Jussie Smollett's Largely Overlooked Tweet on Fraud Two Days Before the "Attack."

On Jan. 27, two days before the alleged attack, Smollett posted that "Frauds are everywhere."

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

On Jan. 27, two days before the alleged attack on Jussie Smollett early on Jan. 29, Smollett posted a tweet on fraud, beginning with the warning: "Frauds are everywhere y'all." I guess he should know (if current police leaks are true).

Frauds are everywhere y'all. Protect the mind, heart and spirit of you and your people at all costs. Just remember… Salt, cocaine and anthrax can all appear to be sugar…(the "refined" kind of course) just be careful out here fam. Happy Sunday. Love you. Real talk. Love on. Jussie Smollett (@JussieSmollett)

By the way, many online comments falsely claim or imply that the supposed attack happened on one of the coldest nights in Chicago history. At 2am on Jan. 29, the official Chicago temperature (at O'Hare Airport) was +8 or +9 degrees (data no longer readily available online without registration).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

141 responses to “Jussie Smollett's Largely Overlooked Tweet on Fraud Two Days Before the "Attack."

  1. Manufactured hate crime hoax checklist.

    White people (required).
    MAGA hats (required).
    Klan or Nazi uniforms (highly recommended).
    Implying Trump support (required).
    Noose (highly recommended).
    Anonymous death threats (sent before, required).
    Canned prepared press strategy (required).
    Exit PR strategy if discovered (required).
    BONUS: Paint police as racist for either failing to find fake attackers or investigating you for filing fake police report.

    1. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here……. http://www.payshd.com

  2. Actor needs good writers and cameramen who know the way the camera is pointed.

  3. Smollett got the “know thyself” part right…but never seemed to get the accompanying wisdom it usually entails.

  4. “By the way, many online comments falsely claim or imply that the supposed attack happened on one of the coldest nights in Chicago history. ”

    It was a very cold night. A reasonable person would tend to find such an attack on a weeknight at 2 am with single digit temperatures to be somewhat unlikely. It might have been exaggerated, but the point stands.

    1. Fortunately “hate” is a kind of fuel that warms your insides and keeps things like coldness at bay or at least that is probably what the liberal media believes.

      What makes his story completely suspect is why would some white rednecks go to a minority heavy section of a city wearing big red MAGA hats and carrying around a noose (which if being white in the heavily minority section of town wasn’t enough to stand out…) wait around in dangerously cold conditions to “beat” (which is apparently leaving only a few bumps and bruises) a gay black man.

      You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to have a few initial questions as to the plausibility of this story…

      1. Streeterville isn’t a minority heavy section of Chicago. It is 73% white and 16% Asian.

        1. Street traffic in the area looked a lot more colorful last time I walked around there about a year ago…

  5. “By the way, apropos of nothing, many online comments falsely claim or imply that the supposed attack happened on one of the coldest nights in Chicago history.”

    FIFY

    1. This comment was supposed to be a reply to Jimmy the Dane. It fits here as well I suppose.

      1. Don’t even need to click on the link – twas my first thought as well.

  6. Kind of gives a new meaning to #JusticeForJussie

  7. You’re right. It was ONLY 7-9 degrees Fahrenheit with a wind chill of -10 to -14. Not cold at ALL. In all seriousness however, people are confusing the temperature with that of the next night, which was at less than -15 before wind chill.

    1. Yeah people walking around in the windy city with double digit negative wind chill tend to layer up pretty well. This generally includes a hooded coat that at least partially covers the face to prevent frostbite. I doubt I’d recognize my own brother under those circumstances at 2 A.M. let alone some obscure TV actor I’d never met.

    2. Also the 7-9 degree temps come from O’Hare, while this incident occurred in Streeterville, much closer to the lake and usually a bit colder (and windier)

  8. Best part of the tweet? The “y’all.” After all, a brother born in Santa Rosa CA to a black mother and a Jewish father, raised in Paramus NJ – ‘the Wall Street Journal characterized Paramus as “quintessentially suburban”‘ (Wikipedia) – needs all the ‘keepin’ it real’ he can get to …. keep it black.

    1. Oh, that’s rich.

    2. If only he’d grown up in a different part of New Jersey he’d have learned enough colorful language he wouldn’t have had to adopt anyone else’s.

    3. Now, while he stands tough
      Notice that this man did not have his hands up

  9. I, for one, am happy to know that racism in America has become so vanishingly rare that people who wish to be victims of racism have to fake it.

    1. But that’s bad for the Perpetual Victimization Agenda. If things are fine (and getting better) we don’t need liberal policies to save us.

    2. Racism is not yet vanishingly rare, but it is largely limited to the Republican Party and therefore can be expected to continue to diminish.

      1. How’d you guys manage to fix it so that a scandal about white dudes wearing blackface almost ended with a black dude having to resign? I guess some things never change in the Virginia Democratic Party.

  10. Has any Conspirator mentioned the physical attack directed at journalists by a lathered-against-the-media member of the audience at a recent Trump campaign rally, or the lack of reported consequences?’

    Has any Conspirator mentioned the arrest of an elementary school student who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegience to a substitute teacher’s liking?

    Some people are busy covering the Orange Coast controversy, I guess. Thank goodness there are some libertarians to direct attention to the genuine physical assaults and backwater arrests while the Conspirators keep us posted about those who wish to display drawings of rifles, dust-ups involving Confederate flags, and staged attacks that gratify the right-wing audience.

    1. Shorter Art: I am no longer confident that the Smollet story can be spun how I like it, so I wish people would shut up about it. Also, I’m mad that the pledge arrest which was covered on H&R wasn’t covered on Volokh as well.

    2. What, like this event? Do we need a blog post on this: Kentucky Incident

    3. Nope. We’re too busy following the story of a liar who needed to be a victim so bad that he paid for a “racist” attack and then got caught.

      And how the media jumped on this story to perpetuate the liberal lie that America is a racist country.

      1. the liberal lie that America is a racist country.

        Racism over. Thanks, Fraudster Smollett!

        1. On a semi-serious note, Sarc, by what measures would it take for you to consider America to be non-racist? Clearly, it had a racist past, but then again so did every country.

          1. Similar outcomes across races for positions of power and prestige, or ironclad evidence why policies that can’t happen.

            Plus there’s the moral wound. Which time would heal, but would be accelerated by a decent truth and reconciliation-type non-reparations extirpation.

            Honestly, it’s kind of a spiritual question – when will the angels of our better natures triumph?

            1. Then by your own standards, you have admittedly set measures which will never be met, thereby perpetuating the very thing you wish to have removed because the remediation efforts cause as many of the same symptoms of the disease.

              Wait, I take it back. As I was typing that last sentence, I realized that there are at least two ways to end all racism.

              1. I never said that we will never have equivalent outcomes across the races, which was my policy metric.

                As for the spiritual aspect, we have all sorts of long-term institutions as bulwarks against the lower aspects of human nature, why should racism be any different?

                1. You are never, ever, going to have 12% of people in positions of power be black because they are 12% of the population.

                  The words “irconclad evidence” when it comes to the social sciences means that you’re never going to have your standard of why your equivalent standard doesn’t occur either, even when it crosses over into the hard-ish science of biology.

                  Spiritual? Better angels of our nature? That’s utopian thinking, and another reason why, by your measures, racism will never, ever go away enough to not worry about it. No straight thing was ever made from the crooked timber of man.

                  The “wounds” will never heal, then, as long as there are enough people with the incentive for them not too. Where do you thing the incentive for not letting bygones be bygones comes from the most?

                  1. The “wounds” will never heal, then, as long as there are enough people with the incentive for them not too. Where do you thing the incentive for not letting bygones be bygones comes from the most?
                    This assumes there are no current impacts to racism. Which is rather begging the question. And thence, off to conspiracy-town!

                    Spiritual? Better angels of our nature? That’s utopian thinking,
                    Are you crapping on Abraham Lincoln?
                    Realizing that we are the cavemen biologically but don’t need to act like them isn’t Utopian; it’s a pretty low bar, actually.

                2. Which institutions are those?

                  The DEA? The Comstocks? Blue Laws? Vice Squads? Those institutions?

                  1. Which institutions are those?
                    we have all sorts of long-term institutions as bulwarks against the lower aspects of human nature

                    13th Amendment; drug laws, being a republic with checks and balances and not a democracy, civil rights laws, insider trading laws, churches.

            2. “Similar outcomes across races for positions of power and prestige”

              Then since we elected a black president, we are all set. Thanks Obama.

              1. “POTUS: The only position of power and prestige in the US.”

                -Bob the Monarchist.

                1. Blacks have their population share of the House too. Blacks have been Secretary of State and Attorney General and on the Joint Chiefs.

                  Your side ought to nominate more blacks in Blue states if you are so concerned.

            3. “decent truth and reconciliation-type non-reparations extirpation”

              We have been tearing our garments for 60 years now over racism… Everyone who was responsible for Jim Crow is dead or in a nursing home. Tens of billions spent.

              Yet a stupid committee and some grandstanding testimony will solve everything.

              1. 1. Blacks have their population share of the House too
                You do not seem good at statistics.

                2. Your side ought to nominate more blacks in Blue states if you are so concerned.
                Hard to do that when the infrastructure for blacks to climb to positions of appropriate experience. That’s why it’s called institutional racism.
                Also, check out your own party if you want to see how different it looks when a side just doesn’t care to look beyond white people.

                3. We have been tearing our garments for 60 years now over racism
                Agreed! (though I’d bet you’re not part of ‘we.’) So lets stop with the peripatetic random actions and do it right once and for all, then.
                Do you know the history of T&R? It’s worked in worse places than the US. Maybe it wouldn’t work here, but I’d like to consider it at least.

                1. You can consider it all you want. Considered and rejected by me, who was born decades after the end of Jim Crow, and whose relatives either fought for the Union or came over after the Slavery. That’s racial guilt your selling there, snake oil my man, because it judges people by their group membership instead of as individuals, like the very racism you decry.

                  1. Yeah, the real racism is calling a society racist.

                    The quick switching from group to individual to avoid various imputations of guilt is trying too hard.

                    1. The best definition of racism I know is, “Treating a statistical generalization (about race) as though it was information about an individual.” Basically treating people as instances of a group instead of individuals.

                      Yeah, declaring people racists based on their skin color? As racist as it gets.

                    2. Which I am not doing, Brett. Explicitly, at 4:33PM.

                      To say it again: being in an institution that is racist does not make you racist.

                2. From Pew: “Almost one-in-five members of the House and Senate are a racial or ethnic minority, making the 114th Congress the most diverse in history. However, Congress remains disproportionately white when compared with the U.S. population, which has grown increasingly diverse in recent decades…”

                  Anyway, Bob’s not off by much. The most readily available numbers I can find are that in 2017 there were 52 black members of Congress/Senate, or 9.7%, and America is 12.6% black. So, we’d have to have 68 blacks in Congress and the Senate to equal their population percentage. Does it bother you that we need 16 more black conservatives to run is rural districts?

                  1. So you admit there’s a discrepancy, but argue it’s minimal, despite the fact that the high-water mark is still well below the expected proportion.

                    Black conservatives seem thin on the ground in Congress these days. Funny, that, as you argue the real racism is talking about racism still existing.

                    1. When you’re ideas are correctly pointed out as utopian or (perhaps) unwarranted/unwanted/ill advised, you try to boomerang it around on those who point that out, like it’s us who are the *real* racists for not agreeing.

                      I’ll admit it, I asked. I didn’t expect the pout though.

                      As for black conservatives, why do you make it out like it’s white America’s fault for not voting in black liberals into Congress? Rather black Americans should perhaps give rural voters what they want, not a big spending lib who’s good on the 2nd Amendment. Such a candidate who happened to be black would get voted into office in South Carolina of all places, and as a Republican at that. You’re like a person who sells ice cream in winter wondering why the sales are so slow.

                    2. That’s racial guilt your selling there, snake oil my man, because it judges people by their group membership instead of as individuals, like the very racism you decry.
                      You’re the one that called me racist, dude. Like satire, arguing that saying racism is a thing is the real racism. Amazing.

                      Conversely, I didn’t call you racist, just pushed back on your accusation, and also when you argued that society can’t be racist because you aren’t racist.

                      I’m not arguing for Americans to put black liberals into office, when did I say that?
                      I’m not even arguing we need to start voting for people based on their skin color – only that the lack of blacks in positions of power reflects an uneven playing field. Rectify that, and the symptom of Congressional disparity will solve itself.

                      Rather black Americans should perhaps give rural voters what they want
                      Again, weird how blacks keep not taking white conservatives’ advice. In related news, Didn’t you argue that blacks might be genetically intellectually inferior just a few weeks ago?

                    3. Black conservatives seem thin on the ground in Congress these days.

                      That is because conservatism has taken a hard turn toward bigotry and insularity in recent decades.

                      Not all conservatives are bigots — far from it — but nearly every current conservative appeases bigotry for perceived partisan political advantage.

                      One of America’s great achievement during my lifetime is that our vestigial bigots no longer wish to be known as bigots, at least not publicly.

                    4. Discrepancies are not evidence of racism. They’re evidence of discrepancies.

                      I’ve worked in the private sphere for 30 years and every organization I’ve worked for has actively recruited minorities from outside and from within. In fact, it got pretty ridiculous after a while. While a white male would have had to be in the top 10% of a top quartile school to even be interviewed, minorities in the top 50% of their class at just about any university were not only interviewed, but often offered jobs. The biggest challenge was getting them to accept the offer, as every other company was trying to hire them as well, and so we would be competing with 10 other quality offers.

                      I’m not bitter about it, I just don’t have a lot of patience for the constant refrain that racism is so baked into society that a minority has no chance to succeed. Any minority that chooses to work hard, stay out of trouble, and get an education (and do only reasonably well), has the option to do almost anything they want to do. That so few choose to do that is not my problem.

                      What the minority community really needs is leadership that tells them to put their heads down, work hard and stay out of trouble. But if they actually did that, they’d succeed, and then the black leadership would be out of a job. Face it, the last thing that Jesse Jackson and Rev. Sharpton want is for racism to end. That’s their currency, so it will always exist, because it must always exist.

                3. “You do not seem good at statistics.”

                  Better than your reading comprehension. Did I mention the Senate, no, I said the House.

                  1. You’re still wrong about the House, Bob.

                    1. 53 Congressional Black Caucus members in House.

                      12.1% blacks in 2018 per census which = 52.64

                      So, I am not wrong.

            4. Similar outcomes across races for positions of power and prestige, or ironclad evidence why policies that can’t happen.

              Ah, so you *don’t* want an end to racism – just for it to benefit you.

              1. We will be a post-racial society the minute white people are permitted to organize based upon their collective group identity and advocate for public policy based upon that said identity. So file the idea a post-racial society under #nevagonnahappen.

                1. Jimmy, there is no white identity. That’s a clue people are being racist. You can be have a proud heritage as an American-Hungarian, or Russian, or Englishman, or Irishman, or Italian, or Spaniard.

                  But when you make ‘white’ the identity, that’s makes no sense as a group identity other than racial supremacy.

                  1. “there is no white identity. That’s a clue people are being racist. You can be have a proud heritage as an American-Hungarian, or Russian, or Englishman, or Irishman, or Italian, or Spaniard.”

                    Why are Europeans [whites] divided into nation state groupings but blacks are one big, continent size lump?

                    Do you think an African from Kenya is the same as one from Ghana?

                    1. Because blacks all got oppressed the same way, and whites got oppressed each in their own way.

                    2. So, someone who immigrated from Nigeria last year was oppressed just like Frederick Douglass or Rosa Parks was?

                      And what about, say, the son of a black Kenyan citizen and white U.S. mother? Is he half oppressed, fully oppressed, or not oppressed at all?

                    3. “blacks all got oppressed the same way,”

                      Oppression = identity?

                      You are wrong about whites anyways. Every white immigrant group suffered the same basic type of discrimination starting with the Germans in the colonial era.

              2. …do you think I’m black?

            5. “Similar outcomes across races for positions of power and prestige, or ironclad evidence why policies that can’t happen.”

              Is the NBA racist against whites? If not, then please provide ironclad evidence as to why it doesn’t discriminate against whites.

              1. “Is the NBA racist against whites?”

                Interesting question for several reasons. First, who holds “positions of power and prestige” in the NBA, in your view? What color are the owners? The ironclad evidence that the NBA isn’t racist against whites is that the overwhelming majority of people responsible for the racial makeup of the player base are white. The idea that these white people are systematically discriminating against their own race is stupid.

                Second, racism is harder to hide in public spectacles than it would be in, say, the hiring market for mortgage brokers, or anonymous elections for public office. We all get to see the output on TV (or at live events, at least). In many ways the NBA product is a true meritocracy. And black people dominate it.

                1. Why are Europeans [whites] divided into nation state groupings but blacks are one big, continent size lump?

                  Blacks, more precisely blacks in the US of African descent, have, in the US, a common historical experience and generally a common cultural background.

                  This is not true of “white” Americans of European descent. The traditions of different ethnicities vary greatly. Linguistic and religious backgrounds, etc., differ widely, and for many individuals are shaped in greater or lesser part by the foreign origins of their ancestors. German, Italian, Jewish, etc. ethnicities are quite distinct from each other.

                  This is less true of blacks because their foreign ancestry is, in general, more remote, hence cultural traditions are based more on their experience in the US.

        2. Similar outcomes across races for positions of power and prestige,
          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

          I’m confused, I thought race doesn’t exist/matter. So if you’re saying race does matter, than obviously we can start criticizing and judging people based on race because anything that matters in this world has a good and bad aspect.

          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          or ironclad evidence why policies that can’t happen.
          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

          Just like its up to me to show compelling evidence for my theory that gyms harvest energy for UFOs, the burden of proof is on your side as to why we should interfere with the choices of private citizens on a level unprecedented both in breadth and depth to enforce these policies. Starting with why we should automatically home in on ‘MUH RACISM’ and ‘MUH SEXISM’, everytime as the automatically favored explantion for group differences.

          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          But when you make ‘white’ the identity, that’s makes no sense as a group identity other than racial supremacy
          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

          There was no ‘Black Identity’ until progs cooked it up in fairly recent history. Up until then and to this day the various black tribes and kingdoms killed each other as much or even more readily than the whites as seperate ethnic groups. Same with the other ‘minorities’ So I guess the various black pride and mexican pride groups are also supremacists.

          1. Watching right-wing bigots fade toward irrelevance in modern America is one of the best parts of winning the culture war.

            1. LOL, lets just say I think you’re in for a rude awakening if you believe that millions of poor south Americans and fundamentalist muslims flooding into Western countries will lead to a golden utopia of women’s studies clinics and LGBDKFLJDLKFJSLDJL centers, winning the ‘culture war’ for you in the end.

            2. Was Senator Byrd a right wing bigot?? I had no idea….

              1. He sure was, tommy. But then he reformed, put works in front of his words, asked for forgiveness and was forgiven by those he wronged.

          2. There was no ‘Black Identity’ until progs cooked it up in fairly recent history.

            Yes, African blacks had and have wildly different experiences.
            But African Americans have had quite a lot in common for quite a while for quite a few unsavory reasons.
            Same with Latin Americans.

            White-Americans, though, do not have that kind of shared experience (other than what comes with just being American). So to highlight your whiteness is a red flag.

            1. “White-Americans, though, do not have that kind of shared experience”

              You keep saying this but you are wrong.

              Each wave of white immigrants stating with Germans and continuing thru the Irish, Italians, Poles and other Eastern Europeans were kept out of organizations and looked down on by natives including being disfavored as marriage partners..

              The whole “Italians are now considered white” theory reflects this.

              1. There is truth to that, Bob, but it’s far from the whole story.

                These groups have different religious backgrounds, different cultures, different linguistic backgrounds, different cuisines, different histories in the old country, etc. The discrimination some, not all, experienced, was nothing like the experience of blacks, even post-slavery.

                You talk of organizations, but when the white immigrants formed their own organizations they tended to do so by ethnic group. They tended to form political blocs and alliances by ethnicity.

                The average African-American in the US probably has to go back much further in his ancestry to find a foreign-born ancestor than does the average white, so the culture of African-Americans is not shaped nearly as much as that of white Americans by those origins.

    4. “Has any Conspirator mentioned the physical attack directed at journalists by a lathered-against-the-media member of the audience at a recent Trump campaign rally,”

      IDK, but they haven’t mentioned any of the documented antifa attacks on journalists either. So what?

      1. I think it’s fair to say that the Conspirators’ outrage over behavior that threatens the First Amendment is pretty selective.

        I also think it’s reasonable to distinguish between violence by random thugs of whatever persuasion and violence not just tolerated but encouraged and provoked by the President.

        1. “not just tolerated but encouraged and provoked by the President.”

          Trump tolerated, encouraged, or provoked the guy shoving journalists?

          1. The media love to claim that Trump is encouraging violence against the media by criticizing them. If that’s so, the anti-Trump folks are encouraging all kinds of violence, because they love to be critical of Trump.

            1. Calling the press the enemy of the people is some pretty strong medicine.

              Insulting our politicians is an American tradition; having a five minutes of hate against the press as near-traitors while they are in the room? Not even Nixon went there.

              1. But the press IS the enemy of the people now. They chose that role when they decided two minutes after Hilary lost to #resist.

                1. Is violence against them then called for, Jimmy?

                  Because if so, why are there are so many cowards holding back, and some even calling this one brave fella a false flag?

                2. But the press IS the enemy of the people now. They chose that role when they decided two minutes after Hilary lost to #resist.

                  The press is the enemy of the people.

                  Conservatives have become uneducated, superstitious, bigoted (those who do not embrace bigotry appease it) losers of the culture war.

                  Crosses to bear all around. . .

                3. “But the press IS the enemy of the people now. They chose that role when they decided two minutes after Hilary lost to #resist.”

                  Are the majority of voters who cast their ballots against the President also the enemy of the people? What about the majority of the country who currently disapprove of the President? How are you defining “the people”?

            2. The media love to claim that Trump is encouraging violence against the media by criticizing them.

              Well, it’s true.

        2. If you’re mad about the undercoverage of Drumpf antics here, theres this little place that caters more to your tastes called the rest of the Internet. Or I’ll trade you having all the major networks and news organizations actually start really covering antifa, poop cities, misgendering arrests, and all the shenanigans leftists get up to on a daily basis in exchange for more anticonservative articles from VC if the Ilya floods don’t whet your appetite.

          1. I’m not mad about it.

            I’m just pointing out that for all the raging about the First Amendment that goes on over t-shirts, or stupid attempts to shout down speakers, we hear nothing about consistent and provocative attacks on the press coming from Trump.

            And yes, those things can lead to violence,

            1. It’s “freedom of the press,” not “freedom from consequences”–or does that only apply when it hurts non-leftists?

              1. So you think it’s just fine for the “consequences” to be violence?

                If so, you’re pretty damn stupid.

    5. Cuckland uses the classic “these are not the droids you are looking for” rhetorical trick. Awesome!

    6. Oh, you mean the false flag that was so obvious the guy didn’t even take the price tag off of the MAGA hat before “attacking” the BBC cameraman? The obvious false flag that was so obvious that the media haven’t doxxed him and performed a public colonoscopy like they did with the Covington kids? That false flag “attack”?

      1. Link to story please?

          1. Hmm. That didn’t work. I’ll try again later from an actual computer and not mobile.

            1. Waiting.

    7. “Has any Conspirator mentioned the physical attack directed at journalists by a lathered-against-the-media member of the audience at a recent Trump campaign rally, or the lack of reported consequences?'”

      I find it interesting how we all learned the identity of a teenager who dared to smile within hours of it happening, but the media still hasn’t been able to identify the alleged Trump supporter who pushed a cameraman. Surely if they really cared to figure out his identity they would be able to do it, right? Sure makes you think.

      1. The Trump campaign hired the security personnel for that event. Those personnel apparently declined to question, eject, or refer for prosecution the man who physically attacked a journalist at the event for which they were providing security and whose patron regularly calls journalists “enemies of the people.”

        The Conspirators are free and welcome to opine as they wish. (They also are free to ban liberal commenters for making fun of conservatives while welcoming commenters who advocate death for liberals, impersonate others, or call for disenfranchising women and blacks.) It seems reasonable to point out the Volokh Conspiracy’s vigorous cherry-picking, however, to inform those who might figure an academic veneer indicates a principled rather than purely partisan blog.

        1. Cuckland seems to conveniently ignore the fact that the fake news media routinely leaves out coverage of anti-fa, Trump supporters who are assaulted all across America on a daily basis, people getting abused because they are simply wearing a hat with a slogan, routine abuse anyone left of socialist is exposed to in education, especially higher education, and a whole other slew of violence produced by the left.

          But I guess that doesn’t matter because some substitute teacher (who was a product of a big public liberal indoctrination factory known as a “university”) incorrectly believed a student should recite the pledge of allegiance.

          1. “…seems to conveniently ignore the fact that the fake news media routinely leaves out coverage of anti-fa…”

            Oh do they?

            “…Trump supporters who are assaulted all across America on a daily basis…”

            If the media didn’t report on it, how did you come to find out?

            “…people getting abused because they are simply wearing a hat with a slogan…”

            You are shocked that people supporting the most divisive and least popular president in modern history are mistreated by others who disagree with them politically?

            1. If the media didn’t report on it, how did you come to find out?

              Why so dismissive? Perhaps Jesus whispered in his ear. Or maybe those two Corinthians our president so loves . . .

            2. You are shocked that people supporting the most divisive and least popular president in modern history are mistreated by others who disagree with them politically?

              Sounds like a great justification for putting left-wingers’ heads through the concrete when they start getting physical.

              1. Everyone should be entitled to defend themselves from physical violence. But shouting? Derision? Scorn?

                1. Everyone should be entitled to defend themselves from physical violence. But shouting? Derision? Scorn?

                  Harrassment is a form of assault, too, you know.

                  And yeah, someone who starts yelling in my face is going to get their teeth knocked out, at minimum, because they’re demonstrating that they’re a threat to my safety and well-being. Especially when they identify as leftists.

                  1. “Harrassment is a form of assault, too, you know.”

                    That’s not technically true where I live, but why do you think they’re the same, and what difference does it make in this context?

                    “And yeah, someone who starts yelling in my face is going to get their teeth knocked out…”

                    Yes, you’re very tough, which I could surmise when you confessed that you live in fear of leftists who loudly disagree with you.

                    For your own good, when you leave your keyboard war and go out into the real world, do not under any circumstances tell the police that the reason you punched somebody was because you were scared of their ideology. That’s not going to be a defense to the assault charges.

                    1. That’s not technically true where I live, but why do you think they’re the same, and what difference does it make in this context?

                      Ask kids who are bullied.

                      Yes, you’re very tough, which I could surmise when you confessed that you live in fear of leftists who loudly disagree with you.

                      Quite telling that you’re confusing the emotion of fear with a natural instinct for self-preservation.

                      For your own good, when you leave your keyboard war and go out into the real world, do not under any circumstances tell the police that the reason you punched somebody was because you were scared of their ideology.

                      Oh, I’m quite confident they’ll accept my argument for self-defense when I inform them that they were committing assault. Until then, tell your fellow travelers to mind their own fucking business and leave people alone unless they want a trip to the hospital. After all, you’re the one making the argument that these people are perfectly justified in committing assault because a stupid red hat triggered their animal brains.

                    2. “Ask kids who are bullied.”

                      I think I’d rather ask a criminal defense lawyer.

                      “Quite telling that you’re confusing the emotion of fear with a natural instinct for self-preservation.”

                      Not confusing, no. I’m contrasting your irrational fear with your expressions of toughness and aggression. You’re not fooling anybody.

                    3. I think I’d rather ask a criminal defense lawyer.

                      “Why won’t you fascists sit there and get screamed at like you deserve?”

                      Not confusing, no. I’m contrasting your irrational fear with your expressions of toughness and aggression. You’re not fooling anybody.

                      No, you’re definitely confusing it. Probably why you got so upset at the thought of your fellow leftists suffering the potential consequences of their actions.

                      Stop justifying irrational responses to innocuous clothing items and maybe you won’t have to pull out the smelling salts when someone indicates they won’t willingly be your victim.

    8. Has any Conspirator mentioned the arrest of an elementary school student who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegience to a substitute teacher’s liking?

      That one gets yer motor running, neh?

      Because there’s nothing you like more than abusing power to make someone abase themselves in front of the almighty state.

    9. Arthur L. Hicklib is certainly lathered up that this incident didn’t turn out the way he wanted.

  11. Windchill, Jim.

    1. Location/Minimum temp/lowest wind chill January 21st (not the day of the attack but demonstrative.

      Freeport?-15/-25
      Pontiac?.-10/-24
      Aurora/Sugar Grove?.-8/-19
      Sterling/Rock Falls?.-8/-19
      DeKalb?.-6/-22
      Rochelle?.-6/-20
      Rockford?.-7/-17
      Peru/Ottawa?.-5/-17
      Joliet?.-2/-10
      Morris/Washburn?.-2/-14
      DuPage/West Chicago?.-1/-16
      Kankakee?.1/1
      Waukegan?.2/-12
      Romeoville/Lewis Univ?.2/-9
      Schaumburg?2/-7
      O’Hare?.3/-12
      Lansing?7/-5
      Midway?.8/-7

  12. I would include links but they never come through on the comment forum.

    Fresh off CNN a condemnation for newspaper that runs an op-ed saying the Klan needs to ride again. Also detailing how it took all of .02 seconds for the author to be chased out of polite society and promptly removed from any public edifice.

    But, the same news outlet was fresh enough to run a condemnation of Trump calling out SNL for its complete mischaracterization of his declaration because you know freedom of speech and freedom of the press and these values are sacrosanct in our society!

    Of course that is unless you are a journalist who publishes something the fake news media doesn’t agree with apparently….

  13. Two Inconvenient Hate Crimes the Hoax-Addicted Media Refused to Cover

    There was an actual hate crime that occurred on the same night as the Jussie Smollett hoax that our hoax-addicted media still refuses to cover. Unfortunately, the media choosing hoaxes over inconvenient hate crimes is something we have seen before.
    The American media is not only garbage, it is a broken institution, forever broken; and yes, the media are the enemy of the people.

    A media interested in operating in any kind of good faith, with any sense of professional or civic responsibility, would have forever learned the lesson of the 2015 “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” debacle. For weeks the media, most especially the far-left CNN, poured gasoline all over that hoax only to see it end in the worst way imaginable: with violence. And not just violence, but rioting. And not just rioting, but the destruction of a predominantly black, working class neighborhood.

    But here we are, four years later, and the media have not only refused to learn from the tragic mistake that they are running amok, spreading hoax after hoax after hoax, and deliberately using these hoaxes to spread hate and division……

    1. Yeah, take some anecdotes and use it to call the media the enemy of the people. Because there’s no problem with police shooting black people, absent that (still disputed) event.

      The media didn’t call for violence, but Breitbart sure seems to be pouring gasoline on some hatred itself, no?

      Stalinist type silencing tactics, right there.

      1. The fake news media doesn’t seem to have a problem with inciting racial violence and doing it in the most disingenuous fake news way. Just ask all the business owners in Ferguson what they think. They literally had gasoline dumped on their property because of the rhetorical barbs the media ginned up and fake news it printed about teddy bear Brown.

        1. It is over and over and over again. It’s all they do 24/7. Sarcastro is part of a rapidly dwindling number of people don’t see this or pretend not to.

          The media directly caused the heinous torture of that white boy in Chicago, with their slanderous and destructive racializing of the 2016 presidential campaign.

          1. Your essentialization of anecdotes is the essence of propaganda. How can you not see what you are doing? Even as you accuse me of being the blind one?

            1. Sarcastrated must have taken a big gulp of that kool-aid recently.

              The reason why CNN and the entire fake news media hates that label is because people are finally calling them out on their fake news reporting. The bubble has burst and reality is now flowing to the masses.

              1. The bubble has burst and reality is now flowing to the masses.

                The claim of populists throughout history, from MLK to Jim Jones. Time will tell if this time is different. Given the violent fantasies some on here have, I rather hope not.

                1. You mean like the violent fantasies that people like Cuckland have of a race war where the white man is finally dealt his well deserved final blow?

                  1. Do you think the Rev is non-white?

                  2. You are confused, even for a half-educated bigot. I detest and mock the ‘race war’ yahoos, to the extent that it might get me banned.

            2. Ok Sarcastro. The mainstream media are just purely neutral and unbiased arbiters of information, not political advocacy organizations.

              *pats you on head*

              1. Don’t despair, M.L. You have Fox, Breitbart, the Volokh Conspiracy, FreeRepublic, Stormfront, Instapundit, and Gateway Pundit to set the record straight.

                Carry on, clingers.

                1. Arthur,

                  You’re right actually in that freedom of speech (and of the press) is a wonderful thing. Even ideas we hate should be allowed expression. So, I support freedom of speech (and of the press) even for neo-Nazis like Stormfront, and also communists such as yourself and some of the major left-wing political donors.

                  One of the media’s funny shticks is to pretend that “freedom of the press” refers to them, the institutional media, as “the press.” They’re apparently unaware that “the press” refers to the act of publishing, as in the printing press and its modern day equivalent of posting on the internet, and every American pleb has freedom of the press. So they crow about themselves as “the free press!”

                  Anyway, unfortunately for you, the liberal media pretense of being neutral and apolitical is rapidly coming to an end. Not a single person is falling for that anymore, except those who already strongly agree with the politics. Everyone is just following the spin that they agree with now. But there are also more opinions and information available. Interestingly enough, polling indicates that overwhelming majorities view the media as biased, but at the same time something like 90% claim that media bias didn’t influence their own personal views. So people can see through it, or so they think at least.

    2. From the article:

      “A mere two years ago, there was a racially-motivated hate crime in Chicago…”

      It’s telling that Breitbart has to reach back two years to a racially motivated crime for one of its two examples. But this was a strange one, since the story was so familiar. Because it was a national story covered by, among others, the New York Times. CNN covered it extensively from the beginning to the sentencing.

      1. This was an opinion piece. They wouldn’t need to reach back that far, but probably did so because it was among the more brutal and appalling stories with very overt proof of both racial and political motivation. But as anyone who paid attention at the time can remember, the coverage was as one-sided as always. Reverse the races and it would have been 1,000x or more.

        It is maybe partly understandable why there would be a tendency among journalists for the gross disparities in coverage, such as when it comes to police violence. The excellent John McWhorter made this point beautifully: Has Anti-Racism Become as Harmful as Racism? John McWhorter vs. Nikhil Singh

        Anyway, as the Breitbart article said:

        let’s look at two legitimate hate crimes . . . One from two years ago you may have heard of. . . . Everything the media claim to be motivated by was right there for the taking, and still the story was buried, not covered at all, or rationalized as “not evil” by a CNN that quickly moved on.

        1. “But as anyone who paid attention at the time can remember, the coverage was as one-sided as always. Reverse the races and it would have been 1,000x or more.”

          The original claims was: “hoax-addicted media still refuses to cover.” You know that’s a lie, so now you’re left with the accusation that it was one-sided coverage relative to a counterfactual.

          “…still the story was buried, not covered at all, or rationalized as “not evil” by a CNN that quickly moved on.”

          You didn’t find it intentionally misleading that Breitbart attributed the “not evil” quote to CNN, rather than to Don Lemon? Or the claim that it was “not covered at all” but references to an article about ABC and NBC only? And that claim was also false? NBC did cover it. So did ABC.

        2. What I find fascinating about people like you is that you will hold CNN or ABC or WashPo to the highest standard possible, doubting anything they say unless and until it confirms your priors, but Breitbart is presumed true no matter what. The consistent position would be to express the same skepticism of reporting to Breitbart that you express against everyone else. Do you think Breitbart’s article was honest, now that you’ve seen the links?

          1. Left-wingers deserve the same benefit of the doubt that they give right-wingers: none. Hence, CNN/ABC/WaPo, etc., will always be held to the highest possible standard and excoriated relentlessly when they fuck up, as has been the left’s MO for about 20 years now.

            If you want this to change, tell your ideological brethren to hold themselves to the same standard they hold their opponents. Otherwise, there’s no reason to treat anything you or your media organs say in good faith.

            1. “Left-wingers deserve the same benefit of the doubt that they give right-wingers: none.”

              Well that’s stupid. That means you think you should behave as poorly as left-wingers. As I said, the consistent position would be to give media the same scrutiny regardless of whether it was left or right. Otherwise you become the thing you’re trying to criticize.

              1. Well that’s stupid. That means you think you should behave as poorly as left-wingers

                Start policing your own, then.

                Otherwise you become the thing you’re trying to criticize

                No one is obligated to martyr themselves on the altar of MUH PRINCIPLES when the other side has made it clear they don’t hold themselves to any principle at all.

                1. “Start policing your own, then.”

                  I don’t have an “own”. But do you think I support false or misleading statements by leftist sources? I’m happy to condemn any you put in front of me.

                  “No one is obligated to martyr themselves on the altar of MUH PRINCIPLES when the other side has made it clear they don’t hold themselves to any principle at all.”

                  Not obligated, no. But if you want to argue from principles you have to exercise them even when people you disagree with don’t. In fact, that’s the best time to do so.

                  1. I don’t have an “own”.

                    Yeah, you do.

                    But do you think I support false or misleading statements by leftist sources? I’m happy to condemn any you put in front of me.

                    Stop lying.

                    But if you want to argue from principles

                    Which I’m not. I’m recognizing that my adversaries don’t follow principle when it’s inconvenient, and granting them the same courtesy in return.

          2. You’re nitpicking. When it comes to hate crimes and other stories that don’t fit their narrative, the media always “refuses to cover” them to the same extent and in the same way (emphasizing racial dimensions) that they cover hate crimes and stories that do fit their narrative. That was the main point of the Breitbart article which I think was made clear enough. The story was conspicuously “not covered at all” on certain conspicuous days and segments. Any reader would assume that the author was referring to one of CNN’s anchors saying this was “not evil” rather than some kind of statement by CNN incorporated itself. All of this is made clear in the article and links.

            Regardless, if you want to maintain that the Breitbart article could be seen as misleading, I think that’s defensible and I won’t quibble with it. It’s no more misleading than the WaPo opinion section is every single day, though. All of the coverage at both outlets is slanted, one-sided and has a viewpoint. The primary difference, setting aside the political consequences and ideology itself, is that one side pretends they’re not doing this, and the other side is open and honest about it.

            I’d be more interested to know if you agree or disagree with John McWhorter’s 13 minute commentary that I linked.

            1. “You’re nitpicking…”

              I am pointing out self-evident misstatements in the Breitbart article.

              “The story was conspicuously “not covered at all” on certain conspicuous days and segments.”

              Right, per the article, it was covered by CBS the day it occurred. The next day, it showed up on ABC and NBC. And it was covered in print same day by ABC and NBC. But I appreciate you walking back the claim from not covered at all, to not covered on two 24/7 news networks. That really waters down the criticism.

              “Any reader would assume that the author was referring to one of CNN’s anchors saying this was “not evil” rather than some kind of statement by CNN incorporated itself.”

              Here is what Breitbart said:

              “…and still the story was buried, not covered at all, or rationalized as “not evil” by a CNN that quickly moved on.

              Notice they don’t say “a CNN anchor while expressing personal opinions”. They say “CNN” “rationalized as ‘not evil'” the report.

              “It’s no more misleading than the WaPo opinion section is every single day…”

              What’s your problem with Charles Krauthammer? George Will?

            2. “I’d be more interested to know if you agree or disagree with John McWhorter’s 13 minute commentary that I linked.”

              I didn’t watch it, but I often read his comments on race in America and usually find myself agreeing with him, in writing. I assume the video demonstrates more of the same. I’m not a culture warrior.

              1. “Right, per the article, it was covered by . . . ”

                It was covered. And yet in some instances it was not, such as ABC and NBC’s prime time coverage when the story broke. So what? They can do what they want. Just don’t try to deny that it would have blared all night if it was the other way around.

                “the claim from not covered at all”

                There is no such claim. And when you quoted “still refuses to cover” that was not referring to the 2016 incident, but to another attack that happened the very same night as the Smollett incident . . . and yet still no coverage to this day.

                “They say “CNN” ”

                So how is that wrong? Nobody is going to read this and think “Oh, I guess this statement came from the board of directors through a spokesperson.” Your trolling is getting shitty.

                “Charles Krauthammer? George Will?”

                . . . represent like 1% of WaPo opinion pieces?

                “I didn’t watch it” . . . Not big on videos myself, but he’s a good listen.

  14. This is the gift that keeps on giving. It also turns out he’s been in trouble for lying to the cops in the past. Lol.

    1. And the Postal Inspectors, who do not mess around, are investigating him too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.