She supports asset seizure, doesn't she? Just like Jeff Sessions?

"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."

Not at all. But we shouldn't elect her to public office.

This is why nothing is ever going to change, although we have so many people raving about how they want change. What they really want is comfort, and to be able to say, "I'm a progressive!" at their next cocktail party, right before they start gloating about how well their portfolio is doing.

Now, go ahead, take your best shot at making it about race or gender. Forget the 4th Amendment. I love to hear all about how we should vote for, "the most progressive candidate available".

It's those compromises with the devil that will maintain the status quo.

Anyone who would vote for a candidate who supports asset seizure should go re-register with their real party. Heck, they've got the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office! You'll be a winner! But expect more of the same for a long time to come. If you're happy with asset seizure, you should be happy with the political landscape for a long time to come. I don't see any significant change coming for a very long time.

The sad thing is, I shouldn't even have to explain to anyone why supporting someone who would trample on our most fundamental, unalienable rights is a bad idea.

in order to peddle a narrative.

Isn't that what's really going on on twitter?

She could at least PAY those poor kids!!!!1!!!

So far, your replies suggested those who are opposed to her want to kill her, and now that she runs a child slave colony on Mars.

Those are both calm, well-reasoned, and substantive replies in her favor. Nevertheless, I'll never vote for anyone who goes anywhere near trampling on the 4th Amendment, even if she'd find it very convenient as a prosecutor.

Innocent until proven guilty. And that means no asset seizure until after conviction.

you have nothing to worry about. But somehow, I suspect you were not worried to begin with.

Well now, I'm sure that, "innocent until proven guilty" isn't a big worry in your neighborhood.

However, in other peoples' neighborhoods, giving the government the right to seize assets before anyone has been convicted of a crime could be somewhat problematic in the lives of those living in such areas.

But as long as you're comfortable where you live, who cares about stuff like that, right?

Be all over it , but not drugs and arms dealers? Bullshit.

on this board.

Bots, agents, liars.

I dont know if we stand a chance in 2018 with these anti Democratic party talking points, but thank you for being part of the solution.

People are absolutely desperate for excuses to attack Dems.

either of us can do about it.

He/she's very altruistic.

this is really becoming an problem on du....puritans afraid to discuss all the sides of an issue or prospective candidate!!!

Anything to make the Democrat look evil and anti progress.

Their heroes are being revealed as people that have serious flaws. And their tendency to dredge up the smallest issue and make it into a crime is hamfisted at best. Instead of taking it this time around, our side must call them out.

...unless, of course, people see "freezing criminal profits until after trial" as being an "unreasonable seizure". If they do, they should at least be accurate about what the legislation actually sought to do.

When Ms Harris was a prosecutor, she supported a 90 day window before the formal filing of charges for the freezing of profits from criminal activity. Not everyone agreed with the bill, but to try to paint Senator Harris as akin to Jeff Sessions serves little purpose other than to demonize another Democratic woman.

Where on earth is this misleading talking point coming from?

Don't you need a criminal conviction to characterize assets as "criminal?" Or are charges alone enough to seize control of assets?

In California, because charges had to be filed before alleged profits could be frozen, there was a window of opportunity to transfer or otherwise hide profits that were later determined to have been the fruit of criminal activity.

Many reasonable people thought that the legislation was overreach; however, the need to distort what the law actually did in order to slander a Democratic woman does not speak well for the motives of the the twitter users who were the originators of this talking point.

People should be confident enough about an argument to let it succeed or fail based on the truthfulness of the actual facts involved.

The link to the legislation is here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB443

The link to the relevant code as it stands is here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=9.&article=

I think it is highly important that the following be retained: &quot d) At the forfeiture hearing, the prosecuting agency shall have the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was engaged in a pattern of criminal profiteering activity and that the property alleged in the petition comes within the provisions of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 186.3."

Further, I think that there should be reasonable provisions for those charged to access seized resources that might sustain personal needs including housing, food, health care, etc. Until one is convicted, they are not criminally guilty.

What I find troubling is the the attack on Kamala Harris based on distorted claims about a piece of legislation that she supported.

A guy that does not have a job but has $100,000 laying around most like has criminal enterprise money. Prosecutors have to convince a Judge to freeze the
money.

I can understand the example that you give; at the same time, the law does not require anything other than the judge accepting that the threshold be met, which is lower than that require to establish that crime occurred.

They are trying to tear down any credible opposition opposition in 2020. Same tactics they used on Clinton for 30 years. You can expect to hear negatives early and often for anyone planning to run in 2020.

I realized later that I had made that mistake, but couldn't remember exactly where I had said it.

Vote, circumstances of vote,statements. What have you got?

"...the Assembly bill introduced Monday would allow prosecutors to seize assets before initiating criminal proceedings..."

"The bill is being sponsored by Attorney General Kamala Harris..."

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

So Kamala Harris wants to be able to seize peoples' assets, "before initiating criminal proceedings."

That's pretty far from, "innocent until proven guilty".

The bill would allow prosecutors to FILE A PETITION with the court to seize assets during a 90 day window before they filed criminal complaints.

That petition's success was legally predicated on prosecutors showing that five strict and specific conditions had been met.

Read the statute.

Existing law subjects property acquired through or as proceeds of criminal profiteering activity to forfeiture. Existing law defines criminal profiteering activity as any specified acts or threats made for financial gain or advantage. Existing law requires a prosecuting agency to file a petition of forfeiture in conjunction with the criminal proceeding for the underlying offense.

This bill would allow the prosecuting agency to file a petition of forfeiture prior to the commencement of the underlying criminal proceeding
IF
1. the value of the assets seized exceeds $100,000,

2. there is a substantial probability that the prosecuting agency will file a criminal complaint,

3. there is a substantial probability the prosecuting agency will prevail on the issue of forfeiture
AND
failure to enter the order will result in the property being destroyed or otherwise removed from the jurisdiction of the court,

4. the need to preserve the property outweighs the hardship on any party against whom the order is entered,

AND
5. there is a substantial probability that the assets subject to forfeiture represent direct or indirect proceeds of criminal activity committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a transnational criminal organization, as defined.

The bill would allow a person claiming an interest in the property or proceeds to move for return of the property on the grounds there is not probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture, and if the prosecuting agency does not establish substantial probability that the property is subject to forfeiture the court shall would be required to order the seized property returned.

The bill would require the Attorney General, on or before January 1, 2018, to report to the Governor and specified committees on the use of these proceedings. The bill would provide for the repeal of these changes on January 1, 2019.

We are better off with informed opinions imo.

Last edited Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

for it and still be reasonable people.

That bill, however, is a far cry from what was being alleged.

I don't think this bill is at all a deal killer for Kamala Harris. Frankly, it makes sense on paper. I'd be more worried that the bill could be abused by unscrupulous people.

But this is the problem with people using extremist, black and white, God vs the Devil thinking. There is no room for any reasonable disagreement or discussion.

I am hardcore anti-death penalty, but I have placed votes for politicians who agree with the death penalty. I think it's government sanctioned murder, they think it saves lives as a deterrent. Neither of us are bad human beings. We are both decent people who strongly disagree.

And sometimes you can see what's in a person's heart, regardless of what they might feel in that moment. I am a gay man who phone-banked and knocked on doors for Obama. I knew he wasn't pro-gay marriage in 2008, but I wasn't surprised when he changed his mind because I knew what was in his heart. In his heart he was a good person who cared about people like me.

is exactly what we should be doing. As I said, reasonable people have argued that this bill is overreach.

However, when some need to rely on a a gross distortion of what the bill actually says and does in order to make an overly facile and alarmist case, it does not serve any of us well.

Weird, that wording sounds so familiar!

No. But anyone who wants to be able to seize assets before initiating criminal proceedings is somewhat akin to him, and therefore will not be getting my vote.

Keep compromising with the devil. Then complain about what they're doing to the country. It makes perfect sense. In some alternate universe. Like maybe the comfortable, insulated-from-stuff-like-that suburbs.

You should thank me for helping elect such a good Dem Senator to replace Barbara Boxer.

I know she will get bashed at DU. That's the name of the game when ever a strong woman is running.

We all need to think through to the eventual outcome of are bashing Dems.

It seems to be coming from different factions. They're starting to do to her what they did to Hillary Clinton.

by misleading attacks - Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Besides being charismatic senators, what else do they have in common?

Creating a socially responsible investment fund, focusing on investments in health, education and community development. What a horrible man- no wonder Obama likes him. /S

is going to be a real hardship for the poor, as you seem to be implying. Or did you not realize that $100K was the minimum value of the assets covered under this ruling?

Did you read the ruling? Because the way you are talking about it makes it pretty clear you don't know the first thing about what's in it, and you are simply throwing out something negative.

Now why would you do that?

Charges were filed. And it's specifically for certain crimes, not for just anything. Do some research before repeating "just like Sessions" bullshit. That's RW garbage.

still claim that wasn't one of the main factors why she lost (even dems and some on DU). If Hillary had won she would have been harassed and blocked just like Obama was for 8 years and for the same/different reason (sexism/racism).

They are being asses to Warren and Harris already. Even Hirono, Collins and Murkowski weren't given the credit they deserved when they voted on health care.

Harris is my senator and I think she'd be a great candidate but this country is too prejudiced and won't admit it (even some women). I just don't understand how it is still happening but then I never expected abortion to become an issue again in my lifetime.

I think you are wrong about Harris and Warren. I expect both of them to be very strong contenders if they run, with wide support.

Her history supporting gun control would not go over well and the Primary Healthcare lawsuit against her also seems like it would be a liability.

We need to decide if we really want to pursue it federally, or not, IMHO.

any candidate in history (even including the 2016 election).

Americans would elect a woman president, we almost elected Hillary Clinton and she had very high negatives in polling.

That brilliant man was harassed for not wearing a tie at one point. They jumped all over him for absolutely nothing and he left office with high approval ratings. They still harass him and Hillary at the drop of a hat. That is my point. I do not want to see that happen again until every damn Republican in office and every single person who voted Republican or not at all gets their priorities in order. I want their party and leader dragged through the mud and to go down in the history books as the worst this country has ever seen. Only then do any Dems stand a fair chance at getting this country back to having self respect and respect from other countries. Our party has been moving toward the center while the Repubs have gone further right since Reagan. The pendulum needs to swing. The Repubs need to move toward the center and we need to go further left. Then everyone stands a chance at governing and not being harassed by bigoted, sexist, and racist hypocrites claiming to love God, country and their fellow man.

she would have run for a second term if she had won.

State houses, local reps, Governers, Congresspersons, Senators.

I guess we all want things.

But since there is clearly an effort to cut her off at the knees before she gains traction I see no reason not to respond.

I seriously doubt there are people on DU who are thinking... "Well I liked Harris, but since this one poster put up some dubious information, I will completely change my mind. The average DU participant is way more involved and knows about what is going on in the party.

I know that the OP was in support of Harris and I do not want to disparage that support, but these speculative posts need to sink to the bottom of the forum because no one is engaging in the hyperbole.

This is a discussion board. She's a prominent (and rising) Democratic figure. What is your issue with saying I like what I've seen from her and she could be an interesting candidate next time around? Especially when there has been some pushback against her.

And yes, I'm aware there are midterms. I (most of us here) are capable of focusing on both.

How much discussion are we having on this issue? Look at your thread and tell me honestly, how many people are having rational discussions about Kamala Harris as opposed to just blasting back and forth with accusations? Is that discussion?

I like to discuss things as much as the next person. Take a look at topics I have posted. Mine usually sink because I ask for nuanced discussion about policy issues or other topics.

These days it seems DU is less a discussion board than a place where people come to snipe and disrupt.

Understand that I am not saying that you are doing this, but again, as I said, it creates more of a space where fools that like to partake in disruption can do so.

I like Kamala Harris. I think that she is a good representative of my state. I voted for her. I would vote for her as a Democratic candidate for President. She is great.

Of course we can all focus on both, as you said, most DUers are already there, which begs the question, was the purpose of the thread to stimulate discussion or just add another opinion to a topic that is seemingly a distraction?

That is why I care.

People are getting all riled up over something that is at least 18 months out in terms of campaigning, when there are local, state and national elections coming up in the next year that are crucial for us to focus on .

I think that the accusations against Harris are ridiculous, but I also think that the best way to move forward is to ignore the idiot bots, trolls, and other sundry characters that are trying to litigate these issue. I know that I am adding to the post count on this thread, but I am suggesting the threads like this speculating about what is happening in "forever" in political terms should have 5 posts tops and 3 should be the author trying to kick for visibility.

Anything can happen in the next couple of years. Harris could have an "Obama 2004" moment, she could sell out ala Zell Miller, she can decide it isn't worth the grief to run. Hell we might end up glowing from radiation before any of the above can happen.

We need to have a slight eye toward 2020, but we really need to focus on the next year of local and congressional elections.

Has worked so well for Dems in the past. 🙄 I've said my piece, and am done debating whether I'm being somehow disruptive voicing my opinion on a subject that is completely on topic for the board. Like it or not people are looking at 2020 as well as 2018. I'm actually shocked that this OP was semi-controversial. Not because of the positive comment about Harris but because apparently some think it's too big a distraction to discuss a Democratic Senator and possible Democratic Candidate on a Democratic message board. Seriously, wtf?

You have every right to post on anything within the TOS. Others have a right to voice their opinions. That is how this works.

The people who believe the attack are likely not to be swayed. Those of us who are critical thinkers and support Democrats are likely not to care about the attack. Others who may likely be swayed are watching the Kardasians.

And yeah, Harris is on my very preliminary list of people I certainly wouldn't mind- and kind of expect- seeing in there, along with Warren, Newsom, Buttigeig, Inslee, Booker and maybe Franken (although he's stated he's not interested)...


The only people I really don't want running are those who were involved or speculated around as part of 2016. No Hillary, Bernie, or Biden.

If we absolutely must go back to the future, lets get Al Gore to run again.

Beyond that, though, I think it is time to move on.

I don't want anyone over age 60. We need someone young and energetic.

Just Boomers in the leadership ranks.

And, sadly, I firmly believe we won't elect a woman.
And can we PLEASE pay attention to 2018 instead of thinking we will have elections in 2020 if we don't win in 2018.

The post title says it all.

Who is supposed to be "electable nationally"? Someone like Tim Kaine?

....what? sorry, I head "Tim Kaine" and dozed off again.

Back in late 2006 when I made it clear if he ran I was all in for Obama. He announced in January 2007 and by the night of the Iowa caucus the same folks were all in for Obama as well.

I don't know if Harris is going to be that much of a phenemomen. But she's plenty ready. It's laughable to suggest otherwise.

There is less to attack. If you have too long of a career in Washington, you'll have a longer record to pick through.

We need that.

Like I said, I would like (apparently saying "I want" means something nefarious, I just learned ) a broad bench, a big field, lots of candidates for 2020. And a vigorous debate around issues and direction. Beyond that, it's far too early to significantly discuss this beyond the realm of the very hypothetical anyway.


But should Harris choose to run, I think she'd be great. I'd love to see her in the mix.

Gah, we so very much need fresh blood.

I said upthread that I want a broad bench and a diverse field of candidates along with a real vigorous discussion of issues and direction (when the time comes, of course) but apparently my wording there means something....

If Hillary, the most competent and ready person we have had run for President since Al Gore, couldn't win against the biggest buffoon and moron who ever ran, no other woman is going to win yet. Maybe as VP, but very sadly, we are not ready for a woman for President.

Nonsense. I think she's a winner.

I agree she's competent and she was ready, but that doesn't always translate into energizing crowds, etc.

Al Gore was competent and ready, too, as you say. He also had problems generating enthusiasm. He also lost.

Unfortunately there's more to politics than that. Hillary also got more votes than any Democrat except Obama. I certainly don't think you should disqualify over half the population on the basis of the performance of the last election.

At the very least you should have a sample greater than one Female nominee to go on.

to ridiculous degrees more so than blaming it on their "chops". They just weren't allowed to have their own stature without being maligned. Fox News used to mock Al Gore for wearing khakis. Lots of other politicians have quirks or flaws, but they are allowed them. They aren't savaged like Al and Hillary were.

I voted for both of them too, but they lost.

So we can either shake our fists at the heavens at the unfairness of it all, or run better candidates.

that they were just like Republicans. And Al Gore wasn't a great candidate?? That's exactly what I'm saying. Some candidate's quirks are celebrated and considered endearing qualities. Al and Hillary were just ridiculed and heckled. Nothing good came of it 17 years ago, and nothing good came of it now.

So whats to be learned there? They tried to ridicule and heckle him, too.

I suspect there is a lesson in there, but its probably better to work through ones own conclusions to get to it.

was not like Obama, but he was forgiven his shortcomings. Hillary was not like Obama. Al Gore wasn't exactly an orator like Bill Clinton, but most politicians are not like Obama and Bill Clinton.

So what's the lesson??? The lesson is not to demonize Democrats like Al and Hillary were. Nothing good comes of it. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, in particular, were targets of ridiculing and heckling much more than Obama was. Looking at who we got in return for painting our own candidates as inferior -- George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump -- there's definitely a lesson there, absolutely.

that MSM/GOP demonization doesn't get in the way of them winning. Bill Clinton had the gift, so did Obama. Gore and HRC, not so much.

That is also reality. Bernie had his flaws, but they were forgiven. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were ridiculed. How self-defeating to wish for politicians like Obama and Bill Clinton to come along while the GOP raids the treasury and sells off our country. In the meantime, the GOP slobbers over anyone they can get to show up and cheat, rob and steal their way to power.

Compared to George Bush and Donald Trump, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were true champions. That's where the lesson is.

I can't help you. It's a sad fact of life in this country, but it's a fact. Pathetic morons like Karen Handel skate to Congress while our perfectly sensible and intelligent guy falls because of some stupid late dark money ads. How could he (or any Democrat in a similar race) win? By getting the full range of likely D voters across the board excited enough to vote for him.

So, thanks, but I don't need help. What's also a fact is that Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were excellent candidates. That much is obvious, so why would "likely" D voters throw it all away over silly personality quirks when some are forgiven in candidates but not in others.

I wasn't talking about local races.

You're not grasping the degree of difficulty here. It's not fair. It is real. We don't win because we run "better" people. We win when our voters are more excited about voting for our candidate.

Quibbling over candidates not being superstar orators looks shallow and self-defeating. It is especially self-defeating in light of who we threw away and why and what we got in return. It's turning into a generational mistake. Al Gore was 17 years ago. Obama could only do so much after a financial meltdown and a couple wars.

Bernie was forgiven his shortcomings? Like Gore and Hillary, he lost. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, honestly.

But had Bernie managed to be the nominee.... and subsequently lost to trump, you think he or his campaign would have gotten a "free pass", like around here?

Holy fuck, the recriminations, the blaming, the crap-flinging... the "we told you not to nominate a frumpled socialist from VT when it would have been statistically impossible for Hillary to lose to Trump!!!"

There would have been demands for lines of "berniebro" heads on spikes, all around Kings Landing.

were held to different standards. And, no, I'm not talking about the exact words you typed, but in concept.

As much as I like and admire that shape, I have other things to do. Peace.

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton have plenty of political chops and were persecuted over lies that they were like Republicans and other superficial nitpicks about their personal style.

That's pretty much it from several posts ago...

Not talking to the OP, I am just reacting to some VERY familiar wording seen elsewhere here.

Heard it before.

Yeah, what a ridiculous thing to suggest.

Prolly didn't read the rest of the post, eh?

Ya know what, never mind. I suspect I don't wanna know.

Tells it like it is. Dead honest. Doesn't matter if I agree with her on everything, she's a tough, capable, trustworthy public servant.

...and other high-level criminal gangs makes me more supportive of her.

There are plenty of protections to make sure common folks don't get snared in government overreach, while not allowing the process of prosecutions to tip criminal gangs that they need to disperse their assets.

K&R

We have plenty of time to look over Adam Schiff, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and others including even Ted Lieu. From just my home state alone there are three strong possibilities, none of whom has announced an interest in being POTUS.

...every two weeks and start shit and a good amount of them start tearing down the pol with half truth post.

Getting 5% more votes in 2018 would be way more useful IMHO too

One of the factors that may actually not be in her favor. Do we need her more in the Senate? Will it be a plus or con that she's fairly new to the national stage?

I actually don't know how she'd fare. I do see enough positives that I would like to see her explore the possibility, and think she could be a welcome presence in the primaries.

I originally posted that DU should support Harris from the start at this link.

Regardless to the "purity" of Harris' individual positions, she stands in favor of the following:

1. Eliminating fossil fuels completely.
2. Reducing military influence and oppression
3. Creating a fairer tax system, preferably back to the 90% range pre-JFK.
4. Eliminating immigration restrictions, including (and especially) voting restrictions.
5. Continue the transference of economic and societal power from near-100% whites-only to full participation
6. Select judges not based upon oppressive originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but one more in line with a progressive interpretation that celebrates diversity over individual selfishness.
7. Finally, to continue the transformation from a nationalist to a globalist governmental agenda, starting with a union with Canada, Mexico, and other progressive governments.

This is how the Harris agenda will metastasize. I guarantee it 100%!

Vote for Kamala Harris, 2020, and ensure that no Republican ever win the presidency again, and no Republican majority will ever occur in either Congressional branch.