Kamala Harris supports Civil Forfeiture?

[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.