@ggreenwald Yeah, sure, that’s what happened. Geez, what happened to you?! You used to be a reasonable person who reported actual news. Now you appear incapable of complex thoughts like all the other Trump haters. Time to hit the unfollow button.
When it comes to asset seizure and forfeiture, people are either completely in favor or completely against it. But there’s a nuance that many overlook — there are different types of cases… those where the state is the victim, e.g. drugs and gambling; and those where an individual or company is the victim, e.g. fraud. When the state is the victim and assets are seized and forfeited, the state gets to use those proceeds for law enforcement purposes. So, they can buy weapons, ammo, cars and equipment (among other things). IMO this creates an incentive that is too often abused. And THIS is what gives these laws a bad rap. This incentive could be eliminated if proceeds went to some charity instead.
However, I’ve investigated cases where an individual victim was defrauded out of millions of dollars. I can’t overstate how rewarding it was to seize and forfeit the elicit assets of the fraudsters to compensate the victim. And yes, to your point, this was before they were convicted of a crime. But here is the difference… asset seizure and forfeiture is a civil action not a criminal one. So there is a lower burden of proof. Law enforcement seizes the assets but cannot forfeit them until a judge rules based on the evidence. Once forfeited they can be sold and the proceeds given to the victim.
So, the solution is not to eliminate such laws… it’s to remove the incentives that cause law enforcement agencies to abuse them to line their pockets. Law enforcement agencies still need a means for making individual victims (and companies) whole.
BTW, when budgets are cut and law enforcement resources are strained, the incentive to use (and sadly abuse) these laws is significant. I’ve actually seen leadership dictate to the entire law enforcement organization that they will ONLY engage in asset seizure and forfeiture when the state is the victim. This borders on corruption IMO as individual victims have zero chance at recovering their losses.
My two cents
There are a lot of reasons to be critical of the FBI but this isn’t one of them. The Post would have no idea if the FBI was there prior to law enforcement’s very public arrival to execute a search warrant. They very likely had the residence under surveillance long before the Post showed up. I’d even go so far as to say it was somewhat reckless for the Post to go there without coordinating with LE beforehand. In an effort to be first, the Post’s presence could have caused the occupants to destroy evidence or prepare for LE in some undesirable way. And I say this as a huge fan of the Post. We need to be fair and objective in our criticisms otherwise we start to lose credibility.
@SteveLovesAmmo There have certainly been bumbling sentences so let’s not lie to ourselves; however, that’s how we know it’s authentic and not scripted. We all bumble a sentence now and then, and that’s fine! This conversation is AUTHENTIC!