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.

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/

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 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.

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.

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.

We as a district lost. I think all of you taking victory laps are incredibly weird

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.

We as a district lost. I think all of you taking victory laps are incredibly weird

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. [b]The point of lowering the maximum sentence was to make it so the law reflected what judges are actually sentencing defendants to[/b]. 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.

I have heard the bolded statement made by others, but the logic escapes me. If judges are proving to be too lenient on felons, the solution is to implement mandatory minimum sentences or increase those that are in place. What purpose is served by amending the code to conform to what judges are doing?

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

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. [b]The point of lowering the maximum sentence was to make it so the law reflected what judges are actually sentencing defendants to[/b]. 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.