Everyone knows the news that Trump is suggesting that Attorney General Sessions should resign. So the only question is what do you yourself think?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Attorney General Sessions
- Thread starter church mouse guy
- Start date
Trump is conducting a Witch Hunt of Jeff Sessions via Twitter.
If President Trump doesn't like AG Sessions why did he appoint him? And if he dislikes him so much he has to take it to Twitter why not just fire him?
I am of mixed emotions regarding AG Sessions. He seems to be a strong supporter of most of the Constitution and the Bill or Rights (with some issues regarding the 1st amendment probably based more on his Christian faith than on the law) but I have a huge issue with his calling for more asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture is legalized theft. Stealing the assets of US citizens without an adjudication of guilt in a crime involving those assets is nothing more than highway robbery.
I have no problem with asset forfeiture when a person has been convicted of a crime and it is reasonable to assume that the assets in question were purchased with funds earned by means of the crime for which the owner was found guilty, but without a finding of guilt the involuntary forfeiture of assets is a vile attack on the US Constitution, especially the 6th amendment which establishes the very foundation or American Jurisprudence, the Presumption of Innocence (not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11, of 1948 which because International Law in 1976).
Anyone supporting asset forfeiture should be arrested and tried under RICO statutes.
I am of mixed emotions regarding AG Sessions. He seems to be a strong supporter of most of the Constitution and the Bill or Rights (with some issues regarding the 1st amendment probably based more on his Christian faith than on the law) but I have a huge issue with his calling for more asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture is legalized theft. Stealing the assets of US citizens without an adjudication of guilt in a crime involving those assets is nothing more than highway robbery.
I have no problem with asset forfeiture when a person has been convicted of a crime and it is reasonable to assume that the assets in question were purchased with funds earned by means of the crime for which the owner was found guilty, but without a finding of guilt the involuntary forfeiture of assets is a vile attack on the US Constitution, especially the 6th amendment which establishes the very foundation or American Jurisprudence, the Presumption of Innocence (not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11, of 1948 which because International Law in 1976).
Anyone supporting asset forfeiture should be arrested and tried under RICO statutes.
Trump did not know Sessions would have to recuse himself during the current investigations. Sessions did not tell him. Sessions also seems weak on any investigation of Hillary. Then there is the asset forfeiture thing. He needs to go.
The investigation of Hillary's emails is probably the biggest factor into Trump being elected. What more needs to be investigated?
[Note to Calumnian: I AM NOT DEFENDING HILLARY here, I'm merely stating I think her emails were sufficiently investigated.]
GW Bush's administration used a private GOP email server which carried over 3 million potentially classified emails during 9/11, the Afghan war and the Iraq war. These emails were subpoenaed by Congress but Bush/Cheney refused to comply just as they refused to testify under oath about 9/11. Hillary's so-called crimes were NOTHING compared to those of the Bush team.
You are using the Trump apologists excuse of pointing out something a predecessor had done wrong, as if it was a defense of what is currently going on. Basically, you are defending Hillary by saying, "look here at this thing Bush did."
I'm saying there was a far greater crime committed. Let's investigate both, OK? Why not? Actually Hillary's actions have already been investigated by the FBI and Dept. of Justice and they decided she had done nothing that supported an indictment. Get over it. She's NOT GUILTY. NOW, let's investigate Bush/Cheney.
"Look here at this thing that Bush did."
He hasn't been President for 8 years. Let it go.
I agree with your concern about Sessions' objective to increase asset forfeiture from persons not convicted or even charged with a crime.If President Trump doesn't like AG Sessions why did he appoint him? And if he dislikes him so much he has to take it to Twitter why not just fire him?
I am of mixed emotions regarding AG Sessions. He seems to be a strong supporter of most of the Constitution and the Bill or Rights (with some issues regarding the 1st amendment probably based more on his Christian faith than on the law) but I have a huge issue with his calling for more asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture is legalized theft. Stealing the assets of US citizens without an adjudication of guilt in a crime involving those assets is nothing more than highway robbery.
I have no problem with asset forfeiture when a person has been convicted of a crime and it is reasonable to assume that the assets in question were purchased with funds earned by means of the crime for which the owner was found guilty, but without a finding of guilt the involuntary forfeiture of assets is a vile attack on the US Constitution, especially the 6th amendment which establishes the very foundation or American Jurisprudence, the Presumption of Innocence (not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11, of 1948 which because International Law in 1976).
Anyone supporting asset forfeiture should be arrested and tried under RICO statutes.
Sessions greenlights police to seize cash, property from people suspected of crimes but not charged
"The Justice Department announced a new federal policy Wednesday to help state and local police take cash and property from people suspected of a crime, even without a criminal charge, reversing an Obama administration rule prompted by past abuse by police."
This policy is not consistent with our tradition of assuming that someone is innocent until proven guilty and that's for people that have been charged with a crime.
I'm talking about a crime. I don't know how the statue of limitations impacts this now. I assume Bush/Cheney have escaped without being investigated.
What is this alleged crime?
Bush and Cheney did testify under oath. It was a private meeting held at the White House.
Yes, there was a website maintained on servers at RNC headquarters that some low level Bush admin officials and low level federal employees used for email purposes. This does not compare with having a private email server installed in YOUR HOUSE and used by the SECRETARY of STATE.
What crime?
Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, refused to allow that their private session be recorded and refused to allow a stenographer to create a transcript of the discussion. In addition, the 9/11 Commission requested that they be allowed to question Bush and Cheney separately. This request was also refused.
Bush, Cheney meet with 9/11 panel
President cites 'good discussion'
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday he "answered every question" posed to him by the 9/11 commission during what was described as an extraordinary session at the White House with the panel investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"It was wide-ranging, it was important, it was just a good discussion," Bush told reporters in the White House Rose Garden, shortly after the closed-door session ended.
The entire 10-member bipartisan commission -- known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States -- attended the meeting in the Oval Office.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney answered questions from the commissioners for more than three hours.
A statement from the 9/11 commission described the meeting as "extraordinary" and thanked the two men for their cooperation.
"The commission found the president and the vice president forthcoming and candid," the statement said. "The information they provided will be of great assistance to the commission as it completes its final report."
Commission member Tim Roemer, a Democrat and former congressman from Indiana, said Bush was "very direct" in his answers.
"He was cooperative, he was frank, he was gracious with his time," Roemer told CNN.
CNN.com - Bush, Cheney meet with 9/11 panel - Apr 29, 2004
-----
So, what crime was committed by Bush/Cheney and private email servers?
How does this refute what I just posted?
Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, refused to allow that their private session be recorded and refused to allow a stenographer to create a transcript of the discussion. In addition, the 9/11 Commission requested that they be allowed to question Bush and Cheney separately. This request was also refused.
So, you support increased theft of assets belonging to people who have not been convicted or even charged with a crime?
Actually, I greatly understated the extent of this issue. The total number of "lost" emails in the Bush administration's case was 22 million.
THE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS
George W. Bush's White House "lost" 22 million emails
For 18 months, Republican strategists, political pundits, reporters and Americans who follow them have been pursuing Hillary Clinton’s personal email habits, and no evidence of a crime has been found. But now they at least have the skills and interest to focus on a much larger and deeper email conspiracy, one involving war, lies, a private server run by the Republican Party and contempt of Congress citations—all of it still unsolved and unpunished.
Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.
Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails.