Cook County prosecutors drop all charges against 'Empire' actor Jussie Smollett

  • Thread starter Thread starter ProVobis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Replace Smollett with Trump. It is still a true statement.
Click to expand...
Not really,
The Smollett prosecutors said they wanted to do other things, not that they didn’t have evidence of a crime. Everyone agrees there is plenty of evidence Smollett committed crimes.
Click to expand...
And the Mueller prosecutors said, … well, we don’t know yet, do we? Except that it is not a total exoneration. They did say that.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
And the Mueller prosecutors said, … well, we don’t know yet, do we? Except that it is not a total exoneration. They did say that.
Click to expand...
Right, the Mueller prosecutors said they didn’t uncover evidence. It may be out there, they just didn’t find it.

That’s the complete opposite of the SMollett case, where they were handed significant evidence by the Police.

You seem to be ignoring the basic facts so to push an agenda. Ever considered a job as a journalist?
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Mueller prosecutors said they didn’t uncover evidence
Click to expand...
I believe Mueller reported there was evidence on both sides, or something to that effect. We need big time clarification. Or at least the House does.
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
I believe Mueller reported there was evidence on both sides, or something to that effect. We need big time clarification. Or at least the House does.
Click to expand...
The only fair analogy with Smollett was when they dropped the investigation into Hillary, where the enforcement branch also confirmed evidence was clearly available of wrong doing but didn’t feel it should be pursued as a prosecution.
 
Yes I remember Comey stating something to that effect, only to resume investigations in late October.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
And the Mueller prosecutors said, … well, we don’t know yet, do we? Except that it is not a total exoneration. They did say that.
Click to expand...
Right, the Mueller prosecutors said they didn’t uncover evidence.
Click to expand...
No they didn’t say that. Read it again. “We did find sufficient evidence…for such and such”
 
Theo520 said:
evidence was clearly available of wrong doing but didn’t feel it should be pursued as a prosecution.
Click to expand...
Given the open question on obstruction in the Mueller report - as we know it so far - the came could be same appears to be true on this case. Moreover, at the level of “wrong doing” this idea probably also applies to collusion.

As George Conway put it:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
and with both Smollett and HRC, where was sufficient evidence.
They chose not to prosecute due to other reasons, not a lack of evidence.
 
dvdjs said:
Evidence of what?
Click to expand...
read, do your own research
You are more than capable of reviewing the old threads here.
I am not your google assistant and you are bright enough to go with the discussion
 
Theo520 said:
read, do your own research
Click to expand...
I have. What I want to know is what, precisely you are claiming. So allow me to rephrase.
What is it that you bleive that the FBI had evidence of?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Replace Smollett with Trump. It is still a true statement.
Click to expand...
Lol. No it’s not. In one case, a two year investigation came up with no evidence that anyone on Trump’s staff or Trump himself in any way conspired with Russian agents to rig the 2016 election. If you are still clinging to that, then you are simply mad that you didn’t get the outcome you wanted. Which is sad that you wanted the President of the United States to be a forgeign agent because you don’t like his politics.

On the other hand, the police had more than enough evidence that Smollett staged his own “hate crime” assault on his person. We know this because several key pieces of evidence were reported on, released by the police in the course of the investigation. We know that the police made a deal with the Nigerian brothers, and they confessed that Smollett hired them to stage the attack. We know that they bought the rope, balaclavas, and bleach at a hardware store because the police had the receipts, had testimony from the store owner, video evidence, and the confession of the brothers. The police also found all of these items in their apartment. The police also had the check, signed by Smollett, paying the brothers for the assault. They also have texts and calls between himself and the brothers coordinating it. They mayor said the grand jury indicted him on 16 counts on just a piece of the evidence they had against him. It is an open and shut case, but the Crook County Attorney simply decided not to press charges after some back room deals and had the files sealed. The same attoney’s Office that tried to interfere in the investigation illegally. The same attorney’s office that the Chicago Police have now filed a formal complaint against and a request for an investigation into stemming from this move. The only one still pretending that Smollett did not do it is Smollett himself. There is no comparison.
 
It’s relative, though. You have to be richer than a government entity bent on sending you to jail. Smollett apparently was. Manafort wasn’t.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
with no evidence that anyone on Trump’s staff or Trump himself in any way conspired with Russian agents to rig the 2016 election.
Click to expand...
Then why the need for all the lying and conflicting stories by many of Trump aides? Why the need for redactions in the reports? Why the need for secret sessions in Congress? Why was Trump able to get out of testifying under oath? We know Trump had to know about the dirt surrounding his opponent. But it appears we don’t know when he found out it was stolen. So no airtight case but no exoneration either. Perhaps the same with Smollett?
 
Last edited:
Remember, we also have to know the funds available to the prosecutors to make the comparison. I don’t think the Chicago prosecutor had the whole U.S. budget to draw on like Mueller did.
 
I think the difference really is that there’s no evidence of Trump or any of his campaign people doing anything illegal with the Russians related to the election or, seemingly, related to anything else. Yes, Mueller has indicted a bunch of Russians for alleged election interference, but no Americans. Manafort was indicted for his relationship with Ukraine, not Russia. Flynn for supposedly lying. Papadopoulos case sounds crazier every time something new is said about it. Apparently he was the target of a trap laid for him by the FBI. It was intended to catch his whole leg, but only got his toes.

With Smollett it’s pretty plain the PD, the mayor and apparently the prosecutors really had evidence on him. That’s a big difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top