Jussie Smollet got a sandwich

[TheDeamon]

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.

Which is how Michelle's female friend "pulled strings" to make it go away, while President Obama's buddy, the Mayor of Chicago is left all kinds of torqued off.

But he's a white guy, and a Jew, IIRC, so he doesn't matter.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707247716/making-sense-of-the-smollett-legal-drama-whats-going-on-here

That said, there is also the matter of the threatening letter.

According to Fox News and ABC News, the investigation into the provenance of the letter was turned over to the FBI. ABC and local media have reported that a federal probe has proceeded despite the legal tumult at city level. Federal authorities, meanwhile, have declined to publicly comment on the matter.

Looks like turning part of this over to the FBI could still end badly for Smollett.

[Crunch]

At this point, it could end badly for Kim Foxx.

She recused herself then caved to pressure from politically connected people to ignore that recusal and do a surprise dismissal of charges with no admission of guilt. The national district attornies association has really hammered Foxx.  The FBI and DOJ are apparently going to investigate this.

There’s some real potential here.

[Crunch]

Jussie Smollett’s Attorney: Nigerian Brothers May Have Been Wearing Whiteface During Attack

Oh man. This is just insane, they’re not going to take the W and slink away.

I wonder when the brothers will respond to this? Surely they won’t stay bought now and take the fall for it.

[LetterRip]

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

Section a4,

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

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

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

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

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqEnd=23000000&SeqStart=21100000

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

So we are back to 'making false statements to police'.

There might also be another charge available - since paying someone to commit a battery is probably a separate crime (though I don't know what statute to search under).

If he gets off without any serious charges I do think it will be a miscarriage of justice.  I also think that an investigation surrounding the dismissal should occur if all he ends up with is 16 hours of community service.

I do hope the FBI nail him for mail fraud and terrorist threats.

[LetterRip]

She recused herself then caved to pressure from politically connected people to ignore that recusal and do a surprise dismissal of charges with no admission of guilt.

What is your source that she ignored her recusal?  I thought it was a different attorney (Magats) who dismissed the charges.  She doesn't seem to have been involved.  If she was in fact not recused, there should certainly be an investigation into her.

[TheDrake]

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

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

[LetterRip]

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

Consent is an affirmative defense. not a statutory exclusion. Dominatrixes have in fact been charged for consensual battery,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/style/bdsm-kink-consent.html

See this legal analysis regarding consent and battery.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0ddd/75e76942e97f538d09a48f6baed25e213e65.pdf

Consent doesn't make the behavior not a battery.  So it isn't a false report. However, prosecuting consensual battery often isn't in the states interest (there is generally a "public interest" test for prosecution).  Also for a prosecution to proceed requires that the prosecutor to have a reasonable belief of success - if an affirmative defense has been established via courts, then prosecutors no longer have such a reasonable belief.

There are forms of consensual battery that are prosecuted regularly for instance consensual fighting outside of sanctioned fights in sports (some states have 'mutual combat' statutory exemptions to battery).

[Fenring]

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

[Crunch]

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx did not "formally" recuse herself from the Jussie Smollett case -- she only did so "colloquially," prosecutors said on Wednesday.

Riiiight. So that's how that worked. She recused herself but it wasn't a recusal recusal. See how that works?

As for the mystery relative with the connections, Malkin has it figured out:

Two weeks ago, Chicago Sun-Times reporters discovered that Obama crony pal and deep-pocketed campaign finance mega-bundler Tina Tchen had inserted herself in the investigation. Tchen texted Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx just three days after the incident "on behalf of Jussie Smollett and family who I know" to express "concerns." She suggested that Foxx lean on Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to yield to the FBI and she shared an unidentified Smollett's family member's cellphone number with Foxx.

Foxx texted back that she had done as requested and that Chief Johnson was "going to make the ask." The unidentified relative rejoiced: "OMG this would be a huge victory."

Only after Foxx meddled did she recuse herself and name an underling to take over -- which rendered her Kabuki recusal meaningless to veteran observers of the "Crook" County criminal justice system. So, who was the Smollett relative with all the right (or rather, left) connections? Follow the trail:

--Tchen and Smollett's sister, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, joined together in March 2018 at South by Southwest in Austin to proclaim that "There Is No Time's Up Without Women Of Color."

--In May 2018, Tchen and Smollett-Bell took the stage together again -- hand-in-hand, glued at the hip -- at the United State of Women Summit in Los Angeles (where Tchen's former boss and gal pal, Michelle Obama, also appeared).

--Smollett-Bell and another sister, Jazz Smollett-Warwell, worked for the Obama campaigns in 2008 and 2012 and volunteered as tireless surrogates.

--My search of White House visitor logs shows Jurnee Smollett-Bell paying at least one personal visit to "POTUS/FLOTUS" at their residence in March 2013 while Tchen was serving as a top strategist to both Obamas.


To minimize Tchen's role in the Obamas' political lives as merely an "aide" is journalistic malpractice.

Yeah, Tchen and the Smollett family are all deeply connected to Michelle O., that explains all the photos. They're actually pretty tight, Tchen, Smollett, and Michelle.  You can see the extent of the web as Foxx got $400,000 from Soros-connected organizations in her election bid.

I guess the question now is, how much involvement did Michelle have in this?

[D.W.]

See this is where it goes off the rails.  If they nail him for illegal (consensual) fighting, then my opinion would swing the other way and I'd feel he is being unjustly prosecuted out of spite...

Right now I see him as some spoiled actor trying to weaponize what fame he has for more cash at the price of trivializing actual hate crimes.

Straining to punish him by any means necessary, for trying, and getting away with it?  That's also reprehensible.

[Crunch]

OH MY GOD, I'm literally giggling

NEW: Jussie Smollett's legal team fires back: "It is the Mayor and the Police Chief who owe Jussie - owe him an apology - for dragging an innocent man's character through the mud. Jussie has paid enough."

Smollett feels he's owed an apology? Oh man, I bet it was an understood thing that Jussie would keep his stupid mouth shut and go about his business but he's just not that smart.

You know what would be hysterical? If a couple of rednecks bought some MAGA hats, a noose, bleach and just beat the crap out of Jussie, screaming "This is MAGA country!"

What's he gonna do, report it a second time? I think he would. Would CPD even take the statement?  LOL

[TheDrake]

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx did not "formally" recuse herself from the Jussie Smollett case -- she only did so "colloquially," prosecutors said on Wednesday.

Reports are still unconfirmed that she had her fingers crossed.

As far as statutes applying or not, I'd think the grand jury should know the law. He was indicted after all. His attorney also never claimed that those charges were not in keeping with the law, instead focusing on the number of counts.

[D.W.]

What's he gonna do, report it a second time? I think he would. Would CPD even take the statement?  LOL

I know you see this as a potential hilarious punchline to an overlong running joke... 

But this is exactly (and honestly the only reason) why I wana see the guy held accountable.   

[LetterRip]

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

Again. consent can be an affirmative defense, and thus prosecutors decline to prosecute unless it is egregiously out of line with reasonable expectations of what is acceptable within the sport.  It gets prosecuted occasionally but not nearly enough.  Tyson should have been prosecuted but wasn't.

Here s a case of a hockey player being found guilty for instance,

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100318&page=1

and more from hockey

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2016/02/09/some-notable-on-ice-incidents-that-led-to-criminal-charges/

and various discussions on the topic,

https://blogs.findlaw.com/tarnished_twenty/2014/06/biting-in-sports-how-the-law-can-bite-back.html

https://www.capitalcriminaldefense.com/blog/2016/april/can-there-be-an-assault-on-a-sports-field-/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/why-athletes-generally-don-t-face-criminal-charges-court-fights-n922866

I think a lot of people have a lot of confusion between statutory exclusions vs affirmative defenses.  Just like fair use is an affirmative defense in copyright violation.  Even more confusing is that something can be an affirmative defense in one state or a statutory exclusion in another which can also differ yet again at the federal level.

[TheDrake]

I think a lot of people have a lot of confusion between statutory exclusions vs affirmative defenses.  Just like fair use is an affirmative defense in copyright violation.  Even more confusing is that something can be an affirmative defense in one state or a statutory exclusion in another which can also differ yet again at the federal level.

But the prosecutor is not going to indict if they think the defendant is going to have a viable affirmative defense, are they? It seems very odd to indict and then just wander off without getting a plea. Imagine how it would have looked if Manafort had been indicted and then never went to trial with all charges dropped. We'd immediately have smelled something fishy about it.

[LetterRip]

I think a lot of people have a lot of confusion between statutory exclusions vs affirmative defenses.  Just like fair use is an affirmative defense in copyright violation.  Even more confusing is that something can be an affirmative defense in one state or a statutory exclusion in another which can also differ yet again at the federal level.

But the prosecutor is not going to indict if they think the defendant is going to have a viable affirmative defense, are they? It seems very odd to indict and then just wander off without getting a plea. Imagine how it would have looked if Manafort had been indicted and then never went to trial with all charges dropped. We'd immediately have smelled something fishy about it.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

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

There could also be misdemeanor charges against Smollett of false statements to police - which are different from 'false report'.  Since the false statements were regarding a misdemeanor (common battery) - those statements are a misdemeanor.  Because Smollett is a "first time offender" and "unlikely to reoffend" - he is eligible for diversion - namely community service.

Regarding recusal being 'colloquial' rather than 'formal' - formal would be filing paperwork with the courts.  As long as she didn't interfere with the prosecutor who it was turned over to it shouldn't matter.  If she did in fact interfere, then I think there should be an investigation. She has stated that at the time she received the call she believed he was a victim rather than a suspect, and if she had known he was a suspect would not have gotten involved.  Also that it is common for families of victims to 'reach out' seeking escalation.

Anyway, if the theory that she interfered to reduce his sentence occurred after claiming recusal turns out to be true, then I'm all for investigating her and possible charges.

[Fenring]

Isn't a deliberate waste of a court's time by pretending to report an offence, with a "Fracture-style" ingenious defense prepared in advance to exonerate yourself, wouldn't this then be a case of contempt of court and be criminal in that sense? And additionally, even if the battery was consensual, isn't battery still a crime even if the person who committed it was doing so under orders? Wouldn't this fall under masterminding felonies?

[Crunch]

The guys he hired did in fact batter him, therefore his report wasn't a false report - therefore there are no legitimate '16 counts' of felony false report. 

Christ. The charges were legitimate. You may argue unnecessary or overly aggressive but they were legitimate.

[Crunch]

Because Smollett is a "first time offender" and "unlikely to reoffend" - he is eligible for diversion - namely community service.

Smollett was not a first time offender. How do you engage this topic without knowing that? It’s in many news stories, especially the last 24 hours.

[Crunch]

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

Regarding recusal being 'colloquial' rather than 'formal' - there is no such thing. That was made up.

[LetterRip]

The guys he hired did in fact batter him, therefore his report wasn't a false report - therefore there are no legitimate '16 counts' of felony false report. 

Christ. The charges were legitimate. You may argue unnecessary or overly aggressive but they were legitimate.

I mean that they would have to be dismissed and could not be brought to trial because a judge would be forced to dismiss them.  A competent lawyer would point out what I have and that would likely be the end of it.

Regarding recusal being 'colloquial' rather than 'formal' - there is no such thing. That was made up.

No it isn't 'made up' - the word recusal has a formal meaning and an informal meaning.  When you use it informally you are using it 'colloquially'.  If she in fact handed off the prosecution to another prosecutor and didn't interfere, but didn't file a formal recusal notice (prosecutorial disqualification) then it was an accurate statement.

Smollett was not a first time offender. How do you engage this topic without knowing that? It’s in many news stories, especially the last 24 hours.

You are right that 'first time offender' wasn't accurate I meant to write non-violent offender - he apparently gave his brothers name for a DUI stop a number of years prior.  He would have been disqualified if he were a prior drug offender, or violent - neither of which applied.

[LetterRip]

Isn't a deliberate waste of a court's time by pretending to report an offence, with a "Fracture-style" ingenious defense prepared in advance to exonerate yourself, wouldn't this then be a case of contempt of court and be criminal in that sense? And additionally, even if the battery was consensual, isn't battery still a crime even if the person who committed it was doing so under orders? Wouldn't this fall under masterminding felonies?

Simple battery is a misdemeanor.  So he wouldn't be "masterminding a felony".  Contempt of court I don't think is a possibility.  The misdemeanor of "wasting police time" would be available.  I suspect, as I mentioned earlier - that there might be a charge for ordering/paying someone to commit a battery (solicitation to commit a crime) - but I'm not aware of what the penalty might be.  I've found "solicitation to commit a crime of violence" in the case of soliciting a violent felony, but can't find one for commissioning non-felony violence.

[LetterRip]

I forgot to mention that he could also be charged with the misdemeanor he was soliciting.  I've looked and so far don't see any felony charges that could survive to trial (although I am not a lawyer, so it is entirely possible I've misunderstood or overlooked something).

[TheDeamon]

Simple battery is a misdemeanor.  So he wouldn't be "masterminding a felony".  Contempt of court I don't think is a possibility.  The misdemeanor of "wasting police time" would be available.  I suspect, as I mentioned earlier - that there might be a charge for ordering/paying someone to commit a battery (solicitation to commit a crime) - but I'm not aware of what the penalty might be.  I've found "solicitation to commit a crime of violence" in the case of soliciting a violent felony, but can't find one for commissioning non-felony violence.

I have to wonder if he couldn't be brought under conspiracy charges by some means, given the objective of all this was to get a ratings bump on his show, and a pay increase.

[TheDeamon]

Oh hey, NBC News just reported that Smollet is up for an award from the NAACP in the near future.

[Crunch]

Ouch, Foxx is getting hammered.

[The Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association serves as the voice for nearly 1,000 front line prosecutors across the State who work tirelessly towards the pursuit of justice.  The events of the past few days regarding the Cook County State’s Attorney’s handling of the Jussie Smollett case is not condoned by the IPBA, nor is it representative of the honest ethical work prosecutors provide to the citizens of the State of Illinois on a daily basis.

The manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the State.  Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received.  Even more problematic, the State’s Attorney and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and circumstances surrounding the dismissal.

The public has the right to know the truth, and we set out to do that here.
When an elected State’s Attorney recuses herself from a prosecution, Illinois law provides that the court shall appoint a special prosecutor.  See 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-15).  Typically, the special prosecutor is a neighboring State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, or the State Appellate Prosecutor.  Here, the State’s Attorney kept the case within her office and thus never actually recused herself as a matter of law.

Additionally, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office falsely informed the public that the uncontested sealing of the criminal court case was “mandatory” under Illinois law.  This statement is not accurate.  To the extent the case was even eligible for an immediate seal, that action was discretionary, not mandatory, and only upon the proper filing of a petition to seal.  See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(g)(2).  For seals not subject to Section 5.2(g)(2), the process employed in this case by the State’s Attorney effectively denied law enforcement agencies of legally required Notice (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(4)) and the legal opportunity to object to the sealing of the file (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(5)).  The State’s Attorney not only declined to fight the sealing of this case in court, but then provided false information to the public regarding it.

The appearance of impropriety here is compounded by the fact that this case was not on the regularly scheduled court call, the public had no reasonable notice or opportunity to view these proceedings, and the dismissal was done abruptly at what has been called an “emergency” hearing.  To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed.  The sealing of a court case immediately following a hearing where there was no reasonable notice or opportunity for the public to attend is a matter of grave public concern and undermines the very foundation of our public court system.

Lastly, the State’s Attorney has claimed this arrangement is “available to all defendants” and “not a new or unusual practice.”  There has even been an implication it was done in accordance with a statutory diversion program.  These statements are plainly misleading and inaccurate.  This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State’s Attorney initiated diversionary programs.  The IPBA supports diversion programs, and recognizes the many benefits they provide to the community, the defendant and to the prosecuting agency.  Central to any diversion program, however, is that the defendant must accept responsibility.  To be clear here, this simply was not a deferred prosecution.
/quote]

[Crunch]

Oh hey, NBC News just reported that Smollet is up for an award from the NAACP in the near future.

Saturday. I hope he wins.

[TheDrake]

It's highly unusual for both the national and state level DA associations to go after one of their own. That should make it abundantly clear that the handling by Foxx is wildly improper.

[LetterRip]

I hope there is a thorough investigation.  I've no problem with her getting hammered.  Presumably the charges weren't dismissed with prejudice, and thus can be refiled.  Smollett has really dug a hole for himself with his denials of responsibility.

[Crunch]

It's highly unusual for both the national and state level DA associations to go after one of their own. That should make it abundantly clear that the handling by Foxx is wildly improper.

Let’s assume Foxx is pretty damn smart. I think that’s a safe assumption with her education and experience. She’s also a political animal, she knows how things play at this level - Soros pumps hundreds of thousands of dollars into her campaign. So there’s no way she’s surprised at the heat she’s taking and the repercussions of her giving out a fake recusal and stepping hip deep into what was already a sh1tshow and risking her career this way. No way. Not for someone she just met that is essentially radioactive at that moment.

And Tina Tchen, she’s probably even more savvy than Foxx. What got her to step into this? I know she’s friends with some of Smollett’s family but are they that good of friends that Tchen would risk this heat? I doubt it. I dunno, could be she miscalculated but I really doubt it.

So why’d they do it? Foxx didn’t take the risk for nothing. Tchen got involved for a reason.  What did Tchen offer and why or Foxx get in return for likely throwing it all away?

[Crunch]

Rahm Emanuel:

The only reason Jussie Smollett thought he could take advantage of a hoax about a hate crime is for the environment, the toxic environment that Donald Trump created.

It’s all Trump’s fault that Jussie did this.

Some of you should feel deeply insulted that he thought you’d go along with this.

[Crunch]

Deep in another dark corner of MAGA country, you know, Portland, Andy Ngo point out some things that should sound familiar.

It very much appears that there is an epidemic of hoax hate crimes, concentrated in deep blue, Democrat, cities.

Did these crimes really happen? Wilfred Reilly, a political scientist at Kentucky State and author of the book “Hate Crime Hoax,” says the nonreporting and cinematic narrative are indications they might not have.

“If you were actually beaten by a group of homophobes, you’d go down to the precinct house before you’d go on Twitter and Facebook,” he says. Through his research, Reilly has collected more than 500 cases of American hate hoaxes concentrated mostly between 2013 and 2018.

Patterns he identifies among them are the lack of evidence, reluctance to cooperate with police, sensational claims, the presence of fundraising and the involvement of radical activists — all of which appear to be happening in Portland.

[Fenring]

Deep in another dark corner of MAGA country, you know, Portland, Andy Ngo point out some things that should sound familiar.

It very much appears that there is an epidemic of hoax hate crimes, concentrated in deep blue, Democrat, cities.

Did these crimes really happen? Wilfred Reilly, a political scientist at Kentucky State and author of the book “Hate Crime Hoax,” says the nonreporting and cinematic narrative are indications they might not have.

“If you were actually beaten by a group of homophobes, you’d go down to the precinct house before you’d go on Twitter and Facebook,” he says. Through his research, Reilly has collected more than 500 cases of American hate hoaxes concentrated mostly between 2013 and 2018.

Patterns he identifies among them are the lack of evidence, reluctance to cooperate with police, sensational claims, the presence of fundraising and the involvement of radical activists — all of which appear to be happening in Portland.

It should come as no surprise, since both sides as of 2001 have been brought up learning that the ends justify the means, and that the actual truth doesn't matter so long as your side wins. What chance to young people have when being raised in this kind of culture?

[TheDeamon]

Deep in another dark corner of MAGA country, you know, Portland, Andy Ngo point out some things that should sound familiar.

Apparently an Asian author, might as well be a CIS-Gendered straight white male. Absolutely no standing with the activists, he's part of the problem.

This excerpt was pretty good from the article:

Those who spread the rumors were cheered for bringing “awareness” to LGBT issues. Lost in all this was any concern for the people victimized in the process.

One of the men who says he was falsely accused in the panic is Robert Zerfing, a 35-year-old Battle Ground, Wash., resident. He used to attend conservative rallies in the Portland area but has since renounced the Proud Boys for their involvement in brawls.

Jenny Bruso claimed that her partner’s attackers drove a maroon Bronco or Suburban. Doxers identified that Zerfing owned a maroon SUV and used that as evidence he was involved in the attack even though that car was repossessed three months ago. He showed me one of the many death threats he now receives.

“I guess we will find out when we pay that address a visit,” the text reads. “4 hate crimes in the last week you were involved in. Paybacks a bitch mother f–ker.”

"This hate crime victim claims to have seen your truck involved in the incident"

"My truck was repossessed months ago, it couldn't be me."

"Doesn't matter, you're still a fascist, and we know you're connected to the attacks somehow."

[TheDrake]

500 cases over six years is an epidemic?

[LetterRip]

“If you were actually beaten by a group of homophobes, you’d go down to the precinct house before you’d go on Twitter and Facebook,” he says.

Has he not met anyone under the age of 40?  Almost everyone I know who is young is more likely to post something to twitter and Facebook before they report it to the police.  The younger, the more likely.

Patterns he identifies among them are the lack of evidence, reluctance to cooperate with police, sensational claims, the presence of fundraising and the involvement of radical activists — all of which appear to be happening in Portland.

Lack of evidence is pretty common for most crimes.  Many people are reluctant to interact with police - particularly the demographics most likely to be legitimate victims of hate crimes.  I've no idea about what the individual means by 'sensational crimes'.  Hate crime victims tend to get involved with groups that support victims of the said hate crimes - does he mean they were a high profile activist beforehand (in which case I do think that is a sign of risk for being a hoax).  Is the 'all of which appear to be happening in Portland' - mean that the claims of being a victim of hate crime has an abnormally large number of reports or something else?

I'll be interested in his methodolgy, etc. perhaps he really has identificed 500 'hoaxes' - but the description for the basis of him considering a report a 'hoax' isn't very promising.

[TheDeamon]

500 cases over six years is an epidemic?

Well, when you go from what was it? 31 reported hate crimes against a Muslim/year to 93/year becoming "A national epidemic of anti-Islamic hate" I'd say about 80 to 90 false reports/year can qualify for the same label.

[TheDrake]

500 cases over six years is an epidemic?

Well, when you go from what was it? 31 reported hate crimes against a Muslim/year to 93/year becoming "A national epidemic of anti-Islamic hate" I'd say about 80 to 90 false reports/year can qualify for the same label.

I wouldn't say there is an epidemic of anti Islamic hate crimes either. I would say there is a troubling rise of anti Islamic sentiment including crimes. Assuming you take this number as legitimate, I could see the argument that they are similar.

[cherrypoptart]

I mentioned earlier that Smollet may yet come out ahead because of what he did when the dust clears and I'll go ahead and double down on that now. There are two factors in play. One is that just getting almost no matter how you do it can be very profitable. Look at Monica Lewinsky with her SlimFast, Weight Watchers, and diet program pitch person deals. Two is that he is a courageous hero for attacking Trump, his supporters, and Republicans in general the way he did, risking prison with his hate crime hoax. The fact that it was a hoax and he is a fraud only adds to the value of his heroic gesture. He's putting it all on the line for the cause even more than Ford did but she's a hero to the left for the same reasons. Faking a hate crime is nothing to be ashamed of anymore. Whether you are believed or not, whether your are ever exposed as a fraud or forever considered to be an innocent victim because the fraud cannot be exposed, either way you become a martyr for the cause.

[D.W.]

While I still think you're wrong cherry, I deeply wish I could call that whole position nuts.  It seems more and more depressingly plausible every day. 

[rightleft22]

he is a courageous hero for attacking Trump, his supporters, and Republicans in general the way he did, risking prison with his hate crime hoax. The fact that it was a hoax and he is a fraud only adds to the value of his heroic gesture.

I personal don't know anyone in real life that thinks Smollet is a hero of any kind or that faking a hate crime can in anyway be justified. 
I do suspect that the virtual world is full of virtual people that will make the arguments that you point out if only to keep everyone angry and disconnected

[D.W.]

I do suspect that the virtual world is full of virtual people that will make the arguments that you point out if only to keep everyone angry and disconnected

That line between virtual and actual is itself now virtual.

Places where people would once make outrageous statements for the sake of humor or getting others worked up are now gathering places for those who sincerely hold those outrageous beliefs.  People in public are sometimes now comfortable making those outrageous statements once only made online, and anonymously, and often tongue-in-cheek... 

Our caricatures of those we oppose tend to be grounded in reality.  Or at least identifiable within the fringes of surreality we all scour round the clock to prove the vileness of our opponents.

We may not know anyone who feels Jussie was a hero, but I have no doubt that if one went looking for someone who did, you could find them.  The fringe is a crazy place, where anything is possible, and exploitable.

[LetterRip]

I mentioned earlier that Smollet may yet come out ahead because of what he did when the dust clears and I'll go ahead and double down on that now.

Unless there is strong evidence that his original claim is correct, or there is evidence of him being 'framed', or along similar lines where he can win a case for slander and libel  - I don't see how he can possibly come out ahead. 

Two is that he is a courageous hero for attacking Trump, his supporters, and Republicans in general the way he did, risking prison with his hate crime hoax.

The only thing I've heard from liberals is disgust and anger that he has risked delegitimizing claims of actual hate crime victims.

The only supporters he has currently are a small number LGBT who have bought into a suggestion that it was a conspiracy theory to frame him.

The fact that it was a hoax and he is a fraud only adds to the value of his heroic gesture. He's putting it all on the line for the cause even more than Ford did but she's a hero to the left for the same reasons.

People admire Ford for coming forward - there is nothing suggesting that she was in anyway attempting to make a false claim, they despise the woman who faked the claim for the same reason that they despise Smollett - fake claims let those who want to delegitimize true claims.  Only in conservative fantasies do liberals admire people who make false claims.

[cherrypoptart]

I'll agree that the vast majority on the left are outraged about his hate crimes hoax but I've seen some support for him from sjws that goes beyond sympathy. Of course it is all virtual and tweets that get made into news stories but it's out there, and I'm talking about after the charges were dropped meaning after the hoax was exposed. The support before the hoax was exposed is perfectly understandable of course. Not sure why I'm having so much trouble finding it now but I just saw a story about a tweet on yahoo a couple of days ago. Part of it may be because of distrust of the Chicago Police Department and I think that was mentioned in the supportive tweet but it went a bit further than that too. Obviously nobody is going to come right out and say they support hoaxing hate crimes but there is an undercurrent to some of the support, a very small but still discernible minority of it, that goes too far in making excuses for what he did. You can hear a little of that in the Trump blaming that's coming even after the hoax was exposed.

[D.W.]

Things are already a mess.  I think we want to avoid getting into statistical anomalies less supported than bigfoot sightings to leverage against political partisans. 

Again, not saying they aren't out there.  Pretty much any absurd thing is.  But we are able to find these outliers only because of how outrageously outside the norms their views are.  That *censored* is internet gold.  Click bait mana from digital heaven. 

[TheDeamon]

Oh hey, when things could not get any weirder. SPLC has been under fire lately evidently.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/3/tom-cotton-calls-irs-investigate-southern-poverty-/

“Our employees deserve a workplace that reflects our highest values, and we will ensure that it happens,” the Southern Poverty Law Center said in a Tuesday statement. “The decision to name Karen as interim president is a critical step in that process.”

Conducting an “external review” of the center’s practices is Tina Tchen, onetime chief of staff to first lady Michelle Obama, who will “advise us on workplace culture issues,” Bryan Fair, board chairman of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in the statement.

“Tina’s evaluation will continue, and we’re committed to enacting long-lasting changes following her recommendations,” Mr. Fair said. “Our employees deserve a workplace that reflects our highest values, and we will ensure that it happens.”

Her hiring set off red flags on the right. It was Ms. Tchen who contacted Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx on behalf of “Empire” star Jussie Smollett in an effort to move the case to the FBI. All charges stemming from Mr. Smollett’s purported staging of a Jan. 29 hate crime in Chicago were dropped last week.

[DJQuag]

I mentioned earlier that Smollet may yet come out ahead because of what he did when the dust clears and I'll go ahead and double down on that now. There are two factors in play. One is that just getting almost no matter how you do it can be very profitable. Look at Monica Lewinsky with her SlimFast, Weight Watchers, and diet program pitch person deals. Two is that he is a courageous hero for attacking Trump, his supporters, and Republicans in general the way he did, risking prison with his hate crime hoax. The fact that it was a hoax and he is a fraud only adds to the value of his heroic gesture. He's putting it all on the line for the cause even more than Ford did but she's a hero to the left for the same reasons. Faking a hate crime is nothing to be ashamed of anymore. Whether you are believed or not, whether your are ever exposed as a fraud or forever considered to be an innocent victim because the fraud cannot be exposed, either way you become a martyr for the cause.

I have to ask why you think Lewinsky should be talked about in the same breath as Smollett.

I myself think they were both of age consenting adults that did an immoral thing, but even most right wing rags put the blame on Clinton.and if we're going by maturity and authority, yeah, you have to send it his way.

Lewinsky got done dirty back then in a way that wouldn't be accepted now. If she found a way to make some money off it, I'm not gonna blame her.

[cherrypoptart]

The point I was trying to make there, and I accidentally left out the word famous, is that it often doesn't matter how you get famous as long as you do. It's all about eyeballs now, clicks for ads, and it doesn't matter why people click or watch as long as they do. So that's how they are tied together and the fact that their situations are nothing alike is part of the point that, again, how you get famous is irrelevant as long as you do get famous.

Now the other point about support for him wasn't me sifting through twitter to find random people posting but was reading news stories about prominent people supporting him and often not even acknowledging that he did anything wrong at all. Right here is a fine example:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/taraji-p-henson-weighs-empire-co-star-jussie-181748114.html

Henson told USA Today last week she's "happy ... the truth has finally been set free, because I knew it all along."

And from Fox itself: In a statement to ABC News, Fox, which airs "Empire," said, "Jussie Smollett has always maintained his innocence and we are gratified on his behalf that all charges against him have been dismissed."

Factual as far as it goes, I suppose. But hardly coming down against hate crimes hoaxes.

Now we'll see if he continues to appear in the show and maybe even get a nice little salary bump out of it if their ratings go higher. If that happens, mission accomplished.

[TheDrake]

Yeah. So he's getting support from the people connected with his television program, who are taking a bath as people flee the program? Because of his felonies.