P
ProVobis
Guest
The prosecutor didn’t meet with all the attacking tweets by Trump either. I don’t know what that proves, though.
Cook County prosecutors drop all charges against 'Empire' actor Jussie Smollett
- Status
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I was told by someone working in the law that it isn’t uncommon for a first time offender to be able to enter a trial deferment program and not get a felony provided they can pay for it. Sometimes it is as lot as $500 usd. But some people can’t afford that and take the felony.
P
ProVobis
Guest
This was one of the criticisms leveled against Mueller, that he didn’t go after his son who was at the center of the meeting with the Russians. Too sensitive would be my guess.
P
Peebo
Guest
A “whitewash” of justice…guess you couldn’t call it a “blackwash” of justice…there’d be rioting…looting and burning in the streets
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Lot of truth to that. In my state, the “Ferguson experience” led to the legislature setting limitations on what city courts and prosecutors can do. One of the limitations was the amount of fine for certain things. As an unintended result, prosecutors are LESS willing to enter into plea bargain agreements for people who probably need a good lesson but not the full weight of the law.
A good example is DWI or DUI as it’s called elsewhere. The fine cap for cities is $500.00 plus costs and they can be given jail time, though jail is rarely given. If the prosecutor reduces the charge, the cap is $225.00, including costs and the city has to offer community service in lieu of jail. A lot of municipalities don’t want to do community service because they’re liable if the defendant gets hurt while doing it.
So what do prosecutors do? If they can’t find an offense that isn’t subject to the $225 cap, they just go ahead with the DWI. That charge is progressive in Mo. Second time is mandatory jail and the third is a felony, charged in the county.
Knowing all of that, police often paste a defendant with a blizzard of tickets they wouldn’t otherwise charge a defendant with because they want to give the prosecutor a way to do something more fitting with what the defendant did. Problem is, if the prosecutor doesn’t want to work all of that out and the defendant isn’t represented, he/she can really get nailed.
A good example is DWI or DUI as it’s called elsewhere. The fine cap for cities is $500.00 plus costs and they can be given jail time, though jail is rarely given. If the prosecutor reduces the charge, the cap is $225.00, including costs and the city has to offer community service in lieu of jail. A lot of municipalities don’t want to do community service because they’re liable if the defendant gets hurt while doing it.
So what do prosecutors do? If they can’t find an offense that isn’t subject to the $225 cap, they just go ahead with the DWI. That charge is progressive in Mo. Second time is mandatory jail and the third is a felony, charged in the county.
Knowing all of that, police often paste a defendant with a blizzard of tickets they wouldn’t otherwise charge a defendant with because they want to give the prosecutor a way to do something more fitting with what the defendant did. Problem is, if the prosecutor doesn’t want to work all of that out and the defendant isn’t represented, he/she can really get nailed.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
What crime did Jr commit? It’s not illegal to talk to a Russian. It’s not illegal to talk to a Russian who claims to have dirt on a political opponent. It’s not even illegal when the Russian actually has dirt and gives it to you.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t know. I never bought into the collusion or conspiracy theory. I don’t believe either Junior or Senior initiated any crimes any more than Nixon ordered any breakin. But what finally put Nixon away was not a report but a tape admitting a coverup. Can we rule out a coverup here?
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Well several of the people involved very clearly broke some laws unrelated to the investigation, like tax evasion. Some lied because they are idiots. What none of them did was cover up evidence that they or the president collaborated with the Russian government to throw the election. Why are you so convinced that they did, in the face of Mueller, whom everyone calling for the president to be impeached claimed was an impeccable prosecutor, reporting that no such evidence existed? Furthermore, “no exonoration” is either ignorance of how the justice system works or a deliberate attempt to mislead by whoever you are hearing that from. Prosecutors do not “exonerate”. They gather evidence and either their is not evidence of a crime or there is and they bring a case. One is only “exonerated” if they were actually charged with a crime and it was overturned.
As such, Mueller cannot “exonerate” Trump, he can merely state that there is a lack of evidence showing any kind of conspiracy. That is not a sly way of saying “he probably did it but we can’t prove it” and if you are reading it that way your are just reading your own biases into the statement.
None of this is the case with Smollett. There is copious amounts of evidence that Smollett is guilty as sin. In fact the police just released a few files documenting some of their evidence before the gag order came into effect. In fact even the prosecutor said he is guilty as sin. They just decided that they would count him answering phones for Jesse Jackson several months ago as punishment enough and not pursue the charges. This whole situation stinks and begs a lot of questions, which is why the police department has asked for a federal investigation. Such as, why were the records ordered sealed? Smollett is not a minor. None of this has anything to do with national security. Why does he get special treatment? Why was the case totally wiped from the system like it never even happened? Why was Kim Foxx trying to interfere in the investigation? Why was Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff asked to become involved on behalf of Smollett anyways? What deal was made to drop the charges? This whole thing is extremely damaging to the credibility of the Chicago justice system and the chief of police knows it.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Yeah but that usually entails admitting your guilt. Jussie Smollett is still going around claiming not only that he was attacked by two white guys wearing MAGA hats, but also that the whole investigation into it being a false report and staged crime was further persecution of his person. To the point that he and his lawyer have publicly stated that they might sue the Chicago Police Department for treating him unfairly!
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
That would be my guess. A “coverup” would be an “obstruction of justice”. I don’t think Mueller directly said “there has been no obstruction” in this report, but he has said it previously and I think the total lack of evidence for it supports it.
Trump can, I think, be legitimately criticized for a number of things. But not “collusion with Russia” or “obstruction of justice.”
Trump can, I think, be legitimately criticized for a number of things. But not “collusion with Russia” or “obstruction of justice.”
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I think lieing to the police and reporting a7_Sorrows:
I was told by someone working in the law that it isn’t uncommon for a first time offender to be able to enter a trial deferment program and not get a felony provided they can pay for it. Sometimes it is as lot as $500 usd. But some people can’t afford that and take the felony.
fake hoax crime is pretty serious. Especially when they supposedly have the
evidence.
Why is it okay to create a hoax pointing the finger at Trump supporters?
What about equal justice?
Hoax hate crimes should never be treated
lightly. Me thinks Jussie Smollett got
special treatment which sends a very bad
message.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
There are people that have taken actions that have resulted in the death of others that have been able to take advantage of such programs. I onoly see it as special treatment insofoar as people that are ofo low economic means are not able to afford taking advantage of such programs on a first offense.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I really think creating and pulling off a fake hoax crime that included not being truthful with the police over and over
and making yourself a victim to further
your career and smearing part of our country that supports our President in order to further the lie they are racists and anti-gay goes beyond being considered a
first offense. This is major serious.
and making yourself a victim to further
your career and smearing part of our country that supports our President in order to further the lie they are racists and anti-gay goes beyond being considered a
first offense. This is major serious.
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
No what was stated was there were no no collusion therefore there was no obstruction of justice.No crime to obstruct
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I don’t think that is a requirement of “obstruction of justice”. If an investigation is obstructed, it does not matter if that investigation was about to uncover a crime or not. And collusion with Russia is not the only possible crime here.
D
dvdjs
Guest
That is a legal theory mentioned by some. But is a theory full of wholes. Consider one form of obstruction: jury tampering. If you threaten or bribe or otherwise tamper with a juror hearing your case, you are clearly guilty of obstruction whether or not you were guilty of the crime for which you are being tried.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
First, he’s not a first offender. He was caught lying to the Police before, when he was arrested for a DUI. He lied about who he was.
Second, this plea deal doesn’t follow the normal deferment program as other plea deals. I also think because of the media attention they should have sent a sterner warning that it’s not OK to fake hate crimes.
T
tomarin
Guest
Why anyone is ‘going to bat’ for this shameless low-life is beyond me. He deserves to be treated like a pariah as far as I’m concerned.
Last edited:
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
That’s a plea deal. Pre trial diversion doesn’t require a plea.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m no expert at this, but this sounds like a “dismissal” to me, not a “deferral”. My understanding is that, from the prosecutor’s standpoint at least, a dismissal is final. It might be with prejudice or without. If with prejudice, it can’t be brought up again. A deferral is when the prosecutor says, basically, that it’s not final but can be brought up again at any time if the prosecutor decides the defendant has violated some condition or other of the deferral. It is my further understanding that a deferral is an agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant.
But it might be different in Illinois and I could be wrong anyway.
- Status