Author Topic: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich  (Read 73033 times)

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #100 on: March 20, 2019, 04:04:17 PM »
Quote
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?
Maybe I missed something, but for this to be a relevant comparison suggests some rather ugly things about the local/state PD in this case.

Are we suggesting the family pushed for FBI involvement because the locals were knowingly covering for actual assailants?  There's a big divide between, "we think the FBI will do a better job" and this type of accusation of law enforcement corruption. 

Both aside from Crunch's implied (per my reading), "the FBI are in the family/friends/political allies' pockets; where their reach into local law enforcement was insufficient to effect corruption..."   ::)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #101 on: March 20, 2019, 04:18:02 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.

IIRC, and IMO, Federal involvement in those cases were possible under the 14th Amendment among other options even absent the CRA(and had even already been going on). The specific issue in play during the 1960's is the matter of local and state Law Enforcement being so rampantly corrupt in regards to criminal activity regarding minorities that the only agencies even remotely capable of being objective were Federal.

In theory, that's one part of why "Hate Crimes" have a federal statute covering them, as even up through the 1980's it wasn't entirely unreasonable to suspect multiple counties in several many, if not most, states were incapable of being objective with regards to the victim. It also provided a set of specialized resources to local law-enforcement that they wouldn't otherwise have access to.

In Smollet's case, Chicago used the FBI as "a specialized resource" but kept control of the case. Efforts to pull control of the case out from Chicago's jurisdiction and into the Federal Realm would have meant they were implying Chicago's Police Department was incapable of being objective when it came to dealing with Smollet himself, on the grounds of his racial/sexual identity.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #102 on: March 20, 2019, 04:31:14 PM »
I was responding to the assertion that a state crime being converted into a federal crime is a violation of the Constitution, which means it should never happen. I was curious about testing whether that was an absolute, as it would have to be if it were a Constitutional issue.

It is a separate question as to whether this ought to have been one of those cases, once one assumes that there are valid applications. I completely agree that this shouldn't be one of those cases, and it wasn't.

Although it should be noted that Chicago PD doesn't have a great track record with minorities, there's nothing that suggested that they were not being thorough and professional.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #103 on: March 20, 2019, 04:50:59 PM »
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.

I've pretty much never been on the wrong side.  I didn't offer any opinion on the Smollett case until I suggested my belief that he was a psychopath doing it to revive his career.  So you have misremembered or hallucinated me "being on the wrong side".

Quote
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?

Again, you are saying "interfering" - but seeking escalation to a well known superior investigative team is not "interfering".  The FBI is well known to have superior competence to city police.  They are the most skilled and respected investigators in the world.  If you want the best of the best doing the job, it is indeed a "huge victory".

So, in your opinion - are the FBI of generally superior competence and resources compared to a local police force for investigating?  Do you think that the majority of the public feels that way?  If so, it should be obvious that anyone who wants the best investigators on the job would view it as a "victory".

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #104 on: March 20, 2019, 05:05:42 PM »
Quote
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.

Actually, I read back through here, and I don't see where anybody challenged your prediction or defended Smollett's version of the event.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #105 on: March 20, 2019, 05:20:31 PM »
So, in your opinion - are the FBI of generally superior competence and resources compared to a local police force for investigating?  Do you think that the majority of the public feels that way?  If so, it should be obvious that anyone who wants the best investigators on the job would view it as a "victory".

Define "local" in this context?

Compared to NYPD, and CPD? They're actually likely to be reasonably comparable in terms of capability, even if the extent of the respective legal authority differs.

Now if we're talking the County Sheriff's department in Mayberry, North Carolina that's a different matter.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #106 on: March 20, 2019, 05:27:41 PM »

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.

It is if it has the elements of a hate crime.  That makes it automatically Federal jurisdiction.  You don't think the law is constitutional - the Supreme Court disagrees.  The law, as written and enforced and adjudicated - is that the FBI have jurisdiction in a hate crime. 

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

No, I'm not, but that was Crunch's entire premise - that the family was in on it, that a lawyer with ties to the Obama's was in on the coverup.  Did you read what I was responding to?

Quote
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.

I can't see why they wouldn't.  It isn't like the Chicago PD did any super sleuthing.  They got the camera footage and traced the only possible suspects - exactly as any other investigator would have.

Quote
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.

Not sure how to respond, you seem rational and then head off to the land of crazy conspiracy theorists.

Quote
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.

Hoax reports of a federal crime are a federal crime itself.

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

"Letting it die" is a cover up.

Quote
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.

So their biases are so severe it will make them utterly incompetent, incapable of the extremely basic investigation skills demonstrated by the Chicago PD?  Seriously???????

Quote
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?

A hate crime against a celebrity who is a minority.  That means that it will be persued by the press on a regular basis and by the African Ameican community, that there will be pressure from the public, including wealthy and powerful people to get it solved.

Quote
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 do think that Hillary Clinton's actions were a direct and intentional frustration of government transparency.  I've stated that before.  I'm not sure why I should feel any shame - my beliefs are fully consistent.  I've called for very strict laws with serious teeth, but those laws didn't exist - so it was something entirely predictable.

Quote
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.

Who are the activists you are refering to?  Are the FBI agents now 'activists'?  Your not making much sense.

Quote
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."

If they were in on the hoax, escalating to the FBI is a garunteed worse loss.  I can't believe you think that going from a probably misdemeanor with probation as worse case scenario to lying to federal agents and the potential felonies and serious penalties can be a "win".  It is perhaps one of the most irrational things you can believe.

Quote
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.

No, only if there is an extremely probable outcome of them "letting it die", can you posit it as a reason to think there could be a positive outcome by escalting.

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

No, if there is a 1 in 10 chance of them "letting it die" or other outcome that benefits Jussie, and 9 in 10 chance they discover the hoax and come down hard, it is never rational to escalate it.  You seem to be arguing as if letting it die or other positive outcome for Jussie is a likely outcome without any justification.

Quote
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?

I assumed you were making Crunches argument - that they were escalating because the family was in on the hoax, rather than they were escalating because they wanted the best possible investigators.  The whole "they were seeking to escalate so that the FBI would let it die" argument only makes sense if they were in on the hoax (which I was expressing doesn't at all make sense since any rational person would expect the FBI to be more competent and have more severe penalties and so the last thing you'd want is to escalate it to the FBI).

Quote
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.

Ok, I misunderstood because you seemed to be trying to argue that Crunch's conspiracy theory was correct.  My apologies for the confusion.  Can we agree that "if they knew about the hoax, escalating to the FBI is an utterly insane and moronic move that no savy lawyer, savy prosecutor, or family member with half a brain would think is a good idea, let alone a 'victory'"?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 05:30:12 PM by LetterRip »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #107 on: March 20, 2019, 06:02:46 PM »
Define "local" in this context?

Compared to NYPD, and CPD? They're actually likely to be reasonably comparable in terms of capability, even if the extent of the respective legal authority differs.

Fair enough, definitely not my perspective.  Police tend to be working more cases and with less resources per case.  Also I'd be shocked if the average detective is not a much poorer investigator - they get very little training on investigation (a 3 week/15 day "criminal investigator" course), whereas FBI agents get extensive and intensive investigation training (a 20 week course), and FBI has far stricter recruiting.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #108 on: March 20, 2019, 06:15:42 PM »
I was responding to the assertion that a state crime being converted into a federal crime is a violation of the Constitution, which means it should never happen. I was curious about testing whether that was an absolute, as it would have to be if it were a Constitutional issue.

Things are rarely as clear cut as you might like in this area.  I'd suggest taking a read on the expansion over time of the Federal police power.  Wiki has a very basic intro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) about what the police power is.

In a nut shell though, the Feds don't have a general police power.  They've been a decades long march to ignoring that, usually by expansion in relation to commerce.  Using civil rights as a lever to expand is actually more troubling.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #109 on: March 20, 2019, 06:21:04 PM »
Ok, I misunderstood because you seemed to be trying to argue that Crunch's conspiracy theory was correct.  My apologies for the confusion.  Can we agree that "if they knew about the hoax, escalating to the FBI is an utterly insane and moronic move that no savy lawyer, savy prosecutor, or family member with half a brain would think is a good idea, let alone a 'victory'"?

If they knew it was a Hoax, then the only reason they'd want to get it to the FBI is if the conspiracy theory was correct.

I haven't seen anything that indicates they knew it was a hoax, only that they knew the CPD was looking like it was turning on Jussie.  Again, that's why I posited the far more reasonable theory that they thought CPD was doing so because of racial animus or anti-gay sentiment.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #110 on: March 20, 2019, 06:31:08 PM »
Ok, I misunderstood because you seemed to be trying to argue that Crunch's conspiracy theory was correct.  My apologies for the confusion.  Can we agree that "if they knew about the hoax, escalating to the FBI is an utterly insane and moronic move that no savy lawyer, savy prosecutor, or family member with half a brain would think is a good idea, let alone a 'victory'"?

If they knew it was a Hoax, then the only reason they'd want to get it to the FBI is if the conspiracy theory was correct.

I haven't seen anything that indicates they knew it was a hoax, only that they knew the CPD was looking like it was turning on Jussie.  Again, that's why I posited the far more reasonable theory that they thought CPD was doing so because of racial animus or anti-gay sentiment.

That said, if the conspiracy theory was correct, someone with "deep enough connections" into the former Obama Admin would be able to find out if "the right people" were involved in the Federal Side of the investigation in order to kill it "if things went wrong."

As the person tied to the Obama Admin evidently didn't follow through, either their connections(conspiracy) came back saying that it wouldn't/couldn't "work out" at that point, or other more benign reasons led to the case staying in control of CPD.

Overall, I think the conspiracy angle has a very low chance of being correct, but it is only just barely within the realm of possible, even if it isn't particularly probable.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #111 on: March 20, 2019, 06:57:44 PM »
That said, if the conspiracy theory was correct, someone with "deep enough connections" into the former Obama Admin would be able to find out if "the right people" were involved in the Federal Side of the investigation in order to kill it "if things went wrong."

Or have them murdered, if you want to buy into the deepest conspiracy theories about powerful Democrats.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #112 on: March 20, 2019, 07:10:04 PM »
Or have them murdered, if you want to buy into the deepest conspiracy theories about powerful Democrats.

Those deep state actors only dwell in and around Washington or New York. Chicago would only happen if they'd either screwed up somewhere, or were working their way up to being one of the Washington or NYC types.  8)

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #113 on: March 20, 2019, 07:34:51 PM »
That said, if the conspiracy theory was correct, someone with "deep enough connections" into the former Obama Admin would be able to find out if "the right people" were involved in the Federal Side of the investigation in order to kill it "if things went wrong."

Or have them murdered, if you want to buy into the deepest conspiracy theories about powerful Democrats.
If yer going to roll with conspiracy theories, I say go all in and make it as crazy-entertaining as possible.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #114 on: March 20, 2019, 07:55:07 PM »
That said, if the conspiracy theory was correct, someone with "deep enough connections" into the former Obama Admin would be able to find out if "the right people" were involved in the Federal Side of the investigation in order to kill it "if things went wrong."

Or have them murdered, if you want to buy into the deepest conspiracy theories about powerful Democrats.
If yer going to roll with conspiracy theories, I say go all in and make it as crazy-entertaining as possible.

Deep state Muslim Pedophile Journalist plans to kill the investigation, then write an endless series of articles condemning the attack and order a Dossier in order to pin it on Trump. He plans to win a Pulitzer and help Smollett write a book about the experience, which will get made into motion picture starring Jusse Smollett and directed by a member of the Democratic Party Pedophile Ring. This picture will earn such critical acclaim that it will corrupt millions of kids into wanting to be gay like Jusse. The picture will be distributed for indoctrination in all of the public schools across the land.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #115 on: March 26, 2019, 11:36:33 AM »
Quote
Jussie Smollett will not be prosecuted for allegedly faking a racial attack, because all charges have been dropped!!!

Jussie and his lawyers ran to court Tuesday morning in Chicago, where he was facing 16 felony counts of lying to police in the alleged racial and homophobic attack.

Jussie will surrender his $10,000 bond. We're told he has agreed to perform community service. But that's it. The case is over.

So pretty much a free pass for this jerk.

From TMZ:
Quote
We're told the State's Attorney, Kim Foxx, told Chicago police she was dropping the case because Jussie would have only gotten community service if convicted and she said he has already performed community service so there is no point in prosecuting him. We could not find any record of Smollett doing community service.
We're told Chicago police are "furious" and feel something untoward is going on with Kim Foxx.

Must be nice to be in a protected class with good political connections and not have any real consequences for your actions. $10,000 and "community service". Whatever

The records in the case are to be sealed, per judges order.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 11:47:15 AM by Crunch »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #116 on: March 26, 2019, 11:45:55 AM »
So faking a hate crime is no big deal?  Someone must have panicked when someone asked if they really wanted to make it illegal to beat yourself?

I don't get this at all.  The same rational that makes "hate crimes" carry a harsher sentence should apply to someone trying to leverage that label for publicity... right?

I guess that's just the way the media game is played, good to see our courts are on board with the new reality.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #117 on: March 26, 2019, 11:48:36 AM »
Foxx says he performed community service for something else so no big deal. WTF? How does that have any bearing on new crimes he committed?

I figured a plea deal would be the end result but, damn, he should have had to plea guilty to something. If he's an innocent victim, why's he paying a $10,000 "fine". This is an insanely light plea deal for him.

There should be an investigation of Foxx over this.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 11:53:08 AM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #118 on: March 26, 2019, 11:59:07 AM »
Rafer Weigel, the local reporter that kicked ass on this story tweets:
Quote
I can tell you that  @Chicago_Police are furious over SA Kim Foxx’s decision to drop all charges against #JussieSmollett

Wow, just unreal.

Of course, how's this play against the backdrop of national stories when someone directly connected to Obama's team get off after so obviously lying to police?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #119 on: March 26, 2019, 12:14:13 PM »
Reading a bit more on this.  I'll be curious to see if they continue an investigation against the "real perpetrators".

Quote
While many were quick to rush to judgement before hearing the actual truth, we are grateful that the truth about Jussie has come to light. We look forward to bringing the real perpetrators to justice.
-Smollett’s spokeswoman Anne Kavanaugh

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #120 on: March 26, 2019, 12:23:07 PM »
This will be a good litmus test of sincerity: whoever legitimately believes in the notion of prosecuting hate crimes (and I won't speak for or against it) should be damanding serious sanction against anyone undermining trust in that process, and abusing the law and the public eye to make mock of real hate crimes. We may well call into question that sincerity if "one of their own" isn't held to task in the public's opinin for this breach; then it would become more clear that it's not about justice but about waging war on the other team.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #121 on: March 26, 2019, 12:52:53 PM »
I don't get this at all.  The same rational that makes "hate crimes" carry a harsher sentence should apply to someone trying to leverage that label for publicity... right?

While I wish false allegations of serious crimes received severe penalties, I didn't expect him to get anything but community service from the beginning unless it went to the FBI.  Not because I expected Smollet to receive special treatment, but rather it is extremely rare for anyone who falsifies a crime to get anything but community service unless they are a repeat offender or unless it resulted in death or serious bodily harm, etc.  The rationale appears to be that vigorously prosecuting false reports dissuades filing real reports.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #122 on: March 26, 2019, 12:53:59 PM »
Now I believe that there was inappropriate influence on prosecutors. The FBI thing could have been innocent, but this is bald political pressure and a failure of the criminal justice system. Chicago reaffirms the top spot for most corrupt city.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #123 on: March 26, 2019, 01:02:10 PM »
This will be a good litmus test of sincerity: whoever legitimately believes in the notion of prosecuting hate crimes (and I won't speak for or against it) should be damanding serious sanction against anyone undermining trust in that process, and abusing the law and the public eye to make mock of real hate crimes.

Unfortunately most people don't seem to reason like this.  A similar parallel exists in opinions in prosecuting false allegations of rape.  Or for that matter supporting criminalizing abortion and also opposing access to birth control and sex education while also despising women who are on welfare.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #124 on: March 26, 2019, 01:14:10 PM »
Now I believe that there was inappropriate influence on prosecutors. The FBI thing could have been innocent, but this is bald political pressure and a failure of the criminal justice system. Chicago reaffirms the top spot for most corrupt city.

He likely received the same sentence that anyone else who filed a false report would receive unless he was a repeat offender or his actions resulted in death, etc. 

See this discussion from a different state and lawyer,

Quote
Criminal attorney Joseph Delamater said Indiana and Illinois differ slightly as it relates to filing a false police report. He said if somebody of celebrity status were to commit this sort of crime in Indiana, the likelihood of jail time is low.

He said at its core filing a false police report is a pretty low level offense starting at a class b misdemeanor in Indiana; which is punishable from 0 to 180 days in jail.

He said there’s a small subsection of the obstruction of justice statutes that may allow for a prosecutor to charge it as a level 6 felony.

"Typically Indiana's obstruction of justice statutes are focused more on active investigations and active criminal prosecutions. Here, the alleged criminal act occurred before an investigation actually occurred, so that would be subject to a strong defense attorney’s attack," Attorney Joseph Delamater said.

https://cbs4indy.com/2019/02/21/indy-attorney-explains-repercussions-of-filing-false-police-report-following-smollett-arrest/

The allegation was for misdeamor assault and battery, thus at the state level - the maximum charge that could be brought was a misdemeanor.  There were not (contrary to Crunch's claim) any felony charges available at the state level.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #125 on: March 26, 2019, 01:17:07 PM »
Regardless of the penalty, the point is that he never had to admit guilt, which should be a bare minimum.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #126 on: March 26, 2019, 01:24:38 PM »
Reading a bit more on this.  I'll be curious to see if they continue an investigation against the "real perpetrators".

Quote
While many were quick to rush to judgement before hearing the actual truth, we are grateful that the truth about Jussie has come to light. We look forward to bringing the real perpetrators to justice.
-Smollett’s spokeswoman Anne Kavanaugh

That may be the biggest thing that made me think he should get hammered. He was literally ready to let someone else go down for this, and apparently, he still is.

Of course, that's the end of the investigation. The "real perps" will never be found because CPD knows the score (and so do we all). But you watch, Smollett is going to play the victim card over and over again on this and you know what - he'll get treated as though he is a victim.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #127 on: March 26, 2019, 01:26:07 PM »
I'd like to point out that if Chicago is corrupt, doesn't that place doubt on the police force's integrity as well?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #128 on: March 26, 2019, 01:27:08 PM »
There were not (contrary to Crunch's claim) any felony charges available at the state level.

From NBC

Quote
"Empire" actor Jussie Smollett has been indicted by a grand jury in Chicago on 16 felony counts after allegedly lying to police about being the victim of a racist and homophobic hate crime, NBC News confirmed Friday.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #129 on: March 26, 2019, 02:01:16 PM »
Quote
A furious Mayor Emanuel calls SA Kim Foxx’s decision to drop charges against #JussieSmollett a “white wash of justice...and it’s just wrong. Full stop.” Adding it sends the clear message that for those who have political influence a different code of justice exists for them.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #130 on: March 26, 2019, 02:13:30 PM »
I'd like to point out that if Chicago is corrupt, doesn't that place doubt on the police force's integrity as well?

Sure. But I don't see a corruption angle with their actions. Somebody paid them to manufacture evidence against Smollett? To leak the evidence to the press? Somebody put political pressure on them to disprove Jusse's story? They were extorting Jusse by hanging false evidence over his head, and when he didn't pay they released it?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #131 on: March 26, 2019, 02:19:38 PM »
And this is why CNN is total horse*censored*. From Brian Stelter on Twitter:

Quote
Cool. Were you there that night? Smollett's camp says he was the victim of a hate crime. The police dispute that. There isn't video of the alleged attack. Thus, we may never know what really happened.

Smollett said his "attackers" were white. Now his attorney says they're the Nigerian brothers. The prosecutors *STILL* concede that his volunteer service & bond forfeiture is "just disposition," indicating that they continue to view him as culpable of some offense. The Nigerian brothers are on video buying all the crap used in this hoax, they got the check, all that, and this is the take from CNN's crack team.

No video, no crime, you know, like there was for those Covington kids. Unbelievable.

The police press conference was crazy, they know they got him. Rahm Emanuel knows they got him. It's just unreal this guy will skate, claim innocence, and CNN talking heads will provide him cover.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 02:22:09 PM by Crunch »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #132 on: March 26, 2019, 02:27:42 PM »
We may never know what happened. Which of the two brothers punched him first? Closed fist or open fist? Did he cry out in pain or take it in silence? Were they planning to meet up later and was he going to pay for the first round? Who had the idea for draping a noose around his neck, and why did they think that would make the case more compelling? What brand of bleach did they use?

He really should have paid a writer on his show to help him out with some of the plot points.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #133 on: March 26, 2019, 02:32:39 PM »
Sure. But I don't see a corruption angle with their actions. Somebody paid them to manufacture evidence against Smollett? To leak the evidence to the press? Somebody put political pressure on them to disprove Jusse's story? They were extorting Jusse by hanging false evidence over his head, and when he didn't pay they released it?

To screw over the n***** f*****?

It just seems a little odd to me to take the CP's word as gospel while decrying the city's habit of corruption.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #134 on: March 26, 2019, 02:37:36 PM »
Sure. But I don't see a corruption angle with their actions. Somebody paid them to manufacture evidence against Smollett? To leak the evidence to the press? Somebody put political pressure on them to disprove Jusse's story? They were extorting Jusse by hanging false evidence over his head, and when he didn't pay they released it?

To screw over the n***** f*****?

It just seems a little odd to me to take the CP's word as gospel while decrying the city's habit of corruption.

They have a metric *censored* ton of evidence. We don't have to take them at their word, the videos buying the hats and rope were out there. The brothers have admitted. Jussie's lawyer confirmed the brother's participation. CPD's word and it's value are the least of the evidence here.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #135 on: March 26, 2019, 03:39:35 PM »
Corruption is not the same thing as bias. Corruption is political favors, direct bribes, or extortion.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #136 on: March 26, 2019, 06:30:05 PM »
Ok, here’s the community service

Quote
Part of Smollett's community service for Rainbow Push included 8 hours of service on March 23rd. And 8 hours of service on March 25th. Service included working in the bookstore, critiquing in the broadcast studio and speaking to students and parents who visited.

16 hours.  Working in a bookstore, talking to fans. Wow, serious sentence there, enough to get you a free pass to commit multiple felonies.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #137 on: March 26, 2019, 09:54:40 PM »
Quote
BREAKING: Michelle Obama knew Jussie Smollett very well and Michelle’s former Chief of Staff Tina Tchen reached out to Kim Foxx about the Smollett case. This is now under investigation.

My schadenboner may never go down if this happens.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #138 on: March 27, 2019, 02:16:48 AM »
Ok, here’s the community service

Quote
Part of Smollett's community service for Rainbow Push included 8 hours of service on March 23rd. And 8 hours of service on March 25th. Service included working in the bookstore, critiquing in the broadcast studio and speaking to students and parents who visited.

16 hours.  Working in a bookstore, talking to fans. Wow, serious sentence there, enough to get you a free pass to commit multiple felonies.

I agree that 16 hours of community service seems ridiculously light (although if other false reports of misdemeanors have had similar sentences then it would be incorrect to sentence him more simply because he is famous).  I am curious where you get the source for the claim of 'multiple felonies' - as far as I can tell under state law he committed only misdemeanors (a false report about a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor).

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #139 on: March 27, 2019, 06:25:30 AM »

I agree that 16 hours of community service seems ridiculously light (although if other false reports of misdemeanors have had similar sentences then it would be incorrect to sentence him more simply because he is famous).

I'm not sure I agree with that. If part of the actual weight of the crime was the very fact that he was famous - using his fame to leverage the crime - then his fame would be an aggravating factor, I would imagine, and not irrelevant to the sentencing. It's like using a more lethal weapon in an assault, where in this case the assault was on the public trust.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #140 on: March 27, 2019, 09:16:07 AM »
Ok, here’s the community service

Quote
Part of Smollett's community service for Rainbow Push included 8 hours of service on March 23rd. And 8 hours of service on March 25th. Service included working in the bookstore, critiquing in the broadcast studio and speaking to students and parents who visited.

16 hours.  Working in a bookstore, talking to fans. Wow, serious sentence there, enough to get you a free pass to commit multiple felonies.

I agree that 16 hours of community service seems ridiculously light (although if other false reports of misdemeanors have had similar sentences then it would be incorrect to sentence him more simply because he is famous).  I am curious where you get the source for the claim of 'multiple felonies' - as far as I can tell under state law he committed only misdemeanors (a false report about a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor).
First, I too, even this morning, heard NPR note "multiple felonies", so he's not just plucking that out of the air.

Second, "because he is famous" is no reason to do anything.  (Though frequently is a reason used to give special treatment.)  What may be relevant though is the crime's designation as a potential "hate crime".  After all, that designation serves to increase the severity of another crime in terms of sentencing/fines.  Why shouldn't it be a double edged sword?  Why wouldn't minority/religious rights groups want those who serve to trivialize or spread doubt regarding crimes targeting them punished more harshly?  I don't get how you can believe hate crimes are necessary and NOT believe that those who create hoaxes should also face harsher punishment than a typical false report penalty? 

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #141 on: March 27, 2019, 11:12:24 AM »
Nothing about this story makes sense to me.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #142 on: March 27, 2019, 03:08:05 PM »
Quote
What may be relevant though is the crime's designation as a potential "hate crime".  After all, that designation serves to increase the severity of another crime in terms of sentencing/fines.  Why shouldn't it be a double edged sword?  Why wouldn't minority/religious rights groups want those who serve to trivialize or spread doubt regarding crimes targeting them punished more harshly?  I don't get how you can believe hate crimes are necessary and NOT believe that those who create hoaxes should also face harsher punishment than a typical false report penalty?

More to the point, when people heard about this attack, they would have felt threatened just as if it were a real attack. In that sense, it was equally impactful to the community, and caused definitive harm. Letting Smollett off in that context, is like letting an actual perpetrator of a hate crime off easy.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #143 on: March 27, 2019, 04:29:03 PM »
Everything about this has been crazy from the start.  I just can't understand using an "emergency" hearing to resolve this and immediately sealing the file, all without an admission of guild, absent the "crazy conspiracy" theories being right.  Especially, when you have Rahm and the CPD immediately come out and contradict that he's innocent, when you even apparently have the prosecutors say he's guilty.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #144 on: March 27, 2019, 04:44:23 PM »
Either the prosecutor is omitting something crucial in his explanations about this, or he has the worst judgment imaginable. 10k and a few hours of service is a ridiculously light penalty, but would be far easier to understand it if came with an admission of guilt. But it's not even a plea deal - I'm not even sure it meets due process requirements.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #145 on: March 27, 2019, 04:51:07 PM »
Nothing about this story makes sense to me.

But you know what would put it into a sensical framework?

Quote
BREAKING: Michelle Obama knew Jussie Smollett very well and Michelle’s former Chief of Staff Tina Tchen reached out to Kim Foxx about the Smollett case. This is now under investigation.

Lots of pictures with the Obama's, lot of comments out there about being good buddies (google it). It's not hard to think that Michelle was talking to Tchen about it and what could be done to help out her bestie. The person who'd just recused themselves from the case suddenly jumping back in, cutting him loose without any real penalty, immediately sealing everything so there's a solid cover-up, as conspiracy theories go it's got legs.  ???

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #146 on: March 27, 2019, 05:02:35 PM »
IDK how that makes sense of this.  If it's corruption to get him off the hook, this was a botched effort to exonerate him.  I guess if they "did him the favor" of saving him from actually serving time it's a... win?

With friends like these...

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #147 on: March 27, 2019, 05:21:11 PM »
Quote
BREAKING: Michelle Obama knew Jussie Smollett very well and Michelle’s former Chief of Staff Tina Tchen reached out to Kim Foxx about the Smollett case. This is now under investigation.
OMG of course its the evil Obama's  - Black man bad and stupid

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #148 on: March 27, 2019, 05:24:06 PM »
Quote
BREAKING: Michelle Obama knew Jussie Smollett very well and Michelle’s former Chief of Staff Tina Tchen reached out to Kim Foxx about the Smollett case. This is now under investigation.
OMG of course its the evil Obama's  - Black man bad and stupid

Are you saying Michelle O is a man? I've heard that one before too.  What a time to be alive.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« Reply #149 on: March 27, 2019, 05:33:35 PM »
Michelle is a woman but everyone knows its only men that matter and makes the decisions