A reminder as to the character of the Chicago Police Department:
Chicago. Under Democratic control since 1931. Jon Burge’s reign of torture continued into the 1990’s. With the knowledge and approval of the local judicial and political establishment.
And now:
It isn’t just the GOP.
Of course the FBI won’t announce anything until it’s ready, and so there’s only an anonymous source. The difference is, this an anonymous source that’s appearing in ABC News, and they have some standards about such things. It’s a mainstream journalism source. It’s not just shit talk. And use some common sense. Do you really think that the fake powder incident, a couple weeks before the fake hate attack incident, is totally unconnected to the fake hate attack incident? Maybe, but it’s not “shit talk” to assume they both have the same perpetrator. And it’s also well known that the FBI is vigorous in investigating and pursuing things like this. Or is it just that a left-wing victim group person is always the victim, no matter what?
By the way, anonymous sources in mainstream journalism arne’t just “shit talking”. I didn’t find what the ABC’s policy is on anon sources, but the NY Times has a very clear policy on it and it’s far from random made-up shit talking. I assume ABC and similar large mainstream outlets have similar policies.
No it sure isn’t; systemic racism is ‘bipartisan’ than a muthafucka.
tell us more about how you really feel about black men
Everybody quoting “Police Union” stories should understand how political the Chicago FOP is, and how they’re lead by someone who flatly denies that a “Police Code of Silence” even exists in Chicago, while unashamedly saying things that are clear manifestations of a code of silence…
In 30 years as a cop, Graham said he has told officers who abuse the public trust or ignore general orders that it’s “time to retire, time to leave the job or time to move to another district.”
(Shuffling troublemakers to new unsuspecting districts really worked for other corrupt organizaations…)
OK, so I want to take another look at this, anyone feel free to reply.
First off, let’s acknowledge a few things.
1st I feel one of the problems in this issue is that if one feels one way or a next it is because they are racists or SJW or what have you. I don’t think it’s fair to peg that on everyone. They can hold their view one way or another and not be doing it because they are beholden to an ideology.
2nd we need to acknowledge that yes violence against black people and gays is a real thing. Gay blacks have had it even rougher because the violence can come from the black community itself. However this can’t be used as a “shield” against criticism. Gay black people are people and they make mistakes and do wrong things.
3rd we need to acknowledge that the Chicago PD doesn’t have the best track record on playing by the rules. Corrupt would be a good word.
4th we need to acknowledge that in general victims should be believed. An overwhelming majority of the time claims of violence or assault are true. However this belief shouldn’t stand if there is evidence to the contrary.
OK so that is the starting position - is that fair?
So what is the contrary position to a hoax? Are people saying that they think Smollett didn’t orchestrate anything; that he was assaulted by two men and they are still at large?
If that is the position, then how does one explain the statements made by the Osundairo brothers via their attorney?
“My clients have tremendous regret over their involvement in this situation, and they understand how it has impacted people across the nation, particularly minority communities and especially those who have been victims of hate crimes themselves.”
Now by “involvement”, it doesn’t explicitly say they were hired by Smollett in this statement. But then you add to it the evidence of them buying ski masks and red hats as well as the large check for “training” and you start to get a lot of things that COULD be a coincidence, but also look like the parts of an orchestrated attack.
It seems the police thought the brothers were the perpetrators of the assault, but instead of charging them with that, they let them go. So either they felt the made a mistake and they didn’t do the assault, or the assault was staged, thus no crime. (Possible 3rd option, not enough evidence.)
So it seems there are three positions one can take, but it is really hard for me to do the mental gymnastics to believe the last one. But perhaps someone can address my questions and show me how that position makes sense.
Position 1: We really don’t know what happened. Yes there is evidence here and there, but I am just not sure what to make of it. It could be a coincidence and a real attack, it could be a hoax, I really can’t conclude either way.
Position 2: The attack was orchestrated by Smollett using the two Osundairo brothers to carry it out.
Position 3: The Osundairo brothers were not involved in the attack. Smollett was attacked by two other men who remain at large.
And it turns out, now that people are looking at Avenatti, that he’s been engaged in decades of financial shenanigans. The guy saw Trump and thought - “He’s just like me! I can make it in politics!”
This, to several powers of ten.
How many barrels of oil could we leave in the ground if we could only harness the energy of all the online pendulum swings on this subject?
Take all that energy and use it to investigate the question of why people desperately want this black man in jail for something white people could do without jail time.
A white cop killing a black kid seems to get less “virtuous concern about the course of justice” than all of this.
Avenatti is not just like Trump.
But if it makes that position seem more secure I get why I just read that.
I should say: he saw a kindred spirit. There are differences, but there are also multiple points of similarity.
Not to mention all the “Debbie Dog Parks” out there who file frivolous reports to the police about people doing completely legal things while black. Same gentlemen calling for Smollett to get jail time are the same ones who explain away a white woman calling the police because some African Americans are having a barbecue.
I wonder why? /rhetorical question
My only problem with that statement is that there are a large number of people (including some posters on this very BBS) who immediately jumped to the default position that Smollett’s initial report was false. Given that the report was both plausible and the extremely rare occurrence of hoaxes of this nature, regardless of what really happened, that default position screams bigot.
$3500 is not a large check for personal training for a celebrity. Plus, there is real, verifiable evidence they actually did provide training and diet consultation.
At this point, that’s the only rational position until more evidence comes out.
There is a variation of this position, that the Osundairo brothers were involved in the attack, just not under Smollett’s orders.
The fundamental problem with believing the brothers or the police at this point is that one should pretty much assume that the police coerced the brothers into their statements accusing Smollett. If this were another city, it could go either way. In Chicago, it’s a no-brainer.
Yes, of course the problem is people who are bigots are going to take that position, but my point is it shouldn’t poison that position. Can you make a case for that position that isn’t based on just bias or not? Like when this first broke out and people were being skeptical, I was like, “You can’t really reach any conclusion at this point, so there is no point in gossiping, which is a sin.”
This is similar to criticism of Israel. There certainly is criticism one can make of the Israeli government, but it also is a target of anti-Semites.
I’m not sure it is the only rational one, but it certainly is one that I can understand one holds and can agree with.
I haven’t heard of that scenario. If that is the case, why wouldn’t he from day one be saying, “The Osundairo brothers attacked me.” and continue to call for their arrest now?
I do agree the check on it’s own could just be coincidence. But it adds to the stack.
I would be more likely to believe they were coerced in making false statements by the police if it wasn’t for the video of them buying the supplies for the attack. Unless one is suggesting that they did do the attack, but the police coerced them to state they were paid to make the attack. In which case, I’d ask the previous question above.
Moreover, why exactly would the Chicago PD want to frame Smollett? I mean what about him makes him a target? Did they have conflict in the past? If the Osundairo brothers did the attack on their own, why wouldn’t they want to nail not one but two “violent black immigrants”?
My point is that, in the first couple of days after the story broke, there really weren’t any inconsistencies worth noting about Smollett’s story. Yet people were jumping all over any excuse to poke holes in it, from “Why was he outside in the cold at 2 AM?” to “There aren’t any MAGAts in Chicago!”
Regardless of what really happened, which we still don’t really know, those reactions reveal bigotry. Plain and simple.
As to why CPD would want to “frame” Smollett (it doesn’t have to be conscious, it could be as simple as the bias noted above), the phrase “bigger fish” comes to mind.
Outside of Smollett individually, they have clear reasons for being completely antagonistic with the State Attorney, as the position changed from one that demonstrably went along with proven police corruption, with one that ran against that police corruption.
The Chicago PD are complaining about this being some kind of a “black eye” for them, 100x louder than they’ve spoken to the proven murder they were part of covering-up. Ignoring that political atmosphere probably makes it harder to see why people wanted the FBI to handle this in the early stages.
I agree, all of that was worthless speculation fueled by bias.
I find it hilarious anyone things there aren’t MAGA hats in Chicago. It’s like they think a city somehow only has one political view. Even though Trump did get a minority of the vote, over 132,000 of people in Chicago voted for him.
I agree the initial reactions are revealing. I don’t think the with the information out now that all reactions are as damning. My whole original first acknowledgement was simply - you don’t have to be a bigot or a super liberal to hold one of two views on the matter.
While it isn’t out of the realm of possibility, I dunno, that seems like unneeded speculation as well 
If there was some history like Smollett once filed a harassment complaint or something then it would help support this speculation.
And now Buzzfeed (i.e. not far-right tinfoil-hat media) is also echoing the same report about a federal investigation into CCSA over the handling of this case.
Or, there’s the pattern that’s clear to any woman who’s had to report an assault.
The cops aren’t interested in working on something that isn’t going to get them a quick result. So they “suggest” that something “didn’t really happen like that”. Normally, it’s just to the person reporting the crime, because normally it isn’t front page national news. Usually it’s just a fairly effective threat.
This time it was in the spotlight so they made sure to publicly accuse. It was a way to get a quick result during an absolute circus.
I am not saying anybody is innocent here. But that the cops didn’t have enough evidence to prove he faked it, even if he did, seems pretty evident. And/or any evidence they did obtain was inadmissible or suspect. And cops accusing victims of making things up isn’t unusual. Some places it’s pretty SOP.
Especially if the victim in question is not White, male, straight cisgender, able-bodied and claiming to be Xtian.
Again, pretty much everyone involved in this story seems shady as fuck, but some involved parties have had countless decades to perfect their particular brand of shadiness.
