I just thought about something. Maybe the play here is to see if Barr's DOJ goes after Jussie. That is the person in their sights that needs to have his credibility eroded. They might try to play like "Trump directed the same guy that said he was innocent to go after someone slandering his MAGA bros, he is weaponizing the DOJ! Impeach!". Plus, Jussie checks all the victimhood boxes....and if he did this for pub, he would get way more that way....

Sounds crazy but dems have a history of throwing projection on the other side to try and draw attention to the very activities they are doing...and the DOJ (as well as FBI, IRS, and several other alphabets) were definitely weaponized by Obama.

Seems timely too with the focus going on the alphabet groups themselves for the Mueller hoax.

drcrinum said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

The DA's Statement that there are bigger fish to fry, at least on its face, is plausible. But the utter lack of inclusion of anyone else in the decision making of this very public case coupled with apparently no requirements of Jussie so he literally walks out of the courthouse and proclaims his innocence is highly unusual.

---

Barnes smells bigger fish. Methinks Kamala is sweating.

---

I wish. Jussie is a POS. No way he flipped on her.

drcrinum said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

The DA's Statement that there are bigger fish to fry, at least on its face, is plausible. But the utter lack of inclusion of anyone else in the decision making of this very public case coupled with apparently no requirements of Jussie so he literally walks out of the courthouse and proclaims his innocence is highly unusual.

---

Barnes smells bigger fish. Methinks Kamala is sweating.

---

Interesting theory and I guess possible. But that would basically mean Kim Fox's DA office is going after her good friend and rising star in her political party. It would effectually end her career in the democratic party. That's a bold move that frankly I don't think she has in her.

Are there more charges for Jussie coming from a different agency?

Maybe they saw the story of his lawyer being a co conspirator of Avenattis in the Nike extortion, so took the opportunity to use that as am excuse to turn him states witness and all is forgiven...

All he would have to do is make up a testimony ...really anything. They would say its vital to the case...and boom. Hes free.

Even if he had no clue what his lawyer was doing.

drcrinum said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

The DA's Statement that there are bigger fish to fry, at least on its face, is plausible. But the utter lack of inclusion of anyone else in the decision making of this very public case coupled with apparently no requirements of Jussie so he literally walks out of the courthouse and proclaims his innocence is highly unusual.

---

Barnes smells bigger fish. Methinks Kamala is sweating.

---

Maybe Michelle wants Kamala to get in a bind to clear the path for her to run in 2020.

If he flipped on Kamala then look for him to fall into a deep depression. So deep that he might even become arkancidal IYKWIM

Liberals are evil.

If he flipped we would have heard about it by now, that's how these things usually go. They don't just let the dude walk

Jussie Smollett vs Michael Brown???

Where is the march to protest failed justice?

https://www.facebook.com/ABC7/videos/2047370325332330/

That guy is so awkward in that interview. Definitely not his decision.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Calls Jussie Smollett's Dropped Charges a 'Whitewash of Justice'

I think Rahm Emanuel is one of the biggest POS in American political history (not just today's world) and while I agree with what he's saying here, he's got a lot of nerve on at least 2 fronts:

1. This is the guy who one of the point guys in the Clinton White House doing EXACTLY what he is claiming is being done here -- clamoring for a second tier of so-called justice for his boss at the time, and
2. With all the problems that he's caused the Chicago Police Dept. and his complete impotence in dealing with crime in any meaningful way in his tenure, he picks NOW to become indignant.

Hell, Emanuel was the guy who I first thought was behind Smollet getting sprung. It isn't difficult to imagine Obama or someone close to him having his fingerprints on this, and who was Obama's first chief of staff? What, Rahm, you lost his cell phone number or didn't get his new one when he got out of office? (Some might argue that means Obama didn't have anything to do with it as Emanuel wouldn't go postal over this if he did.)

In fairness, and with all that said, he IS right about this.

The judge "sealed" Smollett's records. Pffft.

I remember that the divorce records of a certain candidate were also sealed in Cook County. When that candidate ran against Obama in the Illinois Senate, those divorce records were somehow leaked to the public.

JCA1 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

The DA's Statement that there are bigger fish to fry, at least on its face, is plausible. But the utter lack of inclusion of anyone else in the decision making of this very public case coupled with apparently no requirements of Jussie so he literally walks out of the courthouse and proclaims his innocence is highly unusual.

---

Barnes smells bigger fish. Methinks Kamala is sweating.

---

Interesting theory and I guess possible. But that would basically mean Kim Fox's DA office is going after her good friend and rising star in her political party. It would effectually end her career in the democratic party. That's a bold move that frankly I don't think she has in her.

---

It would be Magats that got him to rat. Not Foxx.

IrishTxAggie said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

The DA's Statement that there are bigger fish to fry, at least on its face, is plausible. But the utter lack of inclusion of anyone else in the decision making of this very public case coupled with apparently no requirements of Jussie so he literally walks out of the courthouse and proclaims his innocence is highly unusual.

---

Barnes smells bigger fish. Methinks Kamala is sweating.

---

Interesting theory and I guess possible. But that would basically mean Kim Fox's DA office is going after her good friend and rising star in her political party. It would effectually end her career in the democratic party. That's a bold move that frankly I don't think she has in her.

---

It would be Magats that got him to rat. Not Foxx.

---

Still can't believe his name is MAGAts.

All this "he got off because he is famous" stuff spells bad news for those 2 actresses in that school admissions scandal. Going to be even more pressure on that judge to hit them hard.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

I just thought about something. Maybe the play here is to see if Barr's DOJ goes after Jussie. That is the person in their sights that needs to have his credibility eroded. They might try to play like "Trump directed the same guy that said he was innocent to go after someone slandering his MAGA bros, he is weaponizing the DOJ! Impeach!". Plus, Jussie checks all the victimhood boxes....and if he did this for pub, he would get way more that way....

Sounds crazy but dems have a history of throwing projection on the other side to try and draw attention to the very activities they are doing...and the DOJ (as well as FBI, IRS, and several other alphabets) were definitely weaponized by Obama.

Seems timely too with the focus going on the alphabet groups themselves for the Mueller hoax.

---

I was thinking the same thing. The "optics" of Trump's DOJ going after Smollett are not good. BUT the counter to that is the gold mine of liberals calling it a "whitewash" of justice. Also, Dems will be forced to side with Smollett which the vast majority of the country knows perpetuated a huge hoax. To work, it will require acrobatics from the MSM which is probably no problem.

I think Trump and Barr need to let Chicago take this black eye and tackle the FISA abuse and FBI/DOJ collusion first. BUT perhaps the under the table deal end game is about getting Trump to go after Obama on Smollett, instead going after Obama on election hacking.

Aust Ag said:

---

All this "he got off because he is famous" stuff spells bad news for those 2 actresses in that school admissions scandal. Going to be even more pressure on that judge to hit them hard.

---

It's ok. They're white.

thirdcoast said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

I just thought about something. Maybe the play here is to see if Barr's DOJ goes after Jussie. That is the person in their sights that needs to have his credibility eroded. They might try to play like "Trump directed the same guy that said he was innocent to go after someone slandering his MAGA bros, he is weaponizing the DOJ! Impeach!". Plus, Jussie checks all the victimhood boxes....and if he did this for pub, he would get way more that way....

Sounds crazy but dems have a history of throwing projection on the other side to try and draw attention to the very activities they are doing...and the DOJ (as well as FBI, IRS, and several other alphabets) were definitely weaponized by Obama.

Seems timely too with the focus going on the alphabet groups themselves for the Mueller hoax.

---

I was thinking the same thing. The "optics" of Trump's DOJ going after Smollett are not good. BUT the counter to that is the gold mine of liberals calling it a "whitewash" of justice. Also, Dems will be forced to side with Smollett which the vast majority of the country knows perpetuated a huge hoax. To work it will require acrobatics from the MSM which is probably no problem.

I think Trump and Barr need to let Chicago take this black eye and tackle the FISA abuse and FBI/DOJ collusion first.

---

No. There is too much outrage over this and too many people think he's guilty for there to be bad optics. After Rahm went out there and in no uncertain terms called this bull****, very few, if any, would bat an eye at a federal investigation for mail fraud. CPD and the grand jury basically turned this whole thing against him already.

He's this generation's OJ.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

I just thought about something. Maybe the play here is to see if Barr's DOJ goes after Jussie. That is the person in their sights that needs to have his credibility eroded. They might try to play like "Trump directed the same guy that said he was innocent to go after someone slandering his MAGA bros, he is weaponizing the DOJ! Impeach!". Plus, Jussie checks all the victimhood boxes....and if he did this for pub, he would get way more that way....

Sounds crazy but dems have a history of throwing projection on the other side to try and draw attention to the very activities they are doing...and the DOJ (as well as FBI, IRS, and several other alphabets) were definitely weaponized by Obama.

Seems timely too with the focus going on the alphabet groups themselves for the Mueller hoax.

---

I was thinking the same thing. The "optics" of Trump's DOJ going after Smollett are not good. BUT the counter to that is the gold mine of liberals calling it a "whitewash" of justice. Also, Dems will be forced to side with Smollett which the vast majority of the country knows perpetuated a huge hoax. To work it will require acrobatics from the MSM which is probably no problem.

I think Trump and Barr need to let Chicago take this black eye and tackle the FISA abuse and FBI/DOJ collusion first.

---

No. There is too much outrage over this and too many people think he's guilty for there to be bad optics. After Rahm went out there and in no uncertain terms called this bull****, very few, if any, would bat an eye at a federal investigation for mail fraud. CPD and the grand jury basically turned this whole thing against him already.

---

Agreed. But ANYTHING is better to have the DOJ and public preoccupied with, than Obama's DOJ/FBI spying on citizens and hacking an election....even this.

I don't believe at all what Rahm is saying is genuine. My guess is that he knew about and likely wanted Smollet to get off- especially if the Obamas were involved.

I think this is fake outrage on Rahms part. He knew he would take a political hit if he supported it. I will believe otherwise when Rahm demands a federal investigation like the police chief has done.

Rahm is headed out, he doesn't need to false outrage for the constituents anymore.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

If I were the cook county da's political opponent, I would run with this all day and night in the next election. The words corruption, crony, crooked, and double standard would be used in every sentence I mentioned her in.

---

Exactly. There is no other explanation for this happening and with her ties to Jussie's political friends and in the texts being released of her actively trying to help him (a prosecutor actively trying to undermine her own department's case!!!). Not even "celebrity justice" or him being able to afford high priced attorneys explains it. I mean, I've even allowed myself to consider that maybe new evidence came to light exonerating him but wouldn't that have been stated in any release to avoid just the type speculation that is occurring now and further aid his case of innocence?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

If I were the cook county da's political opponent, I would run with this all day and night in the next election. The words corruption, crony, crooked, and double standard would be used in every sentence I mentioned her in.

---

I have the feeling that voters in Chicago are sort of for this kind of double standard BS especially when it helps a certain side's political narrative(s).

This is banana republic.

IrishTxAggie said:

---

Rahm is headed out, he doesn't need to false outrage for the constituents anymore.

---

Maybe not re-election, but if he wants to enjoy any bar or restaurant he needs to.