Fake hate crime: Jussie Smollett paid two Nigerian brothers to attack him

RaohNS · 18 Feb 2019 at 11:47

chroniclard said:
Oh no, the Hilary card has been played.

And with very good reason. This was the most "qualified person to run as President ever" as a few in SC used to harp on. So good she ran against a first timer... And lost.

Mason- · 18 Feb 2019 at 11:47

VincentHanna said:
We won't know until the outcome of the Muller investigation.

But the mere fact that there is a lengthy investigation, says no.

I don't remember the FBI spending 21 months investigating 'Pizzagate'

Going by this definition, first sentence from wikipedia: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors – without credible evidence."

an event - Trump election
a conspiracy - Russia colluded with Trump to make him president
illegal or harmful act - foreign influence on election and treason
government or powerful actors - Russia + Trump
without credible evidence - right now there is none. If there were it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would be true.

So until credible evidence turns up, it is just a conspiracy theory. The length of the investigation is irrelevant. As is bringing up something completely unrelated, even though that is indeed a conspiracy theory.

RaohNS · 18 Feb 2019 at 11:50

VincentHanna said:
Got it, the republicans against Trump are secretly democrats.

Do you not realise this sounds mental?

Not quite as mental as $4k beating $2billion.

RINOs do exist. They are not democrats per se, but dont exactly pull toward general party politics.

Weissman is Muellers pitbull.

https://www.conservativereview.com/top-25-rinos/

Or will you say this is a conspiracy theory?

Mason- said:
Going by this definition, first sentence from wikipedia: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors – without credible evidence."

an event - Trump election
a conspiracy - Russia colluded with Trump to make him president
illegal or harmful act - foreign influence on election and treason
government or powerful actors - Russia + Trump
without credible evidence - right now there is none. If there were it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would be true.

So until credible evidence turns up, it is just a conspiracy theory. The length of the investigation is irrelevant. As is bringing up something completely unrelated, even though that is indeed a conspiracy theory.

Checkmate.

Caracus2k · 18 Feb 2019 at 11:53

So this Jussie Smollett guy....

(because this threads defo getting locked if we all, me included, continue it as a commentary on a certain SC thread)

Chicago (CNN)Two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation tell CNN that Chicago Police believe actor Jussie Smollett paid two men to orchestrate an assault on him that he reported late last month

The sources told CNN the two men are now cooperating fully with law enforcement.

Smollett told authorities he was attacked early January 29 by two men who were "yelling out racial and homophobic slurs." He said one attacker put a rope around his neck and poured an unknown chemical substance on him.

According to Chicago Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi, the actor told detectives he was attacked by two men near the lower entrance of a Loews hotel in Chicago. Police were told the two men yelled "'Empire' fa***t" and "'Empire' n***er'" while striking him.

In a supplemental interview with authorities, Smollett confirmed media reports that one of the attackers also shouted, "This is MAGA country," a reference to President Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" campaign slogan.

Jussie Smollett attack case to 'go before grand jury' amid reports he 'paid people to beat him'

Might be about to get interesting.

RaohNS · 18 Feb 2019 at 11:55

Raymond Lin said:
Nonsense.

I would love to debate with you but you don't make sense. All you quote is Tweets and you dismisses government reports, you dismiss even Trump's own words when it goes against his own agenda!

Says the person who thinks it is acceptable to question someone if they took part in gang rape for a position on the supreme court.

You know the democrats did the same to another Supreme Court Justice don't you?

Where have I quoted tweets?

Do you believe Trump colluded with Russia to won the Presidency?

h4rm0ny · 18 Feb 2019 at 12:04

Raymond Lin said:
I thought the right loves hypocrisy ??? I did that so you would understand me.

Yeah, no. I don't get your point either. You're claiming deliberate hypocrisy for the sake of your political opponents? I think we should all just get back to Smollet. This is just descending into farce, now.

VincentHanna · 18 Feb 2019 at 12:07

Mason- said:
Going by this definition, first sentence from wikipedia: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors – without credible evidence."

an event - Trump election
a conspiracy - Russia colluded with Trump to make him president
illegal or harmful act - foreign influence on election and treason
government or powerful actors - Russia + Trump
without credible evidence - right now there is none. If there were it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would be true.

So until credible evidence turns up, it is just a conspiracy theory. The length of the investigation is irrelevant. As is bringing up something completely unrelated, even though that is indeed a conspiracy theory.

RaohNS said:
Checkmate.

No, it's not checkmate, because that's not how things work.

For all we know, there is plenty of credible evidence but we aren't party to it, because it's at the investigation stage.

If the police are investigating a murder, it doesn't make is a conspiracy theory just because we can't see all the evidence there and then.

RaohNS · 18 Feb 2019 at 12:10

You have totally missed his point.

One thing I forgot earlier on McCabe too is that his wife received money from Clinton. A republican is a very loose word to describe McCabe

Raymond Lin · 18 Feb 2019 at 12:10

RaohNS said:
Says the person who thinks it is acceptable to question someone if they took part in gang rape for a position on the supreme court.

You know the democrats did the same to another Supreme Court Justice don't you?

Where have I quoted tweets?

Do you believe Trump colluded with Russia to won the Presidency?

Why is it wrong to question someone? Especially when women have come forward. If the tables are turned, you would do the same, and more.

Rudy Giuliani has admitted the Trump Campaign has colluded btw, Trump asked on air for Russian's help to hack the DNC for emails. Did you forget that?

Mason- · 18 Feb 2019 at 12:10

VincentHanna said:
No, it's not checkmate, because that's not how things work.

For all we know, there is plenty of credible evidence but we aren't party to it, because it's at the investigation stage.

If the police are investigating a murder, it doesn't make is a conspiracy theory just because we can't see all the evidence there and then.

Right, but believing it to be true without any credible evidence. Lots of people do, see Raymond, is as good as being a conspiracy theorist. There are loads of people ‘investigating 9/11’ doesn’t mean that therefore it’s not a conspiracy theory until proven otherwise.

RaohNS · 18 Feb 2019 at 12:23

Raymond Lin said:
Why is it wrong to question someone? Especially when women have come forward. If the tables are turned, you would do the same, and more.

From an accuser that cant remember anything and had her own witnesses deny it! Not on that basis I wouldn't.

Where are these skags now btw? Crickets... Crickets...

Giuliani has admitted the Trump Campaign has colluded btw, Trump asked on air for Russian's help to hack the DNC for emails. Did you forget that?

That is not collusion. You really need to look up definitions.

"Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others"

Again, the only campaign we know 100% for sure that hired Russian agents and information was Clinton.

Just because you admit something doesn't make it true. I admit I can bench press 250kg. It doesn't make it so.

Where is the quote he asked them to hack? The word hack is a very specific element. I haven't found he did ask them to and you were either lying or deliberately misquoted to suit narrative. I suspect a bit of both if your posts in SC are any indicator

deuse · 19 Feb 2019 at 07:00

Caracus2k said:
So this Jussie Smollett guy....

(because this threads defo getting locked if we all, me included, continue it as a commentary on a certain SC thread)

Might be about to get interesting.

Could be interesting

D.P. · 19 Feb 2019 at 07:51

Mason- said:
Going by this definition, first sentence from wikipedia: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors – without credible evidence."

an event - Trump election
a conspiracy - Russia colluded with Trump to make him president
illegal or harmful act - foreign influence on election and treason
government or powerful actors - Russia + Trump
without credible evidence - right now there is none. If there were it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would be true.

So until credible evidence turns up, it is just a conspiracy theory. The length of the investigation is irrelevant. As is bringing up something completely unrelated, even though that is indeed a conspiracy theory.

So I take it you work for the FBI, have security clearance for the Muller investigation, and have the legal right to state as fact that the Mueller investigation has no evidence?

Or, are you actually just ignorant of how investigations are conducted without public involvement?

chroniclard · 19 Feb 2019 at 07:55

RaohNS said:
And with very good reason. This was the most "qualified person to run as President ever" as a few in SC used to harp on. So good she ran against a first timer... And lost.

Lost due to a corrupt political system and a russian funded conspiracy.

Sankari · 19 Feb 2019 at 08:26

This thread is so badly derailed, I have to keep checking the title to remind myself what it was originally about.

ianh · 19 Feb 2019 at 08:35

Raymond Lin said:
Yes, it is exactly what it is. It's in the first post and it is in my replies.

I think either you or I have missed something - I asked if you could please highlight which parts of the OP were an "attack on others views" so I could understand your viewpoint but your reply doesn't do that, making it very hard to see your viewpoint.

Raymond Lin said:
Otherwise that wouldn't fair would it? and you are just being a massive hypocrite.

Raymond Lin said:
I am not calling you a hypocrite, but if you disagree with my point that others can do the same what OP is doing then you are one.

I read your two quoted posts and it looks clear that your are calling me one, however looking at the un-highlighted part of your reply I can understand why, to you, it may seem that way as you see the OP as an attack while to me, who has yet to see any evidence in the OP that he was "attacking others views", all I see so far is you attacking his views because you don't like the OP. Again, highlighting what you find to be an attack in the OP would really help out here.

Evangelion said:
This thread is so badly derailed, I have to keep checking the title to remind myself what it was originally about.

I agree, it 's a shame that such an important story about faking a race-hate crime has been largely ignored while people, myself included, have been drawn into debate about the personal politics of forum members instead.

Raymond Lin · 19 Feb 2019 at 08:39

RaohNS said:
From an accuser that cant remember anything and had her own witnesses deny it! Not on that basis I wouldn't.

Where are these skags now btw? Crickets... Crickets...

That is not collusion. You really need to look up definitions.

"Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others"

Again, the only campaign we know 100% for sure that hired Russian agents and information was Clinton.

Just because you admit something doesn't make it true. I admit I can bench press 250kg. It doesn't make it so.

Where is the quote he asked them to hack? The word hack is a very specific element. I haven't found he did ask them to and you were either lying or deliberately misquoted to suit narrative. I suspect a bit of both if your posts in SC are any indicator

I would find you the youtube video where he admitted there was some collusion on air last month in an interview but it is clear that even words out of their own mouths can't get through your brains for acceptance as it has resistance to the truth.

Can you imagine if Obama ask live on air for the Russsian to hack Trump's tax returns? You would be screaming for treason!

Mason- · 19 Feb 2019 at 08:40

D.P. said:
So I take it you work for the FBI, have security clearance for the Muller investigation, and have the legal right to state as fact that the Mueller investigation has no evidence?

Or, are you actually just ignorant of how investigations are conducted without public involvement?

Oh please do enlighten us with your security clearance Mr D.P. who works for the FBI. It goes both ways.

Anyone who peddles that the collusion is an absolute certainty, and speaks in the language of "Trump did collude with the Russians", rather than may have or might have or is suspected of, is as good as a conspiracy theorist. They want it to be true and have no credible evidence. See Raymond.

No credible evidence, the big piece of evidence that initiated the investigation was the dossier which has been a bit of a flop. It is, as of right now, a conspiracy theory.

You've also given me nothing to say why it's wrong to call it one, unless you're using a different definition, which by all means please share.

Yas786 · 19 Feb 2019 at 08:52

Evangelion said:
This thread is so badly derailed, I have to keep checking the title to remind myself what it was originally about.

Lol it’s of no surprise that the usual suspects have derailed it :rolleyes:

Raymond Lin · 19 Feb 2019 at 08:57

Mason- said:
Oh please do enlighten us with your security clearance Mr D.P. who works for the FBI. It goes both ways.

Anyone who peddles that the collusion is an absolute certainty, and speaks in the language of "Trump did collude with the Russians", rather than may have or might have or is suspected of, is as good as a conspiracy theorist. They want it to be true and have no credible evidence. See Raymond.

No credible evidence, the big piece of evidence that initiated the investigation was the dossier which has been a bit of a flop. It is, as of right now, a conspiracy theory.

You've also given me nothing to say why it's wrong to call it one, unless you're using a different definition, which by all means please share.

Tell me, when was the last time you've seen any investigation where the police published daily updates on progress and laid out all the evidence to the public?

I'll tell you when.

Never.

You can read between the lines. You can read between the lines that all the people involved are now locked up, facing years behind bars or in immunity deals. You can see that as "innocence until proven guilty", or you can see it as a sign that there is something going on.

I am sure, with your conspiracy brain who thinks Clintons is some deep underworld crime lord won't take much to convince there is something going on here with Trump. Why is it so hard for you to struggle to come up for conspiracy for Trump when there are so many, but it is so easy for you to come up with something when there are so few?

If you REALLY do take the whole innocence until proven guilty then Clinton and Obama are whiter than white as there has been no conviction is there? Hell, if you count the number of lawsuits she lost/settled compare to Trump...it's not even a contest.

So you can either wag that innocence until proven guilty stick on everyone or are you only holding it for Trump ?