New York Magazine doesn't seem to like Trump

[Schewe]

Seems New York's home town boy isn't playing too well in NYC...(the Photoshop work isn't really good but it gets the point across :~)



501 Days in Swampland
A constant drip of self-dealing. And this is just what we know so far …

On the day he took the oath of office, Donald Trump delivered two messages about what to expect from his administration. First came the lofty promise of his inaugural address. “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer,” he vowed. “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished — but the people did not share in its wealth.”

The second message, which Trump delivered without speaking a word, was aimed at a much smaller, but very rich, audience. As the new president’s motorcade left the Capitol, rolling past knots of supporters and protesters, it suddenly stopped three blocks short of the White House. Trump, the First Lady, and the rest of his family got out of their limos and took a three-minute turn in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue.

This was no random spot. The very first place Trump headed after being sworn in — his true destination all along, in a sense — was the Old Post Office and Clock Tower, which only 12 days before the election had been repurposed as the Trump International Hotel Washington. The elegant granite structure, whose architectural character Trump had promised to preserve, was now besmirched by a gaudy, faux-gold sign bearing his name. The carefully choreographed stop sent a clear signal to the foreign governments, lobbyists, and corporate interests keen on currying favor in Washington: The rewards of government would now be reaped by a single man — and the people would bear the cost.

The GOP seems willing to aid and abet this...maybe they are hoping for some trickle down economic benefit? Well, they got the tax overhaul which, well, ok it won't do much for those "The forgotten men and women of our country". Oh, I'll benefit too...(not nearly as much as the super wealthy) so to complain would be to go against my own self interest but I can't see any way that Trump will ever really be good for our country, only himself.

Mr. Piggy?

[Jeremy Roussak]

If that infantility of that illustration and Carrey's daubs are truly representative of the level of political debate in the US, I rather suspect that Trump will not only stay the course of his current term but will probably be re-elected.

Jeremy

[Robert Roaldi]

There is long history of political cartoons going over the top, just take a look at old issues of Punch magazine. As for what artists choose to paint, that's up to them. I don't think that either of those outlets reflects on how infantile the level of public debate has become.

That infantility is better demonstrated on prime time news and social media, where "debate" is rarely anything other than silly, consisting mostly of slogans and sound bites. Long-form reporting and opinion writing and podcasts still exist in many places. It's hard to gauge how many people read/listen to those. They're not hard to find.

[RSL]

If that infantility of that illustration and Carrey's daubs are truly representative of the level of political debate in the US, I rather suspect that Trump will not only stay the course of his current term but will probably be re-elected.

Jeremy

Quite right, Jeremy. I hope Jeff and the others will keep on with this kind of thing. They're turning off multitudes. At the rate they're going, 2020's in the bag for Trump.

[KLaban]

Ridicule has been the stuff of political commentary and illustration since William Hogarth. Long may it live.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Quite right, Jeremy. I hope Jeff and the others will keep on with this kind of thing. They're turning off multitudes. At the rate they're going, 2020's in the bag for Trump.

Yup, they make his life easier, as he can portray himself as a victim. That gets a lot of votes...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Forget the nose, I want those teeth. I hope they are not photoshopped too.

[RSL]

New York Magazine never likes anything that's right.

[JoeKitchen]

Forget the nose, I want those teeth. I hope they are not photoshopped too.

Those are some pearly whites. 

[Schewe]

If that infantility of that illustration and Carrey's daubs are truly representative of the level of political debate in the US, I rather suspect that Trump will not only stay the course of his current term but will probably be re-elected.

This critique from a Brit? Really? Like you have a monopoly on highbrow political discourse?


Political cartoon from Peter Brooks

Lost I guess, was the actual content of the article?

Trump and his cronies are pillaging the country while his base of supporters enjoy the view. Wait till it hits them in their wallets like the pork producers in the red states who lost almost a billion in the last few days because Trump decided to start a trade war with China. But that's really only political hand waving to draw your attention from the fact that the President of the United States is the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI and he's being sued by a pornstar who he claims didn't have sex with.

In the meantime, the lawsuit against Trump over violating anti-corruption sections of the Constitution can continue: Emoluments Lawsuit Against President Trump Allowed To Proceed

But it doesn't stop at the head...look at all the rest of the cabinet who are either gone or in hot water due to wasteful spending...private planes, $31k dining room sets...like many of his other businesses I'm really worried he's gonna drive the US into the ground–all for the benefit of himself,  his family and close friends.

P.S. I actually have a UK friend who used to do a lot of edgy political cartoons; Steve Caplan. Now he makes more money doing Photoshop books like How to Cheat in Photoshop perhaps you've seen some of his illustrations :~)

[Jeremy Roussak]

This critique from a Brit? Really? Like you have a monopoly on highbrow political discourse?

No, political debate in the UK can be pretty depressing as well; but that's not what you were raising or discussing, and attacking the level of such debate elsewhere doesn't raise it in the US. I didn't find the article full of rational analysis either, to be honest.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the fact that the President of the United States is the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI...

Remind me again, which one?

This, perhaps?

Robert Mueller Tells President Trump He's Not a Criminal Target, Source Says

http://time.com/5228122/donald-trump-not-criminal-target-mueller/

[Schewe]

This, perhaps?

http://time.com/5228122/donald-trump-not-criminal-target-mueller/

Not a target (yet) but it's confirmed he's a subject of the investigation... There's really only a few choices....not involved with ANY investigation, being a witness in an investigation, being the subject of the investigation or being a target of the investigation. And it can be a very subtle change to go from subject to target.

And besides, would they really tell Trump he's a target? Why? They're still trying to get him to testify :~)

[Schewe]

I didn't find the article full of rational analysis either, to be honest.

Well, the article was assembling the totality of the self dealing and sleazy deals that Trump and his minions have engaged in...not sure what analysis is required other than what's happened is really remarkable and sickening.

Trump isn’t draining the swamp — he’s monetizing it. —David Cay Johnston

That sound pretty accurate don't you think?

[Chris Kern]

...  the fact that the President of the United States is the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI ...

Remind me again, which one?

This, perhaps?

http://time.com/5228122/donald-trump-not-criminal-target-mueller/

Not a target (yet) but it's confirmed he's a subject of the investigation... There's really only a few choices....not involved with ANY investigation, being a witness in an investigation, being the subject of the investigation or being a target of the investigation. And it can be a very subtle change to go from subject to target.

As far as I know, this particular taxonomy is unique—at least in the United States—to federal investigations.  I don't think the individual states, where most crimes in this country are prosecuted, use it.

A witness is someone who might know something relevant to an investigation, and may be invited or required to testify.

A subject is someone whose conduct falls within the scope of an investigation, and who may be charged with a crime.

A target is someone who the investigators believe was involved in the commission of a crime, and who is likely to be charged.

Trump reportedly has been informed that he is a subject of the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

While it's true that the distance between subject and target is narrow, I would be surprised if Trump was actually indicted.  There's reason to believe that a U.S. president cannot be required to answer in court to criminal charges while he is in office.

During Watergate—which I covered as a news reporter (I'm also a lawyer)—the special prosecutor only named President Nixon as an "unindicted co-conspirator," despite compelling evidence that he had been involved in criminal obstruction of justice.

There is no clear case law (the United States is a common law jurisdiction) determining whether a president can be brought to trial in court for criminal conduct.  The remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified in the U.S. Constitution is impeachment—a political process by which the president is charged by the House of Representatives and convicted or acquitted by the Senate.

Robert Mueller is a careful and conservative (politically as well as professionally) investigator.  I doubt he would be inclined to test the boundaries of criminal jurisprudence by indicting a president, no matter how egregious he might consider the president's crimes.  (And at this point there is no public evidence that Trump was personally involved in the commission of any crime.)

Since Trump's personal activity with respect to the Russian meddling is within the scope of the investigation, it was appropriate for Mueller to inform the president's lawyers that he is a "subject."

But that doesn't mean he will be promoted to the status of "target" even if Mueller's investigators discover evidence that Trump was indeed engaged in illegal activity.  Mueller might well believe—and I suspect he would—that the determination of how to deal with crimes committed by a president is within the purview of the Congress, not the judicial system.

[James Clark]

As far as I know, this particular taxonomy is unique—at least in the United States—to federal investigations.  I don't think the individual states, where most crimes in this country are prosecuted, use it.

A witness is someone who might know something relevant to an investigation, and may be invited or required to testify.

A subject is someone whose conduct falls within the scope of an investigation, and who may be charged with a crime.

A target is someone who the investigators believe was involved in the commission of a crime, and who is likely to be charged.

Trump reportedly has been informed that he is a subject of the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

While it's true that the distance between subject and target is narrow, I would be surprised if Trump was actually indicted.  There's reason to believe that a U.S. president cannot be required to answer in court to criminal charges while he is in office.

During Watergate—which I covered as a news reporter (I'm also a lawyer)—the special prosecutor only named President Nixon as an "unindicted co-conspirator," despite compelling evidence that he had been involved in criminal obstruction of justice.

There is no clear case law (the United States is a common law jurisdiction) determining whether a president can be brought to trial in court for criminal conduct.  The remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified in the U.S. Constitution is impeachment—a political process by which the president is charged by the House of Representatives and convicted or acquitted by the Senate.

Robert Mueller is a careful and conservative (politically as well as professionally) investigator.  I doubt he would be inclined to test the boundaries of criminal jurisprudence by indicting a president, no matter how egregious he might consider the president's crimes.  (And at this point there is no public evidence that Trump was personally involved in the commission of any crime.)

Since Trump's personal activity with respect to the Russian meddling is within the scope of the investigation, it was appropriate for Mueller to inform the president's lawyers that he is a "subject."

But that doesn't mean he will be promoted to the status of "target" even if Mueller's investigators discover evidence that Trump was indeed engaged in illegal activity.  Mueller might well believe—and I suspect he would—that the determination of how to deal with crimes committed by a president is within the purview of the Congress, not the judicial system.

I've read some fairly strong (if interpretive) arguments that the President doesn't enjoy any special protection from prosecution.   As I understand it, it is, at best, a weakly implied Constitutional assumption based on not much more than the stated procedures for removal from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors" (i.e. impeachment); the assumption being that the stated remedy precludes the standard remedy (indictment & prosecution), and an additional pragmatic argument that being under indictment would weaken the executive to the extent that he/she could not preform his or her duties.  I don't find that particularly convincing, but strict constructionists should theoretically find it even less so.  (Somehow I doubt that would be the case).

[Alan Klein]

I can't afford teeth like that.

[Schewe]

The remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified in the U.S. Constitution is impeachment—a political process by which the president is charged by the House of Representatives and convicted or acquitted by the Senate.

Yep, I agree and that's what makes the midterm elections so interesting. Just yesterday a liberal was elected over a conservative to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. The GOP governor said this in a tweet:

"Tonight's results show we are at risk of a #BlueWave in WI," Walker said in a tweet after the results were announced. "The Far Left is driven by anger & hatred — we must counter it with optimism & organization. Let's share our positive story with voters & win in November."

Add that to a democrat elected Senator in Alabama, a democrat elected to a Pennsylvania district that Trump won by 20 point and 25 GOP Representatives announcing their retirement and that the House democrats are only 23 seats from controlling the House and the issue of Trump facing impeachment in the House becomes a real possibility sometime next year–particularly if Mueller finds a smoking gun.

Yes, the Senate might be a tougher hurdle but look what's happening now with the administration no that Trump has gotten rid of the adults around him and have a built in echo chamber right in the White House...Bolton for NSA? Kudlow for Director of the National Economic Council? Navarro for director of the Trade Council?

So, Trump decides to get into a trade war with China and wants to pull out troops from Syria and instead send troops tp the Mexican border...and the Grand Old Party (GOP) is ok with that? 

I'm thinking that the midterms will be the time to bring Trump down unless he does that by himself before. And I suspect the GOP will be greatly relieved...

[Alan Goldhammer]

There is long history of political cartoons going over the top, just take a look at old issues of Punch magazine. As for what artists choose to paint, that's up to them. I don't think that either of those outlets reflects on how infantile the level of public debate has become.

Quite right.  Well over century ago, Thomas Nast was drawing political cartoons that skewered a lot of people.  https://cartoons.osu.edu/digital_albums/thomasnast/keller_web.htm is a nice collection of some of is best work along with a nice essay.  There is a long history of political cartooning in America and the ones done about President Trump are being drawn in that vein.

[RSL]

Quite right, Alan. The difference is that nowadays the so-called "mainstream media" will only print cartoons produced by the wild-eyed left.