?
I'm pretty sure the former. Even if it was made the latter, I'm fairly certain the Supreme Court would over turn it.
If half of the architectural photographers in N. America died this weekend, that would have a quick and substantial positive impact on my business come Monday. However, that alone would not make me guilty of any wrong doing.
-
To be fair, although you're correct about JFK and FDR, I don't think you could say that Clinton's affair was exactly kept secret.
Yeah, darn it. I guess the Oval Office as the venue made that a little tough. When my wife made the observation about his sexual activity not having anything to do with his “job as President,” I observed that I doubt seriously she would have seen it that way if I, as the fire chief of my town, was having similar oral festivities in my office with a female fire cadet. That ended the conversation somewhat abruptly.
Rand
-
Yeah, darn it. I guess the Oval Office as the venue made that a little tough. When my wife made the observation about his sexual activity not having anything to do with his “job as President,” I observed that I doubt seriously she would have seen it that way if I, as the fire chief of my town, was having similar oral festivities in my office with a female fire cadet. That ended the conversation somewhat abruptly.
Rand
You may have been suggesting more than you imagined: could you really offer to compete with all those hoses lying all over the place, or neatly on shiny red engines? I hope they were red engines.
I've often wondered about Monica's motivation. Years later, I am no further forward on that topic, not that it is always on my mind, or anything.
From this and that, I gather that a blow is quite the thing in the US, where teens are more likely to do that than the other. As with swearing, it may be a cultural difference in acceptability. AFAIK, in Britain, you are much more likely to have to visit a professional purveyor of pleasures for one of those, than expect and receive it in the marital bed or on a date.
Life's rich tapestry, I suppose.
(Perhaps this might sit better in the Etiquette thread?
-
Does anyone know the legal meaning of "collusion"? Does it require active participation in an act or is it enough to benefit from the actions of others?
As I understand it, “collision” itself isn’t even the crime in isolation, whether Trump new about, participated in it or was wholly ignorant on it (as he seems to be on so many things).
Rather, it’s a catch-all term for the possibility that the campaign, with or without his knowledge, did other things that are illegal (campaign finance violations in that you can’t accept donations from foreign entities, or amounts above a certain number etc) or actively solicited or coordinated illegal activity (release of hacked emails etc).
In short, if Russia simply manipulated the election to screw with the USA and trump was the unwitting beneficiary, then there’s likely no reason to prosecute. It’s not illegal to have a foreign power accidentally help you out.
-
Does anyone know the legal meaning of "collusion"?
"Collusion" has no meaning in U.S. federal law. It's a catch-all term used by the press and President Trump to refer to whether persons associated with the 2016 Trump campaign participated in the efforts by the Russian government to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
The federal crimes that the special counsel reportedly is investigating include "active measures" espionage by Russia and possibly other governments (i.e., attempts to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election); various other computer crimes committed in the course of attempts to influence the election (e.g., identity theft); making illegal campaign contributions (those that exceeded the statutory maxima or were funded by foreign donors); obstruction of justice; making false statements to federal agents (e.g., investigators from the FBI); conspiracy to commit these crimes—and, apparently, a number of personal financial crimes and attempts to evade paying U.S. taxes that the investigators turned up in the course of pursuing the primary objectives of their inquiry, some of which come within the purview of the special counsel and others which have been referred to the U.S. attorneys' offices with jurisdiction over them.
Some of these areas of inquiry are known from the guilty pleas the special counsel has already obtained from targets of these investigations, some from public court filings by the special counsel, and some from "leaks" to the press that appear to have originated with lawyers for various defendants or witnesses. This last group of sources obviously may be self-interested in the information they make public, and their revelations should be considered with some skepticism since it is all but impossible to verify them; in my nearly 50 years in Washington, some of them spent as a news reporter and analyst (I'm also a lawyer), I don't think there has ever been a federal investigation whose existence was known to the public that has been conducted in such secrecy. Robert Mueller really has kept the lid on.
So far, the only crimes that can reasonably be said to have been committed are those to which the defendants have pleaded guilty. The special counsel has also filed some other charges which are being contested, and which will have to be resolved in court or perhaps by future guilty pleas. However, the court warrants that have been issued to the special counsel to conduct searches and seizures of information—some of them "no-knock" warrants where the subject or the subject's lawyer was not given notice of the search prior to its initiation, a rarity in white-collar crime investigations—strongly suggests that there will be additional charges to follow.
-
"Collusion" has no meaning in U.S. federal law. It's a catch-all term used by the press and President Trump to refer to whether persons associated with the 2016 Trump campaign participated in the efforts by the Russian government to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
The federal crimes that the special counsel reportedly is investigating include "active measures" espionage by Russia and possibly other governments (i.e., attempts to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election); various other computer crimes committed in the course of attempts to influence the election (e.g., identity theft); making illegal campaign contributions (those that exceeded the statutory maxima or were funded by foreign donors); obstruction of justice; making false statements to federal agents (e.g., investigators from the FBI); conspiracy to commit these crimes—and, apparently, a number of personal financial crimes and attempts to evade paying U.S. taxes that the investigators turned up in the course of pursuing the primary objectives of their inquiry, some of which come within the purview of the special counsel and others which have been referred to the U.S. attorneys' offices with jurisdiction over them.
Some of these areas of inquiry are known from the guilty pleas the special counsel has already obtained from targets of these investigations, some from public court filings by the special counsel, and some from "leaks" to the press that appear to have originated with lawyers for various defendants or witnesses. This last group of sources obviously may be self-interested in the information they make public, and their revelations should be considered with some skepticism since it is all but impossible to verify them; in my nearly 50 years in Washington, some of them spent as a news reporter and analyst (I'm also a lawyer), I don't think there has ever been a federal investigation whose existence was known to the public that has been conducted in such secrecy. Robert Mueller really has kept the lid on.
So far, the only crimes that can reasonably be said to have been committed are those to which the defendants have pleaded guilty. The special counsel has also filed some other charges which are being contested, and which will have to be resolved in court or perhaps by future guilty pleas. However, the court warrants that have been issued to the special counsel to conduct searches and seizures of information—some of them "no-knock" warrants where the subject or the subject's lawyer was not given notice of the search prior to its initiation, a rarity in white-collar crime investigations—strongly suggests that there will be additional charges to follow.
You've explained so much better than I did :D.
-
You've explained so much better than I did :D.
Well, there was nothing wrong with what you wrote. But I thought it would be useful to offer some specifics regarding what is known about the special counsel's investigation.
-
Well, there was nothing wrong with what you wrote. But I thought it would be useful to offer some specifics regarding what is known about the special counsel's investigation.
For sure. I meant that honestly and as a compliment. :)
-
I've often wondered about Monica's motivation. Years later, I am no further forward on that topic, not that it is always on my mind, or anything.
No need to look for complex motivations, I suspect. They probably just got horny for each other in the moment. That's how it usually happens.
-
You may have been suggesting more than you imagined: could you really offer to compete with all those hoses lying all over the place, or neatly on shiny red engines? I hope they were red engines.
I've often wondered about Monica's motivation. Years later, I am no further forward on that topic, not that it is always on my mind, or anything.
From this and that, I gather that a blow is quite the thing in the US, where teens are more likely to do that than the other. As with swearing, it may be a cultural difference in acceptability. AFAIK, in Britain, you are much more likely to have to visit a professional purveyor of pleasures for one of those, than expect and receive it in the marital bed or on a date.
Life's rich tapestry, I suppose.
(Perhaps this might sit better in the Etiquette thread?
Rob, sounds like it's been quite a while since you've been in Britain.
;-)
-
No need to look for complex motivations, I suspect. They probably just got horny for each other in the moment. That's how it usually happens.
Good point, Robert. But I suspect it was Bill who got horny -- which obviously was something he spent most of every day doing -- and Monica said "OOOOOhhhh the PRESIDENT!!!!" and dropped to her knees.
-
From this and that, I gather that a blow is quite the thing in the US, where teens are more likely to do that than the other. As with swearing, it may be a cultural difference in acceptability. AFAIK, in Britain, you are much more likely to have to visit a professional purveyor of pleasures for one of those, than expect and receive it in the marital bed or on a date.
This may interest you, Rob: Coolide effect. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect)
-
Rob, sounds like it's been quite a while since you've been in Britain.
;-)
Only thirty-seven years; am I missing something?
On the other hand my son came here on a short stay with some mates many years ago, and they stayed in Magaluf. He came up to see us, and told us that some English dame was giving it in the middle of the street. Probably because she knew it wouldn't run a hole in the knees of her tights - too hot to wear any. Or she just missed the Walls ices dispenser. Who knows, even about Monica? Guess it's all a matter of taste.
:-)
-
Only thirty-seven years; am I missing something?
On the other hand my son came here on a short stay with some mates many years ago, and they stayed in Magaluf. He came up to see us, and told us that some English dame was giving it in the middle of the street. Probably because she knew it wouldn't run a hole in the knees of her tights - too hot to wear any. Or she just missed the Walls ices dispenser. Who knows, even about Monica? Guess it's all a matter of taste.
:-)
Well, if you have to ask...
;-)
-
This may interest you, Rob: Coolide effect. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect)
In retrospect, I'm so happy not to have been born a mussel!
I suppose that, really, it underlines the benefits of a long, stable relationship combined with frequent business trips elsewhere.
Always look on the bright side, and you'll have a 50 - 50 chance of being right. Or not.
:-(
-
Well, if you have to ask...
;-)
Reminds me of the story about Gauguin, who didn't know any of this when he went on holiday to Papua; should have stayed on his own little island and left those cannibals to themselves. Didn't Vincent tell him he painted with his dick? Now I know how he managed to do that: joyful execution and a quick knot. No wonder all he did ever after was paint.
-
As I understand it, “collision” itself isn’t even the crime...
Indeed. It is simply an accident.... unless you were driving drunk ;)
-
No need to look for complex motivations, I suspect. They probably just got horny for each other in the moment. That's how it usually happens.
You mean it wasn't a rape, sexual assault, inappropriate advance, and/or abuse of power!? I am shocked.
-
Indeed. It is simply an accident.... unless you were driving drunk ;)
The typos are killing me lately. I’m “loosing” it. :D
-
You mean it wasn't a rape, sexual assault, inappropriate advance, and/or abuse of power!? I am shocked.
Maybe it was simply desperation.
Take your time; gaze at the photos and ask yourself: would you have wanted either?
The easy answer is sometimes the reasonable one.
-
Interesting you mention this because back in the early 1970's suing the Committee to Elect the President is exactly what the Democrats did over the Watergate break in...and don't ya know that the day Nixon left Washington in disgrace, the Committee for the Reelection of the President paid the DNC $775,000 to settle that lawsuit.
So, it seems, silly as you may think this might be, there is a pretty compelling legal precedent for suing...(and no, I didn't remember but Rachel Maddow just had it on her show so I looked it up).
8)
Hmmmm
Pandora's Box (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/opinions/dnc-lawsuit-watergate-opinion-wu/index.html)
Hmmmm
And this was published on CNN!
-
... And this was published on CNN!
Published on CNN today too:
"Trump deserves credit for Korean thaw"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/politics/donald-trump-korea/index.html