Jussie Smollet got a sandwich

[cherrypoptart]

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/436740-maxine-waters-on-jussie-smollett-its-the-correct-thing-that-the

Maxine Waters on Jussie Smollett: 'It's the correct thing that the charges were dropped'
By Tristan Lejeune - 04/01/19 12:42 PM EDT

t’s the correct thing that the charges were dropped," Waters said in a Sunday interview with "Extra" at the NAACP Image Awards. Waters was honored with the Chairman's Award, while Smollett was nominated, but lost, for his work on the Fox series.

"First of all, we probably will never know all of the details. We’ve heard a lot of information," said Waters. "No one was hurt — that is, physically, killed, shot — he never committed a crime before, he forfeited the bail and it’s this kind of situation where they close the case all over the country every day. I have learned this isn't unusual."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Well that's her opinion and that's fine, I suppose. Not much there to discourage more hate crimes hoaxes though. It almost seems like it's not that big a deal.

[TheDrake]

Waters is a dumpster fire. This situation doesn't happen all over the country every day, that's why prominent prosecutors groups have pointed out how irregular it is.

[LetterRip]

Well that's her opinion and that's fine, I suppose. Not much there to discourage more hate crimes hoaxes though. It almost seems like it's not that big a deal.

General deterrence is one aspect of analysis that can be considered in whether to bring a prosecution.  They also have to consider their odds of winning at court (the attackers claiming that the person they attacked payed them to do it is a tough sell to a jury.)

Some of the 'facts' we were told earlier have proven to not have occurred, - for instance this tip

A resident or someone visiting Smollett’s Chicago apartment told the cops that they saw the actor in the elevator with Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo late in the night of the assault.

However,

CPD has confirmed that a tip this morning about a sighting at the residential towers of individuals involved in this alleged incident is unfounded as it was not supported by video evidence obtained by detectives.

https://deadline.com/2019/02/jussie-smollet-mark-geragos-talks-chicago-police-tip-false-1202560431/

The payment that was alleged to be for the attack was consistent with past payments to the individual for personal training, and the information on the check suggests it was expensed as personal training for an upcoming music video.

https://www.vibe.com/2019/02/jussie-smolletts-3500-payment-personal-training

So - I don't think any attorney would think that the testimony of his attackers would establish 'beyond reasonable doubt' that Smollett staged it.

The only way he could reasonably have been prosecuted is if the police had done a sting where the attackers got him on tape.

While I think it more likely than not that Smollett staged it - beyond a reasonable doubt probably isn't possible with the evidence they had.

[Lloyd Perna]

The only way he could reasonably have been prosecuted is if the police had done a sting where the attackers got him on tape.

While I think it more likely than not that Smollett staged it - beyond a reasonable doubt probably isn't possible with the evidence they had.

Do you have access to the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury?  If not I don't know how you could jump to that conclusion.  The Police Department certainly feel like they have a case.

[LetterRip]

Do you have access to the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury?

No, but the leaks have been significant.  If they had anything damning that hasn't been leaked then I'd be rather surprised. 

If not I don't know how you could jump to that conclusion.  The Police Department certainly feel like they have a case.

Police quite frequently overestimate the strength of evidence, their understanding of prosecution isn't much better than the average lay persons - which is to say utterly atrocious.

[TheDrake]

The only way he could reasonably have been prosecuted is if the police had done a sting where the attackers got him on tape.

That's not what other prosecutors are saying. It is possible that they decided that the expense of a prosecution against a rich guy wasn't going to be worth it, or it may have been political.

[Seriati]

I was mistaken there were indeed felony charges - criminal disorderly conduct for a 'false report'

Section a4,

(4) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to any peace officer, public officer or public employee a report to the effect that an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed, knowing at the time of the transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed;

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K26-1

The problem with charging with him with that, is that an actual crime of battery occurred.

(a) A person commits battery if he or she knowingly without legal justification by any means (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.

This wasn't battery, as there wasn't bodily harm from the fake attack, nor would it have been of an insulting or provoking nature.  In any event, even if there had been a battery, like say if the brothers got carried away, it would still be a false report in that he misrepresented the actual crime that was occurring.

If you wanted to really get down on it, he could also be charged with aiding and abetting such a battery, and potentially with a number of fraud based claims to the extent he recieved any financial benefits (which even the increased media attention could qualify as).

Since under Illinois law being paid isn't "legally justified".  So the prosecutor was likely right to drop those charges.

No.  Is that your legal opinion?  It's not right.  It's possible there was a legit reason to drop the charges we didn't see, but the conclusion you're reaching above is pretty much based on misinterpretation.

[Seriati]

So you're under the impression that consensual battery is still battery? So if you report your Dominatrix to the authorities, that's not a false report? And that they should be able to go to jail for hitting you with a riding crop?

Consent is an affirmative defense. not a statutory exclusion.

Staging a battery and reporting it as a crime is not a case of "consensual battery" being the relevant crime.  Most of the examples you are providing relate to attempts to legislate morality through strained applications of battery laws, or claims based on exceeding the consent that was actually involved.  It's also completely a state law crime, which means the only really precedents are in Illinois.

[Seriati]

Side-question about consensual battery: how does that work with sporting events?

Violence within the bounds of a sporting event that is consistent with play is generally part of the assumed risk of play.  There can be (and have been) cases where the violence exceeded that which is part of the general game and someone gets prosecuted.

It rarely fits inside the definition of battery, most of which require an intent of causing an injury.  The intent in sporting events is generally to win the game or gain an advantage in the game.

[Seriati]

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

The guys he hired did in fact batter him, therefore his report wasn't a false report - therefore there are no legitimate '16 counts' of felony false report.  Instead there is a single charge of battery against the guys he hired.  Those guys would then have an 'affirmative defense' against a charge of battery.

This would not be properly charged as a battery, and failing to report the conspiracy, fraud and false statements in connection with the event would more than justify it being a false report and a felony case. 

I mean think of the contrary rule you seem to be espousing.  You are essentially saying that to avoid a felony charge of false report all one has to do is make sure your accomplisses touch you, cause then its a battery and not false.  If they don't touch you its a felony, if they do, then its not.

As much as you might think by literal and simplistic reads that the law works that way, it does not.  There was no intent to batter Jussie, there was an intent to stage a fake hate crime.  The idea that a couple of light blows without intent to harm that the "victim" paid to have struck changes that is not remotely consistent with how the laws actually work.

Regarding recusal being 'colloquial' rather than 'formal' - formal would be filing paperwork with the courts.

Is this some law in Chicago or Illinois?  Never heard of filing formal recusal paperwork with the courts.  Where did you get that?

[Fenring]

There was no intent to batter Jussie, there was an intent to stage a fake hate crime.  The idea that a couple of light blows without intent to harm that the "victim" paid to have struck changes that is not remotely consistent with how the laws actually work.

Question about this, assuming you're correct: how would you evaluate this if, as part of the plan, the accomplices actually did beat up Jussie, in accordance with his desire to make the battery claim 'legitimate'? In other words, would having staged a real beating lend more credibility to Jussie's defence than having lied about there being a beating?

[Seriati]

Fenring, Jussie runs into his problems when he describes a crime that didn't occur.  Effectively, he described a battery by "strangers" that never happened, failing to report an actual battery by known persons that did happen doesn't change that.  LR was conflating two separate events.

If they kicked the crap out of him and actually battered him, he'd still be guilty of the felony false report when he attributed the injuries he'd taken to parties unknown.  Intent matters, victims often refuse to identify their actual assailants, and we don't hold them up for false statements or felony charges, what Jussie is alleged to have done is fundamentally different in that he knew who the persons were and lied about it both by not identifying them, but also by asserting a completely fake criminal act by persons unknown.  And that it appears that this was the intent from the beginning.

[Fenring]

Fenring, Jussie runs into his problems when he describes a crime that didn't occur.  Effectively, he described a battery by "strangers" that never happened, failing to report an actual battery by known persons that did happen doesn't change that.  LR was conflating two separate events.

If they kicked the crap out of him and actually battered him, he'd still be guilty of the felony false report when he attributed the injuries he'd taken to parties unknown.  Intent matters, victims often refuse to identify their actual assailants, and we don't hold them up for false statements or felony charges, what Jussie is alleged to have done is fundamentally different in that he knew who the persons were and lied about it both by not identifying them, but also by asserting a completely fake criminal act by persons unknown.  And that it appears that this was the intent from the beginning.

I don't mean to get into the weeds on this, but in trying to evaluate LR's position I think we need to plumb out the actual contours of what the crime might or might not have been. For instance based on what you just wrote, we can adjust the scenario to be that Jussie authorized the assault through a third party, who then hired the attackers, thus making it true that they would be strangers to Jussie. And even better - what if Jussie was put up to it by a third party he himself didn't even know personally, and they also arranged for the attack, Jussie's involvement only being to play along and file the crime report? He would then be 'telling the truth' about being attacked, about them being strangers, and about him not being the mastermind. And yet it would still also be true that he was part of a conspiratorial hoax. So what would the crime be? I think LR's point was basically that a crime designed in a certain way might have built-in legal deniability.

[Seriati]

No, you'd still have 2 separate events.

The fake crime Jussie described.

The real event that Jussie inaccurately reported.

I don't mean to get into the weeds on this, but in trying to evaluate LR's position I think we need to plumb out the actual contours of what the crime might or might not have been.

The felony is connected to reporting a crime that didn't occur.

For instance based on what you just wrote, we can adjust the scenario to be that Jussie authorized the assault through a third party, who then hired the attackers, thus making it true that they would be strangers to Jussie.

Being strangers doesn't fix the problem.  He knows the motivation for the attack (ie, that he hired them) and yet he reports it in a manner that makes it appear they attacked him for racist, homophobic reasons.  Even if all he does is report that they "yelled slurs of that nature" he left out that he paid them to do so.

Intent is a critical part of criminal charges, and you're missing the forest for the trees, in that what he did in faking the intent is every bit as illegal as faking the physical parts of the crime.

And even better - what if Jussie was put up to it by a third party he himself didn't even know personally, and they also arranged for the attack, Jussie's involvement only being to play along and file the crime report?

Then he'd be part of a conspiracy as well.  And still guilty of the felony charges.

He would then be 'telling the truth' about being attacked, about them being strangers, and about him not being the mastermind.

He's not "telling the truth" when he intentionally omits facts known to himself that are necessary to give the statements he made their proper context.

I'm not telling the truth when I report someone for threatening me with a gun and omit to mention that I threatened to kill them before they did so.

And yet it would still also be true that he was part of a conspiratorial hoax. So what would the crime be?

The way crimes work, the more elements you add the more charges that can be brought - not less.  Have you ever seen an actual charge?  Prosecutors will charge dozens of crimes, some of which have direct conflicts.  In this case, having actually been beaten doesn't fix the false report.

Let's think of another "example" that will hopefully highlight this.  Let's assume that Jussie gets mugged on the way home, by a guy that is looking to steal his wallet, gets punched in the face and otherwise is left unharmed.

Jussie decides that no crisis should go to waste and makes up a complete story about how the person yelled racist things and was after him because of his status.

The real crime he suffered, doesn't change is false report into a true one.

I think LR's point was basically that a crime designed in a certain way might have built-in legal deniability.

I take LR's point to be that the prosecutor was correct to dismiss the case because the case was flawed.  It was not flawed in the manner he described.  It may have been flawed in ways we haven't seen.

[LetterRip]

Fenring, Jussie runs into his problems when he describes a crime that didn't occur.  Effectively, he described a battery by "strangers" that never happened, failing to report an actual battery by known persons that did happen doesn't change that.  LR was conflating two separate events.

You are incorrect.  You are conflating two separate statutes - false report only applies if the actual crime didn't occur.  Lying about the details is a separate crime (and one it isn't clear Smollett did when talking to police).  From what we know of the statement by Smollett and what the trainer and his brother told the police - everything Smollett said was actually done by them.  According to Abel Osundairo (and Smollett) they attacked him, put the noose around his neck, and poured bleach on him; called him a N***** and a F*****; and that they were wearing black and ski masks; and they shouted MAGA.

Where Abel and Smollett testimony differ is that Abel claims that all of this was directed by Smollet - which, as far as I know - Smollett was never asked in his police interview.

[LetterRip]

This would not be properly charged as a battery, and failing to report the conspiracy, fraud and false statements in connection with the event would more than justify it being a false report and a felony case.

You aren't lawfully required to report crimes.  As far as I know there are no fraudulent of false statements made by Smollett.  Everything he testified to appears to be in agreement with the testimony of Abel. A false report can occur due to a material omission - but that occurs when a non-crime is reported as a crime; not when you are accurately reporting the crime that occurred but omitting other crimes that occurred.

I mean think of the contrary rule you seem to be espousing.  You are essentially saying that to avoid a felony charge of false report all one has to do is make sure your accomplices touch you, cause then its a battery and not false.  If they don't touch you its a felony, if they do, then its not.

According to Abel they did in fact attack him.  It was a true case of battery.  They intended, and did in fact, harm him - which makes it a battery.

There was no intent to batter Jussie, there was an intent to stage a fake hate crime.  The idea that a couple of light blows without intent to harm that the "victim" paid to have struck changes that is not remotely consistent with how the laws actually work.

They actually beat him according to Abel's statement.  They don't deny doing so, they only allege that it was at his direction.

Is this some law in Chicago or Illinois?  Never heard of filing formal recusal paperwork with the courts.  Where did you get that?

Yes, I read the process described somewhere about what was required.  Looks like 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-15) of the Cook Counties Code - "Appointment of a Special Prosecutor" - "the State's Attorney may file a petition to recuse himself or herself from a cause or proceeding for any other reason he or she deems appropriate and the court shall appoint a special prosecutor as provided in this Section."

See

https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/files/article/file-attachments/McDonald%20Response.pdf

(note that isn't where I originally read of it, but it is a convenience source that covers the gist of things).

Seriati, it seems like you are conflating what you believe Smollett's statement to police with what he actually stated to police, and similarly what his assailants/co-conspirators describe.  From what I can tell - everything Smollett told police is backed up by his assailants/co-conspirators .

I think LR's point was basically that a crime designed in a certain way might have built-in legal deniability.

I take LR's point to be that the prosecutor was correct to dismiss the case because the case was flawed.  It was not flawed in the manner he described.  It may have been flawed in ways we haven't seen.

Nope, my point was correctly described by Fenring.  That the exact fact pattern matters in determining what crimes occurred - and that the exact fact pattern in this case precludes the charges brought by the grand jury.

If you wanted to really get down on it, he could also be charged with aiding and abetting such a battery, and potentially with a number of fraud based claims to the extent he received any financial benefits (which even the increased media attention could qualify as).

I agree that aiding and abetting such a battery would be an appropriate charge if Abel is to believed (and charging him with said battery).  None of the Illinois fraud statutes seem to apply (just read all of (720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 2012.)

[cherrypoptart]

Still doesn't get around the fact that Smollett reported it was two white guys who beat him when he knew very well it was two black guys because he hired them himself. So he still lied to police and hoaxed a hate crime. Now maybe what he should have done is hire two white guys, maybe actual Trump supporters, to beat him. Then he tells the truth about who beat him and maybe even why they beat him, if he talks to them for a while and lets them get to know him and they really do get to hating him. Then his only lies will be by omission, that he paid them and he put them up to it. Maybe he wouldn't even have to pay them. Might be some Trump supporters out there willing to beat him up for free. Or even have the money flow the other way for the privilege. And if there wasn't then there probably are now.

[LetterRip]

Still doesn't get around the fact that Smollett reported it was two white guys who beat him when he knew very well it was two black guys because he hired them himself. So he still lied to police and hoaxed a hate crime.

He said two guys dressed in black wearing masks and gloves who used slurs and yelled MAGA.  He said he thought he saw 'pale skin' briefly through the eye-hole of one of the attackers (his lawyer suggests that one of them has done whiteface while playing joker - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYUjRtRoAyA so may have used makeup to disguise their race - seems pretty thin, but not unheard of for instance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4ospJbyYoU and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B1tSH1oeY0 are two criminals who faked being a different race while committing a crime ), but didn't make a positive statement about the race of the attackers.

[LetterRip]

Might be some Trump supporters out there willing to beat him up for free. Or even have the money flow the other way for the privilege. And if there wasn't then there probably are now.

Plenty of Clinton and Obama supporters likely feel the same way.

[TheDrake]

LR if it is so obvious, explain two things. Why was he indicted if there was no crime, and why was the disposition of the case handled in such a secretive way.

[LetterRip]

LR if it is so obvious, explain two things.

If "what" is so obvious?

Why was he indicted if there was no crime,

I didn't say there was no crime, I've suggested a number of crimes the he could have been indicted for, such as battery.  The crime he was indicted for though wasn't the crime he likely could have been convicted of.  It is quite common to charge people with crimes that have no chance of prevailing at court in the hopes of convincing the individual to settle.  *censored*ty lawyers will settle, good lawyers will point out why the charges will be thrown out.

I doesn't seem clear at all that the prosecutors had a strong enough case to win 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for even the charges I think could be correctly brought.

and why was the disposition of the case handled in such a secretive way.

The leaks and the overcharging meant there was a good chance of a successful lawsuit against the city police and the prosecutors for defamation, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution.  If the prosecutor could get anything, such as the forfeiture of his bail bond - that drastically reduced the chances of a successful lawsuit against the city and prosecutors office.  Even dropping the over charges, and refiling accurate charges still risked a defamation lawsuit.  So it was either drop everything and get a negotiated pittance to use as a shield against a lawsuit, or risk an enormous defamation and malicious prosecution suit (we are talking 200+ million dollar suit if he were to prevail).

[DJQuag]

LR, gotta ask.

Are you just having fun with the technicalities, or are you actually invested in defending a guy who, incredibly, both the left and right agree is a complete dick.

[LetterRip]

LR, gotta ask.

Are you just having fun with the technicalities, or are you actually invested in defending a guy who, incredibly, both the left and right agree is a complete dick.

I've not defended him at all.  I've suggested there are certain charges he should have been charged with, but wasn't, and was charged with, but shouldn't have been. To me - the technicalities matter. 

I'm kind of hoping he does get nailed with federal charges if he in fact sent the threatening mails to himself (which in my opinion seems likely).

I have somewhat defended both of the prosecutors behavior.  I don't think her initial actions with trying to escalate to the FBI were wrong, immoral, or out of line with typical prosecutor behavior.  I do think she should have fully recused herself to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but don't think the charges being dismissed was conspiratorial - but rather the result of how badly the police screwed things up by doing leaks and the prosecutor then compounded by overcharging.

I certainly don't think the case is the slam dunk that people have suggested since there seem lots of avenues for reasonable doubt.

[Seriati]

Fenring, Jussie runs into his problems when he describes a crime that didn't occur.  Effectively, he described a battery by "strangers" that never happened, failing to report an actual battery by known persons that did happen doesn't change that.  LR was conflating two separate events.

You are incorrect.

I'm not incorrect.  You can continue to believe so, but I'd suggest, you speak to an actual lawyer if you really need more clarity.  Meanwhile, you're spreading disinformation.

You are conflating two separate statutes - false report only applies if the actual crime didn't occur.

The underlying crime he reported did not occur.  Ergo no conflation.  Imagine, that he reported they were robbed him.  That didn't occur either, the fact that they confronted him does not make that underlying crime real, and it just a failure to report the accurate details.

In our world "hate crimes" are a real thing.  That's what his report was of, and that's not a crime that occurred.  Claiming he was battered is nonsensical, notwithstanding it could certainly be charged - as well. 

His motive here was pretty clear, unless you are now positing that he didn't know who accosted him and why they did it. 

Lying about the details is a separate crime (and one it isn't clear Smollett did when talking to police).  From what we know of the statement by Smollett and what the trainer and his brother told the police - everything Smollett said was actually done by them.  According to Abel Osundairo (and Smollett) they attacked him, put the noose around his neck, and poured bleach on him; called him a N***** and a F*****; and that they were wearing black and ski masks; and they shouted MAGA.

Forest meat the trees.  Telling a false narrative by only stating true things and omitting things you know is a false statement.  Engaging in a conspiracy to set the events up is an additional crime. 

I don't know why I'm bothering.  Do you have any competent legal source for what you asserting?  A judge, a lawyer, a text book that analyzes the statutes for you?   Cause you seem to be really doubling down on literalism and completely ignoring intent, notwithstanding its significance under the law.

It's almost like you think our legal system is nothing but technicalities.

[NobleHunter]

Aren't technicalities the difference between the law and justice? 

There's a reason lawyers are one of the oldest professionalized careers.

[Seriati]

No, technicalities are just that.

They have no relevance here, because he's not actually identifying real technicalities, just misinterpreting how the law works.

There could be relevant technicalities involved - which is why I said there could be more details here than what we know.  But there's no truth to the idea that if they touched him it's a "real crime" and if they didn't it's not, and therefore whether he filed a false report is contingent on this "technicality."  In either event he filed a report for a crime that didn't occur.

[LetterRip]

I'm not incorrect.  You can continue to believe so, but I'd suggest, you speak to an actual lawyer if you really need more clarity.  Meanwhile, you're spreading disinformation.

You are incorrect.  Smollet described a battery, his attackers agreed that they perpetrated said battery.  No matter what else happened - there absolutely was a battery.  So said crime DID occur. 

The underlying crime he reported did not occur.

It absolutely did.  I can't figure out how you are completely ignoring the evidence.

Ergo no conflation.  Imagine, that he reported they were robbed him.  That didn't occur either, the fact that they confronted him does not make that underlying crime real, and it just a failure to report the accurate details.

He never reported elements of a crime that didn't occur.  He accurately described what happened and that description is consistent with the statement of his attacker.  So it did occur.  If he had reported that they robbed him, then that would indeed be a false statement.

In our world "hate crimes" are a real thing.  That's what his report was of, and that's not a crime that occurred.  Claiming he was battered is nonsensical, notwithstanding it could certainly be charged - as well.

You agree it could be charged, but that his claiming it was nonsensical  - seriously?  If it didn't occur it couldn't be charged.  It can only be charged because it did in fact occur.  Ergo, not a false report.  Note that the police filed his statement as a battery as well.

His motive here was pretty clear, unless you are now positing that he didn't know who accosted him and why they did it.

Actually the evidence is that he didn't intend to file a report (he got pressured into it).

Forest meat the trees.  Telling a false narrative by only stating true things and omitting things you know is a false statement.  Engaging in a conspiracy to set the events up is an additional crime.

It is only a false statment to omit details if it makes a non-crime appear to be a crime.  Omitting details of surrounding crimes to report a subset of crimes is not a crime.

For instance if a burglar breaks in, rapes a woman, and steals her stuff.  If she just reports the rape, or she just reports the burglary - she hasn't committed a crime.  Or if a woman is raped at gun point - but she only reports the rape - a failure to report that the perpetrator used a gun is not a crime - even though it reduces the significance of the crime.

I don't know why I'm bothering.  Do you have any competent legal source for what you asserting?  A judge, a lawyer, a text book that analyzes the statutes for you?   Cause you seem to be really doubling down on literalism and completely ignoring intent, notwithstanding its significance under the law.

I'm not ignoring intent - there was clear intent to batter as testified to by the assailants.

It's almost like you think our legal system is nothing but technicalities.

The legal system is constrained by technicalities - a false report is only a false report if it was was a false claim of a crime occurring that didn't in fact occur, or if omitting details mislead investigators to think a non-crime was a crime.  There isn't a special exception of "well we really want to nail this guy".

[Seriati]

LR, can you provide the source for your "legal" analysis.  It's completely not correct, and I don't see a good reason to go back and forth on a debate where you seem to be asserting claims about how the law work, rather than your opinions on how it should work.

[TheDrake]

And now we have the city suing Smollet. I think we can dispense with the idea that the city was afraid of Smollet suing them.

[LetterRip]

And now we have the city suing Smollet. I think we can dispense with the idea that the city was afraid of Smollet suing them.

It is a civil suit, so the burden of proof is less.  We shall see if Smollet counter sues (I think it likely a bluff but who knows), or settles, or goes to court.

[Crunch]

CHICAGO (WLS) -- A judge ruled Thursday to unseal documents in the case of "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett.

The records were sealed in March shortly after charges against Smollett were abruptly dropped by prosecutors. Attorneys representing the media, including ABC7, challenged the sealing of the records.

The Cook County State's Attorney said it is currently reviewing the documents and will release them by June 3.

The judge ruled that based on all the media interviews Smollett and his lawyers did after the charges were dropped that Smollett essentially had no interest in maintaining his privacy in this.

The guy should have taken his win and shut up.

[rightleft22]

I wouldn't be surprised when its revealed that Smollett has a mental health issue

[ScottF]

Ya think?

[Crunch]

He’s perfectly sane. Hoax hate crimes very often work, especially if Trump can be blamed.  Smollet was correct to believe he could have used this to vault himself into Blasey-Ford levels of fame. But, like his post dismissal actions demonstrate, he’s just not smart enough to execute properly  on it. He was close though.

[D.W.]

While it seems plausible for him to believe he'd get away with it, I think saying "very often works" may tip into Fake News territory Crunch. 

[rightleft22]

He’s perfectly sane. Hoax hate crimes very often work, especially if Trump can be blamed.  Smollet was correct to believe he could have used this to vault himself into Blasey-Ford levels of fame. But, like his post dismissal actions demonstrate, he’s just not smart enough to execute properly  on it. He was close though.

I have a difficult time imagining how he got around to convincing himself this was a good idea.  I can't relate at all... the best I could come up with was stupid with a side of mental issue
A while back someone sent me a article about a guy who held the world record for lifting a brick that was tied to his ball sack. People do stupid things. I wonder about that moment when he woke up and thought to himself...  I think I'll dangle something heavy from my ball sack, what could go wrong...

[NobleHunter]

A while back someone sent me a article about a guy who held the world record for lifting a brick that was tied to his ball sack. People do stupid things. I wonder about that moment when he woke up and thought to himself...  I think I'll dangle something heavy from my ball sack, what could go wrong...

I'm not sure I want to hope that the guy was into that sort of thing or not. It's easier to understand if he gets off on dangling things from his scrotum but on the other hand there's an exhibitionist element. Maybe it'd be better if he's just proving how tough he is.

[rightleft22]

I'm not sure I want to hope that the guy was into that sort of thing or not. It's easier to understand if he gets off on dangling things from his scrotum but on the other hand there's an exhibitionist element. Maybe it'd be better if he's just proving how tough he is.

I'm ok with not knowing why

I often think back at some of the stupid things I've done. There was always that moment, maybe not fully conscious, where I thought the stupid was a good idea. In hindsight its always a odd moment.

From what I hear about Smollet, he still thinks his stupid was a good idea, even doubling down... if true I wonder at the mental gymnastics he's had to do to 'stay true' to that.

[Crunch]

He’s perfectly sane. Hoax hate crimes very often work, especially if Trump can be blamed.  Smollet was correct to believe he could have used this to vault himself into Blasey-Ford levels of fame. But, like his post dismissal actions demonstrate, he’s just not smart enough to execute properly  on it. He was close though.

I have a difficult time imagining how he got around to convincing himself this was a good idea.  I can't relate at all... the best I could come up with was stupid with a side of mental issue

He was cooking this scheme up about the time Blasey-Ford was becoming a star for lying about Kavanaugh. In that environment, there's also a ton of people that have perpetrated fake hate crimes and also become quasi-famous. From the mattress girl to the transgender that burned her own home down killing her pets, they "stars" on the left.

Look at the support Smollet initially got. He was well on the way to becoming a left-wing icon, the face of hate crime victims. He could have turned this into rock star status for his music or more/better acting gigs. You know this, come on.

His idea was sound, his execution was hilarious. Now, let's all be real, if the Coen brother did a mini-series on this, you'd watch it. We would all binge the hell out it. Those Nigerian brothers are comedy gold just waiting to be mined. Smollet could still make out here.

[rightleft22]

we might have different tastes in entertainment

With regards to Blasey-Ford I never go the feeling she came forward to become famous.

I don't know Crunch... your world view seems dark to me, everyone out to screw everyone else.  Maybe I have my head in the sand.

Sometimes people do stupid, sometimes theirs a conspiracy to do stupid, but mostly I think opeople are just trying to get by and do the right things as they see them.
Smollet was stupid to try to pull off what he did. The people who jumped on without knowing the whole story were stupid - everyone wanting to prove how right they were about the other side.
And it Stupid to allow a fake event as a excuse to look away from the real ones.. Maybe were all just stupid.

[TheDrake]

With regard to jumping on - if a friend or family member came to you and told you a story like that would you wait to get all the facts before giving them support? I don't think there was any reason for the producers of his show to doubt his story, and it would have been awkward at best if they waited to get all the facts. Same for his fans, people who have been victims , and such.

[D.W.]

I was living in a cave and first I heard of it was Crunch's post here.    So I was skeptical out the gate.  But I don't know the guy... or employ him.  So guess yer right.   

[Crunch]

we might have different tastes in entertainment

With regards to Blasey-Ford I never go the feeling she came forward to become famous.

I don't know Crunch... your world view seems dark to me, everyone out to screw everyone else.  Maybe I have my head in the sand.

Sometimes people do stupid, sometimes theirs a conspiracy to do stupid, but mostly I think opeople are just trying to get by and do the right things as they see them.
Smollet was stupid to try to pull off what he did. The people who jumped on without knowing the whole story were stupid - everyone wanting to prove how right they were about the other side.
And it Stupid to allow a fake event as a excuse to look away from the real ones.. Maybe were all just stupid.

Ford may not have come forward to be famous but that was the end result. Magazine covers, a darling of the left, hailed as a hero. She got that, why wouldn’t others look for the same?

Perhaps my world view seems dark in this narrow slice of life you see here. I actually spend most of my time laughing and having fun with friends and family. Probably, hopefully, not so different from you.

Smollet is but one of many. Hoax hate crimes are very far from unusual. Does it make him stupid to see the success others can have with these hoaxes and want that for himself? A little. It’s the execution that puts him in the hall of fame. Of course, he got away with it too. So he’s got that going for him.

It’s nit an excuse to look away from real hate crimes. It is, however, yet another reason to practice a reasonable level of skepticism.

[Crunch]

With regard to jumping on - if a friend or family member came to you and told you a story like that would you wait to get all the facts before giving them support? I don't think there was any reason for the producers of his show to doubt his story, and it would have been awkward at best if they waited to get all the facts. Same for his fans, people who have been victims , and such.

There was every reason to doubt this story. You think I called it early? Hardly, I held offand for several days gave the benefit of the doubt. But it was so ludicrous that many people I know called it a hoax the very second they heard it. Chicago, MAGA country, 2 am in the worst winter storm of the season, that alone was suspicious and it went downhill quickly from there.

If a family member came to me with such obvious bull*censored*, I’d first confirm that they were actually seriously trying to float this story. My support would be to lead them into being honest and making sure they understood that total forgiveness was already given. I wouldn’t just feed into this stupidity no matter what. Supporting people is not giving them a free pass on all their bull*censored*.

[rightleft22]

Ford may not have come forward to be famous but that was the end result.

I guess the question then is do we blame Ford for her intention or the result which was manipulated buy others who I suspect nearer really saw Ford as a person. We live in a odd world

Glad to hear you spend most of your time laughing and happy with your friends. As you said this narrow slice of life we see one these boards or other forms of social media can be very misleading.

I've been reading a number of books about people traveling around the world and they all say the same thing that the majority of people they meet are kind, helpful and open.
Watching the news and dialog on social media sometimes I forget.  I was watching a youtube video of itchyboots - a woman traveling around the world who was in Iran. My thoughts on Iran is distrust, a people that want to do the west harm and yet everyone she met was kind and helpful, non political, just doing the best they could with what they have. Exactly as I try to do. One small slice of life verses another small slice of life. I wonder why I allowed the negative slice to influence me so much more.

[Fenring]

My thoughts on Iran is distrust, a people that want to do the west harm and yet everyone she met was kind and helpful, non political, just doing the best they could with what they have. Exactly as I try to do. One small slice of life verses another small slice of life. I wonder why I allowed the negative slice to influence me so much more.

Careful here. There's a big difference between a narrow set of someone's real behavior, which social media can bring out, versus a completely made-up political propaganda effort designed to besmirch a people that are being targeted for invasion. What you get from people online is their real behavior, albeit modified greatly to probably exclude most empathy and also to remove filters, allowing them to say things they'd not allow themselves to say in person. This is a real part of themselves, but not the 'same whole self' you'd meet in life. One aspect missing especially is fear; the fear of getting a social interaction wrong and suffering some consequence. As there seems to be little or no 'failure scenario' for someone commenting online this fear is largely gone and along with it most inhibition other than pure intellectual calculation. This is IMO an important part of the study of human nature, i.e. which controls affect which parts of our behavior, and which, when removed, allow for what. But believing lies about another country is a study only of the motives of those putting out the lies.

[Crunch]

Ford may not have come forward to be famous but that was the end result.

I guess the question then is do we blame Ford for her intention or the result which was manipulated buy others who I suspect nearer really saw Ford as a person. We live in a odd world

Since Ford was lying, she gets a pretty hefty share of the blame. Of course, Feinstein outing her like that was pretty *censored*ty.

Glad to hear you spend most of your time laughing and happy with your friends. As you said this narrow slice of life we see one these boards or other forms of social media can be very misleading.

I've been reading a number of books about people traveling around the world and they all say the same thing that the majority of people they meet are kind, helpful and open.
Watching the news and dialog on social media sometimes I forget.  I was watching a youtube video of itchyboots - a woman traveling around the world who was in Iran. My thoughts on Iran is distrust, a people that want to do the west harm and yet everyone she met was kind and helpful, non political, just doing the best they could with what they have. Exactly as I try to do. One small slice of life verses another small slice of life. I wonder why I allowed the negative slice to influence me so much more.

I travel extensively, 5 countries in the last 6 months and will hit 2 more in June. The majority of people truly are kind and open wherever I go and a lot depends on your own attitude in that (Americans have a lot to learn about being a tourist IMHO). You know where you have a problem? Government agents (police, military, bureaucrats). They have a mandate to enforce the will of the state and can be pretty power trippy or at least willing to be 'letter of the law' types in the extreme. As an American, I wouldn't go to Iran or Noth Korea right now (if ever). The people would probably be cool but getting caught up with the state would be a real killer - as Otto Warmbier would tell you if he were alive today.

[rightleft22]

Since Ford was lying, she gets a pretty hefty share of the blame

You can't prove she was lying, just as you can't Prove Kavanaugh was telling the truth.
In this case People chose their slice based on what they wanted to be true

[D.W.]

Dude got appointed.  As far as Crunch is concerned that's as good as Jesus Christ showing up and calling her a liar on live TV.  It's a fact now.   

[Crunch]

Since Ford was lying, she gets a pretty hefty share of the blame

You can't prove she was lying, just as you can't Prove Kavanaugh was telling the truth.
In this case People chose their slice based on what they wanted to be true

The standard is that she must prove her accusations. That’s the way our system works. We can’t have a system where “you can’t prove it’s a lie” means you’re guilty, especially for 40 year old accusations.

Ford was ridiculously far from proving single thing about her story. I don’t recall a single detail that was supported by evidence.

I think your push for guilty until proven innocent is a pretty bad idea.