What Privilege Looks Like

Jussie Smollett, the most privileged man in America.

Which was the point.

And this:

As for WHY they were dropped — you’ll recall State’s Attorney Kim Foxx recused herself from the case. She reportedly had asked cops to stand down at the behest of Tina Tchen — Michelle Obama’s former Chief of Staff and a friend of Jussie’s family.

With friends in high places Smollett again proclaims he’s innocent despite the grand jury indictments on 16 felony counts that will now go unprosecuted.

And isn’t it racist for Rahm Emanuel to call the Attorney’s Office dropping all charges “a whitewash of justice”?

More. Maybe GLAAD will honor him. After all, as previously noted:

GLAAD, Feb. 14:

“Jussie Smollett was victimized first in a hate-motivated and violent attack in Chicago and has since been doubly victimized as the subject of speculation by the media industry and broader culture,” GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis, said in a statement. … “GLAAD joined with Color of Change to condemn the racism and homophobia that fueled the physical violence against Jussie and today we double down on that stance, while also calling out a culture where LGBTQ people of color are too often the last to be believed.”

As National Review sums it up:

Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff calls up the state’s attorney, the state’s attorney hands off the case to her assistant, and the assistant gives Smollett the deal of the century. And all of this is so egregiously, transparently corrupt that mayor and former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is spitting hot fire over this, as is Obama’s former chief strategist David Axelrod.

6 Comments for “What Privilege Looks Like”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    COMPLETELY EXONERATED

    Unlike the buzz, I do not believe Lyin’ Juss was COMPLETELY EXONERATED because of who he was. I think the trial would have been very difficult because of the unreliability of the star witnesses.

    Without the brothers’ cooperation with the police, Smollett would not have been charged in the first place. The police had to ship them off to the grand jury to “lock in” their witness statements, and then they charged Smollett, before the grand jury indicted him.

    The police chief said this was a usual practice. I think that’s a half-truth: the police did it because they didn’t trust the witnesses would stick to their story. They’re friends of Smollet’s, and they’re also economic beneficiaries of his (worked on the same show, one’s his personal trainer, etc., etc. They’re going to testify against him willingly? Not happening. They also travel internationally for tournaments, yet one should surmise that they’re economically struggling. There is a high chance they will just up and vanish, a significant chance that the district attorney’s office will find itself unable to reach them on a subpoena.

    Oh, that and Smollet’s going to pay them off to not cooperate with the trial. And he won’t get caught this time.

    All in all a case that you want to settle. The Obama A-team can spit bricks all they like (and they should), but they of all people should know that you can’t Make America Great Again by tearing down the privileged and wealthy. You MAGA by building up the common people.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Yet another reminder that celebrities, the rich, and the powerful often escape full accountability for their actions. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Not worth the uproar. Tabloid stuff.

    With respect to the State’s Attorney’s decision not to prosecute, pay attention to what Jorge had to say: Probable cause for indictment is one thing, evidence needed to obtain a conviction is quite another. The number of indictments that are dropped after a prosecutor takes a hard look at the evidence and the likelihood of conviction is high.

    • posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on

      — The number of indictments that are dropped after a prosecutor takes a hard look at the evidence and the likelihood of conviction is high

      YES! Thank You!

  3. posted by David Bauler on

    Are people really shocked that the criminal justice system works better for people with money? Economic privledge is certainly a reality.

  4. posted by Jorge on

    More. Maybe GLAAD will honor him.

    Someone whispered in my ear he could still be honored by the NAACP. There’s some idiot pulling for him.

    https://www.eonline.com/news/1014776/jussie-smollett-among-2019-naacp-image-awards-nominees

    “And all of this is so egregiously, transparently corrupt…”

    I never expected the country to go so crazy over the Muller finding. There really is something funky about the way the news is being spread and interpreted lately, so much so that it makes me wonder if my generation and elders spent too much time licking lead paint off of Made In China toys.

    Sometimes where there’s smoke, the fire is right where you found it–smothered. You keep looking for the fire that you already stomped, on months ago.

  5. posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on

    –None of this is normal—even for Crook County

    I found this statement to be especially suspect. I have only an undergraduate legal background and I know that getting enough evidence to secure a conviction is quite different from getting enough evidence to make an arrest.

    It is quite normal — for better or for the worse — for the prosecutor not to bring formal charges against someone because there simply is not enough evidence to secure a conviction.

    I am not sure — having only read media tidbits — but in this particular case, I think that the problem — for the prosecutor — was that the two men who were paid to do the deed (if we assume that the media tidbits are accurate) had a credibility problem…possible a ‘we may not show up to court’ problem.

Comments are closed.