re: Trump can’t do that!!!

Actually he can do that. He has Bessent set up the account in a neutral territory by law 31 USC 9705 Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Then Bessent delegates the day to day management of those funds to the Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture. The only thing required is that they issue annual reports to Congress on how much money is in the fund and how it was spent. Its literally the federal law and dumbass Massie is too dumb to even know what is legal and what his job is. This is literally how they handled the money that Obama gave to Iran. except the funds for Venezuela are in a secured account that prevents people from seizing the money.

quote:

---

Actually he can do that. He has Bessent set up the account in a neutral territory by law 31 USC 9705 Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Then Bessent delegates the day to day management of those funds to the Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture. The only thing required is that they issue annual reports to Congress on how much money is in the fund and how it was spent. Its literally the federal law

---

I was going to say…. I bet there’s more to it than a “shadow treasury”.


There always is. Assuming you’re correct. Thanks for the clarification.

quote:

---

He's such a pussy. Not a single comment on the Clintons telling him to frick off.

---

Some of you really are unhinged when it comes to Massie (most, particularly Jackie, are rational otherwise). The Clintons didn't snub Massie. They ignored the subpoena of a committee of which Massie is not a member.

As for "not a single" comment. Massie posted on X within 24 hours that the Clintons should be jailed for ignoring Comer's subpoena.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

The Seals will say, "It wasn't soon enough!" Which is of course irrelevant. Jackie said Massie didn't make "a single comment on the Clintons telling him to frick off." That got 14 upvotes proving what a pussy Massie is even though it was a lie.

I guess Jackie WAS technically right. Massie didn't make "a single comment" about the Clintons not being above the law. He made several.

Twitter Link

Reposting this again to see if any of the board’s “hall monitors” care to address this post

quote:

---

Actually he can do that. He has Bessent set up the account in a neutral territory by law 31 USC 9705 Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Then Bessent delegates the day to day management of those funds to the Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture. The only thing required is that they issue annual reports to Congress on how much money is in the fund and how it was spent. Its literally the federal law and dumbass Massie is too dumb to even know what is legal and what his job is. This is literally how they handled the money that Obama gave to Iran. except the funds for Venezuela are in a secured account that prevents people from seizing the money.

---

Massie is too dumb that he doesnt even realize that Congress has already authorized this action, and codified it with the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund

LINK

Perhaps an engineer isnt exactly the guy that should be calling out the administration on how laws work

quote:

---

Actually he can do that. He has Bessent set up the account in a neutral territory by law 31 USC 9705 Treasury Forfeiture Fund.

---

It's a waste of time (on PoliBoard, because Jugbow and his ilk move the goalposts) to go back and forth among the statutes, so I just asked ChatGPT if your statement were true.

Here was the response:

########

Here’s a fact-checked breakdown of the legal and procedural claims in that statement — separating what is actually true from what is incorrect or misleading.
? 1. What 31 U.S.C. § 9705 actually is
31 U.S.C. § 9705 establishes the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund — a special, revolving fund for asset forfeiture proceeds from federal law enforcement seizures.
The fund holds proceeds from forfeited assets (cash, property, etc.) under federal law enforcement laws and is used to pay administrative and related law enforcement expenses. ?
Legal Information Institute +1
The fund is administered by the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF). ?
U.S. Department of the Treasury
The statute requires annual reporting to Congress on the fund balance and activity. ?
U.S. Department of the Treasury
So this statutory fund exists and is used to account for asset forfeiture proceeds, but that’s important context: it’s a forfeiture fund — not a general neutral account for any kind of seized money.
? 2. That § 9705 can be used to store any seized funds (e.g., Venezuela oil revenue)
That’s not accurate:
§ 9705 applies only to forfeited assets under U.S. law, i.e., property seized through criminal or civil forfeiture actions administered by specified Treasury and DHS law enforcement agencies under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 981 or 21 U.S.C. § 881. ?
Legal Information Institute
Funds held on behalf of foreign governments (e.g., Venezuelan oil revenue) are not forfeiture proceeds, but rather are classified as Foreign Government Deposit Funds under recent policy/executive orders. These funds are treated as sovereign assets in custodial Treasury accounts, not forfeiture funds. ?
Mayer Brown +1
In other words:
Funds held for a foreign government are not deposited into the forfeiture fund under § 9705. They are separate custodial accounts with entirely different legal status.
? 3. The reference to “Bessent set up the account in neutral territory”
This part appears to conflate two unrelated things:
Scott Bessent is Treasury Secretary in the current administration, but there’s no legal statute that authorizes him to create a “neutral territory” asset account for seized foreign assets under 31 U.S.C. § 9705.
What has actually happened (according to reporting) is that the U.S. negotiated mechanisms to handle Venezuelan oil revenue that are intended to put the proceeds into U.S. custody (e.g., in designated Treasury accounts or through intermediaries) so they aren’t immediately subject to creditor seizure. ?
Mayer Brown
That is a diplomatic/foreign-policy mechanism, not a statutory forfeiture mechanism.
?? 4. Are such funds reported to Congress?
Yes — forfeiture proceeds in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund are reported annually to Congress under § 9705(f). ?
U.S. Department of the Treasury
But that requirement applies only to the forfeiture fund itself, not to all federal funds or to special custodial funds such as foreign government deposits.
So while the forfeiture fund has transparency requirements, that doesn’t mean foreign government custodial funds are automatically governed by the same rules.
? 5. The comparison to Iran deal funds
The Iran nuclear deal was often discussed politically as “unfreezing Iranian assets,” but legally those were sanctioned foreign assets held abroad and released under international sanctions relief — not assets seized through U.S. forfeiture law or deposited into a Treasury forfeiture fund. ?
WRAL News +1
In fact, Iran’s assets were mostly frozen under sanctions and diplomatic agreements, and their release was part of international sanction policy — not handled under § 9705 or the forfeiture fund.
So the comparison to how the U.S. “handled the money Obama gave to Iran” is misleading; that was not a forfeiture fund issue and has very different legal treatment.
?? Bottom line
True:
?? 31 U.S.C. § 9705 establishes the Treasury Forfeiture Fund for law enforcement forfeiture proceeds. ?
?? The fund is administered by Treasury’s asset forfeiture office and reported annually to Congress. ?
Legal Information Institute
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Not true or misleading:
? That statute automatically applies to all seized money, including foreign government oil revenue.
? That Bessent can simply “set up a neutral account” under § 9705.
? That this mechanism works the same way as Iran sanctions/frozen funds did during the nuclear deal.
?? Quick conceptual takeaway
§ 9705 and the forfeiture fund = law enforcement asset forfeiture proceeds.
Foreign Government Deposit Funds (like Venezuelan revenue) = custodial funds held by U.S. Treasury on behalf of a foreign government, protected differently and not part of the forfeiture fund. ?

Absolutely.

quote:

---

It’s a fluid situation for him.

---

MoT going retro.

Awesome.

As of early 2026, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is indeed overseeing the management of revenue from international oil sales, particularly those involving Venezuela, though the specific use of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF) under 31 U.S.C. § 9705 for these proceeds is a subject of significant legal and political scrutiny.

My question was how was Bessent going to handle the funds from the sale of seized Venezuelan oil. I then had a half an hour lesson on the legalities of what they were doing.