Jussie Smullett hoax

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, thinking hard, in depth, about "these things" (e.g. the justice system) leads to the conclusion that in Smollett's case "American political life" is broken, regardless of what Smollett says. And those that support him to the hilt despite his guilt are a sign of that break.

In Trump's case, the justice system does not seem to be broken. There is no dismissal of charges in the face of overwhelming evidence. Quite the contrary. Regardless of what Trump says.

What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge? You don't have the information to conclude that yet, do you? I don't see a symmetry between the two. I see an attempt to create an equivalence that doesn't exist--merely by noting the similarity of words about exoneration between Trump and Smollett.

The article is an unnecessary and nonfactual equivalence of Trump's case with Smollett's to create the appearance of why American political life is broken, with the slant that Trump and his supporters are at least half of the problem. God knows who the other half is. Certainly not just little ole insignificant Smollett and his few supporters.

The broken American political life is not caused by the trivia in your article. It is only broken if the base that hold's it together is cracked--you know . . . the "C".

I would put forth that the other half of the fracture is the media et al, since 30 years ago we would have known little, if anything of either issue and that the first half is not just the Trumplicans but both of the political tribes.

I would love to know Muellers opinion of Trump, since they are almost exact opposites.
If Mueller followed his usual formula, he knows everything about Trump that he could possibly find out and then decided what of that was applicable to the investigation he was asked to make.
He is a very talented investigator and likely found questionable things Don the Con did.
If they were bad enough, I would think he would have been quite conflicted about not doing something about it.
What could he do?
Will the report tell?