The "drug warring" and "mass incarceration" came about, in significant measure, from demands for crime reduction by the law-abiding citizens living in inner-city neighborhoods ravaged by crime. I'll stack my years up with your journalism anytime in evaluating cause/effect.
Go back and look at the advocates for the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, and Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Look at the votes in Congress. Look at who voted to establish STATUTORY distinctions between cocaine and cocaine base. Look at WHY those distinctions were made.
The 1984 legislation passed by way of Conference Report, with the House voting 252-60 in favor, and the Senate voting 78-11 in favor.
In the Senate there were more GOP votes against the bill than there were Dem. votes against the bill.
The 1986 legislation which created mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes passed the House 392-16, with 222 Democrats and 170 Republicans voting "yes".
It passed the Senate 97-2, with 1 member of each party voting "no".
Notable "Yes" votes in the Senate: Gary Hart, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Paul Simon, George Mitchell, John Kerry, Al Gore, Lloyd Bensten, Patrick Leahy,
There was "mass incarceration" because there was "mass criminality."
The two statutes brought more criminality under federal law--conduct was already illegal under state law--expanded fed law enforcement, increased the size of the Courts and DOJ to meet increased arrest totals.
The functional reality is simply that more people got arrested and sent to prison for the same quantity of crime that had always been present -- which is what the hardest-hit communities had demanded of the politicians.
It passed 91-1 in the Senate.
Answer this question from your reporting and study -- what was the largest seizure by weight of cocaine base you ever heard about? Cocaine that was already rocked-up.
Consider next the largest seizures of cocaine powder you ever heard about?
In 30 plus years, I NEVER had a case or heard of a case that involved more than about 2 kgs of cocaine base. Yet I had cases involving hundreds of kgs of cocaine powder, and knew of seizures of cocaine powder in amounts involving thousands of kgs.
Why is that?
Because cocaine base gets made closer to the point of distribution to the user. The lab making hundreds or thousands of kgs of cocaine doesn't go to the added step of making cocaine base from it because its not cost-effective. They let the dealers closer to the user do that.
So, the "biggest" crack dealers in the game were guys you might catch with 1-2 kgs. Yet you could catch guys handling 10 kgs of cocaine powder by the bushel.
So crack sentences were fashioned with knowledge that the BIGGEST crack dealers would never be caught with more than a few hundred grams of crack. It wasn't to punish them for racist purposes--it was intended to impact those at the very top of crack dealing organizations.
An mid-level moron might middle 10 kgs of cocaine powder and make $500 a kg moving it from the hands of Crook 1 to Crook 3.
But a group distributing 1 kg of crack a day cripples entire neighborhoods. They can rock up that much in an hour prior to having it hit the streets.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with shipwreckedcrew

shipwreckedcrew Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shipwreckedcrew

10 Jun
So much disinfo here. A topic that is WIDELY misunderstood and inaccurately reported.
First, the bill demands "equitable pay", not "equal pay."
Second, the USMNT and USWNT have separate collective bargaining agreements.
That means the USWNT are getting exactly what they bargained for the last time the agreement was negotiated with USSF in 2018.
The CBAs are not negotiated at the same time.
The problem arose when the Men's deal came up for renegotiation after the Women reached an agreement.
The Men bargained for and got from USSF some match-bonus compensation higher than what the Women had agreed to. THAT is when the Women filed suit -- "We want what the Men just got." But they ignored the fact that they were getting WHAT THEY HAD AGREED TO!!!
Read 9 tweets
25 May
More than that. An indictment provides only a fraction of the "narrative" information that DOJ was having FBI Agents put in their complaint affidavits. DOJ policy is that public comments on pending cases is limited to otherwise public information.
When you turn the complaint affidavit into a press release, you get a lot more of your "narrative" into widespread distribution. There are no legal limits on what can be put in a complaint affidavit, and it ceases to be meaningful the moment an indictment is returned.
There was ZERO reason to seek criminal complaints re Jan 6. Grand Juries were meeting and hearing evidence within a week. A single FBI witness could have testified to what was in the affidavits that were being filed and obtained an indictment from that info.
Read 4 tweets
24 May
This discussion, to the extent it is based on the L&C article and this BS case in New York, is a great example of how laymen's use of terms like money laundering, and casual references to Sater being connected to Trump feed into the false Trump-Russia narrative.
I don't have time to unpack it all here but the use of "money laundering" relating to that civil case is not accurate. The allegations of that civil case aret heat Sater worked with corrupt officials from a Kazahk city to get billions of stolen city funds out of the country.
The article says that Sater talked with the corrupt officials about using the money in the Trump Tower project in Moscow--which didn't actually exist because there was no site and no financing. So Sater is running around the Soviet "Stans" to find stolen funds for financing.
Read 7 tweets
23 May
I've never seen a provision in a "use immunity" agreement -- and that is what was signed based on what I've read -- that guarantees secrecy. It might have been discussed that any public ID of Danchenko could put him and his "network" of contacts at risk in Russia.
Given the subject matter I would have been concerned with that if I was him or his attorney, and as a gov't attorney wanting to make use of the guy's info I would have been sensitive to that concern.
Since this was a CI case, I would not be surprised if Danchenko said "I won't ever testify" and the agents/Laufman said "We won't ever use you as a witness", and from that some level of assurance about non-disclosure was assumed or agreed upon.
Read 4 tweets
23 May
All accurate and it underscores the point made by several retired FBI senior officials. The irregular manner in which the investigation was structured contributed to a lot of irregular case work by those involved. Rotation of agents on 90 day assignments a terrible idea.
Lack of first hand knowledge by most. Four separate investigations with 4 different squads, supervised not by an SSA and ASAC, but by a Dep. AD at HQ, and then stove-piped to the Dep.Dir.
The IG report gives off a very real "odor" that the agents who rotated out after the first 90-120 days, who watched the locomotive continue down the tracks -- driven by Comey and McCabe after Trump's election -- wanted nothing to do with it after the were off.
Read 10 tweets
23 May
"Stepped out" means they were freelancing -- they were pursuing this idea on their own initially because they both knew as a historical matter that Trump Org. had an interest in having a property in Moscow. I'm not sure what doc. you are quoting from here.
And I don't care whether the info is based on info provided by Cohen, Sater, or third parties. The WRITER of the document has a motivation for it to read in a particular fashion, and that was to support the narrative that Trump Org - and Trump himself ...
Were actively pursuing a Moscow project at the same time he was running for President in the GOP Primary process in the fall of 2015, which would support the "collusion" narrative and make Trump's denials on the topic false -- along with Don Jr.'s denials to Congress.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(