While violating their own precedent that said there had to be a nexus to actual criminal activity. Since you are unable to show such, you have no case. I'll leave you here to see if you can engage someone else in your circular logic tar-baby.
The precedent has been to review all of the facts (those things you keep avoiding) de novo, beggar of questions.
We review any predicate factual findings for clear error, but the ultimate conclusion as to whether those facts establish a “substantial connection” between seized currency and a narcotics transaction is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. See United States v. Dodge Caravan Grand SE/Sport Van, 387 -6- F.3d 758, 761 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. $84,615 in U.S. Currency, 379 F.3d 496, 501 (8th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. $117,920.00 in U.S. Currency, 413 F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2005).