Smollett gets all charges dropped

[coconut]

BS. Even if the police suspected it, a lawyer in private practice has no way of knowing, unless you are arguing that lawyer was connected in the PD. Of course, you have nothing to support that, and it still doesn't change the fact that said lawyer never called about Smollett being charged.

I wasn't addressing anything about the lawyer. I agree a lawyer must defend a client that even the lawyer knows is guilty and such defense can be as slimey or shameless or lies upon lies as long as it isn't illegal. I was responding to the incorrect info you gave in point 2, the "(3 days, iirc). This was before anybody knew Smollett lied." Also within the 3 days the police had the video and his phone records and likely the names of the two guys he hired to perpetrate the hoax. They may have even known about the purchases at the hardware store.

 

[jrry32]

I wasn't addressing anything about the lawyer. I agree a lawyer must defend a client that even the lawyer knows is guilty and such defense can be as slimey or shameless or lies upon lies as long as it isn't illegal. I was responding to the incorrect info you gave in point 2, the "(3 days, iirc). This was before anybody knew Smollett lied." Also within the 3 days the police had the video and his phone records and likely the names of the two guys he hired to perpetrate the hoax. They may have even known about the purchases at the hardware store.

I wasn't talking about the police. I was talking about the general public. There weren't reports that it was a hoax until later. Here's a timeline:
https://abc7news.com/what-happened-...n-into-jussie-smolletts-attack-claim/5149895/

The lawyer who contacted Foxx (purportedly on the family's behalf) did so before the general public knew it was a hoax. Only way she knows otherwise is if you're alleging she had inside sources in the PD. Even then, what would having the FBI investigate it do? If anything, it makes zero sense that she knew at that time because having the FBI investigate only would have opened him up to more criminal liability (lying to the FBI would add federal crimes to the state crimes he had already committed).

It's also worth noting (you can see it in the article) that Foxx recused herself after they charged Smollett because she spoke with his family. Thus, Foxx wasn't the person making the call on the charging decision.

 

[coconut]

I wasn't talking about the police. I was talking about the general public. There weren't reports that it was a hoax until later. Here's a timeline:
https://abc7news.com/what-happened-...n-into-jussie-smolletts-attack-claim/5149895/

The lawyer who contacted Foxx (purportedly on the family's behalf) did so before the general public knew it was a hoax. Only way she knows otherwise is if you're alleging she had inside sources in the PD. Even then, what would having the FBI investigate it do? If anything, it makes zero sense that she knew at that time because having the FBI investigate only would have opened him up to more criminal liability (lying to the FBI would add federal crimes to the state crimes he had already committed).

It's also worth noting (you can see it in the article) that Foxx recused herself after they charged Smollett because she spoke with his family. Thus, Foxx wasn't the person making the call on the charging decision.

Yes I believe she had inside information from the CPD. The FBI should only get involved once the state drops the ball. Guess what? The state dropped the ball. So now AG Barr is compelled to allocate resources to investigate the postal offense. :yess:

 

[jrry32]

Yes I believe she had inside information from the CPD. The FBI should only get involved once the state drops the ball. Guess what? The state dropped the ball. So now AG Barr is compelled to allocate resources to investigate the postal offense. :yess:

Your belief isn't based on evidence and makes no sense at all for the reasons I already stated. Asking for the FBI to investigate makes no sense if she knew he lied. That only sets him up for additional criminal charges.

Further, this is an ancillary issue. The fact is that Foxx recused herself, and the lawyer who used to work for MO never asked for Foxx to drop the charges (because there were no charges at that point). That is why I criticized Farr's post. If you're going to attack Kim Foxx, it's only fair to expect you have your facts straight. (I am using "you" in a general sense in the prior sentence.)

I'm also not sure what the FBI can do with the mail. What crime did he commit? Based on the facts we have, I don't see how they could prove mail fraud. But we'll have to wait and see. If he was using it to leverage money out of the network, that could solve that problem. Although, they still would have to prove that he sent the letter.

 

[coconut]

Your belief isn't based on evidence and makes no sense at all for the reasons I already stated. Asking for the FBI to investigate makes no sense if she knew he lied. That only sets him up for additional criminal charges.

Further, this is an ancillary issue. The fact is that Foxx recused herself, and the lawyer who used to work for MO never asked for Foxx to drop the charges (because there were no charges at that point). That is why I criticized Farr's post. If you're going to attack Kim Foxx, it's only fair to expect you have your facts straight. (I am using "you" in a general sense in the prior sentence.)

I'm also not sure what the FBI can do with the mail. What crime did he commit? Based on the facts we have, I don't see how they could prove mail fraud. But we'll have to wait and see. If he was using it to leverage money out of the network, that could solve that problem. Although, they still would have to prove that he sent the letter.

ball:

 

[jrry32]

Wow. Just :wow:.

Out of curiosity, where did you get your law degree?

 

[coconut]

Out of curiosity, where did you get your law degree?

So all lawyers agree that there is nothing wrong about dropping all the charges? Amazing. Also, sorry but you quoted something I had already changed. Imagine the football representing common sense. You're in the middle.

 

[LesBaker]

I wasn't talking about the police. I was talking about the general public. There weren't reports that it was a hoax until later. Here's a timeline:
https://abc7news.com/what-happened-...n-into-jussie-smolletts-attack-claim/5149895/

The lawyer who contacted Foxx (purportedly on the family's behalf) did so before the general public knew it was a hoax. Only way she knows otherwise is if you're alleging she had inside sources in the PD. Even then, what would having the FBI investigate it do? If anything, it makes zero sense that she knew at that time because having the FBI investigate only would have opened him up to more criminal liability (lying to the FBI would add federal crimes to the state crimes he had already committed).

It's also worth noting (you can see it in the article) that Foxx recused herself after they charged Smollett because she spoke with his family. Thus, Foxx wasn't the person making the call on the charging decision.

So the Breitbart article is shit.

Imagine that.

Out of curiosity, where did you get your law degree?

I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[jrry32]

So all lawyers agree that there is nothing wrong about dropping all the charges? Amazing. Also, sorry but you quoted something I had already changed. Imagine the football representing common sense. You're in the middle.

I never argued in favor of dropping the charges. Disappointing that you have to pivot to something that wasn't discussed instead of sticking to the actual topic. As for "common sense," I've grown to really hate that phrase. If I had a nickel for every time a non-lawyer expressed their "common sense" about a legal topic and was dead wrong, I'd have a lot of nickels. Simply put, "common sense" doesn't compare to education, knowledge, and experience. This is what I do for a living. I would hope that you wouldn't use "common sense" to try and tell Sean McVay how to design a NFL offense.

Let's just make this simple. Why would the lawyer (Tchen (?)) call Foxx and ask her to turn the investigation over to the FBI if she knew that Smollett was lying? Smollett had already lied to the police. It was too late to take back those criminal acts. Lying to the FBI is a federal offense. Why would she want to put Smollett in a position where he'd either have to commit a federal crime or admit to committing state crimes?

 

[coconut]

Let's just make this simple. Why would the lawyer (Tchen (?)) call Foxx and ask her to turn the investigation over to the FBI if she knew that Smollett was lying? Smollett had already lied to the police. It was too late to take back those criminal acts. Lying to the FBI is a federal offense. Why would she want to put Smollett in a position where he'd either have to commit a federal crime or admit to committing state crimes?

Lying to congress and the FBI is a crime but certain people are not prosecuted. As for the lawyer perhaps she was aware the upper echelon of the FBI at that time was simpatico to her and Smollett's political persuasion? The threatening letter was received on January 22. The "attack" was reported January 29. AG Barr was confirmed February 14.

 

[jrry32]

Perhaps because the upper echelon of the FBI at that time has been shown to be simpatico to her and Smollett's political persuasion? The threatening letter was received on January 22. The "attack" was reported January 29. AG Barr was confirmed February 14.

Dude, what? First of all, while the FBI is technically under the Attorney General's purview, the AG isn't going to be involved in an investigation like this. Second of all, the FBI Director, Christopher Wray, was appointed by the current President (and he also wouldn't be involved in something so minor). Third of all, Matthew Whitaker was the Acting Attorney General when the fake attack happened, and he certainly wasn't "simpatico" to her political persuasion. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[coconut]

Dude, what? First of all, while the FBI is technically under the Attorney General's purview, the AG isn't going to be involved in an investigation like this. Second of all, the FBI Director, Christopher Wray, was appointed by the current President (and he also wouldn't be involved in something so minor). Third of all, Matthew Whitaker was the Acting Attorney General when the fake attack happened, and he certainly wasn't "simpatico" to her political persuasion. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Read my new post. You didn't quote what I had finally posted.

 

[coconut]

Dude, what? First of all, while the FBI is technically under the Attorney General's purview, the AG isn't going to be involved in an investigation like this. Second of all, the FBI Director, Christopher Wray, was appointed by the current President (and he also wouldn't be involved in something so minor). Third of all, Matthew Whitaker was the Acting Attorney General when the fake attack happened, and he certainly wasn't "simpatico" to her political persuasion. You're barking up the wrong tree.

There was nothing minor about the hoax. Feds didn't step in because there wasn't a need. There is now.

 

[jrry32]

Read my new post.

Okay. Here's the change:

Lying to congress and the FBI is a crime but certain people are not prosecuted.

As we just saw in this case, the same is true of lying to the police. However, that still doesn't explain why you would take that risk. In fact, if you want to talk the political angles to this, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (John Lausch) was appointed by the current President. So, if you're arguing that politics play a role, it is far more likely to be prosecuted at the federal level than the state level. As I've said many times, it makes no sense to request a FBI investigation if she knew it was a lie.

 

[jrry32]

There was nothing minor about the hoax. Feds didn't step in because there wasn't a need. There is now.

Compared to what the FBI Director and Attorney General oversee, this is quite minor. And I'm not asking why the feds didn't step in. That's not the point. You are claiming that Tina Tchen knew Smollett lied when she asked Kim Foxx to ask Chicago police to turn the investigation over to the FBI. I am explaining why that would not happen if she knew Smollett lied.

 

[coconut]

Okay. Here's the change:


As we just saw in this case, the same is true of lying to the police. However, that still doesn't explain why you would take that risk. In fact, if you want to talk the political angles to this, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (John Lausch) was appointed by the current President. So, if you're arguing that politics play a role, it is far more likely to be prosecuted at the federal level than the state level. As I've said many times, it makes no sense to request a FBI investigation if she knew it was a lie.

Since when does a lawyer care that their client is lying?

 

[coconut]

Compared to what the FBI Director and Attorney General oversee, this is quite minor. And I'm not asking why the feds didn't step in. That's not the point. You are claiming that Tina Tchen knew Smollett lied when she asked Kim Foxx to ask Chicago police to turn the investigation over to the FBI. I am explaining why that would not happen if she knew Smollett lied.

No I'm not saying she knew he lied. She wanted whatever would help her client.

 

[jrry32]

No I'm not saying she knew he lied. She wanted whatever would help her client.

That's not what you were implying earlier. But okay. We can agree on that and move on.

 

[Farr Be It]

Your belief isn't based on evidence and makes no sense at all for the reasons I already stated. Asking for the FBI to investigate makes no sense if she knew he lied. That only sets him up for additional criminal charges.

Further, this is an ancillary issue. The fact is that Foxx recused herself, and the lawyer who used to work for MO never asked for Foxx to drop the charges (because there were no charges at that point). That is why I criticized Farr's post. If you're going to attack Kim Foxx, it's only fair to expect you have your facts straight. (I am using "you" in a general sense in the prior sentence.)

I'm also not sure what the FBI can do with the mail. What crime did he commit? Based on the facts we have, I don't see how they could prove mail fraud. But we'll have to wait and see. If he was using it to leverage money out of the network, that could solve that problem. Although, they still would have to prove that he sent the letter.

Jrry, it is interesting how much confidence you have in dismissing the corrupt actions of Foxx, and contort details and look for nuances to exonerate the actions and behavior of Foxx, (do you represent her?) and you seem to go into lawyer-ese language, as though we should all step back and be intimidated, and not recognize what is in front of our eyes:

• Smollett concocted a hoax, perhaps in conjunction with others, to implicate Trump supporters as being racist, and anti-homosexual. It was a foolish, and non-believable set of details, with the rope, the liquid dumped on him, even the racist taunts, "This is MAGA country!" Chicago?
• It is a pretty good bet he mailed the powder to himself. Federal crime.
• Yes there is the MO/Smollett, along with other politicians, as you know. Smollett is very politicized. His intentions were very dangerous. Riots could easily ensued from his bogus scheme. A full investigation NEEDS to happen, and all parties that were part of the crimes need to be investigated, and prosecuted. You, as a lawyer, know the importance of nobody being above the law. Equal application of the law. No Green Privilege for those that can buy their way out of trouble. And really Jrry, once you set down your briefcase, you know that is what happened here.

Okay. Here's the change:


As we just saw in this case, the same is true of lying to the police. However, that still doesn't explain why you would take that risk. In fact, if you want to talk the political angles to this, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (John Lausch) was appointed by the current President. So, if you're arguing that politics play a role, it is far more likely to be prosecuted at the federal level than the state level. As I've said many times, it makes no sense to request a FBI investigation if she knew it was a lie.

It remains to be seen what her goal was in shifting the case to the FBI. This ain't over. But be sure, her motives were not pure. You really need to drop that pipe dream.

 

[Memento]

This gif sums up my thoughts on this thread.