Rand Paul to Barack Obama: Do you support civil asset forfeiture?

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand Paul to Barack Obama: Do you support civil asset forfeiture and Loretta Lynch's unconstitutional theft?
By Jason Pye

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in a Facebook post on Saturday, responded to President Barack Obama's sharp criticism of Senate Republicans for the delay of a final confirmation vote for his Attorney General nominee, Loretta Lynch.

"I have to say, that there are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it," Obama said at a press conference on Friday. "It’s gone too far. Enough. Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote, get her confirmed. Put her in place. Let her do her job. This is embarrassing, a process like this."

President Obama nominated Lynch in November to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), held confirmation hearings on Lynch's nomination in late January, but confirmation has been delayed as Senate leaders from both parties wrestle over a human trafficking bill.

Still, though, many Republicans in the upper chamber oppose Lynch's confirmation due to her positions on a variety of policy issues, including apparent deference to virtually unchecked executive power. In addition to other problematic positions she has taken, Paul has staked his opposition Lynch over her support of controversial federal civil asset forfeiture laws, which, during her confirmation hearing, she called "a wonderful tool."

"I have a question for Barack Obama. Do you support civil asset forfeiture and Lynch's unconstitutional theft: because THAT is what's embarrassing," Paul wrote on Saturday. "In our country, you should be presumed innocent until found guilty. Civil asset forfeiture doesn't allow for the presumption of innocence. The government can take your stuff without being convicted of a crime."

"The Washington Post did a series on this. They found minorities and the poor are disproportionally affected by civil asset forfeiture. Do you know who is the biggest defender of this corrupt policy and defended it recently? Loretta Lynch. That's why I oppose her nomination," he added.

The 2014 Washington Post series, "Stop and Seize," Paul referenced exposed gross abuse of federal civil asset forfeiture laws by state and local law enforcement agencies. The federal government will adopt property seized by state and local law enforcement agencies and return up to 80 percent of the proceeds to them through the Justice Department's Equitable Sharing Program.
...
Despite the overwhelming evidence of abuse, through wrongful seizures by state and local law enforcement and the IRS, Lynch defends the pernicious practice, which completely undermines the right to due process protected by the Fifth Amendment. It's troubling and, as Paul put it, embarrassing that the individual being considered to serve as Attorney General would view civil asset forfeiture as "a wonderful tool."
...
More: http://www.freedomworks.org/content...ort-civil-asset-forfeiture-and-loretta-lynchs

 

[Root]

Go Rand!

 

[01000110]

Definitely go Rand!

I did hear on one of the Sunday news shows that there are at least 5 republican senators that will vote with the democrats to confirm her, so its a done deal.

Even the panel on the FoxNews sunday morning show said this is a bad move for republicans. None of them even mentioned civil asset forfeiture.

Why is it only Rand that has complained about this (at least that I have seen)? Seems odd.

 

[Crashland]

Oh snap! Rand will score points for blasting the president. He also happens to be right.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Rand Paul needs to go to every single stronghold of socially conservative yet economically liberal inner city area in every open-primary state and make Loretta Lynch the issue. He will need to stop just short of calling her an uncle tom (which is basically what any black person supporting civil asset forfeiture is) because the media will spin that and turn him into a racist, which they are itching to do, but he needs to push this hard. He could very well split the black vote and put Hilary Clinton, as well as the entire GOP establishment on the defensive since they are so frightened of dealing with the race question.

Heck, Rand should even filibuster Lynch and do nothing but talk about every case of abuse that has occurred because of these laws. That would give him days of free media and an instant spot light on this issue.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Definitely go Rand!

I did hear on one of the Sunday news shows that there are at least 5 republican senators that will vote with the democrats to confirm her, so its a done deal.

Rubio and Graham are running for President, so they will probably get a pass, and not vote for her. McCain and Ayotte will probably support her. Maybe Cotton will too.

 

[William Tell]

Rubio and Graham are running for President, so they will probably get a pass, and not vote for her. McCain and Ayotte will probably support her. Maybe Cotton will too.

I don't see Graham being any better while running. He's running pretty openly as a Neo-Con. I don't think he even thinks winning is a possibility.

I could be wrong though.

 

[limequat]

Another political kick to the head. Go Rand.

 

[65fastback2+2]

keep hitting triples and running up the score, rand!

 

[juleswin]

I say it's time for another filibuster. Expose the president and all the people who support govt stealing from the poor and defenseless via asset forfeiture laws

 

[Sola_Fide]

I say it's time for another filibuster. Expose the president and all the people who support govt stealing from the poor and defenseless via asset forfeiture laws

+rep. We need a filibuster over this!

 

[staerker]

keep hitting triples and running up the score, rand!

Exactly. No slaughter rule in the Majors.

 

[specsaregood]

+rep. We need a filibuster over this!

Well, is it worth calling in a favor from mitchie in order to get control of the floor so he could actually do a talking filibuster? I do agree it would be a great topic and one he could go for hours just listing abuses.

But once again, the problem is getting control of the floor.

 

[idiom]

Well, is it worth calling in a favor from mitchie in order to get control of the floor so he could actually do a talking filibuster? I do agree it would be a great topic and one he could go for hours just listing abuses.

But once again, the problem is getting control of the floor.

Abso-fuckin-loutely. If you are going to be a civil rights republican candidate, you have to nail your colours to the mast and go balls to the wall on it. Especially if you are white and calling out a black President.

I think it is the best path forward, the best way to fix the police, the war on drugs, the war on poverty. Show the stats, show the unbridled racism of the major democratic policies.

Get the government boot off the neck of blacks, and you lift it off the neck of every one else at the same time.

 

[specsaregood]

Abso-fuckin-loutely. If you are going to be a civil rights republican candidate, you have to nail your colours to the mast and go balls to the wall on it. Especially if you are white and calling out a black President.

I think it is the best path forward, the best way to fix the police, the war on drugs, the war on poverty. Show the stats, show the unbridled racism of the major democratic policies.

Get the government boot off the neck of blacks, and you lift it off the neck of every one else at the same time.

I tend to agree, I think it would be worth it. Primarily I was just pointing out that it will cost him something. People act like Randal can just walk down to the floor and do a filibuster any old time he feels like it when that is not the case. Either he has to get lucky to have the opportunity (like last time) or TPTB have to allow it to happen.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

Go Rand. Keep calling out the Democrats on their bullshit. They can't keep pretending to be the party of civil rights when they support such police state tactics.

 

[David Sadler]

Rand Paul to Barack Obama: Do you support civil asset forfeiture and Loretta Lynch's unconstitutional theft?
By Jason Pye

Asset Forfeiture:
Rand Paul = 1
Obama/Lynch = zero

 

[Crashland]

Yes now would be a good time to cash in some of those political points from McConnell.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Calling out ohbombya in a way that makes the left and the right both applaud. huh.

 

[Sweman]

I tend to agree, I think it would be worth it. Primarily I was just pointing out that it will cost him something. People act like Randal can just walk down to the floor and do a filibuster any old time he feels like it when that is not the case. Either he has to get lucky to have the opportunity (like last time) or TPTB have to allow it to happen.

Can you give the short version of when it's possible to filibuster?