House Passes Amendment Rolling Back Jeff Sessions' Civil Asset Forfeiture Expansion
from the LOAD-LAST-SAVE? dept
Trump’s pick for attorney general unsurprisingly holds the same ideals as his boss. He also holds the same misconceptions and misplaced nostalgia for tough-on-crime policing that went out of vogue as soon as it became apparent it wasn’t doing anything but filling up prisons.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been going hot and heavy on a 1980s-esque law enforcement policy revival. He booted the DOJ off the civil rights beat, telling states and cities to solve their own police misconduct problems — something they were clearly unwilling to do on their own, hence the DOJ’s intercession. He told cops they’re getting back their access to war gear, rolling back the Obama administration’s minimal 1033 program reforms.
He’s been touting tougher policing and tougher sentencing, using a false narrative of a country under siege by drug dealers and criminal border-jumpers. In a time of historic lows — both in violent criminal activity and violence towards police officers — AG Sessions is acting like a street corner preacher, promising an impending apocalypse to anyone who will listen.
Sessions is also peeling away federal reforms to asset forfeiture. He’s opened the federal safety valve for civil forfeitures, allowing local PDs to dodge state laws limiting the amount of property they can take from uncharged citizens.
Given the makeup of Congress, one would assume Sessions’ ongoing effort to raise US law enforcement to “a law unto itself” level would ride on rails, at least up until midterm elections. Instead, Sessions is facing a literal House divided — not against itself exactly — but against him.
In a stunning move, the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved an amendment to the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act that will roll back Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s expansion of asset forfeiture.
Amendment number 126 was sponsored by a bipartisan group of nine members, led by Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash. He was joined by Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California; Washington state’s Pramila Jayapal, a rising progressive star; and Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard.
If this passes the Senate untouched, the amendment will roll things back to 2015 — once again prohibiting federal adoption of local forfeitures. It would make state and local agencies play by the rules set for them by their legislatures, rather than allow them to bypass protections put in place to discourage abuse of programs loaded with the most perverted of incentives.
Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, congress, house, jeff sessions
Comments on “House Passes Amendment Rolling Back Jeff Sessions' Civil Asset Forfeiture Expansion”
Bye, partisan!
It’s amazing what can happen when you look beyond the labels "Democrat" and "Republican".
Re: Bye, partisan!
Well, to be fair they can still be partisan. Trump stands for neither Republican nor Democrat values.
Obama tried unsuccessfully to get bipartisan approvement. Trump is considerably more successful at garnering bipartisan disapprovement.
Re: Re: Bye, partisan!
But Jeff Sessions was a Republican senator eight months ago.
Re: Re: Bye, partisan!
Nit: Although “Republican” is both a noun and an adjective, “Democrat” is only a noun. The corresponding adjective is “Democratic”.
It’s my experience that those who use “Democrat” as an adjective usually carry a distinct right-wing bias, but it looks like the usage may be spreading to the point that that may be becoming a less reliable indicator…
Re: Bye, partisan!
You deserved a second first word.
Link?
HR what the what now?
Re: Link?
From the article above:
Following that link, it’s amendment 126 in the second set of amendments to H.R. 3354, made in order under H.Res. 504. Adopted by voice vote, so no roll call.
Re: Re: Link?
H.Amdt. 391
Re: Re: Re: Full text [was Link?]
The amendment is short enough that here’s the full text from 163 CR H7272—
Re: Re: Re: Link?
Fwiw (actually very little), here’s a convenient link for House Report 115-297, which accompanies H.Res. 504.
But don’t bother clicking, unless you need to verify that the report contains no substantive discussion of the amendments. It does indeed have the text of amendment 126, which text is also available at 163 Cong. Rec. H7272 (daily ed. Sep 12, 2017).
Incidentally, the “sponsored” hyperlink — the one that’s blockquoted without attribution in Cushing’s article above — that hyperlink sucks already.
It points to dynamic content for the “Daily Schedule”. Today, the content has already changed for next week.
Maybe I missed something but… A lot of the things Trump has done i.e. policies he reversed, and this is where maybe I missed something on this particular issue, but… Last I checked C.A.F. was a law enacted by congress, the Obama admin circumvented the legislative process in enacting many of its policies and executive orders… Last I checked this like many issues (re: so called “Dreamers”) is restoring the division of the branches envisioned by our forefathers…
Re: Re:
Right, like Trumps EO banning Muslims.
Re: Re: Re:
Which executive order banned Muslims?
If you’re talking about the one that restricted refugees from certain countries: if it was “banning Muslims” it would have included Saudi Arabia, at the least.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you arguing that because it didn’t ban all Muslims, that somehow means it didn’t intentionally target Muslims?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Did it even have the word “Muslim” in it at all? If not, you’re projecting.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You mean the Christians that are being killed in those specific countries specifically because they are not willing to convert to Islam? Funny how you twist everything around to be supportive of your opinion and ignore reality.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Please keep to the topic at hand. Your appeal to emotion and attempt to deflect is weaksauce.
Re: Re: Re:5 Asylee vs TPS
The topic at hand is immigration. In the context of immigration law, refugee is primarily defined as an oppressed minority. Xians fit into that category in that part of the world.
Re: Re: Re:6 Asylee vs TPS
That’s not exactly true. Refugees are defined by US law as "people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion." While in many cases that will mean they’re members of minority groups, that need not be the case; it’s entirely possible for a minority to persecute a majority. Iraq under Saddam Hussein is a good example; that was an instance where a Sunni minority oppressed a Shiite majority.
Re: Re:
Party lines are bad. Think for yourself.
Re: Response to: Anonyhatter on Sep 14th, 2017 @ 2:48pm
Well, in this case, congress approved a shared forfiture program. Obama directed agents of the executive branch, namely law enforcement agencies, to not utilize the program. It’s entirely how it’s supposed to work. Congress crafts the laws, the executive branch chooses how to enforce the law. Dreamers, Forfiture, Wall street, et. al, it’s all the same prosecutorial desgression.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonyhatter on Sep 14th, 2017 @ 2:48pm
So you are fine with the executive branch being selective about what laws it will enforce? That is not a “lawful” idea. It’s also something bound to run afoul of the ideology of either party. For extra bonus points, it can also violate our founding principles depending on what’s ignored.
Better, but not the best.
Glad to see Session get the bitching little smack down he deserves. But… it is still sad to see no mention by the house asking how can this unconstitutional shit pass muster or to even be requested to begin with?
I guess I will take what I can get.
Blockquote link
I don’t see a link in Cushing’s article above for the two blockquoted paras. Maybe I’m just blind today. But via Google—
“In Surprise Vote, House Passes Amendment to Restrict Asset Forfeiture”, by Zaid Jilani, The Intercept, Sep 12, 2017
“He’s been touting tougher policing and tougher sentencing, using a false narrative of a country under siege by drug dealers and criminal border-jumpers. In a time of historic lows — both in violent criminal activity and violence towards police officers — AG Sessions is acting like a street corner preacher, promising an impending apocalypse to anyone who will listen.”
This is a joke right?
1. Heroine use and other opiate abuses is at an all-time high.
2. 11 million+ are working illegally as indentured servants, prostitutes, day laborours at less than minimum wage rates that boarders penal labour conditions in mostly far left so-called sanctuary cities.
3. Anyone that bashes the character of another person using such exaggerations such as: “street corner preacher, promising an impending apocalypse” is the spitting definition of projection.
I don’t support Jeff Sessions but when people say stupid things, you can’t help but defend the one’s you don’t support.
Re: Re:
BTW, I’m a legal immigrant from France who choose Boston as my home which apparently is now a sanctuary city. Not only has crime risen by 13% over the past year, but you can’t get a job anywhere that has been taken over by illegal immigrants who will only hire their own and since they charge much lower rates for their services, they’re destroying those who follow the law.
Re: Re: Re:
The recent Brennan Center for Justice report by Ames Grawert and James Cullen, “Crime in 2017: A Preliminary Analysis” (Sep 6, 2017), in Table 1 on p.3 (p.8 in doc) shows that the violent crime rate in Boston is down 9.7% from last year.
Is it possible you should have been happier to live in Québec?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you even read what you posted?
The increase in crime rates since Boston became a sanctuary city is spot on.
Yes, it has dropped over the decades but the increase in crime rates this past year has grown greatly.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Table 1 on p.3 (p.8 in doc). The row for Boston. Columns showing percent change in crime rate from 2016 (down 1.6%) and percent change in violent crime rate from 2016 (down 9.7%).
Everyone can read the report.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So what?
That has nothing to do with when Boston became a sanctuary city in 2017…what the hell does 2016 have anything to do with what I’m talking about?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You say that crime rates have risen "this past year" and "over the past year."
If not 2016 (i.e. a year ago), what are we supposed to be comparing 2017’s (i.e. this past year’s) stats to?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I don’t know, why don’t you ask those who are dead what they think about so-called sanctuary cities inviting every criminal to a place where they can get away with anything simply based on their status?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Whoops someone is attempting to deflect after they got called on their bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I live in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Boston which has some of the worst crime in this city’s history, Bluehill Ave…so don’t try to tell me what I do and don’t know if you’ve never even lived here.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Oh? And when do you imagine Boston became a “sanctuary city”? When Trump started tossing about this attempt at an epithet?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Listen, everything Ive said is based upon my own personal experiences over the past 7 years I’ve been here…If they don’t align with your political ideologies, then that’s you’re own problem.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“And when do you imagine Boston became a “sanctuary city”?”
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/11/14/tito-jackson-trump-boston-sanctuary-city/
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Many people feel that illegals from Hispanic countries are making things worse for black americans.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Most especially when somebody gets into a management position and only highers Hispanics…This is not good.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Many people feel that you are full of shit.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I live in a mostly black american neighborhood, and being the only black french man I know of, it’s becoming increasingly more hispanic and that racial tensions have become much worse than when I first arrived.
Re: Re: Re:4 Racism is alive and well, and living in Boston
This sounds a lot like "Well, there goes the neighbourhood".
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The overall crime rate in Boston is 6% higher than the national average.
For every 100,000 people, there are 8.28 daily crimes that occur in Boston.
Boston is safer than 13% of the cities in the United States.
In Boston you have a 1 in 34 chance of becoming a victim of any crime.
The number of total year over year crimes in Boston has decreased by 10%.
http://www.areavibes.com/boston-ma/crime/
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Almost 50% of the country lives in a place where crime is above the national average. Fetch me my fainting couch before I swoon with the indignity of it all.
Re: Re: Re:3 Lies, damned lies.
Furthermore, crime is not uniform within a city. The average could be down but crime in the rough areas could be up.
This is the same way the climate can be warming even if you’re having lower than average temperatures where you’re at.
Stats also depend on reporting. I could very well see crime under-reported in high crime areas. People may not simply see the point in bothering. (been there, done that)
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, really?
Moreover, according to http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Boston-Massachusetts.html, crime has been steadily trending downward for at least the past decade. That site only has data from 2001 – 2015, as the 2016 data isn’t widely published yet, but it shows the trend.
Given your inability to get the crime rate correct I have grave doubts about your assertion of illegal immigrant activity and, for that matter, about your claim to be a legal immigrant from France.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Showing only data that ends before 2016 is highly deceptive, I said AFTER it became a sanctuary city that it has been sharply increasing, which it has.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Statistics can rise and fall from year to year. The long-view look at crime statistics—that is, whether crime rates are trending down or up across a longer period of time than a year—offers a more accurate view of whether crime rates are getting better or worse. Judging by all available statistics, crime rates in Boston have dropped steadily over the past decade. A spike in crime during a given year means next-to-nothing unless that trend continues in the following year.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yeah and the fact still remains that illegals are being hired more often over than black americans. Vistit and fast food restuaraunt or look at any other work that’s being done that requires no highschool degee…people try to say that children don’t want to work these jobs anymore, it’s only because they have a fucking monopoly on it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Citation? No of course not.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
If you had cited statistical sources instead of anecdotal data, I might have cared about your assertion of fact. Also: Even if we assume businesses hire undocumented immigrants at greater rates than legal citizens of any race, you have not expressed a motive for doing so.
Come up with a stronger argument than “this is true around the country because I saw it happen in one part of one state of the entire United States” next time. It might just save you from being mocked for making empty declarative statements.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Data from an incomplete data set such as the current year is highly deceptive.
Fixed that for ya
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/boston-seeing-increase-in-shootings-so-far-in-2017-police-data-shows/ar-AApJkmV
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Years not over yet. Not suprising that basic fact escaped your racist ass.
I saw a quote earlier today to the effect that Sessions has stayed in office despite Trump repeatedly insulting and humiliating him because he really believes in reshaping the DoJ to fit his image of what law enforcement should be. Can’t find the article now, though.
Re: Re:
They’ve been fighting for a while now…I don’t think Sessions will ever get anything passed.
Asset forfeiture
Asset forfeiture was a tool used extensively by the Nazis to steal property from the Jews.