Three New Executive Orders.

Why all the Bob Ross references?

Sure, he painted some decent outdoor scenery, but the guy wasn't Picasso, and they were no "masterpieces".

He also used a variety of brushes for his various works. Some wide, and some thin. He knew enough to use the right tool for specific effects.

a reply to: JinMI

No matter what he does,he has the paid troll protestors,to react,it's getting old,and the fact the media is biased as well,He is looking under the rugs while getting familiar,criminals have been in control a long time,this will indeed be a internal war,hopefully heads fly,these Democrats are unraveling like an old golf ball,the Republecrats too

a reply to: intrptr

Its got nothing to do with Trump. He didn't write the legislation just signed it (whatever it says) into law.

Umm, they are EO's, that means Trump wrote them

The police state apparatus is firmly entrenched, all it needs now is to bloom. Once you deny peoples basic individual rights its easy to just add on ever stringent measures, part of the system of control all empires have put into effect over the course of history

I agree 100% But I do not agree that this all of the sudden has started happening because of ####SNIPPED###. It's been in the works for quite some time. Yo know, establishment politics and all. That guy Bernie tried to sell that platform before not only selling out to it, but fully embracing it with no lube.

Partisan politics are an amusement to me at best.

a reply to: Vector99

Yes... to go back on the direction of asset forfeiture in terms of what has been done in the last couple of years, by the Obama administration, not to mention civil rights groups, to poke holes in the idea, and get it wound back. Taken in the context of the conversation Mr Trump was having, and the wishes of the Sheriffs involved, its pretty clear that what he means is, that the neutering process that Obamas administration was enacting against asset forfeiture as a concept, is what he will be going back on. That is CLEAR as day if you actually spend some time reading the transcript.

a reply to: Vector99

Thanks for the distinction. You can believe he wrote them overnight, but I seriously doubt that.

I agree 100% But I do not agree that this all of the sudden has started happening because of cheetah rebus.

Me neither.

It's been in the works for quite some time. Yo know, establishment politics and all.

But thanks for agreeing with me, roundabout.

My favorite image of him is the signing: he holds it up after, like a teacher does with an illustrated textbook, as if thats readable from my perspective.

That alone raised my hackles, he's not showing us any content, just a blurry document...

its a trump decision, accept it. Can we perchance, read that document somewhere, verbatim?

image

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: brutus61

That is what stuck out to me as well. Give the new AG the tools and let him work. Given the broad brush each of those items can paint, others will no doubt see it differently.

It's going to take quite a while for Sessions to get the DOJ house in order.

Some people will have to go, others will have to be made to understand what their new priorities are and how they should go about enforcing some of the laws that have been "ignored" for the last 8 years, and most importantly - putting the right people in leadership positions is *key*.

If I had to guess, 6 months to get the right pieces on the board in the right positions, and then another 6 months to ensure everyone is rowing in the same direction.

Oh, we'll see things start happening right away, but 2018 will be the year that really starts the new Sessions regime.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I read it, he was talking about drug dealers.

Did you read it?

Is seizing assets of drug dealers a bad thing?

I mean, they are citizens with rights after all.

I think you aren't very educated on US laws.

a reply to: Grimpachi

It doesn't make sense because it reads like a wish list to enforce existing laws.

Agreed, and that is pretty much all it is, except for the part about

pursue appropriate legislation, consistent with the Constitution's regime of limited and enumerated Federal powers, that will define new Federal crimes, and increase penalties for existing Federal crimes,

.

There are already laws against violence (to pretty much anyone), so this seeks to both increase prosecution of current law to its limit AND create MORE laws that protect feds/police/etc. This seems just an emboldened protection of law enforcement, with LE/feds being a superior, protected class.

I would love to know the "how" in this, because as it reads so broadly it's kind of scary.

a reply to: intrptr

So trump doesn't get to do what every other president has done?

I don't have my image processing software anymore, new comp, and photoshop wants me to buy their product again, but that image could easily be enhanced to make out the words on it.

a reply to: Vector99

Holy hell....

Do you think asset forfeiture works differently for innocent citizens than it does for drug cartel members? Let me tell you something. It does not. If you are driving around with money, or a car, or a boat on a trailer, or any other damned thing, a law enforcement officer in some states, can literally take everything you have on you, without ever having to file charges against you, leave alone securing any kind of conviction.

Seizing the assets of drug dealers is not a bad thing, but Sheriffs departments have been using these things as a money maker, taking assets and goods from innocent people, just so that they can have a new coffee machine, or a new gadget, fluffing their budgets with what amounts to state sponsored theft, from innocent, law abiding citizens! That is fundamentally unconstitutional and what is more, down right wrong. You know it is. You KNOW this nonsense is unsupportable, and yet Donald Trump wants to go ahead and make things just like they were before pesky Obama and the dangerous liberal radicals he was in league with, dared to force Sheriffs departments to actually behave themselves appropriately, and its arguable that the windback on those powers was not severe enough!

a reply to: Vector99

So trump doesn't get to do what every other president has done?

Yep, sign the dotted line Mr. President. Oh, and time to announce another war...

you wouldn't want us to impeach you , woood yuuu?

originally posted by: intrptr

Somehow that all smacks of more Feds, more police, more surveillance and more search and seizure violations.

What else did you expect?

The only "force" in the nation, that you can command to get things done is the police force.

Everybody else, you have to ask nicely, to help, and beg to get cooperation.

Safety is the first mask of tyranny.

Any indication these won't lead to more Feds cracking down on legalized states?

originally posted by: intrptr

Somehow that all smacks of more Feds, more police, more surveillance and more search and seizure violations.

Yup, while I keep getting told to wait for MAGA, this happens.

Not surprised.

originally posted by: underwerks
Safety is the first mask of tyranny.

I like that and may have to "appropriate" it.

Along the lines of Ben Franklin's "Those who would trade liberty for security will soon have neither" - paraphrasing and butchering of course...

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Any indication these won't lead to more Feds cracking down on legalized states?

originally posted by: intrptr

Somehow that all smacks of more Feds, more police, more surveillance and more search and seizure violations.

Yup, while I keep getting told to wait for MAGA, this happens.

Not surprised.

LOl, I had to google that. Imo, MAGA is just another way of saying 'hope and change'.

So much for campaign promises. Had me fooled too.