I'm sorry man, but when did this happen?
Isaiah Washington thanks Trump for First Step Act, criticizes Barack Obama for not supporting 'Black
- Thread starter Brnpit
- Start date
I'm sorry man, but when did this happen?
This.
Come on bruh!! All these presidents work for the money class!! One party will smile while fucking you and the other party will frown while fucking you.. The bottom line your getting fucked by both parties, if you wanna believe it or not!!
Umm add a extra BILLION per year in Federal aid to appease the Israeli mafia. That was also signed by Obama.
The Black farmers had to SUE to get reimbursed for past racism, and it was a one time thing. Israel well they been getting money since 1947, out YOUR pocket.
I am not shitting on Obama (I did more than enough when he was in office), just adding extra info for the full story
This is a dope ass analogy!! On so many levels
'Grey's Anatomy' star Isaiah Washington reignites feud with former co-star Katherine Heigl
Former "Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington reignited his feud with Katherine Heigl in a tweet on Monday.
'Grey's Anatomy' star Isaiah Washington reignites feud with former co-star Katherine Heigl
The drama between the ex co-stars dates back to 2007
By Melissa Roberto | Fox News
close
Fox News Flash top entertainment headlines for November 17
"Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington is revisiting his years-long feud with former co-star Katherine Heigl.
The two appeared on the medical drama together during its early seasons. Taking to Twitter on Monday, Washington recalled the time Heigl reportedly said Washington should not speak in public.
"This woman once proclaimed that I should ‘never’ be allowed to speak publicly again. The world agreed with her proclamation back then and protested for my job and my head in 65 languages. I wish I was on Twitter in 2007, because I will NEVER stop exercising my free speech," Washington tweeted with a photo of Heigl.
It's unclear what prompted Washington to speak out about Heigl.
'GREY'S ANATOMY' FANS STUNNED BY PATRICK DEMPSEY'S RETURN IN SEASON 17 PREMIERE: 'I CRIED SO MUCH'
In another tweet, Washington clapped back at a follower who defended Heigl. He said Heigl was not defending her gay friend, and dragged actress Chandra Wilson into the drama, writing she "knows all about that too."
When one follower asked Washington why he was bringing the drama back up 10 years later, he wrote, "Because it's the TRUTH. The End."
Meanwhile, a source close to Heigl told Fox News: "Katherine stood up for her close friend twice when Isaiah publicly outed him and called him a f-----. That’s hate talk, not free speech. She is proud that she stood up for him. Katherine is and always will be an advocate and ally to LGBTQ community."
The former co-stars' feud dates back to 2007, when Heigl claimed Washington made an anti-gay slur on set against "Grey's Anatomy" star T.R. Knight.
Katherine Heigl's past drama with 'Grey's Anatomy' co-star Isaiah Washington was reignited on Monday. (Getty)
Heigl, known for her role as Dr. Izzie Stevens on the ABC drama, said the slur left her "furious and frustrated." She also claimed in an interview with Entertainment Weekly that Washington apologized to her on set over the feud.
"Isaiah thanked me, which I didn't understand," she told the outlet. "He was almost grateful. I don't know Isaiah well, but he takes his work seriously and he loves his character."
'THE STORY WAS A LIE': ACTOR ISAIAH WASHINGTON ON INCIDENT THAT GOT HIM FIRED FROM 'GREY'S ANATOMY'
Isaiah Washington previously denied Heigl's claim that he used an anti-gay slur on set of the ABC medical drama. (Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images)
Washington reportedly denied making the slur at the Golden Globe Awards that same year.
Washington exited the show after Season 3 following the accusation. While speaking about his departure on the Fox Nation series "Isaiah Washington: Kitchen Talk" in July, he explained why he decided to publicly apologize for the incident.
"The story was a lie and misconstrued. But as a family guy, a father, I thought I was helping the family," said Washington.
He also said he wouldn't ever apologize for it again.
"That's why I'll never apologize again -- to this day," said Washington. "That's why Trump doesn't apologize, because when you apologize for something, then that it is admitted to wrong -- doing something wrong. I did nothing wrong."
KATHERINE HEIGL ON DISCUSSING GEORGE FLOYD'S DEATH WITH HER DAUGHTER: 'HOW WILL I EXPLAIN THE UNEXPLAINABLE?'
Meanwhile, Heigl's last appearance on the show was in January 2010, two years after she reportedly ruffled feathers for pulling her name from an Emmy contention. She later told radio icon Howard Stern that she didn't pull her name, and instead never submitted herself in the first place because she wasn't proud of her performance. She claimed it had to do with a lack of "emotional material" for her character.
In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, showrunner Krita Vernoff recalled having to rewrite the script after Heigl did not appear for her farewell episode.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“All I know is that the night before a thing is supposed to start shooting that is entirely centered on one character and the completion of her story arc, I got a phone call that she wasn’t coming to do it. That’s what it is to be a TV writer and producer. So, yeah, do I wish I could go back and do that differently? Sure," Vernoff told the outlet.
A source close to Heigl, however, denied Vernoff's claim, calling it untrue.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER
"Grey's Anatomy" is currently in its 17th season, and its recent premiere episode shocked fans with the return of Dr. Derek Shepherd, played by Patrick Dempsey.
Reps for Heigl, Washington and Wilson did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.
The First Step Act Is Not Sweeping Criminal Justice Reform — and the Risk Is That It Becomes the Only Step
The Senate passed the First Step Act, but it's not a sweeping criminal justice reform. More needs to be done to roll back the carceral state.
theintercept.com
'Grey's Anatomy' star Isaiah Washington reignites feud with former co-star Katherine Heigl
Former "Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington reignited his feud with Katherine Heigl in a tweet on Monday.www.foxnews.com
'Grey's Anatomy' star Isaiah Washington reignites feud with former co-star Katherine Heigl
The drama between the ex co-stars dates back to 2007
By Melissa Roberto | Fox News
close
Fox News Flash top entertainment headlines for November 17
"Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington is revisiting his years-long feud with former co-star Katherine Heigl.
The two appeared on the medical drama together during its early seasons. Taking to Twitter on Monday, Washington recalled the time Heigl reportedly said Washington should not speak in public.
"This woman once proclaimed that I should ‘never’ be allowed to speak publicly again. The world agreed with her proclamation back then and protested for my job and my head in 65 languages. I wish I was on Twitter in 2007, because I will NEVER stop exercising my free speech," Washington tweeted with a photo of Heigl.
It's unclear what prompted Washington to speak out about Heigl.
'GREY'S ANATOMY' FANS STUNNED BY PATRICK DEMPSEY'S RETURN IN SEASON 17 PREMIERE: 'I CRIED SO MUCH'
In another tweet, Washington clapped back at a follower who defended Heigl. He said Heigl was not defending her gay friend, and dragged actress Chandra Wilson into the drama, writing she "knows all about that too."
When one follower asked Washington why he was bringing the drama back up 10 years later, he wrote, "Because it's the TRUTH. The End."
Meanwhile, a source close to Heigl told Fox News: "Katherine stood up for her close friend twice when Isaiah publicly outed him and called him a f-----. That’s hate talk, not free speech. She is proud that she stood up for him. Katherine is and always will be an advocate and ally to LGBTQ community."
The former co-stars' feud dates back to 2007, when Heigl claimed Washington made an anti-gay slur on set against "Grey's Anatomy" star T.R. Knight.
Katherine Heigl's past drama with 'Grey's Anatomy' co-star Isaiah Washington was reignited on Monday. (Getty)
Heigl, known for her role as Dr. Izzie Stevens on the ABC drama, said the slur left her "furious and frustrated." She also claimed in an interview with Entertainment Weekly that Washington apologized to her on set over the feud.
"Isaiah thanked me, which I didn't understand," she told the outlet. "He was almost grateful. I don't know Isaiah well, but he takes his work seriously and he loves his character."
'THE STORY WAS A LIE': ACTOR ISAIAH WASHINGTON ON INCIDENT THAT GOT HIM FIRED FROM 'GREY'S ANATOMY'
Isaiah Washington previously denied Heigl's claim that he used an anti-gay slur on set of the ABC medical drama. (Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images)
Washington reportedly denied making the slur at the Golden Globe Awards that same year.
Washington exited the show after Season 3 following the accusation. While speaking about his departure on the Fox Nation series "Isaiah Washington: Kitchen Talk" in July, he explained why he decided to publicly apologize for the incident.
"The story was a lie and misconstrued. But as a family guy, a father, I thought I was helping the family," said Washington.
He also said he wouldn't ever apologize for it again.
"That's why I'll never apologize again -- to this day," said Washington. "That's why Trump doesn't apologize, because when you apologize for something, then that it is admitted to wrong -- doing something wrong. I did nothing wrong."
KATHERINE HEIGL ON DISCUSSING GEORGE FLOYD'S DEATH WITH HER DAUGHTER: 'HOW WILL I EXPLAIN THE UNEXPLAINABLE?'
Meanwhile, Heigl's last appearance on the show was in January 2010, two years after she reportedly ruffled feathers for pulling her name from an Emmy contention. She later told radio icon Howard Stern that she didn't pull her name, and instead never submitted herself in the first place because she wasn't proud of her performance. She claimed it had to do with a lack of "emotional material" for her character.
In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, showrunner Krita Vernoff recalled having to rewrite the script after Heigl did not appear for her farewell episode.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“All I know is that the night before a thing is supposed to start shooting that is entirely centered on one character and the completion of her story arc, I got a phone call that she wasn’t coming to do it. That’s what it is to be a TV writer and producer. So, yeah, do I wish I could go back and do that differently? Sure," Vernoff told the outlet.
A source close to Heigl, however, denied Vernoff's claim, calling it untrue.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER
"Grey's Anatomy" is currently in its 17th season, and its recent premiere episode shocked fans with the return of Dr. Derek Shepherd, played by Patrick Dempsey.
Reps for Heigl, Washington and Wilson did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.
this dude thought it was a good idea to get into a twitter beef with a chick whose career is about as fucked as his?
Sounds like some bitter bitch shit to me.
but maybe that is what happened to Clarence Thomas, some sista rebuffed his advances so....
Shonda Rhimes needs to get a lot of credit for trying to keep that moron on the show. hell the gay dude that was at the center of the the controversy quit the show because Shonda refused to fire him. why his dumb ass felt the need to go on national tv, during an awards interview, and say he didn't call anyone a faggot was about the dumbest thing he could do.
chuckles
Terry v. United States
Terry v. United States, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with retroactive changes to prison sentences for drug-possession crimes related to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, its retroactive nature established by the First Step Act of 2018. In a unanimous judgement, the Court ruled that while the First Step Act does allow for retroactive considerations of sentence reductions for drug-possession crimes prior to 2010, this only covers those that were sentenced under minimum sentencing requirements.
Background
Prior to 2010, the United States had strict federal laws related to drug possession under 21 U.S.C. § 841, which established a three-tier penalty system depending on the amount and type of drug, a response due to the crack epidemic of the 1980s. For crack cocaine, tier 1 crimes carried a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing more than 50 grams (1.8 oz), tier 2 crimes carried a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for more than 5 grams (0.18 oz), and tier 3 crimes did not have any mandatory sentence for amounts less than 5 g. Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010 which altered the possession levels for crack cocaine to higher levels as to bring these in line with the possession levels established for powder cocaine. For example, the tier 2 possession level was increased to 28 grams (0.99 oz) of crack cocaine. Later, in 2018, the First Step Act was passed that, among other provisions, allowed those sentenced on drug-possession charges prior to the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act's altered levels to seek resentencing.[1]
Tarahrick Terry had been charged with possession of 4 grams (0.14 oz) of crack cocaine in 2008, treated as a tier 3 violation, and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Terry sought a resentencing hearing after the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act but was denied by both the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and on appeal at the Eleventh Circuit as his drug possession had been determined to be an act of recidivism. Following passage of the First Step Act, Terry again sought a resentencing hearing, arguing his possession fell under the retroactive considerations of this new act. Again, both the District Court and Eleventh Circuit ruled against this, stating that Terry's possession charge as a tier 3 act was not a covered crime under the First Step Act.[2]
Supreme Court
Terry petitioned to the Supreme Court, arguing there was a split circuit decision on whether tier 3 possession crimes could be resentenced under the First Step Act. At the time that Terry filed his petition, the United States government under the Donald Trump administration intended to defend its position in alignment with the Eleventh Circuit's decision. The Court granted certiorari on January 9, 2021, a few weeks before Joe Biden took office as president. Normally, once the Court had granted certiorari, the petitioner and respondent file briefs along with amicus curiae from third parties. However, with the change in the administration, the U.S. government did not file any brief, but instead on the brief deadline, filed a letter stated that it no longer intended to defend its position as respondent, believing that Terry's crime was a covered crime under the First Step Act. The Court had planned oral hearings in April 2021, but due to the government effectively dropping out from the case, the case's oral hearings were rescheduled to May 4, 2021, and the Court appointed law professor Adam Mortara to present the respondent arguments as to resolve the split circuit, rather than deem the case moot.[2]
The Court issued its decision on June 14, 2021. The judgement was unanimous, upholding the Eleventh Circuit's decision that Terry's charge was not a covered crime eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act. The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by all but Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote a concurrence joining in judgement and in the opinion in part.[1] Thomas's decision identified that within the First Step Act, the covered cases eligible for resentencing hearings were those that were "a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by [the Fair Sentencing Act]", principally those that carried mandatory minimum sentences and not tier 3 crimes which were not modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.[1][3]
Sotomayor's concurrence had stressed that the Court's decision was bound by the current language of the First Step Act, and urged Congress to pass a new law that would remedy situations like Terry.[1]
Terry v. United States, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with retroactive changes to prison sentences for drug-possession crimes related to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, its retroactive nature established by the First Step Act of 2018. In a unanimous judgement, the Court ruled that while the First Step Act does allow for retroactive considerations of sentence reductions for drug-possession crimes prior to 2010, this only covers those that were sentenced under minimum sentencing requirements.
Background
Prior to 2010, the United States had strict federal laws related to drug possession under 21 U.S.C. § 841, which established a three-tier penalty system depending on the amount and type of drug, a response due to the crack epidemic of the 1980s. For crack cocaine, tier 1 crimes carried a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing more than 50 grams (1.8 oz), tier 2 crimes carried a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for more than 5 grams (0.18 oz), and tier 3 crimes did not have any mandatory sentence for amounts less than 5 g. Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010 which altered the possession levels for crack cocaine to higher levels as to bring these in line with the possession levels established for powder cocaine. For example, the tier 2 possession level was increased to 28 grams (0.99 oz) of crack cocaine. Later, in 2018, the First Step Act was passed that, among other provisions, allowed those sentenced on drug-possession charges prior to the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act's altered levels to seek resentencing.[1]
Tarahrick Terry had been charged with possession of 4 grams (0.14 oz) of crack cocaine in 2008, treated as a tier 3 violation, and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Terry sought a resentencing hearing after the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act but was denied by both the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and on appeal at the Eleventh Circuit as his drug possession had been determined to be an act of recidivism. Following passage of the First Step Act, Terry again sought a resentencing hearing, arguing his possession fell under the retroactive considerations of this new act. Again, both the District Court and Eleventh Circuit ruled against this, stating that Terry's possession charge as a tier 3 act was not a covered crime under the First Step Act.[2]
Supreme Court
Terry petitioned to the Supreme Court, arguing there was a split circuit decision on whether tier 3 possession crimes could be resentenced under the First Step Act. At the time that Terry filed his petition, the United States government under the Donald Trump administration intended to defend its position in alignment with the Eleventh Circuit's decision. The Court granted certiorari on January 9, 2021, a few weeks before Joe Biden took office as president. Normally, once the Court had granted certiorari, the petitioner and respondent file briefs along with amicus curiae from third parties. However, with the change in the administration, the U.S. government did not file any brief, but instead on the brief deadline, filed a letter stated that it no longer intended to defend its position as respondent, believing that Terry's crime was a covered crime under the First Step Act. The Court had planned oral hearings in April 2021, but due to the government effectively dropping out from the case, the case's oral hearings were rescheduled to May 4, 2021, and the Court appointed law professor Adam Mortara to present the respondent arguments as to resolve the split circuit, rather than deem the case moot.[2]
The Court issued its decision on June 14, 2021. The judgement was unanimous, upholding the Eleventh Circuit's decision that Terry's charge was not a covered crime eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act. The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by all but Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote a concurrence joining in judgement and in the opinion in part.[1] Thomas's decision identified that within the First Step Act, the covered cases eligible for resentencing hearings were those that were "a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by [the Fair Sentencing Act]", principally those that carried mandatory minimum sentences and not tier 3 crimes which were not modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.[1][3]
Sotomayor's concurrence had stressed that the Court's decision was bound by the current language of the First Step Act, and urged Congress to pass a new law that would remedy situations like Terry.[1]
The First Step Act released them from prison. Then the government tried to lock them back up.
By Gavin Jenkins
July 25, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
In December 2019, a group of former federal inmates gathered on Capitol Hill to meet congressional leaders and White House officials. The men had been released early from prison under the First Step Act, a sweeping bipartisan bill that allowed federal prisoners with qualifying drug offenses to apply for release.
Ronald Mack and his younger brother, Rodney — found guilty of conspiracy to sell more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than 50 grams of crack cocaine — were among dozens of former inmates who attended the reception in the Rayburn House Office Building. Natives of Plainfield, N.J., they had been released from prison a month earlier.
But as the men settled in for a panel discussion on government oversight, their phones rang. Their lawyers were notifying them that the U.S. attorney’s office of New Jersey had appealed their release. They could be sent back to prison.
Trump boasts that his landmark law is freeing these inmates. His Justice Department wants them to stay in prison.
More than 18 months later, the Department of Justice dropped its appeal, ending the limbo the Mack brothers faced, feeling “half-incarcerated, half-free,” said Ronald Mack, 58. Now that it’s over, “it feels like the whole world is off my back,” he added.
More than 3,000 federal inmates have been released from prison under the First Step Act since it was signed by President Donald Trump in 2018. But prosecutors have sought to re-incarcerate a handful of offenders, arguing they did not actually qualify for release.
Ronald and Rodney Mack were among the offenders faced with the prospect of returning to prison. The brothers were sentenced to life in prison in 2002, convicted of selling $16 million worth of cocaine and crack between 1994 and 1999. They were not convicted of violent crimes. (The brothers deny ever selling drugs.)
Ronald Mack said hearing the judge say “life in prison” changed him. “I knew I had to stay focused, stay positive, enter into the prison programs and work,” he said.
In prison, he earned his GED, as well as degrees for workplace safety and quality control measures, and learned how to draw and interpret blueprints. But he said his greatest achievement occurred in the prison law library, where he researched similar conspiracy drug cases involving crack.
“I knew the answers were in the law library because that’s where the attorneys and judges and prosecutors got the answers,” Mack said.
Mack exhaustively researched his case, identifying possible routes for appeal.
Five myths about criminal justice
Mack’s lawyer, Christopher Adams, said he feels like he’s sitting next to a peer in court, not a client. “He’s the greatest paralegal I’ve ever come in contact with,” Adams said. “He has his finger on the pulse of cases: new ones, ones developing in other circuits, district court cases.”
Rodney Mack said he didn’t expect his older brother to acquire legal skills, but he was glad he did. “When you spend all your time in the law library, other people come to you for help, and he was able to help a lot of guys with their cases,” Rodney Mack said.
When Ronald Mack began writing legal motions, he was permitted to hold conference calls with his younger brother to talk about their case. Imprisoned at separate federal penitentiaries, the conference calls gave the men an opportunity to keep in touch beyond email.
In November 2019, the Mack brothers were ordered to be released by a federal judge.
“We’re the example of why this bill was written,” said Hassan Hawkins, who was convicted with the Mack brothers. “I put the effort in to change. I was 27 when I went in. I wasn’t a kid, but my thinking wasn’t correct. And now I’m renewed spiritually and mentally.”
But in February 2020, the solicitor general approved the U.S. attorney’s office of New Jersey’s motion to appeal the decision. With the appeal, the Mack brothers faced the prospect of returning to prison for another decade.
The First Step Act aimed to correct the disparities in sentencing of defendants convicted of crack offenses, who were mostly Black, compared to powder cocaine. It contains six provisions that address reducing recidivism, incentivizing rehabilitation, improving where an inmate is confined in relation to their primary residence, correctional reforms such as prohibiting the use of restraints on pregnant inmates, government oversight and sentencing reforms.
Holly Harris, a conservative activist and leader of the Justice Action Network who worked with Congress and the Trump administration to pass the First Step Act, said the DOJ is flouting the intention behind the law with appeals like the one in the Mack case.
“They have prosecutorial discretion and part of the discretion is a determination as to what sends the right message about public safety and the benefits of rehabilitation,” Harris said. “This is prosecutors doubling down on what doesn’t work, and it’s deeply disappointing.”
Along with the usual — and daunting — challenges ex-offenders are dealt when leaving prison, the Mack brothers experienced stress and anxiety about their future.
“I went to bed every night worrying if I was going back to prison the next day,” Rodney Mack said.
While the appeal process played out, Rodney and Ronald Mack spoke every day by phone and — as they did in prison — encouraged each other to stay positive and focus on their new jobs.
Rodney Mack works as a delivery driver for a WalMart in Pennsylvania, and his brother does construction in North Carolina. Their father died while they were in prison, and Ronald Mack helps take care of their mother. He said reconnecting with loved ones and concentrating on construction has helped him get through the past several months.
Last week, the DOJ announced it was dropping its appeal. A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment on the department’s policy for appealing decisions that free offenders under the First Step Act, or on why it had decided to drop the appeal.
Ronald Mack compared his approach to reentering society with the appeal hanging over them to rehabilitating himself in prison.
“Like then, the blinders were on,” he said. “Action was the only thing that could make it go by.”
Kevin Ring, who runs Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said he became emotional when he learned the DOJ had dropped the appeal. “It’s been so hard on their families, and for them to just never have been free even though they’re home,” Ring said.
Ronald Mack said if he could start his life over again, he would become an attorney. But now that the case is finally over, he plans to continue directing his attention on work and loved ones.
“I still have my blinders on,” he said.
Similar threads
