The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: EasyAce on February 07, 2017, 07:29:42 pm
-
Konni Burton is leading a coalition to reform civil-asset forfeiture abuses. So naturally the president is against her.
By Nick Gillespie
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/07/meet-the-libertarian-leaning-gop-state-s/print
Donald Trump campaigned as "the law and order" candidate, so it's not surprising that he is likely to govern as one, too.
Still, when it comes to the issue of civil-asset forfeiture laws, even the dirtiest of Dirty Harry wannabes will grant there's something really creepy
about the cops and the courts having the ability to take your stuff without even charging you with anything, much less convicting you of anything.
But here's an exchange via the Twitter feed of CNBC's Steve Kopack that should send chills down the spine—and bile up the windpipe—of every
American who gives a damn about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and whether or not Lady Gaga included "under God" during her satanic
Super Bowl incantations (she did).
Sheriff tells Trump that state senator is doing something he doesn't like
Trump: "Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career." pic.twitter.com/75y3t9zc54 (https://t.co/75y3t9zc54)
— Steve Kopack (@SteveKopack) February 7, 2017 (https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/829007910277636097)
Civil-asset forfeiture, which often doesn't require any sort of criminal charge, is big bucks. As Scott Shackford has noted, in 2014, the FBI alone
snatched up $5 billion in seized assets. It's common for local police departments to grab whatever they can from whomever they can (often, the
relatives or friends of people assumed to be drug dealers and the like). C.J. Ciaramella took a long, disturbing look at the way the state of
Mississippi gilds its budget with seized assets (http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/05/inside-mississippis-asset-forfeiture-ext).
Again, we're not talking about drug lords who are charged, have their assets frozen, are found guilty, and then have their assets sold at auction
to pay reparations, or anything like that. The way a ton of asset forfeiture works is that the cops, or a prosecutor, or somebody else takes your
stuff, claiming that it's connected to some sort of illegal activity. You may or may not be involved in anything illegal, but it's on you to get your
stuff back. The likely next attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions, is a big fan of asset forfeiture (http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/11/jeff-sessions-hearings-day-two), so it's likely to be an issue, even in states that
are trying to rein it in. And it should be reined in, like a crazy horse: It's not about law and order, it's about unaccountable power.
The Texas state senator referred to in the video above appears to be Konni Burton of Colleyville. Get this, too: She's a libertarian-leaning
Republican and here's how she explained the situation to the Texas Observer:
"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."
Local police departments and other law enforcement agencies in Texas get about $42 million a year from seized assets, creating a moral
hazard that even Donald Trump would recognize. And as far as ruining Burton's career—or that of anyone else involved in the effort—the
president might want to consider that regular Americans understand that there's been a massive decrease in violent and property crime
over the past couple of decades. These days, people are often worried about how bullying authorities are likely to act, creating a bipartisan
push for all sorts of criminal-justice reform.
-
Konni is awesome. She is called Libertarian leaning, but she is very much also a classical Republican. She has vocally stood up for individual rights and against unconstitutional action done in the name of safety, like Civil Asset Forfeiture. Governor Abbot is a great guy, but she isn't blindly following him either. She is going through his budget with a hammer pointing out the waste and problems with it. She is not making any friends but in a good way.
-
Konni is awesome. She is called Libertarian leaning, but she is very much also a classical Republican. She has vocally stood up for individual rights and against unconstitutional action done in the name of safety, like Civil Asset Forfeiture. Governor Abbot is a great guy, but she isn't blindly following him either. She is going through his budget with a hammer pointing out the waste and problems with it. She is not making any friends but in a good way.
She seems, clearly, far better material for attorney general than Jeff (I Love Asset Forfeiture) Sessions does.
-
Sigh...
Another Trump fail.
:facepalm:
Trump and his clown posse don't have the popularity to destroy anyone' career.
-
Sigh...
Another Trump fail.
:facepalm:
Trump and his clown posse don't have the popularity to destroy anyone' career.
This is one fight he probably shouldn't get into. Konnie is popular with the people (her personal FB page is blowing up today about this story). Sheriff Harold Eavenson, notsomuch. He is a speed trap cop who has been fairly controversial in using forfeiture liberally.
-
More Trump stupidity. It seems like for every one good thing he does, he does two (or more) stupid things that cancel the net effect out.
-
Sigh...
Another Trump fail.
:facepalm:
Trump and his clown posse don't have the popularity to destroy anyone' career.
You would think not, but he does have access to certain providers of financial support that could be channeled
to an opposition candidate---even one who'd challenge her in a primary if she runs for re-election---at a volume
enough to make it at least a pain in the arse for her to fight off such challenges. Or, if she survives a primary and
the general election race is close, he could refuse to support her, knowing a fair volume of the party apparatus
would follow his lead, and make it an even more difficult haul for her.
He wouldn't exactly be the first president to do such things when it comes to a) perceived political adversaries,
even in his own party; or, b) members of his own party whom he deems insufficient in supporting him. Or, more
coarsely, even a member of his own party whom he thinks doesn't need his help to survive, even if he might
be thinking secretly that such a member is simply not important enough for his support.
To name one such example, hark back to Gordon Allott, a Colorado Republican, in 1972. An incumbent U.S. Senator,
Allott was in a very tight race and his people asked the White House to consider a late-campaign visit by President
Nixon to Colorado.
At the time of the request Allott was slightly below 50 percent in the polls with a large enough pile of undecided
voters in hand. According to an Allott staffer, the White House "assured us" there was secret information that
Allott might win the race by fifteen percentage points, and, anyway, "snow on the ground might hold down the
size of a crowd for a presidential visit, and that might hurt his [the president's] image."
I'll let that staffer take it from here:
But the plain truth is this:
For twenty years Allott had been a supporter of Nixon. For four years he had been an especially loyal supporter
of even President Nixon's dumbest causes---the SST, Judge Carswell. But when it came time for Nixon to do
Allott a favour, all Allott got was an evasive, dishonest, and in the end contemptuous refusal.
The day before the election, Nixon flew across country to vote in California. He made several stops, but none
in Colorado.
In the days after the election the White House, flushed with victory, made clear its lack of sympathy for Allott.
According to the hard-boiled Darwinism in vogue at the White House in November and December 1972, those
politicians who need the help of friends in order to survive deserve neither friends nor survival.
A year ago the reigning philosophy was survival of the fittest, and Mr. Nixon and his agents were feeling
remarkably fit. Today Mr. Nixon has all the friends he has earned and deserves.
Now Mr. Nixon may not survive. He certainly won't be saved by Allott's vote in the Senate. But Allott has more
important things to worry about, like what the trout are hitting up at Electra Lake, north of Durango.
---George F. Will, in "Gordon Allott: Not a Malleable Man," 8 November 1973; republished in The
Pursuit of Happiness and Other Sobering Thoughts. (Will was a staffer for Allott from 1970-73,
after which he became Washington editor of National Review for a spell.)
-
You would think not, but he does have access to certain providers of financial support that could be channeled
to an opposition candidate---even one who'd challenge her in a primary if she runs for re-election---at a volume
enough to make it at least a pain in the arse for her to fight off such challenges. Or, if she survives a primary and
the general election race is close, he could refuse to support her, knowing a fair volume of the party apparatus
would follow his lead, and make it an even more difficult haul for her.
Just to be clear: Konni Burton is a State Senator, and the President of the United States is offering to to destroy her career.
How comforting.
-
More Trump stupidity. It seems like for every one good thing he does, he does two (or more) stupid things that cancel the net effect out.
Seems to me that I just saw one of the Trump fans quoting Reagan's 11th commandment on another thread.
-
Seems to me that I just saw one of the Trump fans quoting Reagan's 11th commandment on another thread.
Yeah -- but it only works in one direction for them.
What I really can't fathom, is why Trump would even involve himself in this way. It no longer surprises me, of course; but apparently there is no insult or threat so petty that Trump can forebear issuing it.
-
Seems to me that I just saw one of the Trump fans quoting Reagan's 11th commandment on another thread.
One of the most misunderstood 'commandments'. I need to find the source again, but he discussed it in an interview. It was never meant to be for an average citizen to not criticize someone in the party, nor even not to criticize an office holder. It was a personal rule how he ran his campaign against Ford to not get back into the Rockefeller/Goldwater sniping. At that, it wasn't even his rule, it was attributed to party chairman Gaylord Parkinson at the time.
Trying to use it to silence a citizen from criticizing a candidate or office holder is the opposite of its intention and would have Reagan rolling over in his grave.
-
Just to be clear: Konni Burton is a State Senator, and the President of the United States is offering to to destroy her career.
How comforting.
Well, of course. And it is assuredly not to my comfort that a sitting president would contemplate trying to
ruin the career of any lawmaker, U.S. or state, for any reason, never mind that he perceives her
to be, ahem, "one of them." (Now, I wonder . . . how would Donaldus Minimus have liked it if, during
one or another litigation thrown his way, his appropriate assets had been seized before any sort of
judgment had been rendered?) I sought only to point out the kind of resources a president has to wreak such
havoc upon a lawmaker he deems of insufficient "loyalty," never mind that the example I cited directly could
actually have been proven as loyal enough to the president who undermined by not-so-benign neglect his
close re-election campaign.
State lawmakers often find themselves receiving even a single tip of the beak from sitting presidents of
their own parties, too. And an expression otherwise can be just as damaging to their hopes.
-
One of the most misunderstood 'commandments'. I need to find the source again, but he discussed it in an interview. It was never meant to be for an average citizen to not criticize someone in the party, nor even not to criticize an office holder. It was a personal rule how he ran his campaign against Ford to not get back into the Rockefeller/Goldwater sniping. At that, it wasn't even his rule, it was attributed to party chairman Gaylord Parkinson at the time.
Trying to use it to silence a citizen from criticizing a candidate or office holder is the opposite of its intention and would have Reagan rolling over in his grave.
Reagan never intended for it to be a statement of blind partisan faith. With him is was more of a standard of being a decent man and avoiding the gutter in politics. (Not accusing another candidate's father of killing a former president would be a good example what Reagan would avoid doing)
-
Well, of course. And it is assuredly not to my comfort that a sitting president would contemplate trying to
ruin the career of any lawmaker, U.S. or state, for any reason, never mind that he perceives her
to be, ahem, "one of them." (Now, I wonder . . . how would Donaldus Minimus have liked it if, during
one or another litigation thrown his way, his appropriate assets had been seized before any sort of
judgment had been rendered?) I sought only to point out the kind of resources a president has to wreak such
havoc upon a lawmaker he deems of insufficient "loyalty," never mind that the example I cited directly could
actually have been proven as loyal enough to the president who undermined by not-so-benign neglect his
close re-election campaign.
State lawmakers often find themselves receiving even a single tip of the beak from sitting presidents of
their own parties, too. And an expression otherwise can be just as damaging to their hopes.
I wasn't disagreeing with you -- quite the opposite. You're quite correct.
I was really just highlighting the sheer pettiness of Trump's threat. It's remarkable, in a train-wreck-watching sort of way.... and there are some for whom it doesn't appear to matter.
-
I wasn't disagreeing with you -- quite the opposite. You're quite correct.
I was really just highlighting the sheer pettiness of Trump's threat. It's remarkable, in a train-wreck-watching sort of way.... and there are some for whom it doesn't appear to matter.
Trump has no love of liberty or country. He just want to sound big and bad. And love himself.
-
I wasn't disagreeing with you -- quite the opposite. You're quite correct.
I was really just highlighting the sheer pettiness of Trump's threat. It's remarkable, in a train-wreck-watching sort of way.... and there are some for whom it doesn't appear to matter.
(http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=3918&pictureid=82069)
-
Reagan never intended for it to be a statement of blind partisan faith. With him is was more of a standard of being a decent man and avoiding the gutter in politics. (Not accusing another candidate's father of killing a former president would be a good example what Reagan would avoid doing)
Can you imagine what Reagan would say if he heard it was being used to demand citizens stop criticism of candidates or elected officials?
-
Can you imagine what Reagan would say if he heard it was being used to demand citizens stop criticism of candidates or elected officials?
Hell, I'm rolling over in my grave about it, and there are some who'd say I'm not even dead yet.
-
Beware the ides of March.
He should be very careful of those congressmen he thinks are cowed by him because they are the ones most likely to put a political knife between his ribs.
-
Beware the ides of March.
He should be very careful of those congressmen he thinks are cowed by him because they are the ones most likely to put a political knife between his ribs.
Or, more insidiously, they won't try to stop other people from putting the political knife between his ribs.
We can grant that Trump hasn't been all bad so far: the Gorsuch nomination, for example; and the "Travel Ban" EO addresses some legitimate issues, albeit in a politically counterproductive way.
The problem is that behavior like this puts people who could be his political allies, in a position where it's politically untenable to support him. If it ever comes to a push for impeachment (which it could), some of those folks might look at the prospect of President Pence and feel pretty good about it.
-
""Who is the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career," Trump said, prompting laughter among those gathered at the meeting."
Video: Trump jokes to sheriffs about state senator: 'We'll destroy his career'
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/07/trump-gets-laughs-when-he-offers-to-destroy-a-texas-state-senators-career.html
A joke. That's what you gossip mongers are in high dudgeon about, a joke.
-
We can grant that Trump hasn't been all bad so far: the Gorsuch nomination, for example;
Way too soon to call that a good decision, see: John Roberts
-
Way too soon to call that a good decision, see: John Roberts
You're talking about the Obamacare ruling. IMO, Roberts made the unpleasant but legally correct decision on that one by calling it a tax, and within Congress' authority.
If you want to compare Roberts to, say, Ginsberg or Kagan, there's a very clear difference.
-
A joke. That's what you gossip mongers are in high dudgeon about, a joke.
Filed under "Enablers."
-
Hey all you #NeverTrumps. If Donny is such a piece of shit and everyone hates him, isn't this champagne cork popping time? This will certainly make her right into a genuine American Hero.
-
Hey all you #NeverTrumps. If Donny is such a piece of shit and everyone hates him, isn't this champagne cork popping time? This will certainly make her right into a genuine American Hero.
Strawman, lil' Frankie. Nobody said everyone hates him. Obviously that's not true, just looking at this forum.
-
Hey all you #NeverTrumps. If Donny is such a piece of shit and everyone hates him, isn't this champagne cork popping time? This will certainly make her right into a genuine American Hero.
So you're OK with POTUS (any POTUS) threatening to "end the careers" of state legislators?
Or is this a "joke" to you, too?
Honestly. Are you one of those guys who ignored his mother on "basic good manners" days?
-
So you're OK with POTUS (any POTUS) threatening to "end the careers" of state legislators?
Or is this a "joke" to you, too?
Honestly. Are you one of those guys who ignored his mother on "basic good manners" days?
But it was a joke and taken as such by even the MSM.
Didn't Reagan joke?
-
A joke. That's what you gossip mongers are in high dudgeon about, a joke.
If that was a joke, Donaldus Minimus needs new comedy writers. "Jokes" like that helped deflate Richard Nixon
once upon a time, too. And there were those among Droopy-Drawers Clinton's minions who tried to convince
people he was only kidding when he said it depended on what your definition of "is" is, or was . . .
-
But it was a joke and taken as such by even the MSM.
Didn't Reagan joke?
When Reagan made a joke, you knew it was a joke. When Trump says something, being a joke or not is mostly related to if the original statement made him look good or 'being a joke' is needed as an excuse for saying something stupid.
At that, the 'joke' here is how many of these statements are cheered and agreed with until it starts to look bad, then suddenly it is blown off as a joke. It is beginning to seem like not a day go by that something he says or tweets isn't blown off as 'just a joke'.
The office of Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces is not a joke. He is no longer an entertainer. He is no longer a reality show host or casino owner. His primary job is to serve and protect the Constitution and the young men and women who pledge their lives in the armed services.
-
Let's get back to the part he wasn't accused of joking about:
Eavenson told Trump of a “state senator in Texas that was talking about legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money.”
“Can you believe that?” Trump interjected....
Why yes, we can believe that. It is called the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution.
-
When Reagan made a joke, you knew it was a joke. When Trump says something, being a joke or not is mostly related to if the original statement made him look good or 'being a joke' is needed as an excuse for saying something stupid.
At that, the 'joke' here is how many of these statements are cheered and agreed with until it starts to look bad, then suddenly it is blown off as a joke. It is beginning to seem like not a days go by that something he says or tweets isn't blown off as 'just a joke'.
The office of Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces is not a joke. He is no longer an entertainer. He is no longer a reality show host or casino owner. His primary job is to serve and protect the Constitution and the young men and women who pledge their lives in the armed services.
My concern is more about the nutjobs who may feel inspired to act.
We saw it when a nutjob carrying an SPLC supplied map shot up the family research council office and we saw it again recently when the nutcase with a gun went looking for the children held hostage in a pizzaria.
"Will No One Rid Me of This Meddlesome Priest?"
-
Strawman, lil' Frankie. Nobody said everyone hates him. Obviously that's not true, just looking at this forum.
Everyone on this thread sure as shit hates Donny. The Evan McMuffin Brigade may not be many, but they bitch a whole hell of a lot about everything Donny.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cz2ULGzUAAEKcjS.jpg:large)
-
Everyone on this thread sure as shit hates Donny.
I don't hate him. I wish he acted different.
What's you're saying is slander.
When Donny deserves bitchin', we'll bitch. You ain't gonna shut us up.
-
@Frank Cannon if I didn't know better I'd think your starting to develop a McMullin phobia and being considered much worse than Trump derangement syndrome your prognosis is always fatal.
-
Here's another perspective on the story, note the article from Reason does not specifically mention what the Sheriff said about her? That's a bit deceptive.
What's his name? We'll destroy his career': Trump's offer to Texas sheriff who complained about lawmaker he claims is trying to aid drugs cartels
President Donald Trump entertained county sheriffs in the Roosevelt Room today at the White House
A Texas sheriff told the president about a lawmaker who was backing asset forfeiture legislation the sheriff believed would help the Mexican drug cartels
Trump wasn't having it as he said: 'Who is the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career,' the president said to laughs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4200990/Trump-s-offers-destroy-career-Texas-lawmaker.html
Given the limited info that Trump was given, maybe Trump was not doing that badly.
-
In the editorials section of this forum, there seems to be one article on Breitbart being deceptive.
Considering all cases per this story, I'd wonder if one might say the same about Reason.
From the daily mail story, I don't even know if we do know what State Senator is being discussed.
Reason makes a leap of judgement that this Sheriff was talking about this woman senator, that is not clear; Reason also seems to make us think Trump was referring to her in particular.
-
@Frank Cannon if I didn't know better I'd think your starting to develop a McMullin phobia and being considered much worse than Trump derangement syndrome your prognosis is always fatal.
McMullin symbolizes failure and incompetence to me. I like making fun of his name. I like making fun of his looks. I find his followers no different than the dopes who followed Marshall Applewhite in the Heavens Gate. I find him as worthless as stepping in dog shit and I have made him my new smear the same way some folks smear with Hitler and Stalin references.
(http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2015/03/list-5-20th-Century-Cult-Leaders-marshall-applewhite-E.jpeg)
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Charlie_Brown_%28official_image%29.png)
I read an article on Evan; and it said he was a lookalike for this guy.
-
Another Day, Another Smear By The Good Folks At Reason.
-
Beware the ides of March.
He should be very careful of those congressmen he thinks are cowed by him because they are the ones most likely to put a political knife between his ribs.
There are many of the GOPe cadre who aren't done yet. They are old pros at the Foggy Bottom game, and Trump, as we are assured is an outsider and a newcomer.
That doesn't mean he hasn't played the game, but inside the Beltway the rules are no holds barred. After all, they've put knives into the backs of millions of voters in the past and still have their jobs. **nononono*
-
Everyone on this thread sure as shit hates Donny. The Evan McMuffin Brigade may not be many, but they bitch a whole hell of a lot about everything Donny.
Well, there you go again, with the "hate" thingy. When he is wrong, I'm gonna pipe up.
You can chase Cheeto dust and call it gold if you want.
I haven't hesitated to say he's right when I approve, either, but I will d@mn sure say he is wrong when I think so..