AP: Biden will not stop override of DC crime laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re so naive. With the statehood, we’ll become the worst and poorest state so fast!

Your stats are wrong. But let’s say true, no one cares that the worker lives in VMWVP, it’s that the agency and its funding will go to another state. These workers will go poor or move. DC will be a ghost town. But you’ll have 3 lifelong officials who can be as corrupt as one wants.

Sorry, I’d rather go the other way and not pay tax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will be interesting to see how Democratic Senators vote for this next week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will be interesting to see how Democratic Senators vote for this next week.

It’s going to get 80 votes — minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will be interesting to see how Democratic Senators vote for this next week.

It’s going to get 80 votes — minimum.

Probably more. Patty Murray just stated that she is going to vote against RCCA. If you’ve lost Patty Murray…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re so naive. With the statehood, we’ll become the worst and poorest state so fast!

Your stats are wrong. But let’s say true, no one cares that the worker lives in VMWVP, it’s that the agency and its funding will go to another state. These workers will go poor or move. DC will be a ghost town. But you’ll have 3 lifelong officials who can be as corrupt as one wants.

Sorry, I’d rather go the other way and not pay tax

Anyone who thinks that when DC becomes a state that everything continued business as usual does not understand the law of unintended consequences.

If you stipulate that 15% of Federal workers are in DC, what happens if DC becomes a state? Well other states will rightly note that DC has an outsized share of the Federal workforce and that 1/51 = 1.9% which is what they would rightly argue is what DC should be left with.

[Anonymous]

While I am a DC resident and would favor stronger home rule it's wild that THIS veto, all things is what's becoming the rallying cry.

I mean, the DC crime reform bill is objectively shitty. Everyone living in DC is sick and tired of the lack of deterrence and that violent repeat offenders being continuously released back on the streets with a slap on the wrist.

This post in particular sums up my frustration - it's not the mandatory maximums, it's the lack of, and repeal of mandatory MINIMUMs.

https://twitter.com/JohnFubka/status/1631396148077273108

[Anonymous]

Thank god that President Biden will veto DC's ill-conceived Help Our Violent Criminals Rescue Package!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know some will complain about DC Home Rule issues, but I do think the US Congress has a responsibility to protect citizens visiting from outside of DC to see the sights or to do a Capitol Hill visit. A safe environment is more important than woke progressive politics in Capitol city.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I am a DC resident and would favor stronger home rule it's wild that THIS veto, all things is what's becoming the rallying cry.

I mean, the DC crime reform bill is objectively shitty. Everyone living in DC is sick and tired of the lack of deterrence and that violent repeat offenders being continuously released back on the streets with a slap on the wrist.

This post in particular sums up my frustration - it's not the mandatory maximums, it's the lack of, and repeal of mandatory MINIMUMs.

https://twitter.com/JohnFubka/status/1631396148077273108

Do you really not understand that violent repeat offenders are being continuously released not because of a lack of mandatory minimums or too short maximums, but because the AUSA - a federal agency - is not prosecuting and that one of the reasons for the lack of prosecutions is because of the complexity of DC’s outdated code? I’m not going to defend everything in the RCCA because I don’t agree with all of it (and no one does, just like every piece of consequential legislation) but you and many others on here - and a good chunk of our national politicians - have bought a cheap lie that completely misrepresents the RCCA bill and ultimately works against making DC safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I am a DC resident and would favor stronger home rule it's wild that THIS veto, all things is what's becoming the rallying cry.

I mean, the DC crime reform bill is objectively shitty. Everyone living in DC is sick and tired of the lack of deterrence and that violent repeat offenders being continuously released back on the streets with a slap on the wrist.

This post in particular sums up my frustration - it's not the mandatory maximums, it's the lack of, and repeal of mandatory MINIMUMs.

https://twitter.com/JohnFubka/status/1631396148077273108

Do you really not understand that violent repeat offenders are being continuously released not because of a lack of mandatory minimums or too short maximums, but because the AUSA - a federal agency - is not prosecuting and that one of the reasons for the lack of prosecutions is because of the complexity of DC’s outdated code? I’m not going to defend everything in the RCCA because I don’t agree with all of it (and no one does, just like every piece of consequential legislation) but you and many others on here - and a good chunk of our national politicians - have bought a cheap lie that completely misrepresents the RCCA bill and ultimately works against making DC safer.

Can you cite some specific examples of how the new bill is fixing things for the AUSA? And what does it serve to not have minimums?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I am a DC resident and would favor stronger home rule it's wild that THIS veto, all things is what's becoming the rallying cry.

I mean, the DC crime reform bill is objectively shitty. Everyone living in DC is sick and tired of the lack of deterrence and that violent repeat offenders being continuously released back on the streets with a slap on the wrist.

This post in particular sums up my frustration - it's not the mandatory maximums, it's the lack of, and repeal of mandatory MINIMUMs.

https://twitter.com/JohnFubka/status/1631396148077273108

Do you really not understand that violent repeat offenders are being continuously released not because of a lack of mandatory minimums or too short maximums, but because the AUSA - a federal agency - is not prosecuting and that one of the reasons for the lack of prosecutions is because of the complexity of DC’s outdated code? I’m not going to defend everything in the RCCA because I don’t agree with all of it (and no one does, just like every piece of consequential legislation) but you and many others on here - and a good chunk of our national politicians - have bought a cheap lie that completely misrepresents the RCCA bill and ultimately works against making DC safer.

No, you're misrepresenting the RCCA by conflating two separate things:

The first half of the bill was about updating the definition of crimes that no longer made sense. Everyone was for those common sense reforms.

But then Charles Allen began larding up the bill with this super left-wing wish list, such as eliminating minimums for almost all crimes and needlessly clogging up the courts so even more cases get dropped and criminals go free.

Also, chill out. The DC council can just re-propose the crime bill based on just the first half that actually made sense.

[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.

I may be being overly generous in assuming that there was some sort of plan, but it may be that Biden thought that they had 50 votes in the Senate - even without Manchin - until Fetterman and Feinstein went to the hospital. Otherwise, it’s very hard to understand what Biden was thinking in not finding a way to head off this whole charade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I am a DC resident and would favor stronger home rule it's wild that THIS veto, all things is what's becoming the rallying cry.

I mean, the DC crime reform bill is objectively shitty. Everyone living in DC is sick and tired of the lack of deterrence and that violent repeat offenders being continuously released back on the streets with a slap on the wrist.

This post in particular sums up my frustration - it's not the mandatory maximums, it's the lack of, and repeal of mandatory MINIMUMs.

https://twitter.com/JohnFubka/status/1631396148077273108

Do you really not understand that violent repeat offenders are being continuously released not because of a lack of mandatory minimums or too short maximums, but because the AUSA - a federal agency - is not prosecuting and that one of the reasons for the lack of prosecutions is because of the complexity of DC’s outdated code? I’m not going to defend everything in the RCCA because I don’t agree with all of it (and no one does, just like every piece of consequential legislation) but you and many others on here - and a good chunk of our national politicians - have bought a cheap lie that completely misrepresents the RCCA bill and ultimately works against making DC safer.

Can you cite some specific examples of how the new bill is fixing things for the AUSA? And what does it serve to not have minimums?

Sure. Simple assault. It’s not defined in the current code (see here: https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/Hernandez%20v%20US%2015-CM-130_0.pdf). You can understand how challenging it is to prosecute a charge when the offense is not defined. Kidnapping is another example.

Furthermore, few people seem to grasp that like-for-like comparisons of the old and the new (such as Fubka’s table that was linked) make little sense when offenses are redefined and enhancements are introduced. The new code allows judges to stack sentences and many offenders will end up with longer sentences than they do today. Even absent such enhancements, maximums for many offenses - such as attempted murder - are increased by the RCCA.

The reason, I suspect, that the RCCA has attracted such fury from certain right-wing commentators is that one of the enhancements it introduces is to distinguish between armed and unarmed offenses. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you will understand how certain elements wouldn’t like that.

There are aspects of the RCCA that are problematic (such as the right to a jury trial for misdemeanors), but I’d much give the opportunity to the Council to fix those aspects (as Bowser wanted) between now and 2025 than to have to go through this all again, likely with the same misrepresentations put forth to bully people into opposing it.

[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.

Not sure if I am reading this wrong but it seems like these democrats are not angry that Biden is signing the bill but instead they are mad because they wouldn't have voted against it if they knew he would sign it? So they didn't vote against it because they think DC should self govern but because they want to vote in line with Biden? Sorry but I have zero sympathy for democrats who think this way. This is why our two party system is so ridiculous- people only vote on party lines and not based on what they actually believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I am a DC resident and would favor stronger home rule it's wild that THIS veto, all things is what's becoming the rallying cry.

I mean, the DC crime reform bill is objectively shitty. Everyone living in DC is sick and tired of the lack of deterrence and that violent repeat offenders being continuously released back on the streets with a slap on the wrist.

This post in particular sums up my frustration - it's not the mandatory maximums, it's the lack of, and repeal of mandatory MINIMUMs.

https://twitter.com/JohnFubka/status/1631396148077273108

Do you really not understand that violent repeat offenders are being continuously released not because of a lack of mandatory minimums or too short maximums, but because the AUSA - a federal agency - is not prosecuting and that one of the reasons for the lack of prosecutions is because of the complexity of DC’s outdated code? I’m not going to defend everything in the RCCA because I don’t agree with all of it (and no one does, just like every piece of consequential legislation) but you and many others on here - and a good chunk of our national politicians - have bought a cheap lie that completely misrepresents the RCCA bill and ultimately works against making DC safer.

Can you cite some specific examples of how the new bill is fixing things for the AUSA? And what does it serve to not have minimums?

Sure. Simple assault. It’s not defined in the current code (see here: https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/Hernandez%20v%20US%2015-CM-130_0.pdf). You can understand how challenging it is to prosecute a charge when the offense is not defined. Kidnapping is another example.

Furthermore, few people seem to grasp that like-for-like comparisons of the old and the new (such as Fubka’s table that was linked) make little sense when offenses are redefined and enhancements are introduced. The new code allows judges to stack sentences and many offenders will end up with longer sentences than they do today. Even absent such enhancements, maximums for many offenses - such as attempted murder - are increased by the RCCA.

The reason, I suspect, that the RCCA has attracted such fury from certain right-wing commentators is that one of the enhancements it introduces is to distinguish between armed and unarmed offenses. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you will understand how certain elements wouldn’t like that.

There are aspects of the RCCA that are problematic (such as the right to a jury trial for misdemeanors), but I’d much give the opportunity to the Council to fix those aspects (as Bowser wanted) between now and 2025 than to have to go through this all again, likely with the same misrepresentations put forth to bully people into opposing it.

The DC Code definitely needed revision but it wasn’t preventing the prosecution of violent offenses. Signed, former prosecutor.