Posted on 02/10/2017 1:33:26 PM PST by Timpanagos1
“We’ll destroy his career,” President Donald Trump said of a Texas legislator who has reportedly introduced legislation to curtail civil asset forfeiture — the practice of taking a person’s property allegedly used in the commission of a crime — unless the individual is convicted of a crime.
Trump made his remarks, which were taken as joke, at a February 7 White House meeting with sheriffs from across the country (shown). But even if the remark was not taken seriously by the sheriffs, who laughed at the “threat,” it is clearly indicative of the president’s position on the issue.
During the meeting with the sheriffs, the issue of civil asset forfeiture (CAF) was discussed at some length. Sheriff Aubrey of Jefferson County, Kentucky, raised the issue: “The other thing is asset forfeiture. People want to say we’re taking money and without due process. That’s not true. We take money from dope dealers.”
Trump then asked, “And you’re not allowed to do it now?”
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
What utter nonsense. All of this ridiculous speculation is just annoying
The president may not be fully informed on this issue. If he is and still supports it, well that is why legislators write laws.
But even though everyone knows it was a joke, we’ll just go ahead and take his statement out of context in order to make him look bad. Remember, we report objectively.
I doubt it
If true that Trump supports this practice shame on him. Needs to talk with Bannon.
“Sheriff Aubrey of Jefferson County, Kentucky, raised the issue: “The other thing is asset forfeiture. People want to say we’re taking money and without due process. That’s not true. We take money from dope dealers.” “
Liar. That is not necessarily true in many other places.
America is finished. We have let the Country go communist. The left will use the communists courts destroy. Civil War II is the only chance.
...and innocent people alike.
The process of asset forfeiture is a good tactic for fighting criminal elements. But it should have some strong recourse against what ever agency abuses it’s power and harms private and innocent citizens or businesses.
The permanent confiscation of any personal property (including money)without being so ordered as a result of due process, should be illegal. I can see the temporary taking of evidence until due process is complete, but just taking cash from a suspected drug dealer and keeping it is wrong.
“The process of asset forfeiture is a good tactic for fighting criminal elements.”
“Criminal elements” should only be determined after Due Process.
We take money from dope dealers, usually from drug dealers, without due process.
And you should trust us. We won’t become more dishonest. We promise.
“...and innocent people alike.”
I’m sure Trump doesn’t support that, and he may be under the false impression that innocent people won’t be effected.
Hopefully this isn’t his real position. Civil asset forfeiture, without due process of law, is profoundly immoral and corrupting and he should outlaw it.
There should be no civil liability in ANY matter where the under laying wrong is normally classed a crime without an actual conviction first.
“We take money from dope dealers, usually from drug dealers, without due process.
And you should trust us. We won’t become more dishonest. We promise.”
Over time, it has been my observation that certain amounts of cash and certain amounts of product often do not find its way from the site of the drug arrest to the police station.
However, you never hear a defendant stand-up in court and say:
“But your honor, I had 12 pounds of pot and $20,000,000 in cash and not the 10 pounds of pot and $15,000 in cash that the arresting officers reported.”
I worked for a commercial auction and liquidation company in the ‘90’s. We had a contract with the U.S. Marshall service to store vehicles seized in federal felony arrests—most of them were drug dealers. The defendants were given the choice of surrendering their assets or retaining them pending trial outcome. If found not guilty, seized assets were either returned to the accused or proceeds of sale were paid. It was the criminal’s choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.