Think The New Civil Forfeiture Rules Are Great?

[Kathianne]

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/19/new-doj-guidelines-asset-forfeiture-obscene/


The New DOJ Guidelines On Asset Forfeiture Are ObsceneTAYLOR MILLARDPosted at 5:01 pm on July 19, 2017

The Justice Department’s new guidelines on civil asset forfeiture are an obscenity to our founders and the Constitution they wrote. Attorney General Jeff Sessions released (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-issues-policy-and-guidelines-federal-adoptions-assets-seized-state) the directive (https://www.justice.gov/file/982616/download) today he claims will actually help make sure criminals can’t keep their ill-gotten gains, but are really just an affront to the Fourth Amendment. The key factor in the new guidelines is that the federal government no longer has to pay attention to state and local laws which make it harder for police to seize assets without a criminal conviction. One of the few things Attorney General Eric Holder got right (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-afmls/legacy/2015/01/16/01-16-15-wire.pdf) during his tenure was telling federal agencies they had to follow state law with the equitable-sharing program. Sessions is undoing this policy.

...

[SMTA]

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/19/new-doj-guidelines-asset-forfeiture-obscene/
Yup, just throw the BOR in the trash.
Ridiculous.

[darin]

Ugh. What happened to "live free or die"?

[SMTA]

Ugh. What happened to "live free or die"?
Tyranny at its finest.
The fact that the "presumption of innocence" is ignored is a huge problem for US citizens.

[revelarts]

Think The New Civil Forfeiture Rules Are Great? (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?59696-Think-The-New-Civil-Forfeiture-Rules-Are-Great)
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/19/new-doj-guidelines-asset-forfeiture-obscene/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/19/new-doj-guidelines-asset-forfeiture-obscene/)
not to mention the OLD civil steal citizens property without trial laws.
don't get me started...

[jimnyc]

Hell, the government screwing up these forfeitures is nothing new. In theory, doing so for the right criminals is a good idea. But this one has been messed up since day one, no matter how good the ideas behind it. Old people losing their livelihood for what ends up being stupid shit, folks close to being homeless losing things. These shouldn't be allowed to be fully decided on the roadside. Perhaps if enough, confiscate and have a SPEEDY visit with a judge who looks at everything and then makes a further decision - not some gung ho cop, filled with adrenaline on the roadside. And IMO, both types of forfeitures, civil and criminal, need much more protection of the party about to lose crap.

Taking tons of cash from a suspected terrorist coming across state/federal lines, that I can understand. Holding onto a Corvette and eventually confiscating it, after the driver is found to have 43 kilos of meth on him and will be in jail for the next 15-25, that I can see. But folks that are ultimately found not guilty of small crimes, and their stuff is already history.... well that shit needs to be fixed. There have been reports of such types of EFFups for a few decades now. One would think it would have been fixed and have ways in place to protect the innocent from being screwed over. :mad:

[SMTA]

Hell, the government screwing up these forfeitures is nothing new. In theory, doing so for the right criminals is a good idea. But this one has been messed up since day one, no matter how good the ideas behind it. Old people losing their livelihood for what ends up being stupid shit, folks close to being homeless losing things. These shouldn't be allowed to be fully decided on the roadside. Perhaps if enough, confiscate and have a SPEEDY visit with a judge who looks at everything and then makes a further decision - not some gung ho cop, filled with adrenaline on the roadside. And IMO, both types of forfeitures, civil and criminal, need much more protection of the party about to lose crap.

Taking tons of cash from a suspected terrorist coming across state/federal lines, that I can understand. Holding onto a Corvette and eventually confiscating it, after the driver is found to have 43 kilos of meth on him and will be in jail for the next 15-25, that I can see. But folks that are ultimately found not guilty of small crimes, and their stuff is already history.... well that shit needs to be fixed. There have been reports of such types of EFFups for a few decades now. One would think it would have been fixed and have ways in place to protect the innocent from being screwed over. :mad:
I don't care what the cops see.
In the US, we are all innocent until proven guilty of a crime. Period. No exceptions.

[jimnyc]

I don't care what the cops see.
In the US, we are all innocent until proven guilty of a crime. Period. No exceptions.

Agreed. And don't get me wrong, police have long had the ability to confiscate "contraband" on the road as part of their duties. Sometimes this even included the defendants personal property. But it's a rather large leap to go from that - to confiscating vehicles/cash/property - then making a short lame announcement in the local newspaper - no one responds - kiss your belongings goodbye. That's wrong on too many levels.

It should be MAYBE 'confiscation' to put into property evidence, if it fits the crime. Get a warrant if necessary. (each case varies, I can't imagine making a one size fits all). Have certain time frames to see a judge. ONLY a judge can determine if cash/property can be confiscated.

[SMTA]

Agreed. And don't get me wrong, police have long had the ability to confiscate "contraband" on the road as part of their duties. Sometimes this even included the defendants personal property. But it's a rather large leap to go from that - to confiscating vehicles/cash/property - then making a short lame announcement in the local newspaper - no one responds - kiss your belongings goodbye. That's wrong on too many levels.

It should be MAYBE 'confiscation' to put into property evidence, if it fits the crime. Get a warrant if necessary. (each case varies, I can't imagine making a one size fits all). Have certain time frames to see a judge. ONLY a judge can determine if cash/property can be confiscated.
I cannot agree - any "maybe" would be continually expanded to severely hurt citizens.
Law enforcement cannot be trusted to accurately apply the law - that is for the judicial system.
Look at the Baltimore cop who just accidently filmed himself planting evidence.
Citizens deserve every right that they should get.

[jimnyc]

I cannot agree - any "maybe" would be continually expanded to severely hurt citizens.
Law enforcement cannot be trusted to accurately apply the law - that is for the judicial system.
Look at the Baltimore cop who just accidently filmed himself planting evidence.
Citizens deserve every right that they should get.

What is an officer to do when someone has drugs? The confiscate it, and it's later in front of a judge.
What if an officer finds someone with more than the allowed amount of cash coming across a border? And even sometimes in normal areas for other reasons. They confiscate, and it's later in front of a judge.
What if someone is found to be in possession of what is reported to be a stolen item? They will confiscate the item, and it will end up in front of a judge.

You read me wrong. I stated that they CANNOT and should not be able to be the ones deciding. Only a judge should be able to make any final decisions when it came to confiscations. If you still disagree at that point, sorry! I believe there are times that types of contraband need to be off the road, of course the originating charge changes things a lot as well. At that point, it's up to a judge to apply the law, decide on the charges and property. And my own personal take is, for one example, IF someone is found guilty of being a meth dealer for example, and had $8,000 dollars on him - and he's found guilty of distribution. Bye Bye cash! And I wouldn't have any issue with that either.

The case you point to, in which I hope that scumbag cop goes to jail... has nothing to do with confiscations or forfeitures that I was aware of. But yes, of course, any cop out there could potentially do shit like that, but it's quite rare. This guy was in jail for a tad for the cops abuse. I hope he sues the cop, the department, the jail and the state. I hope he gets many millions.

[Kathianne]

What is an officer to do when someone has drugs? The confiscate it, and it's later in front of a judge.
What if an officer finds someone with more than the allowed amount of cash coming across a border? And even sometimes in normal areas for other reasons. They confiscate, and it's later in front of a judge.
What if someone is found to be in possession of what is reported to be a stolen item? They will confiscate the item, and it will end up in front of a judge.

You read me wrong. I stated that they CANNOT and should not be able to be the ones deciding. Only a judge should be able to make any final decisions when it came to confiscations. If you still disagree at that point, sorry! I believe there are times that types of contraband need to be off the road, of course the originating charge changes things a lot as well. At that point, it's up to a judge to apply the law, decide on the charges and property. And my own personal take is, for one example, IF someone is found guilty of being a meth dealer for example, and had $8,000 dollars on him - and he's found guilty of distribution. Bye Bye cash! And I wouldn't have any issue with that either.

The case you point to, in which I hope that scumbag cop goes to jail... has nothing to do with confiscations or forfeitures that I was aware of. But yes, of course, any cop out there could potentially do shit like that, but it's quite rare. This guy was in jail for a tad for the cops abuse. I hope he sues the cop, the department, the jail and the state. I hope he gets many millions.


That's just the thing, there's a difference between taking 'evidence' such as cash that's dusted with drugs, that happen to be in the trunk. Same with the car and said trunk. Now the house? Unless similar is found when searched with a warrant, (assuming that the car was the scene of the arrest), if the house is clean, the police can't just say they're taking the house and all possessions found within-and sell them! They can't 'sell' the car and property either, it's evidence.

Civil forfeitures are a whole different matter. Your kid or a tenant does something that may be illegal? Your house can be confiscated along with possessions-as you mentioned, with a notice in a paper you may not read, have been given no notice to do so. It's not unusual to have an 'incident' at planes or cruise launches. The police see something they find 'suspicious,' and confiscate it. You can protest, but as the example given, most are going to go 'the following up down the road,' and really don't have enough information. It can be 'disposed of' before you are aware of it. Guess what? The law doesn't hold anyone responsible for compensating you. No trial, after all there was nothing 'found.'

[jimnyc]

That's just the thing, there's a difference between taking 'evidence' such as cash that's dusted with drugs, that happen to be in the trunk. Same with the car and said trunk. Now the house? Unless similar is found when searched with a warrant, (assuming that the car was the scene of the arrest), if the house is clean, the police can't just say they're taking the house and all possessions found within-and sell them! They can't 'sell' the car and property either, it's evidence.

Civil forfeitures are a whole different matter. Your kid or a tenant does something that may be illegal? Your house can be confiscated along with possessions-as you mentioned, with a notice in a paper you may not read, have been given no notice to do so. It's not unusual to have an 'incident' at planes or cruise launches. The police see something they find 'suspicious,' and confiscate it. You can protest, but as the example given, most are going to go 'the following up down the road,' and really don't have enough information. It can be 'disposed of' before you are aware of it. Guess what? The law doesn't hold anyone responsible for compensating you. No trial, after all there was nothing 'found.'

Yup, that's why that one word makes a WORLD of difference - JUDGE!

No more ability to rear end anyone. No more ability for a police officer to be a final judge. All of it should have judges at the end of them, whether civil or criminal. No way an officer decides and no way in hell should a blurb in the back of a newspaper be sufficient.

Just as any policing today, and any charges that come along with them, don't stick until the defendant has his day in court. This should be no different, and any defendant should have some sort of fairly quick access, and have a court of law oversee any property or cash matters that have resulted from these matters. I think the confiscations and forfeitures are often a good thing. But I think far too often they are also flat out wrong. That's why the judge and the court of law needs to be there to ensure this system works as designed.

[revelarts]

Not sure who got this new Asset forfeiture program going but I wouldn't be surprised if this meeting with sheriffs didn't set the spark.

Trump met with Sheriffs in February. One Sheriff from Kentucky, (Former President of the National Sheriffs Assoc) tells Trump 2 things he wants.
paraphrased
...More used Weapons from the Military and More Asset Forfeiture....
And frankly, Trump seems completely ignorant of either program and seems ready to do whatever this fine Sheriff advises... without a 2nd thought.
go to the 20-minute mark and watch 2 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNxBMs8p1QE

More used Weapons from the Military and more Asset forfeiture.
This sheriff is a caricature of what's wrong with SOME (please note I said SOME not ALL) law enforcement thinking.

But ALL of the "LEADING" sheriffs in that room seem to LOVE asset forfiture here though don't they?

[Kathianne]

Rev, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the type of influence that could cause the top-down I was referring to. I do think Trump has some basic ideas on what he wanted to see from government. He's for big government in many ways, though he certainly wants less foreign involvement, but that's not likely in his future, thanks to Iran/NK/Russia, much of which can fairly be laid at Obama's feet. His concerns are mostly formed by being a wealthy business person his entire life, with a focus on realty and branding.

He's anti-elitist, which includes the 'egg heads' from State or any other bureaucrats that have made specific areas their focus. He's much more likely to listen to a sheriff or a military person than 'the experts,' which I think is a genuine proclivity, though not necessarily the best for informed decisions. He's shown little interests in getting to the nitty gritty of substantive issues, showing more favor towards those on friendlier media program 'guests.' He seems to spend quite a bit of time watching quasi news and reading more editorial pieces than news related.

[Kathianne]

Rev, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the type of influence that could cause the top-down I was referring to. I do think Trump has some basic ideas on what he wanted to see from government. He's for big government in many ways, though he certainly wants less foreign involvement, but that's not likely in his future, thanks to Iran/NK/Russia, much of which can fairly be laid at Obama's feet. His concerns are mostly formed by being a wealthy business person his entire life, with a focus on realty and branding.

He's anti-elitist, which includes the 'egg heads' from State or any other bureaucrats that have made specific areas their focus. He's much more likely to listen to a sheriff or a military person than 'the experts,' which I think is a genuine proclivity, though not necessarily the best for informed decisions. He's shown little interests in getting to the nitty gritty of substantive issues, showing more favor towards those on friendlier media program 'guests.' He seems to spend quite a bit of time watching quasi news and reading more editorial pieces than news related.

I'm going a bit off topic here, but at least to me it's related in the sense of his not getting the nitty gritty or issues or even how the government/presidency works:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/713123/trump-hints-expecting-next-fbi-director-report-directly


Trump hints he is expecting the next FBI director to report directly to him
(http://theweek.com/speedreads/713123/trump-hints-expecting-next-fbi-director-report-directly)
July 19, 2017

President Trump shared some alternative history during his interview with The New York Times on Wednesday, confidently saying that "out of courtesy," the FBI director began reporting to the Department of Justice during Richard Nixon's tenure as president, but "the FBI person really reports directly to the president of the United States." (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-transcript.html?mtrref=www.nytimes.com) This is not true.


The FBI director is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but reports to the attorney general. As the FBI spells it out on its website (https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/who-monitors-or-oversees-the-fbi): "Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is responsible to the attorney general, and it reports its findings to U.S. Attorneys across the country. The FBI's intelligence activities are overseen by the Director of National Intelligence." The president does have the power to fire the FBI director, as Trump showed earlier this year when he canned former FBI Director James Comey, without even having to give a reason.


Trump said he believes that it's just a courtesy for the FBI to report to the Justice Department because "there was nothing official, there was nothing from Congress," he told the Times. "There was nothing — anything. But the FBI person really reports directly to the president of the United States, which is interesting. You know, which is interesting. And I think we're going to have a great new FBI director."

...

[revelarts]

Trump always seemed to ASSUME more authority than he has then backs off when he realizes ...is told... that it's illegal or unconstitutional. or sees if can get away with it practically and with political support.

Sad.

the constitution is not his guiding star.
It's his own idea of "getting things done" what HE wants done..

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJbnTRoaOxA






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJbnTRoaOxA

[Kathianne]

Trump always seemed to ASSUME more authority than he has then backs off when he realizes ...is told... that it's illegal or unconstitutional. or sees if can get away with it practically and with political support.

Sad.

the constitution is not his guiding star.
It's his own idea of "getting things done" what HE wants done..

That is what I think too. He doesn't have an interest in the 'system' and how it is supposed to work or even really how it does. He wants to run the presidency as he ran his company and I think there's a serious deficit in his understanding of the differences. I honestly believe he thinks he's being pragmatic and acting through 'commonsense.' The problem is he thinks his judgement is good enough and perhaps it is for his core, but not so much the rest.

In any case, even today there are constraints upon the executive as Obama and now Trump are finding out. Indeed, Obama was more able to finesse the system because he didn't alienate most of the electorate, though did as good as Trump when it came to Congress.

[revelarts]

That is what I think too. He doesn't have an interest in the 'system' and how it is supposed to work or even really how it does. He wants to run the presidency as he ran his company and I think there's a serious deficit in his understanding of the differences. I honestly believe he thinks he's being pragmatic and acting through 'commonsense.' The problem is he thinks his judgement is good enough and perhaps it is for his core, but not so much the rest.

In any case, even today there are constraints upon the executive as Obama and now Trump are finding out. Indeed, Obama was more able to finesse the system because he didn't alienate most of the electorate, though did as good as Trump when it came to Congress.

Well i think you have i idea of what i think about a lot of "the system". It's bad enough. But Trump Obama and Bush all crossed the sytems muddled and illegal lines as well as ignored the clear more restrictive Constitution.

Obama finessed where he could and at least UNDERSTOOD the boundaries he was crossing. Bush had SOME idea here and there, Cheney absolutely knew, and even stated his intent not to have the executive bound.

Trump doesn't seem to have much of a clue about the Constitution or the federal system.
But He's a good salesman and entertaining TV personality though.
though

[NightTrain]

Obama finessed where he could and at least UNDERSTOOD the boundaries he was crossing.

?


Bush had SOME idea here and there,

wtf?


Cheney absolutely knew, and even stated his intent not to have the executive bound.

Dude? Seriously, wtf.


Trump doesn't seem to have much of a clue about the Constitution or the federal system.
But He's a good salesman and entertaining TV personality though.
though

???

[revelarts]

I didn't stutter.

Obama knew what the Constitution said and what it meant.
He chose to ignore it when he wanted to or pretend it said something he KNEW it didn't intend.
Examples:
Engaging in Libya without congress.
Making up immigration laws by executive order
Spying on U.S citizens without warrents
Killing U.S citizens without trial
to start a list

Bush, well it's hard to know what he really did or didn't know
But he defended his unconstituional acts in various speaches written for him and never did much but repeat the catch phrases and crack jokes (and pass questions off to Chenny Rumsfeild or the the AG) when asked to eleborate by reporters.
Examples:
Spying on U.S citizens without warrents
Torturing terrorist SUSPECTS in custody
Imprisioning people without trial or due process of law
His own set of Executive Orders and Unconstitutional "Signing statements"
To start the list...

CHeney -sheesh - he doesn't care about hte constitution or the 3 branches having CO-EQUAL powers, he wanted the president to have the last word.
Pres. GEORGE H.W. BUSH: This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait.
NARRATOR: As secretary of defense, Cheney argued the president should not seek congressional authorization for the Gulf war.
Rep. MICKEY EDWARDS (R-OK), 1977-'92: The leadership in Congress generally was telling the first President Bush, "You have to get permission from Congress to go into the Gulf war." The president didn't think that was the case. He resisted it.
RICHARD CHENEY, Fmr. Defense Secretary: [FRONTLINE 1996] I argued that we did not need congressional authorization, and that legally and from a constitutional standpoint, we had all the authority we needed.
JACK GOLDSMITH: Secretary of Defense Cheney's advice was that it was unnecessary and imprudent- unnecessary because the Constitution did not require it, imprudent because Congress might say no.
RICHARD CHENEY: [FRONTLINE 1996] If we'd lost the vote in the Congress, I would certainly have recommended to the president that we go forward anyway.

Read this interview with David Gergan to see what i'm talking about
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/interviews/gergen.html

I paid a lot of attention to what he's said thorugh the years myself. I have no need to make stuff up. Chenney beleives in an imperial presidency NOT a CO-Equal constitutional one like the founders designed.
He KNEW EXCATLY what he was doing.


TRUMP,
C'mon NT, Trump seems to know NOTHING about the constitution. Every time he comments on it he seems wrong or litereally mentions that HE'S BEEN TOLD that he Can't do XYZ.
Or just Bluffs his way through with hand waving and assurances that what he's going to do WILL be constitutional, despite the fact that what he JUST SAID is UNconstitutional.

I'm just calling it like i see it.
If you can show me quotes of Trump speaking for more than 30 sec COGENTLY about the constitution or the constitutional role of the executive branch I'd like to see it. ANd i'll change my opinion some.

If not I stand by my statement.

sorry if the concept hits you like it's from left field.
BUt NO one can HONESTLY that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to mean the CRAP OBAMA, BUSH CHenney and TRUMP have been selling NT.

I not going into an Orwellian NEWSPEAK of IF this happens then the Constitution Doesn't count or REALLY doesn't mean it anymore crap


..I, Obama... Bush.. Cheney... Trump., do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God.

That's what the swore to do.
Not to "support the status quo" or the political "system" or my party or whatever the heck comes into my head or what ever the people want because theyre scared of Muslims or immigrants or not getting oil or losing our "status" or making sure we have the biggest military.

I, ...., do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God.

[NightTrain]

I didn't stutter.

Obama knew what the Constitution said and what it meant.
He chose to ignore it when he wanted to or pretend it said something he KNEW it didn't intend.
Examples:
Engaging in Libya without congress.
Making up immigration laws by executive order
Spying on U.S citizens without warrents
Killing U.S citizens without trial
to start a list

Scumbag. Thank God he's gone.


Bush
, well it's hard to know what he really did or didn't know
But he defended his unconstituional acts in various speaches written for him and never did much but repeat the catch phrases and crack jokes (and pass questions off to Chenny Rumsfeild or the the AG) when asked to eleborate by reporters.
Examples:
Spying on U.S citizens without warrents
Torturing terrorist SUSPECTS in custody
Imprisioning people without trial or due process of law
His own set of Executive Orders and Unconstitutional "Signing statements"
To start the list...

Grey areas.


CHeney
-sheesh - he doesn't care about hte constitution or the 3 branches having CO-EQUAL powers, he wanted the president to have the last word.
Pres. GEORGE H.W. BUSH: This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait.
NARRATOR: As secretary of defense, Cheney argued the president should not seek congressional authorization for the Gulf war.
Rep. MICKEY EDWARDS (R-OK), 1977-'92: The leadership in Congress generally was telling the first President Bush, "You have to get permission from Congress to go into the Gulf war." The president didn't think that was the case. He resisted it.
RICHARD CHENEY, Fmr. Defense Secretary: [FRONTLINE 1996] I argued that we did not need congressional authorization, and that legally and from a constitutional standpoint, we had all the authority we needed.
JACK GOLDSMITH: Secretary of Defense Cheney's advice was that it was unnecessary and imprudent- unnecessary because the Constitution did not require it, imprudent because Congress might say no.
RICHARD CHENEY: [FRONTLINE 1996] If we'd lost the vote in the Congress, I would certainly have recommended to the president that we go forward anyway.

Read this interview with David Gergan to see what i'm talking about
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/interviews/gergen.html

I paid a lot of attention to what he's said thorugh the years myself. I have no need to make stuff up. Chenney beleives in an imperial presidency NOT a CO-Equal constitutional one like the founders designed.
He KNEW EXCATLY what he was doing.


Seriously, Rev, Cheney was the VP. If anything, Dubya was to blame, this crap borders the Blood for Oil bullshit the moonbats were moaning about.


TRUMP
,
C'mon NT, Trump seems to know NOTHING about the constitution. Every time he comments on it he seems wrong or litereally mentions that HE'S BEEN TOLD that he Can't do XYZ.
Or just Bluffs his way through with hand waving and assurances that what he's going to do WILL be constitutional, despite the fact that what he JUST SAID is UNconstitutional.

I'm just calling it like i see it.
If you can show me quotes of Trump speaking for more than 30 sec COGENTLY about the constitution or the constitutional role of the executive branch I'd like to see it. ANd i'll change my opinion some.

If not I stand by my statement.

Show me where Clinton did. Or Zero did. Or Carter did.


sorry if the concept hits you like it's from left field.
BUt NO one can HONESTLY that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to mean the CRAP OBAMA, BUSH CHenney and TRUMP have been selling NT.

I not going into an Orwellian NEWSPEAK of IF this happens then the Constitution Doesn't count or REALLY doesn't mean it anymore crap


..I, Obama... Bush.. Cheney... Trump., do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God.

That's what the swore to do.
Not to "support the status quo" or the political "system" or my party or whatever the heck comes into my head or what ever the people want because theyre scared of Muslims or immigrants or not getting oil or losing our "status" or making sure we have the biggest military.

I, ...., do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God.

Let's drop the crap, what is your legitimate beef with Trump?

I hear you clucking, but I can't see the nest.

[revelarts]

Grey areas.

seriously?
read the constitution and put the actions i mentione next to them and make them fit objectiveively.
it's impossible ...objectively.
But with partisan love and rose colored glasses ... ok sure "gray areas".



Seriously, Rev, Cheney was the VP. If anything, Dubya was to blame, this crap borders the Blood for Oil bullshit the moonbats were moaning about.

It's his own words NT.
in the example I gave he wanted to... and ADVISED... presidents to IGNORE Congress and assume unconstitutional authorities.
Again being objective here



Show me where Clinton did. Or Zero did. Or Carter did.

I asked you 1st NT.
show me Trump's cogent constitutional rationals for his statements that, on their face, seem clearly unconstitutional.

But Bill Clinton had no love of the Constitution either. And his bad acts were more purely criminal.
Carter WAS knowledgable and more respectful of it ... in word... but also crossed the line when he felt like it... but to FAR milder degrees than Obama or Bush/Chenny ever did i believe.





Let's drop the crap, what is your legitimate beef with Trump?
I hear you clucking, but I can't see the nest.

um well, the Constitution and bill of rights are not crap to cut to me... I think it's important. I think you believe that as well, right?
I don't get the impression Trump has much knowledge of them or that he places much value on them. Other than roadblocks to his plans that people keep throwing in his face.

NT, just show me i'm wrong... and I'll adjust my opinion.
But don't assume hidden or bad motives on my part while giving him every benny of the doubt, the purest motives... and talking about "grey areas".

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPeED78xOZs

[revelarts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J4fdc1b57I


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J4fdc1b57I

GOOD COP!

Civil Asset Forfeiture CPAC 2017

[revelarts]

Oklahoma Highway Patrol (and Others police depts) have devices that freezes and/or takes money from prepaid debit cards or bank cards.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFxeTwNn0gY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFxeTwNn0gY

BAD Police DEPT POLICY!
so ALL the highway patrol members ...even though they may be MOSTLY GREAT people on the OKHP... they are ORDERED to use a BAD unconstitutional POLICY/TACTIC in their Law enforcement activity.
ALL of them.




Protect and Serve or Highway robbery?

[revelarts]

In 2014 Cops Took More Property From Americans Than Burglars Did.
http://gawker.com/cops-took-more-pro...-di-1744205551 (http://gawker.com/cops-took-more-property-from-americans-than-burglars-di-1744205551)


...Last year(2014), all of America’s burglars extracted a total of just $3.9 billion worth of property from their cumulative marks. Pansies, the nation’s cops spit in the general direction of that paltry figure. That’s all you got? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/)
That’s because over the same period, U.S. law enforcement officials netted $4.5 billion in goods (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/10/report-in-lean-times-police-start-taking-a-lot-more-stuff-from-people/) from Americans through a process known as civil asset forfeiture, an astounding figure that economist Martin Armstrong noted on his blog last week (http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/39102) in response to an Institute for Justice report (http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/).
Consider that for a moment: in 2014, cops took more property from Americans than burglars did....


Cops In Texas Seize Millions By 'Policing for Profit'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/06/05/cops-in-texas-seize-millions-by-policing-for-profit/#29ca97bd1a81

....These cases can be so baffling, one Texas Supreme Court Justice recently compared civil forfeiture to Alice in Wonderland and the works of Franz Kafka. But civil forfeiture isn’t just a quirky curiosity—it’s a powerful incentive for law enforcement to take millions...

Is there ROOM for the police to IMPROVE?
Is it wrong to ask for REFORM?

[jimnyc]

Change up the rules across the nation to inject a judge in every case. No forfeiture or confiscation without a judge in (?) so many days. The police have to have the ability to do their jobs. Certain forfeitures are spot on, in my opinion. In the largest of cases, they can even get a judges signature in advance. For drug seizures and large possession cases, they should be able to do so under certain criteria, but it's still up to a judge to finalize in a certain amount of days, and of course all defendants have that right to be there and defend themselves and their property.

Just some judges, that's almost all this program needs, which is an understatement. And while the worst of the worst is highlighted, which is cool with me, it's how you root out the issues - these programs do good as well. In addition to getting the truly bad folks off the streets, their ill gotten gains are also taken away and used for various good. That's another thing they should do? Make it uniform in what the proceeds are used for. I believe it's quite different around the nation. If this tool is fixed, and used appropriately, it's a very good tool and deterrent.