BREAKING: Smollett Orchestrated Attack, Sources Say

Jussie hasn't been charged yet because he has some powerful people that stand to be Very Embarrassed by this hateful hoax. It's also possible Jussie was put up to this by major Politicians, and they are the bigger target now ? This " Hot Potato " is still being tossed around, and some fingers are getting burned !

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
You've already demonstrated a staggering incapacity for understanding how the legal system in the United States functions.

Considering I'm not the one who thinks you don't need a grand jury to charge someone with a felony that's actually quite funny. Thanks for the laugh.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
If they had a text that showed collusion between the parties then jussie would be hauled in.

Would they? Are you assuming you know how the detectives are operating? Do you think it would make more sense to get him in and ask him in a situation where he's on record either confirming or denying this?

That was rhetorical by the way since you like 'common sense' and that would be the common sense approach for an iron clad referral to the prosecutor if he were in fact hoaxing this.

That is hogwash.

You think they need jussie to double down on his claims? He has been clear on his position.







He said she said.








If the grand jury is presented with basically what has been presented to us then i will guess that the two will be held accountable and jussie will not be charged with anything.

You keep believing that. Smollett started and led this conspiracy of a so called attack.

Possibly.

If the police had solid evidence the jussie would be in custody and be undergoing questioning instead of dodging request to come and talk to police that have publicly stated they do not feel he is a victim. I have to based on the evidence that the two are just as likely to have a grievance against jussie and targeted and attacked him and then are saying things to try to stay out of jail.

Seems people are ignoring the fact these two have admitted to the crime. So if they are capable of being paid to do the crime then they are just as likely capable of doing the crime out of some type of hate for jussie. Only factual evidence presented to the grand jury will tell the tell.



This is the same thing many of you have stated about trumps former fixer attorney that was on record lying. I guess we should believe these two now cause they have decided to go straight?

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
f the police had solid evidence the jussie would be in custody and be undergoing questioning instead of dodging request to come and talk to police....

He's not a murderer on the loose. There is zero reason to bring him in until they are done.

If I have your phone tapped or even just your records, why would I not wait to charge you? Zero reason to hint I don't believe you until I have a slam dunk case. I have incriminating texts between you and the other two. Maybe I have enough to charge you already. Why charge you until I am done investigating though? Maybe I'm waiting for your FB and Twitter messages. Maybe I want your bank statements first. Or I want to record you contacting the other guys. Or I want you to continue lying to me. i want you to try to explain it away and build your first defense BEFORE you know what I have. Not after. Then when you need to build a new one because I can prove you lied, your credibility is already shot. OR, or, or... There are a zillion reasons to keep you in the dark as long as possible.

As soon as I charge you I have to spill what I have on you. I have to give you exculpatory evidence collected, too. I would much rather you not know what I have or do not have. You're more likely to continue being stupid and helping me that way.

So no, "if they had any real evidence, they'd lock him up already" is not how this really works.

a reply to: RadioRobert

They are not bringing him in and have turned the evidence over to a grand jury. That is why i am claiming they do not have proper evidence to charge him lest they would have his phone.



For the record you are not charging me with a damn thing. Please don't use me in your examples.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

They don't physically need his phone. Better for him to try to delete and hide evidence.

A grand jury will indict almost anyone. It's not a "reasonable doubt" procedure. A grand jury would indict on the basis of just the testimony of the other two. There is no reason to charge him and tip their hand until they are completely done collecting evidence and building the case, even if they have enough evidence already

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
You've already demonstrated a staggering incapacity for understanding how the legal system in the United States functions.

Considering I'm not the one who thinks you don't need a grand jury to charge someone with a felony that's actually quite funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Dude you are spinning bs again. We already cleared this up.


You do not have to have a grand jury in Illinois to be charged with a felony. The state attorney has the power to do it.


They are not recommending any charges to the jury for either of the parties. They are presenting the full evidence to the jury to see if either side can be charged.

That decision clearly shows a lack of evidence.

If the police had evidence other than he said she said then they would not be proceeding this way.

For the record you are not charging me with a damn thing. Please don't use me in your examples.

Sorry, your story and assertions were so credible that I actually thought you were Jussie for a moment.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
You do not have to have a grand jury in Illinois to be charged with a felony. The state attorney has the power to do it.

And as I said earlier, most self respecting state attorneys will take the nearly guaranteed true bill approach than waste their time in prelim hearings.

If the police had evidence other than he said she said then they would not be proceeding this way.

Speculation based solely on your own personal ignorance of the details.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
You do not have to have a grand jury in Illinois to be charged with a felony. The state attorney has the power to do it.

And as I said earlier, most self respecting state attorneys will take the nearly guaranteed true bill approach than waste their time in prelim hearings.

If the police had evidence other than he said she said then they would not be proceeding this way.

Speculation based solely on your own personal ignorance of the details.

My goodness that is not right. You just tried to make fun of me and demean me by claiming i know nothing about law and you claimed twice only a grand jury can bring felony charges and i have no common sense.

Grow up dude. You can not even stay with the same train of thought from one post to the next.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
If they had a text that showed collusion between the parties then jussie would be hauled in.

Would they? Are you assuming you know how the detectives are operating? Do you think it would make more sense to get him in and ask him in a situation where he's on record either confirming or denying this?

That was rhetorical by the way since you like 'common sense' and that would be the common sense approach for an iron clad referral to the prosecutor if he were in fact hoaxing this.

That is hogwash.

You think they need jussie to double down on his claims? He has been clear on his position.







He said she said.








If the grand jury is presented with basically what has been presented to us then i will guess that the two will be held accountable and jussie will not be charged with anything.

You keep believing that. Smollett started and led this conspiracy of a so called attack.

Possibly.

If the police had solid evidence the jussie would be in custody and be undergoing questioning instead of dodging request to come and talk to police that have publicly stated they do not feel he is a victim. I have to based on the evidence that the two are just as likely to have a grievance against jussie and targeted and attacked him and then are saying things to try to stay out of jail.

I get it, your are giving him multiple benefits of doubt. Not me, it's pretty obvious he is hiding things.

Right from the start, police and some Press saw inconsistencies in his story.

It will all come out after the grand Jury.

I'm guessing they are giving Smollett an opportunity to come clean and get a smaller fine/conviction. If he doesn't he is going to get maximum sentence for what he did.

Ha, Pelosi trying to erase her statements about the Smollett situation......it doesn't work that way Nancy.

You own your words on this as does Harris, Booker and any other Democratic Presidential candidate.

link

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



Why give Smollett or his lawyers a chance to ask you questions or pin down your witnesses at a preliminary hearing. Go straight to the Grand Jury for the indictment.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
My goodness that is not right.

No, it's not? I guess you need to show that prelim hearings are more common than grand jury indictments.

You just tried to make fun of me and demean me by claiming i know nothing about law and you claimed twice only a grand jury can bring felony charges and i have no common sense.

I made it clear about the prelim hearings pages ago, it's a non-starter since the prosecutor will take the true bill over taking his chances with the defense and a judge.

Grow up dude. You can not even stay with the same train of thought from one post to the next.

Right, says the guy who is making decisions based on incomplete evidence.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Why give Smollett or his lawyers a chance to ask you questions or pin down your witnesses at a preliminary hearing. Go straight to the Grand Jury for the indictment.

That's crazy talk man, why take the near guarantee of a indictment when you can roll the dice with a prelim?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A prelim is still just "probable cause." Very rarely does either route not successfully lead to a a trial. The big bonus for the grand jury indictment is that the defense doesn't get to participate early, and they can't ask questions about your evidence and witnesses.
So why wouldn't you get an indictment?
If they needed him off the street and didn't want to wait for an indictment, they could just skip it and go for a prelim. He has to have the prelim quickly after an arrest. But there are zero reasons to go that route and lots of reasons to finish up your investigation first in this case. For example, if it takes weeks to hear back from the FBI about the maga lynch hate mail he received earlier, why proceed to trial before you get that finished up and have an even more complete picture? They will pour over his emails, texts, messages, social media, financials etc and get as complete a picture as possible before his lawyers get a chance to look at it through discovery. Do you think this guy is smart enough to come completely clean to his lawyers? They probably won't get a complete picture until discovery. Only hurts him while you wait because the defense can paint themselves into a corner while in the meantime. Why not let him twist in the wind and see if he contacts the brothers directly or indirectly? Etc, etc

It's the old saw "the wheels of justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine".