Criminal Justice

Jussie Smollett Tries To Convince the Court 'There Was No Hoax'

Accused of orchestrating a hate crime hoax, the former actor took the stand at his trial on Monday.


Taking a page out of the Kyle Rittenhouse playbook—though with a very different outcome likely in store—former Empire star Jussie Smollett testified at his own trial on Monday. Authorities have accused the actor of hiring two associates to rough him up and make it look like an anti-black, anti-gay hate crime; he faces six charges of disorderly conduct for allegedly making false reports to the police.

"There was no hoax," Smollett said on the stand Monday.

It remains to be seen whether a jury will believe that. Last week, the prosecution rested after producing mountains of evidence that Smollett was the, er, mastermind behind the attack. The courtroom was shown a video the purportedly depicted Smollett and his would-be assailants—Abimbola Osundairo and Olabinjo Osundairo, two brothers from Nigeria who had worked as extras on Empirerehearsing the fake hate crime and canvassing the area where it would take place.

The Osundairos also took the stand, confirming that Smollett had hired them to beat him up—even paying for the rope that he wanted them to tie around his neck like a noose. The brothers, who had previously procured drugs for Smollett, testified that they thought they owed him. They said they didn't know Smollett intended to talk to the police; they thought he simply wanted media attention and sympathy so that he could make more money on the show.

Smollett denied the allegations on Monday, claiming that he feared for his life when he was suddenly attacked on the streets of Chicago in the middle of the night. He claimed he had gone out—and the brothers knew where he was—because they had instructed him to buy eggs for his diet.

He also claimed he had previously visited a bathhouse with Abimbola Osundairo where they had engaged in amorous activity. (Osundairo denies this.) The defense's theory is that the brothers are possibly homophobic—Smollett is gay—and had also wanted to scare Smollett into retaining them as bodyguards.

As I wrote back in February 2019, the Smollett incident is a vital reminder that some hate crimes are hoaxes; it would behoove the media to tread lightly with respect to sensational claims that only feel true because they confirm certain biases. On college campuses, where what passes for hate crimes are termed "bias incidents," and are often investigated by university officials, most go unsolved. But among those that do get solved, the vast majority are either deliberate hoaxes or misunderstandings: Somebody left some wires or shoelaces hanging from a tree or a doorknob, and an alarmed person reported it.

There are, of course, thousands of real hate crimes committed every year, but the flashiest incidents—like ones that neatly conform to stereotypes about racist Trump supporters— should be approached with caution.

If convicted, Smollett could face up to three years in prison. That's a lengthy sentence for a nonviolent offender who poses no danger to society. The important thing is for the court to expose his lie, not lock him up for years.

NEXT: Police Tase Man in His Home After Relative Calls Fire and Rescue for a Drug-Related Emergency

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "That's a lengthy sentence for a nonviolent offender who poses no danger society."
    I would remind you that words are violence, and those words have had impact on several acts of actual violence, disguised as "peaceful protests".

    1. Nonviolent? Smollett paid 2 guys to assault somebody!

      1. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site and visit here .............

        For more details.......... Visit Here<b

        1. Thank, bot!! I'll get right on it.

      2. *Allegedly* paid 2 guys to assault somebody!

      3. Namely his mouth and rectum, at the same time.

        1. If you were Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $5000+ per week over the internet. Work for a few hours HTf per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis. Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…

          Start Today Click Here...........Pays/-24

    2. "That's a lengthy sentence for a nonviolent offender who poses no danger society."

      Like four years for wearing a silly hat in the Capitol lengthy?

      1. That' TOTALLY different.

      2. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined. Fast and trusted.BGh Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match. ..

    3. Also, false accusations could lead to false imprisonment, which certainly is an act of violence by Government.

    4. Indeed so, and this is one of those public goods crimes we are always told that only the police can handle because the crime is against society as a whole.

      He intended to dupe society. I will shed no tears if society throws him in the pokey for a while; the real crime is that the woke crowd will just take this as another example of white supremacy systemic racism.

      1. The woke crowd will take a chicken crossing the road as another example of white supremacy. Their reaction should have no bearing on anyone’s behavior, unless they can directly ruin your life.

        1. The woke crowd's reaction to anything and everything is predictable, and not based on reality or reason. Therefore it deserves ZERO consideration as regards actions one might take, or avoid.

          Fuck 'em.

    5. And Smollett intended for this incident to form a part of a strategy intended to get a bunch of bullshit passed. So that's a small tick against everyone in the country.

  2. Abimbola Osundairo and Olabinjo Osundairo, two brothers from Nigeria

    Sound like a couple of real princes.

    1. They owe me 100 million!

      1. If you give me your bank account and routing number, I'll pass it along to them.

        1. I dunno, sounds fishy.

          1. Gotta be a Chumby pun in here...

            1. No accounting for taste?

      2. Stand in line, pal.

    2. Didn't The Spin Doctors sing about them?

  3. How about this hoax Robby; “these are fiery but peaceful protests”.

    1. Hold up, I’m looking for it.

    2. Speaking of hoaxes, apparently insurrectionists armed with nothing but memetic flags and their own limp dinks tried to kill Pence and congress using the power of selfies.
      It was so terrible that AOC almost died even though she wasn't there, and a fire extinguisher whack managed to kill an entirely different man who wasn't even hit. Talk about violent.

      1. Sounds like a local story. Unless you’re an insurrectionist. Are you an insurrectionist?

        1. George Washington was an insurrectionist.

  4. That's a lengthy sentence for a nonviolent offender who poses no danger society.

    Judge Abattoir would rule that he be beaten up by 2 MAGA supporters, so he knows the difference for next time.

    1. Some jail time is appropriate. But were I the Comptroller of Chicago, I'd garnish Smollett's to reimburse the city for costs (~3MM). That would hurt infinitely more. The wokesters compare and measure their self-worth by money, so relieve him of it.

    2. And not only would you NOT have to pay anyone $3500 to do it, you could probably raise some money selling off raffle tickets for a chance at performing the role of "Guys who beat up Jussie for reals".

      I know when he told the story, he bravely beat them off, butt I don't think that's going to deter a lot of culture warriors.

      1. it is spelled 'Juicy' , you fucking racist. And I read on VOX that he vigorously beat them off. Twice.

  5. Aren't the vast majority of actual hate crimes committed against Asians or Jews by Blacks?

    I have yet to see an actual one perpetrated against Blacks, which is why they are the ones making up almost every fake one (which even though gets revealed as fake, is used as evidence of underlying racism)

    1. This is a failure of capitalism.
      Demand exceeds supply.

      1. Thank god we have progressive democrats to fill in those gaps.

        1. The invisible hand makes sure that supply meets demand somehow.

        2. The best Gal for a progressive democrat to fill are the e out spaces in your lock landfill.

    2. > I have yet to see an actual one perpetrated against Blacks

      Here's something that's been in the news a bit lately:

      1. Which is why this story is important.

        But it also highlights the fact that these types of crimes are the exception, and not the rule.

    3. That is a bit silly. We had that dude who went into a black church, prayed with them and then shot them anyway.

      I would say "crazy" is the overriding factor there, tlrather than race... But you could easily see it the other way around.

    4. I would also say swastikas are far and away the most commonly hoaxed "hate crime". Progressives love to paint swastikas on stuff.

      1. You know who else liked to paint swastikas on stuff?

        1. Jesus from the show Preacher?

        2. Indians, Tibetans, Mongolians?

          1. Literally any Buddhist cultures

            1. They got it backwards.

              1. I'm pretty sure they use it both ways.

            2. And several native american cultures. Which is a real wake up when you walk into certain buildings in New Mexico. Like the Albuquerque City Courthouse. With its repeating swastika motif woodwork.

        3. Utility workers in hysterical Sarah Silverman tweets.

        4. Thomas Kinkade?

          No, that's "a mossy cobblestone pathway, leading up to a thatch-roofed with glowing windows" on stuff, mostly his "landscapes".

          But still totally racist as a swastika, because, ummm, semiotic framing?

          1. "thatch-roofed COTTAGE..."

            1. And the Trogdor comes in the NIIGHT!

      2. Back in the 1980's my MO was the Satanic hoax. A little graffiti of a pentagram, "Hail Satan, "Satan Rules", 666, and a demonic Kilroy was here and a fella could anonymously make the 6 or 11 o'clock news. Thankfully, neither I nor any innocent daycare workers were harmed by my sharpie and spray paint artistic endeavors.

        1. Mormons proudly wear their pentagrams - citing that they were legit symbols before being co-opted by satanists.

    5. Well, at least the hate crime hoaxes have "started a conversation about race", eh?

  6. If they believed OJ, why can't they believe Juicy?

    1. Because orange man bad.

      1. Woah! The cycle of justice just caused a major ripple in the force.

      2. Orange Juicy?

      3. That condenses the story nicely for canned distribution.

        1. Extra pulp.

      4. I’m keeping my pink lemonade joke to myself. You’re welcome.

    2. I’m surprised no one ever thought to nickname him ‘Juicy Fruit’.

  7. re: "That's a lengthy sentence for a nonviolent offender who poses no danger society."

    I respectfully disagree. He may be "nonviolent" but his conduct poses a grave danger to society. False reports to the police ruin and even cost lives. That his falsehood got found out in this case is analogous to attempted murder - it may not be real murder but it still is and should be a very serious crime.

    If he is found guilty of perjury (and from the evidence, you seem to think he will be), then he should be subject to the same penalties as for the crime that he attempted to frame others for.

    1. Alice Sebold is a "non-violent person".

    2. Crystal Mangum is a non-violent person.

        1. Oops. My fault, I thought she'd died instead of just going to prison. Apologies.

        2. True, but with the stresses placed upon her with our rape denialism, can we really be blameless in her subsequent misfortunes?

      1. Non-violent murderer? Like a "mostly peaceful" arsonist?


    3. It's not just a false police report, it's him trying to stir up shit and further a narrative of hateful racist division in the country. His crime isn't solely against the police, it's against the public. Yes, the fallout from this one single incident has greater fallout than its immediate consequences and his sentencing should reflect that.

      1. While I agree that these are all side effects of his bullshit stunt, we do need to be careful.

        The whole justification for Hate Crime laws is that there is more than one victim- its not just the person you beat/terrorized/killed that you targeted, but also members of their race. The reason some advance "Hate Crime" legislation is that they believe there are multiple victims here.

        Smollett lied to the cops. That is bad enough. The fact that there might be follow-on victims (the Trump supporters he tried to slander) might aggravate things, but we should be careful of using the same justifications that hate crime legislation people use.

        1. I can see the tenuous logic but that doesn't make it equivalent. If you commit a horrible crime while saying a nasty word, you've committed a crime and your punishment should be the fall-out from that crime.

          But Jussie's lie wasn't just calling the police and filing a false report. He staged an incident for the purposes of garnering attention to himself and framing faceless innocents. Not only did he lie to police, he lied to cause actual harm to people he politically disagrees with. Just take his actual actions into account, and the possible fall-out from them (such as the possibility that there might have been two white guys wearing red hats wandering the streets that night).

          1. If there were white guys walking the streets wearing red hats, they *deserved* to be arrested and prosecuted for hate crimes. Wearing a red hat itself should be a hate crime. What? You think there can be an innocent reason for white guys to wear red hats? You probably think the "OK" sign isn't a signal of white supremacy.

        2. Perhaps there is a teachable moment here for the left regarding the consequences of fetishizing victim hood.

          Haha. No, just kidding, never happen. And if this thread wasn’t 2 days old, I’m sure mike would come along to explain why it’s the right that does that.

      2. And now he’s pulling the gay card to get people off his back for hoaxing the race card. Now he’s giving all turd burglars a bad name. Thanks a lot jussie.

    4. On the up side Ashley Biden saying her dad is a pedo fell on deaf ears

      1. FBI even confirmed it was legit and... Nothing happened. Dems are flaming amoral hypocrites.

        1. A lot of them are sexual predators, or condone sexual predators (like antifa people, Buttplug, Chemjeff, etc.). They’re even trying to reclassify pedophilia from a personality disorder to a sexual orientation. Which will be the genesis of the ‘pedophile rights’ movement from the democrats.

  8. He claimed he had gone out—and the brothers knew where he was—because they had instructed him to buy eggs for his diet.

    The brothers? This seems like questionable journalistic... oh... wait, they were literally brothers. Never mind. Carry on.

    1. You people always jump to racist conclusions.

      1. But white men can't jump. What now?

        1. Ok. They slouch to racist conclusions.

    2. His diet. Eggs and subway tuna sandwiches?

  9. "Alarmed person" should be the generational name for anyone born after Gen X.

    1. Yep. We have invested billions in coddling, from pre-K through college, and in thousands of social support agencies and NGOs.

  10. At least we're doing something about Climate change. One plastic fork at a time.

    Want utensils with your takeout order? Next year in Washington state, you’ll have to ask for them

    Starting next year, Washington businesses can no longer automatically include single-use food service items like straws and utensils with food orders.

    While customers can request individual items or pick them up at self-serve stations, the move is a part of a new state law meant to reduce single-use plastics waste. The new rule is a part of a set of laws signed by Gov. Jay Inslee in May, aimed to reduce single-use plastics and increase recycled content.

    1. Just so you know, your facemask which is literally the only thing keeping you alive, is destroying the earth.

      Every minute of the day we throw away 3 million face masks. Many end up as potentially toxic micro- and nanoplastic or carriers for other toxicants in the environment, researchers warn.

      Recent studies estimate that we use an astounding 129 billion face masks globally every month -- that is 3 million a minute. Most of them are disposable face masks made from plastic microfibers.

      "With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat and prevent it from becoming the next plastic problem," researchers warn in a comment in the scientific journal Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering.

      1. Wait until the beaches are covered with whales dying of covid.

        1. The only solution is to have beaches covered with whales dead from masks blocking their blowholes.

          1. McAfee has entered the chat.

        2. Wouldn't it be really amazing if all those whales gathered up all the masks that got thrown into the ocean, and somehow put them together into really gigantic masks, and when they washed up on the beach wearing them and dying of covid, their last words could be "the fucking masks didn't work!"

      2. What are those micro fibers doing to our lungs?

        1. Uhh, protecting you from the deadliest plague of the last 5000 years. Some people.

          1. Same excuse they used for asbestos.

            1. I miss my grandpa’s asbestos mask.

        2. Yeah, "carriers for other toxicants in the environment" reads as "Second hand mask smoke!" to me. If it weren't for the masks, these toxicants would just be sitting in the environment, undisturbed wherever mask particles just happen to blow to, rather than being carried.

        3. Being very micro-aggressive!

      3. I doubt the number is 129 billion per month. Most people I know just have 2 and have alternated them since mid last year.

        1. Unless you think people are eating them (or doing something else other than wearing them), aggregate sales are probably a pretty good proxy for aggregate usage. And 129 B per month might not not be too far off as a global number. Yes, there are some people who reuse far too long. They are balanced out by people (like my spouse) who go through several a day.

          1. I would also suspect it's not exclusively personal daily use (or even necessarily use at all) by the zealots that's the issue. Medical professionals and laborers walking in and out of offices, changing masks between patients, or discarding even an entire box of masks that happened to have been left out in a patient's room or otherwise deemed contaminated by whatever criteria.

          2. you have my sympathies
            -just how timid is your spouse?

      4. You know what else is wrong with those face masks that are literally the only thing keeping you alive? The fact that they are literally keeping you alive. Human beings are the worst thing to happen to Gaia since the meteorite killed off the dinosaurs, and the quicker they get killed off by a plague, the better for every other form of life. (Though equity requires that white people be made to die off first.)

    2. Wait, what does plastic have to do with Climate Change besides keeping Our Carbon Footprint lower by keeping carbon sequestered in non-gaseous form?

      1. Shut up, racist. That's hatethink.

      2. It depends on how it's cooked, and what kind of turtles eat it.

        1. ANOTHER Straw Man!

        2. Mmmm, turtle soup.

    3. Fuck King Jay. I will ask for extra sets of silverware every time through now.

  11. If convicted, Smollett could face up to three years in prison. That's a lengthy sentence for a nonviolent offender who poses no danger society.

    I'd say that Smollett presents a grave danger to society; this kind of hoax can get people killed and gravely undermines civic society. That's in addition to the millions of dollars his lies have cost taxpayers and the risk that innocent people might have been arrested for this non-crime.

    I hope he gets the maximum sentence; three years is light for the damage he could have caused if he had gotten away with this.

    1. I agree with much of this.

      Was the white teenage girl who said the black guy was flirting with her simply making a false report in 1930's Mississippi? Or is it something more.

      Society is not at that point now, but there is unquestionably a powerful array of people who are tying very hard to bring us to that point.

      The real crime here is some form is incitement to riot . Or some assault on society that is likely to cause permanent harm to everyone. And the real problem isn't one dumb actor thinking he would play the hero by faking a hate crime.. it is the very long list of unindicted co-conspirators. From Kamala Harris to Oprah to everyone at MSNBC and CNN and NBC and NPR.... The list is very long... But they were all part of an ad-hoc conspiracy to slander innocent people and invite violence and hatred against them.

      And the real hate crime actually worked. If you watch the coverage, you see people echoing the lies told by those co-conspirators. Even as they acknowledge that it was a hoax, there are people who blame it on the pervasive racism of Trump and his supporters.

      Perhaps there are those among the readers here who also echo those thoughts.... Despite the complete lack of any supporting evidence. Repeat a slander often and loudly, and you can indeed create belief out of whole cloth.

      People still believe Nick Sandmann was a racist who attacked an innocent native American protestor who was minding his own business. Why? Because the national media conspired to make it so. It was no accident. Savannah Guthrie interviewed Nathan Philips twice, desperately trying to rehabilitate his image and create a martyr. Then she interviewed Sandmann, knowing full well the truth of the matter, trying to bully him into accepting her characterization that it was his fault, he was a racist and he should apologize.

      The list of people who worked to crest that perticular hoax is short, and they were all on video. Yet nobody at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, the NYT, MSNBC, WaPo, the Atlantic.... Etc... Nobody... Not one single reporter found it worth digging into. Nobody thought to ask why they did it, why they lied, why they picked this kid to harass and slander....none of it.

      But they all happily piled on and claimed the entire student body was racist because the held up the "three" sign like Steph Curry does at their basketball game, and students painted themselves in school colors (including black). They were clearly perpetrating a hoax, since they were calling the black students in the photos who were doing the same things white supremacists too.

      We have free speech.

      But where is the Nexus where a 17 year old white girl says a black man raped her and he ends up lynched? This is an analogy that people will disingenuously scoff at... But that is exactly what the attempt is.

      And we have seen the results. Real hate crimes, not invented ones. Real murders, not conjectures.

      And you know that list of publications is still part of the conspiracy... Because 60 people were mowed down by a red SUV and every single one of them is looking away. Exactly like the reporters in a small Mississippi town who know exactly what happened to that man she pointed out.

      1. “Not one single reporter found it worth digging into. Nobody thought to ask why they did it, why they lied, why they picked this kid to harass and slander....none of it.”

        And this is one of the reasons that I lack certain respect for Reason in general, and Robbie in particular when it comes to these issues.

        Because in some way, I do have some respect for Robbie. He tends to be skeptical of these stories and does a good job uncovering the truth. But he refuses to acknowledge that they consistently go in one direction politically, that all the media happens to come to the same conclusion within hours of each other, and that even after getting caught rarely does anyone involved suffer consequences, and they all do it again the next week/day.

        He seems to refuse to attribute malice when it is apparent. Occam's razor would apply the first few times you cover a story like this. But eventually, there’s enough evidence to multiply the entities, and start to question the pattern, if you’re really a curious journalist.

        Then again, because of the Journolist, maybe such questions are verboten at Reason.

    2. I'd say that Smollett presents a grave danger to society;

      Well, maybe he did for a couple of days before people heard the details of his story and figured out he's full of shit. Nobody believes him now.


      1. Attempted murder is not forgiven because the proposed victim was still alive afterwards. The crime is the attempt itself.

        1. Oh, I'm not suggesting that he skate, but he's not a danger anymore. If he just pays in full for the cops' overtime, apologizes to every Trump supporter for trying to smear them, and ends his life starving to death on the streets as a pariah, I'd say justice has been served.


          1. I would agree accept for the fact that he has essentially called the two brothers, both of whom were supposed to be friends, liars who actually did assault him of their own accord. To me, that is dangerous and threatening. I would not want to even meet Smollet if that is how he treats his friends.

      2. How many of the TV personalities supporting him do you think are lying.. and how. Many will believe anyway? What About Joy Reid? Is she just a linear? Or does she believe her virulence?

    3. If they'd found a couple of guys who happened to be wearing MAGA hats who happened to be outside in Chicago that night...what would have happened to them? That's what I ask when people say he was a "non-violent" offender. Because if he'd pulled this shit somewhere other than Chicago, they might have actually found someone to falsely accuse and Jussie would have positively identified them.

      1. Yeah, just imagine if some white woman falsely testified that Jussie had hit on him and he got dragged to death behind a pickup truck. Just harmless false testimony?

        1. "Lol, it was just a prank, bro!"

    4. The Smollett hoax is exactly the kind of lie that gave us the riots of 2020. I wouldn't call the damage and murders done by them peaceful no matter the media mouthpiece pronouncements.

  12. >>The important thing is for the court to expose his lie, not lock him up for years.

    the lies were exposed long before this sociopath failed to plea out

  13. That's a lengthy sentence for a nonviolent offender who poses no danger society.

    I would suggest that people who use their celebrity in order to stir up racial strife do, in fact, pose a danger to society. They might not be the sort of danger the justice system should be allowed to police, but they are hardly harmless.

  14. Believe Jussie!

    He is entitled to his own reality, based on his "lived" (i.e. imagined) experience. And we can only achieve justice when each person can attain the victimhood they aspire to.

    1. Well, I would prefer that we achieve justice by each person actually GETTING the victimhood they aspire to.

  15. Fist question his defense team should have asked potential jurors is whether any of them were fans of Dave Chapelle, because he skewered the defense in about 5 min. Justice for Juicy.

  16. Legal question:

    If you take the stand in your defense... What does it take to get a perjury charge?

    Does "I didn't do it" rise to the level of perjury if you are clearly seen on video doing it?

    Is Juicy risking turning a minor crime into a 20 years felony by taking the stand?

    1. He's the Black and Gay Norma Desmond and he wants to thank all those wonderful dark people in the dark.

    2. When defendants take the stand in their own defense, they never do so under oath. (At least, I'm not aware of any such scenarios.) The crime of perjury requires lying under oath.

      So no, he's not risking a felony by taking the stand. But he did risk that felony by filing the original police report.

      1. Really?? I did not know that.

        That sounds really surprising.

        1. It doesn't make a lick of sense. How can you take the stand and provide testimony if you aren't sworn in? If you can't self-incriminate with "testimony" provided while not under oath, then WTF is the point of the 5A? To prevent the police from torturing people? You can just lie.

          Maybe in a hearing or an inquiry, such as before Congress, the lies don't count if you're not under oath, but when you're on the stands in a trial? How do you even get on the stands without taking an oath? Why is the court entertaining random speech at trial?

          1. Yeah... I was soft pedaling it.

            Still, I do not recall hearing about a defendant being prosecuted for lying on the stand at his trial. About the closest I have heard of was also the most egregious.... When Flynn plead guilty in order to spare his family malicious prosecution, and then later learned of exculpatory evidence that was withheld by the feds, the judge (Sullivan) sought to have him charged for perjury for pleading guilty. Dude would have been excellent in the movie Brazil.

            1. So there's the answer. It's only a crime when non progressives do it

            2. Pleas are not made under oath. The judge's tirade was just stupid. He was right to be outraged at the prosecutorial abuse but when he threatened Flynn with perjury, he was blaming the victim. Had it been more than a passing rant, it would have been thrown out by the first sane judge to hear the charge.

              Consider, for example, that if that judge's rule were real, every person who pleads not guilty but gets convicted anyway would be automatically guilty of perjury. That's not how it works.

          2. Pretty much, yes - the 5A protects you from being tortured by the police and not much else. It's not even universally good at that. It does not, for example, protect you from many forms of psychological torture if in the end you "voluntarily" waive your 5A rights.

            If a witness in a trial testifies not-under-oath, there is usually a jury instruction that encourages them to weigh the testimony appropriately.

            This next part depends on jurisdiction but under the rules I'm most familiar with, unsworn witnesses must be agreed to by both the defense and prosecution. Other than the defendant, that's pretty much never going to happen because it's too easy a way out for whichever side wants to suppress what that witness has to say. When it's the defendant on the stand, the calculus is a little different.
            - From the prosecution's side, letting the defendant make an unsworn statement dramatically increases the chance he/she will say something stupid and self-incriminate. But even if he doesn't, I can undercut the credibility of that testimony by drawing attention to the fact that it was unsworn.
            - From the defense's side, sworn testimony is more credible but trials are always about figuring out who to believe. If you tell the truth but the jury doesn't believe your client, you've added perjury charges to the mix. Unsworn testimony may be viewed as less credible but it's not completely non-credible and it's a lot less risky.
            - Again depending on the local rules, sworn testimony may open your client up to cross-examination while unsworn testimony will not. So even if your client is pure as the driven snow, you may not let him testify under oath if you think he will fail under the verbal attacks of cross.

            To recap:
            - No, the 5A does not protect you from self-incrimination, it merely protects you from the government compelling you to self-incriminate. If you say something stupid but the government didn't compel you to say it, "everything you say can and will be used against you".
            - Yes, you can testify unsworn in your own defense but it will likely be given less weight by the jury and it's usually a bad idea. But it's almost certainly less bad than choosing to testify under oath.

            1. One additional item. Young children are sometimes allowed to testify without being sworn in. The reason is that they are unable to understand the oath properly. That's the only other time I've heard of such a thing.

      2. When defendants take the stand in their own defense, they never do so under oath. (At least, I'm not aware of any such scenarios.)

        Allow me to present such a scenario for you:

        1. Multiple news stories (from different sources) about Smollett's trial also describe him as "testifying under oath" at the trial.

        2. The statement was amended to effectively, "Pleas are not made under oath." which I can agree with. I can also understand that unless you were exceedingly mendacious on the stands/under oath (depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is), it would be hard to say you lied about something before a/the judgement had been rendered/"truth determined".

    3. That would be hilarious.

  17. There are, of course, thousands of real hate crimes committed every year,

    Can you cite, Robby?...In between strokes of hair?

    1. I was just thinking that. THOUSANDS? Every single year? We need citations for this. A hate crime is not using an edgy gamer word on Twitch. If you're willing to concede that racial hatred is everywhere, you're just feeding the leftist narrative.

    2. Jussie Smollett Reminds Us That Some Hate Crimes Are Hoaxes—and the Statistics Are a Mess

      From his own source where he cites... himself.

    3. "There are, of course, thousands of real hate crimes committed every year,"

      That's a "to be sure" if Ive ever seen one

  18. Man, the comment section is blood thirsty tonight. I say smollett should be flogged with a catOnineTails in the muscular hands of a Nigerian prince.

    1. He might enjoy that.

  19. As usual, the best coverage comes from the Bee:

    CHICAGO, IL—In a powerful, emotional moment in the Jussie Smollett trial Thursday, a mirror was brought into the courtroom so Smollett could face his attackers for the first time since he was beaten up on the streets of Chicago.

    Smollett demanded to face his attackers to help him overcome the pain and trauma of the assault, and the judge obliged.

    1. I was just gonna post that. Glad I read the thread first.

      1. If Babylonbee had a late night show it would be instantly better than all the late night talk shows AND .... SNL [at any time during its zombie like runtime]

        1. You mean a television show, broadcast at a specific time?

    2. Hilarious!

  20. Content creators are going to create content. Duh.

  21. "Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie . . . if you believe it".

    ----George Costanza

  22. "The defense's theory is that the brothers are possibly homophobic—Smollett is gay—and had also wanted to scare Smollett into retaining them as bodyguards."

    So, he was the victim of a homophobic hate crime after all--perpetrated by his own entourage?!

    Given the other evidence, that does not establish reasonable doubt.

    Has Smollett filed criminal charges against the two?

    1. He tried, but got a few of the descriptive details wrong, now the system is crucifying the victim.

    2. You left off the best part.... Hussie testifying that he hooked up with one of the brothers .. which totally proves that they are homophobic.....

      I feel like I need a meme of the Dread Pirate Roberts saying "truly, you have a dizzying intellect".

      1. Nothing more homophobic than sleeping with with other men.

        1. There is something called the Gay Panic Defense.

          "The gay panic defense or homosexual advance defence is a legal strategy in which a defendant claims to have acted in a state of violent, temporary insanity, committing assault or murder, because of unwanted same-sex sexual advances.[1][2][3] A defendant may allege to have found the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating.[4]"

          It's generally considered deeply homophobic part of the law--as it seems to make homophobia itself a justification for assault and battery or worse.

          However, I've never heard of someone defend themselves in court by asserting the Gay Panic Defense on behalf of his attacker. People who are latently homosexual are sometimes thought to be especially susceptible to freaking out when some gay guy makes a pass at them and they haven't come to terms with their orientation yet. (Spoiler Alert) Al Pacino in Cruising is more or less about that at the end.

          I suspect that film is now considered unacceptable homophobic.

          1. Considering that overly aggressive heterosexual flirting on the part of a man can be considered a physical assault, that if a homosexual targets in a similar way someone who can physically defend themselves it is not unreasonable that could be self-defense. Much depends on the circumstances, of course, but the only way that such a standard is "homophobic" is to assume that the openly gay person is always in the right.

            1. I'm not picking a side and rationalizing it. An irrational and violent response to a pass--used as a defense for a violent attack--would seem to enshrine a defense of homophobic violence in the law. We should all be able to understand that argument even if we don't agree with it.

          2. Mickey is corrrect (and Wikipedia is wrong - go figure). Yes, there is a "panic defense" to assaults triggered by unwanted sexual advances. No, it is not unique to homophobes. It can apply to unwanted heterosexual advances too. Consider, for example, the previously-raped woman who freaks out in response to later non-threatening advances.

            Regardless of context, it's rarely a successful defense. The fact that I can understand that you were triggered does not give you justification to overreact and harm an innocent. If you can't control your own emotions, then you need to get help until you can.

            1. If the phenomena you're talking about isn't specific to reactions to gays, then there's no reason for a specific defense tied to gay panic.

              What you're describing is temporary insanity.

              1. Uhm, maybe... I hesitate because the phrase "temporary insanity" is generally considered to be quite a bit broader than specific scenario you are describing above. But the labels you put on specific defenses and rules are often a matter for local jurisdiction so the terminology can get fuzzy - especially when we're trying to describe broad concepts on a national blog.

          3. I suspect that film is now considered unacceptable homophobic.

            As I recall, it was considered rather homophobic when it was first released.

      2. Every time he speaks, it should be preceded by a PSA from the PLA.

      3. Blaming the caper on his hirelings is such a pathetic bitch move.


  23. Juicy needs to get a refund from the Bill Clinton Bluffing School.


  24. Here's the best quote of the day, the month, and the year:

    "Elon Musk Comes Out Against Spending Bill"

    The Tesla CEO criticized a Biden administration spending bill, including the financial inducements aimed at fostering adoption of electric vehicles. “Honestly, I would just can this whole bill,” he said in an interview with WSJ’s Joanna Stern.

    ----WSJ, December 6, 2021

    I'll just link to a video of the interview here:

    Elon Musk doesn't even want Biden's and the progressives' Build Back Better budget reconciliation bill. The only thing that might have made his statement better is if he'd actually finished it off with, "Progressives are America's most horrible people".

    1. The only thing that might have made his statement better is if he'd actually finished it off with, "Progressives are America's most horrible people. Except when they drive a Tesla. Then they're just popular."

    2. To be fair, Elon's not exactly a disinterested party. Doesn't the bill contain a provision which directly benefits his competitors because they're made with Union labor?

      Or was that the infrastructure bill? It's hard to remember what proggie bullshit ended up in which overpriced boondoggle.

      1. You might also point to Bernie Sanders trying to include a special tax on the unrealized capital gains of a handful of billionaires, with Musk being one of them.

        I wish the rest of them had the balls to come out and say this, too. Why isn't Bezos doing the same thing? Why isn't Zuckie doing the same thing? Why aren't billionaires everywhere coming out against this? Who among them genuinely believes that the government will do a better job with their billions than they can?

        Anyway, I'm also an interested party in seeing that this bill doesn't pass. I don't want to see the rest of the country suffer under socialism, to some extent, but I can't claim I'm disinterested in how the Green New Deal will impact me, my tax bill, and my standard of living either.

        I wish more people were more self-interested in that way. What's wrong with not wanting our standard of living squandered on the Green New Deal and the expansion of socialist entitlement programs? Yeah, I care about myself. Why isn't that a good enough reason not to want to get screwed? Is it only okay not to want to be socialist because socialism hurts other people?

        That's buying into the socialist mindset. I think it's in the best interests of most people to reject this socialist bill, and if the only reason they oppose this socialist bill is because they care more about their own standard of living, that's just fine. If it isn't in Musk's best interests to support this bill, that's just fine--he's just like the rest of us that way.

        1. Personally, I have a lot to gain from this bill.

          Eliminate the SALT cap. Help me pay for an electric car that gives me VIP Fast Lane access to CA highways. Subsidize the replacement of my roof (as long as I add solar panels that will reduce my electric bill). I might get enough savings to buy some land in the mountains of Wyoming. The government will pay me a stipend to convert land surrounding my estate to a non-development easement. They will pay me to keep the land around my estate un-encroached by the peasants.

          And I reject this bill whole heartedly.

          1. I suspect some of those benefits wouldn't really pan out, and even if they did, the negative consequences of all that socialism are likely to cost you much more than those benefits are worth (unless you work for the government). How's inflation treating you? What about fewer opportunities for advancement in your career? What about the harm a socialist economy can do to your investments, etc., etc.

            Aren't welfare recipients some of the biggest victims of socialism? Some low skill workers benefit from the minimum wage, but plenty of low skill workers are priced out of the job market by the minimum wage, too, etc., etc., etc., etc. Surely, this isn't the first time you've heard that, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" is supposed to be the punchline of a joke. How many of the working poor thought they were getting something great from the government when they qualified for a home loan--just before their homes were repossessed in 2009?

            The BBB budget reconciliation bill is not in the best interests of most Americans--even if they benefit from its spending in some ways, they're giving up all sorts of things, as well. And I have little doubt but that if all Americans supported this bill or opposed it based on what was in their own best interests, they would oppose it. After all, the promise of socialism bringing a higher standard of living to more people is a lie.

        2. I don't disagree that the bill is shit and should be opposed by all and sundry.
          What I guess I was getting across was... would we see him oppose it this vehemently-- or at all-- were it not for the fact that Tesla is not-really-being-singled-out-but-yes-being-singled-out as a lesser recipient than his (even crappy) competitors?
          I like the guy and really appreciate what he has done for private space stuff, but it's not like he's a paragon of laissez-faire even at the best of times. Does he ordinarily take these kinds of stances?

      2. To be fair, Elon's not exactly a disinterested party. Doesn't the bill contain a provision which directly benefits his competitors because they're made with Union labor?

        It does, but there aren't any real competitors there.

        The fact that he speaks out against this bill despite the massive crony capitalist handouts his company receives under it tells you how truly awful the bill is.

        1. They only get a $12,000 to $18,000 subsidy to compete with his cars. Nothing to see here.

        2. "It does, but there aren't any real competitors there."

          You would think so, but I've seen the new VW and Audi electrics cropping up around town. And the Ford "Mustang" Mach-e is so popular around here that people are paying $6000 premiums on it. I even see the new Hyundai Kona a lot.

          It is unclear if any of these cars are being sold at close to a loss- certainly the capital infrastructure and R&D necessary to build them hasn't been paid for. It is definitely in Musk's interests to end the same subsidies that allowed his company to cross the gap into profitability.

          1. I'd like to reiterate that because opposing the BBB budget reconciliation bill is in not in Musk's best interests doesn't mean he's wrong to oppose it. And opposing something because it's not in your best interests is as good a reason as any. I am not here for your benefit, and neither is Musk. Musk solves people's problems for them in various ways--because it's in his best interests to do so. And there's nothing wrong with that. He is not rationally or ethically required to be selfless for our benefit, and if the only reason he opposes something is because it's in his best interests to do so, that's perfectly fine. We should all be doing the same thing.

            Capitalism is people pursuing their own best interests through markets. If people do things for the benefit of others, it should be because that's what they want to do--not because the government forces them to make sacrifices for each other. Socialism is the government forcing us to make sacrifices for each other. I have not and will not internalize the ethics of socialism. Musk opposes this because it hurts him, and everyone who uses his products or wants to use his products in the future because it's in their best interests to do so should take a moment and think about Musk's opposition. How do people who want to buy Teslas benefit from the government hurting an entrepreneur like Musk?

            1. if the only reason he opposes something is because it's in his best interests to do so, that's perfectly fine.

              Assumes A) his best interests align with libertarian values which, in this case they would appear to do, and B) they're made in good faith.

              If he made a dishonorable deal with the Obama Administration and now the Biden Administration is welching on the deal, his calls to honor the original deal aren't beyond reproach. Certainly better than alternatives, but not as honorable as if he'd refused or reimbursed for the previously-received ill-gotten gains.

              Unrealistic expectations? Sure. Still, better expectations and just as real as "Musk has always had his and the taxpayers at large's best interests at heart."

  25. As I wrote back in February of 2019,

    Whoa! Two days before a grand jury indicted him and more than a month after CPD suspected him, dropped the investigation to the hate crime, completed the investigation into his hoax, and charged him?

    Easy on the investigative journalist humblebrag there Robby.

  26. Perhaps Smollett and Baldwin can share a cell?

    1. And Baldwin kills him, but gets off because hey, everybody knows that Smollet guy is full of shit.

      1. Baldwin suffers from Gay Panic?

    2. 'Perhaps Smollett and Baldwin can share a cell?'

      Only if they get work release for the on location remake of Hotel Rwanda

      1. or how about...

        only if they can get along with half a brain

  27. The defense's theory is that the brothers are possibly homophobic—Smollett is gay—and had also wanted to scare Smollett into retaining them as bodyguards.

    Even if this were true. It doesn't explain the the fact that he bought a sandwich, was attacked, went to the ER, went home, ate his sandwich, hung a hank of rope around his neck, and *then* provided the false testimony.

  28. First.."thousands of hate crimes" Really? Cite your facts and please define what a "hate crime " is. If a white guy is beaten by a black guy is it a "hate crime?" Well it depends right? Sure buddy..sure.

    No for Jucy..conceive, believe, achieve...this French actor from Empire is walking. The narrative must never be questioned. Facts cannot get in the way.

    Again Robby..please list these "thousands of hate crimes." If you can't please stop it..America is one of the least bigoted places on Earth

    1. But among those that do get solved, the vast majority are either deliberate hoaxes or misunderstandings: Somebody left some wires or shoelaces hanging from a tree or a doorknob, and an alarmed person reported it.

      ROFLMAO! Yeah, just returning someone's shoelaces!!! After they borrowed their shoelaces. LOL!!!

      Maybe things have changed since I was in school but when I went, if there was just about anything hanging from the doorknob it roughly translated to, in today's sensibilities, "Mutual rape in progress."

    2. Sorry, that was not meant in reply. Too distracted by... borrowed shoelaces! ROFLMAO!

    3. Thousands of them, literally every years. We live in a racist hellhole. It's horrible.

      1. And thousands of people reporting crimes to federal authorities is inherently a sign of how brutally racist and/or oppressive we are. As opposed to China, Korea, or Iran where there are only a few dozen racially-motivated crimes reported to police or federal officials every year.

        1. No, there's tons of horrible, terroristic crimes in China. That's why they had to lock up all those vicious, dissident Uighers.

          1. Sigh. That's the point. Not only are the US's hate crime counts artificially inflated, the hate crime counts in other places are existentially deflated.

  29. "That's a lengthy sentence for a nonviolent offender who poses no danger society."

    The danger to society is massive. The manufacture of fake "racism" incidents is probably the biggest threat the republic has faced in decades. It's tearing the country apart.

    People who do this stuff need to be shown that it will land them in prison, for years.

    Your statement is like saying that a guy who killed his wife poses no danger to society, since his wife is already dead ...

  30. I pointed this out immediately after the event but I gotta say it again. I live about 70 miles west of Chicago and we were in the middle of a polar vortex that week. In fact a couple of days after Juicy's stunt we hit an all time recorded temperature of 40 below. This is frostbite, freeze to death weather. People don't go outside unless they have to and every square inch of flesh is covered. Maybe people in more temperate areas can't really relate to how brutal those temps are but nobody up here was buying the story at the time. Wandering around outside to buy a sandwich and being recognized when everyone is covered head to sole is ridiculous. I could walk past my own brother and not know it in that kind of weather. I find it hard to believe that a Chicago jury is going to believe this clown however woke they may be.

    1. As Chappelle said, everybody understood right away the dude was lying.

    2. polar vortex hit at about 4 pm Tuesday. the "attack" was Monday night

  31. Anyone, please, show me a single year where 1,000 literal hate crimes happened. It needs to be a full list where we can see what each of those one thousand crimes are, to toss out the "Someone called me a mean word while passing me in the street," situations. Actual felonies motivated by hate where charges were filed.

    I'll wait.

    1. show me a single year where 1,000 literal hate crimes happened

      1938 springs to mind, or did you mean in the USA?

      Come to think of it, I guess you could say that all of the crimes committed by the lefturds in their 100 days of tantrums were hate crimes.


  32. Pretty funny to see so many people here wanting to turn Jussie Smollett into a political prisoner. Of course with a strong overlap of believing that the Jan. 6 rioters are actual political prisoners.

    1. Fuck off. Almost nobody in January 6 has had a trial and they've all been denied bail for months. Jussie is getting his day in court, and he's going to be convicted. If he'd just confessed, pled down, and paid a fine, we'd all have moved on long ago.

      I want him to do some time in jail for refusing to confess that he made up shit to get people politically riled up. Also, because I imagine what might have happened if there had been two random white guys in MAGA hats walking around that night. Would they have been tossed in a cell without bail and then gotten the shit knocked out of them?

    2. Pretty funny to see so many people here wanting to turn Jussie Smollett into a political prisoner.

      I don't see anything "political" about wanting the book thrown at people who are trying to corrupt the legal system by making false accusations to gain some advantage. This applies equally to white women wrongly accusing black men, black men wrongly accusing white men, or politicians wrongly accusing protesters.

      It's people like you who are making excuses for all three groups... when it fits your ideological preferences.

      1. Have no idea of which muted asshole you're responding to, but it doesn't matter. You have stated the issue clearly and the steaming pile of lefty shit can do the world a favor by fucking off and dying.
        All the worst to the steaming pile of lefty shit.

    3. Your decent to sarc levels of pathetic is complete.

    4. Nothing political about it. Faking hate crimes is almost as serious as an actual hate crime, and Smollett's insistence on deceiving people has cost significant public resources. He needs to pay the consequences of his poor choices and has been taken to court to ascertain how the public finds his misdeeds.

      You imbicilic progshit.

    5. You’re such a piece of shit. But you’re pro pedophile already, so it’s no surprise you want to coddle a guy like this.

    6. I’ve heard that red SUVs get all riled up about shit like this and then go crashing into people.

  33. two brothers from Nigeria who had worked as extras on Entourage

    Where they Turtle's bodyguards or Drama's?

    I think you meanEmpire.

  34. Robby is so colorblind that he couldn't even see the differences in the casts!

    All shows that start with "E" look the same.

    I never watched Entourage. Which character did Jussie play?

    I kid because I love, Robby!

    1. Then they really will be shocked with the eureka mash up

  35. Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this. buy wine online

  36. Cake Eater

  37. He should get the same as J6 Viking man. Non-violent first time offender right?

  38. Are any "hate crimes" not hoaxes?

    1. Do hate crimes by SUVs count?

  39. it would behoove the media to tread lightly with respect to sensational claims

    Ha. Is that the media that sells advertising, or the media that sells advertising?

    1. It’s the media that sells advertising, AND the media that propagates left-wing narratives.

    2. "It would behoove the media to shit lightly on a well-informed populace with respect to sensational claims."

  40. “Beautiful,” rolling ever-so-gently off her forked tongue, is how Robin Roberts weighed the defining, contrived words Smollett used after she interviewed him about his personal trauma. The pathos of their exchange was rich, as in vomit-rich.

    And that captures the meta-narrative behind this hoax. The real crime here is not his 15 minutes of a fake sideshow; rather, it’s about how the wokies and their fellow travellers will stop at nothing to perpetuate their ideological noise.

    It matters not if lies, tears or violence are needed. It matters not who or what suffers. Anything for the Cause is fine. Truth becomes another casualty of their war. And there’s the real hoax.

  41. Smollett: "I wasn't in a conspiracy with the man who assaulted me! I only paid thousands of dollars to him, we chatted amicably on Instagram, he was my personal trainer, we did drugs together, and we had sex a few times, but I hardly knew him!"

    Yup, sure, that's going to work.

  42. DEFENSE: Your honor, we request a motion for mistrial as it seems nobody is buying our bullsh*t story...

  43. Like almost every Democrat in public life today, he gets caught lying and doubles down. Sorry, Jussie...the press may buy it but no jury will.

  44. Nice gaslight, cake eater

  45. If he had been successful (and a better actor), his lies would have sparked hatred and race-based assaults. Three years isn't enough.

    Unless his roommate is the head of the prison's Aryan Brotherhood.

  46. I live in the Chicago area, and everyone wanted his head then, and they want it now. Not only is filing a false police report a crime, but he also wasted time and money that should have gone to investigating crimes that actually happened.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.