Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Pb on July 25, 2017, 10:11:19 AM
-
Good grief, on what planet is this a good idea? :facepalm:
Sessions was one of your best supporters!
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-could-happen-if-jeff-sessions-resigns-2017-7
-
When I glanced at the title I saw "Trump attacks Jetsons". What's scary is that it was believable to me.
-
Well, even though I grudgingly came around to support him because the alternative option was just so much more freaking horrible, the Trump presidency is going just about how I expected it to go.
-
Trump is our:
-
I think many of us have come to the realization that Trump is going to be a one term president.
There is also a real possibility that both houses of Congress will change hands during the mid-terms. With all the broken promises, Republicans are pretty fed up and likely to stay home, giving the Dems a clear playing field to elect their folks.
-
It appears to me that the guy who is so famous for yelling 'You're fired' doesn't have the balls to actually fire Sessions. Instead he has adopted the strategy of a teenage girl - be mean on twitter and spread rumors.
-
I think many of us have come to the realization that Trump is going to be a one term president.
Nahhh. If Obama could win a second term, it's a cinch Trump can as well. :angel:
-
It appears to me that the guy who is so famous for yelling 'You're fired' doesn't have the balls to actually fire Sessions. Instead he has adopted the strategy of a teenage girl - be mean on twitter and spread rumors.
He has the balls, but he knows it would look BAD and that Sessions has many admirers in Dixie (like me, for instance) and wants to be able to claim he didn't fire him, he left for his own reasons. :mad:
-
Jeff Sessions lost any and all support he might have had from me when he doubled down on the *expletive deleted*ing unconstitutional abomination known as Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Were I a federal judge I'd sign a CAF writ on him and all of his possessions on the theory that he was personally enriched by colluding with Russia -- and then let him prove that he's *expletive deleted*ing innocent.
-
Jeff Sessions lost any and all support he might have had from me when he doubled down on the *expletive deleted*ing unconstitutional abomination known as Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Were I a federal judge I'd sign a CAF writ on him and all of his possessions on the theory that he was personally enriched by colluding with Russia -- and then let him prove that he's *expletive deleted*ing innocent.
So you're OK with the French system of law where one must prove innocence with government officials, while citizens are innocent until proven guilty?
Just asking.
-
So you're OK with the French system of law where one must prove innocence with government officials, while citizens are innocent until proven guilty?
Just asking.
Not to speak for Mike, but it appears you completely misread what he wrote.
-
Of course HE'S innocent until proven guilty.
......
It's his house, cars, and stock portfolio that are guilty. No one's putting Mr. Sessions in jail.
-
What's funny about Trump firing his own people is that the Left must then reverse course on all the character assassination they engaged in when those people were hired.
-
So you're OK with the French system of law where one must prove innocence with government officials, while citizens are innocent until proven guilty?
Just asking.
Do you have clue *expletive deleted*ing one what civil asset forfeiture is?
How it's used?
Defenses against it?
Just asking...
-
Do you have clue *expletive deleted*ing one what civil asset forfeiture is?
How it's used?
Defenses against it?
Just asking...
Yes I have a expletive deleted clue what it is.
I am really sorry to get thy Godly Hackles up.
Let me 'Splain something;
In my 60+ years of existance on this sorry planet, there have been politicians I like that have done/said things with which I disagree, sometimes strongly. There have also been politicians I have despised, disagreed with, or thought were total jackwagons, who did or said things I actually did agree with. If you want purity, IMHO you're pretty much f**ked in this plane of existance.
I suspect you probably know that, but what are you willing to do about it?
You can abstain from politics altogether. That might be the most viable choice, but some claim if you do this, you lose the right to complain. You dont, of course, but you do lose a certain "gravitas," since you aren't participating why should people consider your opinion important ---- you not being a" mover or a shaker?"
Or you can vote 3rd party. For someone who's polling at 2% on his good days. Fine, and I'm sure you'll sleep well at night.
So will the socialist Cadre when they win the 2024 election and get to take 50% of your stuff and give it to an illegal alien.
And wishing that the majority of other voters had voted for the two percenter will be cold comfort.
In most cases of civil forfeiture, the property taken belongs to cocaine smugglers, cartel thugs, Cosa Nostra or Mafia types, and others of that ilk. Forfeiture may be a questionable law at best, or a horrible one at worst, but the vast majority of people it hits are people for whom I have no sympathy. Sorry, I dont. And the nasty reality is that you will never convince the American people, in general, that a law is bad by pointing out its victims when they are criminal scum.
Yes, I have heard about the RARE case where a guy driving across America with $20,000 in cash is stopped, the cash is grabbed,
since there is some assumption people carrying legal tender for all debts public and private must be drug couriers.
Or someone innocently lends his car to a friend who uses it to transport $120,000 in illegal drugs gets himself arrested, and the coppers get themselves a new car.
Situations like that have offended many people, and what Sessions, et al, are suggesting is a protection from that sort of thing, while reinstating it against the criminal element.
It isn't my favorite law, even with those supposed "protections." I have a lot of "NOT FAVORITE LAWs" that were I the Benevolent Dictator, I'd do away with.
But I'm not. All I can do is vote, usually for the lesser evil. And sorry, in my opinion, ALL humans are, to some degree, evil, as we are "fallen." Only God is perfect.
I vote, and hope not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."
My comment regarding "the French system" was in response to your ostensible hypocrisy regarding how you would deal with public figures as opposed to private persons. In truth I believe you wrote "tongue in cheek" to make a point.
I suppose I really ought to have put a smiley there to signify that but hindsight is 20/20.
There are a lot of things in our system to rail against. If you make a 24/7/365 profession of it you'll only drive your blood pressure up, your mind nuts, and your corporeal self into an early grave, and the politicians enjoy it.
What's the old prayer?;
" God grant me the courage to change what I can, the patience to deal with what I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Take care.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/25/democrats-continue-insist-fine-find-people-guilty-proving/
Due process for everyone! (Except gun owners, people with funny names who land on secret government watchlists and students who are accused of rape.)
-
.......
Situations like that have offended many people, and what Sessions, et al, are suggesting is a protection from that sort of thing, while reinstating it against the criminal element.........
Here is a description of what Sessions has directed:
"The directive revives the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, a controversial process through which state and local police agencies can seize assets, then transfer those seizures to federal control. In doing so, local agencies can skirt some state-level regulations limiting forfeitures. Under the program, the federal government pools the funds derived from the assets and sends 80 percent of them back to the state or local department itself, sometimes evading state laws that say seized assets should go into a state’s general fund."
Where is the part you mentioned about protection from predatory seizures? Sounds more like subsidized robbery to me.
-
I don't believe the protections I listed were in Session's statement.
I don't think you mean "subsidized robbery," what you're talking about is called "theft under the color of law."
-
Oh chill out. My hackles were already up because of that incredible tool Sessions and his BS moves at attorney general.
It's cute that you think my response was all about you.
"I suspect you probably know that, but what are you willing to do about it?"
Right, here we go. You calling me to man the ramparts, Mme Defarge? ;/
-
Yes, I do indeed mean theft under color of law. That's the point. Am I misunderstanding your post I quoted? It sounded to me like you were saying Sessions was offering protections against abuse. If so, what protections?
-
Here is a description of what Sessions has directed:
"The directive revives the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, a controversial process through which state and local police agencies can seize assets, then transfer those seizures to federal control. In doing so, local agencies can skirt some state-level regulations limiting forfeitures. Under the program, the federal government pools the funds derived from the assets and sends 80 percent of them back to the state or local department itself, sometimes evading state laws that say seized assets should go into a state’s general fund."
Where is the part you mentioned about protection from predatory seizures? Sounds more like subsidized robbery to me.
Pretty much the whole thing needed to be bolded. This is one of the things Sessions is doing that's pissing me off the most (if there is evidence to the contrary, someone please link it).
To Tommygunn's point, let's, for the sake of argument, concede that on the FEDERAL level, 90% of forfeitures involve major criminals (let's also set constitutional rights and pre-conviction aside for a minute).
The problem, as outlined in the bolded statement, is that probably 98% of the false forfeitures (I'm not using illegal, because to me they are all constitutionally illegal) are committed by state and local LE. They are not rare. Cursory googling will reveal lots of examples. That other 10% on the Federal level? Hello IRS and >$10K cash deposits. On the state and local level, this stuff is used WAY too much specifically because of the evasion by LE of state restrictions that with the help of the feds, puts these seized assets in the hands of local Barney Fife. There is just way too much room for small town Boss Hoggs and big city dirty cops to absolutely abuse this.
Better a hundred drug dealers go free than one Apu from the Quikie Mart have his possessions confiscated.
-
My first thought when I heard about this is what is Trump doing with the left hand while the right hand creates a Twitter distraction.
These are the two recent tweets I see mentioning Sessions. I guess this doesn't get me all that worked up. And this is 2 out of 2 dozen the last few days.
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hilary Clinton crimes (where are Emails & DNC server) & intel leakers"
"so why aren't the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillary's crimes & Russia relations?"
-
Trump is our:
We started that other thread with the list of accomplishments. I can tolerate a lot if someone is getting some things done and pissing off Democrats and the media like Trump has.
We will have Trump for 8 years, IMO.
-
He has the balls, but he knows it would look BAD and that Sessions has many admirers in Dixie (like me, for instance) and wants to be able to claim he didn't fire him, he left for his own reasons. :mad:
When Sessions came out in favor of expanding civil asset forfeiture, he lost any supportive thoughts I might have harbored about him.
After that, he can take a long walk off a short pier. I don't care if he quits or is fired, I want him gone. He obviously doesn't understand the Constitution.
-
Or someone innocently lends his car to a friend who uses it to transport $120,000 in illegal drugs gets himself arrested, and the coppers get themselves a new car.
Situations like that have offended many people, and what Sessions, et al, are suggesting is a protection from that sort of thing, while reinstating it against the criminal element.
The case I remember it was the mother, and the son was busted with $120 in cop math weed.
There was also the motel owner with a tendency to call the cops whenever a druggie checked into his motel to let them know that somebody was being unsubtle. They tried to take his motel because, as an agent put it, they were looking for properties with equity, to maximize income.
They've taken as little as $40 with the accusation not that it is drug money, but that it will be used to buy drugs, merely because the people were driving to a big city like Houston. They've targeted minorities explicitly, and even threatened to take parent's kids away, to get them to sign over the cash.
Note that Jeff Sessions isn't actually a politician. He's an appointed bureaucrat. People here seem to be mad at him, not Trump, his appointed.
We can be mad at him just fine.
-
Oh, Sessions position of assets forfeiture is terrible, I agree (unfortunately, Trump agrees with Sessions here)....
It is just the bone-headed stupidity of Trump publicly humiliating his supporters I find repugnant...
If he is mad at Sessions he could privately talk to him, or ask him to retire.
A lot of Trump's position I agree with (though not all).... but this is insane.
-
It is just the bone-headed stupidity of Trump publicly humiliating his supporters I find repugnant...
If he is mad at Sessions he could privately talk to him, or ask him to retire.
Agree. It isn't completely public, but he's apparently dissing Tillerson as well. From what I've read, Tillerson is sick of it and possibly looking to Rexit. After all the sturm und drung to get both these guys in, acting like the spoiled rich boy boss with them is pretty counterproductive. I don't know about Sessions, but certainly everything I've read about Tillerson indicates he has both the hat and the cattle, so isn't likely to put up with crap.
As mad as I am at Sessions for the asset forfeiture stuff, I will give him credit on the immigration front (where Trump is now backing off) and if Trump has problems with his staff, he shouldn't be taking it to Twitter. Plus the thing he has trouble with regarding Sessions is something that is making Trump look bad. You don't get mad at your AG for not going after your political enemies or otherwise using the AG's office for your own personal (vs presidential) agenda. No one here would have stood for that with Obama (nor did we), and we shouldn't stand for it with Trump.
As much as I've always disliked Trump's twitter rampages, I've put up with them given some of the stuff he's changed. But it's really time for him to engage brain before putting mouth in gear. He needs to change his ratio from four petty tweets for every one productive tweet to four productive tweets for every one petty tweet.
-
Agree. It isn't completely public, but he's apparently dissing Tillerson as well. From what I've read, Tillerson is sick of it and possibly looking to Rexit.
:lol:
What I don't get are the people saying that Trump "doesn't have the guts" to fire Sessions. Really? Maybe he just realizes that anybody he fires the Left turns into a club they can use against him.
-
Do you really think Sessions is humiliated or embarrassed?
If past Presidents had done this, it would be out of character and unusual. The only issue I would have is if Trump was saying anything in public he hasn't already said to Sessions in person.
-
if Trump was saying anything in public he hasn't already said to Sessions in person.
If this article (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/25/trump-and-sessions-locked-in-silent-battle-240968) is to be believed, they aren't speaking in person.
Donald Trump is playing an elaborate game of chicken with Jeff Sessions. And they are not on speaking terms.
"He wants to fire him but he doesn't want the confrontation," said one adviser who frequently speaks to him. "He doesn't mind the long negative storyline. He will torture him every single day."
This person said Trump also wants to see how Sessions will respond to humiliation and has mocked his response so far.
-
If this article (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/25/trump-and-sessions-locked-in-silent-battle-240968) is to be believed, they aren't speaking in person.
I am not sure what to believe on that stuff. I think half of the internal conflict stories are plants to distract from other things they are doing. Trump doesn't seem like he would be the type of boss who is afraid to speak his mind to subordinates.
Nothing I can do except wait and see.
-
What if the Trump-Sessions feud is one big charade?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/07/what_if_the_trumpsessions_feud_is_one_big_charade.html#ixzz4o4OrtNlI
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
-
If it's *not* misdirection, and Sessions is in on it, Sessions should make a statement something like, "Hey, most of us at one time or another have had bad bosses who blame subordinates for their own failures. If the president thinks I'm doing a bad job and wants to fire me, that's his prerogative, but then who would he blame?" (maybe leave that last part unsaid but implied)
I think everyone can identify with that.