Sunday, March 31, 2019

The Guessing Game - Updated

What will be on the cover of People this week? My guesses:

Prince William: Is he having an affair? I wrote about it in the post directly below this one, read it here. Update: In other royal news, in honor of Meghan and Harry's soon-to-be-born baby, fans of the couple have started an online fundraiser to support charities they're involved with. It started with this:


... and you can read more here

Jussie Smollett: Still in the news. Will he be able to restore his reputation and his career?
Former first lady Barbara Bush: A new biography, titled "The Matriarch," says that Mrs. Bush blamed Trump for her heart attack. It also implies that her husband had an affair, and for the record, I've heard that rumor before...
Angelina Jolie: In talks to star in a superhero movie?
Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau: Divorcing
Kris Humphries: Kim Kardashian's ex-husband is retiring from basketball, he wrote an article titled "I Never Wanted To Be That Guy," (Read it here)
The View: A new book titled "Ladies Who Punch" makes it sound like everyone hates everyone on The View:

Cover of Ramin Setoodeh's Ladies Who Punch.

Nicolas Cage: Got married, then had it annulled after 4 days
Mick Jagger: The Rolling Stones postponed their upcoming tour due to Mick's unspecified medical issues; he tweeted an apology:

Stories that appear on the new cover will be highlighted in green.

Monday morning update. Nipsey Hussle: The rapper was shot and killed in Los Angeles
Michael Phelps: He and his wife are expecting their third child
Taya Kyle: Her book, "American Spirit" comes out tomorrow. Her husband, Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, was the subject of "American Sniper," the 2014 movie starring Bradley Cooper
Joe Biden: Under scrutiny for his interactions with women
Pete Buttigieg: The long-shot presidential candidate reports a surprisingly large first-quarter fundraising total
Kathie Lee Gifford: Her last week on The Today Show

Monday afternoon, update #2. More royal news that may or may not be true. Are Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew back to being an official couple? Maybe.
Valerie Jarrett: Another book that's coming out tomorrow. Jarrett's is titled "Finding My Voice"

Wednesday morning, update #3. See the new cover, featuring Reba McEntire, here.

Saturday, March 30, 2019

Is Prince William Having An Affair? - Updated

Apparently there's some some pretty juicy gossip in England right now. Is Prince William following in his father's footsteps and cheating on his wife? Consider the following:







See Giles' deleted tweet below. 



















This is a screenshot of the deleted tweet. Giles Coren, whom I had never heard of before today, is some kind of a reporter in England: 

I typed "Prince William affair with Marchioness of Cholmondeley" into Google and this is some of what popped up, meaning the story is getting more coverage than I was aware of. To be clear, that doesn't mean the affair part is true, and it's very possible that it's not:

The Sun, dated March 23: War of the Roses: How Kate Middleton and 'Turnip Toff' rival she wants Wills to 'phase out' share startling similarities

The Daily Mail, dated March 24: Is Kate's 'rural rivalry' just a vicious rumour to damage her? (Note that this story was written by Richard Kay, the reporter Diana was good friends with in the last years of her life.)

Vanity Fair, dated March 25: Is Kate Middleton Feuding with a Marchioness?

From W Magazine, dated March 28: Kate Middleton's Friend Rose Hanbury Is at the center of the Latest Buckingham Palace Drama 

From The Cut, at New York Magazine, dated March 29: What Is Going on With Prince William and That Marchioness, Hmm?

Will this story be all over the U.S. tabloids this week? My guess? Yes. In the meantime, here's an interesting picture of the four players in this drama, left to right, Prince William, Kate, Rose, the Marchioness of Cholmondeley and, partially obscured, her husband the Marquess of Cholmondeley. The picture was taken in June, 2016, long before the affair, if there is one, would presumably have started, so don't read anything into the various facial expressions:


photo credit: Stephen Pond/Getty Images

Monday morning update. I just have to add this picture, of Rose (on the left) and her sister posing, in bikinis, with former Prime Minister Tony Blair:

rose marina hanbury tony blair
photo credit: newidea.com

A Message From The Cook County State's Attorney - Updated

On Wednesday night the Chicago Tribune published an editorial titled "The Jussie Smollett Fiasco: Kim Foxx Digs A Deeper Hole." (I linked to it below.) Last night Ms. Foxx, the Cook County State's Attorney, fired back. Note that she does not address the fact that early on, she had direct contact with a member of the Smollett family and at their request, tried to persuade the Police Superintendent to give the case to the FBI. She has subsequently acknowledged that that was a mistake, but still. That action is one of the things that's making the decision to drop the charges look fishy and politically motivated. Note also that earlier in the week she claimed her office would indeed get a conviction: "I believe, based on the facts and the evidence presented in the charging decision made by this office, this office believes that they could prove him guilty." This is her commentary, in its entirety:

Let’s talk about the Jussie Smollett case. Let’s talk about his alleged actions, the decision about how best to prosecute and resolve the case, and the implications for our Chicagoland community.

There was considerable evidence, uncovered in large part due to the investigative work of the Chicago Police Department, suggesting that portions of Smollett’s claims may have been untrue and that he had direct contact with his so-called attackers. Claims by Smollett or others that the outcome of this case has “exonerated” him or that he has been found innocent are simply wrong. He has not been exonerated; he has not been found innocent.

Falsely reporting any crime is itself a crime; falsely reporting a hate crime is so much worse, and I condemn in the strongest possible way anyone who does that. Falsely reporting a hate crime causes immeasurable harm to the victims of actual crimes, whether because they are less likely to be believed or, worse, because they are afraid to report their crimes in the first place for fear of not being believed.

So, why isn’t Smollett in prison or at least on trial? There are two different answers to this, both equally important.

First, the law. There were specific aspects of the evidence and testimony presented to the office that would have made securing a conviction against Smollett uncertain. In determining whether or not to pursue charges, prosecutors are required to balance the severity of the crime against the likelihood of securing a conviction. For a variety of reasons, including public statements made about the evidence in this case, my office believed the likelihood of securing a conviction was not certain.

In the interest of full transparency, I would prefer these records be made public. However, in this case, Illinois law allows defendants in certain circumstances to request that public records remain sealed. Smollett chose to pursue that avenue, and so my office is barred from releasing those records without his approval.

Another key factor is that the crime here was a Class 4 felony, the least serious category, which also covers things like falsely pulling a fire alarm in school and “draft card mutilation.” These felonies are routinely resolved, particularly in cases involving suspects with no prior criminal record, long before a case ever nears a courtroom and often without either jail time or monetary penalties. Any prosecutor, law-enforcement leader or elected official not grandstanding or clouded by political expediency understands the purpose of sentencing guidelines.

But more important than the dispassionate legal justification, there was another reason that I believe our decision not to prosecute the case was the right one.

Yes, falsely reporting a hate crime makes me angry, and anyone who does that deserves the community’s outrage. But, as I’ve said since before I was elected, we must separate the people at whom we are angry from the people of whom we are afraid. I am angry at anyone who falsely reports a crime. I am afraid when I see a little girl shot dead while sitting on her mother’s lap. I am afraid when I see a CPD commander slain by a four-time felon who was walking the streets. I am also afraid when I see CPD resources used to initially cover up the shooting death of Laquan McDonald.

I was elected on a promise to rethink the justice system, to keep people out of prison who do not pose a danger to the community. I promised to spend my office’s finite resources on the most serious crimes in order to create communities that are both safer and fairer.

Our community is safer in every sense of the word when murderers and rapists are locked away. But we can’t allow fearmongers to devalue the tremendous progress we’ve made in the last year. Since taking office, I’ve sought to employ alternative prosecutions, diversions, alternate outcomes and other forms of smart justice, and it has been working — violent crime in Chicago is down overall. In addition to the benefits of smart justice on recidivism and keeping families together, it also creates bandwidth for my office to dedicate more resources to combating not only truly violent crimes but also the opioid crisis, holding big banks accountable for their actions, protecting consumers from data breaches and other critical work.

Since it seems politically expedient right now to question my motives and actions, and those of my office, let me state publicly and clearly that I welcome an outside, nonpolitical review of how we handled this matter. I am not perfect, nor is any other prosecutor out there, but ensuring that I and my office have our community’s trust is paramount.

As a public figure, Smollett’s alleged unstable actions have probably caused him more harm than any court-ordered penance could. None of that, though, should detract from two facts that must be able to coexist: First, falsely reporting a hate crime is a dangerous and unlawful act, and Smollett was not exonerated of that in this case. Second, our criminal justice system is at its best when jails are used to protect us from the people we rightly fear, while alternative outcomes are reserved for the people who make us angry but need to learn the error of their ways without seeing their lives irrevocably destroyed.


Previous posts about Jussie Smollett:

March 27: An Editorial From The Chicago Tribune

Jussie didn't win an NAACP award last night, which is probably a good thing. In an earlier post I wrote that the award would be given out during the live show tonight, but it turns out that was wrong. Some of the awards were given out at a dinner last night:

"Empire" actor Jussie Smollett skipped the NAACP Image Awards Dinner on Friday night as controversy continued to swirl around the dismissal of felony charges against him for false reporting of a hate crime.

... Smollett, who stars as Jamal Lyon on the Fox series, had flown to Los Angeles on Wednesday, sparking rumors he might be in attendance at the awards show. Smollett was nominated for best supporting actor in a television drama for his role on "Empire" -- an award he has been nominated for four years in a row and won in 2017.

Jesse Williams, of "Grey's Anatomy," won the award on Friday night as part of the untelevised awards portion of the show. The rest of the awards will be given away live on TV One [tonight.]
(From ABC News, read more here.)

Will Jussie attend tonight's event? Stay tuned. 

Saturday afternoon update. More about how State's Attorney Kim Foxx came to be talking to a member of the Smollett family; as you read, keep in mind that at the time of these events, the Osundairo brothers were still in Nigeria and Jussie was considered to be the victim of a hate crime: 

Tina Tchen's longtime friend wasn't surprised the former Obama administration aide helped connect Jussie Smollett's family with a top Illinois prosecutor.

Weeks before a grand jury indicted Smollett on the theory he falsely reported being the victim of a hate crime, relatives of the actor, who is black and gay, had expressed to Tchen "concerns about the investigation" by Chicago police.

Getting the right person to take those sort of concerns seriously has been a hallmark of Tchen's career, highlighted by a stint as then-first lady Michelle Obama's chief of staff and now by her work leading a probe of workplace culture at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

"Long before Black Lives Matter, long before Time's Up, long before #MeToo, we were aware of how difficult it is to be believed as a woman, as a gay, as a black," Tchen's friend, Marilyn Katz, said. "Our whole lives have taught us that lesson."

But the involvement of Tchen, a Harvard graduate who earned her law degree from Northwestern University, in the Smollett case has sparked accusations of favoritism, particularly after the office of Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx this week dropped 16 felony charges of disorderly conduct against Smollett. In exchange, he agreed to forfeit his $10,000 bail and complete community service.

Tchen, 63, said her contact with Foxx on behalf of Smollett's family was not intended to influence the case's outcome.

"I know members of the Smollett family based on prior work together," she said this week in a statement.

"Shortly after Mr. Smollett reported he was attacked, as a family friend, I contacted Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx, who I also know from prior work together. My sole activity was to put the chief prosecutor in the case in touch with an alleged victim's family who had concerns about how the investigation was being characterized in public."

That explanation, however, hasn't quieted calls for investigations into whether Smollett got off easy because of his fame and well-placed connections, perhaps including Tchen.

Smollett's camp denies the claims. Tchen did not respond beyond her statement to CNN's request for comment.

Smollett told police two men attacked him on January 29, yelling racist and homophobic slurs while striking him. He said the assault ended with a noose placed around his neck and a chemical poured on him.

Tchen reached out to Foxx just three days after the attack report, according to text and email messages obtained by CNN through a public records request. She wrote that the family had "concerns about the investigation."

Foxx emailed Tchen later that day, saying in part, "Spoke to the (Police) Superintendent (Eddie) Johnson. I convinced him to Reach out to FBI to ask that they take over the investigation. He is reaching out now and will get back to me shortly."

On that same day, another person, identified by Foxx's office as a Smollett family friend, texted the prosecutor to ask whether they could talk by phone, the records show. "Tina Tchen gave me your number," the friend wrote.

Hours later, Foxx responded by text to the family friend, whose identity is redacted in the public records.

"Spoke to the superintendent earlier, he made the ask. Trying to figure out the logistics. I'll keep you posted," the prosecutor wrote.

"Omg this would be a huge victory," the family friend responded.

"I make no guarantees, but I'm trying," Foxx replied.

Chicago police have said the FBI "has been involved since Day One ... providing technical assistance to our officers" in the Smollett case. Johnson has said he was "amenable" to talking about having the FBI lead the Smollett investigation but police and federal officials decided it would be most appropriate for Chicago police to stay at the helm, he told USA Today. (From CNN, read more here.)

The irony here is that if Foxx really was giving Jussie special treatment by dropping the charges, either because of his celebrity or because of his political connections, it sure backfired. The resulting outrage has put him and his actions under an even brighter spotlight, and not to his benefit. As I said in an earlier post (read it here,) if his attorneys have any kind of credible evidence to offset the narrative that Jussie was not exonerated and is not innocent, the time to make it public is now.

Update #2, late Saturday afternoon. Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson has issued a statement in response to State's Attorney Foxx's commentary:



Update #3 on Sunday morning. Apparently Jussie did not attend the NAACP Awards event last night; it's interesting that producers felt compelled to issue instructions that there be no Jussie Smollett jokes:

Despite support from Anthony Anderson, Jussie Smollett was a no-show at Saturday night's NAACP Image Awards in Hollywood.

The "Empire" actor was nominated for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, but lost out to “Grey’s Anatomy” star Jesse Williams. Williams won the award during the untelevised portion of the show at the awards dinner Friday, which USA TODAY confirmed Smollett also did not attend.

But that didn't stop Chris Rock from taking aim.

"They said 'No Jussie Smollett jokes,' " said Rock, who was there to present Outstanding Comedy Series. But that didn't stop him. "What a waste of light skin," Rock cracked. "Do you know what I could do with that light skin? That curly hair? My career would be out of here! I'd be running Hollywood."


"What the hell was he thinking? You're 'Jessie' from now on," Rock continued, as cameras showed Trevor Noah cracking up in the crowd. "You don't get the 'u' no more. That 'u' was respect. You ain't getting no respect from me!" (From USA Today, read more here.)

TMZ has the video, see it here

And one more thing: When you've lost Saturday Night Live...



Between Chris Rock and SNL, I think it's safe to say, once again, that Jussie Smollett is not having a good day.

Thursday, March 28, 2019

This Day In History, 1969: President Eisenhower Dies




Wednesday, March 27, 2019

An Editorial From The Chicago Tribune - Updated

At 6.10 p.m. this evening, the Chicago Tribune posted the following editorial about the Jussie Smollett case, titled "The Jussie Smollett Fiasco: Kim Foxx Digs A Deeper Hole":

Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson welled up with outrage over the decision by the Cook County state’s attorney’s office to drop felony charges against TV actor Jussie Smollett, who had been facing trial for concocting a hate crime to benefit his career. Smollett’s penalty: two days of community service and forfeiture of the $10,000 in bond money he’d put up. And then there was Smollett himself, hands shaking as he insisted he was innocent, that he really was a victim.

But in the first-day tumult, one voice wasn’t heard. State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, step up. Try to explain the indefensible.

On Wednesday, Foxx tried to explain the indefensible, and failed. Instead she dug herself a deeper hole.

In essence, she said there’s public confusion about all this because the public just doesn’t understand the intricacies of the legal system.

“Every single day,” Foxx told WBEZ, “… there are people who get similar arrangements … people who get sentences that are probably not what some people would want. Every single day.” As if to say: Trust us. You critics don’t understand.

That doesn’t come close to explaining why Foxx’s office brought the case this far, then let a celebrity walk, even though his alleged crimes consumed thousands of police man-hours in a city pummeled by violent crime. Foxx may think she has calmed the storm, but she hasn’t.

Three urgent questions remain for the state’s attorney:

  • First, do Chicagoans have the full story of Foxx’s conduct in this case? Foxx’s office disclosed that she’d had contact with Smollett’s representatives during the early stages of the investigation. That contact included an email from a politically connected lawyer acting on behalf of Smollett and his family. The Tribune has reported that the lawyer told Foxx the family had “concerns about the investigation” and wanted Superintendent Johnson to turn over the investigation to the FBI. Foxx asked Johnson to do exactly that, the Tribune reported. Johnson refused. Foxx also had exchanged texts with a Smollett relative. Foxx’s office said that, “out of an abundance of caution … State’s Attorney Foxx decided to remove herself from the decision-making.” Is that everything there is to know about these communications between Foxx and Smollett’s allies?

  • Second, what’s the rationale for cutting a secret deal without making Smollett reimburse the city for the costs his alleged actions inflicted on taxpayers? Without making him take responsibility for those alleged actions? To Chicagoans, to the rest of the country for that matter, it appears there was more to the decision to drop the charges and sandblast Smollett’s record than what Foxx’s office has disclosed so far.

  • Third, why the sealed case file? Specifically, is there any linkage between the answers to the first two questions — between Foxx’s stumbles at the start of the case and her office’s decision to abandon it? Sealing this file deprives Chicagoans of any insight into what may have led to this bizarre outcome. There occasionally are good reasons to expunge records and seal case files, but shielding prosecutors’ actions from public scrutiny isn’t one of them.
On Wednesday, the Chicago Police Department released its investigative file in the Smollett case. We appreciate that transparency, and if police have records of all their contacts with prosecutors in the early days of this case — including any efforts by Foxx or her prosecutors to influence the trajectory of the investigation — we hope CPD will release those records too.

Ms. Foxx, CPD’s actions should inspire you to be just as transparent — now.


In other (related) news, ABC News says the FBI is investigating why the charges against Smollett were dropped: 

Fuming from the stunning decision by prosecutors to drop charges in the "hoax" attack case against "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel blasted the move Wednesday, saying all the evidence police collected against the TV star should be unsealed as the FBI opened a review of the disposition of the case.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is reviewing the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the criminal charges against Smollett, two law enforcement sources briefed on the matter told ABC News on Wednesday. The sources insisted it is not an investigation, but a "review."

"He's saying he's innocent and his words aren't true," Emanuel told ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America." "They better get their story straight. This is actually making a fool of all of us."

But Cook County State Attorney Kimberly Foxx, whose office dismissed the charges against Smollett, insisted that the actor did not receive any special treatment. She said Smollett was allowed to dispose of his case through an alternative prosecution program, just like 5,700 other people her office has charged with low-level felonies over the past two years.

In an interview with ABC News, Foxx said Smollett qualified for alternative prosecution because he doesn't have a history of violence, lacks a criminal record and was charged with a class four felony, which is one step above a misdemeanor. She said her office would rather put resources towards prosecuting violent criminals.

Foxx said in a separate interview with ABC station WLS-TV that while Smollett was not found guilty in a court of law, "I believe, based on the facts and the evidence presented in the charging decision made by this office, this office believes that they could prove him guilty." "I think this office, based on the charging decision, believes he is culpable of doing that," Foxx said.
(Read more here.) 

As I'm writing late on Wednesday night, I'd say this story is a long way from being over. 

Thursday morning update: Jussie and his case are still in the news and honestly I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for the man. (Almost...) As I've said here before, he's not a rocket scientist and he had no idea what he was setting in motion when he decided he needed to be more famous. He now finds himself in the land of unintended consequences, only partly because of his own choices. He's caught in the "This is Chicago" political crossfire as the various stakeholders point their fingers, deflect blame and jockey for advantage. Even Jussie's lawyers may have served him badly. Yes, it's great (for Jussie) that they got the charges against him dismissed but they clearly didn't anticipate how controversial that decision would be. When they put Jussie in front of the microphones to say, once again, that he's innocent, they didn't anticipate how loudly the Mayor, the Police Superintendent and the Assistant State's Attorney would holler back: "No, you're not." 

Back when it still appeared that there would in fact be a trial, Jussie's lawyers insisted they wanted cameras in the courtroom so all of America could see the evidence that proves Jussie is innocent. If they really have such evidence, they should make it public, sooner rather than later. Jussie's career hangs in the balance.   

This story has taken on a life of its own and you bet I'll be watching to how it all plays out. 





Toni Preckwinkle is one of the two candidates in the run-off election for Mayor of Chicago. This case came up in a debate last night:



"... causes minimum harm to the defendant in the long term." Is that what's driving all this:



Update #2. The first time I ever mentioned Jussie Smollett in this blog, in a Guessing Game post dated February 18 (read it here,) I said that the story was spiraling out control. It's still true. Ponder this, from ABC Legal Reporter Dan Abrams' website Law And Crime:

An Illinois lawmaker said he wants to introduce a bill that would punish film productions that hire actor Jussie Smollett. Currently, the state provides tax breaks to movies and television shows that film there, but State Rep. Michael McAuliffe (R-Chicago) is looking to pass a law that would strip such benefits from any production that includes Smollett. The actor is currently a cast member of the show Empire, which films in Chicago.

“Smollett should not be able to get anything more from the City of Chicago or Illinois,” McCauliffe said in a statement, adding that “a lot of valuable Chicago Police Department man hours and resources were wasted chasing down a bogus crime arranged by Smollett.” Smollett forfeited $10,000 in bond money as part of the arrangement that led to his case being dismissed, but McCauliffe does not believe that’s enough. After the Empire actor’s case was dismissed with little explanation, McCauliffe wants a stronger message to be sent against Smollett, who had been accused of staging what he claimed was a racist, homophobic assault.

McCauliffe said the alleged hoax cost the city of Chicago “a lot more than a $10,000 bond.”

Nine television shows currently shoot in Chicago, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Tax benefits include a 30 percent credit for in-state purchases and for hiring Illinois residents (those hired who live in areas with high unemployment can yield an addition 15 percent credit for the production). If a film or TV show uses a hotel room for at least 30 days for someone involved in the production, they won’t have to pay the hotel occupancy tax either.

McCauliffe, who has served as an Illinois State Representative since 1997, reportedly plans on introducing the bill this week.
(Check out the website here.)

I would say it's unlikely a bill like this would ever become law. I would also say that in spite of the charges against him being dropped, Jussie Smollett is having another bad day. As I said above, unintended consequences. 

Update #3. ABC7 Chicago reporter Ross Weidner provides a Twitter "explainer" about what happened in court this morning:



















Meanwhile, back at City Hall:


From the Chicago Tribune article:

The mayor said Police Department brass are compiling the costs of the investigation into Smollett’s claim. City lawyers will then send Smollett a letter calling on him to pay the full amount, Emanuel said.

“The police are right now finalizing the cost that was used, police resources to come to the understanding this was a hoax and not a real hate crime,” Emanuel said. “What we spent. The corporation counsel, once they have the finalized and feel good about the numbers, will then send a letter to Jussie Smollett and his attorneys, trying to recoup those costs for the city.”

“It is a small way of both acknowledging, one, guilt, two, that we spent these resources and the taxpayers deserve, at minimum — because I think there’s a whole other level of ethical costs, because he’s still walking around, ‘Hey, I’m innocent, everything I said from day one is true’ — that actually we’re going to get the resources back. But come with those resources is, implicitly, if you pay it, that the city spent money to uncover what the grand jury discovered.”
(Read more here.)

A little political grandstanding from the outgoing mayor? Possibly.

Update #4. The National District Attorneys Association released a statement on prosecutorial best practices in high profile cases:

The handling of cases by prosecutors nationwide has garnered national media attention and a greater focus on the role of the prosecutor in the criminal justice system. In each instance, the local prosecutors involved in the case must weigh all the facts and determine the best path forward to ensure justice is served. Prosecutors don’t always get it right, nor does the public necessarily get to see all the information available to prosecutors, particularly during an ongoing investigation. In these types of circumstances, it is easy for emotions to run high and finger pointing to ensue, but it is important not to allow investigations and charging decisions to be swayed by public sentiment and to follow best practices and guidelines in whatever situation may arise. 

The recent incident in Chicago involving actor Jussie Smollett is no different and has garnered national attention as the case has made its way through various phases of the investigation and prosecution process. While details of the case remain sealed, several observations must be made in order to increase, not diminish, the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system. 

First, when a chief prosecutor recuses him or herself, the recusal must apply to the entire office, not just the elected or appointed prosecutor. This is consistent with best practices for prosecutors’ offices around the country. 

Second, prosecutors should not take advice from politically connected friends of the accused. Each case should be approached with the goal of justice for victims while protecting the rights of the defendant. 

Third, when a prosecutor seeks to resolve a case through diversion or some other alternative to prosecution, it should be done so with an acknowledgement of culpability on the part of the defendant. A case with the consequential effects of Mr. Smollett’s should not be resolved without a finding of guilt or innocence.

Fourth, expunging Mr. Smollett’s record at this immediate stage is counter to transparency. Law enforcement will now not be able to acknowledge that Mr. Smollett was indicted and charged with these horrible crimes and the full record of what occurred will be forever hidden from public view. 

Finally, we believe strongly that hate crimes should be prosecuted vigorously but the burden of proof should not be artificially increased due to the misguided decisions of others. (Read the entire statement here.)

Finally, at least for now, could Jussie Smollett win an NAACP award Saturday night? He's nominated for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series and TMZ says he flew to LA last night to attend Saturday night's awards ceremony. (Read about it here.) Jussie's fellow nominees are Jesse Williams for Grey's Anatomy, Joe Morton for Scandal, Romany Malco for A Million Little Things and Wendell Pierce for Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan. Will Jussie win? It probably depends on when the voting took place.

Thursday afternoon, update #5. Mayor Emanuel has followed through on his threat:


And here's the letter:




Joanna Gaines

Issue dated April 8, 2019: Joanna Gaines


When I saw this cover pop up at People.com this morning I briefly wondered if someone had posted an old issue by mistake. Joanna Gaines? Again? Really? Blog readers know I just don't get People's obsession with HGTV stars, and Mr. and Mrs. Gaines in particular, but here she is again, front and center. Obviously I didn't anticipate this cover and in fact it was a total strikeout this week, nothing on the Guessing Game list made the cover. Last year's cover had a "Royal Baby Mania" headline and we'll only see more of that when Meghan and Harry's baby arrives in a few weeks.

Last year at this time: Issue dated April 9, 2018

The Guessing Game - Updated

What will be on the cover of People this week? The Jussie Smollett story was all over the news yesterday but it broke too late for People's Monday night deadline. Will he get a cover story next week? Maybe. In the meantime, here are my guesses for this week: 

Wendy Williams: Announces she's living in a sober house
Kellyanne Conway: In the middle of a feud between Donald and her husband
Barron Trump: The president's youngest son is now a teenager, he turned 13 on March 20
Jenny McCarthy: Feuding with Barbara Walters and others on The View
Bridget McCain: John McCain's youngest daughter calls out Trump
Emilia Clarke: Talking about surviving two brain aneurysms
Justin Carter: The country singer accidentally killed himself with a gunshot
Christina Anstead: The former Mrs. El Moussa is pregnant
Parkland Students: Two survivors of the Parkland shooting killed themselves this week; Jeremy Richman, the father of a child who died at Sandy Hook, also apparently took his own life
Porsha Williams: The Real Housewives of Atlanta star had a baby
Natalie Morales: A new series called Abby's
Lupita Nyong'o: Her new movie, Us, opened big over the weekend
Robert Kraft: Apologizes in a statement, doesn't say exactly what he's apologizing for
Rob Gronkowski: The popular New England Patriots player announces he's retiring

Stories that appear on the new cover will be highlighted in green.

Update: Nothing from this list made the cover this week. See the new cover, featuring Joanna Gaines, here.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Charges Dropped Against Jussie Smollett, But Not Because He's Innocent (Yikes) - Updated

In a bombshell announcement, all charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office this morning. Jussie is claiming victory and victimhood; the mayor and the police department are seriously pissed off. Tweets on the subject, in somewhat random order:  (Note that Anthony Guglielmi is the spokesman for the Chicago Police Department)



















This is how the local NBC station is reporting the story:

The Chicago Police Department said it was not notified of prosecutors' decision to drop all charges against "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett and that top brass found out about the news during a graduation ceremony for recruits on Tuesday.

"Do I think justice was served? No," Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson said at an impromptu news conference after the ceremony. "Where do I think justice is? I think this city is still owed an apology."

"When I came on this job, I came on with my honor, my integrity, my reputation. If someone accused me of doing anything that would circumvent that, then I would want my day in court - period - to clear my name," Johnson said.

"I've heard that they wanted their day in court with TV cameras so that America could know the truth. Now they chose to hide behind secrecy and broker a deal to circumvent the judicial system," he added.

CPD's Area Central Commander Ed Wodnicki, who headed the investigation into the alleged hate crime Smollett said he suffered in Chicago on Jan. 29, said the Cook County state's attorney's office did not inform the department of its decision to drop the charges.

"It’s a punch in the gut. It's absolutely a punch in the gut," Wodnicki said, speaking to reporters at the graduation ceremony Tuesday. Wodnicki "personally led" the "patient and deliberate investigation" into Smollett's claim of an attack, and then Smollett himself, Johnson said at a Feb. 21 news conference announcing a felony charge of disorderly conduct against the actor.

Then on Mar. 8, a Cook County grand jury indicted Smollett on 16 felony counts in connection with his reporting of the alleged attack, which police claimed he staged against himself because he was "dissatisfied with his salary."

"We worked closely throughout our three-week investigation to get to the point where we arrested the offender," Wodnicki said Tuesday, adding, "For the state's attorney at this point to dismiss charges without discussing this with us at all is just shocking."

In an earlier statement on the charges being dropped, the Cook County state's attorney's office said, “After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollet’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case."

But Wodnicki disagreed, saying Chicago's "citizens should be angry."

"We've got more than $10,000 invested in this investigation," he said, adding, "We wasted time and effort on a serious reported crime."

Wodnicki also said the department was prepared for the case against Smollett to go to trial.

"We have a rock-solid case, as the superintendent said in the initial press conference. We have overwhelming evidence," he said. "I've been doing this for 35 years, believe me, this investigation is solid."

"This is a slap in our face," Wodnicki continued, speaking on the state's attorney's office failure to notify police. "They weren’t courteous to give us a heads up."

State's Attorney Kim Foxx recused herself from the case in February, with documents obtained earlier this month via Freedom of Information Act request showing that Foxx had asked Johnson to turn the investigation over to the FBI.

Jussie got the spotlight he wanted and he's no longer in legal jeopardy but I bet that deep in his soul he's wishing he had never put this plan in motion. (Yes, I still believe he orchestrated a hoax.) In my first post about all this (read it here,) I said that Jussie didn't fully anticipate the consequences of his choices. I'm having similar thoughts today. When he agreed to today's deal, whatever it was, did he anticipate that the Mayor and the Police Superintendent would continue to insist, loudly, that he did indeed fabricate his story? Without a specific and credible explanation for why the charges were dropped the whole thing just looks fishy and that's not good for Jussie. He's famous now but my guess is that his career will never recover. Stay tuned.

Update: Mayor Rahm Emanuel really isn't happy:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel cast doubt on the state's actions, saying it was "not on the level."

"From top to bottom, this is not on the level ... It's not on the level, but I also want to say I want to emphasize what the superintendent just said. At the end of the day, it's Mr. Smollett that committed this false claim upon two individuals and who also testified, but also on the city. One action, yes, we're looking at the state's attorney. It's not on the level from beginning to end and there needs to be a level of accountability throughout the system, and this sends an ambiguous message that there is no accountability and that is wrong," he said.
From CNN's coverage, read more here.

Update #2. More from CNN, about Jussie's career prospects going forward and note that this is not political scientist Jonathan Bernstein, who I quote here frequently: 

Jonathan Bernstein, author and president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., told CNN Tuesday that while the investigation won't end Smollett's career, the spectre of it will linger.

"He's always going to be associated with Jussie Smollett, the guy who may or may not set up his own mugging," Bernstein said. "I don't think the police dropping charges is enough because of the way this happened."

Bernstein said that because of the high profile nature of the case, both prosecutors and Smollett need to be completely transparent about everything that happened, including the decision to drop all charges.

"The court of public opinion is still going to want to hear an explanation about why, specifically, charges were dropped," Bernstein said. "There's a difference between dropping charges because there's absolutely no basis for them and dropping charges because there is insufficient evidence."

David E. Johnson, chief executive officer of Strategic Vision PR Group, said for Smollett to "fully recover," he needed prosecutors to say he was "vindicated 100%."

If Smollett was his client, Johnson said he would advise "a gradual reintroduction" to the public and "a hard hitting one-on-one interview."

Johnson suggested Smollett should do another interview with ABC's Robin Roberts to clear the air.

"If you looked at her comments [after their initial interview], it felt like she might have been burned by him so it's going to be a harder interview," Johnson said of another potential interview. "The focus, the glare on both of them is going to be a lot more intense then with someone else."
(Read more here.) 

Update #3. Tandra Simonton is the Chief Communications Officer for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. Brad Edwards is a news reporter for the local CBS station: 





I'm not sure why the complete statement doesn't show up in the tweet directly above, but this is what the second sentence says: "We stand by the Chicago Police Department's investigation and our approval of charges." Whatever the reasons for dropping the charges, it's not because they think Jussie is innocent.

Again: "We stand by our approval of charges," in other words, we still believe he's guilty of what we charged him with, but we're letting him completely off the hook anyway. Wow. There's got to be more to this story. Did the State's Attorney's Office anticipate the "they let him off the hook because he's a celebrity" backlash? It doesn't look that way.

David Axelrod weighs in:


And one more time, Jussie Smollett has not been exonerated:


Update #4. More details from ABC News:

The unanticipated development shocked Chicago, and prompted angry reactions from Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, who each reiterated their belief that the incident was a hoax -- with Emanuel wondering aloud, "Is there no decency in this man?"

The duo went on to accuse to 'Empire' actor of receiving preferential treatment by the Illinois State Attorney's Office.

"This is without a doubt a whitewash of justice," Emanuel said at a news conference Tuesday afternoon. "There is no accountability. It is wrong, full stop."

Johnson said he was surprised to learn of the decision to drop charges against Smollett while attending a police academy graduation with Mayor Emanuel.

A furious Johnson said prosecutors brokered a deal with Smollett in secrecy.

"I'm sure we all know what happened this morning," Johnson said at his press conference. "Do I think justice was served? No. What do I think justice is? I think this city is owed an apology."

"At the end of the day, it's Mr. Smollett who committed this hoax, period," Johnson said. "I heard that they wanted their day in court ... so America could know the truth, and they chose to hide behind a secrecy of a brokered deal to circumvent the judicial system."

Johnson said that he and Emanuel only learned about the charges being dropped when it was announced publicly.

"We found about it when you all did," Johnson said of the lack of notice from the State's Attorney Office regarding the dropped charges. "I'm sure we'll have some conversation after this. But again at the end of the day Mr. Smollett committed this hoax."

Emanuel noted that "a sliver" of the evidence was presented to a grand jury, which indicted Smollett. He said Smollett used race and privilege to "get off scott free" and that the actor has shown no remorse or accountability for his actions.

“A person using hate crime laws that are on the books to protect people who are minorities, and you turn around and use them to advance your career?" Emmanuel said. "Is there no decency in this man?"

In a subsequent interview with ABC News Chicago station WLS, the prosecutor who dropped the charges against Smollett told ABC News station WLS that he believes Smollett made a false report about being attacked, but decided to drop the charges anyway.

“We stand behind the investigation and the facts revealed,” said Joe Magats, the first assistant state attorney who took over the case when his boss, State Attorney Kim Foxx, recused herself from the probe after it surfaced that she had been in touch with Smollett’s family.

In fact, according to text messages obtained by the Chicago Tribune, Foxx reached out to Johnson and asked him to turn the probe over to the FBI -- though the police department ultimately completed the investigation independently.

“We believe he did was he was charged with what he was doing.” Asked again whether he believes Smollett fabricated the incident, he replied, “yes.”

“This was not an exoneration. To say that he was exonerated by us or anyone is not true.”

In answer to questions about the dropping of the charges, Magats initially suggested that it was a question of resources, and that he decided to drop the charges after determining

“Our goal and our #1 priority is combatting violent crime and the drivers of violence and we look to our resources to do that and I don’t think that Mr. Smollett is a driver of violence or a violent individual.”

Magats also said that he was satisfied with Smollett forfeiting the 10 percent of $100K bond he put up, and completing community service prior to getting the charges dropped.

“In return for forfeiting his bond to the City of Chicago and doing his community service, we agreed to dismiss the charges against him. He did community service for Operation Push.”
(Read more here.) 

As you can tell by how long this post is, I've been mesmerized as I watched this story play out all afternoon. As I ponder what's happened I come back to this: Jussie Smollett still isn't the smartest tool in the box. (I first said it in a Guessing Game post on February 18. Read it here.) He clearly didn't understand that "all charges are dropped" isn't the same thing as "Jussie is innocent." Rather than simply thanking everyone for their assistance, during his on-camera statement this afternoon, he continued to insist that he's innocent and a victim. That caused both the Mayor and the Police Superintendent to come out swinging, reiterating their belief that, based on a tsunami of evidence, he did indeed perpetrate a hoax. Even the prosecutor who made the decision to drop the charges was compelled to state, repeatedly and explicitly, that Jussie was not exonerated. Jussie's legal troubles may be over but his reputation and career prospects have clearly not been restored. 

Update #5. About that "community service":



Update #6. Here it is, straight from the decision-maker himself, no waffling, no wiggle-room: 

Question from reporter: "Do you believe that he is innocent?" 
Answer: "I do not believe that he is innocent."
Question: "So you believe he's guilty?"
Answer: "Yes."



Update #7. Even the so-called community service is controversial. Rainbow PUSH says that "There was no court-ordered community service here":






Update #8, on Wednesday morning. This story is still big news, including the lead story at CNN.com. In an article titled "Why Did Prosecutors Drop All Charges Against Jussie Smollett?" a variety of experts ponder how this happened. It ends with this:

The secrecy surrounding the details of the sudden dismissal of Smollett's charges has left some people calling for greater transparency from the prosecutors office and has led to speculation.

A judge agreed to seal Smollett's court file at the request of his attorneys and without the opposition from prosecutors.

[Police Superintendent Eddie] Johnson, who had expressed his disappointment over the dismissal, criticized the move suggesting that defense attorneys brokered a deal to "circumvent the judicial system."

"Nothing has changed other than the fact that this guy got to the state's attorney's office somehow and they worked out a back door deal that threw the mayor and the police department under the bus. Period," said Former Philadelphia police commissioner Charles Ramsey, agreeing with Johnson.

Other legal analysts said the decision to keep the records from public disclosure will stop the community from learning what really happened.

"We have a right as the American people to know why these charges were dropped. If Jussie is telling the truth, we should know that," said civil rights attorney Areva Martin.

Others like Cheryl Dorsey, a retired Los Angeles Police Department sergeant, said the truth may come another way.

"We'll know that this thing that the police are saying is true when Jussie's great, great legal team doesn't sue Chicago PD for defamation or slander," she said.
(Read more here.) 

Jussie Smollett is famous now, but not in the way he wanted to be. Will he sue the Chicago Police Department? My guess is no.