How Dare Marc Elias welcome republicans in now to Vote for Joe Bidan!Complete flaming asshole, he should have been in jail years ago.
And stop talking about Democracy being at Stake, Bidan and you guys destroyed it assholes
This is a face of a lying cheater that has tried for 8 years to destroy Trump fuck of Elias
Bureau of Prisons thumbs its nose at Congress, taxpayers
Add 'smart on crime' to political mantra of 'tough on crime'
By Peter Navarro- - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 OPINION: 1/2
Thefailure of the Bureau of Prisons to implement two major federal lawsmandating sentence reductions for nonviolent and first-time offenders costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually even as it increases recidivism risk and the crime rate — never mind the human misery such malign neglect entails. This is the most pressing of the many problems I’ve observed as a prisoner of conscience from inside the walls of a federal prison.
In any fair and efficient criminal justice system, a prison sentence must be long enough to match the crime while sufficient to deter future criminal behavior. Based on my conversations with nearly a hundred fellow inmates and supplementary research, the United States justice system wildly over-sentencesandsignificantly delays releasesand thereby misses this mark.
Here’s Prisonomics 101: We must be as “smart on crime” as we are “tough on crime.” Every inmate costs taxpayers $60,000 a year, and the costs of over-sentencing and the Bureau of Prisons‘ failure to release inmates in a timely manner run well into the billions.
America’sover-sentencing for first-time and nonviolent offendersbegins with a large roster of“hanging judges”fearful of a political backlash from a citizenry rightly angry with the breakdown of law and order in our society.
However, far too many of these black-robed czars have little concept of what it means to be behind bars, and it means nothing to impose sentences twice or more as long as might be needed to adequately punish and deter.
Here, the significant variance across judges in sentences for the same crimes is both well known and troubling. In my own dorm, one inmate got a soul-crushing 150 months for embezzlement while his co-defendant got a mere 30 months for a much larger role in the scam.
Second,over-sentencing has been institutionalizedthrough outdated “mandatory minimums,” which regularly put first-time, nonviolent offenders in prison for 10 to 15 years or more. Mostly, these are young men, often with wives and young children. They will go from youth to middle age in our prison system at a per capita cost to U.S. taxpayers approaching $1 million. In prison, their skills and employability will deteriorate. Tragically, their children will go from babies to teens without a male parent.
Third,there is the “RICO wing” of the Department of Justice, now exploiting and often abusing the broad powers of federal racketeering laws.
Indeed, DOJ prosecutors routinely use overly broad “conspiracy” charges to threaten defendants and their family members with ridiculously long sentences if the defendants refuse to plea bargain and instead go to trial. When the inevitable plea comes, coerced defendants are often still saddled with eight-, 10- or 15-year sentences for white-collar crimes that, absent the RICO gambit, would be settled through civil rather than criminal prosecutions.
Through such coercion, DOJ prosecutors act more like racketeers than those they are prosecuting. Their goal is not justice but simply another scalp to take for their resumes and professional advancement. I have met numerous men in prison who had their lives, families, and job-creating, tax-generating businesses ruined by DOJ’s RICO wing and who never should have been put behind bars.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/may/7/bureau-of-prisons-thumbs-its-nose-at-congress-taxp/
2/2
Congress has sought to address this over-sentencing epidemic through the Trump-era 2018First Step Actand the 2008 Bush-eraSecond Chance Actand its 2018 reauthorization. Yet the Bureau ofPrisonshaslargely ignored the mandatesCongress has given it.
For example, during my prison stay, I have worked with dozens of first-time and nonviolent inmates. I have discovered case after case where prerelease custody into a halfway house and home confinement had been delayed for months and sometimes more than a year. I had this happen even in my own case, which has lengthened my prison stay by more than one-third.
One of the biggest reasons the Bureau ofPrisons fails to release inmates in a timely manneris itsfailure to followa 2022 directive mandating full forecastrelease creditsunder the First Step Act and the Second Chance Act. An equally big reason is simply bureaucratic inertia, which causes many inmates who fail to speak up to fall through the cracks.
One of the most economically perverse problems I have observed is the refusal of the Bureau of Prisons to allow inmates into prerelease custody because of the closing of some halfway houses and a lack of halfway house capacity. This is not just inhumane; it is fiscal insanity.
It costs taxpayers half as much to support an inmate in a halfway house. So when the Bureau of Prisons closes halfway houses to save a few dimes and inmates have to stay in prison longer, the total cost to the Bureau of Prisons — and taxpayers — goes up.
Finally, while Congress has significantly relaxed the rules governing compassionate release, time and again, the Bureau of Prisons and wardens at prisons like mine in Miami won’t approve such releases. In my prison dorm alone, there is a 66-year-old in deteriorating health in a wheelchair, an 80-year-old in even worse condition, a guy with what is likely terminal cancer, and a 40-something suffering from the aftermath of a stroke and related spinal surgery. All should have been sent home months or years ago.
This is not what Congress intended, and the Bureau of Prisons‘ failure to obey the laws of our land — irony noted — is needlessly costing taxpayers billions annually while increasing crime and recidivism rates. This travesty is happening on President Biden’s watch. It’s well past time to add “smart on crime” to the political mantra of “tough on crime.”
• Peter Navarro served for four years as a senior White House adviser to Donald Trump. He is currently a prisoner of conscience in a federal prison for defending the constitutional separation of powers and honoring his oath of office. He is the author of the forthcoming book “The New MAGA Deal: The Unofficial Deplorables Guide to Donald Trump’s 2024 Policy Platform.”
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/may/7/bureau-of-prisons-thumbs-its-nose-at-congress-taxp/
Trennert: Biden's Fiscal And Monetary Policy Has Set Us Up For Another Wave Of High Inflation Later
10:41
https://rumble.com/embed/v4t4g9r/?pub=4
"You're Nothing But Thugs": Steve Bannon Calls Out The Biden WH And Justice Department
7:31
https://rumble.com/embed/v4t4f2f/?pub=4
Garland is a freakin liar, why don't you scream about anti-semitism
Steve Bannon Calls Out Merrick Garland For Betraying Country
14:04
https://rumble.com/embed/v4t4i2l/?pub=4
Catharine O’Neill Details Task Force Assembled To Fight Anti-Christian Agenda Bannons War Room
10:21
https://rumble.com/embed/v4t4jvc/?pub=4
‘My Jaw Hit the Floor’: Two Former Trump Staffers Argue Michael Cohen Is Lying Under Oath About Wanting a Job in the White House
Jamie Frevele May 16th, 2024,
Michael Cohen sat for a second day of cross-examination from lawyers representing former President Donald Trump Thursday, andtwo CNN contributors claimed that Trump’s former fixer was lying under oath — again.
Cohen, whose questionable credibility is well-documented and being used as the primary arrow in the quiver of the defense, testified on the stand, under oath, that he was not seeking a position in Trump’s White House. However, bothBryan Lanza, former deputy communications director for the Trump-Pence campaign, and Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former Trump administration staffer, stated to CNN’s Jake Tapper on Thursday thatthat’s not what they heard.
Griffin said that while she did not hear firsthand from Cohen that he was seeking a job in the White House, she heard enough discussions saying he was:
I was working for a number of Republican lawmakers at that time, several of whom would go into the administration, including Mick Mulvaney as OMB director, and it was widely known and believed. Now, Michael Cohen never told me firsthand, “I’m going into the White House, I want to.”But it was widely discussed that he was angling for Attorney General or to be White House counsel. That’s, I mean, there’s dozens and dozens of people around Washington who could corroborate that. My jaw hit the floor when I heard him denying that.
Less than an hour before that, Lanza also stated on CNN — despite joking that he was afraid he’d be called to testify — that Cohen clearly indicated to him that he was gunning to be White House counsel:
[A]t least to me, Michael Cohen was pretty adamant that he wanted to be White House counsel. He said everything he was doing was to be White House counsel, he’s always injected himself with the space that I was in, which was the TV space, because Trump cared a lot about it. Just so, I always viewed that he’s always positioning, and he was pretty clear that he wanted to be White House counsel. That doesn’t mean I want to testify before anything on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday. But, you know, you’re asking me. I’m not Michael Cohen. I’ll tell you the truth.
This led CNN anchor Kasie Hunt to ask a pertinent question:“Is Cohen perjuring himself here?”
The short answer is “no,” but legal analyst Elie Honig explained that while it was contradictory testimony, it was too “wishy-washy” to be considered perjury. (It was perjury, she's just making some fake excuse)
https://www.mediaite.com/trump/my-jaw-hit-the-floor-two-former-trump-staffers-argue-michael-cohen-is-lying-under-oath-about-wanting-a-job-in-the-white-house/
Jordan letter to James, on Bragg and Colangeloletter attached, 3 pg
first couple paragraphs.Jordan is going after a lot, a lot!
Dear Attorney General James:
The Committee on the Judiciary is conducting oversight of politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials. Since last year, popularly elected prosecutors—who campaigned for office on the promise of prosecuting President Trump—engaged in an unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority: the indictment of a former President of the United States and current leading candidate for that office. New York County District Attorney (DANY) Alvin Bragg is engaged in one such politicized prosecution, which is being led in part
by Matthew B. Colangelo, a former prosecutor in your office and subsequent senior Justice Department official in the Biden administration.Given the perception that the Justice Department is assisting in District Attorney Bragg’s politicized prosecution, we write to request information and documents related to Mr. Colangelo’s employment at the New York Attorney General’s Office.
Mr. Colangelo’s recent employment history demonstrates his obsession with investigating a person rather than prosecuting a crime.1 At the New York Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Colangelo—who, for some time, held the title of Chief Counsel for Federal Initiatives2—ran investigations into President Trump,3 leading “a wave of state litigation against Trump administration policies.”4 On January 20, 2021, the first day of the Biden Administration, Mr. Colangelo began serving as the Acting Associate Attorney General—the number three
official at the Justice Department.5 Upon the confirmation of Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, Mr. Colangelo then served as the Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General.6 In December 2022, District Attorney Bragg “beefed up [his] office” by hiring Mr. Colangelo to fill the void left by the departure of politicized line prosecutors Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne.7
District Attorney Bragg hired Mr. Colangelo to “jump-start” his office’s investigation of President Trump, reportedly due to Mr. Colangelo’s “history of taking on Donald J. Trump and his family business.”8 Mr. Colangelo is now a lead prosecutor in President Trump’s trial. District Attorney Bragg’s prosecution concerns federal subject matter that is identical to a matter that the Justice Department closed in 2018, raising concerns that a state-level prosecutor is seeking to relitigate an issue on which the federal government previously declined prosecution.
In addition, Bragg’s prosecution relies heavily on the testimony of his star witness, Michael Cohen, a convicted felon with a demonstrable bias against President Trump.9 Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in 2018.10 In 2019, when he testified before the Democrat-led House Committee on Oversight and Reform in a hearing orchestrated by a longtime Democrat activist to aid their fruitless investigation into President Trump, Cohen lied again—six times.11 In the years since, Cohen has been vocal about his deeply personal animus toward President Trump.12 District Attorney Bragg’s politicized prosecution of President Trump has serious
consequences for federal interests.13 The fact that a former senior Biden Justice Department official—whose previous employment consisted of leading “a wave of state litigation against Trump administration policies”14—is now leading the prosecution of President Biden’s chief political rival only adds to the perception that the Biden Justice Department is politicized and weaponized. Accordingly, we ask that you provide the following documents and information:
-
All documents and communications for the period January 1, 2017, to January 20, 2021, between or among Mr. Colangelo and any employee, agent, or representative of t he New York County District Attorney’s Office, the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, or the U.S. Department of Justice referring or relating to:
a. President Donald J. Trump;
b. The Trump Organization; or
c. Any other entity owned, controlled by, or associated with President Donald J.
Trump;…
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/JDJ%20to%20AG%20Letitia%20James%20re%20Colangelo.pdf
Jordan, Biggs and Gaetz sent this letter to the female Warden of Miami prison
Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First Street. N.W.
Washington, DC 20534
Dear Director Peters:
The Committee on the Judiciary continues to conduct oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). We write regarding several issues that are of pressing concern to the Committee, including allegations of disparate treatment of inmates in BOP custody for political reasons and reports that BOP is denying Members of this Committee the ability to meet and speak with inmates in BOP custody.
On March 5, 2024, the Committee wrote to you concerning the treatment of Jason Galanis, an inmate in BOP custody who is a witness in the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry.1We understand from Mr. Galanis that he has been the “victim of a pattern of retribution by the Department of Justicein order to prevent my home confinement, which would have allowed full and free access to congressional investigators.”2 You failed to comply with our requests, which forced us to issue you a subpoena compelling the production of the requested material.3 The subpoena compels you to produce this material no later than May 17, 2024.
Separately, on May 6, 2024, a member of the Committee informed the House of Representatives thatyou denied his request to meet with Peter Navarro, who is currently in federal custody.4 You allegedlydenied this request because Dr. Navarro was “too notorious” to meet with a Member of Congress,5 and Dr. Navarro has also allegedly been notified that he is not permitted to meet with his attorney.6Your refusal to allowa Member of Congress to meet with Dr. Navarro—in addition to BOP’s efforts to prevent Mr. Galanis from speaking to Congress—raise serious questions about the politicization of BOP.
Accordingly, we request your testimony at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance at 2:00 p.m. on June 13, 2024, in Room 2141 of Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing will examine the above issues, among others. Please be prepared to summarize your testimony with a five-minute opening statement and to answer questions posed by Committee Members.
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-05-09%20JDJ%20AB%20MG%20to%20Peters%20-%20BOP%20re%20hearing%20invite.pdf?_gl=1f6njue_gaNTg3MTE4NjMwLjE3MTU4OTI5MTU._ga_1818ZEQW81*MTcxNTg5MjkxNC4xLjEuMTcxNTg5NDU1MC4wLjAuMA..