Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
avoiding injuries

Jussie Smollett (Empire) claims he was assaulted by MAGA guys.

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, wiffleball said:

It's the OJ factor. Seriously, years later they interviewed a lot of OJ jurors. Most of them, the black ones knew full well that OJ was guilty as sin. But they figured this was a 'win' for 'their' side.

Correct.  If I were committing crimes and being held accountable for my actions all the time, but got away with one, I might celebrate that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wiffleball said:

It's the OJ factor. Seriously, years later they interviewed a lot of OJ jurors. Most of them, the black ones knew full well that OJ was guilty as sin. But they figured this was a 'win' for 'their' side.

I gotta say, I was convinced he was guilty as sin, but I don't think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was.  In good conscience, I'd have voted not guilty as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I gotta say, I was convinced he was guilty as sin, but I don't think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was.  In good conscience, I'd have voted not guilty as well.

Sounds like someone fell for the Chewbacca defense

Look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DonS said:

Sounds like someone fell for the Chewbacca defense

 

 

 

LOL.  It actually had nothing to do with the defense, it was the prosecutions piss poor case/arguments.  Clarke did her job very poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I gotta say, I was convinced he was guilty as sin, but I don't think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was.  In good conscience, I'd have voted not guilty as well.

I gotta say, from my experience, most people don't know WTF "reasonable doubt" actually means. And Prosecutors do a SHIIT job of explaining it right before adjourning for deliberations. 

I was foreman on an open/shut child molest case and this stupid fat black 22 y.o. nitwit (when she wasn't focking around on ther phone) clearly had no clue. It boiled down to "We wa'nt THURR - we can be FER SERTAN"

So then, after about 4 votes, I had to explain for the next 20 minutes the concept of 'reasonable - and how its FAR different from ABSOLUTE.  "Well, you're right Shonisha, there IS a  possibility that an alien flew down and implanted those very specific memories in that 7 year old girl's head because the defendant is actually the Last Starfighter who can defeat them, but...."  

I know we're getting off track, but it's 25 pages at this point: Just further proof that the Amurican public is too stupid for Modern American Jurisprudence. The 'jury of peers' thing is great when the crime is stealing Lady Jacob's pie cooling on the window ledge, but..

Not that a jury has been empanneled, but it sort of has. These same nitwits are now on Twitter - "Weren't THERE! We don't know! Leave purr Jussie ALONE!"  - And the others who are rooting for Jussie - simply BC they hate the cops. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

 "We wa'nt THURR - we can be FER SERTAN" 

Okay, that was funny.

Perhaps that is the reasoning behind Omar's statements about 9/11? (we wa'nt thurr on the plane)

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

I gotta say, from my experience, most people don't know WTF "reasonable doubt" actually means. And Prosecutors do a SHIIT job of explaining it right before adjourning for deliberations. 

I was foreman on an open/shut child molest case and this stupid fat black 22 y.o. nitwit (when she wasn't focking around on ther phone) clearly had no clue. It boiled down to "We wa'nt THURR - we can be FER SERTAN"

So then, after about 4 votes, I had to explain for the next 20 minutes the concept of 'reasonable - and how its FAR different from ABSOLUTE.  "Well, you're right Shonisha, there IS a  possibility that an alien flew down and implanted those very specific memories in that 7 year old girl's head because the defendant is actually the Last Starfighter who can defeat them, but...."  

I know we're getting off track, but it's 25 pages at this point: Just further proof that the Amurican public is too stupid for Modern American Jurisprudence. The 'jury of peers' thing is great when the crime is stealing Lady Jacob's pie cooling on the window ledge, but..

Not that a jury has been empanneled, but it sort of has. These same nitwits are now on Twitter - "Weren't THERE! We don't know! Leave purr Jussie ALONE!"  - And the others who are rooting for Jussie - simply BC they hate the cops. 

Correct.  Beyond reasonable doubt doesnt equal beyond all doubt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, peenie said:

Okay, that was funny.

Perhaps that is the reasoning behind Omar's statements about 9/11? (we wa'nt thurr on the plane)

LOL. That's really all I ask. For the NEXT 9/11?  Just let us vote who gets a ticket on the planes. I'd put her in the very back - just for that Nano-Second when she sees the rest of the plane in front of her.... .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

I gotta say, from my experience, most people don't know WTF "reasonable doubt" actually means. And Prosecutors do a SHIIT job of explaining it right before adjourning for deliberations. 

I was foreman on an open/shut child molest case and this stupid fat black 22 y.o. nitwit (when she wasn't focking around on ther phone) clearly had no clue. It boiled down to "We wa'nt THURR - we can be FER SERTAN"

So then, after about 4 votes, I had to explain for the next 20 minutes the concept of 'reasonable - and how its FAR different from ABSOLUTE.  "Well, you're right Shonisha, there IS a  possibility that an alien flew down and implanted those very specific memories in that 7 year old girl's head because the defendant is actually the Last Starfighter who can defeat them, but...."  

I know we're getting off track, but it's 25 pages at this point: Just further proof that the Amurican public is too stupid for Modern American Jurisprudence. The 'jury of peers' thing is great when the crime is stealing Lady Jacob's pie cooling on the window ledge, but..

Not that a jury has been empanneled, but it sort of has. These same nitwits are now on Twitter - "Weren't THERE! We don't know! Leave purr Jussie ALONE!"  - And the others who are rooting for Jussie - simply BC they hate the cops. 

Oh, I agree with you, but the prosecution's case had so many holes and there was too much of "just take our word for it", for me to side with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Oh, I agree with you, but the prosecution's case had so many holes and there was too much of "just take our word for it", for me to side with them.

Agreed. And Furman was no prize either. 

In the end, Kato Kaelin may have been the smartest guy in the room. 

 

Also - Without this trial, the Kardashians arguably never would have become a thing. 

GD, another reason to hate OJ. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

LOL. That's really all I ask. For the NEXT 9/11?  Just let us vote who gets a ticket on the planes. I'd put her in the very back - just for that Nano-Second when she sees the rest of the plane in front of her.... .

Nah, let that tw@t fly first class. Don't take the chance that the back of the plane somehow survives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 7:16 AM, vuduchile said:

Geragos is now hinting that one of the Nigerians was banging Jussie 

Sounds like he’ll try to sell the whole thing as some sorta lover’s quarrel.  

And now it looks like he'll be getting sued for defamation.  I was wondering why he felt so comfortable sitting there and strongly hinting that the younger brother is ghey and the older brother is homophobic.  Anyway, I still hope Adam cans Gargle-os and gets Alan Dershowitz to co-host.  :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the FBI still investigating this guy? If they back off as well, it's going to send a horrible focking message about 'restoring the FBI'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

So is the FBI still investigating this guy? If they back off as well, it's going to send a horrible focking message about 'restoring the FBI'.

The best investigations are done when it seems that everybody has forgotten about it and nobody knows that one is going on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This idiot, and his lawyer should also have known better, continued to pretend he was innocent after he got away with this....worse, he and his lawyer kept talking sh!t about the guys he paid, so now they are suing him....all the while, the media just turns its head and ignores this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

This idiot, and his lawyer should also have known better, continued to pretend he was innocent after he got away with this....worse, he and his lawyer kept talking sh!t about the guys he paid, so now they are suing him....all the while, the media just turns its head and ignores this.

So even the corrupt DA sealed the record, all the evidence is going to come out now anyways in the two court cases.  Awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

So even the corrupt DA sealed the record, all the evidence is going to come out now anyways in the two court cases.  Awesome.

Correct.

They boxed themselves into a corner.  If they do not settle out of court, Smollet HAS to talk under oath, and risk a perjury charge....focking awesome......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

Correct.

They boxed themselves into a corner.  If they do not settle out of court, Smollet HAS to talk under oath, and risk a perjury charge....focking awesome......

While they have to settle, even they didn't, Smollett wouldn't take the stand.  And even if he did, we all know he is a pathological liar.  In every scenario possible, there will be no justice in this case.  The only upside is MAGA people get to point and laugh the entire time at everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's going to happen is the brothers are going to get "PAID" to STFU, and Smollett will continue his crap, the lawyer will shut up and go away, and nothing will ever come of this at any legal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have clear felonies through the mail. Get off your ass and charge him. Sick of this.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

They have clear felonies through the mail. Get off your ass and charge him. Sick of this.

There is also the claim of a hate crime being committed.  As far as I know, Chicago has not come down as dismissing this or investigating it.  Either way, they have to publicly comment on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Real life clowns. And the black community wonders why. Someday they're going to wake up and realize who's doing them the most damage. It's not some trailer trash loser in a hood playing with other losers in the woods. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He’s done more damage to his “cause” than he could ever imagine. It’s sweet that he was such an advocate of the opposite side that he ended up helping/legitimizing. 

Bring him back on the show. Who cares? Let it be a weekly embarrassment moving forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They want him back because his crime feeds the narrative.  Sure he went overboard, but he crossed the line in a manner to support and empower the bullsh!t propaganda about racism, therefore he is "OK"

Shameful, of course, but when your goal is to manipulate.....you do embrace this guy....then teach him how to do this better, so that people dont catch on.....like the Dem's do....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

They want him back because his crime feeds the narrative.  Sure he went overboard, but he crossed the line in a manner to support and empower the bullsh!t propaganda about racism, therefore he is "OK"

Shameful, of course, but when your goal is to manipulate.....you do embrace this guy....then teach him how to do this better, so that people dont catch on.....like the Dem's do....

The only facts that are relevant right now are 1. He claims to have had a hate crime committed against him.  2. Chicago has no charges against him or anyone else and is billing him for their investigation.  

I think he could sue the City of Chicago and win.  In fact I think he will.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

The only facts that are relevant right now are 1. He claims to have had a hate crime committed against him.  2. Chicago has no charges against him or anyone else and is billing him for their investigation.  

I think he could sue the City of Chicago and win.  In fact I think he will.

 

Are you high?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strike said:

Are you high?

It's 2019. Anything is possible as we swirl the bowl. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strike said:

Are you high?

1. He reports a crime.

2. It is investigated.

3. The city blames him.

4. They drop charges.

5. They bill him.

 

Am I missing something?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

1. He reports a crime.

2. It is investigated.

3. The city blames him.

4. They drop charges.

5. They bill him.

 

Am I missing something?

 

 

Yes.  A whole hell of a lot.  Smoke another bowl.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for the sponsors to bail on the show. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TimmySmith said:

The only facts that are relevant right now are 1. He claims to have had a hate crime committed against him.  2. Chicago has no charges against him or anyone else and is billing him for their investigation.  

I think he could sue the City of Chicago and win.  In fact I think he will.

 

You missed a few, such as his co-conspirators confessing. I would LOVE for him to sue, I think he should absolutely do it.....but in the end, it can only ruin HIM....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

You missed a few, such as his co-conspirators confessing. I would LOVE for him to sue, I think he should absolutely do it.....but in the end, it can only ruin HIM....

Did they confess?  There are no charges against them.  Smollett would claim they are liars.   If he sued, the City would settle.  Seriously, they totally focked up the whole thing.

The only thing that remains is Jussie's claim of a hate crime.   If the City has a brain in it's head, it would arrest the two Africans and try them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Did they confess?  There are no charges against them.  Smollett would claim they are liars.   If he sued, the City would settle.  Seriously, they totally focked up the whole thing.

The only thing that remains is Jussie's claim of a hate crime.   If the City has a brain in it's head, it would arrest the two Africans and try them.

 

Yes, they did confess...perhaps the charging rules in Chicago let many criminals go free?  I can no more understand Smollet being set free than them being set free.  Take it up with the DA :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Did they confess?  There are no charges against them.  Smollett would claim they are liars.   If he sued, the City would settle.  Seriously, they totally focked up the whole thing.

The only thing that remains is Jussie's claim of a hate crime.   If the City has a brain in it's head, it would arrest the two Africans and try them.

 

You're crazy.   What would be sue the city for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TimmySmith said:

1. He reports a crime.

2. It is investigated.

3. The city blames him.

4. They drop charges.

5. They bill him.

 

Am I missing something?

 

 

Yes.......corruption 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TimmySmith said:

Did they confess?  There are no charges against them.  Smollett would claim they are liars.   If he sued, the City would settle.  Seriously, they totally focked up the whole thing.

The only thing that remains is Jussie's claim of a hate crime.   If the City has a brain in it's head, it would arrest the two Africans and try them.

 

Why are you doubling down on the stupid? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NorthernVike said:

Why are you doubling down on the stupid? :unsure:

Why are you simply stupid? Your parents? Your blindness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NorthernVike said:

Why are you doubling down on the stupid? :unsure:

:lol:  I am the only one here making sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×