Kamala Harris supports Civil Forfeiture?

[question everything]

Even the WSJ editorial criticized Sessions for his support of Civil Forfeiture and I posted it back in December.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028406138

And recently Sessions stated his intent to increase the volume of these assets seizures. One more reason for him to step down.

Today Tony Lima, a professor emeritus of economics at Cal State East Bay, had an op-ed in the WSJ going after this custom:

There aren’t many things government can claim to do more efficiently than the private sector. Taking people’s property is one. In 2014 the federal government seized about $4.5 billion from people who hadn’t been charged with crimes. That exceeds the private-sector equivalent, burglary. According to an analysis by Armstrong Economics, perpetrators absconded with only $3.9 billion that year.

And then he added:

As California attorney general, Kamala Harris opposed a 2011 law restraining the practice of civil asset forfeiture. In 2015 she sponsored a bill to allow authorities to seize suspects’ assets before filing charges. That year California forfeitures totaled $50 million.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cops-and-robbers-all-rolled-into-one-1500937471

If true, I will have hard time supporting her presidential aspirations.

[BannonsLiver]

1. I won't.

[emulatorloo]

2. Your link is behind a paywall. Please find something that isn't. Thanks in advance! N/t

[question everything]

6. Sorry about that. Will the National Review do?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449668/jeff-sessions-civil-asset-forfeiture-plan-government-sanctioned-stealing

On Civil Asset Forfeiture, Jeff Sessions Is the New Kamala Harris

I did not know about that until I read the WSJ op-ed

The sacbee?

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article34818903.html

California civil forfeiture curb soundly defeated

[emulatorloo]

12. Thanks!

[Demsrule86]

101. The national Review is a right wing source...and if you check,

you will find that Kamala Harris supported freezing assets before criminal prosecution...very misleading post.

[question everything]

114. Not according to a link provided down #11 says this

the Assembly bill introduced Monday would allow prosecutors to seize assets before initiating criminal proceedings — a power only available at the federal-level — if there is a “substantial probability” they will file a criminal complaint.

The bill is being sponsored by Attorney General Kamala Harris,

http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20150223/NEWS/150229908

And to exclude right wing sources can get us into Groupthink, tunnel vision. There were several sources that said the same thing.

[heaven05]

130. throwing untrue dirt

on people just means in the end that you will be very, very dirty. A shower won't even help..... This post is a BULLSHIT LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Demsrule86]

136. Right ...the one you provided was incomplete I post a link where it discussed the bill she

sponsored. She sponsored a bill that froze the assets. Honestly, I don't care one way or the other, I would support her over any Republican. And we can not allow the GOP to demonize all of our candidates. They will do it to every candidate.

[Demsrule86]

100. This is bullshit. She sponsored a bill to freeze assets of criminals gangs and such...

"The bill is being sponsored by Attorney General Kamala Harris, who has focused on battling transnational criminal organizations. Harris said those groups have made California the biggest point of entry for methamphetamine trafficking into the United States, adding that this bill could equip local and state law enforcement with tools to “dismantle these dangerous organizations.”

The Norteño and Sureño criminal street gangs, which have ties to the Mexican Mafia, operate predominantly in the Salinas Valley, and are known for committing robberies, shootings and assaults. Harris said in a 2012 report the two gangs often work with Mexico-based drug trafficking organizations."

http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20150223/NEWS/150229908

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. Hafta say, being a BIG Kamala supporter, this IS somewhat concerning.

[BannonsLiver]

7. Most state AG's support asset forfeiture on some level

Sort of goes with the territory. I'm more interested in where she is on climate change, the minimum wage, healthcare and voter supression. How she would restore our democracy after Putin's coup and where she is on regulating business.

[question everything]

14. Some states prohibit it

Minnesota did in 2014

http://www.startribune.com/if-there-s-no-conviction-minn-police-can-no-longer-keep-seized-property/258156241/

Minnesota cops can no longer keep property and cash seized in drug cases when there is no criminal conviction under a bill signed into law by Gov. Mark Dayton Tuesday.

[BannonsLiver]

17. Fair enough.

i have zero doubts in states where it is legal it is often abused by law enforcement.

But given that she's pretty progressive on the issues I care most about, her views on asset forfeiture wouldn't enter my thought process when it comes to making a decision as to whether or not I'd vote for her in a primary.

[Demsrule86]

103. The California bill did not become law...

[bettyellen]

127. But freezing isn't keeping? I need to know more before bashing someone already targeted by the GOP

And the alt left.

[BainsBane]

144. Having the Mpls. cops continuously investigated by

FBI played a role in that. Note it was legal until 2014, and members of the Gang Task Force made a lot of money for themselves by seizing assets.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

43. Yes... why I said only "somewhat" concerning.

[Demsrule86]

102. It is bullshit...another hit piece...they will destroy all of our candidates.

[yallerdawg]

4. Last week.

Without comment on what the California Attorney General may have supported:

Fresh off a visit to the nation’s largest women’s prison at Chowchilla, in the prison-dotted San Joaquin Valley, Sen. Kamala Harris on Thursday tacked another piece onto what is becoming her signature issue, criminal justice reform — and reached across the aisle for help.

Teaming up with Republican maverick Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in her first bipartisan legislative venture, the California Democrat introduced a bill that takes aim at what’s called money bail, a system she says lets high-rolling gangsters go free to await court dates while leaving poor women and men to sit in jail for months, often losing their jobs, their homes and even their children along the way.

The United States is the only nation besides the Philippines to use a person’s ability to pay as the sole reason to avoid jail while awaiting trial, said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, director of criminal justice and drug policy for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, one of numerous civil justice groups backing the legislation.

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good."

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Sens-Kamala-Harris-and-Rand-Paul-team-up-over-11303764.php

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Nobody's perfect. But it is disturbing, even if it was kinda her job to support it.

[David__77]

57. I don't think it was her job to support it.

I think an attorney general can be progressive and advocate fully for the defense of civil rights.

[TreasonousBastard]

89. Sure they can. And while I don't like this, I want to see the rest of her record.

[DefenseLawyer]

8. The mindset of a prosecutor is a little warped.

They work too closely with cops and that warped "might makes right" and "the end justifies the means" and "we're on a mission from God" mentality starts to seem normal.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. I was going to say I'm not thrilled with prosecutors as our leaders.

Bring me defense attorneys.

I have several friends who are PDs.

[Demsrule86]

109. Why don't we just find fault and eliminate every Dem...then we can just have GOP government

It has been such a treat and all...(sarcasm).

[question everything]

116. This is an interesting observation

Yes, AGs are usually former prosecutors.

[meow2u3]

9. I'm also for civil asset (of large fortunes) forfeiture

If I had it my way, I'd go after the fortunes of right-wing billionaires who have captured the government by having them charged with crimes from fraud to political corruption to bribery of public officials, etc. in order to seize their fortunes and give the proceeds back to the rightful owners: the American public.

[question everything]

53. Except that these foreitures often go after lower middle class, mom and pop

single mothers who sons got ensnared in drug deals. But they live at home, so the parents' homes, and cars, and bank account all get confiscated. For the benefit of local police forces.

[tazkcmo]

10. If she has Presidential ambitions

She'll evolve on this issue.

[Cicada]

34. Her problem is her speeches and interviews are flat

Elizabeth Warren fires up her crowds to escape velocity. Harris so far doesn't stand out.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

44. Like Bernie, Elizabeth does hava way of firing up a crowd like we haven't seen since the Obama days

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[tblue37]

90. Adam Schiff looks promising. nt

[Cicada]

98. Yeah, also Tom Perez, Klobuchar

Eric Garcetti isn't ripe yet, put him on our 2028 calendar. I hate to say it but Gillebrand is hurt by how beautiful her face and smile are. She's every bit as smart as we mean ugly looking people but my sexist lizard brain keeps seeing her as sweet and nice.

[Auntie Bush]

132. I like Schiff too. I'd vote for him!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

140. Like Adam too!

[Demsrule86]

107. We need young blood...I don't want to run either...I like Elizabeth Warren,

but I don't think she is a great candidate...Sherrod Brown or Joe Kennedy III maybe.

[Cicada]

134. Thank you for guiding me to Joe Kennedy Iii

I had never heard him but based on your recommendation I watched several clips of him on You Tube. I like him! I think he's got the right stuff.

AND being fluent in Spanish from working in the Peace Corps in Dominican Republic is a big plus.

Thank you.

[Demsrule86]

135. He is very impressive.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. Sorry- a good head of hair and a last name arent enough, in my book

Does he still support arresting people for marijuana use, even after Mass. legalized?

That shit sure as fuck isnt going to play west of the rockies, anymore.

[Cicada]

151. He seems smart, empathic, articulate

Admittedly he does not consume drugs, even alcohol, but given his family weaknesses perhaps we can forgive him for prior flaws. I am from the west, I share Tom Waits' view that reality is just a crutch for those who can't cope with hard drugs, but I also worry that we have a shortage of good electable candidates in the pipeline. A proven brand with good looks, good communication skills, is something we need. I got worried when I watched Kamala Harris on you tube clips and found her kind of boring and flat.

Tom Perez seems to have many electoral strengths, Klobuchar, but then it trails off. I find Warren absolutely incredible but my wife thinks she is too liberal to withstand liberal, liberal, liberal attack ads.

Who do you think would be good? I'm a bit nervous.

[Warren DeMontague]

152. It's not so much about consuming drugs, it's about ending the idiocy that is cannabis prohibition.

And as such I take issue with his statements on the question, although again that was before Mass. passed their legalization initiative. He may be more inclined to reflect the view of a majority of his constituents, now. I'd be interested to find out.

I do question the actual value of this "proven brand" stuff. It will be 60 years since JFK was elected, in 2020. This idea that we need some magic elixir- a name, whatever- or that we can plug a bunch of variables into the candidate machine and get the winning formula; we should remember that the last two Democratic Presidents- popular successful two-termers- both came from relative middle class obscurity. No pedigree at all, just brains and grit.

Hell, the "smart money" said that we would be fools to run a candidate - an African American one term Senator???- with a name like "Barack Hussein Obama", right?

That's not to say I won't give JFKIII a chance. One thing about the Kennedy kid is, he's young, he's got plenty of time to win me over. But right now I do think it's the height of stupidity not to get ahead of the curve on marijuana legalization; and for whatever reason, the east coast establishment doesn't seem as able to get their heads around it, although that too is changing quickly.

As for candidates- I've been watching Kamala Harris for a long time and I do think she will be a formidable force in the party. I also like Gavin Newsom. I like Cory Booker. I like Jay Inslee. I had never heard of Pete Buttigeig until a few months ago; and THAT guy is impressive.

And I also like Warren. I think part of the disconnect is, the "conventional wisdom" beltway people haven't internalized the fact that the Millennials- now fully into the cohort of voting age- are an even bigger group than the boomers. That's tectonic. And it is pushing rapid changes in public opinion on all sorts of stuff. Millennials don't want a "safe" Democratic Party that doesn't seem to stand for much except celebrity endorsements, they listen and HEAR those things people like Warren say, the "liberal" ideas about, you know, livable minimum wages and stuff. It's not a bug, it's a feature, as the kids say.

And in that vein, getting on board with the trend towards cannabis legalization isn't just the right thing to do, it's the politically savvy one too. It is the perfect wedge issue to cleave the libertarian and authoritarian wings of the GOP apart, for one.

[Cicada]

154. Buttigieg! The name HELPs

No one will believe a guy named Buttigieg is some pointy-headed intellectual.

A lot of voters will just assume he owns 50 or 60 elephant guns.

Thank you for telling me about him. Too bad he is in Indiana where he is blocked from state wide office. He seems real sincere, down to earth. Obviously he's super smart.

I would so much like to agree with you about Harris, and I think she will be great in the Senate and in a cabinet post, but I just don't see her as having charisma.

I have the same feelings you do about those tectonic people, but history has taught me my wife's political instincts are better than mine. So until I see poll ratings showing Warren has broad appeal I am going to suppress my lured hot passion for her.

[Warren DeMontague]

156. What I want more than anything, for 2020, is a big, broad field of candidates and a vigorous debate

Seriously. The more the merrier.

[Cicada]

161. Absolutely. Everybody imaginable should run.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

141. I could live with Sherrod... but, Elizabeth is as vibrant as ever!

[Demsrule86]

147. I don't think she can win a presidential race Also we have a

Republican governor in Massachusetts. We need her seat. She has also been used as tool to incite GOP base...I just don't think she is our best candidate. I love Sherrod Brown, but if Kasich is still in office...WE can't lose his seat either.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

164. All fair points... but, I wouldn't count Elizabeth out.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

165. All fair points... but, I wouldn't count Elizabeth out.

[PoliticAverse]

11. Article discussing the 2015 bill...

http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20150223/NEWS/150229908

[yallerdawg]

15. And there it is.

A reasonable explanation of seizing assets of criminal suspects before the assets disappear!

“Transnational criminal organizations rely on a steady flow of billions of dollars in laundered money to support their operations,” Harris said in a statement. “The legislation I am sponsoring will equip local and state law enforcement with more tools to target their illicit profits and dismantle these dangerous organizations.”

Gang-related crime is not the only crime targeted in the bill. It would also allow seizures for crimes such as arson, bribery, child pornography, gambling and even trafficking endangered species.

[JCanete]

24. edit: may have spoken too soon...comment still below.

Last edited Wed Jul 26, 2017, 02:51 AM - Edit history (1)

aha...yeah, if WSJ was against it, I was pretty sure there was a reason to be for it. That isn't to
say it isn't problematic in any way, but WSJ is pretty damn transparent.

[question everything]

58. First time I've heard of this term was at a progressive meeting

here in town where we invite speakers on different topics - survival of bees, reducing carbon foot prints, and on occasions political analyses. No, never right wingers. And one topic was Civil Forfeiture. And the speaker started by asking how many of us were familiar with this topic and no one knew.

So I was eager to read the WSJ and I am not sure what you mean by its being "transparent." Most of these actions are against low income, mom and pop operations. If a son is ensnared in drugs and live at home, the parents' home, car, bank account are confiscated.

I would have thought that on these pages, regardless of sides, opinions will be stronger against it. Perhaps I need to find a liberal source..

Will the ACLU do?

https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse

[JCanete]

110. Yeah it does do wonders, but I did already edit at the top, suggesting that I'd been too hasty

in my statement. I just left it anyway because I don't tend to remove the stupid things I say as if they were never said.

[Jim Beard]

129. I am throwing my opinion in and I agree with you. If by chance it is ever passed, make a minimum lim

limit on the amount of assets owned before they can be seized. Like maybe nothing below a limit of $150,000 of the first amount can be seized.

Also, The proceeds should not go to the local police departments but to a national fund to be divided among all the public school districts in the country. Just put the money in one big pot and distribute it locally.

[question everything]

143. Of course. This is what we say. But the reason why local police love it is that

they keep the money.

[aikoaiko]

38. But the issue is seizing property of people not convicted of crimes.

Sure, everyone likes seizing the assets of criminals but until they are convicted they are or should be treated as innocent in the eyes of the law.

It would be interesting to see how much is seized from "transnational criminal organizations" and average citizens.

[GaryCnf]

42. I think you will find

That in terms of the number of times it is used, it's not even close. Llike 99%+ of the time it's used against every day people who can't fight back. Throwing out the types of criminals that most of us despise but against whom it it never used is just politics at work.

[aikoaiko]

115. That is how I understand it, but I can't say I've seen statistics.

But it makes sense because there aren't that many super-mega-criminals out there.

But there are lots of singles mothers whose sons get busted for breaking up more than an ounce of weed in their houses.

[theaocp]

52. If she can't charge them with a crime,

she shouldn't be able to do jackshit with their assets, no matter how criminal they might be. Where is the issue with this?

[yallerdawg]

54. They are being charged with a crime.

Where do get the idea the government just takes their assets?

[theaocp]

56. That's how asset forfeiture has worked for decades plus.

Feel free to show me how this is different.

[yallerdawg]

59. I don't know what to say.

You're completely wrong.

You can start with the article referenced in this little thread.

[theaocp]

79. This seems relevant (from the article):

Harris was not merely “doing her job.” In 2011, she actively fought a California bill that would have curbed civil asset forfeiture. Four years later, she sponsored a bill to expand the abilities of prosecutors to seize assets of those charged with a crime prior to the commencement of criminal proceedings. That year, the state stole $50 million worth of private property and funds from California citizens.

What did I miss here?

[yallerdawg]

81. You missed the article !

Post #11 - http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20150223/NEWS/150229908

[theaocp]

80. The other article also talks about freezing assets

PRIOR to criminal proceedings occuring. Why are you okay with this? They article also jumps between freezing and seizing assets. Which is it? If there aren't criminal proceedings being initiated, how is this okay? Security?

From drug-selling rings in Salinas’ Chinatown to corruption scandals with more than $10,000 at stake, the Assembly bill introduced Monday would allow prosecutors to seize assets before initiating criminal proceedings — a power only available at the federal-level — if there is a “substantial probability” they will file a criminal complaint.

CAF works against the powerless and amounts to state-sponsored theft and an attitude of guilty-until-proven-innocent. I am not fucking okay with this and neither should anyone else who doesn't have a stake in stealing from the citizenry.

[yallerdawg]

83. The article which started this thread you are commenting on...

explains the goal of Kamala Harris as the California Attorney General.

Since it is already quoted in this thread, we're just spinning in pointless circles here.

Look, you are more than welcome to find an issue to justify "disqualifying" a potential candidate - it's what we do.

My goal is to find out WHY a candidate makes the choices they do, often over an extensive career. This candidate Kamala Harris has justified her position on this issue as the California Attorney General - and no one seems to be accusing her of putting money in her pocket, right?

I'm not judging her by any relatively minor abuses and unsubstantiated claims just to discredit someone.

[theaocp]

84. I don't recall saying anything about her being "disqualified"

Perhaps I missed where my criticism of a reprehensible policy became such?

The policy has all the wrong incentives and hurts real people who have nothing to do with criminal practices. That is not minor, unless you just don't care who gets caught in the crossfire. That's between you and the person you find in the mirror. Good luck.

[yallerdawg]

85. I'm disagreeing with the OP.

You're disagreeing with me.

Maybe I'm just stupid?

[theaocp]

87. Okay, then.

I hope you never have the cops LEGALLY take your stuff on the suspicion you may have committed a crime. THAT is civil forfeiture, no matter who proposes it or defends it. Again, good luck.

[question everything]

62. From the ACLU?

https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse

Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation’s conscience. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.

Forfeiture was originally presented as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by diverting their resources. But today, aided by deeply flawed federal and state laws, many police departments use forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines, making seizures motivated by profit rather than crime-fighting. For people whose property has been seized through civil asset forfeiture, legally regaining such property is notoriously

[yallerdawg]

70. And they actually reference a single case in 2015!

https://www.aclu.org/search/%20?f%5B0%5D=field_issues%3A40&f%5B1%5D=type%3Acase

See - I look at the links my fellow DU'ers post.

[Jim Beard]

131. Very good, Thanks. It is nice to see it in Black and White lazer print. Very clear.

[beaglelover]

13. Your last sentence is why Dems will never

Win back the Senate House or WH. I'll never agree with a dem candidate 100% but if they are a dem I'll vote for them because overall they'll be better than any republican. We won't have an effective third party in this country in our lifetime so really your only choices are dem or rep.

[question everything]

65. Obviously I will vote for the Demcoratic candidate in November

but if there are several in the primaries, I will not support her.

(Except for last year, "my" candidates never made it to the convention..)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. As a San Franciscan I am familar with Kamala --

We had high hopes for her but she was underwhelming, to be honest. Harris and Newsom both are primarily about political ambition and less about substance/core values. They both look and "read" great. but there's not much substance. And, under Newsom, San Francisco was sold out to luxury developers and Tech -- almost destroying the City in the process.

[BannonsLiver]

20. Interesting

She won 48 of 58 counties in her primary. She got 70 percent of the vote in San Francisco.

She won the general election with 62 percent of the vote.

for someone so deeply unpopular among San Francisco progressives she has this freakish ability to win elections by wide margins.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

21. +1. N/t

[JI7]

25. you aren't troubled by a politician who is ambitious for higher office ?

[BannonsLiver]

27. LOL...no.

[bettyellen]

128. Anyone in the running is ambitious, to claim otherwise is crazy. It's only seen as a negative for

women. Look at Trump of you think it's not sexist.

[question everything]

67. Yes, this is my first reactin too. And yet, when you realize that the other was Loretta Sanchez

one can understand why Harris won.

And... I thought that Newsom would be an interesting candidate..

[Hell Hath No Fury]

71. Of course she did.

The CA Democratic Party is one of the most powerful entities in our State. They pick and chose and FUND San Francisco's candidates for us -- they have for years. Locally supported challengers don't stand a ghost's chance running against any of the "official" candidates like a Harris or Newsom who have been forced on us by the State Party. This issue is one of my biggest beefs as a San Franciscan -- the City is used -- and I do mean USED -- strictly as a springboard by the Party to introduce candidates for State/National office. We haven't had REAL local representation since the 1980s. And it pisses me the fuck off.

[BannonsLiver]

74. "official candidates"

As in candidates that can actually win elections.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

88. No, there are "official" Democratic candidates here.

The State Party endorses one specific Democratic candidate for San Francisco -- and that candidate is the one who gets the funding, the backing, and the overwhelming advertising campaign. There hasn't been an election where there hasn't been one or more additional "local" Democrats running -- including popular City Supervisors -- but they simply cannot compete against the avalanche of funding and support that comes from the State Party for their candidate. Through citizen initiative we have even instituted ranked choice voting as a way to try and wrest some control back to the local level -- it has only been moderately successful so far because we are working against a true Machine. We still have a lot of work to do.

As for "winning" -- this is fucking San Francisco. A "Democrat" will always win -- we haven't had a GOP Mayor since Frank Jordan in 1992. I just want a Democrat who is actually interested in San Francisco first and foremost.

[BannonsLiver]

113. I have little to no interest in SF city politics

I'd wager among those not living in SF I am not alone in that. We've got bigger fish to fry out here in the rest of the country.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. I don't know.

Unless Gavin Newsom had a time machine and went back to convince Hewlett, Packard, Jobs, etc. to originally set up shop in the South Bay, he is no more "responsible" for the "tech takeover" of SF than he is for World War One.

What, you really thought all those people were going to move to Gilroy?

The simple, flat-out obvious problems with San Francisco- and I love the place, don't get me wrong - are that it is geographically bounded on 3 sides by water, it sits close to a fault line, and politically the voters there want to "keep it the way it is".

But if you "keep it the way it is", you are going to have a high demand/low supply situation for real estate, and oh did we mention the billions of dollars passing through the headquarters of Google, etc. down the 280?

It wouldn't take Nostradamus to figure out what would happen, with that. Oh, then, affordable housing? Sure. Great idea. Where you gonna put it, in San Francisco? Where will the voters approve of it? How are you going to build it... up? Oh yeah, fault line.

And as much as anyone might want to blame someone like Newsom for "selling out to luxury developers", the fact is that NIMBYism is a real phenomenon, especially when voters are weighing their property values in the context of "luxury developments" versus any alternatives.

Honestly the ONE glaringly logical solution or at least minor amelioration to the perpetual problem of Gawdawfulcommutes/nowhereaffordabletolive that has plagued the bay area forever, was proposed in 1972 or so and it makes just as much sense or more, today, namely, run BART across the unused bottom level of the GGB.... up all the way to Sonoma County.

Unfortunately, the NIMBYism in Marin is even worse than it is in San Francisco. Oh well.

As for Newsom, I thought he was just another blow-dried yuppie at first, but he has led on issues like marriage equality and cannabis legalization. Both he and Harris have a lot going for them, IMHO.

[obamanut2012]

39. wrong

[Foamfollower]

19. BURN THE WITCH!!!!

Get fucking real.

[Qutzupalotl]

22. Forfeiture laws suck.

They create too much incentive for law enforcement to sieze property for their own profit. Not to mention that they're a miscarriage of justice and a travesty. Sadly, even Jerry Brown has also been in favor of them for decades.

[JCanete]

23. Of course this can be abused. So can making it impossible to seize these assets.

Not that I know shit about this stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like there
could be very reasonable reasons to seize assets, say in the context of a criminal investigation, even if charges have yet to be filed, since the legitimacy of how that money was come by is in question, and the intention is to make sure it doesn't get funneled elsewhere or payed out to shareholders, etc. in an effort to preempt its seizure.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. The same could be achived by simply -freezing- those assets, too, no?

only difference there is, the relevant law enforcement agencies aren't tempted to fudge the margins and bend the rules, by the smooth creamy chocolaty treasure $$$$ bath.

[JCanete]

30. I see. That does make sense. Is that what this pivots on? Freezing vs seizing? Is seizing a done

deal, or does the state have to demonstrate criminal activity in order to actually auction off that property, or asset, or absorb funds, etc.?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

31. It's a done deal for poor people because they have sue to get their assets back.

Since it is "civil" asset forfeiture, the protections aren't the same as in criminal cases. The government literally sues the asset, not the person. Your asset is basically "guilty" and you have to prove otherwise by showing up in court.

For an extra added wtf, the laws used go back to the real live pirate ship days. Resurrected by our friends, The Reagan Administration, to fight "the war on drugs"

Unless they have $5k or $10k to hire an attorney to get their $3000 dollars in cash or $5000 dollar car back, they are SOL.

Local cops on the known trafficking routes now look for cash heading south and ignore the northbound lanes where the drugs are heading north. Departments recruit cops that are good at finding cash and then pay commissions. Departments literally fight each other for takedowns.

[JCanete]

32. Oh okay, thanks for the context of its typical usage. Sounds shitty then. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Yeah, I think part of the problem- a big part- is the financial incentive to LEOs.

Leaving aside the fact that shit like pot smoking shouldnt be a "crime" at all, not one that we send thousands of people to prison a year over---

genuinely ill-gotten gains can be legitimately fined or otherwise confiscated as part of or associated with a lawfully obtained criminal conviction, to my mind.

There is a place for that.

But the current system is way too prone to abuse.

[theaocp]

55. It's not a big part of the problem.

It's the ONLY part of the problem. Where does the incentive end up? ALWAYS being abused.

[question everything]

68. Here is the ACLU opinion, so you don't need to accept the WSJ

Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation’s conscience. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.

Forfeiture was originally presented as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by diverting their resources. But today, aided by deeply flawed federal and state laws, many police departments use forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines, making seizures motivated by profit rather than crime-fighting. For people whose property has been seized through civil asset forfeiture, legally regaining such property is notoriously

https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse

[JCanete]

106. thank you for the link. I definitely stand corrected on this one. nt

[phleshdef]

26. I'm okay with it to a certain degree AFTER a conviction.

I don't believe in it even if you've been charged with a crime. I certainly don't believe in it happening without charges. If a person has been convicted of a crime where they obtained wealth through criminal means, then I can agree with some degree of seizing assets. Even then, I believe, at the least that the burden of proof should be on the prosecution in regard to putting a verifiable dollar amount on how much the person made off of that criminal behavior. On top of that, there should be limits to how much in assets they can seize based on the convicted person's current net worth and annual income.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Whoever we run next time is gonna need to be clear on many issues, like ending the drug war for good

Personally I don't think asset forfeiture should be permitted under any circumstances unless it is tied to a criminal conviction, period.

It is too easy and tempting to abuse, so you get situations like we have now, where some 80 year old lady's house is taken away because her grandson had a pot seed in his car.

[Demsrule86]

146. As always, sounds good won't happen...states can do as they please and with

criminals enjoying huge wealth (Gangs, Russians Mafia), they can use their wealth as a get out of jail free card. The idea that the next president can do the laundry list that I have seen on this site is ludicrous...I will be happy if he/she can roll back all of Trump's executive orders, fix healthcare and maybe a public option, the economy (downturn coming), and the environment. NO president can get everything done. Oh and if you want a liberal president, give him a Democratic Congress.

[Warren DeMontague]

148. Spare people the lectures. As if we're all errant children who havent been working for Democrats

for DECADES, in many cases.

Seriously. Who is it you think you're talking to, here?


Expecting the next (D) candidate for president to acknowledge that the drug war has failed is a ridiculously low bar that I have no doubt Harris and, well, almost the entire rest of our party, could easily manage.

The ones that can't... well, they need to figure out which way the wind is blowing in public opinion, and 'evolve', already, don't they.


Beyond that, as is said repeatedly in this thread, freezing assets works just as well as seizing them in terms of preventing "using wealth as a get out of jail free card". What it avoids is the temptation to law enforcement agencies to run amok because, hey, free shit and cash, amirite?

In the meantime, we send SWAT teams into granny's living room over the pot plant in her basement, and some so-called "progressives" treat talking about it like it's a pain in the ass because... reasons, I guess.

[Demsrule86]

155. Most people are against the drug war...and I expect that the Democratic candidate will certainly say

that. However, talk is cheap. It will be a big undertaking and require a solid 60 vote majority in the Senate and a majority in the house. And the states can treat drugs anyway they choose. And they can take assets as well. I don't lecture you or anyone else. I merely state and opinion which as member of DU is my right. I fail to see why you feel the need for the snark.

I see a laundry list a mile long that one president is supposed to do...it won't happen. Nothing will happen unless we take the Senate and the House. I wish folks would realize the presidency is but on man and honestly, you will accomplish nothing without a congressional majority...we won't even get judges without a Senate majority.

[Warren DeMontague]

157. basically, you presume this is stuff people don't already know.

Didn't just fall off the turnip truck, over here. "Golly, Mrs. Cleaver, it never occurred to me that we should try and elect a Democratic congress"

...that's "why the snark".

Asset forfeiture as a federal question is relevant to the conversation, however, particularly since AG sessions is as we speak clearly trying to use it to do an end-run around those state laws you mention:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-civil-asset-forfeiture-simply-wont-die/2017/07/25/f5c0c4de-70ba-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.00dd0b7ceeaf


So it's an important conversation that needs having, about the philosophical underpinnings of the whole enterprise, etc.

Now as for Kamala Harris, I've probably followed her career longer than you have- and I do actually believe her head and heart are in the right place. I'm thrilled- but not surprised one whit- that she's rapidly taking a leadership role in our party at the national level. I am less concerned about her legislative activities in Sacramento- California has its head on straight around issues like cannabis, unlike some other states- than I am about the foot dragging of Democrats in similar statehouses further east. And if, as you say upthread, her proposal was more about freezing than seizing assets, even better.

But as the WaPo notes, Asset forfeiture has these built-in problems in terms of tempting law enforcement with big payouts. Again, it's an important discussion we as a nation need to have.

[GaryCnf]

36. I have to admit

Last edited Wed Jul 26, 2017, 08:07 AM - Edit history (1)

It does concern me that she has such a conservative record on the very issues she has actually dealt with, as opposed to just talked about.

As this op-ed from Mugambi Jouet talks about, she also defended California's death penalty in court when she could have refused and when leadership against the death penalty could have made a difference.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/amp/Why-does-Kamala-Harris-defend-the-death-penalty-6481227.php

[Ilsa]

37. I'll admit to being uneducated on this Why can't forfeited assets go to a trust?

Some sort of account so assets are maintained, not lost while a person goes to trial? Are forfeited assets ever restored?

Why can't there be a THRESHOLD for taking someone's money, so people who need to carry their savings on them don't lose $5,000 over a busted tail light?

[GaryCnf]

40. Some answers

No, it is never restored. It is shared between the state and the local LE agency who made the stop or seizure. Oh, btw, because it is civil in nature it doesn't even matter whether the stop violated the constitution.

No, they will not raise the standard. Contrary to the claim that it will be used to shut down massive international crime syndicates, environmental criminals, and child pornographers it's real goals are to bully small timers into snitching and steal from people who they can't prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In general it is unwise to be a one issue voter and I can understand that for many people civil forfeiture is not a make or break issue. On the other hand, to defend a practice which in reality is most often used against the already oppressed is at least a little concerning.

[Ilsa]

45. Thank you.

Over time, I think I've gotten confused about some details depending on the source.

I don't like being a one-issue voter, but I can understand if Harris or another campaigns as the "tough candidate" on this issue if it gets them into office. I'd like to see the DNC propose amendments to this and change it so innocent persons aren't robbed by local LEOs, which is what happens if they have no names or other info to bargain with.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. Here is a Vice program piece on the issue

[treestar]

41. Starting already ?

It's only 2017.

[GaryCnf]

46. ? - I'm pretty new

But it seems to me that Kamala Harris has been the subject of posts for a long time.

[BannonsLiver]

77. Yeah here's how it goes

Someone makes an OP about Harris. And then, as if on cue, a cadre of posters arrive to criticize her. Harris makes some people uncomfortable it seems, though I'm not exactly sure for what reasons. I suppose it depends on one's purpose.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. I like her, and think she has a great future

I have followed her career for the last ten years. This is somewhat troubling, but mostly I am tired of the trend in American politics to promote whoever seems new and exciting into immediate serious consideration for the top office in the nation. That is one thing I really respected about Hillary. She kept her vow to finish her first full term in the Senate before claiming she was ready to be President. Harris for VP is something I could seriously consider supporting.

And yes I know all about Barack Obama. I didn't support his run for the nomination in 2008 largely on this basis. Yes he is an exceptional person and made it work - but we should not as a rule turn over the nation to relative rookies in governing at the State level, or legislating at the national level. It creates the type of precedents that people like Donald Trump exploit - wearing inexperience and an "outsider" status as a badge of honor when experience really does matter.

[David__77]

64. I could see supporting her in a campaign for president.

I don't think someone should necessarily have a ton of electoral experience to be president. I'm not aware of Harris promising not to run for president. If she did, then I hope she keeps the promise.

[question everything]

117. Well said. Thank you

It was clear that the powers at the time: Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle were determined to, first, block Hillary and, second, prevent the repeat of John Kerry of "first voting for before voting against" and looked for someone with blank chart.

Not only did Hillary finished her first full term in the Senate, she, and Al Franken, set in the back of their committees, kept quite while learning the ropes.

[Calista241]

48. Forfeiture, with some rules, I can support.

Such as:

1) Assets can only be officially seized after a conviction. The govt can prevent sale or have control of the property while the case is being adjudicated. But No conviction = no seizure.

2) the govt must prove those assets were the product of illegal activity. For example, if a person has a job, a house, and 3 marijuana plants in his backyard, unless they can prove he paid for the house with marijuana sales, then they cannot seize the house.

[David__77]

63. Those look like reasonable rules to me.

...

[Expecting Rain]

50. Has Our Revolution decided Kamila Harris is the next Cory Booker?

Because it feels like Vladimir Putin's slime machine is gearing up for another round of let's destroy the leading Democrats.

[David__77]

61. What do you think about seizing assets of people not found guilty of a crime?

...

[BannonsLiver]

91. I care about it

But a helluva lot less than I do about politicians who don't support the ACA or single payer, efforts to control climate change, and an affordable living wage for all Americans.

But then again, I've never been a single issue voter with litmus tests. Individual results will vary, I suppose.

[GaryCnf]

93. Exactly

[Demsrule86]

111. It is a useful took in dealing with the Mafia and gangs...but what Harris promoted was freezing

assets which is fine by me...if you are not convicted, you keep your money.

[nini]

78. That is very obvious on twitter

They've already gone to work on her - to me that means she's a threat to them.

[JHan]

82. Yes, she is the new Cory Booker. It was inevitable.

[BannonsLiver]

92. +1 no doubt about it. I see it any time Harris' name is brought up.

[Oubaas]

51. Well...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

By the way, you're scheduled for a urinalysis test at work on Friday.

[David__77]

60. I think assets should only be held in trust during a speedy trial, at most.

And, if individuals are not found guilty, the assets should be returned to the parties that held them. There should not be a lower threshold for seizing assets than required for criminal conviction, in my opinion. I think that support of that practice is a serious error.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. Maybe we should make her wear a hair shirt.

SMH

[David__77]

73. I don't agree.

I do think that it's reasonable to discuss the content of and merits or demerits of her position on this issue. One can support a politician and still do this, in my opinion. I voted for Harris, and do hope that she opposes failing to return assets to individuals who are not convicted of a crime.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. I voted for her too...

However if I voted for someone who agrees with me on everything I would write in myself.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

69. All ur faves are problematic.

[NobodyHere]

72. It's not a deal breaker for me

But it is very very close

[NobodyHere]

76. Also I think everyone should watch John Oliver's take on CAF

[question everything]

122. Excellent! Thank you for posting

(seems that we've missed this episode)

[GaryCnf]

86. I'm fine with the idea

that some voters don't see supporting civil forfeiture, or capital punishment for that matter, as disqualifying Kamala Harris from national office. Single issue voting is dangerous not to mention naive.

On the other hand, to suggest that even talking about a candidate's views on issues which are important to many Democrats - or in the case of criminal justice issues especially important to me as a black male - is imposing some sort of purity test is a fundamentally dishonest argument.

[mvd]

94. I saw that she personally opposes the death penalty

She just had to defend the law as part of her job.

[GaryCnf]

95. I linked to an article

Which explains that she really wasn't compelled to defend it. It's like when the CA AGs office refused to defend CA in the marriage equality suit. It's a choice.

[mvd]

96. That could be true. But it would probably create a lot of hassle for her if she didn't

It's important to me that if she is our candidate in 2020, she is personally opposed. For now I am satisfied. I may be more enthusiastic in my opposition, but will take it.

[GaryCnf]

97. More than understandable

And a good point

[Demsrule86]

99. I am sick of the hit pieces on Sen. Harris.

I had to go to a different source as this is behind a paywall. She sponsored a bill that would allow prosecuters to freeze assets to prevent them from being hidden or used for nefarious purposes. You need to delete this. It is inaccurate and does not tell the whole story...you are doing the GOP's work for them by posting this shite.


"Sacramento >> In an effort to fight criminal organizations, a newly proposed bill could give prosecutors the power to freeze illicit profits before filing criminal charges."

[Expecting Rain]

104. Spot On!

The same tactics of fake news and slime attacks on good Democrats that the Putin/JPR/Our Revolutionaries embraced are being rolled out one again.

Democrats need to resist these attacks on our party.

[Demsrule86]

139. Yes this began with the GOP media.

[Demsrule86]

145. We need to denounce our revolution and warn candidates if you are involved with this group

no DNC funds for you. They are the same as Green spoilers.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

105. Ohhhh this was only meant for "nefarious purposes" money. Why didn't you say so!

I guess I should have done a quick Google search!

[Demsrule86]

138. She sponsored a bill to freeze assets before trial.

[grantcart]

108. Well we are going to have to get used to it because lots of folks are going to pick apart any Dem

leader who has been in law enforcement.

As for Civil Seizures I haven't seen a reliable source but I would guess that the large majority of civil seizures are by Customs at the border where cars and trucks bringing in large commercial amounts are grabbed at every port every day.

In Customs cargo examinations it is not unusual for a driver of a semi to go to the check in and REQUEST a dog to sniff their semi because they noticed changes in routines when they picked up the trailer. The drugs are found and the container seized. The driver is not arrested because he requested the check but he is put on a black ball list and can't enter the US for 3 years.

As for the mythical parents who don't know their son is dealing in drugs, I am extremely doubtful.

1) If he is dealing large amounts then he has large amounts of disposable income (probably helps pay the mortgage), comes and goes at odd hours and has large disposable income. The parents know.

2) There may be excessive uses by some local authorities but that should be dealt with by some other judicial review rather than abolishing Civil Asset Seizures altogether.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

119. Sometimes the judicial review is the same agency that seized the asset.

I love how people say 'I don't know anything about it but it sounds good on paper as long as there are no abuses I'm good with it'

This shit has been going on for a long time. There has been plenty of reporting on the extreme abuses by local authorities

John n Oliver even covered it.

[grantcart]

124. Yesterday I was at the Port of Calexico and the driver of a

semi walked into the office and requested a K9 search because the hand off at the company was unusual and he suspected something was not correct.

After they confiscated the contraband they released the driver and did not charge anyone, which Oliver apparently considers that a terrible thing. They seized the truck.

You know what I love? Somebody who posts a video then consider themselves an expert and is patronizing to anyone who disagrees. I go to ports frequently in my job and see civil siezures take place. This is what I have observed about siezures.

Cartel related smuggling capture = 100% seizure

US citizen/resident caught with personal use, surrenders illegal drugs, no arrest, no seizure.

US citizen/resident with commercial amounts arrest but normally no seizure unless

1) Repeated offender or has other felony convictions

2) Uniformed citizen/resident (military or law enforcement) will be arrested and his car will be siezed.

The argument that because there is abuse that the only response is eliminating the action is not convincing. Former Sheriff Baca has received a felony conviction, should we then abolish the office of Sheriff?

Unlike you I don't consider myself an expert on Civil seizures even though I have some knowledge of them.

You know who is an expert of civil siezures? Senator Harris and if she says that there are circumstances where drug gangs terrorize potential witnesses and cs is the best tool then I believe her, because she is an expert.

I am sure that there are abuses in cs just like there are abuses in everything. If the abuses are systemic in certain areas then reform of over sight is called for.

BTW the Nevada deputy that seized the cash probably is on the take, abuses search warrants and trades sex for tickets. The real point of that example is that you have a bad cop.

[question everything]

120. No. Many are done in states and cities

in your city - unless your state prohibit this.

If you have not seen it yet, read the ACLU position

Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation’s conscience. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.

Forfeiture was originally presented as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by diverting their resources. But today, aided by deeply flawed federal and state laws, many police departments use forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines, making seizures motivated by profit rather than crime-fighting. For people whose property has been seized through civil asset forfeiture, legally regaining such property is notoriously

https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse

It is often aimed at low income mom and pop operations, at a single mother whose son got involved with drugs but live at home, thus the home, the car, bank deposits, all are taken away without first convictions. And when the suit is dropped, good luck claiming the property back.

Look at the excellent comment 31, above

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9373732

[grantcart]

123. where is the data?

yesterday, and every day I visit the port I see Customs officers sieze cartel assets.

I have witnessed hundreds over the years, how many have you witnessed?

If you have actual data and not anecdotal examples I would be interested.

[GaryCnf]

125. You understand that all you

Are providing are anecdotes, right.

"I've done this" and "I've seen this" are not statistics either. Produce the data that supports YOUR and Kamala Harris's claim.

If you want to deal in anecdotes, I was in a federal defender's office for well over a decade and I will tell you that almost none of the civil forfeitures were against the cartels and that those few that were didn't make a parking lot scratch of a dent in their business.

This "we only go after the cartels" is nice political spin but it nothing to do with how civil forfeiture works in the real world.

[Demsrule86]

137. What you discuss has nothing to do with Sen Harris...she sponsored a bill to freeze assets...Also

this started in GOP media...do you think they care about this issue...no more GOP trolling and maybe Russian trolling too...we better learn a little tolerance and stop eating our own or we will lose more elections...the alt-left will throw up their hands and say moderate's 'can't win' ...when the problem is them.

[treestar]

142. Talk of her as presidential candidate

so they are starting already! Three effin' years before!

[DFW]

112. Depends on how the law was applied in California

In Tarrant County, Texas, Civil Forfeiture meant the cops could legally rob you of any asset they could find. I doubt Harris interpreted it that way in California, and if all it meant there was grabbing the assets of drug gangs, that's not in the same league as robbing out-of-town motorists passing through.

[ecstatic]

118. Make sure this doesn't become another 2012-2016 style preemptive attack against viable dem. nominees

Always consider motive when reading these articles. Most importantly--be realistic about our CURRENT clusterfuck and keep that in perspective at all times.

[question everything]

121. I think that it will be good for her to know that this is an issue

so that if she is considering higher office, she will have plenty of time to address it.

Wish someone warned Hillary about her private email. And I did support her.

[GaryCnf]

133. I think that's a fair concern

But just read how it is being phrased in some of the other replies. Not one person, not even me for whom our racist law enforcement is a top issue, said that it "disqualified" Harris. At most her support for what is a really heinous practice was something that made some people hesitate.

In response just bringing up the subject is compared to calling for her to be burned at the stake or to disqualifying EVERY Democrat. If good Democrats can't discuss legitimate issues - and every one of you are free to try to tell me why this is no big deal - without being accused of trying to destroy the Party, we are in trouble.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

126. Op-ed in TWSJ.: Law-enforcement agencies seize billions a year without filing charges

Free access via the Twitter account

Op-ed in TWSJ.: Law-enforcement agencies seize billions a year without filing charges
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016189964

[dawg]

150. She's light-years better than any Republican.

I will enthusiastically support her for President or Vice-President if she becomes our nominee.

In a primary election, I will, of course, take this position into consideration. In general, I'm opposed to civil forfeiture. But I can also very easily understand why a state attorney general might want to have this tool at their disposal. Most issues are nuanced, and this one is no exception.

[GaryCnf]

153. Please make it stop

Is this the criticism of Kamala Harris's support for civil forfeiture a right wing plot to discredit a "strong" or even "potential" 2020 Democratic presidential candidate AND everyone who joins in that criticism a dupe of our enemies?

Hardly. The recent "right wing sources" to which the purveyors of such an absurd accusation point offer Senator Harris's support for forfeiture NOT as criticism, but rather as cover for DEMOCRATS' well-founded attack on TRUMPSTER Jeff Sessions' re-invigoration of the practice of federal civil forfeiture. Also significantly, of Senator Harris's support for forfeiture did not begin in the recent pages of the Wall Street Journal or gleeful tweets of RW bloggers. Instead, it began years ago in the pages Democrat-friendly California media flowing from the pens of long-time Democrat-friendly columnists - at a time long before Senator Harris had gained her current national stature.

So, can we put that one to rest?

Was AB 443, the bill supported by then-California Attorney General Harris, nothing more than a bill to "freeze assets" of deadly drug cartels operating out of Mexico, child pornographers, and other uniformly-hated big timers?

Actually, it was an amendment to California's existing seizure law. That law not only allowed California cops to SEIZE the property of people ACCUSED of more than 20 different crimes (including relatively low-level drug sellers) even before they were convicted UNLESS they came into court and fought the seizure, something common people can't do. Recognizing who was being victimized by that law, Democrats in California had attempted to make it less harsh in 2011, BUT Kamala Harris and others stood in their way. AB 443, made the bill even harsher, allowing California to freeze the assets of some criminals even before they were charged or even knew they were being charged by going to a judge with no one present from the other side and getting an order of forfeiture. While it purportedly applied only to transnational organizations involved in monetary criminal conspiracies, "transnational" was defined so broadly that anyone who crossed the border during the course of their crime and made money at it could have their assets frozen. Also, in the amendment as introduced the asset value level was so low that it encompassed the "mom's house" scenario.

So, can we stop trying to accuse people of misrepresenting the bill? Can we stop acting like Senator Harris was only going after big timers?

IF we can get past this kind of BS, then we can get to REAL questions. Honest questions where, IMHO Senator Harris fares much better. For example. Is she amenable to change? Clearly she is. Does her potential strength on a national ticket outweigh her weakness on this issue? For most Democrats, I think "Yes," and even for people like me who consider this a major issue, it doesn't dampen my support for her one bit if she is on a national ticket. Are her positions on other issues stronger than her proposed rivals? She has many strong positions, it cannot be denied. Given the small number other names being thrown out there it would be hard to deny this.

OR we can continue with the same less than forthright attacks on everyone who doesn't like our preferred candidate.

Senator Harris is not only far from "disqualified," she remains a top prospect for 2020 AND it doesn't take this BS to get make her so.

Please just stop.

[Warren DeMontague]

158. Personally, I want to see leaders from the west coast like Harris take control of the party.

Too many of our Eastern "leaders", from Miami Beach to Albany, are willfully obtuse when it comes to supporting continued marijuana criminalization.

[GaryCnf]

162. That's actually a great example

of what I was talking about. Senator Harris is measurably stronger on legalization than most all of the other "early favorites." It's the kind of thing that tilts the balance the other direction from her position on civil forfeiture.

It is frustrating to read post after post minimizing, let me rephrase that, misrepresenting her inexcusable actions regarding civil forfeiture - and then insulting people for speaking the truth - instead of admitting that she is weak on that issue and then pointing to reasons why she still deserves support.

Thank you for raising the bar.

[Warren DeMontague]

163. I've followed Senator Harris for many years, since her time in SF.

She has real potential. A true heavy-hitter.

I also think Gavin Newsom is going places, perhaps beyond the CA Gov. office.

I think we as a nation and a party are long overdue for conversations about not just asset forfeiture but the larger drug war, the 4th amendment, and this misguided idea that the government should be filling prisons with people guilty of nothing more than "unauthorized" use of their own bodies and nervous systems...


but knowing Kamala Harris I have great faith that she will be a force for intelligence, good and change in those discussions.

[question everything]

168. A belated thank you for a measured approach

As I have mentioned on another post - she should know that this is an issue, so if she is considering a higher office, she, and her advisers, should be ready to handle it.

I don't know Harris, I am just not sure about a fresh senator, of either party, immediately jumping to run for president. As much as all of us love Obama and are grateful to his service, he did make novice mistakes.

Also, a belated welcome to DU! I know we will all are richer for your clear thinking.

[GaryCnf]

169. Tx

[George II]

159. Did you dig into her reasons for opposing the 2011 law or sponsorship of the 2015 bill?

I'm sure there's a lot more involved than simply "civil forfeiture". Don't just rely on the WSJ to present a full objective discussion of the laws.

[Warren DeMontague]

160. Harris, coming from the West Coast, has a clue about the drug war and cannabis legalization

it's time for the prohibition dinosaurs on the East Coast to recognize the strength of our party coming from 50 million West Coasters living in legal marijuana states.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the legislation in question pertained to freezing, not so much seizing, assets- a vital distinction.

Kamala Harris is a solid and powerful west coast voice who represents her constituents--- constituents that support ending the drug war and legalizing marijuana.

[SunSeeker]

166. Well said. nt

[SunSeeker]

167. The 2015 Harris bill was about freezing assets, not forfeiture, and only when charges were likely.

In an effort to fight criminal organizations, a newly proposed bill could give prosecutors the power to freeze illicit profits before filing criminal charges.

From drug-selling rings in Salinas' Chinatown to corruption scandals with more than $10,000 at stake, the Assembly bill introduced Monday would allow prosecutors to seize assets before initiating criminal proceedings - a power only available at the federal-level - if there is a "substantial probability" they will file a criminal complaint.

"It would let us get (assets) before they are gone, before the defendants have a chance to react and hide it," said Berkley Brannon, chief assistant district attorney for Monterey County, who supports the bill.

Authored by Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, the new bill would give prosecutors a 90-day head start to seize the illicit profits, while they get ready to present a case. Existing state law requires prosecutors to file both a petition of forfeiture and criminal charges at the same time.

http://www.montereyherald.com/general-news/20150223/luis-alejo-kamala-harris-back-asset-seizure-before-criminal-charges

I recommend you not rely on right wing sources like the WSJ and National Review for your news. It is obvious the right wing smear machine is already gearing up against Kamala Harris, fearing this talented Dem will run for POTUS in 2020. Please don't help them by repeating their smears.