"The opportunist politicians and celebrities who jumped on the bandwagon to denounce Smollett’s ‘assault’ two years ago seem markedly less keen to celebrate the fact there was no racism or homophobia involved at all.

So Jussie Smollett, the ‘Empire’ actor and BLM advocate has been found guilty of five counts of felony disorderly conduct related to staging a hate crime with himself as the victim. He was also found not guilty of a sixth count of the same charge.

The hoax took place in 2019, during the early morning hours in downtown Chicago. Smollett alleged that he had tried to buy some eggs at Walgreens, but when he found the store was closed, he instead stopped to get a sandwich at Subway. While out, he claimed two men wearing MAGA caps assaulted him, pouring bleach on him and placing a noose around his neck as they yelled racial and homophobic slurs."

Very embarrassing for the wokies, and they will remain silent because of human nature. Let's hope that Smollett receives an appropriate sentence; but that could be wishful thinking given the lack of punishment for women who have been found to have lied about sexual abuse.

The left whingers are all busy deleting their tweets of outrage against Trump.

Has Nancy Pelosi any plans yet to have a memorial built honouring him ?

The Jussie Smollett case should be a good lesson for
many journalists. Journalists jumped onto this story
so quickly and this case received so much publicity
because FBI data over the last few years shows that hate
crimes were up across the board, including hate crimes
against gay people.

California State University estimated less than 1% of those
crimes are made up. A lot of well intentioned journalists
jumped onto this story to advocate for those victims and
to draw attention to the overall rise in hate crimes.

It backfired on them. They've since learned that no one
case is ever the perfect case to represent an entire
community- especially one that is so diverse. As reporters
they have to be careful about how they are going to use
stories. The Smollett case should be a moment for
soul-searching for many journalists.

A jury of six men and six women reached a decision on
9th December 2021, (one day
after deliberations began). It found Smollett guilty of 5
of the six counts against him (the sixth had not been
proven in court). Each count carries a penalty of up to
3 years in prison. A sentencing dat has yet to be scheduled.

Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson told reporters that
Smollett took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to
promote his career. That Smollett did it because he was
dissatisfied with his salary. And it almost worked.

We can only hope that as a result of this Smollett case -
hate crimes won't be met with -
a level of scepticism that they did not previously attract.
But who knows what will happen in the troubled land that
is the US today? A few bad apples should not influence
the entire country. But it is complicated.

We need to also remember that when leading American
newspaper fact checking teams first started cataloguing
former President Donald Trump's false or misleading claims
they recorded 30,573 over 4 years. That's over 21 a day -
during his Presidency.
The Smollett case pales in comparison.

The Smollett hoax was just one of a seemingly endless race stream of hoaxes whereby woke leftists try to fabricate supposed white racist crimes. The conceit on the left is that the racist attacks happen regularly while actual facts show the opposite. So they seek to create stories of attacks where none exist.


http://issuesinsights.com/2021/12/14/a-compendium-of-hate-crime-hoaxes-jussie-smolletts-was-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/

(I'm sure the 'woke' in this group will skip or misunderstand that link.)

The Smollett affair is yet another example of the legacy media lying to those who desperately want to be lied to. It was obvious from the outset that the hoax was...a hoax. The police chief in Chicago says he and his colleagues knew very early on that there was something very wrong with Smollett's 'story'.

Yet the mass media treated Smollett's claims as fact and continued to do so long after it was tenable.

But not just the legacy media. Democrat and other leftist politicians (Pelosi through to AOC) in massive numbers hastened to support the fake story. Michelle Obama was closely involved in gathering support for Smollett. Democrat politicians in Chicago tried to cover for Smollett.

Of course, Hollywood and the entertainment industry jumped on board supporting their fellow actor. Famously the entire cast of the 'Big Bang Theory' expressed their opinion that Smollett's story was true. This, remember, was after it was clear that Smollett had fabricated the whole thing.

Just as with the Rittenhouse saga, this should be taken as a learning moment. The media who fell for, or purported to fall for, the Smollett story should, in the future be taken and read with significant grains of salt.

But, like all the other media hoaxes (Smollett, Rittenhouse, Kavanaugh, Sandmann and so many more), those who willingly, even anxiously, fell for it, will move on having learned nothing. While the reputation of the legacy media continues to plummet, the woke crowd will anxiously wait to believe the next hoax.

Will Trump be running for re-election?
More "Fake News" ahead?

Foxy,

The only reason for the rise in "hate crimes" is that the definition of hate crimes was expanded to categories that are not actually crimes. In reality, crimes motivated by discrimination have been consistently dropping for decades.

Secondly, even when the police almost immediately flagged the incident as suspicious the journalists from "liberal" news organisations took Jussie's word as gospel and effectively accused the police of racism for not believing him.

As to the "fact-checking" of Trump, the vast majority of "untruths" were differences of opinion by far-left journos from the Washington Post.

shadowminister,

So the American newspapers and media outlets and fact-checkers
investigating former President Donald Trump are all "Lefties?"
Well, finding over 30,000 errors and lies is no small feat.
And by the way The Washington Post (and CNN, LA Times, et al)
is regarded as one of the leading daily American newspapers.

The Post has distinguished itself through its political
reporting on the workings of the White House, Congress, and
other aspects of the US government.

Accusations of the "" Left"tag is a way of changing the
subject when someone starts using labels it's a way of
actually saying :

"You actually have a point and I don't know how to answer it,
so perhaps I can distract you by the "Leftie" label so
we'll both forget how spot on your comments were."

Same old tactics! Wearing so thin.

Foxy,

Now you are just being dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting what I said. The WP which is left whinge conducted this "fact check" and CNN etc simply uncritically echoed this. I also saw some of these so-called "errors" that were merely different opinions.

That Trump was somewhat liberal with the truth I don't deny, but then so was the WP and also CNN has been caught out a number of times. Almost all of these "prestigious" media organisations printed false information about KR as well and are now facing substantial lawsuits.

However, your claim that Hate crimes were on the increase was also an "error" which you have clearly realised.

shadowminister,

Enjoy your day.

Shadowminister,

2020 data submitted to the FBI identified hate
crimes have risen to the highest level in 12 years
with a surge in assaults on Black and Asian Americans.
And news reports both in the media and on television
have confirmed this.

As for Donald Trump being not quite honest with the
truth when he's been caught out with over 30,000
lies - is putting it politely - absurd.

Foxy,

The reports of hate crimes have increased not due to there actually being more hate crimes but because the FBI has been actively soliciting reports.

A "report" is no longer a complaint to the police but now extends to phoned-in reports to a helpline that can be anonymous.

Any number of these "reports" can be entirely bogus.

shadowminister,

Do you know how the data submitted by the FBI was
obtained. If you do kindly supply us with the
evidence otherwise what you are doing is giving us
more conjecture and supposition. The FBI as a rule
is reliable and it compares today's data with that
of previous years. It has been identified that
hate crimes have risen to the highest level in
12 years. That's many years covered and compared.

But, I get it - you're going to reject everything I
say. And I find that I can spend my time better
somewhere else.

Enjoy your evening.

"The Washington Post...is regarded as one of the leading daily American newspapers."

Not only is that hilariously false, it is exactly what you'd expect from people like Foxy who really couldn't give a flying fig about the truth but merely look to, and desperately believe, people who tell them what they want to hear.

We learned during the Rittenhouse thread that even when the facts PROVED that Foxy's favourite sources outright lied about said facts, she desperately hung on what they told her. While millions took the logical view that they could no longer rely on sources who would wantonly lie on simple facts, Foxy took the view that she was fine with them lying so long as the lies were things she wanted to hear.

Not for nothing is the Washington Post called the comPost:

* they lied about Sandmann and it cost them...well we don't know how many millions because they were toooo embarrassed to report it....
http://nypost.com/2020/07/24/washington-post-settles-250m-suit-with-covington-teen-nick-sandmann/

* the comPost has spent the last month or two retracting erroneous stories about the Steele dossier and fending off suggestions that they return Pulitzers that were won as part of that erroneous reporting...
http://resistthemainstream.org/wapo-issues-major-corrections-to-reports-on-steele-dossier/

* Media monitoring group /Media Bias Fact Check has downgraded the comPost rating and no longer uses them as a fact check source.

But they provide Foxy with confirmation for what she hopes is true and that's all that matters to the Foxy's of the world. Form a view and then go looking for 'facts' to support it isn't exactly the way the search for truth works. Still its streets ahead of the Paul's of the world who form a view and don't give a flying fig if any 'fatcs' support it.

If you would stop using sources such as:

"Issuesinsights.com" (page 1 of this discussion).

And "resistthemainstream"(page 3 of this discussion).

Then perhaps your critiques could be taken seriously.

But as it stand the mediabiasfactfact-check.com for both
of the above sources that you've used pull the rug out
from any of your critiques of any one else's sources.

Here's what the mediabiasfact-checks have to say about
the sources that you use:

http://mediabiasfact-check.com/issues-insights/

http://mediabiasfact-check.com/resist-the-mainstream-bias/

Pot-kettle-black!

mhaze,

Here's the two links again:

http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/issues-insights/

http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/resist-the-mainstream-bias/

Foxy,

Here's the link

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/the-fbi-encourages-the-public-to-report-hate-crimes

The FBI puts in a huge effort to get people to report hate crimes even anonymously and the number of "hate crimes" reported increases dramatically.

This makes the claim that the incidence of hate crimes has increased impossible to demonstrate in any meaningful way as they may very well have decreased but more "reports" have been made.

Hoaxter Smollett looks like having to pay the $100,000 plus that his con trick cost the Chicago police. The same sort of thing should occur with the 'me too' mob found to have lied, including those in Australia.

Foxy,

The difference is that I don't rely on those sites to tell me what to think, unlike you and the Post. Equally I don't hold them out as an unimpeachable source, unlike you and the Post.

The first of the two items you mention was a list of some of the hoax hate crimes. Each one was hyperlinked so if you wanted to check the veracity of the data, you could easily do so. Well, not you but someone interested in the truth.

The second was simply a summary of the Post's own corrections. Its rather revealing that even when your own sources admit that they lied and got their assertions wrong, you ignore their admissions and continue to believe their lies.

I had such hopes for you Foxy but alas.....

It'd all be funny if it wasn't so sad. No, I lie...it is funny....and sad...and a tad pathetic.

Oh, I forgot to mention...."Let's go Brandon".

mhaze,

Criticizing someone for the very faults that
you also possess ? Yes, that is pathetic and sad
and not Kosher.

So I guess my explanation of the difference between the two went over your head!

Ask yourself this Foxy and try to answer honestly. Given that you now know (or should know) that your favoured sources lied to you about Rittenhouse, lied to you about Smollett, lied to you about Trump-Russian collusion (which even they now admit) why do you continue to insist they are reliable sources?

It is good to see that Foxy has accepted that the claims that hate crimes are increasing are false.

Next, her claim that Trump made 30 000 lies which even the Washington post never claimed needs to be reviewed.

Gentlemen,

I am not going to respond to you in the flaws of
your statements. Kindly don't take this to mean
that I agree with you. It's just that your level
of ignorance has rendered me speechless.

Enjoy your week-end.

Foxy,

I understand that statistics is way over your head, but an axiom of statistics is that if the method of measuring data changes then the results before and after the change cannot be reliably compared.

In 2020 the FBI started more vigorously collecting reports on "hate crimes" and not surprisingly the number of reports increased by 12%.

Does this mean that hate crime increased? only an idiot would claim so.

Secondly in the 30 000 items that the WP detailed were statements that they claimed were "misleading" which is simply a difference in interpretation So you claiming that Trump made 30 000 lies is a lie in itself.

"Kindly don't take this to mean
that I agree with you."

Perish the thought. I just take it as evidence that you won't be re-examining your erroneous views despite learning the facts.

I guess suggesting you ask yourself an honest question was always a bridge too far.

mhaze and shadowminister,

I don't think that either of you realize how foolish
you guys appear with all sorts of accusations when you
don't practice what you preach. Neither of you can be
taken seriously. You lack credibility. Still, what
would the forum be without your input? I dare say a
much more boring place.
So Kudos to you. Keep up your comments. They have not only
scatological aspects of conservative ideology but they
are also entertaining.

The funniest part is that the only time you don't believe your favoured sources is when they admit that they lied to you.

mhaze,

I unlike you don't have "favourite sources."
I have a wide variety of sources and they
are ones that do acknowledge who they are,
and where their information comes from.
Of course you would find that funny.
Simple things amuse simple minds ...

But you poor man - the laugh is on you.

Foxy,

You record of posting uncritically quotes from left whinge sources that have been successfully sued for lying does very little for your credibility.

The Washington post is one of the newspapers that made Nick Sandmann very wealthy after being sued for defamation and is now lined up for defamation suit from Rittenhouse, and is now printing/ posting mass retractions for most of their articles on the Steele dossier.

You have pinned your colours to the mast of a sinking ship.

shadowminister,

In that case we're both in the same boat.
We'll have to wait and see who sinks at a faster rate.

cont'd ...

But don't worry I'll throw you a life-line.

Foxy,

At this rate, you are blowing bubbles.

shadow minister,

I'll take bubbles over effluent any day.