AP: Biden will not stop override of DC crime laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Exactly--thank you!!

Explain the correlation between an updated criminal code that goes into place in three years and tourist safety. I'm very curious

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Exactly--thank you!!

Explain the correlation between an updated criminal code that goes into place in three years and tourist safety. I'm very curious

Does there need to be a correlation? The fact that the revisions would not take effect for several years does not make it any less stupid. If the DC Council wants to be treated like a serious institution, then they should act like one. Carjackings, street robberies, etc. are out of control around here.

Please explain how these changes would lead to more car jackings, street robberies, etc. And please read through this before you give the tired excuses about "lowering sentences"

https://wamu.org/story/23/01/27/dc-criminal-code-overhaul-details/

The point of lowering the maximum sentence is to decrease leverage, which decreases the likelihood of punishment, which increases the rates. And I'm sorry, 4 years for carjacking is just too little. It's a serious, dangerous, invasive crime. Nobody "accidentally" or innocently carjacks such that they deserve a break. There is no nicer form of carjacking.

Also I'm not really an "optics" person, but the optics of focusing on decreasing carjacking sentences (even if you just believe it is on paper) when we are in the middle of a carjacking epidemic just looks clueless.

The current maximums are almost never actually what anyone is sentenced to, though. The point of lowering the maximum sentence was to make it so the law reflected what judges are actually sentencing defendants to. And anyway, most of the bill was doing things like defining the elements of crimes (which is helpful for prosecuting them!) and adding various degrees of crimes so the worst offenders could be treated more harshly.

No question that the supporters of the law blew the "optics" of it all, though.

The council could have passed all the stuff like defining the elements of a crime and getting rid of outdated laws and whatnot -- i.e., 90 percent of the bill -- without the other stuff that drew all the attention, however. Congress wouldn't have noticed it, and it would have become law. But instead, it did what it did and now they all look like tin-earned political clowns who also most likely doomed their chances of ever advancing any higher in Democratic circles (I know Charles Allen has some really big delusions of grandeur about his political career, because he's not shy about talking about them; those dreams are now 100 percent dead, because he's a pariah now).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Exactly--thank you!!

Explain the correlation between an updated criminal code that goes into place in three years and tourist safety. I'm very curious

Does there need to be a correlation? The fact that the revisions would not take effect for several years does not make it any less stupid. If the DC Council wants to be treated like a serious institution, then they should act like one. Carjackings, street robberies, etc. are out of control around here.

Please explain how these changes would lead to more car jackings, street robberies, etc. And please read through this before you give the tired excuses about "lowering sentences"

https://wamu.org/story/23/01/27/dc-criminal-code-overhaul-details/

I heard Matt Graves, the USAO, and his staff speak about concerns several times. Testimony is here. tps://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorneys-office-testifies-hearing-revised-criminal-code-act-2021

WAMU gets a bit into the propoganda weeds at times, has really lost a lot of credibilty on some issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Exactly--thank you!!

Explain the correlation between an updated criminal code that goes into place in three years and tourist safety. I'm very curious

Does there need to be a correlation? The fact that the revisions would not take effect for several years does not make it any less stupid. If the DC Council wants to be treated like a serious institution, then they should act like one. Carjackings, street robberies, etc. are out of control around here.

It is hard to understand how they could so misread the room, hello, BIDEN, 94 crime bill?! It seems, rather, that they thought they had no need to do so, a staggering display of hubris. No change in strategy even after the mugging of the Congresswoman. Or the carjacking of tourists here to tour the Capitol. Today a diplomat was mugged mid-morning near the State Dept. Someone has to be responsible. In a state there are more checks and balances, here, things have gotten really off kilter.

There are attempts to spin this as doom for an updated criminal code. It's not. However it is doom for the architects who started a pissing contest they had no chance of winning. And instead of correcting course, as advised, they focused on a resolution of Cuba while all this was pending. Are they on drugs? Secretly opposed to statehood? What was the upside of their display?

Please explain how these changes would lead to more car jackings, street robberies, etc. And please read through this before you give the tired excuses about "lowering sentences"

https://wamu.org/story/23/01/27/dc-criminal-code-overhaul-details/

The point of lowering the maximum sentence is to decrease leverage, which decreases the likelihood of punishment, which increases the rates. And I'm sorry, 4 years for carjacking is just too little. It's a serious, dangerous, invasive crime. Nobody "accidentally" or innocently carjacks such that they deserve a break. There is no nicer form of carjacking.

Also I'm not really an "optics" person, but the optics of focusing on decreasing carjacking sentences (even if you just believe it is on paper) when we are in the middle of a carjacking epidemic just looks clueless.

The current maximums are almost never actually what anyone is sentenced to, though. The point of lowering the maximum sentence was to make it so the law reflected what judges are actually sentencing defendants to. And anyway, most of the bill was doing things like defining the elements of crimes (which is helpful for prosecuting them!) and adding various degrees of crimes so the worst offenders could be treated more harshly.

No question that the supporters of the law blew the "optics" of it all, though.

The council could have passed all the stuff like defining the elements of a crime and getting rid of outdated laws and whatnot -- i.e., 90 percent of the bill -- without the other stuff that drew all the attention, however. Congress wouldn't have noticed it, and it would have become law. But instead, it did what it did and now they all look like tin-earned political clowns who also most likely doomed their chances of ever advancing any higher in Democratic circles (I know Charles Allen has some really big delusions of grandeur about his political career, because he's not shy about talking about them; those dreams are now 100 percent dead, because he's a pariah now).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Exactly--thank you!!

Explain the correlation between an updated criminal code that goes into place in three years and tourist safety. I'm very curious

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

You're gonna need to find a better source than the dude who quote tweets Potomac fever

[Anonymous]

Allen probably boosted Bowser's career, in fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

Martin is nothing more than Charles Allen's stenographer these days. Go through his coverage of Allen/Nadeau/Janeese and compare it with his coverage of Bowser/Mendo/Pinto/McDuffie. Every statement from the former group is presented as gospel and unchallenged. Every statement from the latter group has 3-4 "expert" voices denouncing it.

A complete joke. He's getting roasted on social media today, and has been for a few months now because of his terrible reporting. Good. Go back to Switzerland and cry.

I suspect today will negatively impact his career as well as Allen's. Racine may find his mayoral chances poor too, not only was he AG during an explosion of juvenile crime, the majority of the most out of touch on the Council are alums of his office. His comment that restorative justice was appropriate in the case of homicide in a speech at AU has always stuck with me, how was the victim to participate, via Ouija board? I think the reality of the policies that have been pushed is not one the majority accepts.

Those who supported the Council's handling of this can huff and puff and proselytize but your views have suffered a big defeat today, add that to the trouncing they took in LA. The pendulum may be swinging back.

The recent carjacking of tourists here to tour the Capitol, and the mugging of the diplomat today and a Congresswoman in her apartment building by a man with a long rap sheet are an international embarrassment.

For anyone who claimed it would go differently, have they not heard of Biden and the 94 crime bill? Truly, are the Council on drugs? What was the thinking behind doubling down again and again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Exactly--thank you!!

Explain the correlation between an updated criminal code that goes into place in three years and tourist safety. I'm very curious

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

You're gonna need to find a better source than the dude who quote tweets Potomac fever

Compare the simple graphic to the bill and tell me where it is incorrect. Is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Exactly--thank you!!

Explain the correlation between an updated criminal code that goes into place in three years and tourist safety. I'm very curious

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

You're gonna need to find a better source than the dude who quote tweets Potomac fever

No we are not. Few people have the desire to deal w the abuse on Twitter or otherwise by Nadeau minions. But we all feel the same way. The Council is unwilling and incapable of governing. Enough is enough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. This crime is moving into MoCo. I hope the MoCo council pays attention to this.

The traffic stop bill is interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Exactly--thank you!!

Explain the correlation between an updated criminal code that goes into place in three years and tourist safety. I'm very curious

Does there need to be a correlation? The fact that the revisions would not take effect for several years does not make it any less stupid. If the DC Council wants to be treated like a serious institution, then they should act like one. Carjackings, street robberies, etc. are out of control around here.

It is hard to understand how they could so misread the room, hello, BIDEN, 94 crime bill?! It seems, rather, that they thought they had no need to do so, a staggering display of hubris. No change in strategy even after the mugging of the Congresswoman. Or the carjacking of tourists here to tour the Capitol. Today a diplomat was mugged mid-morning near the State Dept. Someone has to be responsible. In a state there are more checks and balances, here, things have gotten really off kilter.

There are attempts to spin this as doom for an updated criminal code. It's not. However it is doom for the architects who started a pissing contest they had no chance of winning. And instead of correcting course, as advised, they focused on a resolution of Cuba while all this was pending. Are they on drugs? Secretly opposed to statehood? What was the upside of their display?

Please explain how these changes would lead to more car jackings, street robberies, etc. And please read through this before you give the tired excuses about "lowering sentences"

https://wamu.org/story/23/01/27/dc-criminal-code-overhaul-details/

The point of lowering the maximum sentence is to decrease leverage, which decreases the likelihood of punishment, which increases the rates. And I'm sorry, 4 years for carjacking is just too little. It's a serious, dangerous, invasive crime. Nobody "accidentally" or innocently carjacks such that they deserve a break. There is no nicer form of carjacking.

Also I'm not really an "optics" person, but the optics of focusing on decreasing carjacking sentences (even if you just believe it is on paper) when we are in the middle of a carjacking epidemic just looks clueless.

The current maximums are almost never actually what anyone is sentenced to, though. The point of lowering the maximum sentence was to make it so the law reflected what judges are actually sentencing defendants to. And anyway, most of the bill was doing things like defining the elements of crimes (which is helpful for prosecuting them!) and adding various degrees of crimes so the worst offenders could be treated more harshly.

No question that the supporters of the law blew the "optics" of it all, though.

The council could have passed all the stuff like defining the elements of a crime and getting rid of outdated laws and whatnot -- i.e., 90 percent of the bill -- without the other stuff that drew all the attention, however. Congress wouldn't have noticed it, and it would have become law. But instead, it did what it did and now they all look like tin-earned political clowns who also most likely doomed their chances of ever advancing any higher in Democratic circles (I know Charles Allen has some really big delusions of grandeur about his political career, because he's not shy about talking about them; those dreams are now 100 percent dead, because he's a pariah now).

DC Justice Lab took a pretty big hit as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

Martin is nothing more than Charles Allen's stenographer these days. Go through his coverage of Allen/Nadeau/Janeese and compare it with his coverage of Bowser/Mendo/Pinto/McDuffie. Every statement from the former group is presented as gospel and unchallenged. Every statement from the latter group has 3-4 "expert" voices denouncing it.

A complete joke. He's getting roasted on social media today, and has been for a few months now because of his terrible reporting. Good. Go back to Switzerland and cry.

I suspect today will negatively impact his career as well as Allen's. Racine may find his mayoral chances poor too, not only was he AG during an explosion of juvenile crime, the majority of the most out of touch on the Council are alums of his office. His comment that restorative justice was appropriate in the case of homicide in a speech at AU has always stuck with me, how was the victim to participate, via Ouija board? I think the reality of the policies that have been pushed is not one the majority accepts.

Those who supported the Council's handling of this can huff and puff and proselytize but your views have suffered a big defeat today, add that to the trouncing they took in LA. The pendulum may be swinging back.

The recent carjacking of tourists here to tour the Capitol, and the mugging of the diplomat today and a Congresswoman in her apartment building by a man with a long rap sheet are an international embarrassment.

For anyone who claimed it would go differently, have they not heard of Biden and the 94 crime bill? Truly, are the Council on drugs? What was the thinking behind doubling down again and again?

It's not about the views of the bill. I don't think it was going to have an impact on crime one way or the other. It's weird how many people have a domination fetish tho

[Anonymous]

Seems to me changing the maximums don't mean a hill of beans when the prosecutors and judges keep letting repeat criminals off easy.

I think they need to set meaningful mandatory MINIMUMS for repeat offenders, to actually keep the streets safe.

Now if Charles Allen and the rest think that's harsh, it's far less harsh than the injury that keeps getting inflicted on the city. If they want these repeat offenders to be rehabilitated, that's a separate issue, and they should pass legislation that mandates rehabilitation programs for them - IN PRISON, and where we don't actually consider letting them back out on the street until they've done their time and have gone through the program to be rehabilitated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

Martin is nothing more than Charles Allen's stenographer these days. Go through his coverage of Allen/Nadeau/Janeese and compare it with his coverage of Bowser/Mendo/Pinto/McDuffie. Every statement from the former group is presented as gospel and unchallenged. Every statement from the latter group has 3-4 "expert" voices denouncing it.

A complete joke. He's getting roasted on social media today, and has been for a few months now because of his terrible reporting. Good. Go back to Switzerland and cry.

I suspect today will negatively impact his career as well as Allen's. Racine may find his mayoral chances poor too, not only was he AG during an explosion of juvenile crime, the majority of the most out of touch on the Council are alums of his office. His comment that restorative justice was appropriate in the case of homicide in a speech at AU has always stuck with me, how was the victim to participate, via Ouija board? I think the reality of the policies that have been pushed is not one the majority accepts.

Those who supported the Council's handling of this can huff and puff and proselytize but your views have suffered a big defeat today, add that to the trouncing they took in LA. The pendulum may be swinging back.

The recent carjacking of tourists here to tour the Capitol, and the mugging of the diplomat today and a Congresswoman in her apartment building by a man with a long rap sheet are an international embarrassment.

For anyone who claimed it would go differently, have they not heard of Biden and the 94 crime bill? Truly, are the Council on drugs? What was the thinking behind doubling down again and again?

Well, they weren't thinking at all. The original idea of the crime reform bill was actually good, but then Charles Allen and the other left-wing clowns stuffed it with all this performative crap and virtue signaling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

It is definitely hypocritical of Biden to say he supports Home Rule but also sign a federal law that overturns a local one, regardless of what you think of the substance of the crime bill. Don't think it's editorializing to point that out.

Like the council overturning the referendum on the minimum wage?