Author Topic: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich  (Read 73705 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2019, 08:33:42 PM »
What the...

Quote
Police say he staged the attack because he was "dissatisfied with his salary".

(BBC)

And...

Quote
Investigators managed to track and identify two men who appeared on video footage near where the actor said he had been attacked through a ride-sharing app.

Quote
Police say they have a cheque that Mr Smollett signed and that he had agreed to pay $3,500 for the brothers' participation.

So... you paid your co-conspirators with a freaking check? And then they took an Uber to the crime scene?

I'm simply speechless.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2019, 11:23:31 PM »
Quote
So... you paid your co-conspirators with a freaking check? And then they took an Uber to the crime scene?

I'm simply speechless.
It's obviously a double false flag operation!  Or we're watching a live action performance of the new Zoolander expanded universe franchise.   ::)


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #52 on: February 22, 2019, 08:22:09 AM »
Quote
He faces 3 years in jail. He should get the full 3 as he’d have put innocent people in jail to maintain the hoax.
While I anticipated nothing less than a maximum sentence "throw the book at him" approach from you, isn't this a bit absurd?  (Note:  I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment.)

If it was "staged", (which seems likely) then these were co-conspirators right?  The whole thing would have (and did seemingly) fall apart when these two were found.  I assume the intent was for the "attacker's" identity to never be learned.

Or do you believe (or was it revealed and I just missed it, quite possible I guess) that he framed two random people, or just made it up and didn't care if two random people got swept up in the lie?

Is it absurd to get the full three years? Consider what he was doing. Smollett was telling people he was ready to sign a complaint against the persons of interest identified on camera. It was only after he realized it was his coconspirators that he backed off. He was literally ready and willing to put innocent people in jail. Not to mention what would have happened to those innocent people in the media, they would have been destroyed. Smollett didn’t care.

Of course, over on CNN he’s being compared to Jackie Robinson.


D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #53 on: February 22, 2019, 09:30:01 AM »
Quote
Is it absurd to get the full three years? Consider what he was doing.
No.  Your rationale for the 3 years is absurd.  I got no problem with the hypothetical sentence. 

To further clarify:  Unless you again are way ahead of the curve, there has been no indication that he intended the two men he (allegedly?) hired to perpetrate the hoax to be unwitting dupes who would serve time as his fall guys.  :P 
« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 09:32:31 AM by D.W. »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #54 on: February 22, 2019, 09:52:22 AM »
Quote
Of course, over on CNN he’s being compared to Jackie Robinson

Curiosity got the better of me and I watched some CNN coverage. It was pathetic. my god they can be sanctimonious. I mean some of the arguments they used to 'explain' themselves were ridiculous.
I do not consider the majority of programs on CNN as news programs. Just because they might talk about current affairs and such does not make it news.
 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2019, 10:15:49 AM »
Quote
Is it absurd to get the full three years? Consider what he was doing.
No.  Your rationale for the 3 years is absurd.  I got no problem with the hypothetical sentence. 

To further clarify:  Unless you again are way ahead of the curve, there has been no indication that he intended the two men he (allegedly?) hired to perpetrate the hoax to be unwitting dupes who would serve time as his fall guys.  :P

He’s probably not going to do any time. Even if he gets the full three years, he’ll be out in a fraction of that time.

After all the interviews, still claiming his story is true even today, and a willingness to originally sign a complaint, you think he would have suddenly decided to admit he made it up? I very strongly doubt that he would. I am 100% certain he would have let public opinion destroy them.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #56 on: February 22, 2019, 10:30:14 AM »
It must be nice to be 100% certain about what somebody might have done in the future.

Sentencing is a funny thing. Is it to get revenge? Prevent him from reoffending? Deter others from trying a similar stunt?

Average incarceration costs the state $25,000 per year. What are we getting for the $75,000 society will pay in order to lock him up for three years? It might be even more, given his notoriety.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2019, 11:22:55 AM »
As this kind of "stunt" makes real victims less likely to be believed or get justice, ya, I think deterring others is the primary goal.  I don't think it's about revenge.  Who is getting even?  Actual victims?  MAGA supporters?  The police?  The public for being fooled / manipulated? 

Maybe we should be thanking this idiot.  He seems to be bringing all sides together in condemnation of him at least...

While I get the impulse to attack the media and them making a circus out of this, it was a "natural" reaction by them to this type of story.  That was the whole point of him staging the attack.  (allegedly...)  We are all the toads swimming along with the media scorpion on our backs at all time.  (or in our hand as we scroll a way anyhow)  Nothing about "the media's" reaction should surprise us at this point.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #58 on: February 22, 2019, 12:25:46 PM »
When someone consistently expresses that reports are false, then when just one of them inevitably is false, that person can appear prescient.

I'm going to dispute this apparent criticism of my compliment.  I did not see Crunch "expressing" that reports are false on this thread, I saw him including reports of additional information that the MSM apparently was not interested in covering.  Given they are journalists and presumably Crunch is not, that was highly relevant facts.  If it were just assertions like say denying the moon landing your criticism could have merit, but not based on this thread.

While I get the impulse to attack the media and them making a circus out of this, it was a "natural" reaction by them to this type of story.  That was the whole point of him staging the attack.  (allegedly...)  We are all the toads swimming along with the media scorpion on our backs at all time.  (or in our hand as we scroll a way anyhow)  Nothing about "the media's" reaction should surprise us at this point.

I see great harm in the idea you are asserting here.  You've effectively excused the media from their only actual job, which is to get the facts and reporting them to us.  They unilaterally decided not to get the facts, which thanks to Crunch, we know were available if they had sought them out. 

That's like excusing your doctor for not keeping up on medical research when he misdiagnoses and obvious condition.  Or the local restaurant when they cook your food in peanut oil after you tell them you have an allergy.

The media does not have press freedoms to pass along rumors and to try to defend them simply because the stories agree with their own world view.  That's when they should be most cautious.  Meanwhile, it's just a fact that they ignore reporting actual hate crimes on a routine basis because those hate crimes don't fit the narrative they want to present as true.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #59 on: February 22, 2019, 12:40:54 PM »
Quote
That's like excusing your doctor for not keeping up on medical research when he misdiagnoses and obvious condition.

I think the problem is confusing the information coming from a doctor and information retrieved from other sources.
When Smollet story transitioned into political speculation and partisan clap that's not News.

We need to define our boundaries when it comes to calling out the "media".
Avoiding speculation and opinion 'media' has left me much happier.

« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 12:46:44 PM by rightleft22 »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2019, 01:01:42 PM »
Quote
You've effectively excused the media from their only actual job, which is to get the facts and reporting them to us.
That you still hold them to such a standard is more idealistic than I took you for. 

Their "job" is to sell add revenue.  Their medium, ideally, is useful information.  Though more often than not, entertaining speculation.   :-\

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #61 on: February 22, 2019, 01:11:24 PM »
He’s probably not going to do any time. Even if he gets the full three years, he’ll be out in a fraction of that time.

Probably get a "token" sentence in most respects. Either a 1 to 2 month stay in lockup followed by probation/parole, or a suspended prison sentence. With the final part of the sentence being a boatload of community service being assigned.

I'm leaning towards the suspended sentence, community service, and probation for at least 2 years. Assuming such a combination is possible. It won't seem that bad to many people, but it will certainly be plenty disruptive to his ability to function for years to come.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2019, 01:15:33 PM »
In this case at least, there is also instant karma at work.  His ability to maintain an acting career is going to be sorely tested after this smudge on his reputation.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #63 on: February 22, 2019, 01:32:35 PM »
In this case at least, there is also instant karma at work.  His ability to maintain an acting career is going to be sorely tested after this smudge on his reputation.

You'd be surprised. That said, it's probably going to be a very long time before he sees the kind of money he was seeing on Empire again, if he ever does.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #64 on: February 23, 2019, 07:50:13 AM »
It must be nice to be 100% certain about what somebody might have done in the future.

Sentencing is a funny thing. Is it to get revenge? Prevent him from reoffending? Deter others from trying a similar stunt?

Average incarceration costs the state $25,000 per year. What are we getting for the $75,000 society will pay in order to lock him up for three years? It might be even more, given his notoriety.

It’s easy to be so certain here because Smollett was on board with signing the complaint until he saw it was the two people he hired. He was definitely going to put innocent people away. As for the media destruction, come on, you know that would have happened.

We need to start a deterrent for these crimes. What is the cost of incarcerating or destroying innocent people?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #65 on: February 23, 2019, 08:30:00 AM »
Quote
I'm going to dispute this apparent criticism of my compliment.  I did not see Crunch "expressing" that reports are false on this thread, I saw him including reports of additional information that the MSM apparently was not interested in covering.  Given they are journalists and presumably Crunch is not, that was highly relevant facts.

I appreciate the compliments but all I really did was maintain a healthy skepticism and curiosity. The real work was done by Rafer Weigel, a local reporter in Chicago. The guy has a relentless “just the facts, ma’am“ drive and much of the information I posted came almost exclusively from him so the credit is all his. Weigel did precisely what I wish the news media would do, he reported the news without bias or trying to create a narrative.

It’s worth noting that Weigel ultimately appeared on Fox News to discuss this story. No other media outlet reached out to him.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #66 on: February 23, 2019, 04:26:55 PM »
Quote
Jussie Smollett told cops he has an untreated drug problem — raising questions about whether he might try to use the claim to at least get any potential prison sentence reduced, according to a report Friday.

Of course, he has an addiction. If that didn’t cause him to do this it certainly was a mitigating factor and we should all feel badly for Jussie. No doubt he will seek treatment and ask that you respect his privacy during this difficult time.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #67 on: February 25, 2019, 11:10:39 AM »
Quote
You've effectively excused the media from their only actual job, which is to get the facts and reporting them to us.
That you still hold them to such a standard is more idealistic than I took you for. 

Their "job" is to sell add revenue.  Their medium, ideally, is useful information.  Though more often than not, entertaining speculation.   :-\

I think you lost my context here.  They have the rights of being the free press because they are undertaking the responsibilities of the free press.  As it stands, if their sole purpose is entertainment and the spreading of rumors then then they really are harming the country.  Propaganda, yellow journalism, intentional deception and lies.  In what way do these lead to educated citizens and a better democracy?  Those are the tools of facists and dictators and those whose ideas can not withstand fair scrutiny. 

Is the only constraint that it not be a government press - like say Chinese or Russian media.  Is that the only danger?  Would it be okay if the Chinese press were officiallly neutral but fully made up of members of the Chinese communist party?  How is that different from a media in the United States that is openly in the tank for the Democratic party?

When you add social media with it's shadow banning, and deliberate algorithyms to suppress one side of the debate.  How substantively is it different than a state media that's only showing you what it wants you to see?

What distinguishes the "press" from anyone else in your book?   And what makes it free?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #68 on: February 25, 2019, 01:39:34 PM »
That raises a valid point. At this point, what is the difference between Wolf Blitzer and either one of the Baldwin brothers?

"Artistic Expression" is also protected, but only up to a point, as Strip Club operations can attest.

"The Press" is protected not for art, and not for entertainment. It is protected so "inconvenient facts" cannot be suppressed from being made known to the wider population.

If they cannot be bothered with facts, or sifting truth from fiction, then they are in breach of "the social contract" which warranted their protected status. Their need to "create value" for their employer not withstanding.


rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #69 on: February 25, 2019, 02:43:31 PM »
The majority of programming of the 24/7 news channels is not news. The majority of content is editorial and speculation opinion panels.

Most of the people I've talked react to editorial, opinion and speculation not the news without realizing the difference.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #70 on: February 25, 2019, 10:48:49 PM »
The majority of programming of the 24/7 news channels is not news. The majority of content is editorial and speculation opinion panels.

Most of the people I've talked react to editorial, opinion and speculation not the news without realizing the difference.
Ever notuce that 98% of is all slanted one direction?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #71 on: February 25, 2019, 11:20:28 PM »
What the...

Quote
Police say he staged the attack because he was "dissatisfied with his salary".

That makes perfect sense to me if we assume he was a psychopath. He figured that a staged attack would increase his publicity and thus revitalize his career, which he could then leverage to better pay.

Thankfully he was thwarted in his plan by police investigators.

Quote
So... you paid your co-conspirators with a freaking check? And then they took an Uber to the crime scene?

I'm simply speechless.

I loved Trevor Noah's take on this,

Quote
Noah then brought up the fact that Smollett is said to have paid the two men with a check.

"What, did he also write, 'fake hate crime' in the memo?" the host quipped. "Even amateurs know, if you commit a crime, you go all cash, people! No paper trail."

Later in the clip, Noah talked about how Chicago Police claim that Smollett wanted the crime to be caught on camera, "but that didn't go right either," noted the host, as the actual crime wasn't caught on rotating security cameras — only the activity beforehand.

"You've got to be *censored*ting me," said Noah. "He wanted to be caught but he didn't get caught on camera because he didn't know which way the camera was pointing? You're an actor, that's your job!"

Toward the end, Noah pointed out how the thought processes have changed in this case.

"When this started out, it was a story about people who hated Jussie Smollett because he was black and gay," said Noah. But now, people hate him because he's an *censored*. In other words, they're judging him on the content of his character. And that, my friends, is progress."

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8499562/trevor-noah-weighs-in-on-jussie-smollett-case

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #72 on: March 09, 2019, 07:40:04 AM »
Quote
A grand jury in Chicago has indicted “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett on 16 felony counts related to making a false report that he was attacked by two men in Chicago who shouted racial and homophobic slurs.

That’s one felony per claim. One felony for rope around neck claim, one for bleach claim, one for punching claim, one for hate speech claim etc. Each count carries a maximum of four years so he could get up to 64 years in prison. I doubt he’ll get 64 years but it looks like he’ll get a few. Even 6 months per count gets pretty heavy.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #73 on: March 09, 2019, 08:25:03 AM »
That indictment does not include the potential federal charges for the fake letter and crushed tylenol he sent himself. What a dumbass

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #74 on: March 09, 2019, 09:01:47 AM »
What the...

Quote
Police say he staged the attack because he was "dissatisfied with his salary".

That makes perfect sense to me if we assume he was a psychopath. He figured that a staged attack would increase his publicity and thus revitalize his career, which he could then leverage to better pay.

It almost worked. He got huge publicity, his music career was getting noticed. You don’t have to assume he’s a psychopath, he was angling to be a victim. Being a victim is power, it gets you on GMA and has celebrities, news agencies,  and politicians pushing you and your story. The left loves victims.  In the wake of Kavanaugh and Ford, it’s not surprising at all that Smollett thought this would work for him.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #75 on: March 09, 2019, 10:21:17 AM »
It's too soon to actually say it didn't work. Maybe he will just disappear from view but it's entirely possible that this could work out to his financial benefit still.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #76 on: March 19, 2019, 08:24:46 AM »
The fallout is starting around State Attorney Kim Foxx:

Quote
Last week, the Tribune obtained emails showing that while police were still in the middle of their investigation into the alleged hate crime, Foxx was contacted by a politically-connected attorney friendly with Smollett’s family, saying they had "concerns about the investigation."

Foxx then asked Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to end the police investigation and turn it over to the FBI, which never happened. The union believes Foxx may have broken the law when she tried to take the case away from Chicago police.

Who was that “politically-connected attorney friendly with Smollett’s family”?  Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, Tina Tchen. Tchen is also a close friend of Rahm Emanuel’s wife.  Tchen reached out to Foxx who emailed her to say “spoke to Supt Johnson. I convinced him to to reach out to FBI to ask that they take over investigation.”  Foxx then texted with a Jussie Smollett relative and said “spoke to Supt earlier, he made the ask. Trying to figure out logistics. I’ll keep you posted.” Relative replied “OMG, this would be a huge victory.” Foxx wrote. “I make no guarantees but I’m trying.”

For those that think they are lawyers, attorneys are not allowed to interfere with ongoing police investigations particularly at the request of private individuals associated with subjects being investigated. What we need now is an investigation of Kim Foxx, her family, her friends, and everyone they know so we can figure out how deep the rot goes.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #77 on: March 19, 2019, 06:04:29 PM »
You don’t have to assume he’s a psychopath,

Non-psychopaths simply don't think or act that way.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #78 on: March 19, 2019, 06:10:07 PM »
The union believes Foxx may have broken the law when she tried to take the case away from Chicago police.

The union is wrong.  Alleged hate crimes are often turned over to federal jurisdiction.  The reason is that the FBI does a much more thorough job.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes

It sounds like Smollet's family weren't told that he had staged it and thus were trying to get it escalated.

Quote
For those that think they are lawyers, attorneys are not allowed to interfere with ongoing police investigations particularly at the request of private individuals associated with subjects being investigated. What we need now is an investigation of Kim Foxx, her family, her friends, and everyone they know so we can figure out how deep the rot goes.

There is no suggestion of interference at this time.  Pressuring a case to be escalated is not considered 'interference' and is quite common for family of victims.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #79 on: March 19, 2019, 07:14:10 PM »
 ::)

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #80 on: March 19, 2019, 09:21:12 PM »
So your eyeroll is extremely communicative.  I'm curious why you think that wanting a crime escalated to the FBI is something they would want if they were aware of his crime?  Do you think the FBI would 'go easy on him'?  I'm curious what your theory is of why they would think that would be a good idea.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #81 on: March 20, 2019, 12:23:51 AM »
So your eyeroll is extremely communicative.  I'm curious why you think that wanting a crime escalated to the FBI is something they would want if they were aware of his crime?  Do you think the FBI would 'go easy on him'?  I'm curious what your theory is of why they would think that would be a good idea.

I'd suspect it could be summarized as "Obama's Legacy at DoJ."

I'd even give decent, but not great, odds of that being a valid concern as well.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #82 on: March 20, 2019, 01:11:38 AM »
I'd suspect it could be summarized as "Obama's Legacy at DoJ."

I'd even give decent, but not great, odds of that being a valid concern as well.

So, is the theory there is a secret cabal of liberal FBI agents that will deliberately bungle an investigation of someone who is pretty much a nobody?  Do you have theories of what these theorized liberal FBI agents would have to gain that they would take such a risk to their career?  How do you suppose they would be assigned to the case? If you were the liberal cabal directing this thing - how would you go about letting everyone in on the fact that it was a hoax so they know it is supposed to be covered up, rather than that they are being given something they are legitimately supposed to investigate?

I'd love to have insight into the conspiracy theorists mindset on this.  If someone is willing to think it through and then tell me that they still think it plausible (and especially what the come up with for how to coordinate the conspiracy), I'll be impressed.

Essentially we have A - the conspiracy theory version
1) Smollet has to share it with the family
2) The family has to share it with the lawyer
3) The lawyer has to share it with the prosecutor
4) The prosecutor has to share it whoever assigns FBI agents
5) Ther person who assigns FBI agents has to share it with the FBI agents who are assigned.
6) Then the assigned agents have to falsify an investigation to make themselves look incompetent.

We also have to believe that the Smolletts know the FBI is corrupt and believe that they will carry out a complex conspiracy coverup on their behalf.

That is a minimum of 5 people risking their careers and possibly freedom for a nobody.

vs  B  the non conspiracy version

Smollet engages in criminality without telling anyone and his family wants the best people on the job to avenge their family member and try and influence things to get the FBI involved.

Can you perhaps see why version B might be a bit more plausible?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 01:23:22 AM by LetterRip »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #83 on: March 20, 2019, 02:52:03 AM »
Generally agreed. It's unlikely in the extreme that they wanted the FBI to take over the case and for Chicago to get out of it because they thought the FBI wouldn't pursue it if they thought it was a hoax.

Then again, there is that lingering "Obama's Legacy" thing going on, with indications being the FBI was politicized, in favor of the Democratic Party. It also was "well reported" during the Obama Admin that there were people working in DOJ, with specific specialization in Hate Crimes, who flat out said that they "didn't think black people were capable of being racist." (Cue archival footage of New Black Panthers members "Representing" outside of polling locations in Philly during an election year)

In THAT context, it is possible that if a family member suspected the attack was staged  by Smollet. His best chance/only hope for the case to be quietly shelved and remaining "forever unsolved" was to get in the hands of DOJ, rather than CPD, and hope some of Obama's people would get their hands on the case file, and let it die before they implicated Smollet.

In that particular scenario you have to also keep in mind, in many cases DOJ "doesn't care" about unresolved hate crimes in any particular location. CPD on the other hand, DOES care about that kind of stuff going on within their territory, because it reflects on their city. So CPD had more "built-in" incentive to solve the case than the Feds did, particularly once the case started pointing towards "victim blaming."

But I'm personally about 95% certain that they were trying to get "the best people" on the case for solving it. Rather than getting "sympathetic persons" on the case who'd either solve it, or shelve it, as the situation warranted.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #84 on: March 20, 2019, 08:02:02 AM »
So your eyeroll is extremely communicative.  I'm curious why you think that wanting a crime escalated to the FBI is something they would want if they were aware of his crime?  Do you think the FBI would 'go easy on him'?  I'm curious what your theory is of why they would think that would be a good idea.

I don’t think a state attorney secretly communicating with the family of the accused and interfering on their behalf in an active investigation is a good idea. It means the politically connected have a different justice system than those of us without those connections. Why do you think that’s a good idea?

CPD was doung a first rate job, they investigated just as they should have. Why do you think CPD was not competent?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #85 on: March 20, 2019, 08:06:10 AM »
Quote
I don’t think a state attorney secretly communicating with the family of the accused

I think you have a temporal problem here. At the time they communicated, secretly or not, JS was most definitely not accused of anything. He was the victim, remember?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #86 on: March 20, 2019, 08:17:55 AM »
Quote
I don’t think a state attorney secretly communicating with the family of the accused

I think you have a temporal problem here. At the time they communicated, secretly or not, JS was most definitely not accused of anything. He was the victim, remember?

I think you have a investigative procedure problem but that’s  irrelevant in the defense of politically connected people interfering in an active investigation. Why do you think think it’s a good idea to have that?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #87 on: March 20, 2019, 08:22:31 AM »
Families of victims regularly put pressure on law enforcement to solve a case. Why do you think that is unusual or nefarious?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #88 on: March 20, 2019, 08:30:03 AM »
I guess if you think that politically connected people shouldn't interfere with an investigation that you are pretty upset that Trump asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #89 on: March 20, 2019, 10:56:21 AM »
Families of victims regularly put pressure on law enforcement to solve a case. Why do you think that is unusual or nefarious?

Are they politically connected and trying to get the investigation materially changed?

I guess if you think that politically connected people shouldn't interfere with an investigation that you are pretty upset that Trump asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook.
I guess if you think that politically connected people should interfere with an investigation that you are pretty happy that Trump asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook.

See how ridiculous that was?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #90 on: March 20, 2019, 11:32:10 AM »
Quote
I guess if you think that politically connected people should interfere with an investigation that you are pretty happy that Trump asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook.

See how ridiculous that was?

It would be, if I ever took the position that victim's families demanding justice are interfering. If I thought they were trying to protect their family member, I'd have a pretty dim view.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #91 on: March 20, 2019, 12:18:21 PM »
This is a weird story, not as weird as the underlying story but getting there.

First, it makes me sad that so many people seem to think investigating an assault or battery claim is a federal matter rather than a state.  It's literally not.  We shouldn't be participating in the federalization of criminal law where they have no legitimate authority.  Plus, without a suspect there's reasonable basis to believe it's an actual hate crime, and by the time suspects were identified it was pretty clear it wasn't.  Why would there be any move to push it to the feds?

Second, it really is beyond bizarre for a prosecutor to engage in that kind of conversation.  And agreeing to pursue a request on it is even more bizarre.

So, is the theory there is a secret cabal of liberal FBI agents that will deliberately bungle an investigation of someone who is pretty much a nobody?

No, I think the theory is that when you have a dedicated team of hate crime investigators they'll strain to make everything a hate crime.

Same way that when we have a dedicated team of anti-terrorism agents they end up charging routine matters as terrorism related.

Hate crimes are a unconstitutional violation of the Constitutional principal of equal protection under the law.  They also a thought crime that criminalizes a legal view point - hate that is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. 

Quote
Do you have theories of what these theorized liberal FBI agents would have to gain that they would take such a risk to their career?

What risk?  Dead investigations by the FBI almost never have details released. 

Quote
How do you suppose they would be assigned to the case?

They work in the hate crimes unit?

Quote
If you were the liberal cabal directing this thing - how would you go about letting everyone in on the fact that it was a hoax so they know it is supposed to be covered up, rather than that they are being given something they are legitimately supposed to investigate?

You don't need a cabal, all you need is to appoint dedicated and principaled people who honestly believe they are doing the right and just thing.  Are you not unhappy with how ICE operates?  There's no question that it's officers believe in their cause.  Why would it be any different with FBI agents that honestly believe they have a mandate to stop hate?

Quote
I'd love to have insight into the conspiracy theorists mindset on this.  If someone is willing to think it through and then tell me that they still think it plausible (and especially what the come up with for how to coordinate the conspiracy), I'll be impressed.

No need for any conspiracy.

Quote
Essentially we have A - the conspiracy theory version
1) Smollet has to share it with the family
2) The family has to share it with the lawyer
3) The lawyer has to share it with the prosecutor
4) The prosecutor has to share it whoever assigns FBI agents
5) Ther person who assigns FBI agents has to share it with the FBI agents who are assigned.
6) Then the assigned agents have to falsify an investigation to make themselves look incompetent.

Or, more likely given this is Chicago and we're talking about a lawyer connected to the Obama's and the Emmanuel's they heard from a contact in the CPD about the very issues that Crunch was reporting on real time, that CPD had real doubts about the story, and they decided to pull levers to get it out of the CPD.

You don't even have to assume they were acting in bad faith.  They could have believed in their hearts that CPD was acting on racist and homophobic impulses and wanted to get into neutral FBI agents.  Or they literally, could have known where it'd go in the FBI (most likely) and known what'd most likely happen.

We don't have to go to the absurd realm of crazy conspiracies just because you'd like to argue against them.

Occam's razor.  Given we know what the leaks were implying (as Crunch was helpfully feeding them to us), so would the Chicago elite (in fact other articles say that Foxx was specifically told they were concerned about the leaks).

Quote
We also have to believe that the Smolletts know the FBI is corrupt and believe that they will carry out a complex conspiracy coverup on their behalf.

We don't.  We can rely on the strong implication that they knew the CPD had serious doubts and was investigating them (since Foxx told us they knew of the leaks, and we know what the leaks said).  That alone is enough to try and get them off the case. 

Quote
That is a minimum of 5 people risking their careers and possibly freedom for a nobody.

If the case is transferred not one person risked their career by just letting it die.  They didn't have to bring charges against Smollet, the assailants could have remained "at large," and the brothers could have just been a unhappy coincidence that just missed coming to his rescue.  If there's really no video, there's no way to disprove that.

Quote
vs  B  the non conspiracy version

See above for the actual non conspiracy version.

Quote
Smollet engages in criminality without telling anyone and his family wants the best people on the job to avenge their family member and try and influence things to get the FBI involved.

Totally possible, except you left out explaining their reaction to the leaks and why it would be a win to stop CPD working on the case.

That said, it's total possible their motives were good, including for the reasons I laid out above.

Quote
Can you perhaps see why version B might be a bit more plausible?

No.  It's certainly possible, but it's not the best fit for the facts we know.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #92 on: March 20, 2019, 01:49:22 PM »
First, it makes me sad that so many people seem to think investigating an assault or battery claim is a federal matter rather than a state.

For hate crimes it is indeed a federal matter, and at that time in the investigation it had a number of specific elements that Smollet claimed suggested it was a hate crime.

Quote
No, I think the theory is that when you have a dedicated team of hate crime investigators they'll strain to make everything a hate crime.

Same way that when we have a dedicated team of anti-terrorism agents they end up charging routine matters as terrorism related.

Hate crimes are a unconstitutional violation of the Constitutional principal of equal protection under the law.  They also a thought crime that criminalizes a legal view point - hate that is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.

You've gone off on a tangent, but I'm not sure how this helps Smollet cover up his staged crime?  When hate crime investigators discover a hoax, what do you think their response will be?  Myself, I'd expect a wrath of god response - people doing hoaxes undermines the very serious nature of the crime.  So I'm really not clear why you think the Smollet family would think it a good idea if they were in on the hoax.  Your further responses are rather odd, they work in the hate crime unit ... so they will cover up a hate crime hoax because ... ????????

Quote
You don't need a cabal, all you need is to appoint dedicated and principaled people who honestly believe they are doing the right and just thing.  Are you not unhappy with how ICE operates?  There's no question that it's officers believe in their cause.  Why would it be any different with FBI agents that honestly believe they have a mandate to stop hate?

I can't understand how you imagine that they would look kindly on a hoax that spits in the face of their zeal.  I can fully follow your idea that "members of the hate crime unit will zealously pursue hate crimes, even to the extent of seeing crimes where none exists" - I don't see how that then leads to "but when they discover a hoax will cover it up".

You seem to have this bizarre juxtaposition - hates hate crime but will aide and abet a hate crime hoax to the detriment of their career and reputation.  I don't think anyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist can resolve these contradictions.

Quote
We don't.  We can rely on the strong implication that they knew the CPD had serious doubts and was investigating them (since Foxx told us they knew of the leaks, and we know what the leaks said).  That alone is enough to try and get them off the case.

But you still aren't explaining why the FBI wouldn't follow up and it end up even worse for Jussie?  Once it becomes federal he is in far more serious *censored*.  Mandatory minimum sentences.  If it is kept state, then the hoax probably ends up a misdemeanor and gets a few hundered hours of community service.  If the FBI discovers the hoax, he could be spending 5 years in jail and a minimum of 1.

Quote
If the case is transferred not one person risked their career by just letting it die.

You haven't explained why they "let it die".  To the FBI this is a high profile hate crime.  There would be pressure to solve it.  Why wouldn't the hate crimes division discover it is a hoax, and zealously seek prosecution agains the hoax perpetrator?

Quote
Totally possible, except you left out explaining their reaction to the leaks and why it would be a win to stop CPD working on the case.

That said, it's total possible their motives were good, including for the reasons I laid out above.

I admit I am at a loss trying to see your reasoning.  The bizarre conspiracy theory makes more sense then the reasoning you have provided.  The hate crimes division of the FBI goes happily along and buries the hoax even though there will be serious media pressure to solve such a high profile case because... ????  The family escalates to the FBI where their son will serve extremely serious jail time if discovered because ... ???

Quote
No.  It's certainly possible, but it's not the best fit for the facts we know.

Well I think you have some clarification that is needed for your reasoning to "fit the facts".  You have at least two items that seem completely contrary to human nature and rational thought.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #93 on: March 20, 2019, 01:52:58 PM »
If the Smollet's were in fact trying to get an investigation squashed then I will be every bit as upset as Crunch, probably more so.  But I think a plain reading of the facts is the complete opposite of what Crunch is implying.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #94 on: March 20, 2019, 01:57:47 PM »
Quote
I can't understand how you imagine that they would look kindly on a hoax that spits in the face of their zeal.  I can fully follow your idea that "members of the hate crime unit will zealously pursue hate crimes, even to the extent of seeing crimes where none exists" - I don't see how that then leads to "but when they discover a hoax will cover it up".

I think the idea is that they wouldn't discover the hoax because they wouldn't look for one. I find that unlikely. Even if you assume the FBI would never do any of those things, to believe this scenario you only have to think that Smollet thinks that's what will happen. He is the only one that knows there is no crime, so he could complain to family and friends that the investigation is going nowhere, that he isn't being taken seriously, and then the whole chain gets started without conspiracy.

For Smollet to take that action, he'd have to believe that the feds could be more easily duped. Since he's short on logic and planning, I could believe that was his plan.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #95 on: March 20, 2019, 02:24:29 PM »
If the Smollet's were in fact trying to get an investigation squashed then I will be every bit as upset as Crunch, probably more so.  But I think a plain reading of the facts is the complete opposite of what Crunch is implying.

Well, it seems I misread the whole Smollet thing from the beginning, right? I think you just don't like it that you're always on the wrong side of this.

Quote
Foxx then texted with a Jussie Smollett relative and said “spoke to Supt earlier, he made the ask. Trying to figure out logistics. I’ll keep you posted.” Relative replied “OMG, this would be a huge victory.” Foxx wrote. “I make no guarantees but I’m trying.”

Why would Smollet's relative consider interfering with the investigation to take it away from the current CPD team and put it in someone else's hands "a huge victory"? What do you think was the victory they sought here?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #96 on: March 20, 2019, 02:56:19 PM »
Quote
I can't understand how you imagine that they would look kindly on a hoax that spits in the face of their zeal.  I can fully follow your idea that "members of the hate crime unit will zealously pursue hate crimes, even to the extent of seeing crimes where none exists" - I don't see how that then leads to "but when they discover a hoax will cover it up".

I think the idea is that they wouldn't discover the hoax because they wouldn't look for one. I find that unlikely. Even if you assume the FBI would never do any of those things, to believe this scenario you only have to think that Smollet thinks that's what will happen. He is the only one that knows there is no crime, so he could complain to family and friends that the investigation is going nowhere, that he isn't being taken seriously, and then the whole chain gets started without conspiracy.

If you go with the theory that the Hate Crimes investigation unit in the FBI/DoJ believe "Blacks cannot be racist," it also is possible that those same people would not aggressively pursue high profile fake hate crimes unless they were simply left with no other choice. "Because of the harm that would be done from a high profile case being demonstrated as having been faked." Better to simply shelve the case and let it linger forever, which is what Smollet evidently wanted.

Heck, that was essentially the very same argument Smollet himself made when the initial reports came out indicating he might be a suspect. "Who would do such a thing? The harm that would be done by that..."

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #97 on: March 20, 2019, 03:08:18 PM »
First, it makes me sad that so many people seem to think investigating an assault or battery claim is a federal matter rather than a state.

For hate crimes it is indeed a federal matter, and at that time in the investigation it had a number of specific elements that Smollet claimed suggested it was a hate crime.

Again, these crimes are a state matter.  You are missing my point, or rather skipping over it by begging the question.

Converting a state crime - battery - into a federal crime is a violation of the Constitution.  The federal government does not have as an enumerated power the ability to prosecute these crimes.  "Hate crimes" are a farce designed to make us overlook the gross federal power expansion.

There's nothing about an assault or battery case that is more of a federal issue than a state one.  End of story.

Quote
You've gone off on a tangent, but I'm not sure how this helps Smollet cover up his staged crime?

Why would we have to show that?  Are you of the view that his family was in on the faking?

Quote
When hate crime investigators discover a hoax, what do you think their response will be?

If they discover a hoax. 

It's rare that there is even 75% certainty on what happened.  Whether a case is a hoax, never solved, or puts the wrong person in jail can come down to what an investigator expects to see and wants to see.

If you "always believe the victim" is the FBI still looking for the white assailants?

I'm honestly not sure what happens if they realize it's most likely a hoax, but don't think they can prove it, while during the delay he gets tied into a political movement.  Do you think the FBI has a tolerance for hurting the DNC's electoral chances if Smollet gets on a stage with the leading Dem candidates because of the power of his issue?

3 years ago I'd be a lot more confident than I am now after seeing some of the crooked inner workings of the DOJ/FBI revealed.

Quote
Myself, I'd expect a wrath of god response - people doing hoaxes undermines the very serious nature of the crime.  So I'm really not clear why you think the Smollet family would think it a good idea if they were in on the hoax.

Never implied they were "in on the hoax," nor is it necessary.  They wanted to interfere with the CPD, most likely because they heard that the CPD though Smollet's story wasn't adding up.

What would their "wrath" be based on?  Lieing to the FBI?  What federal charges are implicated?  Process crimes only, because substantive criminal law isn't a federal issue.  Most likely they'd have to dump it back to Illinois.

Quote
Your further responses are rather odd, they work in the hate crime unit ... so they will cover up a hate crime hoax because ... ????????

Strawman again?  I've never once said there would be a cover up.  There doesn't have to be to just let it die. 

Quote
I can't understand how you imagine that they would look kindly on a hoax that spits in the face of their zeal.

They won't decide to accept it was a hoax.  They'll believe the victim and chalk it up to not being able to prove the case because they can't find the assailants.

Sure they'll have suspicions that he made it up, but their leanings will make it a reluctant idea at best.

Quote
You seem to have this bizarre juxtaposition - hates hate crime but will aide and abet a hate crime hoax to the detriment of their career and reputation.  I don't think anyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist can resolve these contradictions.

This is getting to be a bit silly on your part.   There's no plausible detriment to their career or reputation from letting the case go cold.  FBI could stay radio silent for years and then just announce the case was closed without charges (the media would just assume they never found the assailants). 

Where is the magically consequence to their career or reputation you keep asserting that we are ignoring coming from?

Do you feel shame in believing in government transparency and not seeing Hillary Clinton's server as a direct and intentional frustration of government transparency?  I doubt it.  Activists can rationalize bizarre contradictions with surprising ease.  All they'd have to do to resolve the conflict, is believe Jussie and decide they didn't catch the "guys."  That's literally it.  Just believe they were real because Jussie said so.  I mean honestly, you just lectured us in the other thread that Ford's statements on Kavanaugh are "credible" what's different here?

Quote
Quote
We don't.  We can rely on the strong implication that they knew the CPD had serious doubts and was investigating them (since Foxx told us they knew of the leaks, and we know what the leaks said).  That alone is enough to try and get them off the case.

But you still aren't explaining why the FBI wouldn't follow up and it end up even worse for Jussie?

Possible reasons have been explained several times, how am I not explaining it?

But more significantly, it's a false choice you're trying to force.  If the family knew the CPD didn't believe him, how could switching the field not be better for him in their point of view?  Whether they thought the CPD was racist/homophobic or knew Jussie's story didn't add up doesn't matter if they already knew the CPD was inclined to think it was made up.

Whether or not the FBI somehow guaranteed a win for Jussie is a red herring, when it looked like the CPD was a likely "loss." 

Quote
Quote
If the case is transferred not one person risked their career by just letting it die.

You haven't explained why they "let it die".  To the FBI this is a high profile hate crime.  There would be pressure to solve it.  Why wouldn't the hate crimes division discover it is a hoax, and zealously seek prosecution agains the hoax perpetrator?

I don't know that they would let it die.  This is just one possibility that your logic on what was going on was flawed.  If you posit it must be worse if it goes to the FBI and I show that it can easily not be then your conclusion by inference is flawed.

Since that's what you did, and that's what I did, your conclusion by inference is flawed.

Quote
I admit I am at a loss trying to see your reasoning.  The bizarre conspiracy theory makes more sense then the reasoning you have provided.

A "bizarre conspiracy theory" makes more sense than a family that hears the CPD doesn't believe their relative seeking to have the case transferred to the FBI?

In what world is it that a family's action that is completely logical based on what we know they were aware of, less sensible than a bizarre conspiracy theory?

You seem to be overly fixated on the FBI "going along with a Hoax," which is the conspiracy theory rather than what I actually said.  That's a long way to go to try and claim you must be right because the other side is pushing a conspiracy theory.

Quote
Quote
No.  It's certainly possible, but it's not the best fit for the facts we know.

Well I think you have some clarification that is needed for your reasoning to "fit the facts".  You have at least two items that seem completely contrary to human nature and rational thought.

Name them.  The only assumption I make, and it's not even necessary, is that Jussie's family probably thought the CPD was investigating Jussie rather than the crime because he's black/gay.

Not one other thing that I included isn't a fact.

Jussie's family knew about the leaks (it's clear in the texts).
We knew what the leaks were about - see first posts in this thread - therefore they did too.
The leaks implied strongly the CPD didn't believe Jussie's story.
Jussies's family pushed to have the CPD investigation shut down in favor of the FBI.

There's nothing more needed to get from A to B.  No grand secret conspiracy.  No guaranty of a Federal win.  Nothing.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #98 on: March 20, 2019, 03:49:06 PM »
Quote
Converting a state crime - battery - into a federal crime is a violation of the Constitution.  The federal government does not have as an enumerated power the ability to prosecute these crimes.  "Hate crimes" are a farce designed to make us overlook the gross federal power expansion.

Does this mean that you think it was a bad idea for the federal government to get involved investigating the murders of civil rights workers in Mississippi, 1964? That's when the Civil Rights Act empowered the federal government to look into what used to be state matters. If the FBI had gotten involved, it would be under federal civil rights statutes.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #99 on: March 20, 2019, 03:53:18 PM »
The maxim good cases make bad laws exists for a reason.

If every terrible circumstance justified a law that propogates a 1000 terrible results, we'd have uniformly terrible laws.

If the Federal government had not acted, would you have supported say the UN intervening based on world citizenship rights?