Publically Consumed (thx for the clarification) wrote:
"The state's attorney did not formally recuse herself or the office based on any actual conflict of interest," Tandra Simonton told the Tribune in a statement. "As a result, she did not have to seek the appointment of a special prosecutor under [state law]. ... it was a colloquial use of the term rather than in its legal sense
Sounds like something Loretta Lynch can relate to.
No word if Robin Roberts is on his call list. wrote:
Jussie Smollett knows his career's on the line, and he's tasking his team with pulling off the highly improbable -- making him likable again.
Sources close to the "Empire" star tell TMZ ... even though his criminal record's scrubbed clean, he's in crisis management mode to repair his public image. We're told he's ordered his team to come up with a plan to fix that pronto, because if they don't ... he's screwed professionally.
Yup, Image is Everything.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2019/03/28/jussie-smollett-up-naacp-award-host-anthony-anderson-hopes-he-wins/3298234002/Time and a half wrote:
"The city requires immediate payment of $130,106.15 expended on overtime hours"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2xjHcCWkAE-vCP.jpg
I don't know what law he's referring to, but it doesn't seem logical they could drop the charges and then bill Smolett for the costs of the investigation.
"The city requires immediate payment of $130,106.15 expended on overtime hours"
I want to see an Itemization.
How much was spent trying to actually catch the racist MA-GA homophobe attackers, versus and how much was on trying to push the "hoax" narrative they eventually went with?
I don't know what law he's referring to, but it doesn't seem logical they could drop the charges and then bill Smolett for the costs of the investigation.
Yes, it is logical.
Basic "separation of powers". The (city) police investigated. The county/State DA dropped the charges.
Those are two different entities.
So the city can try to get their superogatory monies expended paid back, in fact entirely independently of whether criminal charges are pursued by the DA.
1-21-010 False statements.
(a) Any person who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in violation of any statute, ordinance or regulation, or who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in connection with any application, report, affidavit, oath, or attestation, including a statement of material fact made in connection with a bid, proposal, contract or economic disclosure statement or affidavit, is liable to the city for a civil penalty of not less than $500.00 and not more than $1,000.00, plus up to three times the amount of damages which the city sustains because of the person's violation of this section. A person who violates this section shall also be liable for the city's litigation and collection costs and attorney's fees. The penalties imposed by this section shall be in addition to any other penalty provided for in the municipal code.
(b) Any person who signs, certifies, attests, submits or otherwise provides assurances to the city, or causes any other person to sign, certify, attest, submit or otherwise provide assurances to the city, that a statement of material fact made in connection with any application, report, affidavit, oath, attestation or other document submitted to the city is accurate, true or complete, shall make a reasonable investigation to determine the accuracy, truthfulness or completeness of such statement of material fact.
(c) When any person signs, certifies, attests, submits or otherwise provides assurances to the city, or causes any other person to sign, certify, attest, submit or otherwise provide assurances to the city, that a statement of material fact made in connection with any application, report, affidavit, oath, attestation or other document submitted to the city is accurate, true or complete, and that statement of material fact is not accurate, true or complete, a rebuttable presumption shall be created that such person has not made a reasonable investigation to determine the accuracy, truthfulness or completeness of such statement of material fact.
(d) For the purposes of Chapter 1-21 of this Code, a person knowingly makes a false statement of material fact when that person (i) makes a statement of material fact with actual knowledge that the statement was false, or (ii) makes a statement of material fact with knowledge of facts or information that would cause a reasonable person to be aware that the statement was false when it was made, or (iii) signs, certifies, attests, submits or otherwise provides assurances, or causes any other person to sign, certify, attest, submit or otherwise provide assurances, that a statement of material fact is true or accurate in deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement. For purposes of this section, a person who fails to make a reasonable investigation to determine the accuracy, truthfulness or completeness of any material fact acts in deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the material fact.
(Added Coun. J. 12-15-04, p. 39915, § 1; Amend Coun. J. 3-18-09, p. 56013, § 1)
"I'm happy that the truth has finally been set free, because I knew it all along," Henson told USA TODAY on Tuesday. "We're all happy for him, and thank God the truth prevailed."
She's always believed his innocence, "because I know him and I know his track record," Henson says. "I'm not going to jump on clickbait just because someone says something derogatory about a person I know and love. I'm not easily swayed like that. Those little clickbait (reports) weren't enough to deter me from his immaculate track record. I know the type of activism this young man does in his community, I know that he's a giver – he's not an attention-seeker.
"When I know someone, there's nothing you can say to make me flip on them, and that's what we miss in this world. We need people that stand by us. Whatever happened to that? Why are we so easy to believe strangers over people we know?"
If there's any lesson to be learned from Smollett's case, Henson says, it's that "we should absolutely believe victims. That's why a lot of people, especially females, feel like they can't come forward saying they've been raped. I believe that's why we have a whole #MeToo movement, because women have felt they couldn't come forward because they'd be criminalized in some way. Movements don't just come out of the sky – movements happen because they're needed. You have a group of people who haven't been heard."
Time and a half wrote:
"The city requires immediate payment of $130,106.15 expended on overtime hours"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2xjHcCWkAE-vCP.jpg
This is very interesting...even though the charges were dropped, the city did incur some damages as a result of Jussie's actions. Could they sue him in civil court, I wonder? That happened to OJ, did it not?
IPBA STATEMENT ON JUSSIE SMOLLETT CASE DISMISSAL
The Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association serves as the voice for nearly 1,000 front line prosecutors across the State who work tirelessly towards the pursuit of justice. The events of the past few days regarding the Cook County State’s Attorney’s handling of the Jussie Smollett case is not condoned by the IPBA, nor is it representative of the honest ethical work prosecutors provide to the citizens of the State of Illinois on a daily basis.
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 public has the right to know the truth, and we set out to do that here.
When an elected State’s Attorney recuses herself from a prosecution, Illinois law provides that the court shall appoint a special prosecutor. See 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-15). Typically, the special prosecutor is a neighboring State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, or the State Appellate Prosecutor. Here, the State’s Attorney kept the case within her office and thus never actually recused herself as a matter of law.
Additionally, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office falsely informed the public that the uncontested sealing of the criminal court case was “mandatory” under Illinois law. This statement is not accurate. To the extent the case was even eligible for an immediate seal, that action was discretionary, not mandatory, and only upon the proper filing of a petition to seal. See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(g)(2). For seals not subject to Section 5.2(g)(2), the process employed in this case by the State’s Attorney effectively denied law enforcement agencies of legally required Notice (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(4)) and the legal opportunity to object to the sealing of the file (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(5)). The State’s Attorney not only declined to fight the sealing of this case in court, but then provided false information to the public regarding it.
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.
Prosecutors must be held to the highest standard of legal ethics in the pursuit of justice. The actions of the Cook County State’s Attorney have fallen woefully short of this expectation. Through the repeated misleading and deceptive statements to the public on Illinois law and circumstances surrounding the Smollett dismissal, the State’s Attorney has failed in her most fundamental ethical obligations to the public. The IPBA condemns these actions.
This irregular arrangement was an affront to prosecutors across the State, the Chicago Police Department, victims of hate crimes, and the people of the City of Chicago and Cook County. We strongly encourage our members and the public to review the National District Attorneys Associations statement on prosecutorial best practices in high profile cases.
Best Regards, Lee Roupas President, Illinois Prosecutor’s Bar Association
http://www.ilpba.org/announcements/7249825This is very interesting...even though the charges were dropped, the city did incur some damages as a result of Jussie's actions. Could they sue him in civil court, I wonder? That happened to OJ, did it not?
Yep, though they'd have to prove that the statements Smollett made were false.
IPBA Statement wrote:
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.
^ This is something that's largely been overlooked to date. No one even knew of this hearing until after it happened practically, and everything was sealed by the time anyone could act (though CPD interpreted the gagging in a way that allowed them to leak).
What are the options for Removal from Office regarding a DA in Illinois? Are there any?
Meanwhile, the Boston (Suffolk county) DA has announced her long-awaited plan to not prosecute a whole slew of crimes, including shoplifting, breaking & entering, etc.
http://www.wbur.org/news/2019/03/26/suffolk-district-attorney-rollins-policy-memo
Soros spent his $400k well wrote:
IPBA Statement wrote:
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.
^ This is something that's largely been overlooked to date. No one even knew of this hearing until after it happened practically, and everything was sealed by the time anyone could act (though CPD interpreted the gagging in a way that allowed them to leak).
What are the options for Removal from Office regarding a DA in Illinois? Are there any?
I don't know, but Governor Blagojevich was impeached and removed, so there is some capacity for it.
From 2016: Illinois State Representative Kenneth Dunkin recently introduced House Bill 6616, also known as the Laquan McDonald Act, to the General Assembly. If passed, the new law would establish a procedure to allow voters to recall the Chicago Mayor, a Chicago Alderman, or the Cook County State’s Attorney.
http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2016/11/bill-would-authorize-recall-of-certain.htmlJussie, a true 2019 hero wrote:
"The city requires immediate payment of $130,106.15 expended on overtime hours"
I want to see an Itemization.
How much was spent trying to actually catch the racist MA-GA homophobe attackers, versus and how much was on trying to push the "hoax" narrative they eventually went with?
Yeah, that's the thing; the police knew immediately he was lying. I believe they could have announced that, based on their interview with Smollett, his story was not credible. They could have supported that with the fact there was no evidence of two white guys being in the area that night. Anything done after that was not in an effort to apprehend the M.A.G.A. thugs.
With about 3.9 million viewers, ‘Empire’ took a substantial hit, dropping to the lowest number of viewers in the history of the series, according to widely-reported TV ratings.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/03/28/ratings-for-jussie-smollets-show-empire-hit-all-time-low
I'm sure they'd relish that opportunity wrote:
This is very interesting...even though the charges were dropped, the city did incur some damages as a result of Jussie's actions. Could they sue him in civil court, I wonder? That happened to OJ, did it not?
Yep, though they'd have to prove that the statements Smollett made were false.
I wonder if Trump screaming Smollett's guilt from the mountain tops will hinder Chicago's ability to collect from Smollett.
John Yoo (former Deputy Assistant AG): This is why we have a US Justice Department. ... they actually exist to make sure there is no corruption going on in state government. If you look at the details of this case where Mrs. Obama’s chief of staff calls the prosecutor Kim Foxx and all of the sudden these machinations occur and then the case gets dropped. That is exactly what the Justice Department is supposed to be involved in, to make sure there is no corruption in state government. ...
Laura Ingraham: What’s the potential criminal exposure here, both for Foxx and the state’s attorney office itself?
John Yoo: So Foxx could be potentially liable of what is called mail wire fraud of depriving citizens of their honest services, which if she is convicted, this is the standard law that is used to go after corrupt state officials… the maximum sentence is 20 years in prison.
a) "Accidentally" sealing the case
b) "colloquially" recusing herself
c) coordinating "logistics" with Obama aide/friend
Personally, I can imagine Kim Foxx is just simply this incompetent, though also heavily induced by corrupting monetary flows of course. Sort of like a minor league Loretta Lynch.
Tina Tchen, the woman who tried to grease the wheels for Jussie Smollett in Chicago, isn't saying much ... now that he's been cleared of all criminal charges.
We got Tchen in Washington, D.C. -- she's a power player there as Michelle Obama's former Chief of Staff -- but also in Chicago. We asked her, multiple times, what her thoughts are on Jussie's future now that he's no longer facing 16 felony counts.
Watch, she had an answer locked and loaded ... which she fired off. Repeatedly.
You'll recall, Tchen had reached out to Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx shortly after Jussie reported the alleged attack. In text messages, Tchen said she was speaking on behalf of the Smollett family ... which had "concerns about the investigation."
After Foxx's office let Smollett skate, critics speculated Tchen's involvement reeked of the kind of political cronyism for which Chicago's built an infamous reputation.
If she's still pulling for Jussie, Tina didn't let on with us. Seems mum's the word after his sweet, yet controversial, deal.
https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/29/jussie-smollett-tina-tchen-kim-foxx-charges-dropped/
