Ladies and gentlemen, thank you all for coming. Im a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise institute and a columnist at the washington examiner, and i think that youve seen erupt around the country especially this last year a discussion on criminal Justice Reform on over criminalization and all sorts of things we will focus on a specific aspect of that. My thoughts on why i picked this i have libertarian leanings and justice and mercy need to play up. I dont think we will get into a question of are we locking up all the millions of people that we lock up makes our country safer that is a tricky question to debate. Once we put people in prison, are we doing anything to help them or just burning lives. When you having prison sentences that serves a deterrent effect so it serves some good. It keeps criminals off the streets theres some good there. We call these correctional facilities. Are they just making things worse . So given the debate for some extent of criminalization although
Down front here, please. Thanks very much. A fascinating discussion. I write the mitchell report. I want to focus if i can specifically on the jihadi and isis sort of cluster and pose two questions if i can. One is as opposed to far right radicals or neonazis, et cetera. Some of us have attended sessions in this very room on the role of messaging and counternarratives and i would be interested to know particularly as i listen to what angela had to say about how you would do this successfully, im interested to know whether and to what extent you think messaging and counternarratives can have some success in this process of keeping people from stepping over the edge. And then second, if its appropriate or if theres time, im interested to know how you evaluate the considerable work that the saudis do on this issue and how you evaluate that. Okay. So we have a question about the ethicacy of countermessaging and then about the saudis. Obviously there is a long tradition of deradicalization
Leadership that you have shown and the people in this room have shown, including the chief beck. Mandatory minimums are an important part of how the federal system is set up, but since 2013 when he smart on crime policy was announced by thenattorneygeneral holder, federal prosecutors have been instructed not to use mandatory minimums except in cases that really merit their attention. In other words, aggravated felons, the leaders of drug organizations, violent people. What thats meant is that our use of mandatory minimums has probably dropped by about 25 in that time. But so far we have not seen a corresponding drop in the willingness of lowerlevel conspirators to cooperate with us. In other words, what we are seeing in the smart on crime policy is a direct ability to reduce mandatory sentences while still protecting the public. So the bottom line is, you asked the question should we eliminate mandatory minimums entirely. And i think the answer to that is no. But we have to reserve the
Opponent it was a 10way race but detailing his dismal attendance is a state legislator. My aides said, he wants to do this. Should we do this . What should we tell them . I replied, i dont know i dont want to know what you do. What does that mean . Should we do it . I said, dont tell me anything. So, they gave him the voting information. Which is public information, but it violated the mccainfeingold legislation. Anattorney provided affidavit for me to sign in response to a complaint that he filed. The affidavit had 15 statements. 14 of them were true, one was not. I denied knowledge of that postcard, even though i knew that the aides had met that person. Five years later when i was a Missouri State senator, my best friend called me, he told me that the man who had done that postcard five years earlier had just been picked up by the feds for mortgage fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, illegal weapons possession, spousal abuse cocaine distribution, heroin and was the chief suspect in a car
Commission meeting on october 11, 2022. This meeting is held in person in city hall, room 400 and broadcasted live on sfgov tv and available to view online or listened by calling 4156550001. As authorized by california Government Code Section 54953e and mayor breeds 45th supplement to her february 25th, 2020, emergency proclamation, its possible that some members of the Small Business commission may attend this meeting remotely. In that event, those members will participate and vote by video. The Small Business commission thanks Media Services and sfgov tv for televises the meeting on sfgov tv dot org. We welcome the publics participation during Public Comment. Theres an opportunity for general Public Comment at the end of the meet and an opportunity to comment on each discussion or action item on the agenda. For each item, the commission will take Public Comment first from people attending the meeting in person and then from people attending the meeting remotely. Members of the public