What crimes has Donald Trump ever committed? (Life of Brian)

Clouseau2

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday December 21, 2022 · 11:46 AM PST

2022/12/21 · 11:46

Apologies to Monty Python's Life of Brian

Reg: What crimes has Donald Trump ever committed?

Xerxes: Campaign finance crimes?

Reg: What?

Xerxes: Campaign finance crimes.

Reg: Oh. Yeah, yeah. He did do that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.

Commando #3: And intentional interference with elections.

Loretta: Oh, yeah, intentional interference with elections, Reg. Don't forget Georgia!

Reg: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you campaign finance crimes and intentional interference with elections are two possible charges.

Matthias: Witness tampering.

Reg: Well, yeah. Obviously witness tampering. I mean, witness tampering goes without saying, doesn't it? But apart from campaign finance crimes, intentional interference with elections, witness tampering--

Loretta: Perjury.

Commando #1: Making false statements.

Xerxes: Conspiracy to commit election fraud.

Commandos: Huh? Heh? Huh...

Commando #2: Influencing government officials to withhold or alter records.

Commandos: Ohh...

Reg: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.

Commando #1: Criminal solicitation of a felony.

Commandos: Oh, yes. Yeah...

Francis: Interfering with primaries and elections.

Commando #1: Obstruction of an official proceeding.

Loretta: Conspiracy to defraud, Reg.

Francis: Conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging duties.

Commando #3: Coercion of political activity.

Xerxes: Seditious conspiracy.

Matthias: RICO.

Commando #2: Wire fraud.

Loretta: Unauthorized possession of national defense information and concealment.

Matthias: Removal or destruction of government records.

Xerxes: Bank fraud.

Matthias: Tax fraud.

Commandos: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.

Reg: All right, but apart from campaign finance crimes, intentional interference with elections, witness tampering, perjury, making false statements, conspiracy to commit election fraud, influencing government officials to withhold or alter records, criminal solicitation of a felony, interfering with primaries and elections, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging duties, coercion of political activity, seditious conspiracy, RICO, wire fraud, unauthorized possession of national defense information and concealment, removal or destruction of government records, bank fraud and tax fraud, what crimes has Donald Trump ever committed?

Xerxes: Obstruction of Justice?

Reg: Oh. Obstruction of Justice? Shut up!

Dan Snyder's $100 million IMAX yacht: taxation and economics

Clouseau2

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday March 03, 2019 · 3:25 PM PST

2019/03/03 · 15:25

Raymond Luxury Yacht (Not Dan Snyder's yacht)

Trump's tax cuts primarily benefit the uber-wealthy.

Politicians such as AOC and Elizabeth Warren are using the yacht as ammunition to argue why taxes should be raised on the uber-wealthy.

The counter-argument on the yacht story I have seen from the right can be summed up as this:

"I'm sure the workers who built the yacht are glad Dan Snyder had that $100 million. If the government would have taken that as tax revenue, those jobs would be lost. Do you want that to happen?"

Why is this not a convincing argument?

Not all income going to the very wealthy is spent

Wealthy people, by definition, do not spend all their income and wealth. If they did, they would no longer be wealthy. If the government taxes their income less, they may spend that extra income, but it's much more likely that income will just be a number on a bank computer.

Furthermore, if Republicans get their wish and eliminate inheritance taxes, this money could be sitting as a number on a computer somewhere for generations since 35-45 percent of all wealth is inherited.

The jobs that built this yacht were in The Netherlands, not the USA

I have nothing against free trade with a wonderful country such as The Netherlands (full disclosure: I was born there) but if the goal is to create American jobs, buying yachts built in another country is a poor way to accomplish that.

The assumption is that if all this money was taxed, it would go into some black hole labeled "government spending" and not stimulate the economy.

You'll get no argument from me that the government often wastes money (hello comically bloated military spending), but let's imagine for a moment this $100 million was taxed and then given out as SNAP benefits.

Studies have shown that SNAP benefits boost the economy more than any other of government spending. Each $1 generates $1.84 in GDP.

This makes sense as any money given to SNAP recipients is immediately spent. It can't be spent to buy a yacht from The Netherlands. it can’t be deposited into a bank account. It will be spent locally to support local jobs and very likely buying locally produced goods and services.

The real question is why do Republicans always want to cut SNAP benefits. Shouldn't they be the ones shouting this as loudly as possible?

"I'm sure the grocery store workers whose jobs those SNAP benefits support are glad people are receiving those benefits. If the government didn't give out those benefits, those jobs would be lost. Do you want that to happen?"

Imagine President Donald J Trump with nukes on January 20, 2017

Clouseau2

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday August 03, 2016 · 11:17 PM PDT

2016/08/03 · 23:17

When I saw this clip of Joe Scarborough talking about the alleged meeting Donald Trump had with a security adviser, and how allegedly Trump asked over and over again why he can’t use nuclear weapons, I immediately thought about another cartoon character’s dream of becoming President …

Enjoy!

YouTube Video

Don't the Democrats have a golden opportunity here?

Clouseau2

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday June 02, 2011 · 10:26 AM PDT

2011/06/02 · 10:26

Republicans are holding the country hostage with threats to not raise the debt ceiling.

If the Democrats had any backbones, they would let the deadline pass without giving in to the ransom demands. Then just keep paying interest on the debt, funding the military, etc., but do not send out social security checks, send out IOUs with a note "please contact one of the following Congressmen (list of Congressmen who voted against raising the debt ceiling) and tell them you would like your social security money." If the Paul Ryan assault on Medicare is any guide, this problem will be fixed within a week.

Poll

56 votes Show Results

What will the Democrats do?

56 votes Vote Now!

What will the Democrats do?

Give in to Republican demands and savagely cut spending

8 votes

Make a deal that gives the appearance of cutting the budget, but doesn't actually, so the Repubublicans can save face

23 votes

Stand their ground

25 votes

History Lessons by Professor Michelle Bachmann

Clouseau2

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday January 26, 2011 · 12:43 AM PST

2011/01/26 · 00:43

This little gem popped on Anderson Cooper 360, Michelle Bachmann talking about the early days of our Union:

"It didn't matter the color of their skin; it didn't matter their language; it didn't matter their economic status; it didn't matter whether they descended from nobility or where of a higher class or a lower class. It made made no difference; once you got here we were all the same."

"We know there was slavery that was still tolerated when the nation began. We know that was an evil. And it was a scourge and a blot and a stain on our history. But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. And I think it is high time that we recognized the contribution of our forebears who worked tirelessly; men like John Quincy Adams who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

Note: just in case you think you're high on something; yes, the last founding father (James Madison) died in 1836. Yes, the 13th amendment outlawing slavery was ratified in 1865.

Clouseau2

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday November 23, 2009 · 12:06 PM PST

2009/11/23 · 12:06

Boromir: Give Gondor the weapon of the enemy. Let us use it against him.

I think we've all seen the anti-equal rights ads with the wide eyed kids talking about how they are "confused" about a prince marrying a prince. These ads are apparently really effective because it causes normal, rational adults to suddenly think "OH NOES, TEH CHILDREN" and vote for bigotry and against equal rights for everyone.

So here is my idea for an ad the next time we have a vote on people's rights (I thought we were in a Republic, why are we voting on rights? nvm)

Clouseau2

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 24, 2009 · 11:57 AM PST

2009/02/24 · 11:57

Anyone who believes you can have infinite exponential growth on a finite planet is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding

Having spent the last 4 years or so reading up on the "peak oil" problem (which I am convinced will hit in the 2010-2012 time frame), and reading "Limits to Growth", I think the current new depression, exacerbated by the horrendous policies of the Bush administration, are merely the symptoms that our wholly unsustainable "living arrangement" is creaking towards its inevitable end.

Endless population growth, resource consumption, expansion of credit, deficits, energy consumption, economic expansion, military spending, etc., cannot continue indefinitely. The only question is when does the party end.

Clouseau2

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday January 11, 2009 · 9:23 AM PST

2009/01/11 · 09:23

If you're reading this and you haven't yet seen Milk, go to the theater and see this powerful film, with an amazing performance by Sean Penn, immediately! There is a strong parallel between the events in Milk, and those we have just witnessed with the passing of prop 8. In the movie, Harvey Milk criticizes the strategy of the anti-prop 6 efforts (the prop 8 of the day) because the anti-6 ads don't talk about people, they talk about the more abstract concepts of rights. "You don't have a picture of a single old queen on this flyer" Harvey Milk protests in the film. His logic was that people would be much less likely to vote for a bigoted proposition like prop 6 if the voters knew that it would negatively effect someone they knew -- don't talk about rights, talk about the lives of people!

RSS

What crimes has Donald Trump ever committed? (Life of Brian)

Dan Snyder's $100 million IMAX yacht: taxation and economics

Imagine President Donald J Trump with nukes on January 20, 2017

Don't the Democrats have a golden opportunity here?

History Lessons by Professor Michelle Bachmann

Let us use the weapon of the enemy against the enemy

Limits to Growth - are we there yet?

How would Harvey Milk have handled California Prop 8?