This isn't something to celebrate. There is absolutely no doubt based on the evidence that this was a hoax and most of the cities leadership seems to be furious about the decision. The Fraternal Order of Police want a federal investigation into this ruling and the Chicago mayor came out and condemned the ruling as an obvious case of wealth and status overriding basic justice.
This is really not okay. It's not like this is a crime without a victim. If he hadn't been caught, a couple of innocent people would have been in danger of being falsely convicted for a hate crime.
It's like instead of there being no evidence of collusion, the Mueller investigation found absolutely damning evidence nobody would dispute and in the end they just say "whatever, forget about the whole thing" after filing charges. Not okay.
I think we can all agree if you commit a crime you should be punished for it in the same way as everyone else, not excused from it because of your wealth/status and/or you have the right politics or some combination of such.
The prosecutor does have some explaining to do but I think it’s one of those “if it went to trial we would not be able to get a conviction so let’s not waste everyone’s time, his career is ruined anyway.”
Seems to me the Chicago PD must have made a complete disaster of the case to have it get dismissed. Given the recent situation with Laquan McDonald and their history of literally having black sites, I don't find that at all out of the realm of possibility. I think Smollett did fake the attack. My bet is the police department made a move that made it impossible to prosecute. He didn't even have to plead guilty to a lesser charge. It went from 16 felony counts to having the charge expunged and forfeiting bail money. Something had to have been rotten in the police investigation. That doesn't make him innocent, but it's not surprising. As I've always said about OJ, the first people you should look to blame for his acquital are the LAPD.
Seems to me the Chicago PD must have made a complete disaster of the case to have it get dismissed. Given the recent situation with Laquan McDonald and their history of literally having black sites, I don't find that at all out of the realm of possibility. I think Smollett did fake the attack. My bet is the police department made a move that made it impossible to prosecute.
Allegedly prosecuting him through the press and taking away his right to a fair trial according to the article. Which does make sense.
And before anyone says “Trump was tried through the media” it wasn’t Mueller standing in front of television cameras going “This is what we have against individual-1.”
The only sexists are the people who took my comment that way. Also those who think that only a "coterie of angry old men" don't like her.
Please refrain from insinuating I am sexist. People cannot dismiss comments just because they don't agree with said comment. Opinions and Free speech people, it will only offend if you give it the power to.
I'm not familiar with the case, so I looked it up. Apparently two brothers came forward to accuse Smollett of paying them to stage the attack, and presumably their testimony and possibly some concrete evidence they provided were the basis of the prosecution.
I suppose it is possible that the Chicago PD inadvertently made the case too difficult to prosecute by going public with the accusation, giving the defense an opportunity to claim that it "took away his right to a fair trial." I've never heard of that defense being used before, but I suppose it's very rare for the police to make these details public before a trial, which would explain why that defense might be seldom used.
The problem in that case would be not that they dropped the charges, but that they went public with the story and therefore made the charges impossible to prosecute. I guess the lesson is for the police to not promote these stories before formal legal proceedings are well underway.
@TakisMegas: Can you elaborate on this "valley girl" thing? That's a trope from the eighties, and AOC is from New York and doesn't have a San Fernando Valley accent. So I'm not really sure what you mean, beyond her being a youngish woman.
Actually it's interesting: there's a swath of inland New England, northern/western New York, and clear across toward Wisconsin, in which people tend to have a distinct "valley" twang. My very rough hypothesis is that it is a legacy of some northern European roots... but that's just conjecture. But New Yorkers can indeed have a bit of a valley accent.
I haven't listened to AOC much (not sure why anyone should, she's just one among many congressional representatives), but when I have heard her, I didn't notice any valley twang. This is just more sexist BS: this or that woman would be taken seriously if only she wasn't so girly, if only she dressed more conservatively, if only she dressed more attractively, if only she smiled more, yadda yadda yadda ad infinitum. Fact is, AOC could give press conferences in Klingon and it wouldn't make a difference. Nothing she could do - nothing - would make her critics suddenly consider her ideas on their own merits. So she might as well talk however she damn well wants to.
But I tell you this: AOC knows something @TakisMegas doesn't: them thar millenials don't give a crap about that kind of thing. As a declining coterie of angry old men try be cleverly insulting by calling her a "valley girl," AOC is going to say "hey guys, I'm just going to act like me. Is that cool?" And a whole frackin' generation is going to say "you know what AOC? That is very cool. We think you're cool."
She's going to have power and the old men aren't going to understand why.
Yeah and they'll be too busy smoking weed to get off their asses and vote...
I'm not familiar with the case, so I looked it up. Apparently two brothers came forward to accuse Smollett of paying them to stage the attack, and presumably their testimony and possibly some concrete evidence they provided were the basis of the prosecution.
I suppose it is possible that the Chicago PD inadvertently made the case too difficult to prosecute by going public with the accusation, giving the defense an opportunity to claim that it "took away his right to a fair trial." I've never heard of that defense being used before, but I suppose it's very rare for the police to make these details public before a trial, which would explain why that defense might be seldom used.
The problem in that case would be not that they dropped the charges, but that they went public with the story and therefore made the charges impossible to prosecute. I guess the lesson is for the police to not promote these stories before formal legal proceedings are well underway.
It wasn’t his defense, but chances are a lot of what the proesecution would be able to present would have been thrown out due to how the police handled the situation.
Basically it is like he is getting off on a technicality.
I'm not familiar with the case, so I looked it up. Apparently two brothers came forward to accuse Smollett of paying them to stage the attack, and presumably their testimony and possibly some concrete evidence they provided were the basis of the prosecution.
I suppose it is possible that the Chicago PD inadvertently made the case too difficult to prosecute by going public with the accusation, giving the defense an opportunity to claim that it "took away his right to a fair trial." I've never heard of that defense being used before, but I suppose it's very rare for the police to make these details public before a trial, which would explain why that defense might be seldom used.
The problem in that case would be not that they dropped the charges, but that they went public with the story and therefore made the charges impossible to prosecute. I guess the lesson is for the police to not promote these stories before formal legal proceedings are well underway.
It wasn’t his defense, but chances are a lot of what the proesecution would be able to present would have been thrown out due to how the police handled the situation.
Basically it is like he is getting off on a technicality.
The only sexists are the people who took my comment that way. Also those who think that only a "coterie of angry old men" don't like her.
Please refrain from insinuating I am sexist. People cannot dismiss comments just because they don't agree with said comment. Opinions and Free speech people, it will only offend if you give it the power to.
I asked you to elaborate on it, which is very close to the opposite of dismissing it. My comment was a gentle inquiry into your repeated use of a phrase that is often invoked as a sexist stereotype. I fail to see how that makes me a sexist.
Smollett was totally exonerated, no collusion. It was a witch hunt.
People that still insist he did something wrong need to be investigated and are fake news. He's been treated very unfairly by fake news media.
*Snicker*
@Balrog99 "
Yeah and they'll be too busy smoking weed to get off their asses and vote..."
Yeah just go ahead and stereotype an entire generation. Never mind that you have nothing to base your comment on, and this generation (mine) is already demonized enough simply because we don't take the crap of the previous generations.
@TakisMegas: Can you elaborate on this "valley girl" thing? That's a trope from the eighties, and AOC is from New York and doesn't have a San Fernando Valley accent. So I'm not really sure what you mean, beyond her being a youngish woman.
Actually it's interesting: there's a swath of inland New England, northern/western New York, and clear across toward Wisconsin, in which people tend to have a distinct "valley" twang. My very rough hypothesis is that it is a legacy of some northern European roots... but that's just conjecture. But New Yorkers can indeed have a bit of a valley accent.
I haven't listened to AOC much (not sure why anyone should, she's just one among many congressional representatives), but when I have heard her, I didn't notice any valley twang. This is just more sexist BS: this or that woman would be taken seriously if only she wasn't so girly, if only she dressed more conservatively, if only she dressed more attractively, if only she smiled more, yadda yadda yadda ad infinitum. Fact is, AOC could give press conferences in Klingon and it wouldn't make a difference. Nothing she could do - nothing - would make her critics suddenly consider her ideas on their own merits. So she might as well talk however she damn well wants to.
But I tell you this: AOC knows something @TakisMegas doesn't: them thar millenials don't give a crap about that kind of thing. As a declining coterie of angry old men try be cleverly insulting by calling her a "valley girl," AOC is going to say "hey guys, I'm just going to act like me. Is that cool?" And a whole frackin' generation is going to say "you know what AOC? That is very cool. We think you're cool."
She's going to have power and the old men aren't going to understand why.
Yeah and they'll be too busy smoking weed to get off their asses and vote...
Sounds like those hippies in the 70s
And those punk kids in the 80s
And don’t get me started on the GenXers of the 90s...
To be fair, NIH says 34.9% of 18- to 25-year-olds have used marijuana or hash in the last year, compared to 12.2% for 26 and up [source]. And in 2016, per the Census Bureau, "citizens 65 years and older reported higher turnout (70.9 percent) than 45- to 64-year-olds (66.6 percent), 30- to 44-year-olds (58.7 percent) and 18- to 29-year-olds (46.1 percent)" [source].
Let's steer clear of accusations of sexism, lest we violate Rules 1 and 7 of the thread rules.
I tried pot in Amsterdam and frankly I wasn't impressed. It's not particularly strong, it's not particularly pleasant, and it's not even particularly interesting. It's just a vague buzz. I don't think I'd buy it even if it got legalized here in Texas, unless it was incredibly cheap, and I don't think anybody's going to sell a bag of pot for a buck-fifty.
Or a brownie, I guess, since I wouldn't smoke it. Smoke's not good for your lungs even if it's not tobacco. I've never been big on poisoning myself. And even then, I might not try the brownies if I wasn't sure the cocoa was ethically sourced, since the major cocoa producers actually practice slave labor in a few of their African plantations.
To be fair, NIH says 34.9% of 18- to 25-year-olds have used marijuana or hash in the last year, compared to 12.2% for 26 and up [source]. And in 2016, per the Census Bureau, "citizens 65 years and older reported higher turnout (70.9 percent) than 45- to 64-year-olds (66.6 percent), 30- to 44-year-olds (58.7 percent) and 18- to 29-year-olds (46.1 percent)" [source].
I knew the statistics before I commented. I didn't pull the sarcasm completely out of my ass. You beat me to the punch-line @joluv !
Can we just once again ruminate on how bonkers it is that marijuana is illegal ANYWHERE when alcohol and getting hammered is practically a national passtime?? I drank WAY more than my fair share from the ages of 16-24, and while I rarely ever smoked pot, I certainly spent a ton of time around those that did. The level of destructiveness between the two isn't even in the same solar system. Drunk driving, spousal abuse, alcohol poisoning, liver damage, blacking out and choking on your own vomit. Marijuana makes you hungry and slightly lazy. Alcohol literally kills people everyday and destroys families. The fact people are serving prison sentences for such a benign drug when alcohol runs rampant across the entire country is certifiably insane.
Can we just once again ruminate on how bonkers it is that marijuana is illegal ANYWHERE when alcohol and getting hammered is practically a national passtime?? I drank WAY more than my fair share from the ages of 16-24, and while I rarely ever smoked pot, I certainly spent a ton of time around those that did. The level of destructiveness between the two isn't even in the same solar system. Drunk driving, spousal abuse, alcohol poisoning, liver damage, blacking out and choking on your own vomit. Marijuana makes you hungry and slightly lazy. Alcohol literally kills people everyday and destroys families. The fact people are serving prison sentences for such a benign drug when alcohol runs rampant across the entire country is certifiably insane.
Not just this country. It's just as bad in Western Europe and lights-out insane in Eastern Europe!
Let's steer clear of accusations of sexism, lest we violate Rules 1 and 7 of the thread rules.
I tried pot in Amsterdam and frankly I wasn't impressed. It's not particularly strong, it's not particularly pleasant, and it's not even particularly interesting. It's just a vague buzz. I don't think I'd buy it even if it got legalized here in Texas, unless it was incredibly cheap, and I don't think anybody's going to sell a bag of pot for a buck-fifty.
Or a brownie, I guess, since I wouldn't smoke it. Smoke's not good for your lungs even if it's not tobacco. I've never been big on poisoning myself. And even then, I might not try the brownies if I wasn't sure the cocoa was ethically sourced, since the major cocoa producers actually practice slave labor in a few of their African plantations.
There's apparently been more than a few trips to the ER from edibles in Colorado. None from smoking.
Smollett was totally exonerated, no collusion. It was a witch hunt.
People that still insist he did something wrong need to be investigated and are fake news. He's been treated very unfairly by fake news media.
Are we still stuck on the idea that these now discredited Russian conspiracies have any merit? I know this is a joke but i'm genuinely curious where the levels of acceptance are in this thread.
I believe that Trump believes there was no collusion. He's not savvy enough to recognize it even it it was happening right under his nose though. In my opinion of course...
So not only will the report not be released for WEEKS, but the White House is going to be able to make redactions before it goes to Congress based on Executive Privilege?? On what grounds?? This is a total farce. Let's go out on a limb and say the report is exactly what they say it is, a total vindication. Why should ANYONE skeptical of what has just taken place accept anything that is presented if the White House is going to be able to take a Sharpie and black out anything they deem fit?? If this is allowed, then every "conspiracy theory" about what has taken place since Friday has just been totally vindicated. A exculpatory report does not need "weeks" of vetting, and it sure as shit should not be run through the frickin' White House before it goes to Congress. How much more blantant can a cover-up be?? This is absolutely unreal, all the more so because it's going to work. If this report doesn't leak post-haste, no one is EVER going to know what's in it.
I believe that Trump believes there was no collusion. He's not savvy enough to recognize it even it it was happening right under his nose though. In my opinion of course...
I think we can go a lot, lot further than that. We can say that we know there was none, among himself or anyone with any association with him, based upon a lengthy multi year investigation into every facet of his life and his associates lives.
That's about as reasonably certain as we can possibly be about criminal matters of this sort.
Of course we all want to see the report. But the idea that Mueller is just gonna stand around and say nothing while Barr distorts his words and major findings, something he didn't even allow Buzzfeed to do without a statement, is a bit ridiculous.
Smollett was totally exonerated, no collusion. It was a witch hunt.
People that still insist he did something wrong need to be investigated and are fake news. He's been treated very unfairly by fake news media.
Are we still stuck on the idea that these now discredited Russian conspiracies have any merit? I know this is a joke but i'm genuinely curious where the levels of acceptance are in this thread.
Justify what I just posted above. Since you are ON RECORD calling for the release of the full report.
Here is an in-depth look at the central act of Bill Barr's last go-around as Attorney General. Clearly, clearly a man that can be trusted in such matters:
Comments
The prosecutor does have some explaining to do but I think it’s one of those “if it went to trial we would not be able to get a conviction so let’s not waste everyone’s time, his career is ruined anyway.”
Allegedly prosecuting him through the press and taking away his right to a fair trial according to the article. Which does make sense.
And before anyone says “Trump was tried through the media” it wasn’t Mueller standing in front of television cameras going “This is what we have against individual-1.”
Please refrain from insinuating I am sexist. People cannot dismiss comments just because they don't agree with said comment. Opinions and Free speech people, it will only offend if you give it the power to.
I suppose it is possible that the Chicago PD inadvertently made the case too difficult to prosecute by going public with the accusation, giving the defense an opportunity to claim that it "took away his right to a fair trial." I've never heard of that defense being used before, but I suppose it's very rare for the police to make these details public before a trial, which would explain why that defense might be seldom used.
The problem in that case would be not that they dropped the charges, but that they went public with the story and therefore made the charges impossible to prosecute. I guess the lesson is for the police to not promote these stories before formal legal proceedings are well underway.
People that still insist he did something wrong need to be investigated and are fake news. He's been treated very unfairly by fake news media.
Yeah and they'll be too busy smoking weed to get off their asses and vote...
It wasn’t his defense, but chances are a lot of what the proesecution would be able to present would have been thrown out due to how the police handled the situation.
Basically it is like he is getting off on a technicality.
Totally cool and totally legal.
I asked you to elaborate on it, which is very close to the opposite of dismissing it. My comment was a gentle inquiry into your repeated use of a phrase that is often invoked as a sexist stereotype. I fail to see how that makes me a sexist.
*Snicker*
@Balrog99 "
Yeah and they'll be too busy smoking weed to get off their asses and vote..."
Yeah just go ahead and stereotype an entire generation. Never mind that you have nothing to base your comment on, and this generation (mine) is already demonized enough simply because we don't take the crap of the previous generations.
Sounds like those hippies in the 70s
And those punk kids in the 80s
And don’t get me started on the GenXers of the 90s...
I tried pot in Amsterdam and frankly I wasn't impressed. It's not particularly strong, it's not particularly pleasant, and it's not even particularly interesting. It's just a vague buzz. I don't think I'd buy it even if it got legalized here in Texas, unless it was incredibly cheap, and I don't think anybody's going to sell a bag of pot for a buck-fifty.
Or a brownie, I guess, since I wouldn't smoke it. Smoke's not good for your lungs even if it's not tobacco. I've never been big on poisoning myself. And even then, I might not try the brownies if I wasn't sure the cocoa was ethically sourced, since the major cocoa producers actually practice slave labor in a few of their African plantations.
I knew the statistics before I commented. I didn't pull the sarcasm completely out of my ass. You beat me to the punch-line @joluv !
Not just this country. It's just as bad in Western Europe and lights-out insane in Eastern Europe!
Hello, Canada? We do exist.
But ya, marijuana is only illegal because of hemp and how destructive it would have been to cotton and paper industries.
I love Canada, people are so happy here. Not Finland style happy but happy nonetheless.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/finland-happiest-country-world-again-launches-contest-free-trip-n985481
There's apparently been more than a few trips to the ER from edibles in Colorado. None from smoking.
https://greencamp.com/edibles-cause-10-of-er-visits-in-colorado-but-is-cannabis-to-blame
Are we still stuck on the idea that these now discredited Russian conspiracies have any merit? I know this is a joke but i'm genuinely curious where the levels of acceptance are in this thread.
https://amp.businessinsider.com/barr-mueller-report-white-house-executive-privilege-2019-3?utm_content=buffer91eb6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-insider-main&fbclid=IwAR3GAicNolxhiS8VhA8R6hhBfTBQW0RRWNs9iVjfFDvscU1cl3eqrhvMWQY&__twitter_impression=true
So not only will the report not be released for WEEKS, but the White House is going to be able to make redactions before it goes to Congress based on Executive Privilege?? On what grounds?? This is a total farce. Let's go out on a limb and say the report is exactly what they say it is, a total vindication. Why should ANYONE skeptical of what has just taken place accept anything that is presented if the White House is going to be able to take a Sharpie and black out anything they deem fit?? If this is allowed, then every "conspiracy theory" about what has taken place since Friday has just been totally vindicated. A exculpatory report does not need "weeks" of vetting, and it sure as shit should not be run through the frickin' White House before it goes to Congress. How much more blantant can a cover-up be?? This is absolutely unreal, all the more so because it's going to work. If this report doesn't leak post-haste, no one is EVER going to know what's in it.
I think we can go a lot, lot further than that. We can say that we know there was none, among himself or anyone with any association with him, based upon a lengthy multi year investigation into every facet of his life and his associates lives.
That's about as reasonably certain as we can possibly be about criminal matters of this sort.
Justify what I just posted above. Since you are ON RECORD calling for the release of the full report.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-10/attorney-general-william-barr-used-pardons-to-protect-president
The fact that his history is generally so off the radar in this discussion is absolutely pathetic. He made Iran-Contra disappear.
@subtledoctor . I read it more than once to make sure, apology accepted. Sarcasm is like so very like hard to pull off online sometimes, like ya know.