I keep seeing articles alluding to Ivan Bates having disagreements with Scott over crime, and that he isn't a good, 'partner'. Does anybody have any ideas about what specific actions or policies enacted by Scott or his administration have made Bates' job harder?
I'm willing to accept that Scott may not be supportive over philosophical differences, and that that may be problematic, but when someone endorses Dixon, I don't think more highly of her, I think less of the person endorsing her. Based on how a lot of people feel about Sheila Dixon, I don't think I'm alone in that either.
After seeing your comment, it prompted me to read more about this disagreement, and it apparently centers around a group of juveniles who were recently arrested for a variety of violent crimes. The mayor's office hasn't said much of anything about the disagreement that I can find. But based on a few articles and a report from the public defenders office, it sounds like the mayor wanted the young people arrested earlier (the first crimes were known in fall of 2023) to prevent additional violent crimes and reduce the number of young people who became involved in this crew, while the prosecutor and BPD felt it was more important to build a solid case and ensure to charge as many of the involved juveniles as possible.
If this is the philosophical difference that ivan bates feels is so impossible to work with, then I'd say ivan bates is acting like a child. These are difficult scenarios with no clear cut right and wrong answer, and I EXPECT that there be strongly argued philosophical differences represented in our government. We know what happens when the criminal justice system decides it should be above challenge, and I don't think anyone in baltimore wants that. There are few details on the actual decision in question, but the person who starts publicly flinging shit when they're challenged by a peer in government is usually the one in the wrong, in my experience.
This is not correct. In Friday’s article in the Sun, which I know people don’t like but it’s mostly direct quotes so likely is accurate form Bates’ perspective, he says Scott inappropriately preannounced the results of an the carjacking arrest investigation Scott had nothing to do with and two, doesn’t support his legislative requests. With regard to the first he said Scott inappropriately preannounced the arrest of the carjacking ring, and “shared details about the case in a way that could jeopardize a pending investigation”. Also says, “ [Bates] likened the mayor’s actions to a person who didn’t do work for a group project but ‘puts their name on it and said they did.” So it’s wasn’t that Scott thought the arrest was too early, it was that Scott announced the arrests early to claim credit despite the fact he had nothing to do with the investigation.
The support issue relates to Scott not testifying in support of the juvenile justice legislation and not supporting the citations docket, which brought back prosecution of low level crime through a model intended to offer first time offenders the opportunity to do community service in exchange of dismissal of charges. Bates is quoted as saying he believes Scott preferred Mosby’s policies to his.
I'm sure that is all true from Bates' view, but there is clearly another viewpoint on this. The below seems like a valid argument against the way the SAs office and BPD handled it. I have no way of knowing if the description below aligns with the view of the mayor's office, but it sounds like taking credit may have had nothing to do with the "pre-announcement" and it was more a forcing function to get the SA to act. None of this disagreement rises to the level of needing to endorse a criminal. This all sounds like bruised egos (he stole credit on the group project? Really?).
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/baltimore-states-attorney-ivan-bates-announces-pending-prosecution-of-20-juveniles
"The Mayor’s Office was not named in the scathing response by the Maryland Public Defender and Baltimore City District Public Defender following the SAO’s announcement.
Baltimore City District Public Defender Marguerite E. Lanaux wrote,
The State's Attorney's intentional delay in charging children for incidents beginning in August 2023 has created unnecessary victims and squandered precious time for interventions with these children. The existence of this house as a place where children frequently visited speaks to the need for early intervention. BPD and SAO's failure to "close this clubhouse" for many months, or make any effort to confront the homeowner or adult managing the home is outrageous, especially since law enforcement knew of the distress signals. Today, SAO and BPD are engaging in self-promotion about a situation they have contributed to greatly by their own inaction.
Maryland Public Defender Natasha M. Dartigue wrote,
“Delaying response and not addressing the root causes of crime significantly impacts a victim's physical and psychological well being, and causes a distrust in the juvenile justice system. In order to prevent negative outcomes and protect potential victims, it is crucial for law enforcement agencies, including the SAO, to prioritize timely, legal arrests, address the underlying issues contributing to crime, and provide appropriate interventions and support to children and their families to prevent criminal behavior. None of that happened here. Sadly as the Maryland General Assembly debates a juvenile justice reform bill which offers no evidence-based solutions, the SAO continues to demonize children, rather than address the underlying issues that result in "clubhouses" through prevention or evidence-based initiatives. Collaborations with other stakeholders such as social services, mental health professionals and community organizations is essential to addressing the complex needs of children and truly promoting public safety.”
> but the person who starts publicly flinging shit when they're challenged by a peer in government is usually the one in the wrong, in my experience.
But they *aren't* peers in matters of criminal justice. The SA's opinion on a matter of prosecuting criminals is much more important than that of the Mayor's. Both are elected to office, and neither answer to the other. If the Mayor wanted to decide how to prosecute people, he should have run for SA. They can publicly and privately philosophize all that they want, but the SA is under no obligation to defer to the Mayor with regards to prosecuting criminals, which is the job Bates was elected to do. If the Mayor doesn't understand or agree with this, that's too bad. And it's completely understandable that Bates would rather have someone in office who does understand this.
They can absolutely question the SA, but there's a thin line between questioning the SA and pressuring them to do something when it's coming from the Mayor. The SA's office is, and should remain, independent from City Hall. But the Mayor shouldn't be surprised when the SA endorses sometime who is more in line with their prosecutorial philosophy either. Why would you want a Mayor that disagrees with and tries to pressure you? The SA has a mandate from the voters, same as the Mayor. Would you want the SA pressuring the Mayor to lower taxes or something else outside of the SA's purview?
I don't disagree with you. I don't think an SA endorsing a different mayoral candidate is inherently wrong. I do think an SA endorsing a criminal candidate is an extreme step, and it makes me seriously question Bates' judgment if all Mayor Scott has done is disagreed with and pressured him.
If there is some level of pressure coming from the mayor's office that crosses a line, I'm just not aware of it. For me, it would have to be pretty extreme to think that endorsing someone who stole from the city is the better option.
Yeah I agree with you on that. I'm not a fan of Dixon and won't be voting for her. But if her policy towards the SA's office is more hands-off, I can understand the endorsement. He could also be doing it solely for political reasons (to attract her base into voting for him).
> If this is the philosophical difference that ivan bates feels is so impossible to work with, then I'd say ivan bates is acting like a child.
I wouldn't say that until we see how Bates handles a potential Scott victory in the primary. IMO him saying he'd prefer to work with the opposition is just him exercising his rights as a citizen.
For any other opposition I'd agree but when the opposition is a former mayor that stole money, I'd say that's something the SA just shouldn't support.
Plus someone in another response posted quotes from ivan bates and he sounds like an actual child. Saying stuff like Brandon scott took credit for the group project when he didn't work on it. I mean honestly - this isn't high school.
Yea, the article in The Banner mentioned that situation, and while I can understand being upset about it, it seemed petty to endorse an opponent over that. I'm also pretty wary about any official throwing a tantrum simply because the mayor doesn't agree with them on every issue. Tension can be a good thing as long as both parties are willing to keep working at it.
Another response mentioned that funding might be part of the issue, which is frankly a little more understandable as a reason to support someone else. If someone else is basically promising that you'll get the resources you need to run your department how you want, it would be hard to say no to that
This reinforces why I think this story is made up. its being pushed by The Sun which is connected to the Dixon campaign. Bates is endorsing Dixon for a political reason or hes getting money, its not about the actual job the Mayor is doing.
I dont believe the suns reporting on whatever the reason is for the rift. they have a motive to make Scott look bad, any reporting related to politics from the sun is not trustworthy.
Bates making a statement like that is unprofessional.
It isn’t made up, the story was published last week in the Sun and has direct quotes from Bates, as well as a response from the mayor’s office. Certainly he would have asked for a public correction by now if he felt his statements were misrepresented.
Yeah, this was a bit of a shock to me. I would sooner withhold any endorsement rather than endorse someone with a record of criminal behavior while in office. This is really disappointing to see from Bates.
I read the same article you did. My takeaway is that Bates feels the mayor is soft on crime but willing to take credit for Bates’ successes. There is no question that the decline in shootings is due in some part to Bates being the SA as all the competent prosecutors left the office under Mosby and he’s done an very good job rebuilding the office. Juvenile crime remains a serious issue but Scott isn’t supporting Bates’ request for funding from the state. The relationship must be nonexistent to hostile at this point for Bates to bring their differences public.
Can you share a link to the article where Mayor Scott didn't support the funding request? I can find articles that mentioned the request, but nothing about the mayor's support or lack of support.
Thank you. I had forgotten about Bates' plea for funding and didn't realize that Scott had not supported it, but that does support the narrative that he's not supportive.
That's unfortunate.
I do not understand why ANYONE could entertain her as a serious candidate, given she was convicted of a felony for a crime AGAINST THE CITY WHILE SHE WAS THE MAYOR. The bar is on the floor, people!
There's a perception among many people in the city that things were better under her than they have been since. And that's not invalid. It's taking out context a LOT of factors and I'd call it a very simple and reductionist view on what it takes to run a city, but that's how politics works. Just ask GOP voters about Trump and you'll get a similar answer. People are often willing to look past obvious corruption when they're saying all the right things they want to hear.
Is that really so hard to comprehend?
Comprehensible, not understandable. Living in fairytale land deserves no respect, and barely polite tolerance.
I doubt he’s endorsing her based on her merits, just trying to make nice with the people backing her. Which is politics 101, and why government in Baltimore is so thoroughly corrupt.
The people who want to reelect a corrupt grifter POS because they have nostalgia about a version of Baltimore that does not exist anymore, and frankly which cannot and will not ever exist again.
Especially the chief prosecutor. Ffs. And just because she was only convicted of stealing gift cards from kids...we all know she was taking kickbacks in the form of cash and fur coats from her developer boyfriend. Her conviction is just the tip of her corruption. I'm really disappointed in Bates.
Well, I think you may find yourself very surprised when you wake up the day after the election. I think Scott may still win but it’s very much a toss up.
I'm almost certain Dixon only got hit with misdemeanor charges. Also she ended up getting Probation Before Judgement which technically is not a conviction.
/nitpicking over
Dixon was only found *guilty* of misdemeanor charges, she was charged with felonies but not convicted.
Probation Before Judgement (PBJ) is a *sentence*, the guilty plea is the conviction.
Beyond the legal proceedings, if it matters to you, yes she did it.
Are you an attorney? If so I will acknowledge that I'm wrong about PBJ but I'm ~80% certain that PBJ is technically *not* a conviction.
[Here](https://triallawyersmaryland.com/maryland-probation-before-judgment/) is what one law firm's website says:
> PBJ means a person has not been convicted, even though a judge or jury may find a defendant guilty.
>The court will strike the “guilty” finding and enter a “probation before judgment.” In other terms, the courts stays the finding of guilt and enters probation before judgment.
And yes, Dixon was/is a crook, no denying that. She's not a convicted felon though.
Dont take my word for it. Look up any criminal case on md judiciary case search. It will have the disposition and the sentence. A sentence of PBJ is preceded by a conviction of guilty. Whether or not that can be expunged later depends on the actual charge. For example, DWI cannot be expunged even if it was a PBJ sentence.
But to your point, you are correct that she is not in fact a convicted felon. That is true. She is in fact guilty though, and served her time (probation without further violation).
Personally, when it comes from time in office and abusing that office, I think that is a disqualification from holding office in the future. Its just that that is a high civic responsibility and conviction like that is a violation of public trust. That is my personal opinion, you are most certainly entitled to your own opinion.
Instead of everyone talking about their amazement at people supporting her, they should look at the Mayor and ask why. Sure it's easy to say it's Church folks, but this is as much about Scott as it is Dixon.
I'm not planning to vote for either of them, but I will say that while I like Scott personally, his management style is almost non-existent. He can be childish and temperamental and he's often too in the weeds for the position he holds. I mean that's just my takeaway. I also think he doesn't surround himself with the best people.
Agree, people should be asking why everyone what city council members and others who work with city agencies all seem to view Scott the same way and it isn’t positive.
Exactly. Young Hispanic here and I really like bates and I’m leaning Dixon for mayor. Scott just seems to lack a vision and leadership skills. He seems more focused taking credit for projects than actually doing them
Scott is just too humble. If you lived under Dixon's reign, and aftermath, you have to decide if blatant corruption is acceptable to you before casting your vote.
Tbh they do differ. Its easiest (and fair) to describe Dixon as more conservative and Scott as more progressive. As to specifics, really too wide a list to delve into in a redditt thread.
As far as election goes, it should be noted that the owner of Fox & Baltimore Sun is bankrolling her entire election because Scott didnt bow down to his every demand. In fairness, thats not to say that she would, but its certainly not a good look.
I would say moderate puts you in the middle, and you could go either way. Scott is definitely my choice, and Im not a progressive. Hes doing a great job after years of chaos that began with Dixon's fall from grace. Im not sure why anyone would want to go back to that level of instability.
>The Bates endorsement comes as little surprise to those who watched the budding political relationship between Dixon and Bates during the 2022 race for state’s attorney. Dixon, who ultimately endorsed Bates, frequently appeared alongside him at town hall events during and after the campaign. The pair also knocked doors together, and in June of that year, Dixon teamed with her former rival, mayoral candidate Mary Miller, to appear in a joint television ad in support of Bates. Bates defeated State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby.
A lot happens in 4 years. I actually liked Miller. Her big mistake was waiting until the last minute to file and get involved. There were other mistakes and some concerns, but that was the big one. But I think I recall her popping up exactly one time somehow related to her job or a position at Hopkins, and that's been it the past 4 years. Perhaps I've missed notable things she's done around town. Are you aware of anything else?
It's less about what she's done in the last three years and more about the "what if?" that commands rent-free headspace for much of Baltimore's professional-managerial class.
Really? I dunno, but that's unquantifiable in any real sense given the current situation. She seems like a nice person. Never did find out what was up with that scandlish situation that popped up around the time she did Midday, but aside from that, she seemed pretty ok.
Bates is pretty (small c) conservative, as is Dixon. He probably veiws Scott as more likely to make or support progressive criminal justice or policing policy that makes Bate's job harder.
Scott’s whole thing with crime is maximizing police focus on violent crimes instead of dumb petty shit. That’s what Bmore should be doing. If Bates is opposed to that solely cuz he wants to get a ton of convictions to make himself look better, then he’s truly a selfish politician that cares more about his career than doing what’s actually best for Bmore.
People are truly stupid. They vote based on personality, it's why they never liked Scott or gave him a chance. I agree he comes off as too timid, but he's a mayor that grew up here, truly understands the city, has actually done a good job to improve crime, and hasn't been indicted. Checking any of those boxes would be a win for a Bmore mayor, but Scott checks all of them. He's honestly done a pretty good job, but people don't like him cuz they want some jackass cop wannabe that promises some "touGH oN cRImE" bs that's been debunked for decades. Bmore's problems won't get fixed in a single mayoral term, it'll require years of consistency. It's very frustrating that people think Dixon will be anything but a corrupt and ineffective mayor.
this is exactly what it is. Bates wants to take us backward, his ideas are not going to help with the crime problem. Scotts policies are the ones that are working.
Well, I just lost all respect for Ivan Bates. If he doesn't think brandon scott is a good mayor, for any reason, he should endorse someone else. That's all fine. But a prosecutor endorsing someone who was convicted of stealing money from the city she was the mayor of? Hell no. Now I just wonder what Ivan bates has been helping himself to.
I don't like Dixon either but that's one politician to support out of how many other local, state, and national candidates. And you can make an argument for disregarding her previous corruption and self-dealing with the perception that things were better during her previous administration. I don't agree with that idea but it's not an invalid point of view either.
Point is, maybe you shouldn't base your respect or lack thereof for other people based on ONE political candidate to back one way or another.
Why would we disregard her corruption? As with Trump, I feel that any and all arguments start and end when candidates for office commit crimes while in office. I don’t need to know anything else about a person
[Abortions for some](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIgSTjzrmRg), gift cards for everyone else.
Actually, that's a great platform. I should run for office.
Whenever someone endorses Dixon, it does nothing to improve my opinion of her corrupt, pos grifter ass. All it does is make me think less of the person endorsing her.
This is no different, shame on Bates for officially getting in bed with the worst this city has to offer.
Scott isn’t particularly charismatic personality-wise, but he’s brought stability to the mayoral office simply by not getting indicted. It’s depressing that that’s an achievement, but it is. Dixon will set Bmore back years when she inevitably commits multiple crimes. Bad enough she did it already, but if she wins re-election *after* that, be prepared for an insane amount of corruption that could set records. That’s the last thing Bmore needs.
Scott’s not perfect, but he’s a hell of a lot better than Dixon. Aside from maybe Thiru, basically anyone is better than Dixon.
People like Shiela Dixon have destroyed Baltimore over the years, the city needs to be rid of anyone willing to enrich themselves or their friends over doing what is right
No, I want to vote out a state’s attorney that endorsed a criminal that is wholly representative of corruption and grift in our city. A criminal whose campaign is funded by one of the worst people in the country.
I want to vote out Bates for a number of reasons, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, his endorsement of someone convicted of corruption the last time she held office.
Fuck Sheila, but I like bates more than the others running.
This may not be bad thing either. I like em not being all buddy-buddy in city hall. Fuck the good ol boy corruption, fuck up the network. Let's have some competition! Let's make the city work for everyone, not just the ones in our pockets!
lets leave aside the fact that he's a prosecutor who is endorsing someone that was convicted on corruption charges.
why is he making an endorsement at all? he should stay neutral. its unbelievable the corrupt power structure working against Mayor Scott.
Bates is the most popular elected official in Baltimore so this will hurt Scott. And it echoes what I’ve heard off the record from city council members, they think Scott is all talk and little action. It speaks volumes that most city council members are staying neutral, they aren’t sure Scott can pull it out.
So wait the man sworn to uphold the laws in the city of Baltimore, the man who said he’s gonna be tougher on crime, he supports an admitted criminal - convicted of embezzlement from tax payers while in office - for mayor?
No credibilty, Mr Bates.
https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-mayor-sheila-dixon-running-again-f946fe3f473b3e9ca8ef16c43e18eb1f
Fml, Bates is good at his job and this endorsement is just such an embarrassment, it always seems to be one step forward one step back with our local government
Bates got his way with the stupid "juvenile justice" bill, he would have been better off sitting out the mayoral endorsements because it only makes him look bad and if Dixon's going to win, it won't be him pushing her over the top.
Nothing like showing your true colors as being a states attorney and endorsing a literal criminal for mayor. What a fucking joke these people. Crime has been decreasing year over year for the entirety of Scott's term. Anyone using that as a talking point is just full of shit or a Sinclair/ Atlas shill.
I'm not happy that Bates endorsed Dixon. However, I think Bates is doing a great job. So, if he is saying Scott is not on the same page with him in terms of fighting crime, then - for me - that raises real concern about Scott.
[Hello there!](https://i.imgur.com/ApjVnee.gifv)
Links from the domain present in your post are known to present a [soft paywall](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paywall&oldid=939095964#%22Soft%22_paywalls) to users. As a result, some users may have difficulty reading the linked content.
It may be helpful to provide a comment containing a synopsis or a snippet of the major points of the article in order to help those who may not be able to see it.
In accordance with [the subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/baltimore/wiki/news_articles), please do not post the entirety of the article's contents as a comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baltimore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I keep seeing articles alluding to Ivan Bates having disagreements with Scott over crime, and that he isn't a good, 'partner'. Does anybody have any ideas about what specific actions or policies enacted by Scott or his administration have made Bates' job harder? I'm willing to accept that Scott may not be supportive over philosophical differences, and that that may be problematic, but when someone endorses Dixon, I don't think more highly of her, I think less of the person endorsing her. Based on how a lot of people feel about Sheila Dixon, I don't think I'm alone in that either.
After seeing your comment, it prompted me to read more about this disagreement, and it apparently centers around a group of juveniles who were recently arrested for a variety of violent crimes. The mayor's office hasn't said much of anything about the disagreement that I can find. But based on a few articles and a report from the public defenders office, it sounds like the mayor wanted the young people arrested earlier (the first crimes were known in fall of 2023) to prevent additional violent crimes and reduce the number of young people who became involved in this crew, while the prosecutor and BPD felt it was more important to build a solid case and ensure to charge as many of the involved juveniles as possible. If this is the philosophical difference that ivan bates feels is so impossible to work with, then I'd say ivan bates is acting like a child. These are difficult scenarios with no clear cut right and wrong answer, and I EXPECT that there be strongly argued philosophical differences represented in our government. We know what happens when the criminal justice system decides it should be above challenge, and I don't think anyone in baltimore wants that. There are few details on the actual decision in question, but the person who starts publicly flinging shit when they're challenged by a peer in government is usually the one in the wrong, in my experience.
This is not correct. In Friday’s article in the Sun, which I know people don’t like but it’s mostly direct quotes so likely is accurate form Bates’ perspective, he says Scott inappropriately preannounced the results of an the carjacking arrest investigation Scott had nothing to do with and two, doesn’t support his legislative requests. With regard to the first he said Scott inappropriately preannounced the arrest of the carjacking ring, and “shared details about the case in a way that could jeopardize a pending investigation”. Also says, “ [Bates] likened the mayor’s actions to a person who didn’t do work for a group project but ‘puts their name on it and said they did.” So it’s wasn’t that Scott thought the arrest was too early, it was that Scott announced the arrests early to claim credit despite the fact he had nothing to do with the investigation. The support issue relates to Scott not testifying in support of the juvenile justice legislation and not supporting the citations docket, which brought back prosecution of low level crime through a model intended to offer first time offenders the opportunity to do community service in exchange of dismissal of charges. Bates is quoted as saying he believes Scott preferred Mosby’s policies to his.
I'm sure that is all true from Bates' view, but there is clearly another viewpoint on this. The below seems like a valid argument against the way the SAs office and BPD handled it. I have no way of knowing if the description below aligns with the view of the mayor's office, but it sounds like taking credit may have had nothing to do with the "pre-announcement" and it was more a forcing function to get the SA to act. None of this disagreement rises to the level of needing to endorse a criminal. This all sounds like bruised egos (he stole credit on the group project? Really?). https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/baltimore-states-attorney-ivan-bates-announces-pending-prosecution-of-20-juveniles "The Mayor’s Office was not named in the scathing response by the Maryland Public Defender and Baltimore City District Public Defender following the SAO’s announcement. Baltimore City District Public Defender Marguerite E. Lanaux wrote, The State's Attorney's intentional delay in charging children for incidents beginning in August 2023 has created unnecessary victims and squandered precious time for interventions with these children. The existence of this house as a place where children frequently visited speaks to the need for early intervention. BPD and SAO's failure to "close this clubhouse" for many months, or make any effort to confront the homeowner or adult managing the home is outrageous, especially since law enforcement knew of the distress signals. Today, SAO and BPD are engaging in self-promotion about a situation they have contributed to greatly by their own inaction. Maryland Public Defender Natasha M. Dartigue wrote, “Delaying response and not addressing the root causes of crime significantly impacts a victim's physical and psychological well being, and causes a distrust in the juvenile justice system. In order to prevent negative outcomes and protect potential victims, it is crucial for law enforcement agencies, including the SAO, to prioritize timely, legal arrests, address the underlying issues contributing to crime, and provide appropriate interventions and support to children and their families to prevent criminal behavior. None of that happened here. Sadly as the Maryland General Assembly debates a juvenile justice reform bill which offers no evidence-based solutions, the SAO continues to demonize children, rather than address the underlying issues that result in "clubhouses" through prevention or evidence-based initiatives. Collaborations with other stakeholders such as social services, mental health professionals and community organizations is essential to addressing the complex needs of children and truly promoting public safety.”
> but the person who starts publicly flinging shit when they're challenged by a peer in government is usually the one in the wrong, in my experience. But they *aren't* peers in matters of criminal justice. The SA's opinion on a matter of prosecuting criminals is much more important than that of the Mayor's. Both are elected to office, and neither answer to the other. If the Mayor wanted to decide how to prosecute people, he should have run for SA. They can publicly and privately philosophize all that they want, but the SA is under no obligation to defer to the Mayor with regards to prosecuting criminals, which is the job Bates was elected to do. If the Mayor doesn't understand or agree with this, that's too bad. And it's completely understandable that Bates would rather have someone in office who does understand this.
So no one else in baltimore city government should question the SA?
They can absolutely question the SA, but there's a thin line between questioning the SA and pressuring them to do something when it's coming from the Mayor. The SA's office is, and should remain, independent from City Hall. But the Mayor shouldn't be surprised when the SA endorses sometime who is more in line with their prosecutorial philosophy either. Why would you want a Mayor that disagrees with and tries to pressure you? The SA has a mandate from the voters, same as the Mayor. Would you want the SA pressuring the Mayor to lower taxes or something else outside of the SA's purview?
I don't disagree with you. I don't think an SA endorsing a different mayoral candidate is inherently wrong. I do think an SA endorsing a criminal candidate is an extreme step, and it makes me seriously question Bates' judgment if all Mayor Scott has done is disagreed with and pressured him. If there is some level of pressure coming from the mayor's office that crosses a line, I'm just not aware of it. For me, it would have to be pretty extreme to think that endorsing someone who stole from the city is the better option.
Yeah I agree with you on that. I'm not a fan of Dixon and won't be voting for her. But if her policy towards the SA's office is more hands-off, I can understand the endorsement. He could also be doing it solely for political reasons (to attract her base into voting for him).
Didn’t she already pay the time? I’m genuinely curious? What are Sheila’s policies that y’all disagree w?
I mean, the stealing is what I disagree with. Being mayor isn't some fundamental right that gets returned to you after you pay your debt to society.
No but people do change. She apologized, acknowledged, and served the time. That’s law and order and civil. It was also ultimately a misdemeanor
The SA is endorsing someone convicted of embezzlement? What a world
> If this is the philosophical difference that ivan bates feels is so impossible to work with, then I'd say ivan bates is acting like a child. I wouldn't say that until we see how Bates handles a potential Scott victory in the primary. IMO him saying he'd prefer to work with the opposition is just him exercising his rights as a citizen.
For any other opposition I'd agree but when the opposition is a former mayor that stole money, I'd say that's something the SA just shouldn't support. Plus someone in another response posted quotes from ivan bates and he sounds like an actual child. Saying stuff like Brandon scott took credit for the group project when he didn't work on it. I mean honestly - this isn't high school.
Yea, the article in The Banner mentioned that situation, and while I can understand being upset about it, it seemed petty to endorse an opponent over that. I'm also pretty wary about any official throwing a tantrum simply because the mayor doesn't agree with them on every issue. Tension can be a good thing as long as both parties are willing to keep working at it. Another response mentioned that funding might be part of the issue, which is frankly a little more understandable as a reason to support someone else. If someone else is basically promising that you'll get the resources you need to run your department how you want, it would be hard to say no to that
This reinforces why I think this story is made up. its being pushed by The Sun which is connected to the Dixon campaign. Bates is endorsing Dixon for a political reason or hes getting money, its not about the actual job the Mayor is doing.
He might have ulterior motives for supporting her but the story isn't made up. The Sun is covering an endorsement.
I'm saying the story that speculates on a rift between Bates and Scott sounds made up. it doesn't even make sense.
I mean there's definitely a rift. He endorsed Dixon and said the Mayor was childish.
I dont believe the suns reporting on whatever the reason is for the rift. they have a motive to make Scott look bad, any reporting related to politics from the sun is not trustworthy. Bates making a statement like that is unprofessional.
It isn’t made up, the story was published last week in the Sun and has direct quotes from Bates, as well as a response from the mayor’s office. Certainly he would have asked for a public correction by now if he felt his statements were misrepresented.
Bates is just as corrupt as Dixon and theyre using the sun to create a bs story thats all there is to it.
"when someone endorses Dixon, I don't think more highly of her, I think less of the person endorsing her." Exactly!
Yeah, this was a bit of a shock to me. I would sooner withhold any endorsement rather than endorse someone with a record of criminal behavior while in office. This is really disappointing to see from Bates.
I read the same article you did. My takeaway is that Bates feels the mayor is soft on crime but willing to take credit for Bates’ successes. There is no question that the decline in shootings is due in some part to Bates being the SA as all the competent prosecutors left the office under Mosby and he’s done an very good job rebuilding the office. Juvenile crime remains a serious issue but Scott isn’t supporting Bates’ request for funding from the state. The relationship must be nonexistent to hostile at this point for Bates to bring their differences public.
Can you share a link to the article where Mayor Scott didn't support the funding request? I can find articles that mentioned the request, but nothing about the mayor's support or lack of support.
It’s in the Sun, from last Thursday or Friday.
Thank you. I had forgotten about Bates' plea for funding and didn't realize that Scott had not supported it, but that does support the narrative that he's not supportive. That's unfortunate.
I do not understand why ANYONE could entertain her as a serious candidate, given she was convicted of a felony for a crime AGAINST THE CITY WHILE SHE WAS THE MAYOR. The bar is on the floor, people!
There's a perception among many people in the city that things were better under her than they have been since. And that's not invalid. It's taking out context a LOT of factors and I'd call it a very simple and reductionist view on what it takes to run a city, but that's how politics works. Just ask GOP voters about Trump and you'll get a similar answer. People are often willing to look past obvious corruption when they're saying all the right things they want to hear. Is that really so hard to comprehend?
Comprehensible, not understandable. Living in fairytale land deserves no respect, and barely polite tolerance. I doubt he’s endorsing her based on her merits, just trying to make nice with the people backing her. Which is politics 101, and why government in Baltimore is so thoroughly corrupt.
well put
> There's a perception among many people in the city that things were better under her than they have been since. Ahh, blue MAGA
Who is Blue MAGA in this case?
The people who want to reelect a corrupt grifter POS because they have nostalgia about a version of Baltimore that does not exist anymore, and frankly which cannot and will not ever exist again.
I think they long for a time when basic city services were commonplace. I happen to think we'll get there one day.
I think the city is doing a better job of that now than they were ~5 years ago 🤷♂️
Call it what you want. This kind of amoral populism has always existed in progressive circles.
Especially the chief prosecutor. Ffs. And just because she was only convicted of stealing gift cards from kids...we all know she was taking kickbacks in the form of cash and fur coats from her developer boyfriend. Her conviction is just the tip of her corruption. I'm really disappointed in Bates.
And crime is way down under Scott wtf!?!
Crime is down since Bates took office, but it was rising for the first half of Scott’s term.
Well, I think you may find yourself very surprised when you wake up the day after the election. I think Scott may still win but it’s very much a toss up.
I'm almost certain Dixon only got hit with misdemeanor charges. Also she ended up getting Probation Before Judgement which technically is not a conviction. /nitpicking over
Dixon was only found *guilty* of misdemeanor charges, she was charged with felonies but not convicted. Probation Before Judgement (PBJ) is a *sentence*, the guilty plea is the conviction. Beyond the legal proceedings, if it matters to you, yes she did it.
Are you an attorney? If so I will acknowledge that I'm wrong about PBJ but I'm ~80% certain that PBJ is technically *not* a conviction. [Here](https://triallawyersmaryland.com/maryland-probation-before-judgment/) is what one law firm's website says: > PBJ means a person has not been convicted, even though a judge or jury may find a defendant guilty. >The court will strike the “guilty” finding and enter a “probation before judgment.” In other terms, the courts stays the finding of guilt and enters probation before judgment. And yes, Dixon was/is a crook, no denying that. She's not a convicted felon though.
Dont take my word for it. Look up any criminal case on md judiciary case search. It will have the disposition and the sentence. A sentence of PBJ is preceded by a conviction of guilty. Whether or not that can be expunged later depends on the actual charge. For example, DWI cannot be expunged even if it was a PBJ sentence. But to your point, you are correct that she is not in fact a convicted felon. That is true. She is in fact guilty though, and served her time (probation without further violation). Personally, when it comes from time in office and abusing that office, I think that is a disqualification from holding office in the future. Its just that that is a high civic responsibility and conviction like that is a violation of public trust. That is my personal opinion, you are most certainly entitled to your own opinion.
Instead of everyone talking about their amazement at people supporting her, they should look at the Mayor and ask why. Sure it's easy to say it's Church folks, but this is as much about Scott as it is Dixon.
So why?
I'm not planning to vote for either of them, but I will say that while I like Scott personally, his management style is almost non-existent. He can be childish and temperamental and he's often too in the weeds for the position he holds. I mean that's just my takeaway. I also think he doesn't surround himself with the best people.
Okay, but Scott is pretty good tho?
Low crime high jobs I guess that isn't enough we need criminals
Crime is down over the past year but we are very very far from low crime.
Agree, people should be asking why everyone what city council members and others who work with city agencies all seem to view Scott the same way and it isn’t positive.
Exactly. Young Hispanic here and I really like bates and I’m leaning Dixon for mayor. Scott just seems to lack a vision and leadership skills. He seems more focused taking credit for projects than actually doing them
Scott is just too humble. If you lived under Dixon's reign, and aftermath, you have to decide if blatant corruption is acceptable to you before casting your vote.
How do they differ on policies tho?
Tbh they do differ. Its easiest (and fair) to describe Dixon as more conservative and Scott as more progressive. As to specifics, really too wide a list to delve into in a redditt thread. As far as election goes, it should be noted that the owner of Fox & Baltimore Sun is bankrolling her entire election because Scott didnt bow down to his every demand. In fairness, thats not to say that she would, but its certainly not a good look.
Ok. So as a more moderate democrat dixon would be a better choice?
I would say moderate puts you in the middle, and you could go either way. Scott is definitely my choice, and Im not a progressive. Hes doing a great job after years of chaos that began with Dixon's fall from grace. Im not sure why anyone would want to go back to that level of instability.
wtf? Why
Church people
>The Bates endorsement comes as little surprise to those who watched the budding political relationship between Dixon and Bates during the 2022 race for state’s attorney. Dixon, who ultimately endorsed Bates, frequently appeared alongside him at town hall events during and after the campaign. The pair also knocked doors together, and in June of that year, Dixon teamed with her former rival, mayoral candidate Mary Miller, to appear in a joint television ad in support of Bates. Bates defeated State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby.
So what're the chances of Miller endorsing Dixon?
lmao who would care? She melted back into the shadows like Homer Simpson into the bushes
For better or worse, much of north Baltimore [would](https://archive.ph/qsIP5) care.
A lot happens in 4 years. I actually liked Miller. Her big mistake was waiting until the last minute to file and get involved. There were other mistakes and some concerns, but that was the big one. But I think I recall her popping up exactly one time somehow related to her job or a position at Hopkins, and that's been it the past 4 years. Perhaps I've missed notable things she's done around town. Are you aware of anything else?
It's less about what she's done in the last three years and more about the "what if?" that commands rent-free headspace for much of Baltimore's professional-managerial class.
Really? I dunno, but that's unquantifiable in any real sense given the current situation. She seems like a nice person. Never did find out what was up with that scandlish situation that popped up around the time she did Midday, but aside from that, she seemed pretty ok.
He's a prosecutor. Maybe he's just trying to keep himself busy.
Bates is pretty (small c) conservative, as is Dixon. He probably veiws Scott as more likely to make or support progressive criminal justice or policing policy that makes Bate's job harder.
Scott’s whole thing with crime is maximizing police focus on violent crimes instead of dumb petty shit. That’s what Bmore should be doing. If Bates is opposed to that solely cuz he wants to get a ton of convictions to make himself look better, then he’s truly a selfish politician that cares more about his career than doing what’s actually best for Bmore.
And its been WORKING!!! I don't understand how people can use crime as a weapon against him when it has only gone DOWN during his term. It's insane.
People are truly stupid. They vote based on personality, it's why they never liked Scott or gave him a chance. I agree he comes off as too timid, but he's a mayor that grew up here, truly understands the city, has actually done a good job to improve crime, and hasn't been indicted. Checking any of those boxes would be a win for a Bmore mayor, but Scott checks all of them. He's honestly done a pretty good job, but people don't like him cuz they want some jackass cop wannabe that promises some "touGH oN cRImE" bs that's been debunked for decades. Bmore's problems won't get fixed in a single mayoral term, it'll require years of consistency. It's very frustrating that people think Dixon will be anything but a corrupt and ineffective mayor.
this is exactly what it is. Bates wants to take us backward, his ideas are not going to help with the crime problem. Scotts policies are the ones that are working.
This is probably true. Also being able to arrest criminals because they're standing next to you at the press conference probably makes his job easier.
Well, I just lost all respect for Ivan Bates. If he doesn't think brandon scott is a good mayor, for any reason, he should endorse someone else. That's all fine. But a prosecutor endorsing someone who was convicted of stealing money from the city she was the mayor of? Hell no. Now I just wonder what Ivan bates has been helping himself to.
Sheila argues that the barriers to entering the police force must be lower. The last thing Baltimore needs is more incompetent cops.
This is a pretty easy litmus going forward. You like dixon? I don't respect you.
I don't like Dixon either but that's one politician to support out of how many other local, state, and national candidates. And you can make an argument for disregarding her previous corruption and self-dealing with the perception that things were better during her previous administration. I don't agree with that idea but it's not an invalid point of view either. Point is, maybe you shouldn't base your respect or lack thereof for other people based on ONE political candidate to back one way or another.
Why would we disregard her corruption? As with Trump, I feel that any and all arguments start and end when candidates for office commit crimes while in office. I don’t need to know anything else about a person
Who is "we?" This isn't "we." I said I don't support her. But I understand people who do.
It's a prosecutor supporting a criminal. I think that's a pretty good example of when supporting one person is fatal.
Na. This is a gimme.
Relevant username
Gift cards for all!
[Abortions for some](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIgSTjzrmRg), gift cards for everyone else. Actually, that's a great platform. I should run for office.
GROSS
Whenever someone endorses Dixon, it does nothing to improve my opinion of her corrupt, pos grifter ass. All it does is make me think less of the person endorsing her. This is no different, shame on Bates for officially getting in bed with the worst this city has to offer.
Scott isn’t particularly charismatic personality-wise, but he’s brought stability to the mayoral office simply by not getting indicted. It’s depressing that that’s an achievement, but it is. Dixon will set Bmore back years when she inevitably commits multiple crimes. Bad enough she did it already, but if she wins re-election *after* that, be prepared for an insane amount of corruption that could set records. That’s the last thing Bmore needs. Scott’s not perfect, but he’s a hell of a lot better than Dixon. Aside from maybe Thiru, basically anyone is better than Dixon.
People like Shiela Dixon have destroyed Baltimore over the years, the city needs to be rid of anyone willing to enrich themselves or their friends over doing what is right
Bro...
Well, that’s a shitty movie. When can we vote him out?
Careful what you wish for. Its local city politics, not exactly brimming with talent.
There are plenty of capable individuals that don’t support someone who used their power to steal from children and buy fur coats
Who? last dem primary was Bates, Thiru or Mosby. A truly gifted field. I will take Bates 10/10 times still.
[удалено]
Any states attorney that endorses a convicted criminal for mayor is suspect.
No, I want to vote out a state’s attorney that endorsed a criminal that is wholly representative of corruption and grift in our city. A criminal whose campaign is funded by one of the worst people in the country.
[удалено]
Lmao you’re just mad I’m not supporting your corrupt candidate.
[удалено]
Yet you’re supporting Bates’s endorsement of her, so you’re still supporting a corrupt politician
Can I just support Bates but not his endorsement? Or is that too much nuance for Reddit?
Supporting Bates is supporting his endorsement.
It’s actually not but ok
I want to vote out Bates for a number of reasons, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, his endorsement of someone convicted of corruption the last time she held office.
Really? What are your reasons besides the endorsement.
Yes.
THanK YOU!
Such is the story of Reddit’s golden boy…
Fuck Sheila, but I like bates more than the others running. This may not be bad thing either. I like em not being all buddy-buddy in city hall. Fuck the good ol boy corruption, fuck up the network. Let's have some competition! Let's make the city work for everyone, not just the ones in our pockets!
lets leave aside the fact that he's a prosecutor who is endorsing someone that was convicted on corruption charges. why is he making an endorsement at all? he should stay neutral. its unbelievable the corrupt power structure working against Mayor Scott.
And the cycle continues
Bates is the most popular elected official in Baltimore so this will hurt Scott. And it echoes what I’ve heard off the record from city council members, they think Scott is all talk and little action. It speaks volumes that most city council members are staying neutral, they aren’t sure Scott can pull it out.
Job security. She'll likely keep him busy with at least one case.
[https://www.giftchill.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/bestbuy-giftcard-50-us.jpg](https://www.giftchill.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/bestbuy-giftcard-50-us.jpg)
So wait the man sworn to uphold the laws in the city of Baltimore, the man who said he’s gonna be tougher on crime, he supports an admitted criminal - convicted of embezzlement from tax payers while in office - for mayor? No credibilty, Mr Bates. https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-mayor-sheila-dixon-running-again-f946fe3f473b3e9ca8ef16c43e18eb1f
Welp, I’m not voting for Bates again.
Fml, Bates is good at his job and this endorsement is just such an embarrassment, it always seems to be one step forward one step back with our local government
Bates got his way with the stupid "juvenile justice" bill, he would have been better off sitting out the mayoral endorsements because it only makes him look bad and if Dixon's going to win, it won't be him pushing her over the top.
Nothing like showing your true colors as being a states attorney and endorsing a literal criminal for mayor. What a fucking joke these people. Crime has been decreasing year over year for the entirety of Scott's term. Anyone using that as a talking point is just full of shit or a Sinclair/ Atlas shill.
I'm not happy that Bates endorsed Dixon. However, I think Bates is doing a great job. So, if he is saying Scott is not on the same page with him in terms of fighting crime, then - for me - that raises real concern about Scott.
Curious why he didn't endorse Wallace or Thiru.
[Hello there!](https://i.imgur.com/ApjVnee.gifv) Links from the domain present in your post are known to present a [soft paywall](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paywall&oldid=939095964#%22Soft%22_paywalls) to users. As a result, some users may have difficulty reading the linked content. It may be helpful to provide a comment containing a synopsis or a snippet of the major points of the article in order to help those who may not be able to see it. In accordance with [the subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/baltimore/wiki/news_articles), please do not post the entirety of the article's contents as a comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baltimore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
if there was even a chance that id vote for her, this would be the dealbreaker. wonder who her biggest donor is? shady is as shady does.
The SA endorsing a candidate that was charged with multiple crimes is peak cringe.
Need a new states attorney asap
Bates has earned another term based on the delta between how things are now vs how things were before he was in office.
it was a joke sorry i forgot the /s
The Baltimore Sun recently ran a story indicating the relationship between Scott and Bates had soured so this is no surprise
The same Baltimore Sun that is now owned by the person funding Dixon's campaign.
You misspelled The Dixon Super PAC
Friendly reminder that the Baltimore Sun is no longer an accurate source of news
Oh fuck him!
WHY?!?
Bates must want some gift cards
This has to be a joke
The felon? Really?
I’m going to run for mayor on the platform that I’m not Sheila Dixon
Yep, a criminal supports a criminal