ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Jeff Sessions Brings Back Highway Robbery

[ Posted Wednesday, July 19th, 2017 – 17:17 PDT ]

That headline sounds like hyperbole or a metaphor, but sadly it is quite literal. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is bringing back a program which steals money and other valuables from people -- often while they're traveling -- and then refuses to give it back unless the victim sues to get it back in federal court. The costs of bringing a federal case often are more than the value of the property stolen, or "seized" as Sessions would put it. This all takes place even though the victim is never charged with any crime. Meaning the only crime here is the highway robbery by the government, even if they pretty it up with the name "asset forfeiture."

Still think I'm overstating the case? Here's how one of these transactions works. You set out for a road trip, with some cash in your wallet to cover expenses. Or perhaps you're moving to another city and have your start-up money with you in cash, to pay your new landlord first and last month's rent plus deposit. You are pulled over to the side of the road in East Podunk, in a state you happen to be traveling through. Perhaps you are pulled over for speeding. Perhaps it is for a broken taillight. Or perhaps the cop was just bored and decided to pull you over for no real reason at all ("You seemed to be driving erratically").

Being a good citizen, you fork over your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. The cop responds by asking you to step out of the car. He then proceeds to accuse you of carrying drugs, because he "smelled them in the car." He calls in a canine unit, and the dog barks once and lies down and takes a nap. The cop interprets this as a "positive response" and proceeds to search your car. No drugs are found, and you repeatedly tell the officer you've never done drugs in your life.

Now here's where the whole scenario takes a leap into the surreal. The cop, angry that he couldn't find those drugs he supposedly smelled, and after searching all the possessions you have in the car, announces that all the cash in your wallet along with all the fancy jewelry you are wearing and carrying is nothing short of "drug profits," which he is therefore confiscating. Your property has officially been seized. The cop takes it all, and drives off.

Note that you were never arrested or charged with any crime -- because you haven't committed any. No proof is required that the money and valuables weren't legally acquired. The cop just flat-out steals them.

Your only recourse, at this point, is to fight the government in court to get your money and property back. This, however, takes a lot of time and legal fees, so you have to balance whether it's worth it or not. Many just give up, and let the government keep the money. If you do persist, then you wind up with a case with the bizarre name of: "United States versus $2,500, two watches, and a wedding ring." You then have to prove that the money and goods have no nefarious origins. The government does not have to prove they were acquired illegally, you have to prove otherwise. This flips the entire concept of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head, of course.

None of this is hyperbole. None of it is any sort of metaphor. This is literally what has happened to thousands of people, all across the country (although it is more prevalent in some places). You are stopped on the highway through the threat of force (the police, in other words), your cash and goods are stolen, and you are then required to spend thousands of dollars in an attempt to get them back, with no guarantee of success. I don't know what you'd call that, but to me highway robbery is a pretty accurate label.

The origins of this bad and frankly unconstitutional law were noble, of course. Initially, laws were passed to deny criminals the "proceeds of their crimes." Drug kingpins would then lose their fancy homes, cars, boats, and other trappings of ill-gotten wealth. But somewhere along the way, the concept veered away from "drug kingpins" to "let's just steal trivial sums of money from innocent travelers." The big flaw in the law is the fact that no proof of criminality is necessary to seize any property any cop deems "suspicious." They don't have to prove you're running drugs, in other words, you have to prove you aren't.

Historically, one of the causes of the American Revolution was the heavy-handed police tactics that Britain had been engaging in. Smuggling in the colonies was rampant, especially when Parliament passed a bunch of new taxes. So "general warrants" or "writs of assistance" were issued, particularly targeting those in Massachusetts. From Wikipedia:

Colonial merchants, even those not involved in smuggling, found the new regulations oppressive. Other colonists protested that new duties were another attempt by Parliament to tax the colonies without their consent. [John] Hancock joined other Bostonians in calling for a boycott of British imports until the Townshend [Act] duties were repealed. In their enforcement of the customs regulations, the Customs Board targeted Hancock, Boston's wealthiest Whig. They may have suspected that he was a smuggler, or they may have wanted to harass him because of his politics, especially after Hancock snubbed Governor Francis Bernard by refusing to attend public functions when the customs officials were present.

On April 9, 1768, two customs employees (called tidesmen) boarded Hancock's brig Lydia in Boston Harbor. Hancock was summoned, and finding that the agents lacked a writ of assistance (a general search warrant), he did not allow them to go below deck. When one of them later managed to get into the hold, Hancock's men forced the tidesman back on deck. Customs officials wanted to file charges, but the case was dropped when Massachusetts Attorney General Jonathan Sewall ruled that Hancock had broken no laws. Later, some of Hancock's most ardent admirers would call this incident the first act of physical resistance to British authority in the colonies and credit Hancock with initiating the American Revolution.

It didn't end there, however, as later the British searched another one of Hancock's ships and confiscated a third one, for unproven charges of smuggling. Widespread anger at the abuse of such warrants led eventually to our Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You'll notice that none of these conditions are met for the asset forfeiture program. There was no probable cause, there was no search warrant issued, and what was seized was whatever the cop found lying around in your automobile.

Asset forfeiture began with noble reasoning. Those convicted of major crimes would not benefit from their criminality. Crime does not pay, and all of that. But at some point these laws morphed into the nightmarish world where a cop decides to just steal stuff from an innocent motorist. Which is why there has been a big bipartisan pushback against the laws in the past few years. Some states which had their own loose forfeiture laws have tightened them up -- stating in many cases that such seizures aren't legal unless a crime is actually proven. But the federal government didn't change its own asset forfeiture laws to keep up. What this meant is that cops would, under federal/state crimefighting programs, claim the seizure as federal, doing an end-run around any state laws to the contrary.

The truly insidious thing about this whole story is what happens to the cash. Eventually, the cops get to keep it. It gets added to their budget. The sharing arrangement kicked back 80 percent of the value of the federal seizures to the local cops who did the seizing. Under President Obama and Eric Holder, this program was dialed back significantly, due to rampant and repeated abuses.

This is precisely what Jeff Sessions is now overturning. He is going to restart the federal/state sharing of seized assets once again, without changing the underlying unfairness (and unconstitutionality) of the law one whit. One particular passage from that article sums up the scope of this problem: "In 2014, federal law enforcement officers took more property from citizens than burglars did. State and local authorities seized untold millions more." The A.C.L.U. analyzed one of those local jurisdictions and found that the median value of seizures in Philadelphia was a whopping $192. Not exactly targeting drug kingpins, in other words.

From a different Washington Post article on the same subject:

A Washington Post investigation in 2014 found that state and local police had seized almost $2.5 billion from motorists and others without search warrants or indictments since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Post series revealed that police routinely stopped drivers for minor traffic infractions, pressed them to agree to searches without warrants and seized large amounts of cash when there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

Police then spent the proceeds from the seizure with little oversight, according to the Post investigation. In some cases, the police bought luxury cars, high-powered weapons and armored cars.

So far, reaction to the announcement from Sessions has been impressively bipartisan. Even some Republicans and conservatives have realized the inherent tyranny in the concept of civil asset forfeiture. That's heartening, because it means there may actually be a chance of some legislative action to correct the rampant abuses which Jeff Sessions so clearly wants to bring back.

Asset forfeiture is nothing short of unconstitutional "legalized" highway robbery. There's simply no other way to describe it. It creates a profit motive for cops to pull people over and just flat-out steal their stuff, so their department can buy a fancy new SUV for them to drive around in. If any other organization were behind such widespread tyranny, it'd be the biggest organized crime in all of U.S. history. Instead, the government is the racketeer. And Jeff Sessions sees absolutely nothing wrong with that.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

90 Comments on “Jeff Sessions Brings Back Highway Robbery”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    And just in time for this post: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/19/1682144/-Baltimore-cop-accidentally-records-self-planting-drugs-at-a-crime-scene

    2 cops apparently watched the third cop do it.

    This footage was caught because of a handy feature in the police body cam: the last 30 seconds of footage captured before the police officer turns on the camera are automatically saved—without audio.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    OK....gotta step in and make a correction as the former caretaker of a K9 narcotics officer:

    He calls in a canine unit, and the dog barks once and lies down and takes a nap. The cop interprets this as a "positive response" and proceeds to search your car. No drugs are found, and you repeatedly tell the officer you've never done drugs in your life.

    K9's live for the chance to do their jobs. They have very specific ways of indicating that they detect the scent of drugs -- the handler doesn't "interpret" anything, their partner indicates when they detect the smell of drugs. You may have never done drugs in your life, but that does not mean that the dog isn't correct in their detection. If you have a cash that has been in contact with drugs, they can tell. If your older brother used your backpack to hide his weed and never told you, they can tell.

    K9 officers typically are required to keep very extensive training logs. This allows them to demonstrate in court that they are truly "expert witnesses". While there may be trainers that fail to do their jobs properly, the dogs rarely make mistakes. They are so excited to do their job that I doubt you'll ever see one napping when on a call.

    Not disagreeing that asset forfeitures are a horrible practice when no charges are filed, but I feel I needed to defend our four-legged officers' reputations!

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It appears the solution until the practice is stopped is contained in Paula's comment.
    Put some hidden cameras (with audio) in your car and maybe on your person while you are driving. Enough of these incidents being recorded and broadcast by the media will end the practice and/or police will be more careful/honest if they think they might be getting filmed with cameras they don't control.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Spotlight on Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. What an asshole move to reinstitute "highway robbery." Nice timing too, CW, as your article about JBS3 coincides with breaking news from the New York Times wherein Donald Trump also takes issue with the imp and rants about how old Jeff has done him wrong. :)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html

    "Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly I think is very unfair to the president," he added. "How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, 'Thanks, Jeff, but I'm not going to take you.' It's extremely unfair — and that's a mild word — to the president."

    Mr. Trump also faulted Mr. Sessions for his testimony during Senate confirmation hearings when Mr. Sessions said he had not met with any Russians even though he had met at least twice with Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak. "Jeff Sessions gave some bad answers," the president said. "He gave some answers that were simple questions and should have been simple answers, but they weren’t."

    It appears the POTUS doesn't understand how that whole "recusal thing" actually works; the elf would have no need to recuse himself "before the job." As far as the confirmation testimony, I think the term Trump is looking for there when he whines that "Sessions gave some bad answers" is actually the word "lies."

    Now isn't this an interesting turn of events, though? An interview with the New York Times. Why it seems like only yesterday when Benedict Donald was referring to the NYT as "fake news" and insisting to his gullible minions that this whole "Russia thing" is a hoax and no one that he knew of spoke with any Russians. Ah... those were the good old days... not likely to be recaptured... ever again.

    Buckle up, Benedict. :)

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Sessions may not be around much longer. Boo hoo.

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    All this Winning! lately. I'm sick of it. On the other hand, I'm confused by the dissonant squonks from the POTUS Troll. Apparently, the orange Russian money-laundering, spy-puppet hasn't found playing president to be quite as much fun as he imagined it would be. He sounds really angry on that NYT interview tape.

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    So unfair to the president, that Jefferson Beauregard. He was hired to be unfair. What goes around, comes around.

  8. [8] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Police then spent the proceeds from the seizure with little oversight, according to the Post investigation. In some cases, the police bought luxury cars, high-powered weapons and armored cars.

    Not true. There is plenty of oversight into how the money is spent. This statement makes it sound like the police can go on a shopping spree at the mall whenever they seize money.

    Money seized in asset forfeiture has to be spent on continued law enforcement (Typically for narcotics enforcement). The "luxury cars" were typically DARE Program cars. The money can pay for the K9 officers vet bills, food, and gear. The money cannot be added to the general fund.

    While the story of someone having their assets taken without charges being filed against the person is horrible to imagine, those cases are NOT the norm -- they are extremely rare! The law requires that there be ways for citizens to retrieve their assets if it is shown that they were improperly seized. Yes, it is inconvenient, but these laws serve a purpose.

    There will always be the case where an innocent person is screwed over because a knucklehead officer did not do their job properly or was dishonest! But I look at these stories with the same understanding that I do when Michale brings up the horrific murder in SF by an illegal immigrant....these aren't the norm; they are the extreme exceptions to the norm and must be recognized as such or we risk allowing hysteria to override rational thinking. Those rare cases should not have occurred, and we must be diligent in making sure they do not continue to occur. But we risk doing greater harm by being overzealous in our resolve.

    Does anyone here believe that a person who has forced homeless teenagers into prostitution should be allowed to keep the profits made from running a human trafficking ring? No, we have no problem with asset forfeiture then!

  9. [9] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW - Asset forfeiture is one of my pet peeves, and you've dissected it nicely. I'd go a bit further than you did in the last paragraph....substitute "corruption license" for ""profit motive." Not quite piracy, but privateer seems about right. Many a pirate learned his trade under a letter of marque.

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    JFC
    5

    Sessions may not be around much longer. Boo hoo.

    See... it's like this. Benedict Donald is having a crisis of conscience because he above all others knows exactly what the Trump team has done, and the purge of those Trump deems not loyal to him continues as the proverbial circle becomes ever smaller. In the NYT article, Trump also has a message for Mueller.

    Tune in next week when Jared Kushner is set to testify privately before the Senate Intel Committee on July 24, while Paul Manafort and Donald Trump, Jr. are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee publicly on July 26... should be an interesting day full of perjury. Get your popcorn ready. :)

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Who to believe, Listen with "They are extremely rare" or CW with "rampant and repeated abuses".
    It really doesn't matter. The law is unconstitutional because it does not require conviction. That inconvenient innocent until proven guilty. If the law says (and it does) that the burden of proof is on an accused citizen to prove the origin of the assets was not obtained from the commission of a crime then even one person is one person too many.
    And if someone is running a prostitution ring (with or without teenagers) and they are not found guilty of that crime then I do have a problem with the assets being seized.
    And Jim Crow laws served a purpose, but that didn't make them right.
    But just out of curiosity, how do you feel about seizing the assets of all the bankers, wall street execs, etc. that were not convicted of any crimes during the financial collapse even though they should have been?
    Or seizing the assets of all the legislators/ government officials that let them get away with it or passed laws making it legal for them to do what they do?

  12. [12] 
    Steedo wrote:

    Consider the town of Tenaha, Texas which is a small hamlet of maybe 2000 folks that is situated on US 59, a well-used roadway. The asset forfeiture scheme was run between local law enforcement and city officials for a prolonged period as an easy revenue source. A major aspect of the operation was targeting of blacks and Latinos who were perceived as less likely to challenge as well as the tendency for Latinos to carry cash.

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    Under President Obama and Eric Holder, this program was dialed back significantly, due to rampant and repeated abuses.

    This is not factually accurate...

    As a matter of fact, Obama's Loretta Lynch was the Queen Of AFs....

    I recall that you railed against this a couple of times during the Obama years, CW.. So you have moral standing..

    No one else, however, does...

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    OK....gotta step in and make a correction as the former caretaker of a K9 narcotics officer:

    Well said....

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    Who to believe, Listen with "They are extremely rare" or CW with "rampant and repeated abuses".

    I think you are mis-conflating two claims..

    CW's "rampant and repeated abuses" refer to the Asset Forfeiture programs...

    Listen's "extremely rare" refers to K9 officers being wrong...

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    JFC,

    All this Winning! lately. I'm sick of it. On the other hand, I'm confused by the dissonant squonks from the POTUS Troll. Apparently, the orange Russian money-laundering, spy-puppet hasn't found playing president to be quite as much fun as he imagined it would be. He sounds really angry on that NYT interview tape.

    Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational counter argument and must, therefore, resort to childish personal attacks and immature name-calling..

    Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant...

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    It really doesn't matter. The law is unconstitutional because it does not require conviction. That inconvenient innocent until proven guilty. If the law says (and it does) that the burden of proof is on an accused citizen to prove the origin of the assets was not obtained from the commission of a crime then even one person is one person too many.

    Let's be real here...

    Guilty until proven innocent is the way of the Democrat Party these days...

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    une in next week when Jared Kushner is set to testify privately before the Senate Intel Committee on July 24, while Paul Manafort and Donald Trump, Jr. are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee publicly on July 26... should be an interesting day full of perjury. Get your popcorn ready. :)

    Ahh yes... More "bombshells"... :D

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Not true. There is plenty of oversight into how the money is spent. This statement makes it sound like the police can go on a shopping spree at the mall whenever they seize money.

    Money seized in asset forfeiture has to be spent on continued law enforcement (Typically for narcotics enforcement). The "luxury cars" were typically DARE Program cars. The money can pay for the K9 officers vet bills, food, and gear. The money cannot be added to the general fund.

    While the story of someone having their assets taken without charges being filed against the person is horrible to imagine, those cases are NOT the norm -- they are extremely rare! The law requires that there be ways for citizens to retrieve their assets if it is shown that they were improperly seized. Yes, it is inconvenient, but these laws serve a purpose.

    Well said, again...

    Asset Forfeiture IS a good thing and DOES serve the purposes of good..

    The few cases that are wrong does not negate the facts that the AF program serves a useful purpose..

  20. [20] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And if someone is running a prostitution ring (with or without teenagers) and they are not found guilty of that crime then I do have a problem with the assets being seized.

    I have no problem with departments being required to return any assets forfeited to the accused party once if the court clears them. I believe that the laws should require that happens automatically unless charges are filed within 1 month of the forfeiture (recognizing that sometimes the money needs to be protected while law enforcement obtain the required warrants to further their investigation). Making citizens file a lawsuit in order to retrieve their own property is an unnecessary burden.

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    I have no problem with departments being required to return any assets forfeited to the accused party once if the court clears them.

    I think it should be dependent on HOW the subject was "cleared" by the courts..

    If subject got off on a technicality, the they should still be required to forfeit their assets...

    If they were truly proven innocent, then that would be different..

    Basically make decisions on a case by case basis...

  22. [22] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If subject got off on a technicality, the they should still be required to forfeit their assets...

    If they were truly proven innocent, then that would be different.

    Getting off on a technicality is still 'getting off'. The law doesn't, and shouldn't, make distinctions about how innocence is determined.

    What Sessions is obviously trying to do is reintroduce the 'profit motive' back into his pet project, the Drug War.

  23. [23] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LWYH-

    If police need a DARE vehicle, then they should get it funded through normal channels = taxes. If taxpayers (through their elected reps) won't fund it, try a bake sale. Or lobby your reps and the public more convincingly.

    DARE is probably not a good peg to hang your argument on. Meta studies show it isn't very cost effective...which might have something to do with why it tends to be funded "unconventionally."

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    Getting off on a technicality is still 'getting off'. The law doesn't, and shouldn't, make distinctions about how innocence is determined.

    I know.. That's simply my own opinion based on my concept of "justice"...

    If you make hundreds of thousands of dollars pimping out underage children and you get off on a technicality, I don't think it's "justice" if you get to keep the proceeds of that ill-gotten gain..

    I know, I know.. I am sure Demcorats think differently...

    What Sessions is obviously trying to do is reintroduce the 'profit motive' back into his pet project, the Drug War.

    You didn't complain about it when Odumbo was doing it.

    You don't get to complain about it now...

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    If you make hundreds of thousands of dollars pimping out underage children and you get off on a technicality, I don't think it's "justice" if you get to keep the proceeds of that ill-gotten gain..

    Personally, I would put a bullet in his brain...

    But again, that's just me...

  26. [26] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If you make hundreds of thousands of dollars pimping out underage children...

    Nobody sympathizes, which is why you reached first for that example. That's what, one in ten million cases?

    You didn't complain about it when Obama was doing it.

    Unless you've slept through the first part of this discussion, you'll note that the practice had been ended, else Sessions would have no reason to revive it.

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Nobody sympathizes, which is why you reached first for that example. That's what, one in ten million cases?

    And CW choose a one in ten thousand case...

    What's yer point??

    Unless you've slept through the first part of this discussion, you'll note that the practice had been ended, else Sessions would have no reason to revive it.

    And if you didn't sleep thru the follow up, I pointed out that THAT claim is factually inaccurate..

    A Setback for Justice
    Obama's DOJ is doing criminal justice reform no favors by propping up unfair asset forfeiture laws.

    While efforts to reform criminal justice and policing policies have swept the nation – and particularly in red states, with many big initiatives helmed by Republican governors – the Obama administration's Department of Justice has continued to prop up "tough on crime" policies ripped from the 80s and 90s that do more harm than good.

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch quietly reinstituted the Department of Justice's Equitable Sharing Program recently, which incentivizes local authorities to more harshly prosecute cases in order to take advantage of asset forfeiture laws, allowing these local departments to confiscate personal property they believe is related to criminal activity – including cars, boats and cash – without trial or any due process beyond even suspicion, and share those seizures with federal authorities.

    The Equitable Sharing Program allows local authorities to get around state rules and pursue federal forfeiture laws. In many states, this means the authorities have much wider latitude because federal laws can be so much broader. This circumvents many states that have begun instituting sweeping restrictions to their own asset forfeiture laws – a case of the federal government prioritizing their own policy rather than letting states decide.
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-doj-sets-back-justice-with-asset-forfeiture-program

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    You didn't complain about it when Lynch did it, you don't get to complain about it when Sessions does it...

    It's a rule.... :D

  29. [29] 
    TheStig wrote:

    It looks like the plug is about to be pulled on the Sessions sessions. Jeff has found out what everybody who ever makes a deal with Trump eventually finds out - Trump will screw you. Too bad about giving up that cushy senator gig Jeff, for what amounted to "magic beans."

    Some sad music from a tiny violin....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ODcC5z6Ca0

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [27] Well, you've just undercut your "nobody complained about it" argument, unless you also want to assert that the editorial board of US News are all Republicans.

    For the record, I'm against the program regardless of who does it, or why.

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stig [29]: Jeff has found out what everybody who ever makes a deal with Trump eventually finds out - Trump will screw you.

    Amen. The Republicans and the Russians haven't caught on to that yet, but they will, inevitably.

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    For the record, I'm against the program regardless of who does it, or why.

    But you ONLY articulate that opposition when you can use it as a blunt object to be Republicans over the head with..

    Well, you've just undercut your "nobody complained about it" argument,

    My argument is nobody HERE complained about it...

    Since you didn't complain about it when a Democrat did it, you don't get to complain about it when a Republican does it..

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    On the other hand, some Russians and Republicans seem to share a 'screw and be screwed' philosophy, so, perhaps to them that's just the way the world works.

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    My argument is nobody HERE complained about it..

    I never heard about it, until just now. YOU didn't complain about it.

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    you ONLY articulate that opposition when you can use it as a blunt object to be Republicans

    heh.

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    I never heard about it, until just now.

    At the state level, an important reform seems to be gathering momentum, as Montana becomes the latest state to reform their asset forfeiture laws. These are programs where the cops basically legally commit highway robbery, and then you have to sue them to get your money or property back. Think that's hyperbole? You decide -- here's the explanation from the article:
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/05/08/ftp345/

    OK, so you are conveniently ill-informed....

    I accept that...

    YOU didn't complain about it.

    Actually I did and I didn't..

    I complained that CW didn't point out that Democrats are hip deep in Asset Forfieture.. That it was Loretta Lynch's bread and butter...

    But I didn't have and don't have a problem with the program in and of itself.. I do have some ideas for changes to make it easier for those who are completely innocent and their assets are completely legally obtained to get their assets back..

    But, other than that, the program is a valuable one and I am glad AG Sessions is taking action on it..

    On the other hand, some Russians and Republicans seem to share a 'screw and be screwed' philosophy, so, perhaps to them that's just the way the world works.

    Yea... Dumbocrats would NEVER have that philosophy... :D

    I really wonder if you actually BELIEVE this kind of crap or are just parroting the Party line... :D

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    I do have some ideas for changes to make it easier for those who are completely innocent and their assets are completely legally obtained to get their assets back..

    Which would solve the problem Don brought up..

    Treat the assets completely separate from guilt or innocence of the crime..

    If the assets are ill-gotten gains, they are confiscated.. Period...

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Viola.... Problem solved....

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Another program that is linked to this program is the process where the IRS can confiscate bank accounts from people who make "suspicious" deposits...

    This is another program that Obama widely used to screw over Americans...

    Before ya'all point fingers at the GOP...

    Clean yer own house first...

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    ARNOLDS PARK, Iowa — For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.

    The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

    “How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

    The federal government does.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    So, what have we learned??

    AG Sessions has openly, transparently in the bright light of day re instituted a program that was re instituted by Obama's AG, Loretta Lynch quietly and surreptitiously in the dead of night...

    That about sum things up??

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It doesn't matter which party is in power, Michale. We always have to be vigilant about seizure as an abuse of power, whether the issue is a pocket watch, a pile of drug money, a bank account, or a patch of Indian Reservation.

    And remember when Ted Cruz accused Trump of trying to take a little old lady's home to make room for a casino parking lot, using eminent domain law? That sort of thing happens all the time.

    The issue is one of process, and the founders rightfully tied seizure to 'due process' in the constitution. It's nonsensical to charge a pile of money with a crime, regardless of who it initially belonged to.

  43. [43] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Sessions says he's not going anywhere. The ball's in Trump's court. Utter those famous words tough guy: You're fired! If not, explain why you're letting a substandard employee stay on. Gone soft? Session's got dirt on you? Can't find anybody else willing to take the job?

    What the hell is going on at the WH?

  44. [44] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Jefferson Beauregard is going to testify against the orange black hole when they ask him if Dear Leader cleared the room before obstructing justice with Jolly Green Comey. Donald plans to lie about that. How very disloyal to not lie under oath. He's gotta go.

  45. [45] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    You've got to love the way the puppet is now referring to himself as The President. I'm undecided about which is more impressive - the volume of lies or the unrivaled narcissism.

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Jefferson Beauregard is going to testify against the orange black hole when they ask him if Dear Leader cleared the room before obstructing justice with Jolly Green Comey.

    Cite????

    Yea.. That's what I thought....

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    The motto of the state of Maine is Dirigo – Latin for ‘I lead’. Bellwether wants to know who’s leading the fight to protect little girls in Maine from genital mutilation.

    A Republican-sponsored bill to outlaw the barbaric procedure is being opposed by Democrats, who say they fear it will offend the cultural sensitivity of the approximately 10,000 Somalis living in the state. But there’s an uglier, more malevolent reason lurking behind the scenes.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/20/craven-maine-democrats-block-bill-to-protect-safety-little-girls.html

    Democrats.... :^/

  48. [48] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [42] Sessions says he's not going anywhere.

    Yep. No surprise. I have never believed that man has any moral center or (maybe to his credit) any sense of personal responsibility.

    Last night I took the 'over' on "resignation -accepted by potus or not- by noon today." Now I can look forward to an expensive lunch of a type of food I don't really like. The feckless behavior of these people affects us all in so many ways.

    [43] Jefferson Beauregard is going to testify against...

    Do you think that's even needed? This was in the Oval Office.

    Outside that room, everyone knew who was and was not in there, and the order and timing of departures was mentally logged by every praetorian and documented /logged by plenty of electronic devices / professional staffers.

  49. [49] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [47} : Editing slip-up: Should be:

    I have never believed that man has any moral center or (maybe to his credit) any sense of personal responsibility.

    I had written something based in a belief about him of one of those things that's so bad that it actually might be good if some ways. I'll hold that to upset the stomach of he who will try to force feed me sushi because of our bet.

  50. [50] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Is the OJ business over yet? The country has probably not been so transfixed since populist disruptor horse Sea Biscuit match-raced the Establishment horse, not-Seabuscuit.

  51. [51] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: Tech / formatting comment.

    The tag sequence the the brace here standing for the inequality-symbol delimiters in the form:

    [s]some text[/s]

    appears as strike-out in the preview box, but not in the appearing comment.

    Anyway, I meant to strike " (maybe to his credit) "

  52. [52] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Leaning Blue [47],

    It matters to the Orange One. He says he doesn't recall asking anybody to leave the room. Now Mueller will ask all the others if he did. He considers it disloyal to tell the truth against him.

  53. [53] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "I have the world’s greatest memory. It’s one thing everyone agrees on." - Big Orange

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    LB

    RE: Tech / formatting comment.

    The tag sequence the the brace here standing for the inequality-symbol delimiters in the form:

    If yer asking what I think yer asking, use the GREATER THAN/LESS THAN symbols instead of the [ ] brackets

  55. [55] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    With respect to the original topic, one point.

    In the Bill of Rights the founders made, forever illegal, many of the things they observed and understood to be corrupt and foul from their privileged observations.

    Two such things deserve mention with in the issue of forfeiture.

    In the Third Amendment, there was clearly memory of governments who would enrich themselves by forcing their citizens to feed their armies.

    Elsewhere there are requirements to respect the rights of criminal suspects, even to the point of detriment to the government.

    It's never certain to try to infer what the Founders might have thought about something, projecting from what we know of their thinking on related things.

    But for me, it's enough to inform my opinion on the governments' behavior in this practice.

    I think it's an abomination.

  56. [56] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [53] If yer asking what I think yer asking, use the GREATER THAN/LESS THAN symbols instead of the [ ] brackets

    No, I wasn't clear. Denote the real "less-than" sign by [ and the real "greater than" with ]. That way the thing won't get all confused by format-meaning characters in content.

    With that in mind, if I write Hi michale . Two different things happen in two different states, which should mirror each other in behavior.

    First, the "Preview Comment" button shows it with strike-through. Second, the "Submit Comment" button displays the " Hi michale " normally.

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    32

    Since you didn't complain about it when a Democrat did it, you don't get to complain about it when a Republican does it..

    Wrong again. This is incorrect for so many reasons up to and including but certainly not limited to:
    * We have opinions.
    * We have keyboards.

    This is yet another instance of many where the board DICKtater attempts to dictate the content of the posts of other commenters. :)

  58. [58] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LeaningBlue [55] -

    Seems to work for me. I went in and edited your comment, and it now shows "Hi Michale" struck-through.

    Here's another test:
    Text which has been struck-through

    I rarely use strike-through, but michale seems to be right. Use "less than" and "greater than" (above, respectively, the comma and period keys) instead of [ ] brackets. "s" and "/s" seem to work for me.

    Also, ignore the Preview Comment text, it's pretty much useless. I tried (really I did) to get it to work right, but never could, sorry.

    -CW

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    78

    Hay, I was just trying to be nice and help people out...

    Like I was with you providing your citations for you..

    I LOVE to help you out, Veronica...

    More like you were doing what you frequently do and dictating the terms for the contents of posts, a frequent theme with you. For whatever reason, you have self-appointed as board police and spend an inordinate amount of your time trying to monitor the contents of the posts of others.

    If you need to travel somewhere, I'de be happy to run you over with my car... :D

    Spoken like a true law enforcement officer. Sad.

    Apparently, someone has DICK on her mind... :D

    Once again, I see you are obsessed with my body parts....

    FACTS
    * When someone refers to you as a "dumb ass," it's not a comment regarding your backside.
    * When someone refers to you as a "dictator" or "DICKtater," it's not remotely a comment regarding your front side.

    I'm flattered, but spoken for, sweet cheeks.. :D

    As I have said many times: I'm not interested in fat, bald, and ignorant doublewide dwelling goobers so you needn't concern yourself with that. When you're not busy dictating the contents of others' posts, you're generally then twisting their words into utter nonsense and putting words in their mouths that they never said and couldn't be further from the truth.

    You should really stop trying to dictate the contents of others' posts because it's censorship, very unpatriotic, and very un-American. :)

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Wrong again. This is incorrect for so many reasons up to and including but certainly not limited to:
    * We have opinions.

    Hypocritical opinions..

    And I am going to call ya'all on it every time..

    This is yet another instance of many where the board DICKtater attempts to dictate the content of the posts of other commenters. :)

    Still obsessed with DICK, eh.. :D

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    Seems to work for me. I went in and edited your comment, and it now shows "Hi Michale" struck-through.

    "No offense taken, in case you were wondering"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D hehe

    Also, ignore the Preview Comment text, it's pretty much useless. I tried (really I did) to get it to work right, but never could, sorry.

    The PREVIEW does serve one useful purpose..

    It shows if there is an un-closed attribute..

    For THAT reason alone, it's VERY useful.. :D

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    * When someone refers to you as a "dumb ass," it's not a comment regarding your backside.
    * When someone refers to you as a "dictator" or "DICKtater," it's not remotely a comment regarding your front side.

    And if someone whines and cries constantly, I type this..

    "I know your talking because I see your lips moving. But I can't understand what your saying because I don't speak little bitch"
    -Demon, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    LB

    But for me, it's enough to inform my opinion on the governments' behavior in this practice.

    I think it's an abomination.

    And I am sure you would agree that it was the SAME abomination when Odumbo and the Dumbocrats did it..

    Funny thing is, when YOU say it.....

    I can actually BELIEVE it.. :D

    Feast yer eyes, Weigantian..

    THAT is what ya call 'credibility'....

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    More like you were doing what you frequently do and dictating the terms for the contents of posts, a frequent theme with you. For whatever reason, you have self-appointed as board police and spend an inordinate amount of your time trying to monitor the contents of the posts of others.

    This is especially hypocritical and HILARIOUS coming from you....

    Considering the "inordinate" LENGTHS that you went to to TRY and dictate my posting habits...

    Glass houses, Veronica... Glass houses...

    Suffice it to say, I post how I post and if you don't like it???

    Shove it.. :D

    " I run my unit how I run my unit. You want to investigate me, roll the dice and take your chances. I eat breakfast 300 yards from 4000 Cubans who are trained to kill me, so don't think for one second that you can come down here, flash a badge, and make me nervous."
    -Colonel Nathan R Jessup, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    You know where the door is and don't let it hit you on yer prissy, sensitive snowflake ass on yer way out...

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    59

    Hypocritical opinions..

    And I am going to call ya'all on it every time..

    Making up lies in the process... as always. :)

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    61

    And if someone whines and cries constantly, I type this..

    "I know your talking because I see your lips moving. But I can't understand what your saying because I don't speak little bitch"
    -Demon, SUPERNATURAL

    Another post about this... must have hit a nerve.

    Did it ever occur to you that it's YOU who "whines and cries constantly" about "hypocrisy" over and over to almost the exclusion of everything else... so much so that you meet that definition of yours? <--- rhetorical question

    So by your own definition, you speak "bitch" better than anyone else on the board. *LOL* :)

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Another post about this... must have hit a nerve.

    Nope.. I just think that's one of the most hilarious SUPERNATURAL quotes ever..

    And it fits you so PERFECTLY... :D

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    63

    And post #3 all generated from the same post... yep, I definitely have hit a nerve.

    This is especially hypocritical and HILARIOUS coming from you....

    Considering the "inordinate" LENGTHS that you went to to TRY and dictate my posting habits...

    You poor thing. You got yourself all worked up over a simple phone call. You were ignorant enough to dox yourself multiple times on this board so you have yourself to thank for that phone call... that and your comments like "if you need to travel somewhere, I'd be happy to run you over with my car."

    Suffice it to say, I post how I post and if you don't like it???

    Shove it.. :D

    So why don't you take some of your own advice and "shove it" and stop whining and crying and dictating how others should post in order to please YOU?

    You know where the door is and don't let it hit you on yer prissy, sensitive snowflake ass on yer way out...

    I'm not all that "sensitive;" I can actually take it when someone posts to criticize a politician I voted for... you're simply projecting again. It's not me trying to censor the posts of others by telling them they can only post if they play false equivalency games and give equal time to criticism of Hillary and "Bubba" and/or Democrats... that's YOU and your bullshit. You seem to want a safe space here where no one criticizes your cult of personality con artist traitorous President that you "LOVE" so you whine and cry incessantly about "hypocrisy" while frequently lying about other posters in the process... anything so they don't criticize your PRECIOUS... but that's the whole idea, right? Appoint yourself as board police, dictate the terms of others' posts, and run off as many as you can.

    You're nothing if not ignorant, whiny, and totally transparent. :)

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The Stig [23],

    I was simply offering an explanation for what was actually purchased when they use the phrase "luxury" vehicle. I think the DARE program is a huge waste of resources and time, personally. I can't tell you how many times Devon has arrested people wearing DARE t-shirts on drug charges, but it has been more than a few.

    The problem with asset forfeiture cases is that the rare horror stories of innocent people being abused by our government are just so horrible that we cannot get past them to see how it works in the majority of cases before we pass judgement on the practice.

  70. [70] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    " I run my unit how I run my unit. You want to investigate me, roll the dice and take your chances. I eat breakfast 300 yards from 4000 Cubans who are trained to kill me, so don't think for one second that you can come down here, flash a badge, and make me nervous."
    -Colonel Nathan R Jessup, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Do you really think quoting the man found to be in the wrong in that movie helps your argument???

  71. [71] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,
    [all your posts over the last few days]

    I am falling in love with you more and more each day on here! Thank you for so eloquently and bluntly stating what I have tried unsuccessfully to get across to Michale regarding his comments.

    Stay strong!

    -Russ

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    And post #3 all generated from the same post... yep, I definitely have hit a nerve.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru your day.. :D

    But I have to congratulate you, Veronica..

    Once again, you manage to make everything about me.. :D

    You poor thing. You got yourself all worked up over a simple phone call.

    The fact that you actually MADE that phone call to learn about my past and then TRY and use what you THOUGHT you had to TRY and extort me into altering my posting habits proves beyond ANY doubt who got "worked up"... Proves beyond ANY doubt whose "nerve" got hit. :D

    And I wasn't the only one who commented on it.. :D

    You're nothing if not ignorant, whiny, and totally transparent. :)

    Says the person who is whining like a little bitch.. :D

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    The problem with asset forfeiture cases is that the rare horror stories of innocent people being abused by our government are just so horrible that we cannot get past them to see how it works in the majority of cases before we pass judgement on the practice.

    Yep, Yep...

    Do you really think quoting the man found to be in the wrong in that movie helps your argument???

    I am not making an argument. I am point out the facts..

    The fact being that ya'all can whine and cry and bitch and DOX and dig into my past all you want..

    But I will post how I choose to post...

    Complaining about it does NOTHING but waste space and bandwidth and turns every commentary about me, personally..

    Which simply re-enforces my argument that ya'all HAVE no argument so you have to make everything about me, personally..

    So, by all means, continue... :D

    I love winning debates here on a regular basis...

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    “The big chunk of the West Antarctic ice sheet, for example, makes a considerable amount of sea level rise inevitable in the future."
    -Al Gore

    This is what ya'all call "science"!!????

    This has got to be one of the most moronic statements in history..

    Right up there with, "By and large, illegal immigrants obey the law" for moronic-ness and stoopidity....

    But that's Left Wing "science" for ya....

    1 part faith and 3 parts bullshit...

  75. [75] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    If you don't catch the irony in your quoting the person who was wrong in the movie, it's your loss....I got a great chuckle out of it!

    And as for Gore's comment, any of the ice sheet that was on land but breaks off into the water will cause the ocean levels to rise. The parts that were already in the water won't change the water levels.

    The only moronic thing I see is in your comment is your thinking that social sciences aren't "science".

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    If you don't catch the irony in your quoting the person who was wrong in the movie, it's your loss....I got a great chuckle out of it!

    I am happy I could entertain you. :D

    But, near as I can tell, Colonel Nathan R. Jessup never made any comment regarding ya'all's insistence to make everything about me personally, because you have no argument..

    And as for Gore's comment, any of the ice sheet that was on land but breaks off into the water will cause the ocean levels to rise. The parts that were already in the water won't change the water levels.

    Exactly.. And the Crazed Sex Poodle was talking about the ice sheet that broke off the main ice sheet. Which was already IN the water..

    So, how can that ice sheet "makes a considerable amount of sea level rise inevitable in the future"..??

    Answer.. It can't..

    The Crazy Sex Poodle is blowing hot air out of his ass.. AGAIN...

    The only moronic thing I see is in your comment is your thinking that social sciences aren't "science".

    No one, except for you, is talking about Social Science..

    I am talking about ya'all's insistence that Political Ideology is "science" when it's, in the case of Human Caused Global Warming (But There Ain't No Warming), not...

  77. [77] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So here's a little science experiment for you, M.

    Fill a glass with Coke and ice almost to the brim. Leave it sit out untouched for an hour and then come back. Notice how the liquid level has risen? That's because water in frozen form occupies less space than melted water. Put enough of it into the ocean and melt it, and you could see a rise in sea levels. So how many drinks could you make with an ice sheet the size of Delaware?

    And that's even before we approach the subject of possibly cooling the gulf stream with that big ice cube. Best we not even discuss the possible result of that.

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    Fill a glass with Coke and ice almost to the brim. Leave it sit out untouched for an hour and then come back. Notice how the liquid level has risen? That's because water in frozen form occupies less space than melted water. Put enough of it into the ocean and melt it, and you could see a rise in sea levels. So how many drinks could you make with an ice sheet the size of Delaware?

    Bullshit...

    Here's a science experiment for you, Balthy..

    Take a glass of water.. Put some ice in it and then mark the level of the water on the glass..

    Let the glass sit out at room temp until the ice melts..

    Check the water level..

    The level will be IDENTICAL.....

    Your "science" is based on nothing more than Party ideology...

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    Take a glass of water.. Put some ice in it and then mark the level of the water on the glass..

    Let the glass sit out at room temp until the ice melts..

    Check the water level..

    The level will be IDENTICAL.....

    Now, how does this apply on a planetary scale??

    Simple.. If the entire arctic ice melts, how much with the sea levels rise??

    ZERO... ZILCH... NADA.... NONE...

    If every iceberg on the planet melts, how much with the sea levels rise??

    ZERO... ZILCH... NADA.... NONE...

    Class dismissed....

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    All right class. Sit down and shut up...

    The ONLY ice melting that is worrisome as far as sea levels go, is ice that sits atop land...

    Antarctica and Greenland are two such ice sheets, although there are smaller areas...

    The Greenland Ice fields are adding an unprecedented amount of new ice according to Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) reports and data...

    And according to NASA, the Antarctica ice fields have also recorded massive gains and has reached a new record maximum...

    Once again..

    REAL SCIENCE... vs Politically oriented psuedo-science and fear mongering...

    Class dismissed...

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    Wassammatter???

    Facts got yer tongues... :D

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    Get it???

    "Cat's" got yer tongues??

    "FACTS" got yer tongues??

    Get it??

    Wow.. Tough room... :D

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    Now, how does this apply on a planetary scale??

    Simple.. If the entire arctic ice melts, how much with the sea levels rise??

    ZERO... ZILCH... NADA.... NONE...

    If every iceberg on the planet melts, how much with the sea levels rise??

    ZERO... ZILCH... NADA.... NONE...

    Am I wrong??

    "Yer not wrong.."
    -God AKA Chuck, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    73

    The fact being that ya'all can whine and cry and bitch and DOX and dig into my past all you want..

    You doxed yourself, you ignorant moron. Then I yanked your chain about it, and you freaked out and whined like a little bitch and helped answer my question: You're a harmless ignorant goober and a fraud.

    YOU were the one who posted your name all over this board and doxed yourself, and if you had even taken a scintilla of time to think it through, you would have easily discerned that if someone other than yourself was going to actually dox you in the same manner as you have done to yourself all over these boards, they wouldn't first email another poster and give them a link to where they could have your personal information REMOVED. Think, idiot... think! You got played like the fool you are, and you bit it and ran with it hook, line, and sinker, so much so that you're still whining about it to this day like a bitch. It really is good to see you whine and go on and on about it; it simply let's everyone know you're too intellectually challenged to think anything through and quite simply too self-absorbed to realize you got suckered.

    But I will post how I choose to post...

    Obviously you will continue to lie about other posters and yourself; I got that loud and clear. You will preach about other posters and whine incessantly about "moral foundation" while pretending you actually have one... pathetic but fooling no one.

    Which simply re-enforces my argument that ya'all HAVE no argument so you have to make everything about me, personally..

    That's your projection... to accuse everyone else of exactly what you're doing yourself. You lie about posters, make things personal, and then whine about things getting personal.

    I love winning debates here on a regular basis...

    What you do here is regular although not remotely "debate;" you lie about other posters and turn political discussions into personal rants and then whine like a bitch that people got personal. Again, you're fooling no one except yourself with your routine. You don't have the intellect to debate... so you do what you're capable of... lie about posters with that phony routine you've got down because it's all you're mentally capable of doing... obviously... and you're fooling no one except YOU. :)

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    Veronica,

    You doxed yourself, you ignorant moron. Then I yanked your chain about it, and you freaked out and whined like a little bitch and helped answer my question: You're a harmless ignorant goober and a fraud.

    You paid one of those FIND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE companies, thought you could extort me into not posting as I post and then got totally slammed down when I told you to take yer extortion and shove it...

    :D

    And, as usual, you whine and cry and try to blame yer impressively degenerate behavior on me...

    Obviously you will continue to lie about other posters and yourself; I got that loud and clear. You will preach about other posters and whine incessantly about "moral foundation" while pretending you actually have one... pathetic but fooling no one.

    Me thinks that Veronica doth protest TOO much.. :D

    That's your projection... to accuse everyone else of exactly what you're doing yourself. You lie about posters, make things personal, and then whine about things getting personal.

    Yea, that's yer claim..

    But the facts say otherwise...

    What you do here is regular although not remotely "debate;" you lie about other posters and turn political discussions into personal rants and then whine like a bitch that people got personal. Again, you're fooling no one except yourself with your routine. You don't have the intellect to debate... so you do what you're capable of... lie about posters with that phony routine you've got down because it's all you're mentally capable of doing... obviously... and you're fooling no one except YOU. :)

    Whine whine whine whine... :D

    "I know your talking because I see your lips moving. But I can't understand what your saying because I don't speak little bitch"
    -Demon, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    85

    You paid one of those FIND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE companies, thought you could extort me into not posting as I post and then got totally slammed down when I told you to take yer extortion and shove it...

    And along you come and prove my point about YOU making up LIES and being a LIAR. You know you are lying here; I paid no one. Oh, sure... you freaked out and got really angry, but you're deluding yourself and no one else if you think you slammed anybody. I laughed my ass off while you whined like a bitch. I'm still laughing at your ignorance and the total ease with which you make up complete lies about people.

    And, as usual, you whine and cry and try to blame yer impressively degenerate behavior on me...

    Who is whining? I think it obvious it's YOU who's whining. I'm laughing my ass off how you got played, and AGAIN, you're the one who keeps bringing it up because you can't get over it. You got played, and you simply cannot get over it... that part is hysterical. :)

    Me thinks that Veronica doth protest TOO much.. :D

    I'd say that's not actually possible because YOU don't actually think all that often... just make up lies and troll other posters with your lies and one or two arguments wherein you discuss posters and NOT political issues. It's what you do constantly... everyone knows that. How's your own bullshit taste? The reason it was so easy to con you is the same reason you were so easily conned by Benedict Donald; you believe the right-wing rags and whatever bullshit reinforces your worldview. Spoon-feed you that and you'll believe it. *LOL*

    Whine whine whine whine... :D

    Yes, you do. You whine quite a lot... everyone knows that... very repetitive and monotonous whining like a little bitch about the same thing. No fun having the tables turned on you, is it? <-- Rhetorical question. You got played and fell for it... and pardon me if I have no sympathy for you because you have no moral foundation to play victim. *LOL* :)

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    Veronica,

    And along you come and prove my point about YOU making up LIES and being a LIAR. You know you are lying here; I paid no one.

    Now look who is lying... :D

    All you have is whining, Victoria....

    Whining and bullshit.. That is ALL your comments are.. :D

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    87

    Now look who is lying... :D

    Everyone knows it's you who lies prolifically. You know it also; you're actually fooling no one... not even yourself.

    All you have is whining, Victoria....

    If that were a fact, then you'd have no need to hijack my posts regarding political issues and make up lies and discuss me instead of discussing the political issue. Epic fail on your part here.

    As I and others have said many times, why don't you CRACK A BOOK and educate yourself so that you can debate the issues rather than your standard operational bullshit exercise of devolving the political comments of others into a discussion about them personally. There is simply no political issue that you won't dumb down in order to feel like you're discussing politics when you're simply discussing other posters because it's all your tiny mind can handle.

    Your cut-and-paste standard bullshit argument isn't exactly a big secret around here. *LOL* :)

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    Everyone knows it's you who lies prolifically. You know it also; you're actually fooling no one... not even yourself.

    Actually, I have proven beyond ANY doubt that you lie incessantly...

    If that were a fact, then you'd have no need to hijack my posts regarding political issues and make up lies and discuss me instead of discussing the political issue.

    Waaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Big mean old Michale is picking on me!!!

    Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaa

    Shall I call you a WAAAAMbulance, my little bitch?? :D

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    89

    Actually, I have proven beyond ANY doubt that you lie incessantly...

    Quite the projection from you. You have proven that you'd rather discuss posters instead of political issues and proven that you'll lie prolifically in your incessant needy manner. You get your jollies by making up garbage about people, trolling and bullying others and pretending to discuss political issues when all you're basically doing is discussing people.

    Waaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Big mean old Michale is picking on me!!!

    Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaa

    Shall I call you a WAAAAMbulance, my little bitch??

    That's it? That's your idea of a brilliant response? The same tired repetitive tedium ad nauseam as always. You prove my point every time you post. Your peevish neediness and lack of creativity is ever present. CRACK A BOOK and get an education and you could keep up with the group instead of your lying about posters and name calling. As we both know, you have yourself to thank for your pathetic situation. You've got nothing... nothing but my pity and nothing more. *LOL* :)

Comments for this article are closed.