LF: Pennsylvania State Senator Calls Trump a "fascist, loofa-faced, shit-gibbon"

A Pennsylvania lawmaker had strong words for Donald Trump after the president reportedly joked he would "destroy" a Texas lawmaker's career.

In a Facebook post, state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, linked to a Politico story about Trump's meeting with several county sheriffs, including Chester County Sheriff Carolyn Bunny Welsh. According to the website, Harold Eavenson, sheriff of Rockwell County, Texas, brought up the issue of civil asset forfeiture.

Law enforcement can use civil asset forfeiture to take cash and property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without charging the individual or a guilty verdict.

Eavenson brought up to Trump an unnamed senator who was discussing introducing legislation that would require a conviction before law enforcement could seize forfeiture money, joking that "the cartel would build a monument" to the senator in Mexico for passing said legislation.

“Who is the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We’ll destroy his career,” Trump replied, according to Politico.

Leach, who has pushed for civil asset forfeiture reform in Pennsylvania, invited Trump to come after him as well.

"Hey! I oppose civil asset forfeiture too," Leach wrote on Facebook and Twitter. "Why don't you come after me you fascist, loofa-faced s***-gibbon!!"

Daylin Leach
@daylinleach
Hey @realDonaldTrump I oppose civil asset forfeiture too! Why don't you try to destroy my career you fascist, loofa-faced, shit-gibbon!
12:58 PM - 7 Feb 2017

Leach's spokesperson, Steve Hoenstine, said in a statement the senator's post was inspired by justified anger:

"President Trump blithely talked about destroying the career of a man who disagreed with Trump on a policy issue. Then Trump laughed about it, which is just what you’d expect from someone who gets his kicks firing people on national television. Trump just continues to undermine democratic norms, America’s system of checks and balances, and the general principle of human decency. Senator Leach is mad as hell about it, as you can see from his tweet."

Leach was co-sponsor to a bill introduced during the previous legislative session that sought to reform the practice in Pennsylvania, specifically requiring a criminal conviction before assets are seized, much like the unidentified Texas lawmaker's proposed legislation.

But that bill was stripped down, Leach and other supporters told City & State in October, and the conviction requirement was gutted.

Proponents of civil asset forfeiture argue that while sometimes a conviction of an individual isn't attained, the money or property seized was still used in criminal activity. Opponents argue the procedure has been used without strict regulation to take and keep property from innocent individuals.

The bill was last referred to committee.

That's why it's called "civil" asset forfeiture. If a conviction is attained it's called criminal asset forfeiture.

It's not even "civil" asset forfeiture as no civil court case is required to seize.

I can't think of a more blatant violation of the 4th Amendment than "civil asset forfeiture".

Law enforcement can use civil asset forfeiture to take cash and property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without charging the individual or a guilty verdict.

Trump is an idiot. The Senator is looking to reform the process by REQUIRING A CONVICTION - not eliminate it.

I agree with you on this. Civil asset forfeiture without either criminal conviction or a final judgment of civil liability is completely unjust.

I would like to say it is "unconstitutional", but the Constitution is what the Supreme Court SAYS it is, and the Supreme Court has said that civil asset forfeiture is constitutional, so it is.

So is abortion, and shutting down bakers who won't bake gay wedding cakes - all of those things are also constitutional. The law is an ass.

Now,if you are convicted of robbing a bank,for example,and there is a bag full of 100 dollar bills found in your closet still banded with the banks name,it ain't yours so you have no right to it. We used to understand a concept in this country called "commit the crime and THEN be punished for it."

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when itâ€™s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

There, corrected it. If you have contraband or swag from a crime or property used in a crime, you do not lawfully possess it.

The asset forfeiture proceeding is a civil proceeding against the asset, not a person. Thus, no arrest of a person or conviction of a person is necessary. No person need by identified as the owner.

The problem is, desire to line their pockets easily becomes confused with suspicion. When it does, the result is self licensed theft.

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907.

I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur

Law enforcement can use civil asset forfeiture to ~~take~~ temporarily seize cash and property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without charging the individual with a crime or a guilty verdict of a crime.

In a civil court of law, the owner has the opportunity to demonstrate that the cash and property were acquired legally. He, personally, is never at risk of losing his freedom.

If someone is arrested and held in jail for committing a crime, isn't that also a contradiction of innocent until proven guilty?

With asset forfeiture, it is the owner who must burden the filing of the case as plaintiff, and the owner on whom the burden of proof rests. But of course it is not always possible to prove something you rightfully own or possess was acquired legally. And then it's questionable whether the legal expenses of proving this is recoverable from the state.

A patently stupid statement. If I take any personal property that rightly belongs to you, you have **personally lost freedom**. Jail time is not required to "personally" lose freedom. But it's clear "freedom" is not a term you understand.

True, but then if a person arrested turned out to be innocent of the alleged offense, he can potentially collect a settlement as compensation for the loss of freedom he wrongly endured.

True, but there you're talking about a citizen, not an inert pile of money or an expensive car.

But if the owner is successful in showing the asset was acquired legally, under federal civil asset forfeiture laws he is entitled to legal fees and interest on the money.

You act as though the government is going door-to-door, seizing everything you can't prove you acquired legally.

"If I take any personal property that rightly belongs to you, you have **personally lost freedom**."

We're talking about freedom. If I take everything you own, you have lost freedom.

If that property was acquired illegally, I haven't "lost" anything. I should be thanking God that the government didn't have enough evidence to also convict me of the crime and send me to prison.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.