The Accomplices

A story about the NRA, porn stars and really funny dumb guys...

Google “how much money does the NRA give to Congress” and you’ll be offered a variety of articles, but the one I found most helpful came from the Poynter Institute’s fact-checking website Politifact even though the article was written back in 2017.

Here’s why.

After the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, people were pissed off about the NRA’s influence over Congress (apparently we just can’t stay mad at them long enough to change anything) but in defense of the NRA, conservative columnist Bret Stephens wrote that: “The NRA has donated a paltry $3,533,293 to all current members of Congress since 1998” and added that, “The NRA doesn’t need buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular.”

So basically: Nuthin’ to see hear, the NRA isn’t really buying off politicians so they can keep making money off people who think they need enough guns to successfully defend the Alamo.

But…

The Poynter Institute’s highly -inconvenient fact-checkers concluded that while Stephens’ claim was technically correct, it left out a few pertinent facts. And according to a guy named Alex Howard (who at least at the time the article was written was deputy director of the Sunlight Foundation which tracks transparency and influence in politics): “Assessing the NRA’s political spending solely by its donations to congressional candidates leaves millions in spending out.”

For instance:

That $3.5 million didn’t include donations to candidates for federal offices other than Congress or donations to parties and political action committees and when you add those in, between 1998 and 2016 the spending was over $13 million.

Also…

If the NRA ran a campaign ad advocating the election or defeat of a candidate without coordinating with the candidates they were supporting, they considered that an “independent expenditure” and not a donation and during the same time period they spent $144.3 million on that. And during that very same time period they also spent $45.9 million on federal lobbying.

Add it all up and during the time in question the NRA actually spent $203.2 million on political activities and that $3.5 million they gave directly to candidates is just 1.7 percent of what they spent on politics.

To a casual observer (and few people are more casual than me…you should see what I’m wearing right now) the NRA goes to some trouble to make sure the public doesn’t realize just how much they’re spending to ensure people with mental issues can buy AR-15s legally and Wayne LaPierre can afford the upkeep on a yacht.

But all this comes from 2017 so maybe in the meantime the NRA has seen the light and changed its ways and allowed Jesus into whatever organ passes for their hearts and if you believe that I’ve got a bridge to sell you and it only costs $3.5 million.(Although, I may have forgotten to mention some additional charges like rustproofing, interior sealant and you’re really gonna want the extended warranty and all that adds up to $203.2 million.) 

Anyway…

All that led to the “lone gunman” cartoon because I’ve come to the conclusion that the majority of mass shooters have a couple of accomplices.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/oct/11/counting-up-how-much-nra-spends/

As was recently pointed out here on this blog, some Republicans have criticized the Trump Indictment because they believe government has no business sticking its nose into people’s personal lives which, as the above cartoon points out, is a fairly unusual stance for a Republican to take. 

Also…

Trump was not indicted for having sex with a porn star or even lying about having sex with a porn star, he was indicted for falsifying business records to cover up a crime and as near as I can tell, the crime is someone who looks like this:

Having sex with someone who looks like this:

In my personal opinion, it would be way more logical if Stormy Daniels paid Donald Trump hush money so he wouldn’t brag about banging her.

(Actually, the crime involved is illegal campaign contributions made by Michael Cohen in the form of buying women’s silence about their alleged relationships with Trump.)

Here’s a link to an article that explains all that, but I’ll warn you in advance that NPR articles seem to put a low priority on sophomoric jokes which reminds me that after being accused of producing sophomoric humor, columnist Dave Barry said he remembered laughing pretty hard as a sophomore.

So if you want your information without the laughs, here you go:

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/04/1167985028/trump-indictment-criminal-charges-hush-money-payments

It turns out Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been accepting gifts from a man named Harlan Crow who may or may not be the bad guy in an Elmore Leonard novel.

Actually, the Crowe (with an ‘e’) Family makes regular appearances in Elmore Leonard stories and Dewey Crowe is one of the All-Time Funniest Dumb Guys in TV History and if you don’t believe me, here’s a clip from the TV show Justified in which Dewey gets stopped by the cops after winning a lawsuit for police brutality which makes Dewey think he has a Permanent Get-Out-Of-Jail Free Card and law enforcement can’t touch him:

You just don’t get to hear the words “nelgigence” and “malfi-essence” pronounced properly often enough.

(BTW: My spell check keeps changing “nelgigence” to “negligence” because apparently my spell check doesn’t believe anyone could possibly be that stupid which would also seem to indicate my spell check doesn’t read enough Elmore Leonard novels.)

Anyway…

Harlan Crow (without the ‘e’) is a Republican bazillionaire who isn’t nearly as funny as Dewey (although Harlan does collect Nazi memorabilia, so he’s got that going for him) and has been giving Clarence Thomas free trips on private jets and yachts and stays at fancy-schmancy resorts for the past 20 years.

Which, assuming there was no quid pro quo (which is a pretty big assumption) is totally legal. The question is whether Thomas had to report the gifts on financial disclosure forms and Thomas doesn’t think so because it turns out the Supreme Court has no formal code of ethics. The Supreme Court Justices seem to think anyone who made it to the Highest Court in the Land is above all that.

That type of misjudgment might help explain some of their recent decisions.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-clarence-thomas-free-gifts-private-jets-and-yachts-20230410-yu4vyvwumbcr5j7ntbd32efvle-story.html

While we’re discussing Supreme Court ethics (which might be a contradiction in terms) here’s an article about Brett Kavanaugh and all the trouble he was in before he got confirmed to the Supreme Court, but once he got confirmed the trouble went away because lower courts don’t have the authority to investigate Supreme Court Justices:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/brett-kavanaugh-representation-damaged-u-s-judiciary/

Just in case you didn’t read the entire article, here’s a paragraph that sums up the situation:

“Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court also points to a greater pattern of unaccountability that exists within the federal judiciary. Importantly, while there is currently a code of conduct for most federal judges, it does not apply to the Supreme Court. Moreover, the code is self-policed and overseen by the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is made up of federal judges and the chief justice of the Supreme Court. These poorly enforced and vague ethical guidelines for federal judges have contributed to scandals within the courts, such as sexual harassment and fraudulent tax schemes.  Judges, however, are able to avoid repercussions from ethical violations by retiring from their position. Doing so effectively ends any investigation into their conduct while also allowing them, in most cases, to collect a pension of more than $200,000 per year.”

So if you’re about to get confirmed to the Supreme Court, now is a really good time to do something sketchy because once you’re on the court they can’t touch you even if you’re hip deep in nelgigence and malfi-essence.

Have a good weekend.

http://kingfeatures.com/comics/editorial-cartoons-a-z/