Text of a Letter from the President to the Congress of the United States -

[RoosGirl]

Does anybody remember we had an original topic?

Mrs. Liberty came across the EO in question today, and she asked me to post it up.  Here it is, the actual EO under discussion, with a brief summary from Politico:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,296232.msg1551794.html#msg1551794

She can read "Legalese" after working in the courts for many years, so the one I posted made sense to her.  She says this EO could very well have serious ramifications for a lot of politicians.

@DCPatriot

Such as?

[DCPatriot]

Does anybody remember we had an original topic?

Mrs. Liberty came across the EO in question today, and she asked me to post it up.  Here it is, the actual EO under discussion, with a brief summary from Politico:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,296232.msg1551794.html#msg1551794

She can read "Legalese" after working in the courts for many years, so the one I posted made sense to her.  She says this EO could very well have serious ramifications for a lot of politicians.

@DCPatriot

Thanks, @Cyber Liberty   I tried a couple of times to get this thread back to the OT.

On the surface, it seems that it's the Clintons and President Obama himself that should be worrying about their assets....er, ill-gotten gains.

When it referred to "Human Rights Abuses", I immediately thought of the trafficking of young girls for sex.

What was the nickname of Epstein's private jet?  Lolita Express??

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html

[Cyber Liberty]

Such as?

Asset seizure is the main one.  From people who have helped the Human Right's abusers.  This could wreak havoc on somebody who's  received a crapton of money from foreign sources.

[Cyber Liberty]

Thanks, @Cyber Liberty   I tried a couple of times to get this thread back to the OT.

On the surface, it seems that it's the Clintons and President Obama himself that should be worrying about their assets....er, ill-gotten gains.

When it referred to "Human Rights Abuses", I immediately thought of the trafficking of young girls for sex.

What was the nickname of Epstein's private jet?  Lolita Express??

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html

This EO seems to be laying the groundwork for just that.  I think this is in for a rough ride in the courts because it's written so he can go after US Citizens' assets.

[libertybele]

     NO wonder @Emjay says I suffer from extreme Butt~Hurt

Now that's funny right there I don't care who you are. That there is funny!      

[libertybele]

This EO seems to be laying the groundwork for just that.  I think this is in for a rough ride in the courts because it's written so he can go after US Citizens' assets.

Agreed.  IMHO this is a dangerous e.o. and overreach of power.

[RoosGirl]

This EO seems to be laying the groundwork for just that.  I think this is in for a rough ride in the courts because it's written so he can go after US Citizens' assets.

If the courts allow seizure for drug charges, why not this?

[DCPatriot]

This EO seems to be laying the groundwork for just that.  I think this is in for a rough ride in the courts because it's written so he can go after US Citizens' assets.

IMO, that works splendidly.

It gives President Trump a huge campaign issue going into the Mid-Terms...but more so, the 2020 election...relating to the makeup of the SCOTUS, etc..

Nothing would make me happier than to see the Obamas and the Clintons wiped out financially.

[libertybele]

IMO, that works splendidly.

It gives President Trump a huge campaign issue going into the Mid-Terms...but more so, the 2020 election...relating to the makeup of the SCOTUS, etc..

Nothing would make me happier than to see the Obamas and the Clintons wiped out financially.

??? What makes you think this is about them? I doubt it.  This is geared towards the average Joe and a very dangerous e.o.  Asset seizure - property seizure -- land seizure - bank seizure?  Nope.  This isn't good at all.

[DCPatriot]

??? What makes you think this is about them? I doubt it.  This is geared towards the average Joe and a very dangerous e.o.  Asset seizure - property seizure -- land seizure - bank seizure?  Nope.  This isn't good at all.

They're nothing but bottom feeders caught up in the net.

FOCUS.......   He's going after The Clinton Foundation.   He's going after Obama and Jarrett.   

[Emjay]

You would be a cheap off the rack boot guy.

 You're like school at 3AM......no class.

That's just tacky.  Not many people wear custom made boots.  Apparently, you do.

You used to be funny but you've beaten that act into the ground.

[DCPatriot]

That's just tacky.  Not many people wear custom made boots.  Apparently, you do.

You used to be funny but you've beaten that act into the ground.

Yes....he's beyond the "use by" date.

BTW... those Frye's are snakeskin, and I've had them since 1974.    ^-^   

[libertybele]

They're nothing but bottom feeders caught up in the net.

FOCUS.......   He's going after The Clinton Foundation.   He's going after Obama and Jarrett.

Sure you could be right and I'd love to see it, but says who?  As long as Rosenstein is deputy AG -- NOT going to happen!  They are still too insulated.

[Cyber Liberty]

Agreed.  IMHO this is a dangerous e.o. and overreach of power.

If the courts allow seizure for drug charges, why not this?

Two great points that taste great together. 

I think the Asset Forfeiture laws that Sessions loves so much are one of the biggest threats to liberty we have.  This EO is likely to use the same mechanism as the laws to go after the drug money.  If I'm not happy with what we're already doing, I'm not likely to be happy with this extended reach.  That said, if the law is the least bit consistent, we'll end up with both.

[DCPatriot]

Sure you could be right and I'd love to see it, but says who?  As long as Rosenstein is deputy AG -- NOT going to happen!  They are still too insulated.

WTH does Rosenstein have to say about it?

Jeff Sessions didn't recuse himself from Uranium One.....only supposed Russian collusion with the Trump Campaign in the 2016 election.

[libertybele]

This EO seems to be laying the groundwork for just that.  I think this is in for a rough ride in the courts because it's written so he can go after US Citizens' assets.

Not only that, but it violates our IV amendment rights:


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[libertybele]

WTH does Rosenstein have to say about it?

Jeff Sessions didn't recuse himself from Uranium One.....only supposed Russian collusion with the Trump Campaign in the 2016 election.

Rosenstein was involved in Uranium One.  He is knee deep in the corruption of the Clintons and Bammy.  Trump appointed him.  IMHO Trump isn't going after them ... he's going after the average person.

[Cyber Liberty]

WTH does Rosenstein have to say about it?

Jeff Sessions didn't recuse himself from Uranium One.....only supposed Russian collusion with the Trump Campaign in the 2016 election.

If I understand the EO at all, if there's a financial connection with any name listed in the Annex section, that task can be fobbed off on a mid-level functionary.  Who cares what Rosenswine or Sessions do?

[libertybele]

If the courts allow seizure for drug charges, why not this?

This allows them to come knockin' on your door for just about anything for just about any reason. This could also allow them to seize land -- the heck with eminent domain, they' won't even have to pay you for your property, they can just seize it.  Again, this is blatant overreach and a dangerous e.o.  I hope it gets tied up in court and goes all the way to the Supremes.

[DCPatriot]

Rosenstein was involved in Uranium One.  He is knee deep in the corruption of the Clintons and Bammy. Trump appointed him.  IMHO Trump isn't going after them ... he's going after the average person.

Well, haven't we all been wishing for a way to get Rosenstein 'GONE?

IMO, the threat of being wiped out financially for merely doing the Clintons or Obama's bidding would have the same effect as being waterboarded.

Dominoes should start to wobble soon.  They'll run to start talking.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not only that, but it violates our IV amendment rights:


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Asset Forfeiture already tramples that Amendment, and it's been tested in court.  I maintain there's a good probability a court somewhere will slap an injunction on this, and it will be a breathtaking act of hypocrisy to have suddenly discovered the 4th Amendment.  I say "probably" because the courts have made all sorts of novel interpretations this past year, just to strike down Trump EOs.

[DCPatriot]

Asset Forfeiture already tramples that Amendment, and it's been tested in court.  I maintain there's a good probability a court somewhere will slap an injunction on this, and it will be a breathtaking act of hypocrisy to have suddenly discovered the 4th Amendment.  I say "probably" because the courts have made all sorts of novel interpretations this past year, just to strike down Trump EOs.

Like I said.....

"My fellow Americans.   If you want a nation of laws - not of men, where nobody is indeed above the law, then we must make it our DUTY to get off the couch and vote this corruption out.

Without unbiased judges, they will continue to skirt the laws and thumb their noses at all of us.

It's why Chucky Schumer has obstructed the confirmation of many of our nominated judges."


...a campaign issue on a silver platter, IMO.   Hillary's approval rating is what?  33%?? 

[RoosGirl]

Asset Forfeiture already tramples that Amendment, and it's been tested in court.  I maintain there's a good probability a court somewhere will slap an injunction on this, and it will be a breathtaking act of hypocrisy to have suddenly discovered the 4th Amendment.  I say "probably" because the courts have made all sorts of novel interpretations this past year, just to strike down Trump EOs.

Yeah, if this were an Obama EO everyone here would be screaming about it.

[DCPatriot]

[libertybele]

Well, haven't we all been wishing for a way to get Rosenstein 'GONE?

IMO, the threat of being wiped out financially for merely doing the Clintons or Obama's bidding would have the same effect as being waterboarded.

Dominoes should start to wobble soon.  They'll run to start talking.

Come on D.C., do you really think he's going to issue an e.o. to specifically target the Clinton's and Bammy?? IMHO, he's not going to touch them.  No, this e.o. is directed towards us.  It is a direct violation of our 4th amendment rights and in essence can also trample on our 2nd amendment rights because if I'm understanding this e.o. correctly, it gives the gov't the right to seize/confiscate our weapons.  What about those who have purchased gold?  Silver?  Land?  The list is endless.  Blatant overreach my friend!