What a Crock - Jussie Smollett: Prosecutors drop all charges against actor

by Guest Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:29 am

First topic message reminder :

Prosecutors have dropped all charges against US actor Jussie Smollett for allegedly staging a racist and homophobic attack.

The Empire star attended a court hearing in Chicago on Tuesday, where a judge sealed the case.

Mr Smollett, 36, pleaded not guilty this month to 16 counts of disorderly conduct for allegedly lying to police.

The city's mayor denounced the prosecutors' decision to drop the charges as a "whitewash of justice".

Mr Smollett told reporters after his court appearance: "I have been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one.

"I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I've been accused of."

The office of Cook County State's Attorney Kimberly Foxx said in a statement: "After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr Smollett's volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case."

It remains unclear why prosecutors dropped the charges against Mr Smollett.

Chicago police Supt Eddie Johnson said he was not briefed on the decision to drop the charges.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47711535

by Original Quill Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:07 pm

Russ wrote:What exactly will it take??

The facts...verified by the full report.

by Guest Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Russ wrote:What exactly will it take??

The facts...verified by the full report.

What do you what Quill??

Do you want the US president to be guilty of collusion with Russia

Or would you be happier if the full report clears him of any wrong doing??

What is a better outcome as far as you are concerned???

by Original Quill Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:42 pm

I make no predictions. Just want the full report to go to Congress, without redaction.

by Guest Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:I make no predictions. Just want the full report to go to Congress, without redaction.

And if anything is redacted you will naturally assume it prides his guilt, even though you won't know what's been redacted or why or by whom.

Completely reasonable

by Original Quill Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:56 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:I make no predictions. Just want the full report to go to Congress, without redaction.

And if anything is redacted you will naturally assume it prides his guilt, even though you won't know what's been redacted or why or by whom.

Completely reasonable

It doesn't prove anything. The record is just incomplete.

by Guest Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

And if anything is redacted you will naturally assume it prides his guilt, even though you won't know what's been redacted or why or by whom.

Completely reasonable

It doesn't prove anything. The record is just incomplete.

Well if the record is incomplete then you cannot say he is guilty can you???

by Guest Sat Apr 06, 2019 2:17 am

Jussie Smollett Could Be RECHARGED, Attorney DEMANDS Special Prosecutor. Citing the irregularities of the Jussie Smollett case a former State's Attorney demands a real special prosecutor investigate the potential cover up and interference.

Smollett had 16 felony charges mysteriously drop to the shock and anger of law enforcement and even the Illinois Prosecutor's Bar Association.

In a leaked email it even appears that Kim Foxx was trying to find justification for letting Jussie Smollett off without a criminal record.

Police have now voted "no confidence" in Kim Foxx but also claim to be preparing a lawsuit against against Smollett to recoup the cost of the investigation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-I0kGRdO54

by Original Quill Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:35 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It doesn't prove anything. The record is just incomplete.

Well if the record is incomplete then you cannot say he is guilty can you???

Correct. We abide by the principle, innocent until proven guilty.

by Original Quill Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:55 pm

Phil wrote:Jussie Smollett Could Be RECHARGED

Double jeopardy is prohibited by the Constitution.

by Guest Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:05 pm

Attorney calls for investigation alleging interference in decision to drop charges

Saani Mohammed filed petition asking for a special prosecutor to investigate

He called for Jussie Smollett to be re-charged over allegedly staging an attack

Chicago police chiefs associations called for the resignation of Kimberly Foxx

Police unions passed 'no confidence' vote in the Cook County State's Attorney

Chicago will sue Smollett for costs of police time spent investigating his claims

Empire actor told police he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6889967/Chicago-police-demand-resignation-citys-prosecutor-Jussie-Smollett-charges-dropped.html

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-smollett-special-prosecutor-508135551.html

The case never went to trial and thus no case of double jeopardy. Even more how Foxx, never withdrew herself from the investigation

Lets hope the vile lying scum bag gets taken to court and jailed for years

He insulted every victim of hate crimes, with his lies

by Original Quill Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:46 pm

phildidge wrote:Attorney calls for investigation alleging interference in decision to drop charges

Saani Mohammed filed petition asking for a special prosecutor to investigate

He called for Jussie Smollett to be re-charged over allegedly staging an attack

Chicago police chiefs associations called for the resignation of Kimberly Foxx

Police unions passed 'no confidence' vote in the Cook County State's Attorney

Chicago will sue Smollett for costs of police time spent investigating his claims

Empire actor told police he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6889967/Chicago-police-demand-resignation-citys-prosecutor-Jussie-Smollett-charges-dropped.html

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-smollett-special-prosecutor-508135551.html

The case never went to trial and thus no case of double jeopardy. Even more how Foxx, never withdrew herself from the investigation

A case need not go to trial for double jeopardy to attach. All that is required is for some final disposition to take place. This has already happened.

by Guest Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:49 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:Attorney calls for investigation alleging interference in decision to drop charges

Saani Mohammed filed petition asking for a special prosecutor to investigate

He called for Jussie Smollett to be re-charged over allegedly staging an attack

Chicago police chiefs associations called for the resignation of Kimberly Foxx

Police unions passed 'no confidence' vote in the Cook County State's Attorney

Chicago will sue Smollett for costs of police time spent investigating his claims

Empire actor told police he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6889967/Chicago-police-demand-resignation-citys-prosecutor-Jussie-Smollett-charges-dropped.html

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-smollett-special-prosecutor-508135551.html

The case never went to trial and thus no case of double jeopardy. Even more how Foxx, never withdrew herself from the investigation

A case need not go to trial for double jeopardy to attach. All that is required is for some final disposition to take place. This has already happened.

quill, were you able to find the link to foxx saying that the brothers testimony fell apart? that's what you claimed before but i can't find trace of it

by Original Quill Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:10 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

A case need not go to trial for double jeopardy to attach. All that is required is for some final disposition to take place. This has already happened.

quill, were you able to find the link to foxx saying that the brothers testimony fell apart? that's what you claimed before but i can't find trace of it

No, I suspect that part of it is being hushed up due to the response. To get into the reasons is more fodder for the controversy. All they say now is the case has been disposed of and sealed...and once sealed, 'no comment'.

by Guest Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

quill, were you able to find the link to foxx saying that the brothers testimony fell apart? that's what you claimed before but i can't find trace of it

No, I suspect that part of it is being hushed up due to the response. All they say now is the case has been disposed of and sealed.

what are you talking about? that makes no sense

who is hushing it up? what response? by whom? surely evidence like this that would confirm smollet's innocence should be blasted out on every channel, right?

by Original Quill Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:14 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, I suspect that part of it is being hushed up due to the response. All they say now is the case has been disposed of and sealed.

what are you talking about? that makes no sense

who is husing it up? what response? by whom? surely evidence like this that would confirm smollet's innocence should be blasted out on every channel, right?

Re-read my post. I explained all that. The court has sealed the case. Smollet no longer needs to urge his innocence.

by Guest Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

what are you talking about? that makes no sense

who is husing it up? what response? by whom? surely evidence like this that would confirm smollet's innocence should be blasted out on every channel, right?

Re-read my post. I explained all that. The court has sealed the case. Smollet no longer needs to urge his innocence.

you didn't explain anything, quill.

i understand full well that the case has been sealed. that isn't the issue

all you kept saying is ''the brother's testimony fell apart''.

how did it fall apart? on which part were they 'caught out'. where are the details of this failed testimony

and again, who would hush that up? and why?

you are sounding ridiculous

by Guest Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:Attorney calls for investigation alleging interference in decision to drop charges

Saani Mohammed filed petition asking for a special prosecutor to investigate

He called for Jussie Smollett to be re-charged over allegedly staging an attack

Chicago police chiefs associations called for the resignation of Kimberly Foxx

Police unions passed 'no confidence' vote in the Cook County State's Attorney

Chicago will sue Smollett for costs of police time spent investigating his claims

Empire actor told police he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6889967/Chicago-police-demand-resignation-citys-prosecutor-Jussie-Smollett-charges-dropped.html

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-smollett-special-prosecutor-508135551.html

The case never went to trial and thus no case of double jeopardy. Even more how Foxx, never withdrew herself from the investigation

A case need not go to trial for double jeopardy to attach. All that is required is for some final disposition to take place. This has already happened.

Incorret as seen this is not such a case, it never was even near to going to trial and this is coming from the former attorney at the same office. Who again Foxx, never removed herself from the case, even though she stated to doing so. Conflict of interest and hence why a special prosecutor has been requested. If they find Foxx implicated, there certainly will be a new trial

Maybe you might want to take it up with them, eh

by Original Quill Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:42 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

A case need not go to trial for double jeopardy to attach. All that is required is for some final disposition to take place. This has already happened.

Incorret as seen this is not such a case, it never was even near to going to trial and this is coming from the former attorney at the same office. Who again Foxx, never removed herself from the case, even though she stated to doing so. Conflict of interest and hence why a special prosecutor has been requested. If they find Foxx implicated, there certainly will be a new trial

Maybe you might want to take it up with them, eh

Whatever you say. I never said it was close to trial; I said it was disposed of, that's all. What steps were taken to remove Foxx? What is the conflict of interest? Under what Illinois law would a special prosecutor be appointed?

The only new trial would be on appeal. Who is appealing, if not Foxx?

by Guest Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Incorret as seen this is not such a case, it never was even near to going to trial and this is coming from the former attorney at the same office. Who again Foxx, never removed herself from the case, even though she stated to doing so. Conflict of interest and hence why a special prosecutor has been requested. If they find Foxx implicated, there certainly will be a new trial

Maybe you might want to take it up with them, eh

Whatever you say. I never said it was close to trial; I said it was disposed of, that's all. What steps were taken to remove Foxx? What is the conflict of interest? Under what Illinois law would a special prosecutor be appointed?

The only new trial would be on appeal. Who is appealing, if not Foxx?

She said she was removing herself from the case. Due to a conflict of interest

Seriously Quill start actually reading about what is going on

A judge can appoint a special prosecutor

Why dod you think a former attorney, who recently worked in their has asked for this?

by Original Quill Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:38 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Whatever you say. I never said it was close to trial; I said it was disposed of, that's all. What steps were taken to remove Foxx? What is the conflict of interest? Under what Illinois law would a special prosecutor be appointed?

The only new trial would be on appeal. Who is appealing, if not Foxx?

She said she was removing herself from the case. Due to a conflict of interest

What is the conflict?

phil wrote:Seriously Quill start actually reading about what is going on

It's not about me.

phil wrote:A judge can appoint a special prosecutor

Under what law?

phil wrote:Why dod you think a former attorney, who recently worked in their has asked for this?

I don't see any evidence of that.

by Guest Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

She said she was removing herself from the case. Due to a conflict of interest

What is the conflict?

.

Read back, its already been posted for you twice

by Original Quill Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:09 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What is the conflict?

.

Read back, its already been posted for you twice

I don't see it. Without substantiation/explanation of the alleged conflict, there's nothing to respond to.

by Guest Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Read back, its already been posted for you twice

I don't see it. Without substantiation/explanation, there's nothing to respond to.

You mean like your claim, where you said about the evidence of the brothers?

At least I posted articles about the conflict and you never did about the brothers

This is simple a case of you being obtuse and deliberately so

So no point discussing this further with you

Cheers

by Original Quill Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:18 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't see it. Without substantiation/explanation, there's nothing to respond to.

You mean like your claim, where you said about the evidence of the brothers?

At least I posted articles about the conflict and you never did about the brothers

I have yet to see any conflict. What is the conflict of interest? You can state it in three words or less. Most conflicts have name or title...for instance, financial conflict, family conflict, political conflict, etc. Can you even identify the conflict? Maybe it's not a conflict. Unless the prosecutor knew the defendant socially, it's probably not a conflict.

phil wrote:This is simple a case of you being obtuse and deliberately so

So no point discussing this further with you

It's not about me.

Cheers.

by Guest Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:47 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Re-read my post. I explained all that. The court has sealed the case. Smollet no longer needs to urge his innocence.

you didn't explain anything, quill.

i understand full well that the case has been sealed. that isn't the issue

all you kept saying is ''the brother's testimony fell apart''.

how did it fall apart? on which part were they 'caught out'. where are the details of this failed testimony

and again, who would hush that up? and why?

you are sounding ridiculous

well, quill?

any comments?

only i reckon you're talking bollox about this

possibly too much anaesthetic in hospital made you see and hear things that just weren't there

by Original Quill Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:26 pm

gelico wrote:
gelico wrote:

you didn't explain anything, quill.

i understand full well that the case has been sealed. that isn't the issue

all you kept saying is ''the brother's testimony fell apart''.

how did it fall apart? on which part were they 'caught out'. where are the details of this failed testimony

and again, who would hush that up? and why?

you are sounding ridiculous

well, quill?

any comments?

only i reckon you're talking bollox about this

possibly too much anaesthetic in hospital made you see and hear things that just weren't there

I'll walk you through it. Here is my synopsis:

Original Quill wrote:I have yet to see any conflict. What is the conflict of interest? You can state it in three words or less. Most conflicts have name or title...for instance, financial conflict, family conflict, political conflict, etc. Can you even identify the conflict? Maybe it's not a conflict. Unless the prosecutor knew the defendant socially, it's probably not a conflict.

1. Phil says that there is some conflict of interest that invalidates the process.

2. I don't see a conflict of interest.

3. Phil says he mentioned it, but he cannot today remember or cite it.

4. Most conflicts have a title. Phil cannot even recall the title.

5. I suspect that the alleged conflict of interest is someone's misunderstanding of what is a conflict of interest.

If there is no conflict, and no other reason to reverse or even disrupt the proceedings, then the law is the law...not special laws for people, like you and Phil, who simply don't like the outcome. There is not one law for others, and a special legal system for privileged people who who take exception and want to second guess the judges.

My analysis is apparently correct, because look at the outcome. What a Crock - Jussie Smollett: Prosecutors drop all charges against actor - Page 2 2190311264

What a Crock - Jussie Smollett: Prosecutors drop all charges against actor - Page 2 2190311264

by Guest Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

well, quill?

any comments?

only i reckon you're talking bollox about this

possibly too much anaesthetic in hospital made you see and hear things that just weren't there

I'll walk you through it. Here is my synopsis:

Original Quill wrote:I have yet to see any conflict. What is the conflict of interest? You can state it in three words or less. Most conflicts have name or title...for instance, financial conflict, family conflict, political conflict, etc. Can you even identify the conflict? Maybe it's not a conflict. Unless the prosecutor knew the defendant socially, it's probably not a conflict.

1. Phil says that there is some conflict of interest that invalidates the process.

2. I don't see a conflict of interest.

3. Phil says he mentioned it, but he cannot today remember or cite it.

4. Most conflicts have a title. Phil cannot even recall the title.

5. I suspect that the alleged conflict of interest is someone's misunderstanding of what is a conflict of interest.

If there is no conflict, and no other reason to reverse or even disrupt the proceedings, then the law is the law...not special laws for people, like you and Phil, who simply don't like the outcome. There is not one law for others, and a special legal system for privileged people who who take exception and want to second guess the judges.

My analysis is apparently correct, because look at the outcome.

very interesting, i'm sure, quill

i was however referring to your claim that it was all dropped because of failed testimony. this is what i posted,,,,,

all you kept saying is ''the brother's testimony fell apart''.

how did it fall apart? on which part were they 'caught out'. where are the details of this failed testimony

and again, who would hush that up? and why?

can you answer that?

by Original Quill Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:02 am

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'll walk you through it. Here is my synopsis:

1. Phil says that there is some conflict of interest that invalidates the process.

2. I don't see a conflict of interest.

3. Phil says he mentioned it, but he cannot today remember or cite it.

4. Most conflicts have a title. Phil cannot even recall the title.

5. I suspect that the alleged conflict of interest is someone's misunderstanding of what is a conflict of interest.

If there is no conflict, and no other reason to reverse or even disrupt the proceedings, then the law is the law...not special laws for people, like you and Phil, who simply don't like the outcome. There is not one law for others, and a special legal system for privileged people who who take exception and want to second guess the judges.

My analysis is apparently correct, because look at the outcome.

very interesting, i'm sure, quill

i was however referring to your claim that it was all dropped because of failed testimony. this is what i posted,,,,,

all you kept saying is ''the brother's testimony fell apart''.

how did it fall apart? on which part were they 'caught out'. where are the details of this failed testimony

and again, who would hush that up? and why?

can you answer that?

No. I was in the hospital, with no means to take notes as I normally do. I have never seen that particular interview again, although I have looked.

I guess someone thought it would inflame people like you, and they pulled it. Obviously they are right, so it was a prudent decision. As far as the outcome...it is what it is.

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:18 am

phildidge wrote:She may get her wish: both the primary Chicago police union and Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon have asked the Department of Justice and the FBI to step in and review the case. Friday, the FBI noted that it had begun an "inquiry" in the matter, but declined to call their actions a full investigation.

Foxx could be in trouble. According to FOIA documents released several weeks ago, she communicated with both a former aide to President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, and a member of the Smollett family, believed to be Smollett's sister. Because of those communications, Foxx supposedly "recused" herself from the Smollett case, but last week her office revealed that Foxx had used the term only "colloquially" and had never officially stepped away from the case.

Both the Illinois prosecutors' bar and the National District Attorneys Association sharply criticized Foxx for failing to put professional distance between her office and the Smollett case, as would have been appropriate.

Smollett is accused of concocting and directing his own "hate crime," paying a pair of friends to attack him outside of his downtown Chicago apartment in the early hours of January 29. Smollett later told police that he was accosted and beaten by two white men who threw a noose around his neck, poured bleach on him and shouted, "this is MAGA country," before taking off. Last month, Smollett was charged with 17 criminal counts stemming from what police claim was a series of false reports.

Foxx's office dropped the case against Smollett abruptly last week without informing either the Chicago Mayor's office or the Chicago Police Superintendent.

Her defense of the matter appears to have fallen on deaf ears. In another article, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, who can hardly be considered right-of-center, ripped into Foxx's office, contending that her colleagues' actions and her handling of the case should get her booted from office next year, if not sooner.

"Foxx could have distanced herself from this blunder given that her own blunder — emailing and texting with people close to Smollett early in the investigation — had prompted her to step away from the case and leave it to underlings," Zorn wrote. "But she grabbed ownership of it Wednesday, giving interviews in which she expressed pride and confidence in the way her office had handled the case."

In closing, Foxx tried to convince readers that Smollett had suffered enough, even without a criminal conviction, making her actions immaterial to the situation.

“Smollett’s alleged unstable actions have probably caused him more harm than any court-ordered penance could,” she wrote. “Falsely reporting a hate crime is a dangerous and unlawful act, and Smollett was not exonerated of that in this case.”

The Chicago Law Department has since taken over the case, issuing Smollett a bill for a little over $130,000 Friday for police overtime hours expended on his case. If Smollett does not pay within the week, the Law Department says it may pursue a civil action to recover the funds.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45340/foxx-fights-back-says-charges-against-smollett-emily-zanotti

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:21 am

An attorney in the Cook County State Attorney's Office has slammed Kim Foxx's handling of the Jussie Smollett case and her claim that the fallout is due to her race.

The attorney sent an anonymous letter to CWB Chicago to hit out at Foxx and her recent comments about Smollet's case, which has enraptured the nation for months.

Even in this 24/7 news cycle, Foxx has continued to make headlines following her surprising decision to drop all charges against the Empire star for allegedly staging a hate crime against himself.

Foxx has since claimed that her decision is only garnering so much attention due to her own race, an allegation that the anonymous attorney - a white woman - called 'ignorant and self-serving'.

'Blaming Jussie Smollet's fallout on race? That is just ignorant and self-serving. It is a complete bastardization of a bona fide movement against acts of racism, which, as a society we should obviously not tolerate,' she wrote.

'Much like Jussie Smollett's acts bastardized a bona fide movement against hate crimes.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6900735/Prosecutor-blasts-Kim-Foxxs-handling-Jussie-Smollets-case.html

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:25 am

Across the country, people of all persuasions don’t know what to make of “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett. On the other hand, as movies and television confirm, Smollett was hardly the first to dramatize fakery.

In the 1971 Dirty Harry, a crazed sniper is gunning down innocents all over San Francisco. Inspector Callahan (Clint Eastwood) is tracking him, but the shooter pays a thug to beat him up and tells city bosses Callahan was responsible for the attack.

In similar style, Jussie Smollett paid two Nigerians to attack him, hoping to throw off the police. Unlike the Eastwood movie, the hired attackers inflicted no actual damage on Smollett, who wound up requiring more suspension of disbelief.

Smollett’s antics are also similar to a Monty Python sketch about the notorious Piranha brothers Doug and Dinsdale, known for nailing victims’ heads to the floor. Victim Stig O’Tracy (Eric Idle) furiously denies that the notorious Dinsdale Piranha nailed his head to the floor.

Informed that the police had film footage of the gangster nailing his head to the floor, O’Tracy concedes, “Well he had to, didn’t he? I mean there was nothing else he could do, be fair. I mean, he didn’t want to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off.”

In similar style, the Chicago police had ample evidence that Smollett faked the whole thing but Illinois state attorney Kim Foxx sealed the records and dropped 16 felony charges. So as Chicago police superintendent Eddie Johnson lamented, that prevented the evidence from appearing in court.

“I have been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one,” Smollett proclaimed after Foxx dropped the charges. So for the actor and his defenders, it was a declaration of innocence.

In The Godfather (1972), mob soldier Carlo Rizzi throws a beating on his wife Connie. When Connie’s brother Sonny (James Caan) rushes to the rescue, a rival mob assassinates him. Younger brother Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) confronts Carlo.

“That little farce you played out with my sister,” Michael says, “you think that could fool a Corleone?”

“Mike, I’m innocent,” Carlo says. “I swear on the kids.” Michael isn’t having it.

“Don’t tell me you are innocent,” Michael Corleone says, “because it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry.” Carlo fesses up, and that’s the end of him.

Smollett, by contrast, continues to proclaim his innocence, even though he had to forfeit his $10,000 bond and spend two days of community service stuffing envelopes for the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

The Chicago police are pretty angry about it. After all, they pulled officers off of homicide cases to track down Smollett’s attackers. They gathered evidence but were not allowed to present it in court. Across the country, people of all persuasions are angry, with good reason.

Suspension of disbelief is standard for “Empire,” but should not apply to a case that is bogus to all but the willfully blind. Actual victims of real violent crimes are the most qualified to tell Smollett: “Don’t tell me you are innocent. It insults my intelligence and makes me very angry.”

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/08/billingsley-jussie-smollett/

by Original Quill Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:21 am

Daily Wire wrote:According to FOIA documents released several weeks ago, she communicated with both a former aide to President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, and a member of the Smollett family, believed to be Smollett's sister. Because of those communications, Foxx supposedly "recused" herself from the Smollett case, but last week her office revealed that Foxx had used the term only "colloquially" and had never officially stepped away from the case.

Aide to Obama's? Member of the family? I don't see the conflict. We would have to know the content of the contacts in order to determine if anything was compromised.

Anyway, the judge has already closed the case. It would take heaven and earth to get it reopened...plus, there's always double jeopardy. It is what it is.

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Daily Wire wrote:According to FOIA documents released several weeks ago, she communicated with both a former aide to President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, and a member of the Smollett family, believed to be Smollett's sister.[b] Because of those communications, Foxx supposedly "recused" herself from the Smollett cas[/b]e, but last week her office revealed that Foxx had used the term only "colloquially" and had never officially stepped away from the case.

Aide to Obama's? Member of the family? I don't see the conflict. We would have to know the content of the contacts in order to determine if anything was compromised.

Anyway, the judge has already closed the case. It would take heaven and earth to get it reopened...plus, there's always double jeopardy. It is what it is.

I guess because your bias is so bad, you are blind to any conflict, when you view something with a racial lens

Anyway, its not down for you to see the conflict. What will be is a judge to organise a sepcial prosecutor

So cut the crap, I gave evidence to show she even herself looked to step down

The fact this goes over your racial bias head, is what is wrong here

I seriously think you would defend Idi Admin, simple because he was black

You dont see the wrongs done here, by Jussie, you just see the colour of his skin and immediatelly seeked to defend him

It shows you have a racist mindset. You dont look at the actual evidence at all, but take the side of someone based on their skin colour

by Original Quill Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:31 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Aide to Obama's? Member of the family? I don't see the conflict. We would have to know the content of the contacts in order to determine if anything was compromised.

Anyway, the judge has already closed the case. It would take heaven and earth to get it reopened...plus, there's always double jeopardy. It is what it is.

I guess because your bias is so bad, you are blind to any conflict, when you view something with a racial lens

Anyway, its not down for you to see the conflict. What will be is a judge to organise a sepcial prosecutor

What a surprise. Nowhere in the thread title does it say that this thread is about me, notwithstanding your change of the subject. I refuse to be engaged on that subject.

So cut the crap, I gave evidence to show she even herself looked to step down

Yes, but why did she recuse, if as you say she did? I don't accept blanket summary, whether it goes to excuses or any other evidence.

phil wrote:The fact this goes over your racial bias head, is what is wrong here

I seriously think you would defend Idi Admin, simple because he was black

This is not about me. I refuse to engage.

phil wrote:You dont see the wrongs done here, by Jussie, you just see the colour of his skin and immediatelly seeked to defend him

I've never said that. The question has not arisen in this discussion.

phil wrote:It shows you have a racist mindset. You dont look at the actual evidence at all, but take the side of someone based on their skin colour

This is not about me. That's the third time I've had to caution you about this. I suggest that you review the discussion, in Site News and Announcements, about 'Answer the post, not the poster.'

You know how prone you are to being banned. You are perhaps the worst offender of this. This is largely why. There's a lesson in that thread, and I feel it is instructive for you in particular.

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
This is not about me. That.

That is about as much relevance your views have on this thread

Your bias is pathetic and until you show some balance, this will be about how pathetic you are being here and hugely dishonest

You claimed there was no conflict, even after I posted the evidence

You are a pathetic liar Quill

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

well, quill?

any comments?

only i reckon you're talking bollox about this

possibly too much anaesthetic in hospital made you see and hear things that just weren't there

I'll walk you through it. Here is my synopsis:

Original Quill wrote:I have yet to see any conflict. What is the conflict of interest? You can state it in three words or less. Most conflicts have name or title...for instance, financial conflict, family conflict, political conflict, etc. Can you even identify the conflict? Maybe it's not a conflict. Unless the prosecutor knew the defendant socially, it's probably not a conflict.

1. Phil says that there is some conflict of interest that invalidates the process.

2. I don't see a conflict of interest.

3. Phil says he mentioned it, but he cannot today remember or cite it.

4. Most conflicts have a title. Phil cannot even recall the title.

5. I suspect that the alleged conflict of interest is someone's misunderstanding of what is a conflict of interest.

If there is no conflict, and no other reason to reverse or even disrupt the proceedings, then the law is the law...not special laws for people, like you and Phil, who simply don't like the outcome. There is not one law for others, and a special legal system for privileged people who who take exception and want to second guess the judges.

My analysis is apparently correct, because look at the outcome.

Quill says answer the post and sets about talking about me

Victimhood by Quill

Debunked

Laughing

There is nothing to back up your claim on the brothers, like I say you made it up and then lied about the conflict evidence

Of which a judge will decide whether or not to have a special prosecutor investigate the case

Like I said, this has everything to do with your immediate view to defend someone based on their skin colour

Your bias is so embarressing, its why even someone as useless as smelly is taking you to task of late

My advice to you is to rest up

by Original Quill Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:00 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
This is not about me. That.

That is about as much relevance your views have on this thread

Your bias is pathetic and until you show some balance, this will be about how pathetic you are being here and hugely dishonest

You vclaimed there was no conflict, even I posted the evidence

You are a pathetic liar Quill

And you have the social/intellectual skills of a sloth. Like Trump, you are given legitimate warnings away from a certain path, and still you go back to it. Einstein said: ""Stupidity is doing same thing and expecting different results".

You are quick to anger. As I repeatedly taught my daughters, anger or panic (which is the same thing) shuts down your capacity to reason. It's a useless emotion. It usually means you are unable to reason; why else would you abandon the discussion?

You have said nothing that even relates to the discussion. Either shut up, or engage the subject.

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

That is about as much relevance your views have on this thread

Your bias is pathetic and until you show some balance, this will be about how pathetic you are being here and hugely dishonest

You vclaimed there was no conflict, even I posted the evidence

You are a pathetic liar Quill

You have said nothing that even relates to the discussion. Either shut up, or engage the subject.

Not quick to anger, just exposing your for lying

You claimed evidence around the brothers

It was a complete lie, as no media source made any such view or even the prosecution

You then lied claiming there was nothing posted from me on the conflict within the case for Foxx

You knew full well I posted articles on this and then made this thread a complete farce with your nonsense.

That is simple exposing your lying and providing possible explanations for your blatant lying here

by Original Quill Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:48 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You have said nothing that even relates to the discussion. Either shut up, or engage the subject.

Not quick to anger, just exposing your for lying

You claimed evidence around the brothers

It was a complete lie, as no media source made any such view or even the prosecution

You then lied claiming there was nothing posted from me on the conflict within the case for Foxx

You knew full well I posted articles on this and then made this thread a complete farce with your nonsense.

That is simple exposing your lying and providing possible explanations for your blatant lying here

You are an abusive bully. Every thread you enter, you end up hurling abuses at your adversary. When a thread deteriorates in such a way, it usually means you lack the intellectual capacity to carry on. So you resort to anger and bullying.

All of your discussions deteriorate in anger. If you don't have the capacity to discuss and analyze things—and I assure you that you do not--leave! You are incapable to distinguishing the post from the poster. We are better off without you.

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Not quick to anger, just exposing your for lying

You claimed evidence around the brothers

It was a complete lie, as no media source made any such view or even the prosecution

You then lied claiming there was nothing posted from me on the conflict within the case for Foxx

You knew full well I posted articles on this and then made this thread a complete farce with your nonsense.

That is simple exposing your lying and providing possible explanations for your blatant lying here

You are an abusive bully. Every thread you enter, you end up hurling abuses at your adversary. When a thread deteriorates in such a way, it usually means you lack the intellectual capacity to carry on. So you resort to anger and bullying.

All of your discussions deteriorate in anger. If you don't have the capacity to discuss and analyze things—and I assure you that you do not--leave! You are incapable to distinguishing the post from the poster. We are better off without you.

So that is now your third lie and no abuse has been thrown at you, hence your third lie

Nobody is bullying you, but exposing your lies

I am neither in anger, but bored at your constant lying

I am not going anywhere, so best you get used to that and your attempts at victimhood are hilarious

I suggest you stop telling porkies in threads, as that is what ruins them

Good luck with that

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:04 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

very interesting, i'm sure, quill

i was however referring to your claim that it was all dropped because of failed testimony. this is what i posted,,,,,

all you kept saying is ''the brother's testimony fell apart''.

how did it fall apart? on which part were they 'caught out'. where are the details of this failed testimony

and again, who would hush that up? and why?

can you answer that?

No. I was in the hospital, with no means to take notes as I normally do. I have never seen that particular interview again, although I have looked.

I guess someone thought it would inflame people like you, and they pulled it. Obviously they are right, so it was a prudent decision. As far as the outcome...it is what it is.

Lie number 4

You see Quill, I am not thje only one that thinks your are making things up on here, am I?

by Original Quill Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:19 pm

...repeat

by Original Quill Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:23 pm

phildidge wrote:That is about as much relevance your views have on this thread

Your bias is pathetic and until you show some balance, this will be about how pathetic you are being here and hugely dishonest

Dishonesty? Your stock in trade! You are good for one, and only one, entry. Then you lie and deceive so appear to be right.

phil wrote:You vclaimed there was no conflict, even I posted the evidence

You are a pathetic liar Quill

This is a case in point. You did not post or even discuss any conflict. You posted someone's conclusion of a conflict. In reality, you are incapable of even understanding conflict law.

Realizing this, you resort to deception, saying you have shown a conflict, when in fact you have only shown someone mentioning a conflict….the term. You couldn't explain it if you had to. So, in anger, you lie, cheat and deceive.

phildidge wrote:Not quick to anger, just exposing your for lying

You claimed evidence around the brothers

It was a complete lie, as no media source made any such view or even the prosecution

I explained it was a TV clip that was aired while I was in the hospital. Obviously, the source has pulled it.

But that’s not good enough for you. It angers you that there is a perfectly legitimate explanation. So you start your bulling and anger.

phildidge wrote:You then lied claiming there was nothing posted from me on the conflict within the case for Foxx

You knew full well I posted articles on this and then made this thread a complete farce with your nonsense.

There still is nothing. All you have posted is someone’s conclusory reporting.

A conflict of interest is: “a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust.”

You have failed to provide the ‘private interests’, as well as the ‘responsiblities’ at issue. You have deferred to someone else, who also failed to explain. Because you are a memorizer, not a reasoner, you have confused a conclusion from an explanation. You have memorized, but failed to process the subject.

phildidge wrote:That is simple exposing your lying and providing possible explanations for your blatant lying here

As a consequence, you are quick to resort to anger and use of words like ‘lying’ and ‘blatant lying’, as if the act of repeating yourself is some sort of support in your vacuousness.

Anger is your answer for any difficulty you have in your reasoning. You are incapable of intellectually processing. You are limited to memory, and condemned to not understanding.

by Syl Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:27 pm

Speaking of deliberately lying on the forum.....I'm happy to see Didges comment a while ago that I had drove you away Quill was a lie.
Turns out you were not posting because you were poorly at the time.

Telling deliberate Lies on the forum is never good.

by Original Quill Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:30 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No. I was in the hospital, with no means to take notes as I normally do. I have never seen that particular interview again, although I have looked.

I guess someone thought it would inflame people like you, and they pulled it. Obviously they are right, so it was a prudent decision. As far as the outcome...it is what it is.

Lie number 4

You see Quill, I am not thje only one that thinks your are making things up on here, am I?

Ignorant fool, posing and preening to make up for the lack of reasoning power. Typical narcissistic behavior.

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Lie number 4

You see Quill, I am not thje only one that thinks your are making things up on here, am I?

Ignorant fool, posing and preening to make up for the lack of reasoning power. Typical narcissistic behavior.

Well where is the above evidence for your claim, to the mythical interview you ionvented in your head?

To then claim they pulled it. Based on damning evidence clearly Jussie, makes zero sense. As every left wing media would have been all over this with a rash, would they not?

Hence lie number 4

by Original Quill Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:33 pm

Syl wrote:Speaking of deliberately lying on the forum.....I'm happy to see Didges comment a while ago that I had drove you away Quill was a lie.
Turns out you were not posting because you were poorly at the time.

Telling deliberate Lies on the forum is never good.

Of course you didn't drive me away. Though we often differ, you and I share a bond of open and honest communication.

That was phil trying to play wedge politics. He is easily bested intellectually, so he invents devices by which to attack.

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:34 pm

Syl wrote:Speaking of deliberately lying on the forum.....I'm happy to see Didges comment a while ago that I had drove you away Quill was a lie.
Turns out you were not posting because you were poorly at the time.

Telling deliberate Lies on the forum is never good.

I was right with Wolf and wrong with Quill

That was not lying but mistaken.

I assumed based off Wolf

Nice try at trying to imflame though.

It wont work

by Syl Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Speaking of deliberately lying on the forum.....I'm happy to see Didges comment a while ago that I had drove you away Quill was a lie.
Turns out you were not posting because you were poorly at the time.

Telling deliberate Lies on the forum is never good.

Of course you didn't drive me away. Though we often differ, you and I share a bond of open and honest communication.

That was phil trying to play wedge politics. He is easily bested intellectually, so he invents devices by which to attack.

Thanks Quill..
I wasn't going to mention it but as the name 'Liar' is getting banded about a lot in this thread....well I did.

Back to topic.

by Original Quill Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:36 pm

phildidge wrote:
Syl wrote:Speaking of deliberately lying on the forum.....I'm happy to see Didges comment a while ago that I had drove you away Quill was a lie.
Turns out you were not posting because you were poorly at the time.

Telling deliberate Lies on the forum is never good.

I was right with Wolf and wrong with Quill

That was not lying but mistaken.

I assumed based off Wolf

Nice try at trying to imflame though.

It wont work

What does wolf have to do with it? God, you are such a shit-stirrer...making up for loss of intellectual capacity.

by Sponsored content