Trump says they'll "destroy the career" of Texas Senator who opposes Civil Asset Forfeiture.

a reply to: jimmyx

why is this so hard for republicans to understand?....

I'm not a republican but will try to help you.

From the Clinton News Network

Early 2010 - According to the May 2013 Inspector General report, "Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review," the inappropriate targeting of mainly conservative groups begins. This targeting involves delaying the processing of their applications and requesting information deemed unnecessary.

May 10, 2013 - Miller helps engineer an apology by Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division since January 2006, through a planted question at an American Bar Association meeting.

May 15, 2013 - Miller is forced to resign by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew after it comes to light that he knew about the targeting. It is announced by President Barack Obama later that day.


May 23, 2013 - After Lerner refuses to resign, she is placed on administrative leave, according to Congressional sources in both parties.

April 10, 2014 - The Republican-led House Oversight Committee votes 21-12 to charge Lerner with contempt of Congress.
May 7, 2014 - Lerner is held in contempt of Congress by the House.

October 23, 2015 - The Justice Department notifies members of Congress that it is closing its two-year investigation into whether the IRS improperly targeted the tea party and other conservative groups. No charges will be brought against former IRS official Lois Lerner or anyone else at the agency. Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik says in the letter to Congress that the probe found "substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints. But poor management is not a crime."

Yep nothing to worry about or see here, just more coincidences .

now that i have seen the entire meeting, i can say that he wasn't joking at all, if you watch the whole conversation when they started talking about asset forfeiture they lied to him and didn't tell him the truth about it, they told him that people are accusing them of confiscating things without prosecution and told him that it was a lie, it appears to me that he doesn't know anything about this procedure

here you can watch it starting at 21:30

so nobody wants to watch the truth here ?

i present the evidence and nobody wants to touch them or even go through them ?

i thought ATS was better than that

originally posted by: FauxMulder
Sounded like he said "want to give his name? will it destroy his career?"

Hard to tell

The inflection he says it in sounds like he's asking a question in jest, not making a statement.

originally posted by: Dr UAE
so nobody wants to watch the truth here ?

i present the evidence and nobody wants to touch them or even go through them ?

i thought ATS was better than that

Quote from Richard Branson:

"He's a very vindictive, rather dangerous, rather sad man," said Branson during an interview with MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle Tuesday morning. "I would feel very uncomfortable — very, very uncomfortable — with somebody like Donald Trump in the White House," he told Ruhle, after she quizzed Branson on his recent blog post describing a business lunch many years ago when the two billionaires met for the first time. www.nbcnews.com...

No, it was not a joke. Trump is very vindictive.

a reply to: Annee

It was a total joke designed to trigger.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

It was a total joke designed to trigger.

No, it wasn't.

It may have been implied in a joking manner - - but, Trump's history of vindictiveness (get even) behavior says otherwise.

a reply to: Annee

Annee, did you really watch the video that i presented and starting from the moment i mentioned ? it was clear that he didn't even know what asset forfeiture is all about

a reply to: Annee

The triggering works obviously.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I'm pretty conservative in some of my thinking, pretty liberal in other areas, but one thing for sure, civil asset forfeiture is wrong, until after a conviction. There is the potential for far too much abuse. If Trump supports CAF I am very disappointed in him. CAF is nothing more that state sanctioned theft, it would be better to pay off the goverment thugs like in Mexico, with the "bite." A simple payoff, labelled a gratuity or tip for service.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: gladtobehere

Donald Trump offers to 'destroy' Texas state senator's career for Rockwall sheriff.

Concerning asset forfeiture laws, Sheriff Harold Eavenson said, "We've got a state senator in Texas that was talking about introducing legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money. And I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed."

Trump responded: "Who is the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career."

I'm sure there are public servants who support Civil Asset Forfeiture.

But libertarians and real conservatives (and even some liberals) who believe in the rule of law and due process, are firmly against it.

Very few policies are as unAmerican as Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Trump called Snowden a traitor for essentially exposing a criminal government.

Now this.

I found this to be extremely disappointing.

Here is the video of the actual exchange.

Yeah...he sucks! I heard that if you play his speeches backwards it says "Paul is dead" or "I love Satan".

You and your kind are nothing but idiots.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

It was a total joke designed to trigger.

Right.....it's typical passive aggressive response that's implied in a joking manner, but indeed was not...

My ex wife use to do the same sort of thing and she had narcissistic personality disorder just like Trump probably does

At any rate

a reply to: Dr UAE

Not only did it seem he knew nothing about asset forfeiture but he seemed at first to think that "assets" were the drugs themselves and not the drug sellers' money. Trump talks about a "stash of drugs" and seems at first to wonder why law enforcement would not want drugs to be taken away, "You would think they'd want this stuff taken away."

By "joking" at the end, he has put himself in favor of not putting restrictions on asset forfeiture. And, the "joke" was said in a vindictive, mob style, Nixonian abuse of power way.

Trump can turn on the charm and schmooze, causing others to believe that he knows what he is talking about. I think the rest of the world now sees exactly that a conman buffoon was elected POTUS. Too bad Americans, like waking up from a bad drunk, are just waking up to that fact.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: odzeandennz

He triggers the triggerables again !!

xenchuen, I suggest you start really contributing to threads instead of one line attacks that hold no value. I know the alert went out and the flags will fall in but it's really detrimental to this website and I'm gonna start pointing it out until you guys clean up.

On topic, I had a conversation with a friend about it a few days ago. Where I live the police run a racket on DUIs, even though the city advertises the area as a great wine country and tasting destination. The county is #1 in the USA for DUIs per capita, it's just a money making scheme here. The people of the state voted that DUI checkpoints were illegal, but he got into an unmarked checkpoint, which somehow makes it ok. If you don't mark it as a DUI checkpoint it obviously isn't one so it becomes ok.

Anyways, the police is in the habit here of confiscating all cash upon arrest once the people are brought in to the drunk tank overnight. I'd say about half the people I know, managers, executives, basically anyone who's been out to dinner and had a glass of wine, has a story about being arrested for a minimal amount and their cash taken upon arrest.

This money is not even returned, and I know that for a fact. I had a DUI in this county right after 9/11, taking a date out to a nice dinner and we split a bottle of wine. I had $200 in cash that disappeared. In court I mentioned this and the judge said it would be used for future payments; it was never found or applied to anything.

You have to understand the mentality of cops, it's the same as the criminals they are after. At least where I live in the USA, safest encounter with a cop is no encounter.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

Well this so called 'fascist'.

Isnt stupid enough to travel with thousands of dollars on their person or in their vehicle.

That shouldn't be an issue.....we SHOULD be able to do that w out fear of it being taken and never returned due to a unconstitutional law

How can you not see this? Or are you just being intentional obtuse as to not implicate your candidate?

What happened to "Trust me if he goes against the constitution those of us that voted for him will be the first to call him out and hold his feet to the fire"

Disgraceful man

Why are you bitching about this now??

Been going on for ages...got nothing to do with Trump...you just losing it cause you heard a quote.

Civil Asset Forfeitures actual intent is to starve criminals of their supposed cash flow and disrupt their means of operations. On paper and a perfect world, I don't see why this wouldn't work. All elements in place and should be an effective tool.

However, it is only as effective as the people putting it into action and that is where the problems start. Its only "unAmerican" and "unConstituational" when the PEOPLE are affected by it.
There are many reasons as to why CAF happens nowadays. Much of it has to do with poor funding, so when law enforcement clearly see a point of origin on drugs and its routes, they take advantage of the route rather the origin. In doing so they make easy money.

So it really brings to mind a myriad of things to consider, one being that CAF "can" work but is easily subjected to corruption. So is this an issue at the social level and department integrity? Or being that CAF is truly the devil?

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: Annee

Annee, did you really watch the video that i presented and starting from the moment i mentioned ? it was clear that he didn't even know what asset forfeiture is all about

Yes, I watched it.

Did you read what Branson said? (and others BTW). Trump is vindictive.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

The triggering works obviously.

So do blinders.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Good sense of humor by Trump.

But I bet the "message" was hyperboled.

Good sense of humor? Right...absolutely hilarious. What a knee slapper.

a reply to: SaturnFX
as opposed to our ex leader dumbo i meant big ear barry. i support trump but i do not advocate asset seizure until a conviction or if guy runs . too much cops are using this as a way for free money. i have personally had cops come up to me and ask if i was carrying cash and how much ? then say well in certain parts of town you are not allowed to carry more than 50 dollars because of drug activity in area and they would have to take my money . still haven't given any up and won't .