Jussie Smullett hoax

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Flynn lied to them and the agents asked him if he was sure of his statement.

Being sure of his statement does not mean he is intentionally lying. You do know the difference between lying and being wrong?

They gave him the opportunity to correct it. Why he lied is a open question.

The FBI investigators didn't think he was lying.

Just what have you heard Mueller say, about anything?

Nothing. That's my point. Mueller jumped in a little while ago to correct what was being said about the investigation. So he has demonstrated that he will correct false impressions or statements about his investigation. So far, no correction or amendment has been made to Barr's synopsis.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So far, Mueller hasn't disputed what Barr has said.

I think Mueller is prohibited from saying anything about his report unless he's called by Congress.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think Mueller is prohibited from saying anything about his report unless he's called by Congress.

Good point. Albeit a minor one in terms of the discussion twixt Pete and Me.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Good point. Albeit a minor one in terms of the discussion twixt Pete and Me.

Well, it did dismiss your entire post.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it did dismiss your entire post.

Either you didn't read my entire post, or you're out of your mind.

[Sea Dangles]

He is simply being dishonest,NPR has stolen his soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

He is simply being dishonest,NPR has stolen his soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s unbelievable....they simply cannot ever say anything that goes against the narrative. Not once, not ever, not on any topic. i’ve never had a dog so blindly and thoughtlessly obedient.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

I am trying to help but he pushes away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I am trying to help but he pushes away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They're as rabid as Jim Jones' followers. It's stupefying. Nohting is questioned, not ever. Nancy Pelosi gives marching orders to stop talking about Russia and pivot to healthcare (which is a winning issue for them), and in the first 24 hours after she said that, every show on CNN and MSNBC has talked about healthcare.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

interesting pete. So in all things that make Trump look bad, you are remarkably well informed, you know all the facts and truths that paint him in a negative light. you post constantly.

Yet here on an issue that makes a liberal look bad, all of a sudden you can’t comment, because you don’t know enough, you don’t have access to the right information.

pete, you are right in many issues in my opinion. but when your beliefs don’t allow you to admit what every sane person knows what happened here, what does that say about your beliefs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

He is simply being dishonest,NPR has stolen his soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s unbelievable....they simply cannot ever say anything that goes against the narrative. Not once, not ever, not on any topic. i’ve never had a dog so blindly and thoughtlessly obedient.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I am trying to help but he pushes away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

They're as rabid as Jim Jones' followers. It's stupefying. Nohting is questioned, not ever. Nancy Pelosi gives marching orders to stop talking about Russia and pivot to healthcare (which is a winning issue for them), and in the first 24 hours after she said that, every show on CNN and MSNBC has talked about healthcare.

Quite the echo chamber you have going here.
Talk about blindly obedient, you think Pelosi made the media look at healthcare.
It was quite likely this tweet:
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Mar 26
The Republican Party will become “The Party of Healthcare!”


Perhaps you can comment on the changes this year to the Rules of Golf.
I find that much more important in my life than a bad actor (pun intended).

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps you can comment on the changes this year to the Rules of Golf.
I find that much more important in my life than a bad actor (pun intended).

You had once asked me if I was a disciple of Stefan Molyneux. I said no, but I should have also said that I am a disciple of Ben Hogan.

And the rules of golf are sometimes quirky or downright silly. But, and I think Hogan would have agreed, they must be followed to the tee--pun appropriate. If not, the entire scheme of the game could collapse into a disorganized pick up game.

Likewise, when we allow criminal or constitutional law to be unequally or incorrectly applied, the whole rule of law thing is in danger of becoming a tool of the "privileged."

Good to know, though, you and I have something of value (golf) in common.

[Jim in CT]

pete, say whatever you want. youbarent honest enough to admit what happened here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

pete, say whatever you want. youbarent honest enough to admit what happened here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think it's about honesty, it's about confusion. The idea that a prosecutor would just drop charges on a case with so much national attention is pretty hard to fathom. You'd have to know it would get investigated and you'd be looking for a new job.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think it's about honesty, it's about confusion. The idea that a prosecutor would just drop charges on a case with so much national attention is pretty hard to fathom. You'd have to know it would get investigated and you'd be looking for a new job.

It's fair to be confused about why the charges were dropped. It's not reasonable to be confused about what happened that night. I didn't ask why the charges were dropped, I asked whether or not he thinks Smullett staged this. He said he didn't know any of the facts and therefore couldn't answer. Well he sure feels comfortable opining on all things Trump.

His lawyers are saying now, that maybe it was white guys in blackgace. But HIS FRIENDS CONFESSED. The question of what happened that night, I snot a mystery, no more than whether or not OJ was innocent.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's fair to be confused about why the charges were dropped. It's not reasonable to be confused about what happened that night. I didn't ask why the charges were dropped, I asked whether or not he thinks Smullett staged this. He said he didn't know any of the facts and therefore couldn't answer. Well he sure feels comfortable opining on all things Trump.

His lawyers are saying now, that maybe it was white guys in blackgace. But HIS FRIENDS CONFESSED. The question of what happened that night, I snot a mystery, no more than whether or not OJ was innocent.

What about the changes in the Rules of Golf?
Don't you care enough about that to spend the time to come up with a reasonable opinion?

I think your paranoia now includes this Smollett fellow, whatever he did very very likely not affect my life.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What about the changes in the Rules of Golf?
Don't you care enough about that to spend the time to come up with a reasonable opinion?

I think your paranoia now includes this Smollett fellow, whatever he did very very likely not affect my life.

Did Trump's sexual peccadillos before he became President affect your life?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What about the changes in the Rules of Golf?
Don't you care enough about that to spend the time to come up with a reasonable opinion?

I think your paranoia now includes this Smollett fellow, whatever he did very very likely not affect my life.

"What about the changes in the Rules of Golf?"

I have no idea what you are asking. None.

Pete, you were annihilated by my posing a simple, obvious question. That's how flimsy your beliefs are.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's fair to be confused about why the charges were dropped. It's not reasonable to be confused about what happened that night. I didn't ask why the charges were dropped, I asked whether or not he thinks Smullett staged this. He said he didn't know any of the facts and therefore couldn't answer. Well he sure feels comfortable opining on all things Trump.

His lawyers are saying now, that maybe it was white guys in blackgace. But HIS FRIENDS CONFESSED. The question of what happened that night, I snot a mystery, no more than whether or not OJ was innocent.

I finally read an article about Smollett
https://thebulwark.com/donald-and-ju...-of-a-feather/

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I finally read an article about Smollett
https://thebulwark.com/donald-and-ju...-of-a-feather/

Thank you for the cut and paste PeteF. You have exposed Trump again,and without the aid of npr.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I finally read an article about Smollett
https://thebulwark.com/donald-and-ju...-of-a-feather/

I can admit Trump is a disgusting person. Can you admit that Smullett staged the attack?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I finally read an article about Smollett
https://thebulwark.com/donald-and-ju...-of-a-feather/

The symmetry between the two videos is not, as your article states, perfect. Actually, the "symmetry" doesn't exist at all.

The prosecutor in the Smollett case agreed with the charges against Smollett. There was no indecision about Smollett's guilt. But an "alternative to prosecution" was decided. And Smollett was deemed to have done enough community service and forfeiture of his bond to pay for his crime. If the bond had not been forfeited, the charges would not have been dismissed.

The special counsel, Mueller, in the Trump obstruction case, was not a prosecutor, and did not have the power to dismiss. Nor did he even recommend prosecution. His investigation produced evidence that might indicate guilt, but also evidence that is exculpatory. That is, it was it was not dispositive enough to make a conclusion. The DOJ, which has the power to prosecute a case, decided their was not sufficient evidence provided by Mueller to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So there were no charges, no accusation of guilt.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The symmetry between the two videos is not, as your article states, perfect. Actually, the "symmetry" doesn't exist at all.

I think the symmetry is that both Smullett and Trump claimed total truthfulness and exoneration when in either case non exists.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the symmetry is that both Smullett and Trump claimed total truthfulness and exoneration when in either case non exists.

Do you think Smullett staged the attack?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do you think Smullett staged the attack?

That seems to be the most likely scenario.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The symmetry between the two videos is not, as your article states, perfect. Actually, the "symmetry" doesn't exist at all.

Just like most political writing, you need to take it with a grain of salt and understand that it is not reporting. What I found interesting was this sentence and possibly many of us are guilty of this.
"Maybe it’s best not to think too hard about these things. Because if you did, you’d come to the conclusion that American political life is broken and that people who defend one of these men to the hilt while railing against the other—without even a hint of self-awareness—will get exactly the sort of government they deserve."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just like most political writing, you need to take it with a grain of salt and understand that it is not reporting. What I found interesting was this sentence and possibly many of us are guilty of this.

Like "most political writing" your article has a slant in one direction. The emphasis in the article is on Trump and his words. Those words are supposed to show a symmetry with Smollett's words which is supposed to lead to the moral indictment of the supporters of each man as being the cause of a broken American political life.

But it's a red herring symmetry. There is a symmetry in that both Trump and Smollett are men. In that they are both humans. In that they both have arms and legs. And in an endless number of irrelevant ways.

Claiming that the system is broken because of an irrelevant symmetry of defendant's declarations of exoneration is, ultimately, trying to lay blame for a broken system on Trump and his supporters. If Trump had said nothing, the article would not have been written--even though the Smollett case, in and of and wholly in itself would be evidence of a broken system.

Smollett's case being dismissed in spite of overwhelming factual evidence in which even the prosecutor clearly admits the guilt of the defendant is a sign of a broken system. The investigation into charges against Trump in which actual evidence cannot lead to a dispositive conclusion of guilt is perfectly aligned with a system that is working.

Comments of exoneration by the defendants in either case indicate nothing about the integrity of the system. They're just the opinions of Smollett and Trump. You can put whatever spin you want on Trump's and Smollett's words. But there is no symmetry of a broken legal system between both cases.


"Maybe it’s best not to think too hard about these things. Because if you did, you’d come to the conclusion that American political life is broken and that people who defend one of these men to the hilt while railing against the other—without even a hint of self-awareness—will get exactly the sort of government they deserve."

Actually, thinking hard, in depth, about "these things" (e.g. the justice system) leads to the conclusion that in Smollett's case "American political life" is broken, regardless of what Smollett says. And those that support him to the hilt despite his guilt are a sign of that break.

In Trump's case, the justice system does not seem to be broken. There is no dismissal of charges in the face of overwhelming evidence. Quite the contrary. Regardless of what Trump says.

What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge? I don't see a symmetry between the two. I see an attempt to create an equivalence that doesn't exist--merely by noting the similarity of words about exoneration between Trump and Smollett.

The article is an unnecessary and nonfactual equivalence of Trump's case with Smollett's to create the appearance of why American political life is broken, with the slant that Trump and his supporters are at least half of the problem. God knows who the other half is. Certainly not just little ole insignificant Smollett and his few supporters.

The broken American political life is not caused by the trivia in your article. It is only broken if the base that hold's it together is cracked--you know . . . the "C".

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, thinking hard, in depth, about "these things" (e.g. the justice system) leads to the conclusion that in Smollett's case "American political life" is broken, regardless of what Smollett says. And those that support him to the hilt despite his guilt are a sign of that break.

In Trump's case, the justice system does not seem to be broken. There is no dismissal of charges in the face of overwhelming evidence. Quite the contrary. Regardless of what Trump says.

What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge? You don't have the information to conclude that yet, do you? I don't see a symmetry between the two. I see an attempt to create an equivalence that doesn't exist--merely by noting the similarity of words about exoneration between Trump and Smollett.

The article is an unnecessary and nonfactual equivalence of Trump's case with Smollett's to create the appearance of why American political life is broken, with the slant that Trump and his supporters are at least half of the problem. God knows who the other half is. Certainly not just little ole insignificant Smollett and his few supporters.

The broken American political life is not caused by the trivia in your article. It is only broken if the base that hold's it together is cracked--you know . . . the "C".

I would put forth that the other half of the fracture is the media et al, since 30 years ago we would have known little, if anything of either issue and that the first half is not just the Trumplicans but both of the political tribes.

I would love to know Muellers opinion of Trump, since they are almost exact opposites.
If Mueller followed his usual formula, he knows everything about Trump that he could possibly find out and then decided what of that was applicable to the investigation he was asked to make.
He is a very talented investigator and likely found questionable things Don the Con did.
If they were bad enough, I would think he would have been quite conflicted about not doing something about it.
What could he do?
Will the report tell?

[FishermanTim]

Smullett is just like those scam artists that fake injuries in supermarkets hoping to get some $$ from the owners, until they get caught in their lies!

The only difference is that Smullett has got an army of "# ME TOO" and "Black Lives Matters" koolaid drinkers believing he is completely innocent.

The prosecutors probably folded because they were afraid of the potential protests that could arise if a "guilty black man" actually got punished for his actions....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Detbuch: What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge?

You don't have the information to conclude that yet, do you?

Mueller provided the info. He found enough evidence to conclude that Trump did not conspire with the Russians. He didn't find enough evidence to conclude that Trump obstructed justice. And he enumerated a detailed account of how thorough and expensive his investigation was.

I would put forth that the other half of the fracture is the media et al, since 30 years ago we would have known little, if anything of either issue and that the first half is not just the Trumplicans but both of the political tribes.

The article you linked didn't make the same distinctions.

I would love to know Muellers opinion of Trump, since they are almost exact opposites.

Do you have the information to conclude that? Any way, Mueller's personal opinion of Trump doesn't interest me. It's irrelevant other than a conversation piece.

If Mueller followed his usual formula, he knows everything about Trump that he could possibly find out and then decided what of that was applicable to the investigation he was asked to make.
He is a very talented investigator and likely found questionable things Don the Con did.
If they were bad enough, I would think he would have been quite conflicted about not doing something about it.
What could he do?
Will the report tell?

Other than obstruction or conspiracy, what bad stuff about Trump should Mueller have concluded about? If there were other crimes he may have referred them to some criminal court.

[Pete F.]

Quote:

Detbuch: What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge?

You don't have the information to conclude that yet, do you?

Detbuch: Mueller provided the info. He found enough evidence to conclude that Trump did not conspire with the Russians. He didn't find enough evidence to conclude that Trump obstructed justice. And he enumerated a detailed account of how thorough and expensive his investigation was.

Barr said it did not establish enough evidence to indict anyone with conspiracy or coordination. As to obstruction Mueller neither concluded or exonerated the President. All we have to date is hearsay.

Pete: I would put forth that the other half of the fracture is the media et al, since 30 years ago we would have known little, if anything of either issue and that the first half is not just the Trumplicans but both of the political tribes.

Detbuch: The article you linked didn't make the same distinctions.

So?

I would love to know Muellers opinion of Trump, since they are almost exact opposites.

Detbuch: Do you have the information to conclude that? Any way, Mueller's personal opinion of Trump doesn't interest me. It's irrelevant other than a conversation piece.

Only from biographical pieces on both, I find it very interesting

If Mueller followed his usual formula, he knows everything about Trump that he could possibly find out and then decided what of that was applicable to the investigation he was asked to make.
He is a very talented investigator and likely found questionable things Don the Con did.
If they were bad enough, I would think he would have been quite conflicted about not doing something about it.
What could he do?
Will the report tell?

Originally Posted by detbuch

Other than obstruction or conspiracy, what bad stuff about Trump should Mueller have concluded about? Hard telling, not knowing, purely supposition
If there were other crimes he may have referred them to some criminal court.

And if he found a pattern of behavior, not indictable but that he felt was untenable for a person in that position, what would/could he do?