AP: Biden will not stop override of DC crime laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bowser really got a career boost out of this, ironically. She looks like the adult in the room. We'll see what results from changes at DYRS.

I think Racine's chances of being mayor have dimmed. RJ is really falling into disfavor.

People want basic public safety.

A diplomat being mugged mid morning near the State Dept is an embarrassment.

I hope a change that will come from the recent crime wave and Congresswoman being attacked is the USAO reporting stats, something Congress has never required. I suspect the number of no papered gun cases would surprise many.

Absolutely. Biden specifically name dropping her opposition is a cap in her feather. The activist nut jobs saying that she undermined the bill need to ostracized at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You lost.

There was not any realistic chance that Joe Biden, of all people, would veto this.

Allen and Mendo really messed up the handling of this bill and did their careers no favors.

"I don't think" got a reality check today.

Mendo is 70, and it would surprise no one if he steps away after this term. And anyway, he's always maintained that Council chair was more or less his dream job, so this is a natural end of the line for him. His career isn't going to suffer.

Allen, on the other hand, has probably destroyed any hopes of being anything else besides a ward council member, and he's well on his way toward destroying his chances of reelection. Any opponent is going to have a field day with this, especially if violent crime continues in the direction its headed.

Completely agree.

And Mendo is a co-sponsor of the SRO bill announced today, that timing makes him look a bit more deft.

I would love to hear the backstory on why Allen did not back off and change tactics, even out of self interest, in the past few weeks?

Allen is a reckless ideologue. He gambled for left-wing nirvana and lost big.

[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

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?

Yes, that was also hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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?

Yes, that was also hypocritical.

Oh no, you see. That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress because something, something, look over there, and what about this.

[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.

The xenophobia at the end didn’t come as much of a surprise . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

No, it isn’t.

How do you square supporting Home Rule (and even statehood, which he says he does) with letting Congress overturn local laws, though? It's certainly hypocritical. You can agree or not agree with the Council's vote or with Biden's decision on the crime bill, and you can decide that hypocrisy on Home Rule isn't as important as the specific policy around D.C. criminal laws, but I don't see how he avoids being considered at least mildly hypocritical here.

It’s completely hypocritical. I am not going to be mad at Biden for it because Charles Allen is useless and is making us all less safe, but the move is clearly hypocritical. There are jurisdictions across the United States that pass batshit crazy laws and then guess what? The citizens have to live with the consequences. DC should not be any different. (The tourist argument is incredibly stupid - there are lots of tourist destinations, and we don’t meddle in their laws).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You lost.

There was not any realistic chance that Joe Biden, of all people, would veto this.

Allen and Mendo really messed up the handling of this bill and did their careers no favors.

"I don't think" got a reality check today.

Mendo is 70, and it would surprise no one if he steps away after this term. And anyway, he's always maintained that Council chair was more or less his dream job, so this is a natural end of the line for him. His career isn't going to suffer.

Allen, on the other hand, has probably destroyed any hopes of being anything else besides a ward council member, and he's well on his way toward destroying his chances of reelection. Any opponent is going to have a field day with this, especially if violent crime continues in the direction its headed.

Completely agree.

And Mendo is a co-sponsor of the SRO bill announced today, that timing makes him look a bit more deft.

I would love to hear the backstory on why Allen did not back off and change tactics, even out of self interest, in the past few weeks?

Allen is a reckless ideologue. He gambled for left-wing nirvana and lost big.

He's ranting on Twitter tonight. Absolute tool. He and Racine did this city NO favors. Many of the other most activist CMs are Racine alums. He also had political aspirations, I suspect he and Allen have done their careers serious harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being an effective politician means affecting change via the political system at hand, not trying to affect change via some idealized concept of what the political system should be. Charles Allen et al tried to do the latter and failed miserably while also likely setting back the idea of DC statehood decades. Now, every law that the council passes will have a huge target on its back, at least while there are enough Republicans in congress to take aim. Anything remotely controversial is going to get shot down, and I'm going to guess Congress is gonna start messing with the funding for mundane stuff like bike lanes, simply because now they realize they can.

So great job, Charles. Well done.

I would guess that the non-citizen voting bill has a poor chance of being funded as another example.

The Council needs to get serious and actually govern in a meaningful way. DCPS is facing cuts, revenues are falling yet they keep pushing free bus fare for $53M. Ironically, a sizeable portion of riders don't pay now. Is that the best use of the money? And if they were doing more than posturing, why did they write the bill so it was uncertain that funds would be available? They tried making the Circulator bus free then abandoned that experiment, seems that recent experience might inform this one? They are bumbling and govern like they are kids seeking clicks rather than adults making choices.

At least a bill to retain SROs was introduced today.

Well, here in DC criminals lead the way and the DC Council just blindly follows.

For example, criminals don't pay bus fare. What does the DC Council do? Just make the buses free.

Criminals get ever more brazen and violent. The DC Council's response? Keep lowering criminal sentences and clog up the courts with bogus procedures so even more cases get dropped.

When you put it that way, hard to disagree.

DC Justice Lab was the tail wagging the dog here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a secret poll I bet most DC residents would be against this stupid crime bill. Seriously, who thinks the city's #1 priority is to go easier on rapists and carjackers right now?

[b]

Good idea, but you only get to vote in it if you can mention 3 things the bill does that have nothing to do with penalties. So many people have no idea what the bill actually did, and now we are stuck with an outdated code that has some serious gaps in liability and some too-low penalties.

I hope you are never charged with an offense and neither your lawyer, the judge, nor the prosecutor know what the government needs to prove in order to convict you. You will get sentenced to a penalty that hasn't been updated in decades, and since there is no parole in the District you will serve 85% of your sentence. You will sit in jail/prison, in some faraway location, potentially while waiting for the appellate court to figure out the elements of the offense and any defenses.

The bill spelled this all out, and now it's done. Gone.

if you are mad about crime, ask why MPD brings so many cases that can't be prosecuted. Or the prosecutors don't want to prosecute. That's not on the criminal code.

This is a sad day for American democracy. And perhaps an even sadder day for those who want to see violent crimes in DC prosecuted. Very few people understand the faintest thing about the RCCA and even fewer have begun to think through how it would alter DC’s justice system. Echoing Tucker Carlson’s talking points is not a virtue, especially if you’re the President of United States and a lifelong Democrat. You don’t have to believe the bill was perfect - and there is plenty I would have changed it - but it’s a little scary that 15 years of solid work by criminal justice experts has been undone by the shrill scaremongering of a few pundits who admit to not believing half of what they say. Having said all that, why the hell was this not pushed through Congress during the lame duck session?

[Anonymous]

I really wondered where Bowser would go after this term yet now she has leveled up in the party and gotten national recognition. Even Senators are referring to her by name in statements.

[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.

The xenophobia at the end didn’t come as much of a surprise . . .

I love it when white people take up a posture of victimization. Particularly affluent white males. It makes them look so dumb.

[Anonymous]

Stop with the BS DC Justice Lab talking points already.

You LOST.

The bulk of the bill will be passed quickly and will become law.

A small portion will be amended and passed in a separate bill.

The drama and black and white thinking just does not wash with grownups.

Families are the stable tax base now that commercial real estate is tanking. They prioritize safety.

We all see the wizard behind the curtain, yet DCJL keeps pushing the same lame tropes, shamelessly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a secret poll I bet most DC residents would be against this stupid crime bill. Seriously, who thinks the city's #1 priority is to go easier on rapists and carjackers right now?

[b]

Good idea, but you only get to vote in it if you can mention 3 things the bill does that have nothing to do with penalties. So many people have no idea what the bill actually did, and now we are stuck with an outdated code that has some serious gaps in liability and some too-low penalties.

I hope you are never charged with an offense and neither your lawyer, the judge, nor the prosecutor know what the government needs to prove in order to convict you. You will get sentenced to a penalty that hasn't been updated in decades, and since there is no parole in the District you will serve 85% of your sentence. You will sit in jail/prison, in some faraway location, potentially while waiting for the appellate court to figure out the elements of the offense and any defenses.

The bill spelled this all out, and now it's done. Gone.

if you are mad about crime, ask why MPD brings so many cases that can't be prosecuted. Or the prosecutors don't want to prosecute. That's not on the criminal code.

This is a sad day for American democracy. And perhaps an even sadder day for those who want to see violent crimes in DC prosecuted. Very few people understand the faintest thing about the RCCA and even fewer have begun to think through how it would alter DC’s justice system. Echoing Tucker Carlson’s talking points is not a virtue, especially if you’re the President of United States and a lifelong Democrat. You don’t have to believe the bill was perfect - and there is plenty I would have changed it - but it’s a little scary that 15 years of solid work by criminal justice experts has been undone by the shrill scaremongering of a few pundits who admit to not believing half of what they say. Having said all that, why the hell was this not pushed through Congress during the lame duck session?

It would not have taken effect until 2025 so what are you hyper ventilating about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

No, it isn’t.

How do you square supporting Home Rule (and even statehood, which he says he does) with letting Congress overturn local laws, though? It's certainly hypocritical. You can agree or not agree with the Council's vote or with Biden's decision on the crime bill, and you can decide that hypocrisy on Home Rule isn't as important as the specific policy around D.C. criminal laws, but I don't see how he avoids being considered at least mildly hypocritical here.

It’s completely hypocritical. I am not going to be mad at Biden for it because Charles Allen is useless and is making us all less safe, but the move is clearly hypocritical. There are jurisdictions across the United States that pass batshit crazy laws and then guess what? The citizens have to live with the consequences. DC should not be any different. (The tourist argument is incredibly stupid - there are lots of tourist destinations, and we don’t meddle in their laws).

DC is different because its governance is specifically stipulated by the Constitution and the process that is being followed is laid out in the Home Rule Act. The law of Home Rule in DC is being followed. However, and let’s be clear. There is no city in the US that cannot have its laws nullified by a state legislature and many laws nullified by federal legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The xenophobia at the end didn’t come as much of a surprise . . .

I love it when white people take up a posture of victimization. Particularly affluent white males. It makes them look so dumb.

Nothing about victimization. Xenophobia is xenophobia and it sucks not matter who it is directed at. This.shouldn’t.be.that.hard.