Trump has no idea what asset forefiture is, but loves it!

[Chris0nllyn]

2 days ago, Trump met with a bunch of Sheriff's across the country. Jefferson County, Kentucky, Sheriff John Aubrey brought up forfeiture and complained that "people want to say we're taking money and without due process."

Here's the transcript on how it went down after that.

Trump: So you're saying—OK, so you're saying the asset taking you used to do, and it had an impact, right? And you're not allowed to do it now?

Aubrey: No, they have curtailed it a little bit. And I'm sure the folks are—

Trump: And that's for legal reasons? Or just political reasons?

Aubrey: They make it political, and they make it—they make up stories. All you've got to do—

Trump: I'd like to look into that, OK? There's no reason for that. Dana, do you think there's any reason for that? Are you aware of this?

Acting Attorney General Dana Boente: I am aware of that, Mr. President. And we have gotten a great deal of criticism for the asset forfeiture, which, as the sheriff said, frequently was taking narcotics proceeds and other proceeds of crime. But there has been a lot of pressure on the department to curtail some of that.

Trump: So what do you do? So in other words, they have a huge stash of drugs. So in the old days, you take it. Now we're criticized if we take it. So who gets it? What happens to it? Tell them to keep it?

Boente: Well, we have what is called equitable sharing, where we usually share it with the local police departments for whatever portion that they worked on the case. And it was a very successful program, very popular with the law enforcement community.

Trump: And now what happens?

Boente: Well, now we've just been given—there's been a lot of pressure not to forfeit, in some cases.

Trump: Who would want that pressure, other than, like, bad people, right? But who would want that pressure? You would think they'd want this stuff taken away.

Aubrey: You have to be careful how you speak, I guess. But a lot of pressure is coming out of—was coming out of Congress. I don't know that that will continue now or not.

Trump: I think less so. I think Congress is going to get beat up really badly by the voters because they've let this happen. And I think badly. I think you'll be back in shape. So, asset forfeiture, we're going to go back on, OK?

Aubrey: Thank you, sir.

Trump: I mean, how simple can anything be? You all agree with that, I assume, right?

Unnamed Participant: Absolutely, yeah.

Trump: Do you even understand the other side of it?

Participant: No.

Trump: It's like some things—

Participant: No sense.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...ks-president-trump-roundtable-county-sheriffs

Unreal. Trump doesn't know anything about it and should we be surprised that a room full of prosecutors and Sheriffs don't explain the "other side's" concerns?

Not to mention when this came up by Texas Sheriff Harold Eavenson (who is set to become president of the National Sheriff's Association this summer), Trump said "Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career."
https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/829007910277636097?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

[itsbob]

2 days ago, Trump met with a bunch of Sheriff's across the country. Jefferson County, Kentucky, Sheriff John Aubrey brought up forfeiture and complained that "people want to say we're taking money and without due process."

Here's the transcript on how it went down after that.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...ks-president-trump-roundtable-county-sheriffs

Unreal. Trump doesn't know anything about it and should we be surprised that a room full of prosecutors and Sheriffs don't explain the "other side's" concerns?

Not to mention when this came up by Texas Sheriff Harold Eavenson (who is set to become president of the National Sheriff's Association this summer), Trump said "Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career."
https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/829007910277636097?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Sounds to me like a man (Trump) doesn't understand and is asking questions like an intelligent person would when they don't quite understand.

Why don't you also include the transcript when they compare Trump's meetings with Obama's meetings? hmmmmm?

 

[glhs837]

Yep, bad news that he's not getting both sides and seeing why unfettered civil forfeiture is a bad thing. when presented as "Well, we only take bad peoples money, so it's good", instead of, as his AG said, that it's maybe 95%, with 5% being innocent peoples stuff being taken, it's easy to see why he's think that. Sounds like Mr. Aubrey should have prebriefed President Trump a bit better instead of trying to no step on toes as the same time trying to qualify what's being said real time.

 

[glhs837]

Sounds to me like a man (Trump) doesn't understand and is asking questions like an intelligent person would when they don't quite understand.

Why don't you also include the transcript when they compare Trump's meetings with Obama'said meetings? hmmmmm?

the issue isn't that he's asking question, or even the questions he's asking, it's the fact that the people he's asking have an agenda and there appears to be nobody present to give the other side of the issue. And that it looks like nobody has told him there might even be another side. It's presented as "Evil Politicians attempt to destroy viable program that only ever hurts evil drug dealers". And he sounds like he's signing on to support the program without getting any alternative view.

 

[GeorgiaCorgi]

Seriously. You can't fault the man for coming to the conclusion he did with the information presented. They literally told him that the other side was making up stories to make them look bad, that asset forfeiture has an impact on crime, and that the AG and law enforcement liked the existing asset forfeiture arrangement.

They just threw a tarp over the elephant in the room, that asset forfeiture is so often used when no crime is alleged to have been committed. No arrest, no admission of guilt or trial or otherwise.

If they would limit the use to only when convicted of a crime (obviously a related one), it would make perfect sense.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Sounds to me like a man (Trump) doesn't understand and is asking questions like an intelligent person would when they don't quite understand.

Why don't you also include the transcript when they compare Trump's meetings with Obama'said meetings? hmmmmm?

the issue isn't that he's asking question, or even the questions he's asking, it's the fact that the people he's asking have an agenda and there appears to be nobody present to give the other side of the issue. And that it looks like nobody has told him there might even be another side. It's presented as "Evil Politicians attempt to destroy viable program that only ever hurts evil drug dealers". And he sounds like he's signing on to support the program without getting any alternative view.

Exactly.

I don't want a president making decisions based on the biased input from one side of an issue. I didn't like it when Obama did it, and I don't like it now.

 

[vraiblonde]

Here's the transcript on how it went down after that.

What am I looking at? You appear to be alarmed, so apparently you saw something in that transcript that made you need a puppy and a coloring book. What was it?

What made you think that Trump doesn't know what asset forfeiture is? Because he asked questions to get clarification? Are you serious??

As far as the Kopack tweet, when Trump said he was going to "drain the swamp" what did you think that meant? Did you think it meant politicians would still be able to run amok without regard to their district or constituents?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Seriously. You can't fault the man for coming to the conclusion he did with the information presented. They literally told him that the other side was making up stories to make them look bad, that asset forfeiture has an impact on crime, and that the AG and law enforcement liked the existing asset forfeiture arrangement.

They just threw a tarp over the elephant in the room, that asset forfeiture is so often used when no crime is alleged to have been committed. No arrest, no admission of guilt or trial or otherwise.

If they would limit the use to only when convicted of a crime (obviously a related one), it would make perfect sense.

No, but I will fault him for jumping on that train without even thinking the "other side" may have viable opinions on the subject. Then to talk about ruining a senator's job who tried to strengthen asset forfeiture laws while only hearing that one side is troublesome to me.

 

[vraiblonde]

Why are you guys presuming that this exchange was the only information Trump has ever received in his life about asset forfeiture and has no earthly idea that it can be abused? Because if you didn't see it, it didn't happen?

When actual action is taken (or proposed), THEN we can get in an uproar. Until then, random meetings and transcripts aren't going to give you the whole story.

 

[vraiblonde]

No, but I will fault him for jumping on that train

What "train" do you think he's jumped on, and what makes you think that? Did he propose legislation? Make an executive order?

 

[vraiblonde]

Then to talk about ruining a senator's job who tried to strengthen asset forfeiture laws while only hearing that one side is troublesome to me.

Do you know what exactly that Senator said and what exactly he was proposing? What if he wanted confiscated drugs to be given back to the dealer? Would Trump's comment still be "troublesome" to you?

Chris, you're a smart person and it aggravates me when you let your ideology get in the way and start being a presumptive sheeple. Now, if you have more information please do post it. Based on the transcript and that tweet, I think you're overreacting.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

What "train" do you think he's jumped on, and what makes you think that? Did he propose legislation? Make an executive order?

I thought it was pretty clear that he'd be willing to do something to put asset forfeiture "back in business". In reality, it never went out of business and was lead to that conclusion by a room full of people that profit from those forfeitures.

He was clearly willing to simply jump when they claimed something that wasn't true without even looking at the "other side".

Trump: ...So, asset forfeiture, we're going to go back on, okay?

THE PRESIDENT: So do we need any legislation or any executive orders for that, would you say, Dana -- to put that back in business?

MR. BOENTE: I don’t think we need any executive orders. We just need kind of some encouragement to move in that direction.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Good. You're in charge. (Laughter.) I love that answer, because it's better than signing executive orders and then these people take it and they make it look so terrible -- "oh, it's so terrible." I love it. You're encouraged.

PARTICIPANT: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Good. Asset forfeiture. You're encouraged. Okay. Yes, sir.

 

[Midnightrider]

Do you know what exactly that Senator said and what exactly he was proposing? What if he wanted confiscated drugs to be given back to the dealer? Would Trump's comment still be "troublesome" to you?

Chris, you're a smart person and it aggravates me when you let your ideology get in the way and start being a presumptive sheeple. Now, if you have more information please do post it. Based on the transcript and that tweet, I think you're overreacting.

aren't you the cutest.... defending something you don't even understand yourself and making wild assumptions while doing it. To hell with understanding the issues, Trump must be defended at all costs!!!!!

 

[kwillia]

Why are you guys presuming that this exchange was the only information Trump has ever received in his life about asset forfeiture and has no earthly idea that it can be abused? Because if you didn't see it, it didn't happen?

When actual action is taken (or proposed), THEN we can get in an uproar. Until then, random meetings and transcripts aren't going to give you the whole story.

That's my take too... I didn't read it thinking he then declared 'SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE' but rather "Criminals funding our police force by forfeiting the inll-gotten gains... sounds like a good idea to me. We need to look at this hard to find out why we stopped." In no way did I get ANY feeling that he thought it was okay to take stuff from innocent people.

My take away... the subject is being revisited. I'm good with that because even though the past almost-decade has been spent wanting to downplay the criminality of those dealing/profiting from drugs and associated illegal profitable businesses it is all still very much illegal and those caught and convicted should lose everything.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Do you know what exactly that Senator said and what exactly he was proposing? What if he wanted confiscated drugs to be given back to the dealer? Would Trump's comment still be "troublesome" to you?

Chris, you're a smart person and it aggravates me when you let your ideology get in the way and start being a presumptive sheeple. Now, if you have more information please do post it. Based on the transcript and that tweet, I think you're overreacting.

No one knows who the Senator is because the Sheriff who mentioned it didn't reveal their name though one likely candidate is libertarian-leaning Republican Senator Konni Burton who is championing a bill (SB 380) that would repeal civil asset forfeiture.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/SB00380I.htm

"Right now, law enforcement can seize property under civil law, and it denies people their basic rights," said Burton, who sits on the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. "There's a basic problem with this process that I want to correct."...

Now it's uniting politicians who might not otherwise be willing to break bread, according to Matt Simpson, senior policy strategist for ACLU Texas.

"It's an issue that crosses party lines; it's not Democrat versus Republican or liberal versus conservative," he told the Observer, adding that he hasn't "seen a bill we wouldn't support in relation to civil asset forfeiture reform, especially some of the stronger ones."

https://www.texasobserver.org/civil-asset-forfeiture-reform-texas-lege/

Is it totally out of the realm of possibility that I knew this before coming up with my opinion of Trump's comments?

 

[kwillia]

Is this the reform you are talking about? Because I don't know why anyone would have a problem with this... I was reading the opposition in this thread to want it stopped completely and I think that's ridiculous.

http://nmpoliticalreport.com/2752/bipartisan-asset-forfeiture-bill-awaits-signature/

“The important thing, is [the bill] is going to end this unfair practice,” Simonson said.

According to Simonson, the bill does not stop police from confiscating money or property suspected of being used in illegal activities. If the bill is passed into law police would be required to issue a receipt of what was seized, something Simonson said would add more accountability.

 

[vraiblonde]

That's my take too... I didn't read it thinking he then declared 'SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE' but rather "Criminals funding our police force by forfeiting the inll-gotten gains... sounds like a good idea to me. We need to look at this hard to find out why we stopped." In no way did I get ANY feeling that he thought it was okay to take stuff from innocent people.

My take away... the subject is being revisited. I'm good with that because even though the past almost-decade has been spent wanting to downplay the criminality of those dealing/profiting from drugs and associated illegal profitable businesses it is all still very much illegal and those caught and convicted should lose everything.

Okay, good, then I'm not crazy because at least one other person had the same impression as I, and since Kwilly isn't crazy, that means I'm not either. :whew:

 

[vraiblonde]

Is it totally out of the realm of possibility that I knew this before coming up with my opinion of Trump's comments?

If you are against asset forfeiture completely and totally, under any circumstances, then we disagree and there's no point in arguing about it.

 

[PsyOps]

Exactly.

I don't want a president making decisions based on the biased input from one side of an issue. I didn't like it when Obama did it, and I don't like it now.

Well, that's too bad. That's how politics works. Why in the world would Trump entertain that which he knows he will disagree with? Obama's refusal to reach across the aisle has gotten in this place we are today. In my estimation, we do ourselves no good to have a president entertaining the same crap that got us here to begin with.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

If you are against asset forfeiture completely and totally, under any circumstances, then we disagree and there's no point in arguing about it.

I'm not against it completely.

I'm against seizing anything and everything to pad budgets. Which is why it was probably a bad idea to come up with the conclusion that asset forfeiture is great, or a good tool in fighting the "bad guys" from a room full of people who profit directly from it.

Apparently I'm alone in this opinion.

Well, that's too bad. That's how politics works. Why in the world would Trump entertain that which he knows he will disagree with? Obama's refusal to reach across the aisle has gotten in this place we are today. In my estimation, we do ourselves no good to have a president entertaining the same crap that got us here to begin with.

It's not how it has to work though.

How does he know he'll disagree with it? Because the Sheriff's he met claimed the other side was wrong?

We really do ourselves no good to have a President who simply isn't willing to even entertain the thoughts and opinions from a large segment of the population. All that does is continue a political divide in this country where during 4 or 8 years, one thing is okay, then not okay 4 or 8 years after.