Trump Does Not Know What Civil Forfeiture Is, but He Likes It

[EasyAce]

The president agrees there should be no restraint on a form of legalized theft he clearly does not understand.
By Jacob Sullum
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/09/trump-does-not-know-what-civil-forfeitur/print

In a meeting with county sheriffs from around the country on Tuesday, President Trump jokingly (we hope!) threatened
to "destroy [the] career" of a Texas legislator who proposed requiring the government to obtain a conviction before taking property
allegedly tied to crime. As Nick Gillespie noted, Trump's knee-jerk support for civil asset forfeiture is troubling, especially in light
of a growing bipartisan consensus that the practice should be reformed or abolished because it hurts innocent property owners and
warps law enforcement priorities. Worse, the White House transcript of the president's remarks about forfeiture shows he literally
does not know what he is talking about, which suggests this "law and order" president is happy to go along with whatever cops
want, even if he has no idea what it is.

Jefferson County, Kentucky, Sheriff John Aubrey broaches the subject of forfeiture, complaining that "people want to say we're
taking money and without due process." According to Aubrey, "That's not true. We take money from dope dealers." Such assurances
should be viewed with great skepticism, since civil forfeiture lets cops fund their own budgets by confiscating property they claim
is connected to criminal activity. The government need not charge the owner, let alone convict him, and may not have to offer any
evidence at all, since challenging forfeitures is often prohibitively expensive. It's clear from Trump's response to Aubrey's complaint
that he does not know any of this (italics added):

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.

Even though Aubrey talks about "tak[ing] money from dope dealers" and Boente refers to "narcotics proceeds and other proceeds
of crime," Trump initially seems to think asset forfeiture is what happens when police seize "a huge stash of drugs." He is puzzled
that anyone would say the cops should return a pile of cocaine or heroin to a drug dealer, because "you would think they'd want
this stuff taken away."

Eventually Trump seems to get that it's money (or other assets) the cops are taking, but he still assumes it's money lying next to
a huge stash of drugs—as opposed to, say, the savings of a hapless college student, the winnings of innocent poker players, or
the bank account of a convenience store owner whose deposits the IRS deemed suspiciously small. Trump is baffled as to why
anyone would want to stop the cops from taking drug dealers' profits.

Aubrey and Boente, who obviously know better, are not about to enlighten Trump, since they both have a financial interest in
promoting forfeiture, which helps fund their budgets. Aubrey leaves the impression that it's only bad guys who lose their property,
saying anyone who claims otherwise is just "mak[ing] up stories." Boente leaves the reasons for the "pressure" and "criticism"
utterly mysterious. And when Trump asks a roomful of cops and prosecutors if they "even understand the other side of it," it is
hardly surprising that no one pipes up to explain the critics' arguments. By the time Rockwall County, Texas, Sheriff Harold Eavenson
mentions a state senator "who was talking about introducing legislation to require conviction before we can receive their forfeiture,"
Trump is automatically outraged: "Can you believe that?" It's the greedy leading the blind.

Jeff Sessions, who yesterday was confirmed as Trump's attorney general, is not likely to fill the gaps in the president's understanding
of forfeiture. Sessions, a former U.S. attorney, is an old-fashioned drug warrior and forfeiture fan who sees no reason to restrain
the practice. At a 2015 hearing on forfeiture reform, Sessions claimed, without citing any evidence, that "95 percent" of people who
lose money to forfeiture have "done nothing in their lives but sell dope." He said "it's unthinkable that we would make it harder for
the government to take money from a drug dealer." When Trump suggests that only "bad people" see anything wrong with civil forfeiture,
Sessions will heartily agree.

[Cripplecreek]

But we loves him we do.

[TomSea]

Trump's not a lawyer, Walker's not a lawyer,  Reagan wasn't a lawyer.

Our lawyer presidents haven't done that great of a job for the most part.

So, the writer wants to skewer Trump on a point of law.

[EasyAce]

Trump's not a lawyer, Walker's not a lawyer,  Reagan wasn't a lawyer.

Our lawyer presidents haven't done that great of a job for the most part.

So, the writer wants to skewer Trump on a point of law.

No, Ronald Reagan wasn't a lawyer.

But he did know the Constitution.

Dwight Eisenhower wasn't a lawyer. But he knew the Constitution, too.

George Washington (surveyor/farmer/soldier), William Henry Harrison (soldier), Zachary Taylor (soldier), Andrew Johnson
(soldier, tailor), Ulysses S. Grant (soldier), James Garfield (minister and teacher), Warren Harding (journalist and editor),
Herbert Hoover (engineer/investor), Harry Truman (farmer/haberdasher), John F. Kennedy (writer), Lyndon Johnson (teacher),
Jimmy Carter (sailor, farmer), and both George Bushes (both pilots, both businessmen, one a baseball owner), weren't lawyers,
either. But they knew the Constitution, too, never mind how frequently some of them ignored or traduced it.

And when any of them did show ignorance of or traduce the Constitution, they were (and are, in enough of the histories)
judged accordingly. We would not consider them immune to such judgment, when it came to those acts or signings that
went against the Constitution, nor should we consider any man or woman holding the office of the presidency (or at any
level of government) now or in the future immune to it.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that taking property before or without convicting someone of an actual crime,
or failing to return that property promptly and pronto when someone is found not guilty of an actual crime, is a despicable
violation of the Fifth Amendment. I'm not a lawyer* but I know it's a Fifth Amendment violation. Assuming you're not a
lawyer, I assume you know it's a Fifth Amendment violation. Come to think of it, you don't have to be a lawyer to comprehend
and conjugate the Constitution itself. (When His Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada was foolish
enough to suggest that only lawyers "could" understand the Constitution, there were even those among his political allies
who had to bite their inner cheeks to keep from laughing their fool heads off.)

Donaldus Minimus took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The oath did not and does not immunise him from its proper
conjugation simply because he isn't a lawyer. And if he supports a law that does indeed do violence to the Constitution, he should
be held to account and criticised for it. The bleatings of Himself and his minions in the White House notwithstanding, even the
president of the United States is not and ought not to be immune to such criticism, no matter his or her prior profession.
And, assuredly, no, the fact that past presidents who weren't lawyers (or who were, for that matter) have ignored or
traduced the Constitution does not give Donaldus Minimus or his eventual successors a license to do likewise.

(* Fair disclosure: I'm not a lawyer but I did take a course in constitutional law as part of my political science minor in
college.)

[endicom]

Sheriffs enforce laws of their states or municipalities and those laws vary.

[EasyAce]

Sheriffs enforce laws of their states or municipalities and those laws vary.

They (and other LEOs) have also been known, in perhaps too many case, to abuse the laws. There are also
those sheriffs (and other LEOs) who have been known to complain about and criticise a fair number of the
laws they are compelled to enforce.

[Wingnut]

Eminent domain. Civil forfeiture.

In trumps World they are equal.