Category Archives: Politics

Rule Five “Liar or Incompetent” Friday

That notorious right-wing rag, the Washington Post, is calling out Democrat Presidential candidate Cory Booker on his lies about gun laws.  Excerpt:

In a rather strange turn of events, the Washington Post fact checked Booker’s recent claims that toy guns are more regulated than actual firearms. And guess what was concluded? That’s right. That Booker’s take is straight up bogus. 

Let’s review the evidence, shall we?

“Most people don’t know that consumer product safety literally — one industry that’s been exempted is the gun lobby. So we have different regulations for toy guns and no regulations for the weapons on our streets that are killing so many people,” he said during a CNN interview

In a medium post that same day, Booker’s campaign repeated the talking point.

“Nowadays, there is more regulation over toy guns than real ones. While medicine, children’s toys, and any number of other consumer products are subject to regulation by the federal government, firearms are exempt. In other words, gun manufacturers have little incentive to make their products safer. Cory will work to close this loophole in federal oversight and allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure gun safety by making safety warnings and issuing recalls for faulty firearms.”

And:

There are a few points that Booker seems to forget and National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) spokesman Mark Oliva pointed them out to the Washington Post. 

“Our industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the country. No other industry is regulated at the federal, state and local level to the extent our industry is regulated, which include design and performance standards,” Oliva explained. “The federal agencies that regulate the industry include ATF, FBI, State Department, Commerce Department, IRS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No other consumer product requires the licensed dealer to conduct a criminal-background check on a prospective purchaser before they can sell the product. Firearm manufacturers can be sued for product defect claims, although such claims are exceedingly rare given that there are over 400 million firearms in civilian possession in the United States.”

It should come as a surprise to no one that Booker, like most anti-gun pols (or anti-gun anyone) knows fuck-all about guns or the current state of gun laws.  But seriously, folks, how could anyone be so ignorant, so incompetent to hold the position of U.S. Senator, to claim with a straight face that toy guns are regulated more than actual guns?  Is he incompetent, or just a liar?

I’m inclined to say he’s a liar.  Here’s why.

What Booker is implying, of course, is the legal protection gun manufacturers have been accorded from liability for the criminal misuse of their product.  It’s true that no other industry has such a legal protection – why?  Because no other industry has ever needed it.  Nobody is proposing to sue General Motors or Ford for drunk driving deaths.

But Booker isn’t worried about product liability in the normally accepted sense.  What he wants is punitive liability, the ability to hold gun manufacturers liable for criminal misuse of their products, something he would not advocate for any other industry.  Why?

Because it’s an end run around the Second Amendment.  Most gun manufacturers are small companies; even the big ones aren’t terribly large as corporations go.  Booker and his ilk salivate at the idea that a few strategic lawsuits brought in the right areas could bankrupt them, even if they win, in our ridiculously twisted tort system.

Pols lying is nothing new.  But Booker’s lies are just too damned egregious.  Fortunately his Presidential campaign appears to be going nowhere.

Animal’s Daily Random Notes News

Here are a few bits and pieces from the morning’s news.

Beta O’Rourke live-streams his haircut.  Last time it was a teeth-cleaning.  What’s next, his colonoscopy?  What a schmuck.

Robert Stacy McCain has some thoughts on champions.

If you aren’t reading the daily Glibertarians links, you ought to be.  One thing I love about that community:  You can read the comments.  Glibertarians boasts one of the most intelligent commentariats I know of.

Big surprise; Kamala Harris shoots off her mouth (hah!) about gun control, meanwhile revealing she knows bugger-all about guns.  Watch this space tomorrow for an even more egregious example of this sort of assholery.

Speaking of assholes:  Lieawatha Warren says Fox News is “…a Hate-For-Profit Racket That Gives a Megaphone to Racists and  Conspiracists.”  I find that I’m in the odd place of being in the same position as Princess Spreading Bull here; neither of us have any idea what the hell she is talking about.

Denver talk-radio legend Mike Rosen weighs in on school shootings.  Relevant quote:

One sanctimonious, simplistic anti-gunner was moved to proclaim that “we are avoiding the hard truth about the root cause of a chronic, pernicious illness in this country. We love our guns more than we love our children.” What irrational blather. This is a false dichotomy. Gun owners can both love their children and also defend the Constitutional right to possess a firearm, which can be used to protect their children from a home invader (or from shooters in schools). And the use of the personal pronoun “we” in this emotional rant is presumptuous. “We” aren’t the “root cause” of school shootings and our entire society isn’t sick. An infinitesimal fraction within it are sociopaths who shoot up schools. It’s “they,” who are sick.

As usual, Mike is correct.  Incidentally, I had the pleasure of meeting Mike in person once and, better still, spent two hours in studio on the air with him in 2001, when I was promoting Misplaced Compassion. He’s a brilliant man and possesses a razor-sharp wit.  That two hours was great radio and great fun.

From blogger pal Doug Hagin over at The Daley Gator:  Actions have consequences.  Who knew?

And on that rather satisfying note, we return you to your Thursday, already in progress.

Rule Five Failed Coup Friday

This came out almost a week ago over at Human Events, but I needed a few days to digest it before commenting.  Excerpt:

This is a story about a legal chess match played for the highest stakes imaginable: Trump’s Presidency – and whether it would be under the cloud of an endless special counsel investigation – hinged on the result.

John Dowd, Ty Cobb, Jay Sekulow, and the rest of President Trump’s personal legal team were on one side. Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, and the Special Counsel’s office were on the other.

The dispute was a year-long struggle over the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).

No judge ever ruled on who was right about the meaning of this obstruction statute. No formal decision was ever rendered.

All the same, Trump’s legal team prevailed on February 14, 2019.

That’s the day William Pelham Barr was confirmed as United States Attorney General.

FRAMING THE DISPUTE

So why, exactly, was the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) so contested?

Let’s start by looking the statute, excerpted here:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction]. (Emphasis added).

Why was this so important to Mueller? Because most of the obstruction statutes couldn’t possibly apply to President Trump’s behavior, as they require that a defendant obstruct a “pending proceeding” before an agency or tribunal.

It is settled law that an FBI investigation does not constitute such a proceeding. But § 1512(c) applies to acts of obstruction done with the intent of impairing evidence for a future, potential proceeding. That made it potentially usable against the President.

Second – the language of subsection (c)(2), read in isolation, is *very* broad. Removing subsection (1), it reads like this:

“Whoever corruptly… obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction].”

If taken to its extreme, it could be read to cover any act – no matter how lawful – that has the effect of impeding a federal investigation. That would include, for example, asking an FBI director to lay off an investigation, or firing an FBI director. The Mueller Report revealed that Mueller interpreted § 1512(c)(2) in just such a broad fashion.

Please do read the whole thing, and as I did, take some time to digest it.  This analysis is well worth bending a few neurons over.  Go on, read it right now – I’ll wait right here.

All done?  OK, let’s go on.

What this article points out, to my thinking, is how narrowly we avoided a legal coup d’état intended to remove a duly elected, sitting President.  This wasn’t Watergate, after all, where there was an unambiguous, unmistakable cover-up after which President Nixon’s own party told him he had to resign.  This was an utterly partisan exercise intended to undo the 2016 Presidential election, which many in the Imperial City establishment felt hadn’t gone the way it was “supposed” to go.

Here’s the conclusion:

When the June 2018 Barr memorandum became public in December, many Democrats tried to weaponize it against him. But because Barr’s memo was specific to a particular statute, and was perfectly defensible legal analysis, it was hard for the Democrats to get any traction.

In hindsight, however, it’s clear that Barr was the assassin Democrats feared.

Within six weeks of his confirmation, the Mueller probe was over.

When Mueller equivocated on obstruction in his report, Barr affirmatively determined that there was no viable obstruction charge.  In a twist, Barr didn’t rely on a narrow reading of § 1512(c)(2); instead, he exploited the malleability of Mueller’s theory and determined that Trump lacked the requisite intent to commit obstruction.

At the same time, he made clear during the press conference that he didn’t agree with Mueller’s legal theories; one has to suspect he was referring to the debate over § 1512(c)(2).

In any event, Mueller and Weissman had lost the chess match. Trump and his team had won.

No Collusion. No Obstruction. No more Mueller Investigation.

Checkmate.

Indeed.  But here’s my worry:  Corruption in government only grows.  It is the nature of government to grow ever more intrusive, ever more corrupt, and it is in the nature of those in power to seek to retain that power.  And it’s also increasingly obvious that the real power in the Imperial City is not in the hands of the elected officials with their increasingly-unhinged kabuki posturings, but in the bureaucrats that work behind the scenes.

The Mueller investigation has laid that bare, but the question remains, so what?  What can be done about it?  This swamp won’t be so easily drained; I’m worried that we may well already be past the point of no return.

Animal’s Daily Daffy Uncle Joe News

Thanks as always to The Other McCain for the Rule Five links!

American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson is pretty sure kooky old Uncle Joe Biden won’t land the Dem’s Presidential nomination for 2020.  Excerpt:

But the real reason why Biden won’t get the nomination is that he and his family are corrupt, enriching themselves courtesy of foreign governments. Normally, that would not be a problem for a Democrat because the dominant mainstream media is not interested in scandals affecting powerful Democrats. But with 22 Democrats running for president, some of them with MSM allies, and with grave doubts about Biden’s ability to defeat Trump (their overriding goal), these scandals will not be suppressed. Especially because they involve collusion with a foreign power.

Vanity Fair and the New York Times, which are nobody’s idea of right wing publications, are onto the story of Biden helping his son make a huge fortune via deals with China. Breitbart summarizes:

A $1.5 billion sweetheart deal Hunter Biden’s private equity firm secured from the state-owned Bank of China is “looming on the horizon” as a potential line of attack against his father’s 2020 presidential campaign, according to Vanity Fair’s Tina Nguyen.

This comes days after a New York Times article renewed interest in the revelations exposed in Peter Schweizer’s 2018 bestseller Secret Empires concerning the sweetheart deals Hunter Biden’s private equity firm secured while his father, Joe Biden, was vice president.

One is tempted to ask “since when is blatant and overweening corruption a dis-qualifier for a Presidential candidate?”  We could (let’s say it very softly) point out a certain Presidential spouse who was certainly involved in all sorts of shenanigans, and never faced any sort of music for it – not even a brief, whistled tune.

But that candidate and his spouse, who ended up being revealed as some of the most deeply and fundamentally corrupt political figures since Huey Long, were not facing today’s clown car of a Democrat primary field.

Joe Biden’s corruption may not have caused him problems when he first thought about the Presidency in 1988.  But today?  Not only is Uncle Joe too old and too white, he’s not nearly far enough to the left to gain the Dem nod, not the way that party has lurched in the last few years.  He’s framing himself as the rational moderate, but a plurality – maybe a slight majority – of Democrat primary voters will want a Bernie-style progressive.  And the progressive candidates will hand Joe Biden’s backdoor deals and nepotism around his neck like an anvil in the primary season.

Daffy old Uncle Joe came out of the gate strong.  But so did Rudy Giuliani and Job Bush.  Joe will probably suffer the same fate they did.

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to Pirate’s Cove for the Rule Five linkery!

Programming note:  This coming weekend Mrs. Animal and yr. obdt. will be on the road to see one of our daughters graduate college, so Monday May 13 and Tuesday May 14 will be fulsome totty placeholder posts while our family is celebrating this milestone.  Meanwhile, for today, let’s look at some tidbits from the morning news crawl.

DNA-based AI robots may be frighteningly close to alive.  Color me skeptical.  Life is tremendously complex and almost impossible to simulate; even the simplest life on this planet is the result of four and a half billion years of a drunkard’s walk through a chaotic and endless changing environment.  I’m not overly worried about accidentally producing that in the lab.

Ticket prices plunge for Her Imperial Majesty and the Prince Consort’s speaking tour.  This is a pretty good indication that even the Democrats wish that the Clintons would just please, finally, shut up and go away.

Welcome to the new Cold War, same as the old Cold War.  Between this, Russia’s meddling in Nicaragua, and China’s meddling elsewhere, it seems the Monroe Doctrine is well and truly dead.

Welcome to the new crazy, same as the old crazy.  I’m all in favor of the ‘whatever floats your boat’ theory of living, but this really strikes me as being a little self-obsessed.  Oh well.

A silicon factory blows up in Illinois.  Purveyors of fake boobs hardest hit.  (I prefer the natural kind, myself.)

Speaking of crazy… Seriously, what’s wrong with these people?

And on that note, we return you to your Monday, already in progress.

Animal’s Daily Mexican Standoff News

In case you’re one of the three people in North America who hasn’t noticed, Mexico is a real mess.  Excerpt:

More than 135,000 people have been killed since 2012. More than 1,300 clandestine graves have turned up since 2007. More than 37,000 people are reported missing. More than 600 soldiers have been killed in the drug war. At least 130 politicians and nine journalists were killed preceding the elections in July. And the violence is indeed spreading. Murder rates have risen in 26 of the country’s 32 states. In 2014, 152 municipalities accounting for 43 percent of Mexico’s population reported at least one execution-style murder per month; in 2017, the number grew to 262 municipalities and 57 percent of the population. Villages have become worse than cities: 40 percent of the population lives outside metropolitan areas but suffers 48 percent of homicides.

Most killings remain tied to the drug wars, but a growing share comes from robbery, assault, extortion, and kidnapping. “Mexico is no longer a world of cartels and capos,” says Alejandro Hope, a security specialist based near Mexico City. Organized crime networks control territory to varying degrees in 19 states and the capital, but much less of their profits comes from the U.S. drug market, which has become more competitive. The biggest new business is stealing oil from the state-owned energy company, Pemex. Mexico has the largest, most efficient black-market fuel-distribution network in the world, Hope says. In Puebla, reported thefts from pipelines spiked from 15 in 2000 to 1,533 in 2016. Guanajuato—emblematic of the good and bad Mexico—ranks third among states in job creation, thanks to its auto industry, and first in homicides, due to murders tied to fuel thefts from refineries.

Train robberies and carjackings are more frequent. Robbery of cargo trucks has jumped 180 percent in two years. Coca-Cola and Pepsi refuse to send delivery trucks into parts of Acapulco because so many have wound up stolen and burned. The rate of reported house robberies reached an all-time high of 179.4 per 100,000 homes in 2017. More than 80,000 people were reported kidnapped. Some 5,000 children have been abducted between 2007 and 2018, 40 percent from the states of Puebla and Mexico, where human-trafficking bands are known to operate.

Read the entire article, as it’s an eloquent examination of events and possible causes of the failed narco-state on our southern border.

And honestly, anyone who thinks we don’t need to completely control our southern border needs to take a good hard look at this; in fact, they should have their damn noses rubbed in it.  It’s not only likely that this crap could spill over our border, violence and corruption already is; one of the most horrific examples is the rise of MS-13 in our borders, and while their origins aren’t in Mexico, almost all of them transit Mexico on the way here.  And if you think that Mexican criminal organizations won’t eventually start to look harder at their wealthy northern neighbor, you’re probably drinking too much of your bong water.

But note the line above:  “…but much less of their profits comes from the U.S. drug market, which has become more competitive.”  It would be interesting to know some of the metrics here, which are not presented in this article.  Specifically; how much has the ongoing trend of marijuana legalization affected these profits?

I don’t know the answer to that.  And, to be honest, while I’ve long been a critic of the War on Drugs, I don’t think that our changes in drug policy are going to help Mexico all that much; they have systemic issues that go beyond that.  The Mexican criminal gangs will just turn to other malpractices if completely deprived of drug income, and you can see some examples in the article; kidnapping, robbery, theft, hijacking.

While this is a problem Mexico needs to address, it’s a significant issue that speaks to our inadequate border security.

Animal’s Daily Ohio News

In your morning news crawl, be sure to check out my latest article over at Glibertarians; this time it’s a historical piece on the gunmaker Charles Newton.

So, moving on; my fellow Coloradan, PJMedia’s Stephen Green, thinks that the Democrats can kiss Ohio goodbye.  I’m not so sure.  Excerpt:

The first hint that Ohio might have lost its bellwether status came in 2016. If you’ll recall from my Wargaming the Electoral College series for the presidential election, Ohio was never in play for Hillary Clinton. While that should have been a coal mine canary that Trump’s chances of winning were far better than the polls indicated, most every expert (and Yours Truly) glossed over that indicator as we pored over our 270toWin maps.

Previously, Barack Obama won Ohio handily in 2008 and 2012. George Bush’s electoral mastermind, Karl Rove, bet big on Ohio twice — and won twice, too. In fact, as Roll Call’s Ben Peters reminds us, “Going back to 1896, the Buckeye State has backed the winning candidate in all but two elections — the best record for any state in recent history.” Looking ahead, he writes, “Election handicappers largely put Ohio in the GOP column for 2020 — Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales rates the state’s presidential race Likely Republican.”

You have to go all the way back to 1960 and JFK to find a president who got elected without Ohio. If I could pick football teams the way Ohio picks presidents, I’d be a very wealthy man.

Ohio hasn’t elected a Democrat to state office since Obama took the state by a solid three points (50.6% to 47.6%) over Mitt Romney. And yet Donald Trump, for all his supposed unelectability, scored nearly 52%, beating Hillary Clinton by a whopping eight points. Current Republican Governor Mike DeWine might not be anyone’s idea of an exciting campaigner, but he beat Democrat Richard Cordray with ease last year, by an almost four-point spread. The Ohio House has a GOP supermajority of 61-38. And — get this — an even more lopsided supermajority of 24-9 in the state Senate.

As stated, I’m not so sure.  Barack Obama won Ohio twice, easily.  Like with most things, it depends on who the Dems nominate.  Ohio is very heavy on blue-collar Truman Democrats; while old Groper Joe Biden, with his folksy ways and busy hands, may appeal to some of them, he won’t appeal to liberals in Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland.  The daffy old Socialist from Vermont will appeal to urban millennial but not to union Blue Dogs.

Ohio’s a tough nut to crack for the Dems.  But then, it’s a hard nut to crack for the GOP as well.  That’s why it’s a swing state.  But President Trump is a marketing guy, and watch for him to be spreading word of his brand all over Ohio and the Rust Belt next year.  If the Dems are smart, they’ll do the same.

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to Pirate’s Cove and The Other McCain for the Rule Five links!  Happy (hah) Tax Day, and watch this space later today for a commentary on taxation by my own dear Mrs. Animal.

Moving right along, last Saturday saw this piece from American Thinker’s John Leonard.  Excerpt:

In 1972, Republicans were caught using former CIA operatives to spy on their political rivals. In 2016, Democrats have now been caught using active FBI and senior Department of Justice employees to spy on President Trump. It is no longer debatable whether or not it happened, because A. G. Barr just told us it happened. The only question that remains is whether or not they had any sort of justifiable reason for doing so, except that question seems to have already been resolved by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, because his report found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. In fact, the opposite appears to be true — it looks as if federal agencies conspired with foreign governments to entrap peripheral members of the Trump campaign.

Heads need to roll. Maybe even literally. This appears to the crime of sedition, the act of conspiring to incite rebellion against the authority of our government. If it could be proved that a foreign government had been involved in the conspiracy, the crimes involved might even rise to the level of treason. Sedition is bad enough. 

At the heart of the Watergate scandal was a bungled burglary. No one got hurt. If Nixon hadn’t tried to obstruct justice, his presidency might have survived the scandal. Watergate is about to become ancient history because it pales in comparison to what the Obama administration just did. Innocent American citizens have had their lives destroyed in a criminal attempt to topple the Trump administration.

Astute and comprehensive as Mr. Leonard’s piece is, there’s one thing he misses, except as a remark in passing in the conclusion:

Will there be a patriot in the Democratic Party with the courage to paraphrase the same question Howard Baker posed about Watergate in 1972: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”

The answer, of course, is “No.  Nobody from the Democratic side of the aisle, neither electee, appointee or staffer, will raise any doubts as to President Obama’s involvement or lack thereof.  The Dems are nothing if not unified, and no matter how much evidence is presented, no matter how overwhelming the proof is against the perpetrators of the entire Fusion GPS scandal, no matter who comes forward as a whistle-blower, they will unflinchingly stick up for The Side, no matter who gets hurt, no matter how much damage it does to the country.”

I will give the GOP credit for one thing:  Generally, when a Republican pol says or does something egregious, or even something that can be perceived as egregious, the GOP smacks him down.

But the Democrats have junior members right now saying all manner of stupid things, taking all manner of stupid positions, and the rest of the party closes ranks around them.

Mark my words:  Nothing will come of this.  No one will go to jail; no one will have to face a grand jury; no one’s career will be ruined.  Equal treatment under the law in this nation is dead, and has been so for some time.

I could be wrong – I’d love to be wrong – but I don’t think I am.

Rule Five Reparations Friday

The whole “reparations” horseshit is coming around again this election cycle, with the attendant stupidity.  Excerpt:

Last week, virtually every serious 2020 Democratic presidential candidate spent an unserious period of time embarrassingly kissing the ring of race-baiter extraordinaire Al Sharpton at his National Action Network conference.

Sharpton’s burning question for each of them? Would they support H.R. 40, a bill originally introduced in 1989, probably as a joke, by former Democratic Michigan Rep. John Conyers, but reintroduced in today’s beyond-absurd political climate by Democratic Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. If passed, and I’m not kidding, it would create a “Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans to examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies.”

That’s right. Sharpton was asking if 2020 presidential candidates – 2020 mind you – support paying black slave descendants reparations for an institution that ended in 1865.

If you don’t already know, do you really need to wonder how the candidates answered this guy’s ridiculous question? Of COURSE each and every one of them responded with a “hell yah,” because it’s 2019 y’all, and because to a person everyone running for president under the Democratic Party banner are either shameless liars, intellectually dishonest, or hopelessly stupid.

So Dems, how exactly would this work, you know, in real life and outside your pea-sized brains, you feckless morons? Was that mean? I’m sorry, I meant to say, “you handi-capable morons.” Is that better? But I digress. Let’s get back to figuring out how on earth this reparations thing would work.

Now, let’s set aside for a moment the fact that Al Sharpton is a loathsome race-baiting hack who should be taken seriously by no one.

Let’s also set aside for a moment the 655,000 men that died and the million that were wounded fighting the United State’s bloodiest, fratricidal war that ended the institution of slavery.  Let’s likewise set aside that this war ended in 1865.

Let’s set aside for a moment that there is nobody alive today in the United States who (legally) held another person in slavery, nor is there anyone alive today in the United States who was (legally) held in slavery.

Let’s talk for just a moment or two about how this supposed reparations scheme might be put into effect.

Since Sharpton is involved, this is of course another manifestation of his usual “I want the government to take money away from group A and give it to group B.”  Well, presumably white people are group A, and black people are group B.  OK, let’s examine that for a moment.

Taking myself as an example:  Most of my family has been in North America since well before the Revolution, scattered from Nova Scotia to the Dakotas.  But one branch, my paternal grandmother’s family, came to the United States from Germany in 1851 and settled in New York, later in Ohio – none of them ever owned a slave.  So is my portion of this so-called debt to be reduced by a fourth?

Take as another example someone who (let’s say it quietly) shares the exact ancestry of, oh, let’s say a certain former President, whose father was a Kenyan student and whose mother was a white American woman.  Is he due any payment under this scheme?  No one in his ancestry, anywhere, ever was affected by the pre-Civil War Peculiar Institution.  But were we to assume he is somehow partially entitled, should his white half pay his black half?

The cold fact is that the very idea of reparations is so stupid as to beggar description.  I simply cannot conjure enough adjectives to describe the idiocy of this idea adequately, but allow one metaphor; the idea of reparations for a practice that ended a century and a half ago is to make the case that, for example, a white coal miner in Appalachia owes some monetary debt to an Ive League-educated attorney who happens to be black.

It’s lunacy.  It’s the worst sort of political pandering.  It’s fucking idiotic.  And now the Democrat’s 2020 field is lining up to endorse it.  Lord, what fools these mortals be.

Animal’s Daily Asset Forfeiture News

It’s all about the Benjamins.

NPR may have just have, like the proverbial blind hog, found an acorn.  Excerpt:

Law enforcement groups are worried about the shifting political climate on this (asset forfeiture) issue.

“Our goal is to put a pause” on this legislation, says Dakota County Sheriff Tim Leslie. He says there’s a mushrooming meth trade in his part of Minnesota, and he needs asset forfeiture to disrupt the crime networks by seizing property, even when the culprits can’t be found for prosecution.

“Why are we moving toward less tools in the toolbox?” he asks. At the same time, he acknowledges the political pressure created by high-profile seizure cases such as Timbs.

“Those outrageous examples, we have to face those,” he says. “But we just don’t want the pendulum to swing too far. We want to still have some tools for the outrageous things that we see going on” in drug trafficking networks.

The tool here they want to have, is the ability to seize your property in the event you’re convicted of a crime – even if the assets forfeited that “may” have been used in the crime have value far in excess of the punitive damages the law allows to be levied in the form of fines.  If that’s not a Fifth Amendment violation, I don’t know what is.

But these cops want the “tool.”

One might ask, “what part of the Constitution allows you to waive a defendant’s Fifth Amendment protections and seize their property, in some cases without even a conviction?”  The response from pols and cops alike may be to refer you to the “Fuck You, That’s Why” clause.

Note that line above.  These officials want the right to seize property, even when the culprits can’t be found for prosecution.

Just take property.  No due process.  No conviction.  Not even an indictment.

Because fuck you, that’s why.

That’s not justice.  That’s theft.