Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DancesWithTreetops t1_je0tc7w wrote

Reply to comment by gopoohgo in D.C. leaders prepare for GOP grilling in hearing on crime, policing by EastoftheCap

Neither are concerning enough to have a hearing over. This is GQP grandstanding for their ramp up of election year culture war bullshit. If Rand Pauls staffer, or the congresswoman who was robbed were targeted because of their affiliation with the House or Senate, then I would be concerned. But, living in a city comes with city crimes.

−14

gopoohgo t1_je0uq81 wrote

>Homicides are up 19 percent over the same time in 2022, when D.C. for the second year in a row surpassed 200 killings, something it had not done since the early 2000s. Overall crime is up 23 percent, driven in large part by a spike in auto thefts, though violent crime is even with 2022, a year that saw decreases.

>Other distinct challenges specific to D.C. have also emerged: Federal prosecutors — who function as D.C.’s local prosecutors in the federally funded D.C. Superior Court — recently reported they are declining to prosecute roughly two-thirds of arrests, raising questions about prosecutors’ standards for accepting cases and the evidence in the cases police bring. With the D.C. crime lab shut down, prosecutors are also having to outsource processing of evidence to other labs, also potentially affecting decisions about which cases to pursue, as the office has noted.

Either of these are enough to have a hearing over imho.

14

EC_dwtn t1_je0wi2t wrote

And notably absent is the USAO from the witness list, which is how I know this is a stunt and a joke.

15

gopoohgo t1_je0xfir wrote

Yeah, I was hoping that the USAO would be called.

However, would there be jurisidiction issues? If they are federal prosecutors, wouldn't they have to be called by the Judiciary Committee?

−1

AnonyJustAName t1_je17h2c wrote

Agree. Oversight over DOJ and thus USAO is a different committee than oversight over DC. Perhaps they can call a joint hearing and invite the mayor to that one?

2

cptjeff t1_je4unrt wrote

No. If a witness is relevant, they can call them. Rules for Congressional hearings aren't strict at all. Really, nonexistent. But note the "Part 1" on the hearing title. Hopefully Graves gets hauled up next hearing.

2

DancesWithTreetops t1_je0wf5p wrote

A misleading word salad is precisely why congress holding a hearing about DC crime is a bullshit grandstanding ramp up of election year culture war grievance crap. Violent crime was down in 2022, and violent crime in DC is currently running even with 2022 stats according to your word salad. Again...the GQP has no interest in governing. Political theater, grievances, and culture war bullshit is all they care about.

−6

gopoohgo t1_je0wr7v wrote

>A misleading word salad

Cut and pasted from WaPo? Are you really saying that they are taking cues from the GOP? Or that the GOP reads WaPo as gospel?

4

topher180 t1_je12hxz wrote

Misleading word salad is what someone says when they want to discredit you but not actually provide any facts to the contrary. And then, when you call them out on how ridiculous it is, they are indignant. Good job 👏

6

DancesWithTreetops t1_je18gma wrote

Yeah...or you can just read the word salad and recognize it for what it is.

−2

topher180 t1_je1b3p6 wrote

These are really weak, lazy replies. You’re not really saying anything of substance and yet you insist on criticizing others of being indirect and/or verbose.

3

DancesWithTreetops t1_je0wyir wrote

I said that what you posted was a misleading word salad...regardless of source. Nothing more, nothing less.

3