A BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR …
By FITSNEWS || U.S. President Barack Obama‘s nominee to replace the lawlessly corrupt Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General has a bit of problem when it comes to stealing.
Actually, Obama’s pick – Loretta Lynch – has a big problem when it comes to stealing, a billion-dollar-a-year problem.
We’re referring, of course, to “civil asset forfeiture” – which is government’s term for taking your property with no due process (often without even accusing you of committing a crime). We’ve railed against this organized thievery here in South Carolina – most notably the “Rolling Facism” of Spartanburg County, S.C. Sheriff Chuck Wright – but Lynch’s office has engaged civil asset forfeiture to the tune of $904 million.
In one fiscal year …
An editorial in The Wall Street Journal this week referred to civil asset forfeiture as “policing for profit.”
“Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent,” the editorial added.
That’s putting it politely …
“Civil asset forfeiture is one of the greatest threats to private property in modern America, and Lynch is one of the pioneering legal minds in the country advocating it,” opined Poor Richard’s News. “It is one of the worst practices in police work today, and President Obama wants to make one of the worst offenders the nation’s top cop.”
Not only that, Obama is trying to get Lynch’s nomination pushed through the U.S. Senate before it falls under “Republican” control in January.
Let’s hope he’s unsuccessful in that effort …
***
42 comments
There needs to be a revolt. Only until then, all of this lawlessness and reckless disregard for the laws of the people BY THE PEOPLE will never be respected. The only thing these people will understand is an iron fist right to their faces.
Yea, too bad they spend trillions each year to thwart terrorist bombings in DC. 10 kilotons would save 100 trillion dollars.
That would require leaving the computer for an extended amount of time. You’re not going to do that. Your comment is the most action the country can expect from you.
You voted for Obozo. And your ignorance is noted.
Nope, didn’t vote for him. Your bullshit comment about revolt and the BY THE PEOPLE nonsense is noted. Your ignorance is a given.
Yes you did. Probably 15 or 20 times?
I think you did 9/11. I don’t have proof, but hey, we’re throwing around baseless accusations so I guess I don’t need it.
You’re a horrible person, Terrorist Jim.
Shut up you sack of shit. And stop posting under multiple names.
I don’t care that you are a homosexual with socialist leanings…why do you deny it?
You lie.
What the fuck do you think just happened on November 4th?
The people voted out Dems because the economy sucks.
Guess what’s gonna happen the next cycle?
The economy will still suck, and the Republicans will be voted out.
The voter will get a choice between two turds so that he doesn’t pick up a gun and shoot them all.
Agreed, same ole, same ole. just like the gov machine, why do we even pay them ? For ?
As Mr. Cleverly says, “you can roll a turd in powdered sugar, but that don’t make it a jelly doughnut”.
I’m with Deo, same ol’ same ol’.
lol…glad you don’t get what happened…will make 2016 so much easier
So how does a do nothing congress with a 11% approval rate get reelected? Stupid Republican voters!
A traitor as pResident, occupying the wHite House.
Hate to say it, but nobody cares. Unless you have a recent pic of her smoking crack or dating a republican, she is in. Virtually nothing is off limits these days, especially with a compliant GOP Congress.
Hate to crush your ego, but what the fuck do you know? You speak for 320,000,000 people??
Well, master dumbass, lets just see what happens.
Hate to crush your ego, but 320,000,000 people don’t decide. Just 51.
Yes indeed, we do live in a Representative Republic.
What the hell we’re all to stupid to know what’s going on anyway…if you like your plan you can keep your plan.
Insurance made sure, that won’t work. Try again to help the people.
Jonathan Gruber knew.
A name, anymore than that ?
Well, maybe you are.
Great answer !
SMH
Fits you are a well known supporter of AG Alan Wilson.
Will you please check if his office has EVER been involved in asset forfeiture?
If they have,I am sure you will want to run an article similiar to this one about him.
If you want to end civil forfeiture, get Congress to pass a law against it…. Oh screw it… That’ll never happen with the Congress we have.
I’m wondering what Republican is going to take the Presidency in 2016 and “fix” all of these problems? Anybody here have any names?
I do, I do !!! ” Republican “.
Nikki Haley. I wonder if she’ll make federal employees say “It’s a great day in the USA”??
Then there is former Solicitor Trey Gowdy,another Fits fave.
Now a Congressman”investigating” Bengahzi.
Wonder if during his tenure as Solicitor his office conducted any asset forfeitures?
Surely if he did, we will be rading the headline
TREY GOWDT!THIEF soon here.
Stay tuned!
Just more of the same, let us hope the Democrats have also had enough of him and his cronies. The Democrats should be paying attention after the last election.
Civil forfeiture laws are nothing more than govt. stealing from people. After the trial and a guilty verdict it would be another matter. But before it is stealing pure and simple.
So, the government owes me $ 30,000.00 right !
How convenient that the linked article requires a subscription. As a result, virtually no one commenting here has the slightest clue about the nature of Loretta Lynch’s involvement in civil asset forfeiture or whether it was an appropriate use of the law.
It’s another thing entirely when local police departments pull someone over for a busted tail light, then decide that he has too much money in his wallet to be an honest citizen.
Ah, the old tired red herring of the busted taillight = seizing your money (although I see that you are referencing it in contrast to her presumably legitimate forfeiture actions). I think you probably know that angle to be nonsense. There are statutory requirements for the seizures and eventual forfeitures (in regard to both cause and threshold amounts), and due process protection throughout the process, all the way up to the right for a jury trial. Inconvenient for the populist narrative, but true nonetheless. Strangely enough, the majority of folks from whom suspected illegal drug-related funds are seized seem to disappear, and choose not to avail themselves of any of these due process rights. Weird…
It’s a lonely (and perhaps futile) pursuit trying to bring rationality and facts to this discussion.
I know. I’m sorry…