Like!

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
And the Obamas were from Chicago, don't forget.

I've tried to understand this case, and I simply can't figure it out. It's just goofy as can be, and this last didn't help. I'm hoping we find out what really happened, but I have my doubts. At this point, the conspiracy theories are going to town and it's difficult to weed through the garbage to find anything.

I’m running out of ideas here, people.

I have only two theories left. One possibility is that, for whatever reason, the brothers recanted and decided to say they had nothing to do with this. In that case, there could be no prosecution. This theory would explain why the brothers are not on every TV show and planning a book deal.

The other possibility is that the prosecutors decided that the outlandish behavior of the police in holding that news conference to try the case in the media made it untenable to prove the case was anything other than a political prosecution. Seems unlikely on account of how this is Chicago and nobody has any ethics.

After that, I got nothing.

Cindy you seem to have completely ruled out corruption which is never advisable in Chicago.

quote:

Originally posted by well-tempered gardener:
Agree with jon. Rahm was on Good Morning America this morning and Stephanopolous couldn't stop Rahm's rant.

The prosecutors never notified the police they were dropping the charges. The mayor and police chief found out the same time the public did. They're both furious about this.

https://www.chicagotribune.com....html#nt=oft06a-1li2

The prosecutor went to a grand jury and managed to get 16 felony counts. A month later, they're like "never mind".

Right.

Who cares? It is (yes) the prosecutors who decide.

The Illinois Prosecutors Bar association thinks there’s something rotten in Cook County.


To summarize: Foxx didn’t actually recuse herself as a matter of law. She just misled the public by saying she did. One is reminded of Trump standing in front of a table full of binders saying he’s backing away from his business.

Foxx said the sealing of the case was mandatory, it was not, and if it was even *eligible* for seal, a notice would have been required which would have given the police and mayor an opportunity to reject.

Foxx has said this is something available to all defendants, the IPBA points out that simply isn’t true, and that legitimate diversion programs come with an admission of guilt.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
Who cares? It is (yes) the prosecutors who decide.

Yes, but we want some logic, fairness, and reliability - in a word, justice - in how they decide. People get angry when rich, well connected people get away with things that you and I wouldn’t.

That’s why in this case, just like the Epstein case, there is interest in investigating the nature of the deal itself.

jon, I don't disagree with you.

So initially Foxx said she was confident that the strength of the evidence would have resulted in a conviction.

Now, not so much.

Her op-ed in the Chicago Tribune.

https://www.chicagotribune.com...-20190329-story.html

Recused, not recused. Good evidence, not strong enough. Foxx needed to get her stories straight before speaking publicly.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Cindy you seem to have completely ruled out corruption which is never advisable in Chicago.

But who in this story has the money to buy off the DA?

Jussie makes a good living, but not Doctor Dre money.

And corruption wouldn’t explain why the brothers have gone silent.

Unless . . .

The brothers are the villains! Maybe they sent the notes, and they committed the assault. The plan was to frighten Jussie so Fox or Jussie would hire them as body guards.

quote:

Originally posted by well-tempered gardener:
So initially Foxx said she was confident that the strength of the evidence would have resulted in a conviction.

Now, not so much.

Her op-ed in the Chicago Tribune.

https://www.chicagotribune.com...-20190329-story.html

Recused, not recused. Good evidence, not strong enough. Foxx needed to get her stories straight before speaking publicly.

What nonsense.

There is also value in making an example of someone. One legitimate function of criminal law is deterrence. Dismissal of these charges tells everyone that false reporting of a crime is insignificant.

We cannot have a criminal justice system in which victims are believed if victims can lie about being victims.