• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jussie Smollet Trial

Jussie Smollett seeking dirt on Chicago's ex-Top Cop Eddie Johnson in legal fight with city.

He quit the position because he was found to be drunk driving and so you people need to drop that lawsuit against me and drop everything else against me as well.
 
Chicago Sun Times said:
The bodybuilding brothers targeted in Jussie Smollett’s malicious prosecution lawsuit took a shot at the actor in a new court filing as they asked a judge to toss his complaint.

Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo have claimed they helped fake a racist and homophobic attack on the actor in January 2019. But Smollett’s lawyers have said their statements to police were self-serving and designed to avoid prosecution.

Now, the brothers’ attorney says Smollett got what he wanted out of the whole thing, regardless of how it played out.

“Smollett’s scheme was accomplished,” Gloria Virginia Schmidt Rodriguez wrote in Wednesday’s filing. “He has gained national and international fame while avoiding any admission of guilt for his conduct against the City of Chicago; he voluntarily forfeited his bond as consideration for some unknown form of quid pro quo agreement with the State’s Attorney’s Office; and he received widespread media attention for his personal agenda against President Donald J. Trump and for his perceived lack of enthusiasm by Fox Studios in paying attention to his purported hate mail.”...
Click to expand...
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/...iro-brothers-say-smollett-scheme-accomplished
 
William Parcher said:
Jussie Smollett seeking dirt on Chicago's ex-Top Cop Eddie Johnson in legal fight with city.

He quit the position because he was found to be drunk driving was fired by the mayor after he lied to her and so you people need to drop that lawsuit against me and drop everything else against me as well.
Click to expand...
...

On a related note, I know of two ladies that won't be getting my vote on March 17. Kim Foxx, the prosecutor that ruined this case, is on the ballot for re-election.

Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:02PM

CHICAGO (WLS) -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced her endorsement of Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx Tuesday.
Click to expand...
 
Breaking and developing news...


Jussie Smollett indicted by special prosecutor in Chicago

ABC News said:
Former "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett was indicted Tuesday by a special prosecutor in Chicago investigating allegations he bogusly reported being the victim of a January 2019 hate-crime attack, officials said.

Smollett, 37, was indicted by special prosecutor Dan Webb, who was appointed by a Cook County judge to continue looking into his false allegations after the Cook County State’s Attorney Office dropped all charges against the actor, a source close to Smollett told ABC news.

The Cook County Clerk's Office confirmed to ABC station WLS-TV in Chicago that Smollett had been indicted...
Click to expand...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/empire-ac...-special-prosecutor-chicago/story?id=68918453
 
We all know he is guilty. But I had supposed the special prosecutor was looking in to misconduct on the side of the state's attorney? And maybe the judge?
 
theprestige said:
In which a compelling argument is made that disbelieving Jussie Smollett is both racist and homophobic.

/s
Click to expand...


That article's from a year ago. At the time, some people were believing Smollett's account, and some were questioning it due to incongruities or inconsistencies with the increasing amount of available evidence.

There were also some who were disbelieving it for racist or homophobic reasons. For instance, speculating without evidence that Smollett was coving up an attempted drug deal or gay liaison gone wrong. Disbelieving the account for racist or homophobic reasons was indeed racist or homophobic.
 
Myriad said:
That article's from a year ago. At the time, some people were believing Smollett's account, and some were questioning it due to incongruities or inconsistencies with the increasing amount of available evidence.

There were also some who were disbelieving it for racist or homophobic reasons. For instance, speculating without evidence that Smollett was coving up an attempted drug deal or gay liaison gone wrong. Disbelieving the account for racist or homophobic reasons was indeed racist or homophobic.
Click to expand...
Neither of those speculations strike me as racist or homophobic.

It's not heterophobic to speculate that a straight person is spinning a wild "alibi" to cover up a heterosexual liaison gone wrong. You can certainly support gay pride, and still speculate that a gay man might wish to keep a particular hookup under wraps for some reason.
 
theprestige said:
In which a compelling argument is made that disbelieving Jussie Smollett is both racist and homophobic.

/s
Click to expand...

"For some reason, African Americans, we were oddly quiet. We were so quiet about this **** that the gay community started accusing African American community of being homophobic for not supporting him. But what they didn't understand is that we were supporting him with our silence. Because we understood that this ****** was clearly lying."
- Dave Chappelle
 
theprestige said:
In which a compelling argument is made that disbelieving Jussie Smollett is both racist and homophobic.

/s
Click to expand...

Reading the couple of first pages of this thread (part 1) is quite interesting. The "doubters" sound much more reasonable than their opposition.

Also amusing, MikeG, who was probably the most ardent pro-Smollet poster, left a day or two after he was shown to be wrong, without ever following up on this:

MikeG said:
I'm going to quote this crap back at you when the attackers are convicted. It's going to be fun seeing you try to justify it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Reading the couple of first pages of this thread (part 1) is quite interesting. The "doubters" sound much more reasonable than their opposition.

Also amusing, MikeG, who was probably the most ardent pro-Smollet poster, left a day or two after he was shown to be wrong, without ever following up on this:
Click to expand...

Feets don't fail me now.
 
Myriad said:
That article's from a year ago. At the time, some people were believing Smollett's account, and some were questioning it due to incongruities or inconsistencies with the increasing amount of available evidence.

There were also some who were disbelieving it for racist or homophobic reasons. For instance, speculating without evidence that Smollett was coving up an attempted drug deal or gay liaison gone wrong. Disbelieving the account for racist or homophobic reasons was indeed racist or homophobic.
Click to expand...

This again? :rolleyes: There was evidence for those with eyes to see it from almost the very beginning that something about his story smelled fishy. What it actually turned out to be was even weirder than the wildest speculations. (Personally, I never suspected or suggested either a drug deal or a "liaison gone wrong" because neither of those seemed to quite fit with what I was seeing. It seemed more likely that the whole thing was made up from whole cloth to me.)

Speculations per se with only limited evidence short of conclusive proof aren't necessarily because of racism or other bigotry. If a straight white man reported a similarly fishy tale I think I would have been equally suspicious.
 
Myriad said:
That article's from a year ago. At the time, some people were believing Smollett's account, and some were questioning it due to incongruities or inconsistencies with the increasing amount of available evidence.

There were also some who were disbelieving it for racist or homophobic reasons. For instance, speculating without evidence that Smollett was coving up an attempted drug deal or gay liaison gone wrong. Disbelieving the account for racist or homophobic reasons was indeed racist or homophobic.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Belz... said:
Reading the couple of first pages of this thread (part 1) is quite interesting. The "doubters" sound much more reasonable than their opposition.
Click to expand...

Basically, in any big (or biggish) breaking news story it is best to withhold judgement until a clearer picture emerges. As to crime stories, it is interesting how strong our instinctive attitudes are - I am a low level crime buff and have felt this force in myself: you reflexively tend to feel strong sympathy or distrust and are irrationally certain of the truth even with access to just very few and selective facts on a particular case. This tendency is something that one really must fight against and remain empirical, detached and sceptical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom