By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump is seeking billions of dollars from the U.S. government through legal claims related to Justice Department investigations and the leak of his tax returns. These actions present a significant conflict of interest, as Trump’s own appointees within the Justice Department are tasked with evaluating and potentially settling these claims. The unprecedented sums sought, particularly the $230 million for Justice Department probes and a $10 billion suit over tax return leaks, far exceed typical government settlements and raise concerns about taxpayer money being used to resolve disputes with the sitting president.
Read the original article here
It seems there’s a pervasive sentiment that the government he leads should be a source of immense personal financial gain for Donald Trump, even extending to billions. The idea of him “donating” his income to charity, a notion some may have held at some point, appears to be widely dismissed now, especially given perceptions of his vastly increased wealth and the financial success of his family during his time in office. The assertion is that far from giving money back, he has significantly profited from his position.
The figure of $8 billion in profit attributed to his first term alone suggests a substantial financial uplift during his presidency. This leads to the stark conclusion that he has been making a considerable amount of money while serving as president, with the implication that this is not a matter of income but of something far more illicit, bordering on theft, and that he now desires further payment from the public purse.
The belief is that those who accrue such vast sums annually are unlikely to relinquish their positions willingly, especially as their term nears its end. The characterization of him as a “clown” and “traitor” underscores a deep distrust and a feeling of betrayal among those who hold these views. The mention of “DHS Gestapo” further paints a picture of a government perceived as being wielded oppressively.
This perspective paints a picture of Trump as a “thieving magpie,” someone who accumulates wealth and resources without regard for the proper channels or the public good. The notion that a corrupt leader might not need to conceal their corruption, if their supporters are willing to overlook or ignore it, is a recurring theme, suggesting a deliberate blindness on the part of his followers to his alleged malfeasance.
The supposed justification, “he deserves it since he’s saving us billions,” is presented sarcastically, highlighting the perceived hypocrisy of his supporters who might espouse such a sentiment while simultaneously decrying taxes as “commie shit.” This points to a disconnect between the actions and beliefs of his base.
The description of Trump as “Grifty McGrifter grifting 24/7” encapsulates the idea that his entire career and public persona are built around a constant process of deception and financial exploitation. The desire for him to release the unredacted Epstein files and prove his exoneration is brought up as a challenge, implying that his silence or inaction on such matters fuels suspicion.
The comparison to Venezuela needing a dictator, though tangential, might hint at concerns about authoritarian tendencies and the concentration of power, which can be linked to personal enrichment. The assertion that he needs money for lawyers, coupled with accusations of being a pedophile, while certainly inflammatory, points to the numerous legal challenges and controversies surrounding him.
It’s suggested that his followers would readily contribute financially to their “presiking” while simultaneously rejecting any form of taxation, revealing a perceived ideological inconsistency. The idea that he turned down a presidential salary specifically to sue for billions is presented as a cynical maneuver, highlighting a perceived motive rooted in financial gain rather than public service.
The question of whether the government could seize his assets and money as punishment for crimes after his death, and if such a move would benefit ordinary citizens or simply line more pockets, is raised. The immediate answer given is a resounding “Of course not!”, with the implication that any recovered wealth would inevitably end up in the hands of billionaires, including Trump’s, leaving MAGA Republicans with nothing.
The stark prediction that Donald Trump is poised to “rob the country in broad daylight” while citizens, despite being armed, are powerless to stop him reflects a deep sense of alarm and helplessness. The contrast is drawn with the ideal of “We the People against entitlement,” suggesting a betrayal of this principle.
The persistent question of how he “deserves” such potential financial enrichment, coupled with the dismissal of any claims of charitable donations as disingenuous, underscores the skepticism surrounding his intentions and actions. The mention of Israel’s potential payments adds another layer of perceived financial dealings that raise eyebrows.
A strong statement of refusal to forgive supporters and a declaration that he is not leading anyone reflects a complete loss of faith and confidence in his leadership. The question of how to “revoke our consent to be governed by this sad clown of a human” speaks to a desire to disengage from a system perceived as broken and corrupt.
The assessment of “zero confidence in his leadership” is further elaborated by the conviction that he has no interest in serving the American people, only himself. The idea of keeping him in office until his term is up is seen as “pure foolishness,” with daily losses in business, national security, alliances, integrity, and global respect attributed to his presence. The claim that he has done nothing but “ruin all of our lives in just a few weeks” highlights an intense dissatisfaction and a belief that his impact has been overwhelmingly negative.
The notion of a “certified criminal in the highest office” and the passive acceptance of this situation due to procedural roadblocks is seen as “foolishness.” The sarcastic remark about the economy and job growth, attributing it to tariffs paid by other countries and a booming stock market, implies a disbelief in the official narratives of economic success.
The word “Leads” is questioned, with “bleeds” offered as a more fitting alternative, suggesting that his leadership is detrimental and draining. The recurring emphasis on “Taxes. Taxes, and more Taxes” and the assertion that “It’s always about the steal” reinforce the perception of financial exploitation as his primary objective.
The individual’s contemplation of withholding federal taxes, driven by this perceived injustice, highlights the extent of their disillusionment. The question posed – “I’d like the government to pay me billions too but you don’t see me asking” – uses humor to underscore the perceived absurdity of his alleged demands.
The statement that he is “already stealing it, what a few more billions of tax payer money” reflects a resigned acceptance of ongoing malfeasance and an expectation of continued financial exploitation. The inquiry into government immunity due to sovereign immunity, while a technical point, reflects a frustration with the perceived inability to hold powerful figures accountable.
The feeling that “This shit is so absurd it just gets harder to believe every single day” is a common sentiment, expressing the sheer incredulity at the unfolding events. The core belief that “He wants *our* money. That has always been his game” encapsulates the understanding that his actions are driven by a desire to seize the wealth generated by others.
The idea that “Some people are *really* committed to this all being okay” suggests a frustration with those who seem to accept or defend his actions. The mention of a deflection tactic, comparing a discussion of Trump’s alleged “grift” to a mention of Omar’s finances, illustrates a perceived strategy of misdirection.
The accusation that Trump stole from his own charity, leading to legal intervention, is presented as evidence of his untrustworthiness and his pattern of self-enrichment. The notion that supporters cannot answer until they are told what to think by certain media outlets points to a perceived lack of independent thought.
The outlined strategy of demanding billions, “donating” a smaller amount to a seemingly connected charity, and then basking in applause for supposed generosity, illustrates a cynical view of his alleged tactics. The belief that such donations are merely a facade, with the money ultimately returning to him, is strongly held.
The description of the Q1 presidential salary donation to fight COVID-19, followed by the revelation of significant spending on golf cart rentals at his properties, is used to illustrate a perceived pattern of hypocrisy and double-dealing, where any apparent generosity is overshadowed by personal financial benefit derived from taxpayer money.
The impossibility of comprehending the extent of money he may have stolen, and the belief that nothing his administration does is “above board,” reflects a deep-seated distrust and a conviction of widespread corruption. The amazement that a significant portion of the electorate voted for him, despite these perceived issues, is expressed as a source of bewilderment. The clarification that his electoral victory was a plurality, not a majority, further fuels the debate about his mandate and the legitimacy of his support.