Trump Offers To "Destroy Career" Of Texas State Senator At Meeting With National Sheriffs' Assoc.

Tyler Durden's picture

Earlier today President Trump met with the National Sheriff's Association at the White House.  The visit was supposed to be just another friendly meet and greet, but it took a slightly awkward turn when President Trump offered to "destroy the career" of a Texas state senator who is allegedly promoting a piece of legislation that would benefit Mexican drug cartels. 

During the meeting, Rockwall County, Texas, Sheriff Harold Eavenson told President Trump about a piece of asset forfeiture legislation he believes would aid Mexican drug's the full conversation:

Eavenson:  "There's a state senator in Texas that was talking about legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money."


Trump:  "Do you believe that?"


Eavenson:  "And I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed."


Trump:  "Who is that state senator? I want to hear his name. We'll destroy his career..."

And here is the conversation caught on tape:


Reached later by The Dallas Morning News, Eavenson declined to identify the lawmaker that he inadvertently threw directly under the bus saying that he didn't take the president's offer to destroy the senator literally.

"He was just being emphatic that he did not agree with that senator's position," Eavenson said, adding of the senator in question, "I'm not into assassinating his character."


"He was making a point about how much he opposed that kind of philosophy," the sheriff said. "I appreciated what the president said. I can assure you that he is on our side."


Eavenson will become president of the National Sheriff's Association in June. He has been active in the Sheriff's Association of Texas.

As the Dallas Morning News also pointed out, only two Texas state senators have introduced asset forfeiture legislations this year, Republican Konni Burton and Democrat Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa.

Two Texas senators have offered legislation this year to require conviction before someone's assets could be seized. Sen. Konni Burton, a Republican who often pushes civil-liberties legislation to protect personal information and property, was a fierce critic of Trump during the campaign. She and Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, a McAllen Democrat, have formed an unlikely team pushing this asset forfeiture legislation.


Hinojosa said he didn't believe he was the target of Eavenson's comments. But he said he wasn't concerned about Trump's promise to wreak havoc on a senator's career.


"I don't know the sheriff," Hinojosa said. "Quite frankly, I don't pay much attention to what Trump says anymore."


Several other senators have also supported this change in the past, including two civil-libertarian Republicans: Bob Hall, whose district includes Rockwall County and Don Huffines of Dallas. Aides to Burton, Hall and Huffines could not immediately be reached for comment.

Never a dull moment in the Trump White House...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Consuelo's picture



Not sure if I can take much more of this ----- WINNING...!!!!!!!!

Sliced into ribbons's picture

If having the pigs confiscate your money so they can fund their pensions is winning.

Chuck Norris's picture

Don't like the idea of police seizing assets... but kind of obvious a guy named Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa supports the bad hombres


Syrin's picture

What part of "America first" do they not understand?

CheapBastard's picture

Soros is funding alot of the anti-law enforcement agencies in Texas and also many of the far left liberal challengers. hSoros is also fudning the fight against Gov Abbott's legislation to limit or eliminate sanctuary areas in texas.

Somehow they need to lock Soros and his son up as well as their co-conspirators.

pathosattrition's picture

Looks like some forget that the US Constitution requires a conviction before property is seized. You know, Due Process? 5th Amendment? Anyone? Bueller?

brianshell's picture

Does this include illegal alien drug smugglers. No.

Richard Chesler's picture

Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa is not in the pockets of Mexican Drug Cartels.


Notveryamused's picture

Trump just meant he has the support of the Texas voters and just the mention of the senators name in that recorded meeting would let voters know who they don't want to vote for next election.

Ignatius's picture

The Duke of Orange is off track here.  Legal due process matters.

In addition, the war on drugs is a farce.  Should be a matter of public health, not law enforcement.

greenskeeper carl's picture

I agree. I think too many on here, and elsewhere, are a little too willing to let trump slide on things like this. If there is enough evidence against someone to justify seizing their property, you should have no problem convicting them of the crime first. This whole getting your property seized, and then having to prove you aren't a criminal(i.e. prove a negative) has got to stop. This guy may well be 'in the pocket' of someone, but he isn't wrong about asset forfieture. What happened to all the libertarians here?

NotApplicable's picture

Apparently we aren't quite as chatty as all of the statists with their hard-ons for power.

pods's picture

We have a tough time getting through the cheerleading lately.  Seems everyone lost their critical thinking skills and gave the benfit of the doubt to Orange Jesus no matter what, simply because he was better than X,Y, or Z.


Shemp 4 Victory's picture

He's 100% wrong on this. Civil asset forfeiture without a conviction is literally highway robbery.

Bandits wearing badges is pretty much the definition of a police state.

beemasters's picture

How about destroying the criminal Clintons by throwing them in jail first... as you promised, Trump??? There's plenty of evidence to convict them already.

MsCreant's picture

Clinton crime family's asset forfeiture? 

Almost lovely enough a thought to sacrifice my own rights...


Ms No's picture

I am not sure that Trump knows what civil asset forfeiture is, seriously.  It almost sounds as if he made a knee jerk reaction, which he is famous for, when he heard the cartels were going to be super excited about something.  He knows a lot about business and finance but not so much about politics or history.  I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know.

He will by the end of the day though.  If he backs civil asset forfeiture than he is every bit as arbitrary as the rest of them.  Democracy is over if that continues.



Pinch's picture

Looks like some of the Orange Jesus drones here at ZH are starting to have doubts about the fwit. Didn't take long!

Tarzan's picture

I'm positive, had Hillary been elected, she would never ever threaten to destroy an opponents career. 

No progressive politician would ever say such a thing, and you'de never hear about it in the press if they did...

xythras's picture
xythras (not verified) Tarzan Feb 7, 2017 10:37 PM


Sooner or later Donald will have to confront his Goliath: SOROS.


the sneaky jew has his fingers in all the immigration ONGs and lawsuits agains the #muslimban

George Soros Fingerprints all Over the Lawsuits Against Donald Trump


jeff montanye's picture

indeed, go trump.  

i have a very patient attitude toward his verbal gaffes, learning curves, etc.  

that was one of the reasons i voted for him over hillary clinton: he had not made his mind up on many topics.  

she had and she was wrong.

Tarzan's picture

sooner or later, the world would have to confront this Goliath, if the world wished to break free from Satan's plans.  Sadly, the world will not repent.


If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief,
and you will not know at what hour I will come against you


The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands. They did not stop worshiping demons and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone, and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk

kiwidor's picture

hillary would just have had her opponents killed. 

thanks, highly paid thugs.




Chief Wonder Bread's picture

Take a deep breath, y'all. And breathe.

Trump will have no affect on fundamental legal sureties and rights within our evolving system of jurisprudence (case law). Whether the present asset forfeiture laws are an aberration within our system or will survive, I have no idea. But I am confident Trump will have no affect on the dialogue concerning those laws.

Trump is here to drive the elite and their minions insane. That is his simple mission. He is here to channel unerringly with a laser beam's precision the irrationality, disgust, stubbornness, disapproval, contradiction, backlash, whitelash, outlash and every other kind of lash, back into the smug blank faces of the Davos crowd the amassed energy of his followers (us!)

Why is this a good thing? Because in the words of Lear, "those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad [insane]." Trump is the instrument of their descent into madness, which will take the form of overreaction to his pronouncements, which we see everyday in the media. They simply cannot get their fevered brains around the Trumpian twitter-verse retort.

This latest is the perfect example, spoken as if from a bad gangster movie from the 1940s: "We'll destroy his career."

The danger is that the elites and their minions will catch onto his game and stop taking him seriously. Of course, this will be no worse than Obama, whom no one took seriously over the last eight years either, even his billionaire handlers paid him no heed as he went through his contortions, and we can see now why: Obama and his new BFF Branson high-fiving their wind-surfing victories. The difference is that Trump is ours and will be able slowly to effect changes in the courts and elsewhere.

Just be happy that the Hildabeast is no longer slouching towards Bethlahem!

SadhakaPadma's picture

she said about her major opponent PUtin ...he is a Hitler... a took whole war into nuclear confrontation was dumbiest statement since ronald reagan call Soviet Union evil empire.  Last comment by Trump is nothing compared to Hilary.

ScotlandTheBrave's picture

It certainly would never make it into the the AgiProp rags.

Billy the Poet's picture

I've said from the beginning that I intend to hold Trump's feet to he fire when he goes off track. Get my barbecue fork.

jeff montanye's picture

also yes.  part of the patience is telling him, again and again, what the right choice is and, clear as day, no penalty until conviction, no searches without probable cause.

a slow reading of the bill of rights is almost always a profitable thing for a u.s. politician, especially a president, to do.

NewHugh's picture

I believe your happy pills are clouding your "thought" prcoesses.

lil dirtball's picture

>I am not sure that Trump knows what civil asset forfeiture is ...

Pshaw - he knows exactly what it is. He just calls it eminent domain.

Ms No's picture

Possibly but I doubt it.  Lets have an experiment.  Tomorrow go and ask everybody you know about CAF and then get back to me how many can even define it, let alone know that it is happening.  Nobody has heard of it.  I drink with a retired judge that absolutely refused to believe me when I told him about it.  Trump has spent his life worrying about making money, the tax code and whatnot.  He would never have to be concerned about such a thing, nor would anybody he knows.  He would sue them into the ground.  This is a new issue and a serf problem. 

CAF gets no coverage except the Hedge and a few other spots. 

Arrow4Truth's picture

Ms, you've pulled the chain. Democracy? There is no stinking democracy in the U$. How many times in the Constitution would one find the word, democracy. Hint: Nada, not once. Article IV, Section 4 requires "a republican form of government." Ever heard the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance... and to the republic for which it stands. I recommend a brief differentiating overview:

Calm... count, one, two, three... alright, I'll end it there... for now. I didn't even use any f-bombs.

jeff montanye's picture

ms. no wasn't talking about democracy; she was talking about being protected from an abusive government.

as far as democracy in the constitution, it describes democracy in enormous detail.  certainly the european aristocracy of the day seemed to get it.

a representative republic is a kind of democracy and, with a bill of individual rights, more protective of personal liberty than a pure democracy without one and possibly with one since the "people" or "voters" don't have to face reelection or the courts and may abuse a minority with greater impunity.

PoliticalRefugeefromCalif.'s picture
I can't believe he is this vapid on the subject, it comes from a life of privilege and not having to worry about the things little people have to I guess, he would simply call an attorney or one of his judge friends he has supported and charges would be dropped and money given back.

Two sets of laws is what we have and if he wants to break from the sorry line of criminals in charge we have suffered nearly my entire life he needs to get away from the Republi-scum that is clinging to him.

Majestic12's picture

"He was just being emphatic that he did not agree with that senator's position,"

Is this the "free Nation" that Trump was talking about?

Regardless of the issue (cops and drugs), agreeing to disagree is freedom.

Presidents (Jew cabinets or not) are not fucking "Kings".

chimchim's picture

Aren't they one of the cartels?

Obadiah's picture

Does an Illegal HAVE Constitutions rights?

exi1ed0ne's picture

Yes, because the Constitution doesn't fucking give rights. It only recognizes them and tells the government to fuck off regarding them. Citizens of other countries are outside the US jurisdiction. Once they enter it. . . BAM, recognized.

That's how it's SUPPOSE to work anyway.

Because it is very, very important I'm going to say it again. The Constitution doesn't give rights. At all.

TheReplacement's picture

By our laws they have no right to be here in the first place.

exi1ed0ne's picture

And by equal protection under the law as enumerated in the Constitution and just laws passed by Congress as evaluated by a jury of peers will the question of deportation be answered.

I fucking hate the fact that it's a border free for all, but the rights described in the constitution apply to ALL people. Right to free speech, religion, due process, protection of your property from government troops, etc.

America was founded on the principle that we have rights that are inherent in our being, and was originally (more or less, sorry slaves) intended to describe ALL people as the founding principle of our consent to be governed. The only limitation was jurisdiction, since imposing our will on another country is a stupid waste of lives and resources - as well as counter to the above.

Always throughout history the worst possible criminals, the despised, the demonized, and outright nasty people are used to curtail the rights of everyone. Constitution be damned. It ALWAYS seems like a good idea, so long as restriction of rights are for other people.

Take the anti-vax debate - and I don't give a fuck what side you take. BOTH sides are always arguing the WRONG QUESTION. The real question is should the government have the authority to inject things into your body against your consent. Anti-vaxers are being attacked on the least legit arguments to take away even more sovereignty of our own bodies. Hell, it may even be manufactured dissent for some longer range strategy.

Even the most rabid vaxer SHOULD be defending the anti-vaxer because one day the GMan will show up on the vaxer's door for their daily dose of soma. Or they were chosen for sterilization for crime/genetics/population control/etc.

We can't forget our roots, and the struggle we need to maintain to defend our rights. Illegals have the same protections under law (and judgement), or none of us will - even if it is by inches.

Arrow4Truth's picture

What is a Constitutional right? Do you have any? Were you party to the Constitution (charter)? The Constitution enumerates what the government cannot do. The government does not have authority to "give" rights, nor take them away without your consent. How can a government take away a birthright? Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. A government of the people, by the people, for the people. That should be adequate, but there's more if you like. Cheers.

Majestic12's picture

"He was just being emphatic that he did not agree with that senator's position,"

Is this the "free Nation" that Trump was talking about?

Regardless of the issue (cops and drugs), agreeing to disagree is freedom.

Presidents (Jew cabinets or not) are not fucking "Kings".

Government needs you to pay taxes's picture

This.  Murrika is heading to fascism.  Doesnt matter whether the White Housenigger or Orange Man is using the pen and phone.

jeff montanye's picture

that is certainly the risk.  the citizens of this country are invited to push back against this tendency.  

that would include the libertarians that voted for trump or didn't vote and, if it means anything (got my doubts) the "anti-fascists" who didn't vote for him.

shovelhead's picture

That's a loser, make your case and hold the funds. No proof of crime, no funds.

Texas has got a problem with this snatch and grab activity.

Watch Bird 1's picture

Yeah, Texas has a problem with snatch and grab, and it needs to be stopped. The same, or a similar, bill was introduced in the last legislative session and failed in the face of heavy pressure by "law enforcement". Apparently LE has quite the effective lobbying presence in the Texas capitol.

Trump should get up to speed on the evils of the legalized highway robbery known as civil asset forfeiture. If the concern truly is cartels, there are other ways of dealing with them, that don't provide an incentive to victimize innocent US citizens.

Arrow4Truth's picture

???? Whew, thought you said grab snatch. Carry on.

Uzda Farce's picture
Uzda Farce (not verified) Shemp 4 Victory Feb 7, 2017 8:49 PM

Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!

dogismycopilot's picture

Hypothetical: Mexican national with $400K cash and a brand new cash paid tahoe with a Mexican registered gun stopped in Texas border town.

Business owner or cartel mule? I am going to say the later.

Mexico is the cartel. They are the enemy. 

Wake up boys, you're still in last years paradigm.

jeff montanye's picture

mexico is not the cartel or the enemy.  stupid, hurtful drug laws are the enemy and the cartels are a predictable market response to them.

you don't get to "say" whether business owner or mule (and with $400k cash, etc. much more than a mule) until you are on the jury.

that "paradigm" doesn't change with the new year.