AP: Biden will not stop override of DC crime laws

[Anonymous]

Biden saved the non felons of DC from having to appear for service on misdemeanor jury trials every 8 weeks. And for that, we should all be eternally grateful. Thank You Mr. President.

[Anonymous]

It is infuriating to watch the DC Council act like they are SURPRISED that Biden has said he won't veto an override.

I'm about as pro-statehood as it comes and it drives me nuts that Congress is getting to weigh in on any aspect of our city governance, especially when you know the people making the most hay of this are the ones who could not care less about the citizens of the district and just want to score easy Fox News talking points.

But also: this is how it works in DC as of this moment, and how actually stupid do you have to be to write and pass this specific crime bill and not see how it's going to be used in this way.

Would it have been hard to write a bill that updates the code (badly needed), also includes liberal changes to the crime code that people in DC really want, but does not hand super hot button talking points to Republicans in Congress on how "liberals want to make it easier to carjack." It would have been no harder than writing the current bill which now won't become law because of how badly the DC Council and mayor have mucked it up.

I am so tired of the sheer ineptitude of these people. DC is full of people who are brilliant at crafting policy, defining narratives, selling politicians and constituents on legislation, etc. etc. But NONE of them work for city government and it shows.

Actually, here's an argument for statehood: if gaining elected office in DC had the potential to lead to Congress or a Governorship, maybe we'd get better quality options for local government positions and not be perpetually hamstrung by people who are so clearly in way over their heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is infuriating to watch the DC Council act like they are SURPRISED that Biden has said he won't veto an override.

I'm about as pro-statehood as it comes and it drives me nuts that Congress is getting to weigh in on any aspect of our city governance, especially when you know the people making the most hay of this are the ones who could not care less about the citizens of the district and just want to score easy Fox News talking points.

But also: this is how it works in DC as of this moment, and how actually stupid do you have to be to write and pass this specific crime bill and not see how it's going to be used in this way.

Would it have been hard to write a bill that updates the code (badly needed), also includes liberal changes to the crime code that people in DC really want, but does not hand super hot button talking points to Republicans in Congress on how "liberals want to make it easier to carjack." It would have been no harder than writing the current bill which now won't become law because of how badly the DC Council and mayor have mucked it up.

I am so tired of the sheer ineptitude of these people. DC is full of people who are brilliant at crafting policy, defining narratives, selling politicians and constituents on legislation, etc. etc. But NONE of them work for city government and it shows.

Actually, here's an argument for statehood: if gaining elected office in DC had the potential to lead to Congress or a Governorship, maybe we'd get better quality options for local government positions and not be perpetually hamstrung by people who are so clearly in way over their heads.

It's all just a complely unecessary own-goal by the Council.

[Anonymous]

I’m no longer pro statehood. I wanna be a tax haven like Monaco.
With all services provided by the feds and technocrats.

It’s them Council developmentally arrested toddlers what done it.

If we gain statehood it’s only fair that we loose a bunch of federal agencies (probably all but one). Have fun in Iowa pro-statehood feds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is infuriating to watch the DC Council act like they are SURPRISED that Biden has said he won't veto an override.

I'm about as pro-statehood as it comes and it drives me nuts that Congress is getting to weigh in on any aspect of our city governance, especially when you know the people making the most hay of this are the ones who could not care less about the citizens of the district and just want to score easy Fox News talking points.

But also: this is how it works in DC as of this moment, and how actually stupid do you have to be to write and pass this specific crime bill and not see how it's going to be used in this way.

Would it have been hard to write a bill that updates the code (badly needed), also includes liberal changes to the crime code that people in DC really want, but does not hand super hot button talking points to Republicans in Congress on how "liberals want to make it easier to carjack." It would have been no harder than writing the current bill which now won't become law because of how badly the DC Council and mayor have mucked it up.

I am so tired of the sheer ineptitude of these people. DC is full of people who are brilliant at crafting policy, defining narratives, selling politicians and constituents on legislation, etc. etc. But NONE of them work for city government and it shows.

Actually, here's an argument for statehood: if gaining elected office in DC had the potential to lead to Congress or a Governorship, maybe we'd get better quality options for local government positions and not be perpetually hamstrung by people who are so clearly in way over their heads.

None of them run for the city government because the Hatch Act bans running in partisan elections while a federal employee. So by default you’re not getting the best & brightest running the DC government. We are lucky that at least Feds can get on the ANCs. But even then, the ANCs are pretty toothless outside of negotiating liquor permits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m no longer pro statehood. I wanna be a tax haven like Monaco.
With all services provided by the feds and technocrats.

It’s them Council developmentally arrested toddlers what done it.

If we gain statehood it’s only fair that we loose a bunch of federal agencies (probably all but one). Have fun in Iowa pro-statehood feds

85% of federal employees live outside DC. Vast majority of agencies’ staff are spread around the country.

The agency’s are headquartered in DC because the heads are in the President’s Cabinet and they need to meet with POTUS staff, Congressional staff and judicial matters on a daily basis. Plus so much federal work is interagency and you need the agency main offices in the same place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is infuriating to watch the DC Council act like they are SURPRISED that Biden has said he won't veto an override.

I'm about as pro-statehood as it comes and it drives me nuts that Congress is getting to weigh in on any aspect of our city governance, especially when you know the people making the most hay of this are the ones who could not care less about the citizens of the district and just want to score easy Fox News talking points.

But also: this is how it works in DC as of this moment, and how actually stupid do you have to be to write and pass this specific crime bill and not see how it's going to be used in this way.

Would it have been hard to write a bill that updates the code (badly needed), also includes liberal changes to the crime code that people in DC really want, but does not hand super hot button talking points to Republicans in Congress on how "liberals want to make it easier to carjack." It would have been no harder than writing the current bill which now won't become law because of how badly the DC Council and mayor have mucked it up.

I am so tired of the sheer ineptitude of these people. DC is full of people who are brilliant at crafting policy, defining narratives, selling politicians and constituents on legislation, etc. etc. But NONE of them work for city government and it shows.

Actually, here's an argument for statehood: if gaining elected office in DC had the potential to lead to Congress or a Governorship, maybe we'd get better quality options for local government positions and not be perpetually hamstrung by people who are so clearly in way over their heads.

Did POTUS actually call Charles Allen a “lying dog-faced pony soldier”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is infuriating to watch the DC Council act like they are SURPRISED that Biden has said he won't veto an override.

I'm about as pro-statehood as it comes and it drives me nuts that Congress is getting to weigh in on any aspect of our city governance, especially when you know the people making the most hay of this are the ones who could not care less about the citizens of the district and just want to score easy Fox News talking points.

But also: this is how it works in DC as of this moment, and how actually stupid do you have to be to write and pass this specific crime bill and not see how it's going to be used in this way.

Would it have been hard to write a bill that updates the code (badly needed), also includes liberal changes to the crime code that people in DC really want, but does not hand super hot button talking points to Republicans in Congress on how "liberals want to make it easier to carjack." It would have been no harder than writing the current bill which now won't become law because of how badly the DC Council and mayor have mucked it up.

I am so tired of the sheer ineptitude of these people. DC is full of people who are brilliant at crafting policy, defining narratives, selling politicians and constituents on legislation, etc. etc. But NONE of them work for city government and it shows.

Actually, here's an argument for statehood: if gaining elected office in DC had the potential to lead to Congress or a Governorship, maybe we'd get better quality options for local government positions and not be perpetually hamstrung by people who are so clearly in way over their heads.

None of them run for the city government because the Hatch Act bans running in partisan elections while a federal employee. So by default you’re not getting the best & brightest running the DC government. We are lucky that at least Feds can get on the ANCs. But even then, the ANCs are pretty toothless outside of negotiating liquor permits.

Yes but if running for DC city council was a viable path to becoming a Senator or Rep, more people would be willing to quit their day jobs to run for council. Currently, only people who would like to spend the pinnacle of their career squabbling at council meetings and being recognized on the street occasionally run, because it's a dead end job. It's not even high profile enough to get you a decent consulting gig afterwards, like mayor.

A lot of local politicians everywhere are craven, but most major cities also attract actual superstars now and then because it's a stepping stone to something better. DC's local politics are a unique vortex of mediocrity. It reminds me a lot more of the city politicians in the midsize college down where I went to school than the government in any of the other major cities I've lived in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is infuriating to watch the DC Council act like they are SURPRISED that Biden has said he won't veto an override.

I'm about as pro-statehood as it comes and it drives me nuts that Congress is getting to weigh in on any aspect of our city governance, especially when you know the people making the most hay of this are the ones who could not care less about the citizens of the district and just want to score easy Fox News talking points.

But also: this is how it works in DC as of this moment, and how actually stupid do you have to be to write and pass this specific crime bill and not see how it's going to be used in this way.

Would it have been hard to write a bill that updates the code (badly needed), also includes liberal changes to the crime code that people in DC really want, but does not hand super hot button talking points to Republicans in Congress on how "liberals want to make it easier to carjack." It would have been no harder than writing the current bill which now won't become law because of how badly the DC Council and mayor have mucked it up.

I am so tired of the sheer ineptitude of these people. DC is full of people who are brilliant at crafting policy, defining narratives, selling politicians and constituents on legislation, etc. etc. But NONE of them work for city government and it shows.

Actually, here's an argument for statehood: if gaining elected office in DC had the potential to lead to Congress or a Governorship, maybe we'd get better quality options for local government positions and not be perpetually hamstrung by people who are so clearly in way over their heads.

That's a really big maybe. What current facts on the ground lead you to think there would be a massive shift to reasonable local governance with statehood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is infuriating to watch the DC Council act like they are SURPRISED that Biden has said he won't veto an override.

I'm about as pro-statehood as it comes and it drives me nuts that Congress is getting to weigh in on any aspect of our city governance, especially when you know the people making the most hay of this are the ones who could not care less about the citizens of the district and just want to score easy Fox News talking points.

But also: this is how it works in DC as of this moment, and how actually stupid do you have to be to write and pass this specific crime bill and not see how it's going to be used in this way.

Would it have been hard to write a bill that updates the code (badly needed), also includes liberal changes to the crime code that people in DC really want, but does not hand super hot button talking points to Republicans in Congress on how "liberals want to make it easier to carjack." It would have been no harder than writing the current bill which now won't become law because of how badly the DC Council and mayor have mucked it up.

I am so tired of the sheer ineptitude of these people. DC is full of people who are brilliant at crafting policy, defining narratives, selling politicians and constituents on legislation, etc. etc. But NONE of them work for city government and it shows.

Actually, here's an argument for statehood: if gaining elected office in DC had the potential to lead to Congress or a Governorship, maybe we'd get better quality options for local government positions and not be perpetually hamstrung by people who are so clearly in way over their heads.

It's all just a complely unecessary own-goal by the Council.

Great post and correct. I also want to posit, and sadly as a liberal saying this, that Progressive criminal justice reform, at least in regard to violent crime, appears to suck.

[Anonymous]

Multiple House Democrats have expressed anger and frustration over President Biden’s decision to sign a resolution ending a Washington, D.C., crime bill, after they were led to believe he would veto the resolution and protect the bill.

According to The Hill, some of these Democratic Party lawmakers are so outraged over Biden’s decision that they’ve resorted to blasting the White House in expletive-laden epithets. One told the outlet that this is "F---ING AMATEUR HOUR."

The same lawmaker claimed that the White House "f---ed this up royally." Others said Biden's decision was "disappointing."

The outlet reported that Biden announced his decision "to Senate Democrats during lunch on Thursday." It came as a shock to 173 House Democrats who voted for the bill in accordance with their belief that Biden was planning to veto the resolution, not sign it.

As Fox News Digital reported Thursday, the resolution came in "response to the Washington, D.C., Council's sweeping overhaul of the city's criminal code, which was approved in November. Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser then vetoed the measure in January, saying it would place stress on the criminal justice system."

In a statement, Bowser slammed the update to the criminal code, claiming it would "exacerbate the already stretched capacity of the court system; and it would reduce maximum criminal penalties for violent crimes like carjacking and robberies."

The D.C. Council later overrode her veto.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved the resolution to nix the update to the Washington, D.C., code in a 250-173 vote in February.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Multiple House Democrats have expressed anger and frustration over President Biden’s decision to sign a resolution ending a Washington, D.C., crime bill, after they were led to believe he would veto the resolution and protect the bill.

According to The Hill, some of these Democratic Party lawmakers are so outraged over Biden’s decision that they’ve resorted to blasting the White House in expletive-laden epithets. One told the outlet that this is "F---ING AMATEUR HOUR."

The same lawmaker claimed that the White House "f---ed this up royally." Others said Biden's decision was "disappointing."

The outlet reported that Biden announced his decision "to Senate Democrats during lunch on Thursday." It came as a shock to 173 House Democrats who voted for the bill in accordance with their belief that Biden was planning to veto the resolution, not sign it.

As Fox News Digital reported Thursday, the resolution came in "response to the Washington, D.C., Council's sweeping overhaul of the city's criminal code, which was approved in November. Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser then vetoed the measure in January, saying it would place stress on the criminal justice system."

In a statement, Bowser slammed the update to the criminal code, claiming it would "exacerbate the already stretched capacity of the court system; and it would reduce maximum criminal penalties for violent crimes like carjacking and robberies."

The D.C. Council later overrode her veto.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved the resolution to nix the update to the Washington, D.C., code in a 250-173 vote in February.

Curious that they were so quiet when 31 of their Democrat House colleagues voted to disapprove the crime bill.

Anyone who thought Biden would veto this knows exactly zero about how politics works. Why would Biden give his future Republican opponent hours of attack-ad material to help a nobody like Charles Allen with a bill that clearly wasn't even wanted by a wide swath of District residents? And the issue of DC home rule is a complete non-entity among 99.99999 percent of U.S. voters; rightly or wrongly, they simply don't see it as an issue to care about. There was no way Biden was gonna stick his neck out on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Multiple House Democrats have expressed anger and frustration over President Biden’s decision to sign a resolution ending a Washington, D.C., crime bill, after they were led to believe he would veto the resolution and protect the bill.

According to The Hill, some of these Democratic Party lawmakers are so outraged over Biden’s decision that they’ve resorted to blasting the White House in expletive-laden epithets. One told the outlet that this is "F---ING AMATEUR HOUR."

The same lawmaker claimed that the White House "f---ed this up royally." Others said Biden's decision was "disappointing."

The outlet reported that Biden announced his decision "to Senate Democrats during lunch on Thursday." It came as a shock to 173 House Democrats who voted for the bill in accordance with their belief that Biden was planning to veto the resolution, not sign it.

As Fox News Digital reported Thursday, the resolution came in "response to the Washington, D.C., Council's sweeping overhaul of the city's criminal code, which was approved in November. Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser then vetoed the measure in January, saying it would place stress on the criminal justice system."

In a statement, Bowser slammed the update to the criminal code, claiming it would "exacerbate the already stretched capacity of the court system; and it would reduce maximum criminal penalties for violent crimes like carjacking and robberies."

The D.C. Council later overrode her veto.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved the resolution to nix the update to the Washington, D.C., code in a 250-173 vote in February.

Curious that they were so quiet when 31 of their Democrat House colleagues voted to disapprove the crime bill.

Anyone who thought Biden would veto this knows exactly zero about how politics works. Why would Biden give his future Republican opponent hours of attack-ad material to help a nobody like Charles Allen with a bill that clearly wasn't even wanted by a wide swath of District residents? And the issue of DC home rule is a complete non-entity among 99.99999 percent of U.S. voters; rightly or wrongly, they simply don't see it as an issue to care about. There was no way Biden was gonna stick his neck out on this.

No one (except maybe Charles Allen) would have thought Biden would veto this to help Allen.

But signing it also separately leaves the Dems who voted against it in the House out to dry — if they knew Biden wasn't going to block it, I bet more of them would have also voted for it, because, as you correctly point out, very few people outside D.C. care about Home Rule, and if the outcome is a foregone conclusion, vulnerable House members may as well not take a vote that can be spun as "soft on crime."

It was an own goal by the D.C. Council, definitely, but for the White House to say they opposed it, and then to turn around and decide to support it, is also an own goal in terms of the national politics of it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Multiple House Democrats have expressed anger and frustration over President Biden’s decision to sign a resolution ending a Washington, D.C., crime bill, after they were led to believe he would veto the resolution and protect the bill.

According to The Hill, some of these Democratic Party lawmakers are so outraged over Biden’s decision that they’ve resorted to blasting the White House in expletive-laden epithets. One told the outlet that this is "F---ING AMATEUR HOUR."

The same lawmaker claimed that the White House "f---ed this up royally." Others said Biden's decision was "disappointing."

The outlet reported that Biden announced his decision "to Senate Democrats during lunch on Thursday." It came as a shock to 173 House Democrats who voted for the bill in accordance with their belief that Biden was planning to veto the resolution, not sign it.

As Fox News Digital reported Thursday, the resolution came in "response to the Washington, D.C., Council's sweeping overhaul of the city's criminal code, which was approved in November. Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser then vetoed the measure in January, saying it would place stress on the criminal justice system."

In a statement, Bowser slammed the update to the criminal code, claiming it would "exacerbate the already stretched capacity of the court system; and it would reduce maximum criminal penalties for violent crimes like carjacking and robberies."

The D.C. Council later overrode her veto.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved the resolution to nix the update to the Washington, D.C., code in a 250-173 vote in February.

Curious that they were so quiet when 31 of their Democrat House colleagues voted to disapprove the crime bill.

Anyone who thought Biden would veto this knows exactly zero about how politics works. Why would Biden give his future Republican opponent hours of attack-ad material to help a nobody like Charles Allen with a bill that clearly wasn't even wanted by a wide swath of District residents? And the issue of DC home rule is a complete non-entity among 99.99999 percent of U.S. voters; rightly or wrongly, they simply don't see it as an issue to care about. There was no way Biden was gonna stick his neck out on this.

No one (except maybe Charles Allen) would have thought Biden would veto this to help Allen.

But signing it also separately leaves the Dems who voted against it in the House out to dry — if they knew Biden wasn't going to block it, I bet more of them would have also voted for it, because, as you correctly point out, very few people outside D.C. care about Home Rule, and if the outcome is a foregone conclusion, vulnerable House members may as well not take a vote that can be spun as "soft on crime."

It was an own goal by the D.C. Council, definitely, but for the White House to say they opposed it, and then to turn around and decide to support it, is also an own goal in terms of the national politics of it all.

Considering that 31 fellow Dems, most in very safe seats, voted with Republicans is a strong hint that no one whipped the vote and it was basically a free vote. Now these folks are mad about making a bad decision which I think is really funny because this outcome was easily foreseeable.

I am not sure that they should be mad at Biden right now, they really should be mad at their rookie leadership. Hakeem Jeffries and more so Katherine Clark as whip screwed this up. They should have been giving their caucus guidance on how to vote and negotiating the outcome with the Senate and WH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Multiple House Democrats have expressed anger and frustration over President Biden’s decision to sign a resolution ending a Washington, D.C., crime bill, after they were led to believe he would veto the resolution and protect the bill.

According to The Hill, some of these Democratic Party lawmakers are so outraged over Biden’s decision that they’ve resorted to blasting the White House in expletive-laden epithets. One told the outlet that this is "F---ING AMATEUR HOUR."

The same lawmaker claimed that the White House "f---ed this up royally." Others said Biden's decision was "disappointing."

The outlet reported that Biden announced his decision "to Senate Democrats during lunch on Thursday." It came as a shock to 173 House Democrats who voted for the bill in accordance with their belief that Biden was planning to veto the resolution, not sign it.

As Fox News Digital reported Thursday, the resolution came in "response to the Washington, D.C., Council's sweeping overhaul of the city's criminal code, which was approved in November. Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser then vetoed the measure in January, saying it would place stress on the criminal justice system."

In a statement, Bowser slammed the update to the criminal code, claiming it would "exacerbate the already stretched capacity of the court system; and it would reduce maximum criminal penalties for violent crimes like carjacking and robberies."

The D.C. Council later overrode her veto.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved the resolution to nix the update to the Washington, D.C., code in a 250-173 vote in February.

Curious that they were so quiet when 31 of their Democrat House colleagues voted to disapprove the crime bill.

Anyone who thought Biden would veto this knows exactly zero about how politics works. Why would Biden give his future Republican opponent hours of attack-ad material to help a nobody like Charles Allen with a bill that clearly wasn't even wanted by a wide swath of District residents? And the issue of DC home rule is a complete non-entity among 99.99999 percent of U.S. voters; rightly or wrongly, they simply don't see it as an issue to care about. There was no way Biden was gonna stick his neck out on this.

No one (except maybe Charles Allen) would have thought Biden would veto this to help Allen.

But signing it also separately leaves the Dems who voted against it in the House out to dry — if they knew Biden wasn't going to block it, I bet more of them would have also voted for it, because, as you correctly point out, very few people outside D.C. care about Home Rule, and if the outcome is a foregone conclusion, vulnerable House members may as well not take a vote that can be spun as "soft on crime."

It was an own goal by the D.C. Council, definitely, but for the White House to say they opposed it, and then to turn around and decide to support it, is also an own goal in terms of the national politics of it all.

The WH never said that they supported RCCA. They made some vague statements in favor of statehood and home rule, but it was obvious to anyone without brain damage that having Carper introduce a statehood bill was an obvious preemptive apology for what was about to happen next.