D.C. Advocate in Senate Blames Trump for Crime in Capital
'We have a historic judicial vacancy crisis in D.C.,' said Mr. Jain, who serves as one of the District's elected advocates before the U.S. Senate. He noted that the city is down two judges out of nine on its high court, the D.C. court of appeals. 'What happens when you don't have enough judges? Trials get delayed, crime goes up,' he said. 'Why has the president not made this a priority of nominating judges?'
Mr. Jain said the vacancy crisis in the U.S. attorney's office, which prosecutes all adult crimes, also posed a problem for the city. Mr. Trump recently installed an ally, the former Fox News host Jeannine Pirro, as the U.S. attorney for Washington after he was forced his pull his first choice for the job.
'Pirro's predecessor fired attorneys who prosecuted violent insurrectionists from Jan. 6,' Mr. Jain said, referring to another Trump appointee, Ed Martin. 'Now we're facing a vacancy crisis in her office, too.'
Mr. Jain said Mr. Trump's his efforts to exert federal authority over the nation's capital did not appear to offer any long term solutions to crime. 'And I'm incredibly concerned about what he is going to use the police force to do to the people of D.C.,' he added.
The takeover of the city police department was expected to last 30 days. That means that what Mr. Trump announced on Monday was essentially a show of force that will expire on Sept. 10.
Mr. Jain is one of two shadow senators from the District of Columbia who serve as its elected advocates before the body. They hold no voting power but lobby the Senate in favor of D.C. statehood, to prevent congressional interference in its affairs, and pass laws that protect D.C.'s interests.
Mr. Jain said there was only one real way for Washington to protect itself.
'We need D.C. statehood to stop this problem,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europe's concerns may be getting through as White House reframes Trump-Putin summit
It's beginning to feel like "Midnight Sun" diplomacy. In parts of Alaska, the sun doesn't set in summer, casting light through the night but leaving you disorientated. Ukraine latest: Zelenskyy reject's Putin's proposal The Trump-Putin summit is pitched as "transparent" but it's difficult to find any path to peace right now. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has reduced it to a "listening exercise" where will seek a "better understanding" of the situation. There isn't much to understand - Russia wants territory, Ukraine isn't ceding it - but Ms Levitt rejects talk of them "tempering expectations". It's possible to be both hopeful and measured, she says, because Mr Trump wants peace but is only meeting one side on Friday. It's the fact that he's only meeting that concerns European leaders, who fear Ukraine could be side-lined by any Trump-Putin pact. claims Mr Putin wants the rest of Donetsk and, in effect, the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. He's ruled out surrendering that because it would rob him of key defence lines and leave Kyiv vulnerable to future offensives. European leaders - including Sir Keir Starmer - will hold online talks with Mr Zelenskyy twice on Wednesday, on either side of a virtual call with Mr Trump and US Vice President . Their concerns may be getting through, hence the White House now framing the summit as a cautious fact-finding exercise and nothing more. The only thing we really learned from the latest news conference is that the first Trump-Putin meeting in six years will be in Anchorage. Alaska itself, with its history and geography, is a layered metaphor: a place the Russians sold to the US in the 1800s. Read more: A remote but strategic frontier where the lines of ownership and the rules of negotiation are once again being sketched out. On a clear day, you can see Russia from Alaska, but without Mr Zelenskyy in the room, it's difficult to see them conquering any summit. In the place where the sun never sets, the deal might never start.
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Going Just 1 MPH Under Speed Limit Could Land You in Jail in Louisiana
Going Just 1 MPH Under Speed Limit Could Land You in Jail in Louisiana originally appeared on Autoblog. Louisiana drivers lingering in the left lane now have even less margin for error. A new law that took effect August 1 allows police to ticket anyone driving just 1 mph under the speed limit in the passing lane without a valid reason. First-time offenders face a $150 fine, a second offense within 12 months rises to $250, and a third can bring $350 or up to 30 days in jail. Lawmakers say the aim is to keep traffic flowing and reduce dangerous slowdowns, but critics argue it's an overreach that could criminalize cautious driving. From Ten Miles Under to Just One The previous rule only targeted drivers going at least 10 mph under the limit in the left lane. The revised statute tightens that to a single mile per hour, with exceptions for overtaking or turning left. Senator Jay Luneau, who introduced the bill, said the idea came from frustration during his commute between Baton Rouge and Alexandria. The stricter approach mirrors other recent driving crackdowns nationwide, such as one state's controversial new speeding law that threatens offenders with jail time. A National Patchwork of Speed Policy Louisiana's change comes amid a broader debate on how states should set and enforce speed laws. While some are clamping down on both fast and slow drivers, others are going the opposite direction. Earlier this year, one state raised its speed limits on certain highways — but paired the move with strict penalties for reckless behavior. These contrasting approaches show the lack of a uniform national standard, leaving drivers to navigate a patchwork of rules as they cross state lines. No One's Above the Law Enforcement isn't limited to everyday motorists. In July, Harry Potter star Emma Watson lost her license after accumulating 12 penalty points for speeding in the U.K., highlighting that stricter driving laws — on either side of the Atlantic — can catch even high-profile of Louisiana's law argue that by making left-lane discipline a serious matter, they can reduce road rage, prevent accidents, and make highways safer for everyone. Will It Change Driving Behavior? The law's supporters believe it will unclog traffic and reduce collisions caused by sudden lane changes or tailgating. Critics warn that it could be used to justify unnecessary stops or escalate minor infractions into costly — even criminal — consequences. Whether it proves effective or becomes another flashpoint in the driver–police relationship remains to be seen. For now, the message from Baton Rouge is clear: the left lane is for passing, not for pacing the limit. Going Just 1 MPH Under Speed Limit Could Land You in Jail in Louisiana first appeared on Autoblog on Aug 12, 2025 This story was originally reported by Autoblog on Aug 12, 2025, where it first appeared.
Los Angeles Times
8 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's unusual deal with Nvidia and AMD sparks concerns, legal questions
President Trump struck an unusual deal with Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices that allows the companies to sell certain chips to China in exchange for giving the U.S. government a 15% cut of those sales. But the unprecedented agreement also has raised concerns from politicians and legal experts over whether the deal is legal and would pose a national security threat. Questions also linger about exactly how the deal, which was announced Monday, would work because the U.S. Constitution bars taxes on exports, although some experts said Trump could find a workaround. The U.S. government might receive $3 billion from the revenue split if China's demand for Nvidia's H20 chip — which is less powerful than the company's highest-end artificial intelligence chip — reaches $20 billion, according to a note from Bernstein Research. 'It ties the fate of this chip manufacturer in a very particular way to this administration that is quite rare,' said Julia Powles, a professor and executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy. Trump's agreement with the world's most valuable company could put pressure on other tech companies and major exporters to strike similar deals with the U.S. government, but it's still unclear what the implications will be internationally, she said. The deal is the latest example of how tech companies are seeking to curry favor with the Trump administration, which has threatened to impose tariffs on semiconductor companies that don't commit to investing in the United States. Apple faced potential tariffs as well, but committed to investing $100 billion more in U.S. manufacturing after Trump criticized the company for expanding iPhone production in India. Trump also placed restrictions in April around the export of certain AI chips, including Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308, over national security concerns. He's called for the resignation of Intel Chief Executive Lip-Bu Tan, who has faced scrutiny over his reported investments in Chinese companies, but changed his tune after meeting the executive this week. Democratic and Republican lawmakers have criticized the idea that tech companies should split their sales with the U.S. government in exchange for export licenses that allow them to resume chip sales in China. 'Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the Government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities,' Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), the chair of the House Select Committee on China, said in a statement. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, (D-Ill.), a ranking member of that committee, said in a statement that the deal raises questions about its legality and how the funds will be used. 'The administration cannot simultaneously treat semiconductor exports as both a national security threat and a revenue opportunity,' he said. 'By putting a price on our security concerns, we signal to China and our allies that American national security principles are negotiable for the right fee.' The White House didn't answer questions about the agreement. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday that 'the legality of it, the mechanics of it, is still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce.' On Monday, Trump defended the deal with Nvidia, stating that the H20 chips are 'obsolete' and less powerful than the company's more high-end Blackwell chip. At a news conference, Trump said he met with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and initially asked for a 20% revenue split but they came down to 15%. 'We negotiate a little deal,' Trump said. 'So he's selling a essentially old chip.' Trump's remarks came after a report from the Financial Times over the weekend that Nvidia and AMD would pay 15% of their China chip revenue to the U.S. government. AMD didn't respond to a request for comment. An Nvidia spokesperson said in a statement that the company hasn't shipped H20 chips to China for months but it hopes that easing export restrictions will 'let America compete in China and worldwide.' 'America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America's AI tech stack can be the world's standard if we race.' For Nvidia, the stakes are high. Huang said in a May interview with Stratechery, a newsletter and podcast, that the Chinese market is about $50 billion a year. Restricting H20 chip sales means that the company is walking away from profits that could be used to compete with China in the race to dominate AI. Taylar Rajic, an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said she's skeptical that legal concerns would halt the arrangement because it's unclear who would sue. 'I can't identify who would bring that suit forward,' she said. 'It wouldn't be Nvidia because they're the ones who negotiated this deal.' Meanwhile, Chinese officials have their own fears that Nvidia's chips could have location tracking or remote shutdown capabilities, though the company has denied those accusations. 'China obviously has its own concerns and its own national security considerations that it wants to take into account,' Rajic said. 'It just depends on whether or not they want to buy it from us too.'
