|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 28 2019 21:34 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 21:32 Gorsameth wrote:
All charges dropped and records sealed just screams some sort of serious police misconduct that would get the police destroyed in court despite the entire thing being set up by Smollet. This ends up looking good for nobody and doing lots of damage all around. But when the fantastically corrupt Chicago Police Department won't even bring a case against someone, you know they done fucked up big time somewhere. Chalk that up to "prosecutorial zeal".
What in the world are you talking about? CPD wants the case prosecuted. They investigated the crime, gathered the evidence, and assisted in securing a grand jury indictment. They held pressers advocating for prosecution. The DA office is who decided to drop the prosecution for reasons that are entirely unclear (though the obvious hunch is that there was some behind the scenes politicking that occurred). This nonsense about the evidence that CPD gathered being corrupted/tainted is entirely baseless at this point. Where the hell are you guys getting these bizarre talking points?
|
So another grand conspiracy rather then the obvious answer.
Who is this mystery force that pressured the DA into dropping the case when everyone seems to have dropped Smollet like a bag of dogshit when it came out that the entire thing was set up by him?
|
|
|
Isn't there some threshold of evidence that needs to be met in order for the DA to prosecute?
I'm asking because I have no idea rather than suggesting anything.
If so, surely the most likely answer is that for some reason the evidence wasn't enough or there was some other factor relating to evidence that has caused the charges to be dropped.
The 'obvious hunches' of xDaunt always seem to have some political motivation behind them.
|
They seem bizarre if you have faith the justice system surrounding the city of Chicago. For those who have following the many scandals of the CPD, taking anything they say at face value seem ill advised.
On March 28 2019 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:
Isn't there some threshold of evidence that needs to be met in order for the DA to prosecute?
I'm asking because I have no idea rather than suggesting anything.
If so, surely the most likely answer is that for some reason the evidence wasn't enough or there was some other factor relating to evidence that has caused the charges to be dropped.
The 'obvious hunches' of xDaunt always seem to have some political motivation behind them.
Probable cause(more likely than not) is the burden of proof to indite someone. Beyond a reasonable doubt(85%-90% sure) is the burden of proof to convict. It is entirely possible to obtain an incitement for a crime that would not prevail at trial. Even from a grand jury.
The part that should give everyone pause is the Judge agreeing to put the entire case under seal. That is not common.
|
On March 28 2019 21:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 21:34 NewSunshine wrote:On March 28 2019 21:32 Gorsameth wrote:
All charges dropped and records sealed just screams some sort of serious police misconduct that would get the police destroyed in court despite the entire thing being set up by Smollet. This ends up looking good for nobody and doing lots of damage all around. But when the fantastically corrupt Chicago Police Department won't even bring a case against someone, you know they done fucked up big time somewhere. Chalk that up to "prosecutorial zeal". What in the world are you talking about? CPD wants the case prosecuted. They investigated the crime, gathered the evidence, and assisted in securing a grand jury indictment. They held pressers advocating for prosecution. The DA office is who decided to drop the prosecution for reasons that are entirely unclear (though the obvious hunch is that there was some behind the scenes politicking that occurred). This nonsense about the evidence that CPD gathered being corrupted/tainted is entirely baseless at this point. Where the hell are you guys getting these bizarre talking points?
They want the case prosecuted, obviously. Why aren't they doing it then?
|
On March 28 2019 22:05 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 21:50 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2019 21:34 NewSunshine wrote:On March 28 2019 21:32 Gorsameth wrote:
All charges dropped and records sealed just screams some sort of serious police misconduct that would get the police destroyed in court despite the entire thing being set up by Smollet. This ends up looking good for nobody and doing lots of damage all around. But when the fantastically corrupt Chicago Police Department won't even bring a case against someone, you know they done fucked up big time somewhere. Chalk that up to "prosecutorial zeal". What in the world are you talking about? CPD wants the case prosecuted. They investigated the crime, gathered the evidence, and assisted in securing a grand jury indictment. They held pressers advocating for prosecution. The DA office is who decided to drop the prosecution for reasons that are entirely unclear (though the obvious hunch is that there was some behind the scenes politicking that occurred). This nonsense about the evidence that CPD gathered being corrupted/tainted is entirely baseless at this point. Where the hell are you guys getting these bizarre talking points? They want the case prosecuted, obviously. Why aren't they doing it then?
Because the police department doesn’t make that decision. The district attorney does, who dropped the case after a grand jury indicted the guy. Jesus, this is elementary stuff.
|
The police departments don't make the decision on paper, but still wield political power. Especially in Chicago, where the current mayor pretty much puts into place whatever policies the police union wants. Also, the police union apparently has strong feelings about this case and that the DA should have brought it to trial. Super normal stuff for a union representing police labor, asking for a specific outcome in a criminal case.
|
On March 28 2019 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:
Isn't there some threshold of evidence that needs to be met in order for the DA to prosecute?
I'm asking because I have no idea rather than suggesting anything.
Yes, it’s called probable cause, and one way it is met is if a grand jury indicts a suspect. That happened here.
If so, surely the most likely answer is that for some reason the evidence wasn't enough or there was some other factor relating to evidence that has caused the charges to be dropped.
This is wrong. There is no reason to suspect a deficiency in the evidence. The DA who dropped the case made no mention of a deficiency in the case. In fact, he said he thought Smollett was guilty. What he did say was that he didn’t think Smollett should be felony-level punished for what he did. This reason is at least understandable and intelligible (unlike the nonsense that posters in this thread are articulating), though I still disagree with it, as do most people.
The 'obvious hunches' of xDaunt always seem to have some political motivation behind them.
Political motivation is the obvious answer for a highly charged case like this to get dropped in this fashion, and in absence of any other good reason to do so. And we already know that political operatives got involved. Whether they exercised any real pull remains to be seen.
|
|
|
OK fair enough thanks for the answer.
Interestingly (as an off topic aside) in the UK our CPS - Crown Prosecution Service - has to have 'reasonable prospect of conviction' to be able to bring charges against someone. This seems like a different standard although I'm not sure of the actual real world effect of this difference.
|
On March 28 2019 22:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
OK fair enough thanks for the answer.
Interestingly (as an off topic aside) in the UK our CPS - Crown Prosecution Service - has to have 'reasonable prospect of conviction' to be able to bring charges against someone. This seems like a different standard although I'm not sure of the actual real world effect of this difference.
It sounds like it might be a somewhat higher standard, but I’m not sure that it has any real impact. Prosecutors in the US are supposed to be more interested in true justice than simply getting notches in their belts, but prosecutorial culture has gone somewhat awry in recent decades.
|
|
|
Trump driving his train straight through Smollett. I'm so excited. Chicago's entire justice system needs to be flushed down the toilet.
|
Calling in the FBI and DOJ because the president didn't like what a local DA did is the definition of small goverment. They will have to get a judge to unseal the case first, which should be fun to watch.
And just remember all the very guilty people Trump pardoned. Like Joe "Loves to Abuse Brown People " Arpaio.
|
If Trump tries something in federal court, maybe this will blow up Younger abstention. It’ll put judicial conservatives in a tough spot one way or the other.
|
On March 28 2019 23:51 farvacola wrote:
If Trump tries something in federal court, maybe this will blow up Younger abstention. It’ll put judicial conservatives in a tough spot one way or the other.
Can you elaborate? I have no idea what any of that means lol 
|
On March 28 2019 23:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 23:51 farvacola wrote:
If Trump tries something in federal court, maybe this will blow up Younger abstention. It’ll put judicial conservatives in a tough spot one way or the other. Can you elaborate? I have no idea what any of that means lol As Planix said, the President throwing the FBI at local cases he doesn't personally like goes against conservative ideals. But that has never bothered them a lot in the past, so I doubt it will now.
|
Younger abstention is a doctrine federal courts invoke once in a while when someone tries to bring a federal tort claim (usually a constitutional one through 1983) against state authorities while some other state proceeding is either ongoing, about to proceed, or in the twilight of possible appeals. Based on the justification that federal courts should not be used to disrupt state acts of police power, federal courts will abstain from hearing those claims that are otherwise properly before them if those claims are connected to some ostensibly valid state proceeding.
While related in a tangential sense, you can see how a Trump ordered intervention into Smollet’s case, if it makes it into federal court, implicates the backbone of Younger (and a ton of other conservative judicial doctrines, with habeas corpus under AEDPA being the most prominent one). In other words, conservative jurists have spent decades carefully trimming back the power of federal courts to intervene in state proceedings and now Trump is poised to disrupt the whole thing because it seems politically expedient to him.
|
Although it would be fun to have the Younger abstention blown up, I don't welcome the abuse prolific pro se filers trying to stay state court orders through TROs in the federal court. Sovereign citizens are a blight and I don't want them to have a new version of moon law to throw at me. But my concerns are specific to my job, rather than the justice system as whole.
Edit: The republicans demanding Adam Schiff resign as chairman is some truly funny stuff. The merits of their objection aside, when was the last time they ever did what the minority requested when they held power?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
