However, the Washington Post column would, in my view, leave readers with a strikingly false impression of the facts and findings in the case.
At the outset, it is important to note that Professor Butler acknowledges that he does not think Smollett told the truth about being the victim of a hate crime. Moreover, the fact that Smollett was originally given a plea in exchange for dropping further prosecution is notable. There is a legitimate concern when any defendant is prosecuted after such a plea agreement, though this case was investigated because the plea was the result of special dealing and favoritism.
However, Butler proceeds to insist that this case is materially the same as thousands of others that were treated differently because of Smollett’s race.
“The charges were dropped in exchange for community service and surrender his $10,000 bond — an appropriate result for a first-time offender in a nonviolent crime. But that wasn’t enough for many White people — and some Black people as well— who wanted a pound of Smollett’s flesh.”
It was not “an appropriate result” but a result that was secured through special treatment by State’s Attorney Kim Foxx’s office to drop 16 counts. Most legal experts, including myself, expressed shock at the level of favoritism displayed by Foxx and her office in dealing with the star.
Smollett had used his contacts in the media to portray himself as the victim of a racist society. As we discussed earlier, Vice President Kamala Harris, then a U.S. senator, denounced what happened as an “attempted modern-day lynching.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said it was a “homophobic attack and an affront to our humanity.” In a fawning interview, ABC’s Robin Roberts described Smollett as “bruised but not broken” and breathlessly concluded the segment with “Beautiful, thank you, Jussie.”
Even when evidence mounted that this was a hoax, some media figures lashed out at Smollett’s doubters. ABC’s “The Talk” host Sara Gilbert was irate: “I find so personally offensive that a gay Black man is targeted and then suddenly he becomes the victim of people’s disbelief.”
Moreover, Professor Butler is ignoring the extensive findings of a long investigation and the views of the court that this was neither consistent with past cases nor justice. The Washington Post column simply repeats the talking point of Foxx, who was completely discredited in claiming that the Smollett case was “the treatment we’ve given to about 5,700 other people over the course of the last two years.”
Special investigator Dan Webb shredded that claim, which has found a new life in the Washington Post. As we discussed at the time, Webb found that Foxx lied to the public and misrepresented past cases. The report states specifically addressed and refuted the claim raised by Butler:
“The CCSAO attempted to find anecdotal evidence of similar resolutions to support its public narrative that its resolution of the initial Smollett case was not an outlier, but struggled to find any similar cases resolved in a similar manner (let alone thousands as was implied by the Dismissal Press Statement).”
The National District Attorneys Association also refuted the claim:
“The manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the State. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received. Even more problematic, the State’s Attorney and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and circumstances surrounding the dismissal.
…The appearance of impropriety here is compounded by the fact that this case was not on the regularly scheduled court call, the public had no reasonable notice or opportunity to view these proceedings, and the dismissal was done abruptly at what has been called an “emergency” hearing. To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed. The sealing of a court case immediately following a hearing where there was no reasonable notice or opportunity for the public to attend is a matter of grave public concern and undermines the very foundation of our public court system.
…Lastly, the State’s Attorney has claimed this arrangement is “available to all defendants” and “not a new or unusual practice.” There has even been an implication it was done in accordance with a statutory diversion program. These statements are plainly misleading and inaccurate. This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State’s Attorney initiated diversionary programs. The IPBA supports diversion programs, and recognizes the many benefits they provide to the community, the defendant and to the prosecuting agency. Central to any diversion program, however, is that the defendant must accept responsibility. To be clear here, this simply was not a deferred prosecution.”
There were not “thousands of cases” like this one. The Special Investigation was initiated precisely because this was an irregular action taken in favor of a well-connected celebrity. Yet, Butler insists that he was railroaded due to his race despite overwhelming evidence of special treatment due to his connections. Butler claims “he is just another Black man serving time — in a system more perverted than his crime.”
While insisting that people could not get beyond Smollett’s race, Butler tags Webb — one o the most respected prosecutors in the country — for his race:
“So a White male lawyer in private practice was handed more control over a criminal case than the Black female prosecutor elected to make those kinds of decisions. But Webb’s decision to throw the book at Smollett didn’t just undermine the legitimacy of the system. Public safety took a hit too.”
What is most striking about the Washington Post column is the claim that it is Smollett’s brief jail term — not his hoax — that will undermine future cases of racist attacks:
“Sending a Black gay man to jail for lying about being attacked will not encourage hate crime victims to come forward. Instead, it sends the message that they, rather than their assailants, are subject to being incarcerated if authorities don’t believe their stories.”
I would think that the greater damage is promulgating a craven and sensational hoax that cost the city and the police a fortune while risking that others may doubt for such claims in the future.
Smollett not only refused to admit his guilt at his original plea agreement, he took the stand and lied repeatedly, including lying and attacking the two black men who conspired with him in the hoax. He then continued to lie at sentencing and claim that he was in fact attacked by white men wearing MAGA hats.
Jussie Smollett is not “just another Black man serving time — in a system more perverted than his crime.” He is a man who manipulated that system with the assistance of the media and powerful friends. He is still doing that.
I condemn Smollett for lying to police.
But when it comes to public lies that harm society, Smollett hasn’t done nearly the amount of damage that Trump has done with his Big Lie that the election was stolen from him.
I haven’t read Butler’s column, but agree that our “justice” system is extremely flawed. An example is the large number of people in jail pending trial for nonviolent offenses, simply because they are too poor to pay bail. I think the bail system should be eliminated; either the person should be in jail pending trial because they’re either too dangerous or are a flight risk pending trial, or they should be out. Another example is the discrepancy in treatment of powerful people vs. nonpowerful people (e.g., according to NC law, Mark Meadows committed voter fraud when he voted using an address where he had never lived, but he has not been prosecuted, yet a number of regular people in NC have been prosecuted for voting while on probation, not realizing that they are not legally eligible to vote until they complete her probation; according to FL law, Trump committed voter registration fraud when he registered in FL and gave a DC address as his residence, but he was not prosecuted).
Thank you for your continued effort to educate people of the mindlessness and intellectual dishonesty (at best) of the left.
Every single sentence you wrote is complete and utter bull crap. Well done, and tanks again.
“Every single sentence you wrote is complete and utter bull crap.”
Glad to know that you disagree with “I condemn Smollett for lying to police.”
“I condemn Smollett for lying to police.”
Wow! A weak mind had to make the disclaimer before going on an unrelated TDS rant.
I didn’t read Turley’s little crap piece, because I don’t need to: the headline is sufficient to get a flavor of today’s assignment from Fox. Paul Butler is one man with one opinion. Period. But, Turley, we know that the real reason you wrote this is to keep stirring the pot: describe what you consider to be the “outrageousness” of Butler’s opinions and all of the reasons why, and then get the disciples to generalize this “outrage” to “the Left” and the Democratic party. That’s really what you do, Turley–punditry masquerading as legal scholarship. Just look at the comments. The first “anonymous” points out the damage to society Trump did and continues to do by promoting the Big Lie, and the disparity between prosecutions for voter fraud by people on probation (who erroneously thought they were eligible to vote), as opposed to those well-connected who misrepresent their residence. The obvious thrust of this comment was context. The second “anonymous” responds with the “mindlessness and intellectual dishonesty (at best) of the left.” This little toilet piece of yours was calculated to elicit just such a response, part of your assignment from Fox, Where is it written that Paul Butler speaks for anyone other than himself? You do know better, Turley.
Then why are you here? Is this your job? How much do they pay?
I must assure that I ignore any and all posts by this writer! But ,,, he must be recovering rom his mental problems/hangups as it took until the 2nd paragraph to mention President Trump. This writer would be an unbearable person with whom to live. Thank goodness he is here writing, only; all should and can easily ignore him/her/it.
Pro Tip; When a person says “ I haven’t read Butler’s column, but I agree…”, this is a clue to stop reading because the poster, whichever Kevin Crumb persona this is, has no idea what they are talking about.
We are going to have to give The Boy Who Cried Wolf a rewrite
Jeff sounds like a typical Democrat…I agree with you but I don’t like you and so I will do the opposite. This is how Biden and his moronic Cabinet decided to open the border, cancel the Keystone Pipeline, grant Russia their pipeline, stop drilling on federal lands, argue against the police and bail, get back into negotiations with Iran, pull put of Afghanistan before securing people and equipment, drop the way we look for Chinese spies and get back into the Paris Climate talks.
How has being the Bizarro Trump president worked out? When you do the opposite of everything that was working you end up with what we have today…an open border, very high gas prices, high inflation, Russia on the move, China on the move, Iran on the move and the US not even leading from behind.
The tie in is that attitudes like little Jeffie are harmful because doing the opposite of what is good means doing what is bad. Contrarians like Little Jeffie and Anonymous are harmful to America.
Hullbobby says:
“Jeff sounds like a typical Democrat…I agree with you but I don’t like you and so I will do the opposite.”
All I predicted was that Turley’s choice of this particular topic would stimulate a lot of commentary from his “blog family” as he refers to us! You and I are part of the same family! Isn’t that special!
I predicted well over 100 comments. I was correct. Then I upped my prediction to 200 comments. I suggest you lying Trumpists stop commenting unless you want to prove me right again….
I agree with Butler. Any time a black man is charged with doing something wrong systematic racism is probably the real motivation.
Agree. Except when overweening narcissism and a psychotic attention-seeking combine to flout the law in the service of ego-gratification. Maybe Smollett should be in a psychiatric hospital rather than a jail.
Hornbook says:
“overweening narcissism and a psychotic attention-seeking combine to flout the law in the service of ego-gratification.”
Gee, who do you think springs to mind when you make that analysis?
I don’t disagree. Former president you-know-who is a bigger mental health blackhole.
I agree. Obama does have problems.
Barnum, does your belief extend to believing Smollett was innocent? If you think he was guilty, do you think he shouldn’t be punished because he is black?
Jussie committed a HATE CRIME, that others would spend YEARS in prison for, yet he deserves a break BECAUSE he is black. PERIOD. That is Progressivism in a nutshell.
Gay Is the New Black
Paul Butler
JULY 19, 2013
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/26/is-the-civil-rights-era-over/the-court-should-focus-on-justice-rather-than-rights
Paul Butler is gay. Check his Twitter, Facebook, etc feeds. He is as gay as a smoked mullet, and quite the knee-jerk reactionary. No surprises there
Gay Is the New Black,
His sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to this discussion! Bringing in his sexual orientation to the discussion reeks of bigotry.
Thanks Steve. I am often mocked by others on here for being a gay man.
By the way, are you a top? Asking for a friend
Troll.
Seth Warner asked, “By the way, are you a top?”
Without making assumptions, I have no clue what you’re asking.
Does the color of his skin really matter?
Another rich celebrity gets caught breaking the law. Rather then own up to it, he doubles down on the whole thing. He expects special treatment, leniency, because, well, he is a celebrity.
If by some chance he gets released early, it will be another example of two Justice Systems, one for the rich, and one for everyone else.
The venue for the musical Chicago also took place in Cook County Jail. I can still hear Catherine Zeta Jones belting out “He Had It Coming!” To Professor Butler I say: “He had it coming…and then some.”
Smollett engaged in a reprehensible action, while Butler made things worse.
Butler is trying to manipulate the system in favor of rich, high-profile people who are black. His distaste of those “many White people — and some Black people as well— who wanted a pound of Smollett’s flesh” demonstrated awkward racism. I think people wanted justice, and likely the sentence wasn’t harsh enough.
Professor Butler is a useful idiot. He perverts justice by deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the Smollett case. Why is this legal amateur teaching law to anyone except clowns?
Turley also misrepresents things in his columns. Do you likewise conclude that Turley is perverting justice by doing so?
Turley identified what the clownish Butler got wrong. Why don’t you do the same?
I haven’t read Butler’s column. Interesting that you chose not to answer my question but want me to answer yours.
Gosh, the brain-dead can’t seem to provide rationality to their arguments.
Logic is not your strong suit, is it?
Actually, logic is one of my strong suits. Did you know that loaded questions like yours are a common logical fallacy?
“Actually, logic is one of my strong suits.”
Is that an admission of your stupidity everywhere else?
No. And if logic were one of *your* strong suits, you’d know that my statement does not imply that.
Your surrounding rhetoric implies that.
Your rhetoric implies that you post most of your comments while looking in the mirror.
Butler’s comments add to other recent controversy at Georgetown Law. Good reasons to avoid hiring or contracting with Georgetown Law alumni.
At a point in time when racial justice is on the knife edge of becoming mainstream Mr. Smollett engaged in a hoax that’s set back the effort for who knows how long. And for what? For personal gain. Worse, he’s become point man, meaning served the interests, of those who deny racism is a ‘thing’ at all. For this, I hold the opinion ‘justice’ would have been better served with a longer term – in prison instead of jail. Moreover, I am disappointed our justice system at the Federal level has not looked into this with an eye toward administering justice for our nation (versus local justice as imposed by Chicago’s DA). This, because what this man did was a dishonor to our entire nation. When so many have paid with blood for this man to try to take advantage of their deaths for pecuniary reasons is beyond the pale.
Smollett’s hoax was literally a racist hate crime against white people and should be prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice as such. Put the guy away for a long time.
You clearly either haven’t read the federal hate crime statutes, or you simply don’t care what these laws actually say. Smollett’s crime does not meet the requirements for a federal hate crime.
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/laws-and-policies
This needs to be addressed regardless of the Anonymous source.
Anonymous wrote, “Smollett’s crime does not meet the requirements for a federal hate crime.”
You could be right and you could be wrong.
What’s clear is that there’s a fuzzy grey line defining hate crimes and that’s exactly how social justice warriors and the political left want’s it so they can use the Federal Hate Crime against those they oppose for just about anything.
Here are some excerpts from the Department of Justice on Hate Crimes, there is a link at the bottom
What Smollett did was a hateful crime towards the entire white race, he’s a racist. I think what Smollett did falls within the loose standards set forth by the Justice Department. Everyone can make up their own minds and everyone is free to disagree with me.
You’ve chosen to ignore what that very page says about the subset of crimes they’re discussing:
“The “crime” in hate crime is often a violent crime, such as assault, murder, arson, vandalism, or threats to commit such crimes. It may also cover conspiring or asking another person to commit such crimes, even if the crime was never carried out.”
If the crime is non-violent and does not involve conspiracy to violence, then it simply cannot be a hate crime, even if the “hate” is present. Again, I gave you a link that lists and summarizes all of the federal hate crime statutes. Read what they actually say. Smollett’s crime does not meet the actual legal conditions for a federal hate crime, whether you can admit it or not.
Anonymous wrote, “You’ve chosen to ignore what that very page says about the subset of crimes they’re discussing:”
Ignoring it?
BALDERDASH!!!
You’re a liar; I quoted it verbatim so people can make up their own minds.
You’re welcome to your opinion and I’m welcome to mine.
Now stop misrepresenting others with your lies!
I’m back to ignoring Anonymous.
Steve Witherspoon, you claimed that Smollett’s hoax is LITERALLY a hate crime and should be prosecuted as such. Your own posted definitions contradict your claim which confirms the fact that you either ignored the definition of crime says or you didn’t read it thoroughly enough to realize the apparent contradiction.
Is lying a crime under the definitions you posted?
You quoted part of it, and you also ignored other text on that page, which I quoted in my response.
Again: IF a crime does not involve violence or conspiracy to violence THEN the crime cannot be a hate crime EVEN IF the crime is motivated by hate. Read the actual statutes instead of relying on a summary. Here, again, is a list of the federal hate crime statutes, so you can know which statutes to read the text of: https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/laws-and-policies
Steve Witherspoon,
“ Now stop misrepresenting others with your lies!”
Anonymous has done no such thing. Ironically it’s you who is making false claims. You claimed Smollett’s hoax is a literally a hate crime. Anonymous pointed out correctly that your claim is false. Your very own post outlining the definitions of a hate crime don’t meet the requirements of a hoax being a hate crime.
It can be easily verified by answering the one question, Was violent crime involved in this incident?
“It can be easily verified by answering the one question, Was violent crime involved in this incident?”
Wrong!
From a .gov site:
“At the federal level, hate crime laws include ***crimes committed*** on the basis of the victim’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.”
Anonymous,
“ It can be easily verified by answering the one question, Was violent crime involved in this incident?”
Wrong!
From a .gov site:
“At the federal level, hate crime laws include ***crimes committed*** on the basis of the victim’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.”
Here you ignore the definition of a crime which is according to the statutes,
“ Crime
The “crime” in hate crime is often a violent crime, such as assault, murder, arson, vandalism, or threats to commit such crimes. It may also cover conspiring or asking another person to commit such crimes, even if the crime was never carried out.”
Was violence committed? Was assault committed? Murder? Arson? Vandalism? Threats to commit any of them? These are exactly what is defined as a crime in the statutes.
Witherspoon’s claim that Smollett’s hoax is literally a hate crime is false.
“The “crime” in hate crime is often a violent crime”
Often = many times.
But many times is not = always.
That leaves the remainder that lies between often and always.
To quote Hornbrook’s response to Svelaz: “Too tendentious and willfully stupid to merit a reply.”
Anonymous,
“ The “crime” in hate crime is often a violent crime”
Often = many times.
But many times is not = always.
That leaves the remainder that lies between often and always.”
Talk about a bad attempt at deflection. The issue isn’t about the frequency of a crime. It’s the definition we are discussing here.
Witherspoon claimed Smollett’s hoax is LITERALLY a racist hate crime. Problem is his claim is not true even if he wanted it to be. According to federal statute Smollett’s hoax cannot be categorized as a hate crime. Lying is not a violent crime.
“ To quote Hornbrook’s response to Svelaz: “Too tendentious and willfully stupid to merit a reply.”
Yet…you replied.
Quoting Hornbrook: ““Too tendentious and willfully stupid to merit a reply.”
I am more generous though he is correct. There are federal and state hate crimes, so start opening all of the laws on the books.
I’ll deal with the federal though I am not sure under which law this hate crime was litigated under. Hate + crime = hate crime. Skip listening to the talkative anonymous who is generally wrong.
From the justice department at .gov:
“At the federal level, hate crime laws include crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.
Most state hate crime laws include crimes committed on the basis of race, color, and religion; many also include crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.
Crime
The “crime” in hate crime is often a violent crime, such as assault, murder, arson, vandalism, or threats to commit such crimes. *It may also cover ****conspiring**** or asking another person to commit such crimes, even if the crime was never carried out.”
That nutcase conspired with two others. What he did was criminal and it was based on racism.
You’re not quoting any of the actual statutes. Read the text of the statutes.
Federal law, 34 U.S. Code § 30507: “The term “hate crime” means an act described in section 245, 247, or 249 of title 18 or in section 3631 of title 42.”
For example, 18 U.S. Code § 249 – Hate crime acts:
“Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person …
“Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person …”
If you bother to read the actual statutes, you will find that they must also involve bodily injury, attempts to cause bodily injury, or conspiracy to cause bodily injury.
There are federal and state hate crime laws. Are you familiar with them all? That you don’t provide a statute proves nothing. It means your search may or may not be incomplete. IMO the term hate crime shouldn’t even exist, and cases frequently are disputed as to whether or not they are hate crimes.
See the reply to Sevlaz.
All of my responses are part of the subthread that originated with Steve’s 10:23 AM claim that “Smollett’s hoax was literally a racist hate crime against white people and should be prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice as such” and my response that “Smollett’s crime does not meet the requirements for a federal hate crime.”
Both of those comments are about federal hate crimes (those are the only crimes prosecuted by the DOJ).
If you want to discuss state hate crime laws, find someone else to discuss them with.
Your response to Svelaz is mistaken. You are not quoting the actual federal legislation, and you are also misinterpreting the text that you quoted. Where is says “conspiring or asking another person to commit such crimes,” “such crimes” refers back to the crimes mentioned in previous sentence: violent crimes. Smollett did not conspire to commit a violent crime.
Again: Read the text of the statutes.
Based on the following two responses, as usual, you have been proven to be incomplete in your analysis of the statutes involved. Such research by a law clerk would get him fired, yet you wish everyone to trust your judgment? That would be ridiculous.
Correction: 18 U.S. Code § 247 does not require bodily injury, attempts to cause bodily injury, or conspiracy to cause bodily injury. It addresses hate crimes involving damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs. 18 U.S. Code § 245 also includes by force or threat of force willfully injuring, intimidating or interfering with certain activities, such as voting. But again, these don’t apply with Smollett. People are prosecuted for breaking one or more laws, so to understand whether Smollett could be prosecuted for federal hate crimes, you have to look at the text of the relevant laws.
I read ’em. “willfully causes bodily injury to any person.” In Juicy’s case that would be self-inflicted harm to Juicy. That’s what “any peron” means.
mespo, Smollett’s injuries were not “self-inflicted.”
The injuries to his reputation certainly were. From serious actor to sympathy-seeking fraud.
Anonymous,
“ That nutcase conspired with two others. What he did was criminal and it was based on racism.”
No, Smollett LIED to two others. That’s not conspiracy. He was the only one making the false claims. The two other people would have to have known Smollett was deliberately lying and played along willingly.
Proving conspiracy is a lot harder and police never proved conspiracy.
Smitherspoon’s claim that Smollett’s hoax is literally a hate crime is patently false.
“No, Smollett LIED to two others. ”
He paid the other two. That created a conspiracy.
“No, Smollett LIED to two others. ”
That is for the court system to decide.
This action belongs in the category of hate crimes if such a category should exist.
Anonymous,
“ Based on the following two responses, as usual, you have been proven to be incomplete in your analysis of the statutes involved. Such research by a law clerk would get him fired, yet you wish everyone to trust your judgment? That would be ridiculous.”
No, you have been proven wrong multiple times. Your deliberate misinterpretation of the statutes, conflating between federal and state statutes, and just plain ignoring the actual text of the law defining hate crime have all been shown to you to be erroneous.
Smitherspoon’s claim that Smollett’s hoax was literally a hate crime has been proven to be false. He wanted a harsher punishment for Smollett’s hoax claims because he’s black.
The two posts following the anonymous poster’s response demonstrated that his legal skills were not up to par. That is why one cannot assume that anything he says is true. The .gov site says otherwise, and the statutes say more than the anonymous chatterbox revealed (typical).
No one conflated federal with state statutes. By the way, Smollett was in a state court, not a federal court.
“Smitherspoon’s claim that Smollett’s hoax was literally a hate crime has been proven to be false.”
That is a dumb statement and par for the course. Witherspoon wasn’t *proven* wrong. In fact, that was his opinion. Smollett wasn’t charged for a hate crime. Initially, he wasn’t tried for his offense because of politics.
You never learned the difference between opinion and fact. This blog is littered with your confusion.
Anonymous,
“ “No, Smollett LIED to two others. ”
He paid the other two. That created a conspiracy.
“No, Smollett LIED to two others. ”
That is for the court system to decide.
This action belongs in the category of hate crimes if such a category should exist.”
Wrong again. There’s no evidence that he paid others to conspire to lie.
A jury already handed out a verdict on the charges. All charges he was found guilty of is disorderly conduct.
As you have been shown multiple times in order to have charged Smollett with a hate crime there would have to have violence resulting in bodily injury or property damage. None of that happened. He didn’t conspire either. He just lied to the police.
You WANT it to be a hate crime because you want a harsher punishment because he’s Black. Not because of what the law says.
Svelaz, just a heads-up that someone is pretending to be you and posting nasty comments: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/16/washington-post-columnist-jussie-smollett-is-just-another-black-man-serving-time-in-a-system-more-perverted-than-his-crime/comment-page-2/#comment-2166667
I suggest that you email Turley about it so that the person is banned for impersonation. His email is listed here: https://www.law.gwu.edu/jonathan-turley
“Wrong again. There’s no evidence that he paid others to conspire to lie.”
You don’t know what you are talking about. Smollett paid others. Without them, his crime would never have occurred. Whether they were willing accomplices or dupes cannot be adequately known because of political hesitancy in leveling any charges against Smollett.
We are dealing with opinion, not fact. As usual, you make statements that are your personal opinion and convert them into facts. You are wrong again like you have been in almost every debate on this blog. (I would post a few having to do with your confusion of opinion and fact in the future, but I have done that before. IT had no effect.) We are not dealing with a normal individual.
“You WANT it to be a hate crime because you want a harsher punishment because he’s Black.”
I want justice. Your side decided not to try Smollett because he was black and/or an entertainer. I think both.
“No, Smollett LIED to two others.”
“Chicago police now believe “Empire” TV actor Jussie Smollett paid two pals to fake the attack that he has insisted was carried out by a pair of homophobic and racist strangers, according to a stunning new report.”
You are wrong, as usual, Svelaz.
Your brain may be too limited to understand, but not every crime is charged. The DA covered up Smollett’s crimes at first.
You have that racist attitude that blacks need your intellect, which is laughable. You are the one that is challenged and special.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ You don’t know what you are talking about. Smollett paid others. Without them, his crime would never have occurred. Whether they were willing accomplices or dupes cannot be adequately known because of political hesitancy in leveling any charges against Smollett.
We are dealing with opinion, not fact. As usual, you make statements that are your personal opinion and convert them into facts.”
You claim Smollett paid others to lie. Ok. Show us the evidence? If you are stating he paid others you know you read it somewhere. Provide the proof.
The only reason the crime is known is because Smollett LIED to the police. The fact that his lie was so obvious led to an investigation which resulted in Smollett’s conviction. None of what he did is a hate crime no matter how many ways from Sunday you try to justify it. You WANT it to be a hate crime because you WANT him to be punished much harsher because he’s black.
We are dealing with fact. Every post by me and anonymous proper have cited factual information citing the actual law requirement defining a hate crime.
As usual you’re citing opinions from poor reading comprehension skills as fact.
You’re just as wrong now as you were at the beginning of the discussion.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
S. Meyer, we all know it’s you. Posting as anonymous isn’t fooling anyone. Just post as yourself.
“ The two posts following the anonymous poster’s response demonstrated that his legal skills were not up to par. That is why one cannot assume that anything he says is true. The .gov site says otherwise, and the statutes say more than the anonymous chatterbox revealed (typical).”
He posted verbatim the definitions of what a hate crime entails. The .gov site is the DOJ stating actual federal statutes. You have clearly demonstrated that you don’t know how to read or can’t read well enough to comprehend what you’re read is telling you.
“ Smitherspoon’s claim that Smollett’s hoax was literally a hate crime has been proven to be false.”
That is a dumb statement and par for the course. Witherspoon wasn’t *proven* wrong. In fact, that was his opinion. Smollett wasn’t charged for a hate crime. ”
Smitherspoon’s statement was not an opinion. He stated Smollett’s hoax IS literally a hate crime. The “IS” in his statement makes it an assertive statement not an opinion. If he said Smollett’s hoax “CAN” be literally a hate crime then it would be considered an opinion. Given your horrendous reading skills and comprehension failures it’s not surprising. But I suspect you are just being deliberately ignorant because you can’t properly refute the facts and smitherspoon’s claim being proven wrong multiple times.
S. Meyer has repeatedly stated that he doesn’t post to foolish people with his name unless those comments have something of value. Why should anyone read what you have to say that has been proven wrong time and time again? Your posts should all be trashed before reading, along with most of the responses.
Says you. Thanks for your two bits worth.
Anonymous can’t put this into his own words. If he does, he will get two black eyes instead of one. This SJW doesn’t have what it takes to be one.
Steve Witherspoon,
“ Smollett’s hoax was literally a racist hate crime against white people and should be prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice as such. Put the guy away for a long time.”
No it wasn’t. Not even by the standards you posted.
“ Crime
The “crime” in hate crime is often a violent crime, such as assault, murder, arson, vandalism, or threats to commit such crimes. It may also cover conspiring or asking another person to commit such crimes, even if the crime was never carried out.”
Literally all he did was lie. It was wrong to do so, but as your own posted definitions, it doesn’t meet the requirements of a literal hate crime as you claim.
Ironically if your claim were to be true those white folks calling the police lying about black folks doing something illegal should also be referred to the DOJ and put set for a very long time.
How come such harsh punishment is only directed at people who are black?
Troll alert: Too tendentious and willfully stupid to merit a reply.
That is typical of almost all his remarks.
Svelaz
Just like everyone else around here including you and I, you’re welcome to your opinion.
I think your innuendo about racism may also be directed at me, if it’s not my bad. However, just to be perfectly clear; I used to tell trainees in United States Army Infantry School back in the early 1990’s, “I’m not your friend, I don’t discriminate and I hate everyone equally.”, the same holds true today.
Steve Withersoon – when one of my students would say I was be racist or discriminatory, I would tell them I was an equal opportunity racist (or discriminator) and today it was his/her race, however tomorrow it was some other races day. That usually shut them up and got the class laughing.
Juicy is in protection at the Cook County Jail. If you haven’t watched the sentencing, I suggest you do so. It is available several places on Youtube. Personally, I would have stacked the sentences, but the way this judge did probably will not be overturned. And Juicy will have served his sentence before the appeals court looks at it. 🙂 Justice for Juicy!!!!
Butler is only fueling more racism in his irresponsible comments. And I don’t mean white racism directed at blacks; I’m referring to black racism directed at whites. It’s all the rage right now. Smollett richly deserves his time in jail.
Mary Ann Caton wrote, “Butler is only fueling more racism in his irresponsible comments. And I don’t mean white racism directed at blacks; I’m referring to black racism directed at whites. It’s all the rage right now.”
It’s all about promoting their social justice propaganda narrative. The indoctrinated sheeple will continue to follow the herd of ignorant social justice warriors and willingly jump off the cliff while they ignorantly scream “systemic racism” and “equity” at the top of their ignorant lungs until they slam into the rocks below. Yes these ignorant indoctrinated fools will martyr themselves for a propaganda lie!
You just can’t fix stupid!
“You just can’t fix stupid!”
That is their conundrum. After a few generations of equality under the law and a couple with discriminatory policy in their favor, there is no real fruit (not the Smollett and Butler type).
It has to be terribly frustrating for the left and you can understand why dimwits at WaPo, MSNBC, DNC, etc have to re-resort to the racism mantra – they have no other route to explain the failures, except the honest one, which they apparently will never accept.
Oh well, society will simply have to suffer these fools and clowns, good people will suffer, problems will not be solved, and ther pols and their buddies will get rich. That is the democrat way.
Steve Witherspoon,
“ It’s all about promoting their social justice propaganda narrative. The indoctrinated sheeple will continue to follow the herd of ignorant social justice warriors and willingly jump off the cliff while they ignorantly scream “systemic racism” and “equity” at the top of their ignorant lungs until they slam into the rocks below. Yes these ignorant indoctrinated fools will martyr themselves for a propaganda lie!”
You believe Smollett’s hoax is literally a hate crime and should be charged because he was somehow insulting the white race (paraphrasing) or something like that.
Not long ago in New York a woman with an unleashes dog was being told she needed to put her dog on a leash because those were the rules. She refused and called the police and on video made false claims to the police that a black man was threatening her and assaulting her. She lied and clearly being racist. Smollett’s case and Amy cooper’s are similar in that they both made false statements using race.
According to your own rationale she should have been charged with a hate crime and punished accordingly. Her case was dropped and no charges filed.
Smollett was charged and sent to jail.
Butler’s point emphasizes this difference. Even on this blog commenters WANT Smollett’s punishment to be harsh because he’s black. But If that’s not the case then would you have called for Amy Cooper’s hoax a hate crime as well?
Svelaz – I thought Amy Cooper should be convicted and got into a literary duel with a guy who said she was innocent. BTW,, charges were dropped because the African-American refused to testify against her.
Paul Shulte,
“ Svelaz – I thought Amy Cooper should be convicted and got into a literary duel with a guy who said she was innocent.”
The “guy” didn’t say she was innocent. He just decided not to press charges because the backlash against her and her employer firing her seemed punishment enough.
What I was asking Witherspoon was whether she should have also been charged with a hate crime given that she made a false police report with racist intent.
Selaz – It is up to the DA to do the charging. I am not sure if NYC has a ‘hate crime’ enhancement. If it does, she qualifies.
Amy Cooper was charged and lost a lot.
Anyone who has read any of Butler’s columns in the past would know he is a absolute racist.
Ok, so if one is a non-caucasian, actions shouldn’t have consequences. Got it. Good news for my mixed race family. Except that we are people of integrity and wouldn’t lie or manipulate the situation after getting caught lying. Also, some of the children in our family look like they are white and not mixed.
Pretty done with the race baiting as we live in a modern world where it’s largely just the race baiters themselves that have a problem.
They question is why after it is all said and done….resulting in a Conviction in Court….the lies, deceit, rejection of truth continue re Smulllett’s crime by the Perp himself and his supporters?
The Guy continues making mock of reality, law enforcement, the Justices System, and the Black Community…..and the Left offers him an Oscar for his performance.
Smullett is crazy….the rabid Left continues to demonstrate their stupidity.
Ralph Chappell asked, “The question is why after it is all said and done….resulting in a Conviction in Court….the lies, deceit, rejection of truth continue re Smollett’s crime by the Perp himself and his supporters?”
When one of the core beliefs of your ideology is that “the ends justifies the means” then promoting their propaganda narrative regardless of truth and facts is completely “justified” in their indoctrinated sheeple minds.
Any questions?
Had Ms. Foxx required Mr. Smollett to give an apology for his hoax when the plea deal was offered, this case would have ended there and then. Of course, she didn’t and he wouldn’t. Fox’s and Smollett’s hubristic miscalculation can now be added to the very long history book of missed opportunities.
Jonathan wrote, ” Butler declares that Smollett is “just another Black man serving time — in a system more perverted than his crime.” The Washington Post column repeats a number of legal assertions that have been refuted by the special investigator, prosecutors, the court, and others about the case.”
People like Butler don’t give a damn about actual facts all they care about is promoting their propaganda narrative and that’s a fact Jack! They’re immoral political and ignorant social justice hacks.
Check that, make that 200!
While I don’t disagree with Turley’s take, he really is throwing out the red meat to his Trumpist and Fox News followers with this post! Expect we’ll over 100 comments…
jeffsilberman wrote, “While I don’t disagree with Turley’s take, he really is throwing out the red meat to his Trumpist and Fox News followers with this post! Expect we’ll over 100 comments…”
That’s about the best example of explicit bias from an internet troll as I have ever seen.
So, what did he get wrong, factually? Or are you just obtuse? Or worse.
Matt Kremer wrote, “So, what did he get wrong, factually? Or are you just obtuse? Or worse.”
Geeze I can’t believe I have to write this.
Did you not comprehend what Jeff wrote, he clearly wrote “While I don’t disagree with Turley’s take”. Jeff did not write that Turley got anythnig wrong!
So is it fair for me to ask you, “So, what did you get wrong, factually? Or are you just obtuse? Or worse.”
Comprehension is a learned thing, read more and comment less.
Matt,
You really did drop your pants and expose your anti-jeffsilberman bias with that comment. 😉
LOL…Why don’t you do the easier work and tell us what he got right.
Anonymous – Juicy is going to be in solitary and watched 24/7 on camera. He died and went to heaven. 😉
Bwahahahahahaahaaa!!!
Good catch!
Jeffy, your attempts to be provocative and pirouette from the daily topics are all falling short of a fart in a divers helmet.
Margot Ballhere,
Jeff’s rhetoric is like a fart in the wind.