Is This Why Harmeet Dhillon Fell Short in RNC Chair Race?
Photos: Aftermath of Looting in Memphis
Memphis Drivers React to Being Stuck in Traffic Due to BLM Protest
A Quick Bible Study, Vol. 150: The 10 Commandments Are Not the 10...
The Christian's Duty to Stand for Life
More Than a Motto — the Fight Between Truth and Modern-Day Values
Palestinian Arab Terrorists Violate the Sanctity of Shabbat and Murder Seven in Jerusalem
How Do You Prosecute Trump and Not Biden (and Clinton)?
How Much of a Christian Nationalist Are You? Take This Simple Test.
Memphis Police Make Dire Change In Police Unit Following Tyre Nichols Death
It Wasn't Long Before White Supremacy Was Compared To Police Brutality After Memphis...
Mayorkas Smuggled 100,000 Migrants Into the U.S. Through A Hidden Parole Pathway
Two Deputies Are Put On Leave Hours After the Brutal Tyre Nichols Video...
Paul Pelosi Attacker Delivers A Bone Chilling Message to A Local News Outlet
DeSantis Tightens the Reigns On Crime As Woke Prosecutors Continue to Push Soft-On-Crime...

Oh My: Kim Foxx's Office Admits She Never Actually Recused Herself From Smollett Case, Used the Term 'Colloquially'

It's been a bad week for Chicago State's Attorney Kim Foxx, the prosecutor whose office allowed indicted hate crime hoaxer Jussie Smollett to walk without even issuing an apology to the city he smeared.  It's about to get worse.  She supposedly recused herself (more on that later) from the case over improper contact with a politically-connected Smollett advocate, and at least one unidentified member of the accused actor's family -- yet her office ended up giving him the sweetheart deal of a lifetime.  The move drew the ire of a wide swath of Chicagoans, including the Democratic Mayor and the police force.  In response to the raging firestorm, the nation's nonpartisan association of district attorneys released a statement that picked apart Foxx's entire approach to this debacle, savaging her actions in an unsparing point-by-point memo:

“First, when a chief prosecutor recuses him or herself, the recusal must apply to the entire office, not just the elected or appointed prosecutor. This is consistent with best practices for prosecutors’ offices around the country...Second, prosecutors should not take advice from politically connected friends of the accused. Each case should be approached with the goal of justice for victims while protecting the rights of the defendant. Third, when a prosecutor seeks to resolve a case through diversion or some other alternative to prosecution, it should be done so with an acknowledgement of culpability on the part of the defendant. A case with the consequential effects of Mr. Smollett’s should not be resolved without a finding of guilt or innocence...Fourth, expunging Mr. Smollett’s record at this immediate stage is counter to transparency. Law enforcement will now not be able to acknowledge that Mr. Smollett was indicted and charged with these horrible crimes and the full record of what occurred will be forever hidden from public view. Finally, we believe strongly that hate crimes should be prosecuted vigorously but the burden of proof should not be artificially increased due to the misguided decisions of others.”

Basically every single thing Foxx and her team did in this case was arguably unethical, or at least ran contrary to professional best practices, according to the nation's guild of prosecutors.  And somehow, the optics are getting even worse. Remember her ostensible "recusal" from the case, given her inappropriate conversations and potential conflict of interest? Er, about that, via the Chicago Tribune:

Can this get any shadier?  It's probably time for the feds to move beyond a mere "review" of what happened here.  Meanwhile, Foxx's office has been desperately searching for examples of precedent it can point to in response to a growing chorus of criticism, even putting the request in writing.  It doesn't look like they came up with much.  What say you, Ms. Foxx?  This is positively painful:

"He chose his alternative prosecution."  What the hell does that mean?  Jussie Smollett -- the man who staged a hate crime, and was even willing to positively identify innocent people as his attackers until he realized the cops had tracked down the perpetrators he'd paid -- chose his "alternative prosecution"?  Under which he admitted nothing, and suffered no meaningful consequence whatsoever?  What is an "alternative prosecution" if it permits the guilty party to turn around and (a) accuse the jurisdiction he wronged of slandering him, (b) farcically maintain his innocence, and (c) openly ponder filing a lawsuit?  What a joke.  Foxx's office appears to have deliberately misled the public about her bogus "recusal," which now looks about as authentic as the "hate crime" Smollett orchestrated (with impunity, depending on federal action).  A top-to-bottom disgrace.  For their part, Smollett's lawyers are brazenly whining about Chicago officials' criticisms of their lying client, and inventing a breathtaking theory on how Smollett identified his attackers -- the black Nigerian brothers he hired -- as white Trump supporters.  This is real, folks:

Oh, and by the way, despite the posturing from some desperate pro-Smollett conspiracy-mongers, police putting key witnesses in hotels during high-profile cases (especially featuring media circuses) is highly...usual.  It's not any sign of malpractice on the cops' part.  I'll leave you with local media fighting the gag order Foxx's team secured (and seem to be backing away from, but that may also be a lie):

UPDATE - This definitely ain't over:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Video