dave_w wrote:
chaparral wrote:
trail wrote:
Alvin Tostig wrote:
trail wrote:
You still don't understand! There are no official charges, so he's been completely exonerated!
Some people have definitely been triggered.
I love the knowing nods about how a 2nd-rate celebrity who probably doesn't have 7-figure net worth is an instrument of incredibly powerful dark corrupting forces - OMG pictures with Michelle! But the 1st-rate celebrity with 10-figure net worth has been completely exonerated and we should feel ashamed for out thoughts that it could be otherwise.
Can you imagine how bad it would look if Smollett hired the person that declared there would be no charges, after that person sent a lengthy letter to Smollett explaining why he should not be charged? That would look very corrupt.
-
Looks like you did not read what was written:
Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President - most of which have been the subject of public reporting - that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction .. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-ofÂjustice offense.
-
Here's a piece that describes some of the hurdles in this type of case:
https://www.msn.com/...r-BBVcHkX?li=BBnb7Kw Getting back to the actual issue at hand here -- not this stupid-ass obstruction and collusion ass-hattery that was supposedly committed by that idiot in the White House (actually, he's neither evil genius, nor serial bumbler... he's just who he is, like Barack Obama was who he was),
CWBChicago managed to sneak in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Chicago Police Department before all the records were sealed, and the cops responded at light speed in getting the complete redacted investigative file back to them:
"CWBChicago is posting the complete Chicago Police Department investigative file on the Jussie Smollett “hate crime” investigation that we have received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
We have not read or reviewed the files for completeness or accuracy.
FILE 1 HERE FILE 2 HERE These files were provided by the Chicago Police Department in response to a FOIA request that CWBChicago submitted upon learning that the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office had reached a sealed agreement to resolve Smollett’s criminal exposure in the case.
Our requests for video, including bodycam, surveillance, and interrogation, was denied."
Giving props to the cops where they're due, it looks like CPD devoted a lot of resources to cracking the Smollett "hate crime" case that he himself so obviously staged. And there doesn't seem to be any sort of question that the cops did the job right and with professionalism and non-partisanship. Plus, local Chicago media outlets that covered the Smollett farce should all receive Pulitzers for their work, unlike the execrable and downright biased reporting undertaken by much of the national media, which clearly tried to turn Smollett into this century's version of Emmitt Till.
Anyway, ABC 7News has a good story
here.
Chicago, and Cook County, are widely regarded as being among the most corrupt municipal and county governments in the United States, and so we shouldn't be surprised at this case's outcome, but its handling is rotten even by Windy City standards. Someone needs to get to the bottom of what happened and just why the ultra-progressive State's Attorney, Kim Foxx, whose greasy fingers look like they're all over this case, despite her earlier recusal from it, is being allowed anywhere near the criminal justice system, other than in a county jailhouse orange jumpsuit.
"Politics is just show business for ugly people."