The fact you resort to that sort of argument tells me you have no argument. I corrected the misrepresentation. And btw, "exonerated" is the wrong word... you and trump were searching for the term "vindicated." Exonerated in a criminal case means he was convicted then set free (in a non-criminal case it means released of a liability). Vindicated means absolved of blame. That said... it was a complete misrepresentation of what Mueller said. Wasn't even close. And until we read the rest of the report, we don't know what other things were covered.
No ****, he should be prosecuted without question but it looks like the case is more about who you know and how much money you have vs the facts and I hate that more than anything.
I don't think I would have stated this exactly like you did or use the exact same analogy but your point is spot on.
These people all fabricated a fraudulent hate crime in conspiracy with others, and with the support of the Democrat left mass media? Somehow I seem to have totally missed that. With ALL of them.
You are not understanding the point I was making on DA's and high profile cases that attract heavy media coverage. We are overall in agreement on the Smollett case.
Speaking of kraft... he must think he will have a more sympathetic jury so as to have a better shot with a jury over a judge's ruling...
State’s Attorney Kim Foxx asked Chicago’s top cop to turn Jussie Smollett probe over to FBI, texts and emails show "Spoke to the Superintendent Johnson,” Foxx emailed Tchen back on Feb. 1. “I convinced him to Reach out to FBI to ask that they take over the investigation.” The same day, Foxx texted with Smollett’s relative, whose name was blacked out in copies released by her office. “Spoke to the superintendent earlier, he made the ask,” Foxx wrote. “Trying to figure out logistics. I’ll keep you posted.” “Omg this would be a huge victory,” the relative replied. “I make no guarantees, but I’m trying,” Foxx wrote back. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...smollett-kim-foxx-records-20190313-story.html
It depends, you need to be more specific. For instance: He was completely exonerated of any collusion with Russia
Dave Schuler (who I believe is from Chicago) speculates that the dropping of charges in this case may be due to the cost of pursuing it: Before we conclude that Smollett’s case is, like Schrödinger’s cat, simultaneously dead and alive, I think there’s an interpretation that explains the decision to drop charges. Under Illinois statute the state’s ability to seek damages and penalties is quite limited, in all likelihood far less expensive than pursuing the case would be. Is it possible that the decision not to pursue the charges is actually a cost-saving measure? http://theglitteringeye.com/charges-against-smollett-dropped/
