Justin Smollet charges DROPPED ? Who else smells a rat?

1. 90

   RJ Schwartzposted 3 years ago

   Chicago police are calling foul as charges against Smollett are dropped.  State Attorney Kim Foxx is now in the crosshairs to explain why.  The Liberal Judge even sealed the case to keep the truth hidden forever.
   
   Anyone else calling BS on this one ?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It is called socioeconomic privilege...….  Wealth is power & status.  People w/power & status are the dominants.  In nature & society, not to mention culture, dominants have privileges that those who aren't dominants don't, can't, & won't ever have.    Wealthy people are the in group & people of the in group can get away w/things that others can't.   Jussie have privilege & based upon that privilege(socioeconomic wealth & status), he wasn't penalized for his actions.   MONEY TALKS......MONEY TALKS.....HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SAY THIS!  Squawk all one wants- wealth packs a wallop in our society!

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         And how far is "Money allowed to talk", allowed to extend itself? does it include people like the Koch Brothers, using their wealth to put everyone else at a disadvantage, through inordinant political and economic power and influence. Is democracy for sale?
         
         How far are you allowing it to go, Grace?
         
         Well for me, it is a prime adversary and regardless of what rightwingers say, this is a form of abuse which I will not abide and will fight as far as I can. I give the Capitalist class and the wealthy the right to buy a larger a box of corn flakes than I can afford, but that is it. The people's right to government free from corruption by the wealthy handful is important. If the desire for that is considered as Socialism for the Rightwinger, then that is too bad.
         
         Bring on Sanders and Warren as the only nominees who appreciate this fact.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            RJ Schwartzposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            How about sharing your thoughts on the topic, rather than a speech on something unrelated

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Don't get your drawers in a bunch, RJ, I am responding to a comment made by Grace on this thread thank you.
               
               In several comments I expressed my opinion about this matter

               replyreport
   2. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph there is an obvious conclusion to draw from the Smollett affair.
      
      1) He was put up to creating this fraud by powerful left wing "friends" who guaranteed him they'd take care of him if anything went wrong.
      
      2) that's why in the face of all this evidence he stuck to his story knowing they'd save him and the scam would never be adjudicated.
      
      3) He will be set for life for doing the bidding of the left in trying to create another false narrative about Trump just like "Dr." Blasey Ford (I wonder how much her parents paid in bribes to get her into UNC)
      
      Smell a rat? he came right out of the rats' nests where people like him are spawned.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         RJ Schwartzposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I'm hearing that this case is somehow tied to the Chicago Mayoral election - apparently both candidates are against punishing crime.....

         replyreport
         1. 65

            tsadjatkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, crime shouldn't be punished because that is discrimination. Criminals who don't get caught aren't punished so how unfair is that?
            
            Smollett was let go because thousands of similar false reports go unpunished in Chicago so to punish him is discriminatory.
            
            Really, to be treated equally under the law you can't punish crime Oh, it's ok to have laws but it's discriminatory to enforce them.
            
            Our courts are too crowded anyway and without crimes being punished we won't need judges like Kavanaugh who rape women!
            
            You can find more justification for stopping the punishment of crime here, I think there is also a clearance sale going on here for the new green deal
            
            https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/14468540_f496.jpg

            replyreport
            1. 90

               RJ Schwartzposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Well it looks like the Feds are involved now - and I heard that Mrs. Foxx stated that the case was sealed "accidentally" and that she never ordered it sealed.  The Cook County system is not looking too good under the microscope.

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  tsadjatkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Sealed accidentally? How does that happen accidentally?
                  
                  You can’t believe anything anyone in her department says - they are Democrats, lying is a prerequisite.

                  replyreport
2. 75

   Live to Learnposted 3 years ago

   It's definitely freaky weird.

   replyreport
3. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   OH COME ON! Its Blatantly Obvious!!!!
   
   Someone's PANTS ARE ON  F I R E !!!!
   ( hint: Smelett=Someone)
   
   If it had been a caucasian kid during the Obama era ...
   
   I shudder to think!

   replyreport
4. 79

   Credence2posted 3 years ago

   With all the outrages committed by whites that are excused, I should, as always, suspect the anti-Nubian attitudes will trump all among certain people. Just another reason that I question whether peaceful coexistence with mutual respect within a multicultural society can ever really be successful in America.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      we are all Americans so why the heck not?
      
      The law applies to ALL equally.
      Unless we have corrupt, morally empty and easily bought and bribed judges.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         As for the law, it is supposed to. I would like to REALLY believe that, Kathryn.
         
         But, I look back at the police shootings in minority communities where motives and circumstances surrounding the events were questionable. Why should I accept that the acquittals received by the offending officers did not involve a rat or two?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I think we should stick to the case at hand.
            What we do now, today, as everyday, sets precedent.
            We need to work toward justice, no matter what happened in the past.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Hxprofposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "Why should I accept that the acquittals received by the offending officers did not involve a rat or two?"
            
            It's possible that there was a rat or two involved with some of the acquittals. But what of the Smolett case?

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Hey, Prof, I explained my position on this matter to GA in an earlier comment, I am not saying that there were not irregularities regarding this case and I am not defending any of them. I just don't  like selective outrage.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Can you point to a similar discussion we have all had where the participants were of a different subset where there was no outrage?
                  
                  Thanks.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I think back on the rash of questionable shooting of blacks that has risen to the attention of the press. I don't slight you in this regard because you have always acknowledged a problem could well exist. But, not your conservative buddies, they excused excessive police response as "law and order", blacks politically exploiting a "non existent problem", cultural deficits, etc.
                     
                     So, no outrage, but instead, excuse and justification

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        So, basically, you can't put forth a time when someone went out of their way to create racial tension by claiming he was  attacked, only to find out it was all made up and then being able to buy his way out of prosecution because of who he knew, and then the records were sealed as a slap in the face to justice? And we weren't all outraged?
                        
                        Darn credence. I thought you'd be able to come in with something to back up your outrage.

                        replyreport
                        1. 79

                           Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           That's ok, L to L. I have plenty of reasons to be outraged within the current society and culture. The things that provide outrage for me may not be of any concern to you.

                           replyreport
                           1. 93

                              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Black privilege is not a concern?  Are you sure you shouldn't be concerned over it?

                              replyreport
                              1. 79

                                 Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 This thread is an example and of course I am for "what is good for the goose...."
                                 
                                 But it is merely a mustard seed compared to our perception of "white privilege

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 75

                                    Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    Credence we are either going to stand shoulder to shoulder for equality or we are going to wallow in retribution and come uppance. I'm not interested in listening if people choose to wallow.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 79

                                       Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                       Than let's stand for it equally for everyone and not put the limelight on just one side.

                                       report
                                       1. 93

                                          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                          Good point.  Put the limelight on it wherever it happens.  Including Smollett, who does not get a "bye" because of the color of his skin.

                                          report
                                       2. 75

                                          Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                          Geez credence. Smollet isn't a side. He's an individual American who did a despicable thing and people who equate him with a 'side' appear to want to justify his behavior. No wonder he is smirking now.

                                          report
                              2. 76

                                 Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 exactly. He was basically allowed to stage a Hate Crime without much consequence. 
                                 
                                 And the hate was against the POTUS
                                 
                                 and he still backs "THE MOVEMENT ..."  what is that again?
                                  
                                 
                                 and he mentioned "the marginalized" .. who are they again?
                                 and how are they marginalized?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 76

                                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    "The reasons for the high incidences of poverty and deprivation among the marginalized social groups are to be found in their continuing lack of access to income-earning capital assets (agricultural land and non-land assets), heavy dependence on wage employment, high unemployment, low education and other factors."
                                    
                                    The marginalized have a "lack of access to income-earning capital assets."
                                    
                                      ... and whose fault is that, Jessie? What did the Obamas tell you?
                                    
                                    In my case, its my own fault.

                                    replyreport
   2. 91

      GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What does that mean Cred? It's okay because whites have done it? It's okay because it is just a little payback?
      
      If Smullet had been white would this have been one of those white outrages?
      
      Also, what attitude does the anti-Nubian description fit in this issue?
      
      That was an unexpected response buddy. Do you think the black police superintendent should be as tolerant as you appear?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         It is not ok when anybody does it. My only point is that I just wished that the folks with obvious agendas were not so selective about the 'rats' they choose to smell while ignoring others.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            what are the "obvious agendas,"  e x a c t l y?

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Rightwing/ antiliberal, Conservatives? To mention a few. The kinds of people that will focus on one instance supporting their positions while ignoring 10 similar instances that do not. I think that you know.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  What is justice in this case?

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     a full-on trial. No less.

                     replyreport
         2. 91

            GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            That is a fair clarification Cred. Especially since the DA's office issued its stated reasoning. I think the "rat" has been clearly identified. It seems to be simply an 'alternative manner' of justice.
            
            GA

            replyreport
         3. 90

            RJ Schwartzposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Are you somehow implying that I'm biased here Credence ?
            
            Am I someone with a "biased" agenda? 
            
            "My only point is that I just wished that the folks with obvious agendas were not so selective about the 'rats' they choose to smell while ignoring others."

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               We all have certain amount of bias in our approaches, RJ, you lean right and comes out in your dialogue. Of course, I am going to be diametrically opposed to those principles and ideas.
               
               It is red herring that you or anyone else with clear political and ideological perspectives can expect come off as impartial or neutral. That is not what I see.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Take the blinders off. This has absolutely nothing to do with race. It's about bs privilege.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Why is everybody assuming that I am automatically in support of what Smollett did? I think that the righties always believe that we as Blacks will side with someone irregardless as to what done solely because the perpetrators  are Black. After all, that is why we all voted for Obama, right? I think that it is the Right whose biases are fixed in cement.
                     
                     There, you find the real blinders, easy to see.
                     
                     So, are whites not basically coated with the kinds of privilege, a Black or two may find just from to time? Check out Grace's comment about the power of money.

                     replyreport
   3. 75

      Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I would hope that all people of good will would be outraged when presented with lies intentionally meant to create racial tensions.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         RTalloniposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Please, yes!

         replyreport
5. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   The judge ...  or the prosecutors? or who? should be held accountable.

   replyreport
6. 88

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 3 years ago

   Leftist black privilege.

   replyreport
7. 0

   Onusonusposted 3 years ago

   

   replyreport
8. 59

   StevenHall4646posted 3 years ago

   People say white privilege is real. Give me a break.

   replyreport
9. 0

   Onusonusposted 3 years ago

   No idea how he got off...
   

   replyreport
10. 76

    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    I wonder what "the movement" is,  e x a c t l y.

    replyreport