Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is why we’ll never get statehood. To many normal citizens are repelled by this kind of extremist rhetoric and impatience to get whatever you want but not see hear or analyze any facts.

The way politics works is that you in fact do consider the issues. You don’t just yell I can do whatever I want in my own (not) state. That’s how you get Florida.

Go back to the Comintern and learn yourself something.

You blew it

English, fascist, try it sometime.

Anonymous wrote:And this is why we’ll never get statehood. To many normal citizens are repelled by this kind of extremist rhetoric and impatience to get whatever you want but not see hear or analyze any facts.

The way politics works is that you in fact do consider the issues. You don’t just yell I can do whatever I want in my own (not) state. That’s how you get Florida.

Go back to the Comintern and learn yourself something.

You blew it

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.

Exactly.

This is insane. That means Congress should feel free to send Park Police or other federal law enforcement agencies into Chicago or NYC to keep all the tourists safe, right? Idiots.

You don't even live in DC.

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.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:I was pro and now am against the statehood. This debacle opened up my eyes.

1. Our elected representatives are basically guaranteed jobs for life with little to no scrutiny. Look at the Rep and the Council. No one life has improved.

2. Elected officials refuse to listen to the electorate and amend problematic legislation to pass it so it’s implementable and reasonable.

3. If you point out the issues, you are against the statehood. And therefore a racist.

Bull. It’s bad politicians and bad legislation. It’s worsening quality of life. I’d rather not pay tax and get rid of all of you

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then what is? Apparently it wasn’t a lack of mandatory minimums either.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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 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.

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.