BREAKING Special prosecutor named to investigate Jussie Smollett charges and why they were dropped

a reply to: shooterbrody

You do realize that no African American was found innocent of a violent crime against a white person in the south until like the late 60s...


None..


Even when they knew that particular person was innocent, they still found them guilty and executed them , “just in case the others thought they could get away with it later..”


Even to this DAY, if you watch true crime shows, EVERY time they know who did it, but are afraid they might not get a conviction, it is a white guy..


My guess is they know exactly how easy it is to convict a black male, so they don’t require as much evidence..


By any stat the American justice system has just been horrible to anyone not white and rich FOREVER..

a reply to: shooterbrody

You sound as if YOU are ready to march in the street Shooter. Attributing my chuckling over this fool to something other than his complete and utter folly seems a bit intense. Your issue with me here is not that I don't believe that he was guilty or that I agree with a special prosecutor, which I do, but rather than I, unlike yourself, have found this fool to be seriously stupid. Like Dumb and Dumber.

a reply to: JustJohnny
go tell your "like" easily debunked lies elsewhere
you are full of beans

none of which has anything to do with the fact that jussie smollett is a gigantic turd and the corrupt justice system of the city of chicago gave him treatment others would not receive for similar crimes

a reply to: TerryMcGuire
attempt to make this about me all you like
smollett received preferential treatment for a staged hate crime
it is quite disgusting
and not a laughing matter in my opinion

no one would be laughing were the colors changed....

a reply to: shooterbrody

Racial. I get it. You see this as racial. That should be a given. But I see it as a fool has gotten his just deserts. That's all.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire
deserts being let of of 16 charges with not jail time for a staged hate crime?
yeah like I posted earlier no standards at all

originally posted by: JustJohnny


White supremacy was a scientific fact 80 years ago

Wow, never thought I would see someone admit to being a white supremacist here, but it's happened.

a reply to: shooterbrody

For some reason you think I am not in favor of him doing time. Here, let me state ie plainly. He should be doing time along with the shame and ruined career. But he isn't. For what ever reason. You are sure it is because he is black and the city attorney says it is because for whatever technicality or that it just meets the criteria of other crimes that are routinely let slide. Fine. Let the special prosecutor sort it out. Fine.

I still find this fellow comic.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: shooterbrody

You do realize that no African American was found innocent of a violent crime against a white person in the south until like the late 60s...


None..


Even when they knew that particular person was innocent, they still found them guilty and executed them , “just in case the others thought they could get away with it later..”


Even to this DAY, if you watch true crime shows, EVERY time they know who did it, but are afraid they might not get a conviction, it is a white guy..


My guess is they know exactly how easy it is to convict a black male, so they don’t require as much evidence..


By any stat the American justice system has just been horrible to anyone not white and rich FOREVER..

Time to stop then, right?

You Do realise it's time to stop, right.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: shooterbrody

You do realize that no African American was found innocent of a violent crime against a white person in the south until like the late 60s...


None..


Even when they knew that particular person was innocent, they still found them guilty and executed them , “just in case the others thought they could get away with it later..”


Even to this DAY, if you watch true crime shows, EVERY time they know who did it, but are afraid they might not get a conviction, it is a white guy..


My guess is they know exactly how easy it is to convict a black male, so they don’t require as much evidence..


By any stat the American justice system has just been horrible to anyone not white and rich FOREVER..

Important point of clarification in your above rant, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. NOBODY is found innocent in the legal system. That is the default state. Guilt must be proven, not innocence. If you do not agree, then you are severely misinformed.

a reply to: JustJohnny

Even that version is a criminal offense. They still made a false police report.

a reply to: JustJohnny

I’d be super interested in a source for that initial claim.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: jhn7537

To me, justice HAS been done, at least in the case of the actor. His career is ruined, he has been exposed as a racist himself and an incompetent boob to boot. His fiasco has made him a laughing stock. For me, his stupidity has alienated him from any future political associations and that is for the best.

The dropping of the case, even against the backing of the local police was questionable but with all the other cases that are dropped around the country on technicalities and such, keeping this one going seems a bit rabbit-holish to me.

NO!

That little asshole will apologize to the world and admit what he did.



apologize.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: jhn7537

Here's a question for you. If this special prosecutor can find no wrong doing on the part of the State Attorney, will you then accept that finding or, then discount this special prosecutor as biased or whatever and then demand another, higher, super special prosecutor to investigate this special prosecutor.

Sure, it will be accepted... and I assume you will accept the findings if they reach beyond the State Attorney and up to Kamala Harris and Barrack Obama.
I am sure you also fully accepted no collusion and no obstruction findings in the Mueller investigation too.

a reply to: UKTruth

and I assume you will accept the findings if they reach beyond the State Attorney and up to Kamala Harris and Barrack Obama.
I am sure you also fully accepted no collusion and no obstruction findings in the Mueller investigation too.

You ''assume'' incorrectly. Because I dislike Trump does not automatically mean that I like any of those others you mention, though I understand that that kind of thinking makes it easier to wrap up everything into little categories with easy explanations.

I'm eagerly awaiting all the hoop and holler that is expected to take all those Democrats down. I'm waiting and if it comes to it I will be happy to accept it.

As to the allegation of collusion, even as i think Trump a rather incompetent dullard, I did not think him to be that treasonous, or at least enough to leave a paper trail. But as to the obstruction charges, well, from what i have read about the report, it did not give him a pass on that as he claims. Do you understand that differently?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: UKTruth

and I assume you will accept the findings if they reach beyond the State Attorney and up to Kamala Harris and Barrack Obama.
I am sure you also fully accepted no collusion and no obstruction findings in the Mueller investigation too.

You ''assume'' incorrectly. Because I dislike Trump does not automatically mean that I like any of those others you mention, though I understand that that kind of thinking makes it easier to wrap up everything into little categories with easy explanations.

I'm eagerly awaiting all the hoop and holler that is expected to take all those Democrats down. I'm waiting and if it comes to it I will be happy to accept it.

As to the allegation of collusion, even as i think Trump a rather incompetent dullard, I did not think him to be that treasonous, or at least enough to leave a paper trail. But as to the obstruction charges, well, from what i have read about the report, it did not give him a pass on that as he claims. Do you understand that differently?

Yes, I understand it differently - and accurately. When charges are not brought, the person being investigated wins and indeed has a pass. That's how we operate in the civilised world.

So, your 'challenge' was whether the results of this new SC would be accepted and yet you yourself have just said you won't accept them and also have admitted to not accepting the result of the last SC.

That leaves you with zero credibility.

So JJ never came back to defend his claims or stance in this thread?

Just checking.

a reply to: UKTruth
I just re-read what you read from my post and failed to see how you draw the conclusion you have. You seem to have inverted my posting to come up with the conclusion that I have no credibility. If you wish you could make an attempt to explain more completely and specifically how you arrived at that but you would probably be wasting your time and mine as well so I see no reason to continue with this

a reply to: FamCore

That's JustJohnny for ya. He likes to spread the lies that CNN feeds him daily, and of course you can't make any sort of counter-argument or this bozo will claim that you are "insert Liberal BS insult here..."

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
...
As to the allegation of collusion, even as i think Trump a rather incompetent dullard, I did not think him to be that treasonous, or at least enough to leave a paper trail. But as to the obstruction charges, well, from what i have read about the report, it did not give him a pass on that as he claims. Do you understand that differently?

... 1st it wasn't the job of Mueller to "exonerate" POTUS Trump or anyone... He just had to investigate and PRESENT EVIDENCE to which there was NONE... ZERO... NADA... But you want to continue with the lie of "obstruction" when all POTUS Trump did was to ask his own officials whether he could do x things?...

You want obstruction?... The DNC denying the FBI access to their servers when the DNC claimed the Russians hacked them. That's interfering with an FBI investigation, but Mueller and McCabe were on the side of Hillary. The only reason why they would do that is because the DNC/Hillary were hiding something. When you want to hide something you make sure the least amount of people know about it. Which would be part of the reason why the DNC/Hillary denied the FBI access to their servers several times.

Then there are the 30,000 emails Hillary bleached after she was supposed to turn them in. Then there is the whole "Russian Dossier" written by a foreign agent whom admitted he wanted to affect our elections by not allowing Trump to become, or stay as POTUS...