Image 01 Image 03

Charges Dropped Against Jussie Smollett in Chicago

Charges Dropped Against Jussie Smollett in Chicago

He will surrender his $10,000 bond.

Cook County prosecutors have decided to drop disorderly charges against Empire actor Jussie Smollett “for allegedly staging a phony attack and claiming he was the victim of a hate crime.” More from TMZ:

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

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

A source close to Jussie says the prosecution’s case “disintegrated.” As we reported, there were issues with the $3,500 check the 2 brothers received from Jussie. The Police Superintendent had said the money was payment for the fake attack, but it appears it was actually for physical training.

Police, Rahm Emanuel Reaction

The Chicago Police Department and Mayor Rahm Emanuel held a press conference to discuss the Smollett situation. They did not mince words.

From Fox News:

“Where is the accountability in the system? You cannot have because of a person’s position one set of rules applies to them and another set of rules apply to everyone else,” Emanuel fumed, relating the ruling to the nationwide college admissions cheating scandal that broke earlier this month.

“Our officers did hard work day in and day out, countless hours workign to unwind what actually happened that night. The city saw its reputation dragged through the mud … It’s not just the officers’ work, but the work of the grand jury that made a decision based on only a sliver of the evidence [presented],” he continued. “Because of the judge’s decision, none of that evidence will ever be made public.”

“[This case] sends a clear message that if you’re in a position of influence and power youll be treated one way and if youre not youll be treated another way,” he said.

Smollett Press Conference

Here is the press conference:

His attorney Patricia Brown Holmes told the press that Illinois “the state made a motion to drop the charges against Jussie Smollett and to seal the record in this case.” She explained the decision is “not part of a deferred prosecution” and “no deal” exists.

Here’s an interesting tidbit. Holmes also said that “state’s attorney’s office dropped the charges on their own.” So, if I connect the dots, the office decided to do this without talking to the Chicago Police Department and Smollett’s attorneys?

Here is Smollett’s statement via CBS Chicago:

“I would not be my mothers son if I was capable of doing what I was accused of,” Smollett said after prosecutors dropped all the charges. “I’d like nothing more than to just get back to work and move on with my life, but make no mistakes I will always continue to fight for the justice, equality, and betterment of marginalized people everywhere.”

“I want you to know that not for a moment was it in vain, 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. This has been an incredibly difficult time, honestly one of the worst of my entire life, but I am a man of a faith and I am a man that has knowledge of my history and I would not bring my family, our lives, or the movement through a fire like this. I just wouldn’t,” he said.

Previous Reporting

Smollett faced 16 counts of disorderly conduct for allegedly filing a false police report. The judge granted a motion to seal the case.

State Attorney Kim Foxx released this statement:

“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollet’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.”

TMZ reported that Foxx, told Chicago police she was dropping the case because Jussie would have only gotten community service if convicted and she said he has already performed community service so there is no point in prosecuting him.

However, no one knows when he performed community service. Chicago’s FOX 32 anchor Rafer Weigel even seems confused over the community service portion.

Sources told TMZ this move has left the Chicago Police Department “‘furious’ and feel something untoward is going on with Kim Foxx.”

ABC 7 Chicago also printed statements from Smollett’s attorneys:

“Today, all criminal charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped and his record has been wiped clean of the filing of this tragic complaint against him. Jussie was attacked by two people he was unable to identify on January 29th. He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public causing an inappropriate rush to judgement.

Jussie and many others were hurt by these unfair and unwarranted actions. This entire situation is a reminder that there should never be an attempt to prove a case in the court of public opinion. That is wrong. It is a reminder that a victim, in this case Jussie, deserves dignity and respect. Dismissal of charges against the victim in this case was the only just result.

Jussie is relieved to have this situation behind him and is very much looking forward to getting back to focusing on his family, friends and career.”

Here is the statement from Smollett’s family:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Ah! Justice at last!

It’s Chicago-town, Jake.

    rangered in reply to MrSatyre. | March 26, 2019 at 12:40 pm

    My first thoughts, too. Its Chicago-town, Jake.

    But who is going to tie this to Barr’s refusal to prosecute on Obstruction. I guarantee the connection will be made.

    OnTheLeftCoast in reply to MrSatyre. | March 26, 2019 at 4:05 pm

    It’s Chi-town, but the Daley machine is moribund. Smollett’s skating proves, in case there was any question, that the Obama machine runs the city now and will preside over (and no doubt profit from) the collapse. Including the the the demographic collapse:

    “The number of Americans moving into Illinois has hit new lows. Net foreign immigration has fallen by half. And the number of births has dropped by more than 20 percent.

    These demographic forces have all combined into a single troubling fact: Illinois is shrinking. The state has lost population five years in a row. In 2018 alone, the state lost 45,000 people, the second-biggest population drop in the country.”

    Even the illegals prefer to go somewhere else.

After the scathing speech by the police chief, this outcome seems to be, dare I say it, a white-wash. So much for Chicago’s much reported outrage. Next step…a full apology by the politician’s. I wonder if jussie agreed not to sue? I doubt it.

This clown and all the SJW morons who egged him on were flirting with racial riots and the death and destruction that come with them. All in the name of agitation in pursuit of their neo-Marxist agenda. Sickening that they’re getting away with it (again).

    Concise in reply to Paul. | March 26, 2019 at 12:15 pm

    It’s even worse than that. Apparently there are still 2 MAGA hat wearing thugs prowling Chicago looking for their next victim. Now Chicago will live under same fear as LA, who still has yet to locate the murderer of OJ Simpson’s wife.

I recall the claim the two men were physical trainers… I guess they felt they couldn’t disprove it in court enough, or it provides a good pretext but… ah, I must take issue with TMZ.

Didn’t Kim Foxx recuse herself in regards to this matter? That was public knowledge, you can Google it easily. Her office may have issued the statement, but wasn’t someone else making the decision? Or did they backtrack from that?

    Conan in reply to JBourque. | March 26, 2019 at 12:00 pm

    Why do they have to even prove the payment if they can prove the actual hoax?

    Are you telling me there is no case unless you find the money in this case?

    I doubt the cash payment is found in a drug deal everytime but if you have the drugs that is enough for example.

    Big distraction to say the case is nothing without the check. Big head fake.

      I’d like to know too, but it’s probably at least in part an “intent” argument. And yes that’s very James Comey. If I knew a real answer I’d be telling, not asking…

      Milhouse in reply to Conan. | March 26, 2019 at 12:50 pm

      Without the payment, how do they prove he was involved in the hoax? How could a jury know that the Nigerians didn’t do this for some mysterious reason of their own, and Smollett’s report that they were white wasn’t merely an innocent mistake?

        Concise in reply to Milhouse. | March 26, 2019 at 1:55 pm

        Are you serious? My first impression was that this was a little sarcastic humor on your part but I’m not sure given your subsequent comment.

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | March 26, 2019 at 5:57 pm

          Of course I’m serious. How do you prove he was involved in the hoax? The evidence was the payment, but if he claims that was training fees then how do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn’t?

          heyjoojoo in reply to Concise. | March 26, 2019 at 7:00 pm

          He’s not serious. No one could possibly make that big of a blunder by deducing such nonsense.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | March 26, 2019 at 9:54 pm

          Uh, the two Nigerian trainers are on video tape buying the rope and bleach before the attack. Maybe this was work-out gear? They were also cooperating with the police and I believe they testified before the grand jury.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | March 26, 2019 at 10:00 pm

          Small correction the tape may only show them buying the masks and hat. The rope was purchased at a different store. But still can’t imagine the need for a mask in their physical training but maybe my imagination isn’t that good.

          Barry in reply to Concise. | March 26, 2019 at 10:36 pm

          “…but if he claims that was training fees then how do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn’t?”

          Geez, how about having the two dudes he paid on the stand testifying they were paid to make the fake attack, with video evidence of them purchasing the materials used in the attack, with video evidence they were the “attackers”, that it would be impossible for Smollet to not recognize the pair even though he told the police it was white guys shouting MAGA.

          I believe that easily passes the reasonable doubt test unless you are a dumb bastard.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | March 26, 2019 at 11:35 pm

          Convinces me. He knew these guys. Knew their voices. Did they have accents? He claimed his attackers were white and that they shouted racial and homophobic slurs. Doesn’t pass laugh test.

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | March 27, 2019 at 2:23 am

          Uh, the two Nigerian trainers are on video tape buying the rope and bleach before the attack. Maybe this was work-out gear?

          We already know they did it. How does this prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was in on it?

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | March 27, 2019 at 2:29 am

          Geez, how about having the two dudes he paid on the stand testifying they were paid to make the fake attack

          Except they won’t say that. They claim the money was for training. Now where’s your evidence otherwise? We all know what happened, but how do you prove it to a neutral finder of fact beyond reasonable doubt?

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | March 27, 2019 at 2:35 am

          He knew these guys. Knew their voices. Did they have accents? He claimed his attackers were white and that they shouted racial and homophobic slurs. Doesn’t pass laugh test.

          It’s not up to him to prove he wasn’t involved; it’s up to the prosecution to prove he was, beyond reasonable doubt. Even if you can convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he recognized his attackers and lied about it, which he will deny, that doesn’t prove his involvement. At most it amounts to making a false report, and it would be hard to prove even that.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | March 27, 2019 at 11:09 am

          Milhouse, they confessed to the police. Is there any grand jury testimony? Do you think those 2 idiots are going to perjury themselves? And smollett still insists he was completely truthful; that he was attached by 2 white guys yelling “this is MAGA country.” Do you really believe Smollett would have subjected himself to cross-examination? But you certainly are courageous to be the only person in America (the world?, the known universe?) to believe the prosecution acted properly. I doubt even smollett believes that.

          heyjoojoo in reply to Concise. | March 27, 2019 at 12:00 pm

          Bingo! They were instructed to not perjure themselves.

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | March 27, 2019 at 12:38 pm

          Milhouse, they confessed to the police. Is there any grand jury testimony? Do you think those 2 idiots are going to perjury themselves?

          They never said the payment was for the hoax. On the contrary they insist it was for training, as does he. So how are you going to prove otherwise? And without the payment where’s the proof of his involvement? The attackers’ word?!

          And smollett still insists he was completely truthful; that he was attached by 2 white guys yelling “this is MAGA country.” Do you really believe Smollett would have subjected himself to cross-examination?

          He wouldn’t have to. You don’t seem to understand that a defendant has no need to prove his innocence. The prosecutor must prove his guilt, and must do so beyond reasonable doubt; but without proof that the payment was for this purpose I don’t see how that can be done. The payment was supposedly the smoking gun, but now it’s gone.

          But you certainly are courageous to be the only person in America (the world?, the known universe?) to believe the prosecution acted properly. I doubt even smollett believes that.

          So tell us exactly how you would go about proving his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, without using the payment.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | March 27, 2019 at 1:20 pm

          Wow. Yeah, I guess the jury could choose to believe the white guy MAGA attack theory. Or they could believe the hoax version organized by Smollett and confessed to by 2 participants, substantiated with corroborating evidence.

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | March 27, 2019 at 3:09 pm

          You still don’t seem to understand that there doesn’t need to be another theory. The explosion of the “White guy MAGA attack theory” is irrelevant. The question is what evidence exists that Smollett was involved in the hoax, and without the payment there isn’t much.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | March 27, 2019 at 5:56 pm

          Apart from the confessions of those 2 putzes, the video tape evidence, and any other evidence presented to the grand jury, you’re right, they’ve got nothing. And my point in noting,facetiously I admit, the white guy MAGA theory, is just that there is really no other reasonable explanation for this hoax but that it was orchestrated by Smollett for whatever gain he thought he could make out of it.

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | March 28, 2019 at 2:45 am

          And you still don’t seem to understand that there doesn’t need to be another theory. The prosecution has to prove its case with positive evidence; the defense doesn’t have to prove anything at all. Exploding the White Guy MAGA theory does nothing to advance the Smollett Organized It theory. That you can’t think of any other reasonable explanation is not evidence, and a jury can’t use it to convict him. The payment was supposed to be the smoking gun, but he has an alternative explanation for it that can’t be proven false, so what else is there?

          Concise in reply to Concise. | March 28, 2019 at 11:37 am

          Don’t quite understand why you keep arguing that I believe the defense has to affirmative prove something. I guess you’re just being argumentative or believe this undermines any opposing position. Also, don’t quite understand why you believe the confessions/evidence provided by those 2 schmucks is of no consequence. And, really don’t understand why, in assessing the credibility of any testimony, the jury might just reason that the story of offered by those witness/participants is (notwithstanding that they are schmucks) quite compelling and truthful, given that there is no other reasonable explanation, at least in this plane of existence (unless there is a mirror universe out there where the opposite is true).

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | March 29, 2019 at 1:47 am

          I keep arguing that you believe the defense has to affirmative prove something because you keep bringing up the explosion of the White Guy MAGA story as if it damages his defense.

          But the fact that he wasn’t attacked by white Trump supporters doesn’t prove he was in on it. He doesn’t have to present an alternative theory. The default theory which the jury must go with unless the prosecution disproves it is simply that the Nigerians did it for mysterious reasons of their own. Smollett doesn’t even have to say that; even if he were to present no defense the judge would have to tell the jury to take it as the default. The payment was supposed to be the big evidence, but it’s gone.

          Of course we all know what happened, and the jurors would know it too, but in the jury room they would have to forget it and look only at the evidence.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | March 29, 2019 at 12:11 pm

          I see my error now. I was not pointing out that the confessions of those two morons, together with all corroborating evidence and any other evidence uncovered in this investigation, actually proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this whole matter was a hoax orchestrated by Mr. Smollett. No I was actually claiming that Smollett had to produce 2 Caucasian MAGA hat-wearing thugs to prove his innocence. How ignorant and naive I was. Thanks Milhouse. I can see now that the Chicago prosecutors acted in the highest interests of the law and their profession. I apologize to them as well.

        RodFC in reply to Milhouse. | March 27, 2019 at 9:40 am

        Good question. I asked it myself initially but quickly dismissed it.

        Forensic accounting. Criminals have been laundering money for a long time. Prosecutors have gotten good at ferrting it out, and I doubt that Smollet was as sophisticated as mob accountants.

        By itself, it would not be proof of a crime, but they could present the fact that money transferred that he claimed was for training, but which was not for training. If there was other evidence it could be a big problem.

        Of course we will never see what that other evidence was.

          Milhouse in reply to RodFC. | March 27, 2019 at 12:41 pm

          Forensic accounting is irrelevant, because there’s no dispute that the payment was made. The question is its purpose, and accounting is no help there. How can you possibly prove it wasn’t for training, when it’s already established beyond all doubt that they were his trainers, and he did pay them for that service?

        Char Char Binks in reply to Milhouse. | March 27, 2019 at 11:06 am

        It only has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the doubts are not reasonable. I guess we’ll never know how a jury would decide.

          If you think the doubts are not reasonable then you should be able to explain exactly what is the evidence of his involvement, now that you can no longer use the payment.

      Arminius in reply to Conan. | March 26, 2019 at 12:54 pm

      It wasn’t a cash payment. Smollett paid with a check for $3500 with a promise of another $500 in cash afterword.

      This payment shouldn’t be hard to prove.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | March 26, 2019 at 12:57 pm

        The fact of the payment is not disputed, but what it was for is. He says it was training fees.

          Training fees….I am reminded of the (probably apocryphal) story about the minister who was caught in a house of ill repute with his trousers around his ankles. When asked why a man of the cloth was in such a situation, he replied he was only there to provide “spiritual counseling” to the (ahem) (cough) working girls.

          At any rate, since there will be no trial by county prosecutors we will probably never find out what the payment was actually for. Smollett and his media defenders will go on proclaiming his innocence and that he was the victim of a racist homophobic attack. And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasi, ah, Eastasia.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 26, 2019 at 5:59 pm

          They were his personal trainers. He did pay them for that. That’s how they met. Now he paid them to set up this hoax, but how do you propose proving it beyond reasonable doubt?

          heyjoojoo in reply to Milhouse. | March 26, 2019 at 6:58 pm

          You sound like you were there overseeing the $3500 payment.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 26, 2019 at 7:51 pm

          How so, you idiot?

          heyjoojoo in reply to Milhouse. | March 26, 2019 at 10:17 pm

          Easy. You weren’t there. You don’t know what the payment was for, clod.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 27, 2019 at 2:37 am

          So you are an idiot. I did not claim to know what the payment was for. I know what he and the Nigerians claim it was for. How do you propose proving beyond reasonable doubt that they’re lying?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 27, 2019 at 2:39 am

          Idiot, there is no doubt and nobody disputes that they were his trainers, and that he paid them for training. The only question is what this payment was for. To convict him the prosecutors would have to prove it was for the hoax and not for training. How could they possibly do that?

          heyjoojoo in reply to Milhouse. | March 27, 2019 at 12:03 pm

          You did here what CNN does everyday. Try to convey ‘your truth’ like you were there. And when you get called on it, your intelligence drops further to name calling. So, apparently, I struck gold here.

          [hi-five bud]

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 27, 2019 at 12:46 pm

          You did here what CNN does everyday. Try to convey ‘your truth’ like you were there.

          I did no such thing. It’s the fact that you think I did that shows you to be an idiot.

Someone’s palms are greasier than usual.

Nothing to see here…no cover up! Move along…

Is this the same prosecutor who was being investigated for interference on behalf of Michelle Obama…hmmm!

“The Chicago Fraternal Order of Police has requested that the Department of Justice open an investigation into Cook County state’s attorney Kim Foxx’s handling of the Jussie Smollett hate-crime-hoax case.” National Review Mr. 19th

Oh it is…move along!

Chicago Justice. The perks of protected status. Lady Justice is deaf, dumb and blind…and ..on the take.

However as seen below being an unprotected (even though progressive) rich white means the law is the law.

Progressive cities are no-go zones for the non-protected classes.

Nothing ever changes in Chicago. The leaders of that city do not even make an attempt to make a political fix APPEAR justified.

Smollett was not charged with “disorderly conduct” because he lied to police about the nature of this incident. Now, if he did not lie, and the DA did not say that he did not lie to police, then his statements were factual and the brothers, who admitted to taking part in the incident, committed a criminal battery. They should be charged and tried. If Smollett DID lie to the police, then he committed at least one provable felony and he should be tried.

In the normal course of business, a person, facing felony charges, would be tried. If convicted he would then be sentenced. The same is true if he entered a guilty plea. If no jail time is prescribed, then there is usually a period of probation. Upon successful completion of the probation, the conviction may be expunged and the record sealed. In this case, however, the state DROPPED the charges for a one time cash payment of $10,000, without any adjudication of guilt. So, the monetary payment can not be classified as a fine. This sounds a lot like government extortion.

Business as usual in the Windy City.

    Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | March 26, 2019 at 11:56 am

    Sorry, the sentence, “Smollett was not charged with “disorderly conduct” because he lied to police about the nature of this incident.”, should read, “Smollett was not charged with “disorderly conduct” because he was accosted in the street, but because he lied to police about the nature of this incident.”

One of the criteria for prosecuting is the probability of obtaining a guilty jury verdict. (rightfully or wrongfully).

It would be near impossible to get an unbiased jury pool in Chicago and obtain a conviction

Unfortunately same deal works for Hilary – never going to get an unbiased jury pool.

Same reason OJ wasnt found guilty.

    Mac45 in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 26, 2019 at 12:00 pm

    This why we have a change of venue. When there is a reasonable chance that a jury pool, in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred, is hopelessly contaminated, the trial can be moved to another jurisdiction. These are state felony charges, not local ordinance violations and, therefor, can be heard anywhere in the state of Illinois.

      Joe-dallas in reply to Mac45. | March 26, 2019 at 4:29 pm

      What judge is going to grant a change of venue when the defense opposes the change of venue –

        Mac45 in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 26, 2019 at 8:27 pm

        It happens. Usually, when it proves impossible to actually seat an unbiased jury.

        But, what the argument that the prosecution could not get a conviction in Chicago implies is that the criminal justice system is fixed. You have two people who admitted to assisting Smollett and being the two people present at the time of the reported attack. And, there seems to be no reason for them to lie about that. Nor, does there appear to be any motive, other than the one they provided, for them to attack him. Rope, matching the rope composing the noose around Smollett’s neck, was found in their apartment. No w/m’s were seen anywhere on ay of the videos from the area, during the time of the alleged attacks. And, it is simply incredible that Smollett would mistake two very dark skinned men, both of whom he is acquainted with, for unknown white males.

        No, if the prosecution can not seat a jury in Cook County, which is likely to convict on at least one count of lying to the police about this incident. This is just an excuse, which is being floated to justify this decision not to prosecute Smollett.

How could anyone say that there’s a racial component to this when the prosecutor, judge and defendant are all black? I’m sure that tomorrow Second City Cop will have the back story from the police department perspective. He’s not much of a fan of Kim Foxx, I can tell you.

On the bright side he still faces federal charges from mailing himself a threatening letter with white powder in it.

    Arminius in reply to Arminius. | March 26, 2019 at 12:59 pm

    I looked into it. The FBI and the US Postal Inspector’s Service confirmed on Feb 19 that they had opened an investigation. They have the letter and it was being analyzed at a crime lab at the time. Both the FBI and USPIS refused to comment further.

    Just over one month is too early to expect results. But I hope they nail this smug liar. And Kim Foxx. And Michelle Obama and her former chief of staff because this is what obstruction of justice looks like.

Forfeiting his 10K bail, well he got off cheap. Wonder if there were “contributions” made elsewhere?

It really was the only thing left to do. After all, orangemanbad was set free and a message had to be sent to Racist Mullier.

I applaud the democrat prosecutors. I had thought there were no more new lows, no more new ways to completely disgrace themselves and the profession. I was wrong. Well played.

    This puts Chicago on the line for a massive civil lawsuit, I take it? By Jussie Smollett, I mean.

      Milhouse in reply to JBourque. | March 27, 2019 at 2:41 am

      No. If he were to sue, the onus would be on him to prove his innocence, not on the city to prove his guilt. By the preponderance of the evidence, but still.

buckeyeminuteman | March 26, 2019 at 12:19 pm

Bullcrap. When people make up false allegations that turn out to be not true, they should then be found guilty of the same crime. An allegation of rape (or assault) can ruin a not-guilty person’s life. It should work in reverse as well.

    Not if he didn’t accuse anybody. A claim that “some white person” or “some black person” did it can’t ruin anyone’s life unless the police arrest some random person and the “victim” doesn’t immediately say they got the wrong person.

I’m still waiting for my white privilege to kick in.

Hmm, Michelle Obama got involved. Fox News: “Doubt was cast on the open-and-shut nature of the case when Fraternal Order of Police President Kevin Graham wrote the Justice Department following reports that Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx asked Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to let the FBI investigate Smollett’s allegations that he was attacked by two masked men after the former chief of staff to former first lady MICHELLE OBAMA allegedly informed Foxx that Smollett’s family had concerns about the probe.”

    Arminius in reply to Ransom. | March 26, 2019 at 12:45 pm

    So this prosecutor asked the police superintendent who was investigating a purely state crime to let the FBI take over an investigation in which it had no jurisdiction. Because Michelle Obama wanted it that way.

    That seems to be the Chicago way. And prosecutors like Foxx have ambitions to fail upward. Which is the normal career pipeline in the Democratic party. I wonder what she was promised by her new political allies, what plum jobs, by her new, powerful political allies?

O.J. Smollett. He will now devote his life to finding the real attackers.

we are no longer a nation of laws…

and we haven’t been for some time.

this cannot go on forever: something will give, and it will get real ugly when it does.

which would explain the full court press to disarm the population…

How long before Kim Foxx announces her run for the democrat nomination for president?

Liberal retribution for the Mueller Report?

    Char Char Binks in reply to Leslie Eastman. | March 27, 2019 at 11:52 am


    After Russian collusion fell apart, after Avenatti was arrested, after so much Republican winning, Foxx had to assure that Smollett wouldn’t be punished for his dirty-pool electioneering against Trump and Deplorable-Americans in order to embolden the next fear mongrel to go on the attack.

His “community service” probably consisted of “raising people’s consciousness” to the “reality” of racially motivated crime, even if his specific example wasn’t one. Or maybe it consisted simply of acting in a popular TV show.

“The judge granted a motion to seal the case.”

When you’re a celebrity

This is Chicago. What else is there to say, really?

As a black man, I’m gonna leave this here: There is no such thing as “white privilege”.

Green privilege.

Ten thousand bucks ain’t much of a shakedown. That’s a grifters payday, not serious cash for the organized crime syndicate that is Chicago city hall.

Nope. That forfeiture is just ruse. The real reason this was done? Shift the narrative off the Mueller dud, Trump gloating, us cheering, and give the lying crap weasel media 2 weeks of Smollett is a victim of orange man bad and his racist minions.

That’s it.

It was all Mechelle, all of America needs to hear this!

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to gonzotx. | March 26, 2019 at 4:46 pm

    See my post above – about how the Obamas know Smollet really, really well……

There isn’t enough skepticism in the whole universe to express what’s beyond obvious here.

healthguyfsu | March 26, 2019 at 1:18 pm

What a joke.

The Obamas pull their dirty Chicago strings and the evil puppets dance.

I hope karma bites them all.

Federal charges are still outstanding. Time will tell.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to katasuburi. | March 26, 2019 at 5:05 pm

    Yes, there are Federal charges possible. However, outside of the very top people in the Federal law enforcement and intelligence communities; everyone works for the Democrat-Socialist Party and not the law and Constitution. I will be amazed if Smollett gets charged with anything. He is one of the Nomenklatura.

    Subotai Bahadur

Our nation will not long survive this 2-tiered justice system.

I take it Jussie will be hitting every golf course looking for the actual perpetrators.

I’m confused. The mayor is backing the police in their disappointment with the dropped charges. That’s a bit of a surprise to me.

Who or what dropped the charges?

    Mike H. in reply to heyjoojoo. | March 26, 2019 at 2:30 pm


    alaskabob in reply to heyjoojoo. | March 26, 2019 at 8:20 pm

    Brief look at internal Chicago political infighting.

    Milhouse in reply to heyjoojoo. | March 27, 2019 at 12:51 pm

    More proof that you’re an idiot. Neither the mayor nor the police have any say in bringing charges against someone or in dropping them.

    “In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups. The police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.”

This ends the Mueller story…

kim foxx, tina tchen, michele obama and possibly kamala harris need to be investigated for Obstruction of Jusrice and conspiracy. It needs to be an independent federal investigation, since chicago is known for corruption.

Michelle obama’s hoof prints are all over this.

Mr. Barr: where are you? Save our country.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | March 26, 2019 at 3:16 pm

Notice how the fellow, “happy” high political officials in Chi-town are defending the indefensible.

    The Mayor is breathing fire over this, attacking the decision. Some may view this as insincere, but it actually sounds sincere.. either way, he deserved a small mention.

    People are now speaking in terms of a ‘deferred prosecution’ deal, like with Epstein. That should keep Mayor Rahm from courting a giant civil suit against the city for defamation, but someone would be wise to tell him not to push his luck.

With no charges filed, that means that there are two violent Trump loving racists on the loose. The police need to arrest the two Nigerians immediately and charge them with premeditated violence against Smollet. They have them caught red handed on tape and with evidence obtained from a lawful search of their home. They may have to throw out the confessions but they don’t need it to make a case. It may not get Smallet to admit anything, but it will certainly cost him a lot more than ten grand and some community service.
The only way to end this is to solve the attack and bring the perps to justice. If that means Smallet’s buddies go to jail, so be it. The people of Chicago and Jussie himself will be able to sigh a breath of relief knowing the streets of Chi Town are once again safe from the threat of Trump lovers.

So if he was falsely accused, one would think that he would sue the City of Chicago for false arrest, right? We’re waiting….

    If it was a unilateral move to drop the charges, then yes. If it was as I’m hearing now, but a deferred prosecution deal, then logic would dictate the deal included no civil suit, because then all the sealed details might come to light no matter what the prosecutors wanted.

    Not that I trust logic very far at this point… besides, the alternative is that the prosecutors knowingly set the city up for millions in damages…

How you going to get change of venue when the defense is opposed to change of venue – It wont be granted – period

    Mac45 in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 26, 2019 at 10:07 pm

    Not accurate.

    While it is unusual for the state to request a change of venue, it does happen from time to time. Usually it requires that it be shown that an unbiased jury can not be seated, usually more than once. You are correct that it is very, very rarely done over the objections of the defense.

    But, as I mentioned above, this “unable to get a conviction” justification is just a trial balloon. The prosecution never claimed that it would not be possible to get a conviction on at least one count of lying to police in Cook County. What the prosecution said was that because a conviction would likely result in a fine and community service, the case was not going to be prosecuted at all.

If anyone could recognize a cover-up, it would be Rahm – but it must feel strange to him to be on the other side.

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is that Smollett’s hoax attack seems tailor-made to be a “poster child” for his friend Kamala Harris’s “Anti-Lynching” bill. I read the bill and it’s jaw-dropping how many clauses in it get “check-boxed” by the Smollett incident. As if by design (*cough*).

For reference, Harris’s bill was S. 3178 introduced in the 115th Congress. Text of bill:

1. For someone to be charged under the bill’s provisions, the victim must be attacked by “2 or more persons” or else the bill does not apply. Smollett arranged for two, not one, people to attack him.

2. Under the bill, the victim must be killed or sustain “bodily injury” or else the bill does not apply. Smollett made sure that he received visible bruises. If he had merely been verbally attacked, slurred, threatened, or an attempted assault had failed to injure, the bill would not apply.

3. Under the bill, the attack must be motivated by one or more of a specific list of causes, or else the bill does not apply. Among these necessary motives are “actual or perceived race” and “actual or perceived sexual orientation”. Smollett made a point of telling police that his attackers had yelled “aren’t you that f*****t ‘Empire’ n****r?”, hitting both the race and sexual orientation check-boxes. If Smollett had been simply attacked by two people and bruised for unclear reasons, the bill would not apply.

4. Federal laws have to have some nexus to the federal sphere of jurisdiction — Congress can’t just make any old thing illegal (which is exactly why Prohibition required a Constitutional amendment before Congress could have power over all alcohol use and consumption). There is no general federal law against murder or assault for this reason (those crimes are prosecuted under state laws) except in special cases that arguably have something to do with interstate commerce or other kinds of federal jurisdiction. Harris’s bill is no different, and it restricts itself to only applying if one or more of a laundry list of “circumstances” where kinda-sorta interstate (or maritime) things are involved or interrupted by the attack. Among these are if it “occurs during the course of […] the victim […] using a phone”, and/or “interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct”. Smollett ensured that the attack occurred while he was A) on his cell phone B) talking to his business manager. If Smollett had not been on the phone, the attack as otherwise told to police would not have qualified as a federal “lynching” under the bill.

5. As if worried that people unfamiliar with the bill’s specific language and circumstances might not make the connection, Smollett made sure to drive the point home by having his hired attackers make a noose to put on him and buy gasoline to splash on him (later changed to bleach by the time of the actual “attack”), because nothing screams stereotypical “LYNCHING” like a noose or an attempted burning (both together is even more “please don’t miss my message”).

Given all of the very specific ingredients of the Smollett staged “attack” that “amazingly” just “happen” to match the very specific and necessary legal requirements of Kamala Harris’s anti-lynching bill, it’s beyond credibility to think that the staged attack was anything other than a PR stunt crafted to “show” why Harris’s bill was “needed”.

The real question is whether Smollett took it upon himself to “help” the bill’s passage this way (and somehow was good enough at reading legalese to know exactly what parts of the bill’s text had to be check-boxed for it to count), or whether Harris or someone on her team spelled it out for him.

If the latter, there would be phone calls and/or texts between Smollett and the planners, and this would certainly explain why some powerful people would have pulled every string possible in order to cut an immediate deal to ensure that the Smollett hoax never made it to trial where all of this would have come out — and also make sure the case file was sealed by the judge.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Ichneumon. | March 27, 2019 at 5:06 pm

    PLUS the Obamas, especially Michelle
    ARE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    MajorWood in reply to Ichneumon. | March 27, 2019 at 5:14 pm

    Wait! White people, especially Trump lovers, watch Empire? It should have taken one detective 5 minutes to determine it was a hoax.

Peasepudding | March 27, 2019 at 8:58 am

This is such an embarrassing decision that even the majority the usual suspects are not crowing about “justice” having been done.

I wonder whose basement he will have to move into. FWIW, I went to the Empire page on reddit and the poor mods there have had to shut down and delete much of the discussion today. That boy be a fan favorite now!