Jussie Smollett Juror: As Soon as the Case Was Submitted To Us We Took at a Vote, and It Was Unanimous: By a Vote of 12 to 0, We Voted "This is MAGA Country!"

Just kidding, of course, but they did find the evidence against Smollett overwhelming.

A juror who tried the Jussie Smollett trial said she and the other 11 members of the panel were immediately convinced of his guilt - and that the actor's poor testimony sealed his fate.

The jury of six men and six women took nine hours to deliberate, the female anonymous juror said: 'it was not evenly split, but there were some doubters.'

But, the juror said, they didn't have any major disagreements. Rather, they wanted to be sure that they carefully reviewed the spate of evidence presented during the one-week trial.

In the end, she said, the jury 'all thought [they] were doing Jussie a favor when they chose to convict the actor of five, rather than six, counts of disorderly conduct.

...

But, although Smollett detailed his involvement with the brothers, including a sexual encounters at a gay bath house with Abimbola Osundairo, a visit to a strip club with Olabinjo Osundairo, Abel's paid role as his nutritionist and that brothers' offers to become his security guard, he could why two brothers were in his neighborhood that night, if not to commit a staged attack as he'd instructed them to do.

His attorney failed to offer a motive for why the brothers might have lied, suggesting that it could have been because Abel was pretending not to be gay and Ola was a homophobe, or also that they wanted him to hire them as security guards so scared him into thinking that he needed them.

But the brothers' testimony clicked, the juror said. Their story was unchanging - Smollett had paid them to carry out the attack, they said, told them to buy red hats to resemble Donald Trump supporters and even walked them through a 'dry run' of the attack days before it was committed.

The article sort of explains why they didn't convict on the sixth charge, a false report of aggravated battery. I say "sort of" because the reporter is very confused and does not know what he's talking about. I'm going to speculate about what the juror is trying to say: She's saying that while the sixth charge was about an aggravated battery where the aggravation of the battery was due to the alleged assailant wearing a mask, in each of the other lies a Jussie told, he also said they were wearing masks, so why this separate charge for a false claim of being attacked by someone wearing a mask? All of the false claims were about someone attacking him while wearing a mask.

I think what she's saying is that this charge is duplicative. Not that he's innocent -- just why is he being charged with something multiple times?

Here's what she says:

'We were told it was an aggravated battery because he said they were wearing a mask,' the juror said.

But 'in all [of Smollett’s] accounts of what happened, he mentioned a mask.'

If prosecutors had charged each of the counts 'the same,' she said, she thinks 'we would have found him guilty on all six.'

Eh, I'm not sure if she's talking about this being a duplicative charge. I don't know what she means. Maybe she doesn't understand that you can be prosecuted for the same act under two different laws (as both a batter and aggravated battery).

Kim Foxx is the corrupt Soros prosecutor who declined to prosecute Smollett after speaking with Michelle Obama's former chief of staff Tina Tchen -- who was recently disgraced and forced to resign from her position in Times Up, when it emerged that she was subverting an organization which supposedly represented women in #MeToo cases against powerful men to actually... use its power to help Andrew Cuomo.

Weird, it's almost as if Democrat politicos are nothing but grifters and fixers that you pay money to for government or quasi-governmental favors.

Now that Smollett has been convicted, and given that the evidence was overwhelming, there is pressure for Kim Foxx to resign.

Which she won't. Marxists have no shame.

Some even hold out (phantasmal) hope that she'll be prosecuted for official corruption.

"I hope someone prosecutes Kim Foxx now for letting a Michelle Obama crony talk her out of prosecuting Jussie Smollett's obvious crimes. And I hope he Smollett gets an extra 6 months of perjury," Colorado radio host Ross Kaminsky tweeted after the verdict.

...

Dan Webb, the special prosecutor appointed to the case, accused Foxx and her office of repeatedly abusing their discretion and making false public statements in the case against Smollett. His 12-page outline criticized Foxx and her staff for how they decided on March 26, 2019, to toss charges against the actor and singer. Among the focuses of Webb's inquiry was whether Foxx acted improperly by speaking to a Smollett relative and a onetime aide of former first lady Michelle Obama , Tina Tchen, before the charges were dropped. It also looked at how Foxx only recused herself after news broke about the communication.

While Webb's investigation did not lead to any criminal charges against Foxx or anyone else in her office, it did "develop evidence that establishes substantial abuses of discretion and operational failures" in the case.

Even though Foxx claimed she welcomed a special prosecutor, evidence showed she actually tried to fight an investigation into her office's handling of the controversial case.

Those who wanted #Justice4Jussie are about to get a little more #Justice: Chicago is moving ahead with its lawsuit to recover money damages from Jussie, to make him pay for the money they spent investigating his hoax.

Basically making him pay for part of his own prosecution.

Nice.

This will likely not be the only lawsuit.

...

The lawsuit is for $130,105.15 and $1,000 "for each false statement he made to the city, in addition to three times the amount of the damages that the city sustained, as well as litigation and collection costs, and attorneys' fees."

A professor in the California state school system -- in "Pan-African Studies," which is a real thing -- says the trial was just a "white supremacy charade."

Isn't it weird how QAnon gets so much media coverage and yet the vicious conspiracy theories cherished by the elites (and yes, professors, even of "Pan-African Studies," are "elites") get no scrutiny nor criticism at all?

The left protects its own. The right has dangerous conspiracy theories and toxic misinformation; the left merely has "interesting counter-narratives" and "provocative challenges to the orthodoxy."

posted by Ace at 05:38 PM

| Access Comments