Below is my column in USA Today on the continuing push to seize the yachts and other property of Russian oligarchs. While enormously popular, it is easy to take a yacht. It is far more difficult to keep it. Indeed, the public could end up footing the bill for not just litigation but possible repairs to these opulent vessels.
Here is the column:
One of the most celebrated moments of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address came when he spoke directly to Russian oligarchs: “We are joining with our European allies to find and seize your yachts, your luxury apartments, your private jets. We are coming for your ill-begotten gains.”
The Russian oligarch has become a universally despised embodiment of the Putin regime after the Ukrainian invasion. Not surprisingly, the seizure of obscenely opulent yachts – like the 213-foot yacht owned by Alexei Mordashov in Italy and Igor Sechin’s 280-foot yacht in France – has been praised as a victory in defense of democracy. Resorts, planes and other property also have been seized. (Putin moved his yacht, Graceful, out to sea before the invasion, according to Insider)
Seizing property owned by the super wealthy is always good politics. Biden’s line was strikingly similar to the warning of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to wealthy Americans in the 2020 presidential campaign that she was coming after “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.” Warren’s pledge rested on highly dubious constitutional assumptions but was repeated by other Democratic candidates.
We should question unlawful seizures
In contrast, questioning the legal basis for seizing the boats and baubles of the super wealthy is hardly popular. The “oligarch” is a term without any redeeming or positive connotations. It has joined the seal clubber and the hazmat dumper as categorically despised identities.
There is an obvious class warfare element to these anti-war measures. A German leader, for example, called for yachts to be given to nongovernmental organizations to shuttle migrants from Africa and Asia to Europe.
Indeed, some on the left balk at limiting seizures to Russian billionaires. As an Australian writer noted, “If expropriating the super yachts and other overseas assets of Russian oligarchs … sounds reasonable, there is an even more reasonable case to expropriate the wealth gains of the world’s 10 richest men and use it for social good.”
It’s actually a fair point, because there may be no more legal justification to seize a Russian billionaire’s property than Jeff Bezos’ mega-yacht.
For the record, I am not and have never been a member of the oligarch class. Nor do I hold any sympathy for these figures who acquired their billions from close association with Vladimir Putin or because of their special status in Russia.
What happens after Russian war?
The problem is that our leaders may be overselling the legal justification for these seizures. Serious legal questions surround the seizures of boats, planes and other property owned by oligarchs. In these largely uncharted waters, many of the owners are likely to get back their yachts and other property after the headlines have receded.
The United States and Western countries have considerable authority to seize property, but less authority to keep it. The reason is that, unlike Russia, these countries are bound by property rights and rules of due process.
The authority for such seizures is fairly consistent and straightforward. The United States and other countries are alleging that the property may constitute a form of money laundering or ill-gotten gains. Under U.S. civil forfeiture laws, the Justice Department only requires a warrant to seize an asset allegedly used to commit a crime or that represents the “proceeds of illegal activity.”
The hard part is to keep it.
The oligarchs are fantastically wealthy with massive companies, sports teams and other assets. While they often acquired such wealth through insider deals and special status in countries like Russia or China, they run businesses that generate billions in revenue through public transactions.
Prosecutors must show that the property is being used to commit a crime or was purchased from ill-gotten gains, but the oligarchs will try to show revenue sources from established businesses.
In other words, prosecutors would have to show that large corporations that have operated for decades in international markets are now deemed criminal enterprises for the purposes of these properties. It is not clear that governments now seizing the property will be able to establish the nexus between an alleged crime and these proceeds or property for some, if not most, of the oligarchs.
Clearly, the isolation of oligarchs serves to put pressure on Putin and potentially create wedges between him and his most powerful allies. One oligarch, Leonid Nevzlin, has renounced his citizenship while denouncing the invasion. He has insisted that “I was one of the first to be hit by Putin. He threw my friends in jails, and killed some of them.”
Another oligarch, Roman Abramovich, announced that he would sell the Chelsea soccer team and donate the proceeds to the victims of the Ukraine war. It didn’t help. He was added to the sanctions list for seizures.
There are other complications. Oligarchs are pulling funds from a wide array of accounts and companies with different streams of revenue. Their yachts often are in the names of separate legal entities as opposed to their personal property. Take the Dilbar, the 512-foot monstrosity of Alisher Usmanov seized in Germany. It is reportedly registered in the Cayman Islands under a company in Malta.
Yachts for Ukraine Act
These issues could soon be before U.S. courts. Members of Congress are clamoring to sign on to the Yachts for Ukraine Act. The name alone is enough to produce a drooling Pavlovian response from most politicians. It would allow the seizure of any property held by Russian elites in America that is valued above $5million and allow the government to sell the seized assets and use the cash to aid Ukraine.
One bill even allows for the issuing of “letters of marque” to allow citizens to engage in privateering to seize yachts themselves like Sir Francis Drake. The United States used such letters in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.
The Yachts for Ukraine Act shows the casual crafting of proposed laws. The act covers persons who meet two criteria. First, they must have “the wealth of which, according to credible information, is derived in part through corruption linked to or political support for the regime of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin.”
What constitutes credible information, corruption or political support is simply left to the imagination of regulators. Under that standard (sans the Putin link), most global billionaires could be targeted, given their often close association and support of ruling governments.
The second criteria is even more intractable: The person must be linked to sanctions imposed by the president “relating to corruption, human rights violations, the malign influence of the Russian Federation, or conflicts in Ukraine.”
Again, what must the nexus be for a connection to constitute malign influence or corruption?
The greatest irony might be yet to come. When a country seizes these vessels, they create a bailment, or responsibility, for the property. Yachts are notorious for requiring high levels of care and maintenance from full-time crews. If they deteriorate in government possession, the oligarchs could demand damages, requiring countries to pay for repairs before they set sail for their next golden sunset.
None of this means that we should not target companies and oligarchs who are directly supporting this unprovoked and unlawful war. However, we do not fight lawlessness in Russia by dispensing with the rule of law in our own country.
There are meaningful actions that Congress can still take to pressure Putin. We cannot be distracted by the shining objects of American politics. The Ukrainians are facing immediate destruction and need meaningful action.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley.
any government that can make up an excuse to seize the assets of “oligarchs” can make up an excuse to seize my assets.
tbirdal. Absolutely. I really think our constitution has become window dressing.
No, it’s not “unmoored from fact.” The ruling ALSO said:
“The eleventh document is a chain forwarding to Dr. Eastman a draft memo written for President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani. The memo recommended that Vice President Pence reject electors from contested states on January 6. This may have been the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action. The draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act, and Dr. Eastman’s later memos closely track its analysis and proposal. The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021. Because the memo likely furthered the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States, it is subject to the crime-fraud exception and the Court ORDERS it to be disclosed.”
He is saying that Trump and Eastman may have engaged in the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States. As I said: he found that a President may have committed a crime while in office.
This was intended as a reply to iowan’s 9:53 AM comment to me. There is some tech glitch that periodically decouples people’s replies from the comment they replied to.
Who cares?
There is no tech glitch. You purposely ignore the themes that Professor Turley raises, day after day. You come to this blog as an Act Blue paid troll to push Leftist “talking points”, all unmoored from facts. The glitch is in your dark, evil soul, typical of “Progressives”, e.g. decapitating new born babies, demonizing traditional family values, hating on America, and peddling Marxist anarchy.
This article has nothing to do with your 1/6 fantasy.
“may have engaged”
May have is meaningless. Produce fact. You may have been a woman in another life. How does that change anything?
WOW. Thanks. From just yesterday, I had forgotten all the hyperbole, and emotive language the “judge” used in his “opinion”
may have been; knowingly violated; intimately related; likely furthered; may have engaged.
Lots of arguing from a conclusion. All opinions lacking evidence. As the judge begrudgingly admits.
This is not a criminal prosecution; this is not even a civil liability suit.
Pelosi had some type of involvement on Jan 6 and may have been responsible for the chaos. Therefore, let us see all her correspondence and activities in the days surrounding Jan 6 and anything else involving Jan 6.
If that ever happened and she complied, the judge could say she may have left something out so that she should disclose everything she has from birth to the present.
Afterward, the judge could say, maybe her husband has the information we are looking for, so the judge can now call for disclosure of all information by the husband.
The judge is ridiculous because ‘may have’ leads to anything anyone might want. That is not the type of society we live in. Such a dictatorial society is what the left and ATS are looking for.
“Because the memo likely furthered the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States, it is subject to the crime-fraud exception and the Court ORDERS it to be disclosed.”
Likelihood is all that the crime-fraud exception legally requires.
“The eleventh document is a chain forwarding to Dr. Eastman a draft memo written for
President Trump’sattorney Rudy GiulianiMissing the crime here. A draftmemo sent to someone not part of the government.
So if Bud sends a used bar napkin, to Roy, and says a good way to rob a bank is hide in the bathroom until everybody goes home, then crack the safe, steal all the cash, then hide in the bathroom until the bank opens. Bud’s old shop teacher can be charged with attempted bank robbery?
Eastman claims to have been Trump’s attorney. If Eastman wasn’t acting as Trump’s attorney, then none of the remaining 10 documents involving Trump are covered by attorney-client privilege. Same for Giuliani’s discussions with Trump if Giuliani wasn’t Trump’s lawyer. Pence already said that Trump was trying to get Pence to act according to the memo that Eastman developed, building on this memo from Giulian, so Trump is involved with this memo whether or not you can admit it.
so Trump is involved with this memo whether or not you can admit it.
NO. A draft sent to a 3rd party. Just the correct number of cut outs. Ask Clinton’s wife.
Again: Pence has already said that Trump was trying to get Pence to act according to the memo that Eastman developed. Do you deny that?
The statement you made is meaningless. You have to show that a criminal act was performed. So far you are at square zero.
Biden: “We are coming for your ill-begotten gains.”
begotten? not just gotten. Ill-gotten gains. Yes.
Speech writers should strive for simplicity, clarity. Not such tortured prose.
begotten: past participle of beget.
gotten: past participle of, get
beget:
1). especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2) to cause; produce as an effect
Someone is showing off their smarts by using words they don’t understand. Biden White House. Best of the Best.
How about spying? Is that legal?
Biden: “We are coming for your ill-begotten gains.”
Be careful what you wish for.
“Roman Abramovich, announced that he would sell the Chelsea soccer team and donate the proceeds to the victims of the Ukraine war. It didn’t help. He was added to the sanctions list for seizures.”
And then Abramovich and Ukrainian peace negotiators suffered symptoms from suspected poisoning by Russia during peace talks earlier this months. Putin is evil.
(OT)
Yesterday, Judge Carter ruled that John Eastman must release 101 documents to the J6 committee, finding that Trump likely committed a felony, that Eastman likely conspired with Trump, and that the crime-fraud exception applies to one of the documents.
The ruling:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf
This is perhaps the first time ever that a federal court has found that a President may have committed a crime while in office (yes, Nixon committed a crime while in office, but he was pardoned before he was ever indicted for it, so there was no court finding).
Judge Carter:
Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.
More than a year after the attack on our Capitol, the public is still searching for accountability. This case cannot provide it. The Court is tasked only with deciding a dispute over a handful of emails. This is not a criminal prosecution; this is not even a civil liability suit. At most, this case is a warning about the dangers of “legal theories” gone wrong, the powerful abusing public platforms, and desperation to win at all costs. If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.
With this limited mandate, the Court finds the following ten documents privileged: 4553; 4793; 4794; 4828; 5097; 5101; 5113; 5412; 5424; 5719.289 The Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose the other one hundred and one documents to the House Select Committee.
This morning, the Washington Post has an article that “Internal White House records from the day of the attack on the U.S. Capitol that were turned over to the House select committee show a gap in President Donald Trump’s phone logs of seven hours and 37 minutes, including the period when the building was being violently assaulted, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post and CBS News. The lack of an official White House notation of any calls placed to or by Trump for 457 minutes on Jan. 6, 2021 – from 11:17 a.m. to 6:54 p.m. – means the committee has no record of his phone conversations as his supporters descended on the Capitol, battled overwhelmed police and forcibly entered the building, prompting lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence to flee for safety. … The seven-hour gap also stands in stark contrast to the extensive public reporting about phone conversations he had with allies during the attack, such as a call Trump made to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — seeking to talk to Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) — and a phone conversation he had with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). The House panel is now investigating whether Trump communicated that day through backchannels, phones of aides or personal disposable phones, known as “burner phones,” according to two people with knowledge of the probe …”
https://web.archive.org/web/20220329110155/https://washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/29/trump-white-house-logs/
Will Turley discuss any of this? It’s certainly significant in national politics.
If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution
This bit of sophistry, and soothsaying serves what Judicial requirement? I’ve read the opinion. The whole thing argues from a giant triple jump leap to conclusion, based on nothing submitted to the court.
How is it sophistry?
If Pence as VP could unilaterally refuse states’ electors, so could Kamala Harris.
“The whole thing argues from a giant triple jump leap to conclusion, based on nothing submitted to the court.”
Quote something in the opinion that you believe is false, and present evidence that it’s false. For the record, you don’t have access to the contents of the 101 documents that he was ruling on, with the sole exception of the 2 that Eastman chose to make public.
Quote something in the opinion that you believe is false,
ALL OF IT, except that portion that references his reasons for enforcing the warrant.
You quote the “evidence” that supports his political rant.
I said “Quote something in the opinion that you believe is false, and present evidence that it’s false.”
If you believe it’s all false, then present evidence of that. All you’ve done so far is present your evidenceless opinion.
“You quote the “evidence” that supports his political rant.”
You’re attempting to shift the burden of proof, which is a common fallacy. You haven’t proved your claim that “The whole thing argues from a giant triple jump leap to conclusion, based on nothing submitted to the court.” Don’t try to shift your burden onto me.
I said “Quote something in the opinion that you believe is false, and present evidence that it’s false.”
I never said false. That is you moving the goal post. I said only the judge is arguing from conclusions. Something NOT in his purview.
OK, apparently you don’t think the judge said anything false, thanks for clarifying.
“I said only the judge is arguing from conclusions.”
And you haven’t produced any actual evidence that that’s what he was doing.
“Something NOT in his purview.”
It is **absolutely in his purview** to determine whether the crime-fraud exception applies to any of the documents.
It is **absolutely in his purview** to determine whether the ‘crime-fraud exception applies to any of the documents”.
And everything except for what I put in quotations is nothing but propaganda from the bench. NO BEARING on the ruling, and mind reading, and arguing from a conclusion, he has no power to make from the bench.
From a comment unmoored from fact
first time ever that a federal court has found that a President may have committed a crime while in office
From the actual political rant (judicial ruling)
The Court is tasked only with deciding a dispute over a handful of emails. This is not a criminal prosecution; this is not even a civil liability suit.
ATS is incapable of honest discussion. At best, he spins. At worst, he lies, distorts and defames.
I posted this earlier, but it became decoupled, so I’m reposting:
No, it’s not “unmoored from fact.” The ruling ALSO said:
“The eleventh document is a chain forwarding to Dr. Eastman a draft memo written for President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani. The memo recommended that Vice President Pence reject electors from contested states on January 6. This may have been the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action. The draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act, and Dr. Eastman’s later memos closely track its analysis and proposal. The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021. Because the memo likely furthered the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States, it is subject to the crime-fraud exception and the Court ORDERS it to be disclosed.”
He is saying that Trump and Eastman may have engaged in the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States. As I said: he found that a President may have committed a crime while in office.
“Will Turley discuss any of this?”
Will Pelosi release her correspondence? No. There is selective prosecution where the criminal maintains secrecy that could free many others from blame. Typical of despots.
This case wasn’t about a public release of documents. It was about the release to the J6 Committee of documents that were subpoenaed. It does not involve “prosecution.”
You seem to be assuming either that the Committee never requested documents from Pelosi (but you don’t substantiate that) or that they requested them and she refused (which you also don’t substantiate). You further claim that her documents “could free many others from blame” without saying who you’re referring to. Just who do you think it being unfairly “blamed”?
We can only know what the committee leaders permit us to know. The committee is run by partisan persons who have little regard for our nation’s laws. They aren’t much different than some of the Russian oligarchs. Pelosi’s wealth comes from the rape of the American people.
The way Americans know something is being done is when they see it. Since there is no transparency and no apparent equality under the law, one must assume that the committee’s leader and those supporting her are at fault. It is up to Pelosi to show that she is transparent and believes in the rule of law. She does neither. Instead, she choses to be an American oligarch who is above the law.
The committee never asked for Pelosi’s communications.
She would have turned them over if asked.
The ONLY constitutional power to investigate is ONLY to better write legislation. Congress is specifically forbidden from criminal investigations.
The conclusion is the Jan 6 committee has no intention of fact finding, to better write legislation, addressing the procedures around Jan 6
“The committee never asked for Pelosi’s communications.”
You assume that but haven’t proven it.
“She would have turned them over if asked.”
And for all we know, she was asked, and she turned them over. Much of what has been turned over to the Committee has not been made public.
“Congress is specifically forbidden from criminal investigations.”
It isn’t. It cannot indict or prosecute anyone, but nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from investigating things that may involve crimes, because they write the federal legislation that makes things criminal, and they can investigate as part of their legislative power. As George Mason said, members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.” James Madison said that the “House should possess itself of the fullest information in order to doing justice to the country and to public officers.” SCOTUS has upheld congressional investigatory powers for subjects about which Congress can pass legislation or that affect Congress itself, such as the actions of the Capitol Police.
You’re wrong, and you’d rather persist in being wrong than learn what’s right.
. Much of what has been turned over to the Committee has not been made public.
You are so right. ONLY that info, that can be manipulated to smear President Trump and his administration are selectively leaked. Evidence the investigation is outside the enumerated power of Congress.
The proper process would be to gather evidence. Sift from that information, that would make writing legislation more beneficial, and seal all of it.
But the Jan 6 committee has never been about anything other than a political hatchet job.
The selected leaks proves my conclusion.
“The House panel is now investigating” Pelosi’s refusal to authorize the deployment of the National Guard on Jan. 6.
Oh, wait. They’re not investigating that.
How do you know?
Oh, wait. You don’t know, you’re simply assuming it.
Thompson said they won’t. (Look it up. I’m not interested in your parsing his words into oblivion.)
Corrupt committee members do corrupt things. That you wish to excuse such corruption, in *this* case, is unsurprising.
You’re a lazy person who will not back up your own claims and who then doubles down.
ATS, Sam was very clear. You are lazy and without the facts. Pelosi hasn’t released her discussions with anyone. It is known that Trump requested more protection, an unarmed woman was murdered, films were not released that would have shown some of the people arrested were innocent, etc. It is more probable that Pelosi might be at the center of a conspiracy theory than Trump did something wrong.
“back up your own claims”
Doing so *for you* is a fool’s errand.
Now we will have to suffer through Jeffsilberman’s rant about how Turley is ignoring Trump with this column and what about Fox News…. Of course then Anonymous the Stupid will come on and tell us how bad Trump is, how bad Turley is and how everyone else on the site is wrong. All this will be followed by people rebutting these two poseurs and the obligatory 30 responses by Jeff and ATS.
Anonymous the Stupid is trying to use a “heckler’s veto” to ruin the comments section of this great site. The left never “changes the channel”, the try to get things they disagree with banned and/or ruined. We will see CNN or MSNBC and change the channel in disgust as the left sees Fox News and they try to get the sponsors to boycott it. Once the boycott fails they try to get the cable companies to take it off the air. Once they can’t get the cable companies to cut off their own nose they turn to the government and get a woman that called for Fox to be banned to be nominated to ne the HEAD OF THE FCC. The left never gives in, they never stop and they never moderate. Don’t believe me? Watch as the BBB Bill starts to reemerge, watch as reparations comes back, watch as the border becomes more and more open and watch as more cities allow illegals to vote. Oh and of course, see how we have gone from gay marriage, which I support, to having a person with a penis and testicles named woman of the year by Time Magazine. They never stop and they are never happy.
HullBobby,
While I agree they try to distract from Professor Turley’s topic, it is easy enough to just scroll past their inane comments to the good comments.
Upstate, no it isn’t easy to scroll past “Anonymous” because there are many people who go by the name Anonymous. Plus why should we need to scroll past entire pages of comments because some narcissist needs to opine thirty times a day?
The left never gives in, they never stop and they never moderate.
They don’t have to. They are in attack mode 24/7. That puts the rest of us in defense mode 24/7. The Left risks nothing. If they lose, it’s because we have successfully defended our rights and freedoms, and by extension their rights and freedoms to continue to be on the attack. For all of JT’s passionate defense of the freedom of speech, his blog belies the notion that the best defense against bad speech is better speech. As you rightly pointed out, this once touted legal blog has been ransacked by Leftists that openly denounce the rule of law. Yuri Bezmenov warned us 40 years ago what this would look like. “Better speech” on this blog used to be considered facts and evidence based. It was a reasonable and rational application of the law, supported by tangible evidence. There used to be an Obama-supporting liberal attorney that would comment here named Mike Appleton. Even he has stopped participating on this blog. I have no idea if JT understands that his private blog has been overrun by Leftists that have no intention of having a reasonable and rational debate. He would do well to clean house.
The irony is our own oligarchs are in the White House and other positions of government power. They are actively targeting the wealthy with schemes like taxing unrealized gains and corporate ESG compliance with the new Securities and Environment Commission.
If they succeed at abusing the rights of the most privileged that have the financial means to defend themselves, nothing will stand in their way getting whatever else they scheme.
“. . . taxing unrealized gains . . .”
“Gains” bloated by a skyrocketing inflation that they created.
Quite a racket, isn’t it.
How many of Biden’s California supporters would be willing to repeal Prop 13 so that the state can tax their unrealized real property gains?
Olly,
Honestly, I never wanted to be an oligarch for obvious reasons, but I wouldn’t mind living like one.
I am guessing plenty of Democrat and leftist cronies…will have new boats and vacation homes!
I am guessing from people that can’t the difference between men and women….the rule of law means little!
“The authority for such seizures is fairly consistent and straightforward. The United States and other countries are alleging that the property may constitute a form of money laundering or ill-gotten gains.”
I wonder how many Trump properties qualify?
enigma——-or how many of Oprah’s qualify? Doesn’t she have the largest yacht in the world, or close to it? And right here in mean, old “racist ” America….LOL!!!
Playing “the victim” has certainly been profitable for her. She would have become this wealthy in Nigeria, right? And NFL players too, right?
Cindy, don’t feed the trolls. Ignore them.
Sergeant———-I know, I know…….but it’s just so dang cute when the little black ones jump up on the counter to get closer to the candy!
Cindy, Enigma lives in the slave era before the white English speaking people tried to abolish slavery worldwide. He will never move forward. His basis for existence is victimhood and he places victimhood as a barrier to advancement.
If she’s commited fraud in the acquisition of her yacht, by all means.
“I wonder how many Trump properties qualify?”
That’s funny.
Now do BLM, the Bidens, Pelosi, et al.
I think if you look at politicians convicted of crimes related to money, Republicans are in the lead by far.
Youre such a disgrace to black people. Blacks have a culturally rich, family focus, Bible believing history that put to shame White Americans while they enslaved and humiliated blacks. Day after day your talking points have no scintilla of evidence and are distant from black family values
Fortunately there are shining examples of blacks like Condoleezza Rice, Glenn Loury, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, God fearing black humble families like my parents and grandparents, etc who show the world what honorable values look like. As a person of color you do not speak for anyone remotely colored.
He speaks for himself, just like you speak for yourself. Apparently you dislike the idea that a Black man has different views than you do. He isn’t a disgrace to anyone.
I clearly see what Sabrina is talking about. You won’t because you speak from an ideological mind where it doesn’t matter what Sabrina is thinking, only that you win and everyone else loses. Unfortunately for those that fall into your trap, their individual identities and freedoms become abridged.
You must have been holding that in for a long time. The one thing my talking points do have is evidence, your choice whether to believe.
“The one thing my talking points do have is evidence . . .”
That some blacks have “sold their birthright” is not “evidence.” It’s the very foundation of racism and of tribalism. It is genetic determinism.
I provide historical facts, names, and dates. You may not want to accept it but I do document what I say.
“I provide historical facts, names, and dates.”
That you do — so long as they fit your desire to smear America as “racist.” Your view of “evidence” is that which satisfies your desires. In reality, that’s not evidence. It’s rationalization.
It’s horrifying to think that you taught logic and cannot correctly distinguish between (1) evidence and (2) how evidence is used. His evidence IS evidence. Whether he’s using the evidence to rationalize a false claim (e.g., by cherrypicking) is different from the evidence itself, and to demonstrate that, you’d have to make an evidence-based argument yourself. But you’re too lazy to engage in making a logically valid evidence-based argument yourself.
ATS, have you ever looked at the jumble of facts and links that you call evidence. If you did, you would see that Sam is leagues ahead of you where logic is concerned.
Facts are facts, America was/is racist, denial is a reason to not make change!
All people have biases. On the whole, racism was disappearing quickly until Obama came to the helm. Then racism started on the upswing.
Today, many blacks are racist, demanding segregation. That is bad and wrong for society, just like segregation was wrong in the earlier years. We are teaching the young that happen to be black (which should not be a distinction) that they can use their color as a basis to do things not usually tolerated.
You have adopted color over character and promoted that in many of your responses.
BTW, Sabrina, you describe your parents and grandparents as Black but not yourself. Am I missing something? Your attack on me only reflects your opinion and I don’t consider you a disgrace to any race, just yourself.
Enigma
And once again, the question: “Are you black enough?” gets raised.
Not at all the question I was asking nor have I ever.
enigma, You are ignorant about political history otherwise you would know that until 2015, Donald Trump was a DEMOCRAT, gave most of his political contributions to DEMOCRATS, especially in the Senate….e.g. giving ton# to the DEM Senatorial Committee. Chuck Schumer never would have become a Senator without Trump$ help. And Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner, is a Democrat from a seriously wealthy Democrat family. …….in fact, Jared’s father, a NY real estate mogul, was a major fundraiser for Dems for 20 years until he was thrown in the Federal Pen, AS A DEMOCRAT, for mishandling funds, tax evasion, etc.
Reading is fundamental, son. Try it.
Dear Cindy, I know Donald Trump’s history, just like I know the history of Tom DeLay, Jack Abramhoff, Frank Murkowski, and hundreds of others (BTW, Trump contributed to Republicans as well and filled his Cabinet with Republican grifters). I may have a different take on some things than you do but not going with ignorant. I don’t consider you ignorant, just misled.
enigma …….Ignorant meaning not informed. It’s not a curse word, dear.
Now you’re questioning my vocabulary? I don’t claim to know everything and indeed learn a thing from time to time here. But if I tell you something about history, you can depend on it. I’m pretty good on current events as well. If you consider me “not informed” you just aren’t paying attention.
enigma – you can be “well informed” on some things and “ignorant” on others. Ignorance can be overcome, if you feel the need. Stupid is forever!!! For example, I am ignorant of the mechanics of the gasoline engine. I know the concept, however, I could not take one apart and put it back together. And, I don’t feel the need.
Very true!
“But if I tell you something about history, you can depend on it.”
That is a statement that has been proven false too many times. You have been no better at current events. However, the question above about whether Democrats or Republicans are bigger crooks is interesting, so that I would like proof of your contention. Cindy brought up the fact that the Trump clan was Democrat throughout the years. That must not be what you were talking about.
You have to define what class of crime is under discussion. We know who commits the most murder, rape, burglary and arson, and that group is not Republicans. Therefore, you must have meant a specific subset of crime, but, as usual, you weren’t clear.
We could look at the KKK, but they were mostly Democrats. We could also look at pre-1865 slave owners, which though not criminal, should have been. Most of them were Democrats as well.
You must be dealing with yet other subsets. However, if we wish to break that down into its smallest parts, I think you will be opening your own wounds and placing them on display.
enigma….I’m not misled because I do my own thinking, unlike yourself, being paid to spread misleading, devisive lies. Do you peruse the material Troll Central gives you, or just copy and paste? Bet you don’t report that income, do you?
What I get paid for writing is duly reported on a 1099 to the IRS. Nobody gives me material, though I confess this site has often provided me inspiration.
Bill – if this site is offering inspiration, it deserves a cut. 😉
Turley should demand “10 percent for the Big Guy”
Anonymous – if the Big Guy is going to get 10% enigma’s money, Darren should get at least 7%.
I find lots of examples that my readers find illuminating. I often include quotes.
Sam says:
“Now do BLM, the Bidens, Pelosi, et al:”
I’ll bring the popcorn……….to be known from now on as Corn Pop! 🙂
I’m grateful for the sane legal analysis. The situation in Ukraine has become the epitome of virtue signaling – it has been made into little more than an internet meme just like everything else over the past ten years – particularly BLM – because the social media generation is that pampered and that disconnected from reality. If they had been around during the Cold War, it’s guaranteed we wouldn’t have a country today (one they are free to kvetch in, oh the irony), possibly not a planet to live on. Getting rid of cows because they fart is about the same level of intelligence operating with this scenario. The *mentality* is what isn’t sustainable.
Biden is going to tax wealth. That’s real. The President of the United States is going to confiscate wealth. We had to pass a constitutional amendment to clear the hurdle of taxing income. But now? Not a peep from a single person about confiscating wealth.
I’m worried about the here and now, not worrying about Russian Oligarchs.
As pointed out. If they govt can do it to “them” the govt can use that exact same power to use it against “you”.
The United States Congress, and SCOTUS can’t find the time to end civil forfeiture. So my Give a sh!! emotion is dead.
Letters of Marque….Privateers….now that is legal ain’t it?
Many Private Military Contractors would be glad to get into that business.
“Letters of Marque”
That is the constitutional proof. Citizens can poses and use the mostm powerful, and destructive “arms” available. Letters of marque were issued to private citizens with ships fully armed with cannons.
This is akin to NYC, that prohibits the idling of big trucks for more than 3 minutes. citizens get a cut of the fine collected when they turn in a 3 minute video, proving the violation. $millions have been paid out to private citizens. (Locomotives are somehow exempt)
Invading a neighboring Nation, murdering its citizens, and destroying whole cites is not legal either.
When you commit War….one should fully expect War to be committed against you, your supporters, and your military.
Find the Yachts, seize them, take them to deep water….sink them…..and send a photo of the Officer in Charge of the Scuttle Party showing Putin an up-raised Center Digit as the yachts disappear from the surface on their way down to visit Davey Jones.
Putin kicked off to the People of Ukraine…..and the NATO Nations…..the least we can do is kick a few Field Goals if we are not prepared to run up the scoreboard using Touchdowns and Extra Point kicks.
Hayek said it best: “Emergencies have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded.”
Patently illegal.
since when do Democrats bother with laws? The Rule of Law in the USA and much of the globalist world is DEAD!
Turley points out that all Justice needs to seize an asset is a warrant and suggests that it is difficult for the government to keep the asset.
Tell that to all the victims of civil forfeiture.
Police have often seized (stolen?) 5 figure amounts from Americans without either a conviction or proof.
Go to a lawyer and he will tell you to compromise with the government – give them a third and walk away. It is cheaper.
In the real world, the law has less meaning.
Monument, I always agree with you, but I think you may miss one point this time. When the police stop a car on 95 from MA to FL and a guy has $10,000 cash in his car they will take it and he will be screwed because it is so hard and expensive to get it back, but a billionaire has the resources to do just that. As almost always, feel good laws only feel good for a short time.
Hullboy, I think you miss the point. In your example, I’ll say there is no/little cash. But the cops take the car, and the boat it is towing. No arrests, no charges. Property not returned.
“But the cops take the car . . .”
CAF is legalized theft and a perversion of Western jurisprudence.
First it is used by the government to decree, somehow, that the property ia guilty of a crime — the *property*, not a person.
Then the government uses CAF to reverse the burden of proof. If the owner wants his (stolen) property back, somehow he has to prove that the property is *not* guilty of a crime.
Then the proceeds from the (stolen) property are distributed to various government agencies.
The Mafia must be jealous.