Posted on 07/27/2017 6:31:53 PM PDT by Helicondelta
Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recent announcement of a new Justice Department directive concerning civil asset forfeiture was panned by critics on the left and right, and a new Morning Consult/POLITICO survey shows most Americans aren’t receptive to it either — regardless of their political persuasion.
59 percent of registered voters surveyed said they opposed the new policy, which expands law enforcement agencies’ rights to seize money and property from people even if they haven’t been charged with a crime. Thirty-seven percent said they were strongly against the proposal, while a quarter of voters were in favor of it.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans said they thought it was a bad idea to allow law enforcement agencies to keep as much as 80 percent of the funds they seize, and 55 percent said the new directive would do more harm than good.
(Excerpt) Read more at morningconsult.com ...
I do not care for it either.
Wait til they use it to sieze assets of the Clinton Money Laundering Foundation and instantly > 50% of the country will love it.
It should indeed fare poorly.
Asset Forfeiture without a conviction is theft under the color of law. In a perfect world every government employee who has engaged in this practice and convicted for doing so should be put against a wall and shot.
When do we get civil asset forfeiture against politicians and government agents?
Add me to the list. Bad idea. Very bad idea.
“Wait til they use it to sieze assets of the Clinton Money Laundering Foundation”
Sessions only goes after the little people.
Cant imagine this is legal even in America
After conviction, yes. Before trial...HELL NO.
Second question: If the Feds are involved it should be just to shut all this activity down as unconstitutional.
RICO is unconstitutional. I really don't care if criminals are allowed to use their ill-gotten gains to defend themselves in court. The government has 1000X as much in the way of ill-gotten gains and should be able to mount a sufficiently good prosecution regardless of the defendant's financial situation.
All anyone needs to know is the name of some of these court cases, like:
The City of Milwaukee vs. $13,726.53
How the heck is a pile of inanimate money going to be able to defend itself?
And the owners of the money won't be able to defend it because they will be considered to have no standing in court.
Orwellian. Truly Orwellian.
Civil forfeiture is an abomination, as are marijuana laws at the federal level. If we get issues 1-100 under control and then you want to attack these, then go ahead. But these are both very low priority issues. I’d be frustrated if I were Trump as well.
No. Not even against the Clintons.
Asset forfeiture needs to be restricted to jury trial convictions.
And yes, that absolutely means it should be off the table in pea bargain situations.
Sessions needs to retire, he’s a relic of the past
Now here's an example of the AG causing a real distraction by discussing a bad policy which faces real opposition across a reasonably wide swatch of the American public, from Left to Right.
And the hand-wringing crowd allows itself to be distracted by a few curse words?
Unless I’m completely misunderstanding this, I don’t see how its legal at all.
Violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plain and simple.
Is Trump for it?
It's ominous that fully 25% of voters can be that abysmally and irredeemably stupid
Sessions is pushing his own agenda. Trump never proposed any of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.