Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

About 2,800 JFK records released, others withheld (impossibilite de poster le lien pour le moment)

Apres 2annees d'investigation pour un cout de 25 millions de dollars, le rapport de Mueller a enfin ete remis.

Mueller not recommending ‘any further indictments’ after report turnover

Evidemment les Democrates sont livides, veulent que le rapport en entier soit publie et annoncent deja des convocations avec declarations sous serment. Ils ne s'en tiendront pas la!! non mais!

Si un president en fonction ne peut etre inculpe, sa famille, son entourage, ses conseillers etc.. eux peuvent l'etre. Apparemment ce n'est pas le cas.

Attendons un peu pour voir. Mais bon, si ces investifations ont ete mises en route avec un "faux"dossier paye par le Parti Democrate et prepare par un espion britannique, (et c'est Trump qu'on suspecte d'etre lie avec des interets internationaux...) il a prouve etre totalement invalide.

Enfin bon, la moyenne des frais pour les personnes seulement interrogees comme temoin, donc pas ciblees, est de $ 100,000 pour frais d'avocats. Ben oui, vous pouvez n'avoir rien commis d'illegal, etre interroges par le FBI ou l'assemblee nationale, repondre incorrectement (peut-etre parce que vous ne vous souvenez plus ou parce que vous avez mal compris la question ou que vous etes intimides) et vous vous retrouvez en prison pour avoir menti sous serment. Sad

alors oui, il vaut mieux etre accompagne d'un conseil.

Adam Schiff rejects reports that Mueller indictments are over, says special counsel could be called to testify

et encore:

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews livid over Mueller report: ‘How could they let Trump off the hook?’

et aussi:

Pelosi, Schumer Joint Statement On Special Counsel Mueller’s Report

et pendant ce temps-la...

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

Fault-il en rire? faut-il en pleurer? en tout cas, si le doute existait encore...

Mainstream media, celebrities stunned as Mueller report filed with no new indictments planned

Really?

Bernie Sanders' hiring of non-American campaign advisers may violate federal election laws, complaint says

Nouvelles en langue anglaise - Page 13 54799723_2756087431074129_1184073331901464576_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_eui2=AeFk_Hbc9jHS-t5JThaeb3tPj9_elP9h2eYFNzMoZjImdJ9MpBqjaC7c7NkkZaxJFyf9l3TrhMygk5I1g9EMLw-AW2tByL2nxfUB-vHPqgtmbw&_nc_ht=scontent-mia3-1

Ca vaut mille mots!

EddieCochran+ Messages : 7134 Date d'inscription : 15/10/2017

305 -

Dans toute cette confusion politicarde je comprends pourquoi les citoyens des E-U ne voient plus leur avenir en rose !

"Americans agree on something: The future looks grim
Americans are expecting the worst of the future, with the country rapidly changing. They also agree that politicians likely won't know how to handle the new world, according to a new survey by Pew Research Center."

Nouvelles en langue anglaise - Page 13 Grim10

Ça sent les contestataires façon GJ mais en "stars & stripes vests" bloquant les ronds-points de Washington ! Very Happy

WOW, je me demande si elle pense la meme chose du scandale qui a touche l'eglise catholique et l'organisation des scouts.. Aaah Hollywood, un autre monde...

Backlash over Barbra Streisand’s Michael Jackson sexual abuse comments deepens: ‘I feel sick’

The backlash against singer and songwriter Barbra Streisand has deepened after she shared her thoughts on HBO’s recent documentary, “Leaving Neverland,” which follows the story of two men who allege Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children.
Though Streisand said she “absolutely” believes Wade Robson and James Safechuck's molestation accusations against the King of Pop, which were detailed in the two-part documentary, the “It Had To Be You” singer also made controversial remarks regarding the allegations in an interview published by The Times of London on Friday.
"His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has," she said of Jackson.
"You can say 'molested', but those children, as you heard [the grown-up Robson and Safechuck] say, they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them," Streisand continued.

...

EddieCochran+ Messages : 7134 Date d'inscription : 15/10/2017

306 -

SylvetteB a écrit:WOW, je me demande si elle pense la meme chose du scandale qui a touche l'eglise catholique et l'organisation des scouts.. Aaah Hollywood, un autre monde...
(...)
the King of Pop, (...)

Attention, dans l'église catholique les stars de l'actualité pédophilique ne sont pas des "Kings Of Pop", mais des "Thugs Of Pope", nuance !

Apparemment oui, Eddie, une enorme nuance. Des lors, Barbara doit avoir raison.

Eddie: merci pour les resultats de sondage que vous avez eu la gentillesse de poster plus haut. Enfin!! les Etats Unis vont peut-etre se casser la figure, du moins ca semble etre le sentiment d'une grande partie de la population! Smile

Sondage de Pew, donc; le meme Pew qui donnait Hillary gagnante en 2016 et qui tentait de nous expliquer comment et pourquoi, tant "got it so wrong"? Smile

Why 2016 election polls missed their mark

EddieCochran+ Messages : 7134 Date d'inscription : 15/10/2017

310 -

C'était encore sous LP j'étais tombé sur des analyses statistiques de Pew. Je me suis méfié, car pour moi pew en anglais (du vieux français puye) signifie banc d'église, et je me suis dis que c'était encore un truc de bigots, donc méfiance. Mais Pew est le nom de la famille à l’origine de la fondation caritative qui porte son nom et qui depuis 1996 chapeaute le Pew Research Center, un machin présenté comme "a nonpartisan American fact tank based in Washington, D.C. It provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the United States and the world".

Voici ce qu'en pense Media Bias/Fact Check :
"Overall, we rate Pew Research Least Biased and Very High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing. (7/10/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 1/06/2019)""

N'étant pas immergé dans la société étatsunienne, je suis obligé de me fier à ce que je lis ça et là sans pouvoir bien saisir les tenants et aboutissants culturels comme vous pouvez le faire Chère Sylvette.

Eddie, ce n'etait pas une critique envers vous, tout simplement la reconnaissance d'un fait: selon leurs sondages, Hillary devait gagner en 2016, ce qui n'est tout-de-meme pas une mince erreur; bien eviemment ils n'etaient pas les seuls a l'avoir faite, loin de la. Je ne dis meme pas que cette organisation soit partisane, seulement que l'on a le droit de prendre ces resultats avec un grain de sel et qu'ils sont ponctuels.

My oh my, Mr. Murdoch!! Smile

Deroy Murdock: Mueller report quashes left's top excuse for Hillary's 2016 loss – Trump won fair and square
Nouvelles en langue anglaise - Page 13 Murdock_Deroy

By Deroy Murdock | Fox News

NEW YORK -- Breaking news:
Donald J. Trump won the presidency, fair and square.
He does not occupy the Oval Office due to an elaborate plot involving the KGB, the Kremlin, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, or the ghosts of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Instead, he won the old-fashioned way: He followed the rules and out-foxed and out-worked Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton.
Hillary, in turn, appeared at only 63 rallies in the final 99 days of the 2016 general-election campaign (versus 132 for Trump), as Gateway Pundit’s Joe Hoft calculated. She addressed, on average, 1,734 people at each of these rallies (versus 7,297 for Trump). Hillary barely made it to Michigan and never managed to find Wisconsin on a map of the USA.
Trump triumphed. Hillary tanked. And the Democrats cannot blame Moscow for the fact that their queen wears no crown.

These are the inescapable conclusions of the combined FBI and Robert Mueller investigations. With the delivery of the special counsel’s report to Attorney General William Barr Friday afternoon, these back-to-back probes — as well as those of the House and Senate intelligence committees — have ended with neither indictments for nor evidence of the elaborate Russian-collusion conspiracy that Democrats have used as a gargantuan crutch to explain Hillary’s inexplicable loss to a Manhattan real-estate mogul in his maiden race for public office.
Believe it or not, this is exactly what happened.
Grasping desperately for any straw they can grab, some liberals now say that just because no new Mueller-based indictments are forthcoming, Trump still could be in trouble because Mueller might have followed Justice Department guidelines, left a sitting president unindicted, and yielded that duty to the House’s impeachment process.
Nice try.
This theory rests upon the notion that Trump and Russia conspired to steal the White House from the Duchess of Chappaqua, to whom it was bequeathed by royal writ, as everyone knows. So, this collective hallucination goes, Trump and Putin swiped the Oval Office without the involvement of any other U.S. person. Trump supposedly managed this enormous accomplishment with the assistance of Russians but without the knowledge or cooperation of anyone else on his campaign, in the Republican National Committee, or among GOP offices from Nevada to New Hampshire. This would be the only justification for Mueller leaving Trump uncharged (“Let the House do it!”) while issuing zero collusion indictments for any American non-president.
So, Democrats, accept this fact: The 2016 campaign is finally over. Clinton sank. And Trump soared — without Russia’s help. Your two-year-plus campaign of finger-pointing and excuse making is for naught. Get over it. Swallow the fact that your nominee squandered a race that she should have secured. And she blew it all on her own.
Democrats now should move on and help govern this nation. They should negotiate, compromise, and otherwise work with the legitimately and duly elected president of the United States: Donald J. Trump.
As for James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Adam Schiff, Peter Strzok, Maxine Waters, and their enablers in the left-wing media who nurtured the Russia! Russia! Russia! fantasy, they should be ashamed of wasting nearly three years of America’s national life. Luckily for them, there are laws against this sort of thing.
The left’s artificial crusade was a deadweight loss: A War on Leprechauns would have been a better use of America’s time.
Visualize how much more President Trump could have achieved without this manufactured cloud over his head. Imagine how much more the president could have focused on his Make America Great Again agenda without, essentially, a dozen people banging pots, crashing cymbals, and chanting, “Collusion! Collusion! Collusion!” as they encircled him at the Resolute Desk.
Democrats cannot blame Trump or “far-right, racist Republicans” for the Russia hoax’s final fizzle.
Trump never fired Mueller or hindered his probe. He left both alone.
Also, Mueller’s prosecutors were mainly hardcore, partisan Democrats. Among 17 publically identified members of Team Mueller, 14 are Democrats, 12 are Democratic donors, and two maxed to Hillary. Andrew Weissman attended Hillary’s Election Night party. Jeannie Rhee, was a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation. And Aaron Zebley represented Justin Cooper, Hillary’s aide who pulverized her mobile devices with a hammer. This evidence of severe political bias is appalling. However, it does offer this glistening-silver lining:
The lack of impending indictments strongly suggests that there was no Russian collusion, and this nearly three-year, three-ring circus was a holistic waste of time and money.
This decision did not emerge from a panel of Federalist Society attorneys nor legal experts at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law. Rather, this is the considered judgment of Deep State denizen Robert Mueller and the most partisan, pro-Clinton, hardcore-Democrat gang of attorneys ever mustered in one place.
If there’s any cabal that would have left no stone unthrown to neutralize Donald J. Trump, this was it. And the best they could do about Russian collusion was to reach this conclusion:
Never mind!

EddieCochran+ Messages : 7134 Date d'inscription : 15/10/2017

313 -

C'est très touffu pour nous de ce côté de la Grande Mare de s'y retrouver dans ces bisbilles politico-judiciaires étatsuniennes sur fond de collusion et de complot qui fleurent la vodka, le bortsch et le caviar.

Sur le site Axios j'ai trouvé un article qui clarifie la dernière séquence du moment :

"Attorney General Bill Barr has received the Mueller report, marking the end of the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump, The Washington Post reports.

The big picture: It remains to be seen what of the report will become public. Barr told lawmakers earlier this year that he would release as much information from the final Mueller report as is legally possible.

Note that Barr is supposed to notify Congress if anyone at DOJ overruled a request from Mueller — Barr said today that "there were no such instances during the special counsel's investigation."
What's next: Barr told the House and Senate Judiciary chairs in a letter that he may be able to advise on the details of Mueller's conclusions as soon as this weekend.
Mueller will not be recommending more indictments as a result of the investigation, per the AP.
Mueller will conclude his special counsel service in the coming days as well.

Timeline:

The White House was informed at approximately 4:35 pm on Friday that the Department of Justice had the Mueller report, per CNN.
At 5 pm staffers from Capitol Hill met at the Department of Justice, per Fox News.
Around 7:20 pm, Democratic chairs of 6 House committees submitted a letter demanding that the Justice Department release "without delay" the complete report, and that Barr turn over all evidence Mueller discovered. The Democrats — including Jerrold Nadler (Judiciary) and Eliot Engel (Foreign Affairs); Elijah Cummings (Oversight and Reform); Adam Schiff (Intelligence), Maxine Waters (Financial Services) Richard Neal (Ways and Means) — say since the Justice Department asserts a sitting president can't be indicted, Barr's failure to release evidence of criminal or other misconduct by Trump "would raise serious questions about whether the Department of Justice policy is being used as a pretext for a cover-up of misconduct."

What they're saying:

Bill Barr, in a letter to House and Senate Judiciary committee leadership: "I remain committed to as much transparency as possible, and I will keep you informed as to the status of my review."
Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow: "We’re pleased that the Office of Special Counsel has delivered its report to the Attorney General pursuant to the regulations. Attorney General Barr will determine the appropriate next steps."
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders: "The next steps are up to Attorney General Barr, and we look forward to the process taking its course. The White House has not received or been briefed on the Special Counsel’s report."

Read Bill Barr's notice letter to Congress:
Click to [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

A copy of a letter from Attorney General William Barr advising Congress that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has concluded his investigation, is shown Friday, March 22, 2019 in Washington. Robert Mueller on Friday turned over his long-awaited final report on the contentious Russia investigation that has cast a dark shadow over Donald Trump's presidency, entangled Trump's family and resulted in criminal charges against some of the president's closest associates.

Attorney General William Barr delivered a letter to Congress on Friday notifying the leaders of the Judiciary committees that special counsel Robert Mueller had submitted his report on the Russia investigation. The letter was addressed to Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, and Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia.

Here is the text of the letter:

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

I write to notify you pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 600.9(a)(3) that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has concluded his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters. In addition to this notification, the Special Counsel regulations require that I provide you with “a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General” or acting Attorney General “concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.” 28 C.F.R. 600.9(a)(3). There were no such instances during the Special Counsel’s investigation.

The Special Counsel has submitted to me today a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). I am reviewing the report and anticipate that I may be in a position to advise you of the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend.

Separately, I intend to consult with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department’s long-standing practices and policies. I remain committed to as much transparency as possible, and I will keep you informed as to the status of my review.

Finally, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” this notification “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. 600.9(c) I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

William P. Barr

Attorney General
"
*********************

En somme, c'est comme dans les séries policières, une saison vient de se terminer, une nouvelle est en cours de tournage. Very Happy

Eddie, je viens de perdre ma reponse, "a refaire!!!"

EddieCochran+ Messages : 7134 Date d'inscription : 15/10/2017

314 -

Je suis navré pour vous Chère Sylvette.

Il y a une fonction brouillon bien pratique. L'on tape le début d'un message lorsque l'on a l'intention de pondre un long billet. Après le 1er § l'on clique sur le bouton rouge Prévisualisation. La page s'affiche au format d'édition définitif, sous le cadre apparaît entre Prévisualisation et Envoyer le bouton Brouillon. L'on clique dessus et le message va dans Profil sous la rubrique la plus à droite Brouillon (une info sur l'écran vous indique ceci pendant qq secondes). Clic sur Profil, puis sur Brouillon enfin sur Modifier, et l'on revient là où l'on était arrêté. L'on peut continuer son 2ème § et faire la même procédure. Quand c'est terminé l'on clique sur Publier (qui remplace Envoyer)et le brouillon disparaît de Profil tandis que le billet s'affiche sur la forum. C'est apparemment fastidieux, mais comme le programme est très réactif, finalement ça ne prend pas de temps. Mais ce n'est pas sexy.

Autre méthode - que j'utilise le plus souvent - je tape mon billet dans WordPad qui est sur ma barre des tâches de W10 (taskbar pour les Francaouis), j'y mets les liens éventuels (articles, vidéos, images, sites) puis je le colle sur le fil du Forum où je peaufine la présentation s'il y a lieu en n'oubliant pas d'activer les liens avé les fonctions en haut du cartouche.

Si ça merdoye, il me reste l'original sur WordPad. C'est plus facile en ce qui me concerne, car j'ai une vue d'ensemble. L'on n'est pas obligé d'enregistrer sa page WordPad active si l'on quitte la session (volontairement ou par mégarde), W10 la garde en mémoire et l'affiche dès que l'on relance la bécane.

Kalawasa Messages : 6064 Date d'inscription : 15/10/2017

Sylvette, vous vous rappelez notre discussion au sujet de l'accord de l'adjectif qualificatif qui est forcément compliqué en français..., parce que français !
Ci-joint un extrait de l'excellent article de Eddie, dans le fil des "Intellos"...Tordant , mais tellement vrai !

Nouvelles en langue anglaise - Page 13 Rire_546

"In France, you gotta have ten percent incomprehensible, otherwise people won't think it's deep--they won't think you're a profound thinker."

Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu--two eminent French thinkers whose abilities Searle obviously respected--told him that if they wrote clearly they wouldn't be taken seriously in France.

oui c'est vrai Kalawasa! Smile

Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu--two eminent French thinkers whose abilities Searle obviously respected--told him that if they wrote clearly they wouldn't be taken seriously in France.
un conseil suivi par beaucoup dans le monde politique.. Smile

Aussi, nous faisons tres attention a ne pas faire de fotes d'orthographe ou de grammaire, c'est un peu comme savoir coordonner un ensemble avec les chaussures adequates ou un accessoire approprie, il y va de notre honneur et dignite de Francais(ze) a ne pas sous-estimer! Smile

Merci Eddie!

C'est un peu comme quand je rentre dans un magasin pour acheter un ou deux articles, et que je ressors avec un caddy plein, j'ai commence a taper directement en me disant que ce ne serait que quelques phrases et la c'etait un peu plus... Je vais suivre vos conseils. Smile

Eddie, votre 313 (desolee du retard)

“Note that Barr is supposed to notify Congress if anyone at DOJ overruled a request from Mueller — Barr said today that "there were no such instances during the special counsel's investigation."
Le fait que Mueller ait termine son investigation and qu’aucun empechement n’ait mis obstacle a cette meme investigation va loin comme preuve qu’il n’y ait eu obstruction, ce qui d’ailleurs ressort du resume du Ministre de la Justice, Barr
A savoir:
Here is the Mueller report, by the numbers:
- 675: The number of days from when Mueller was appointed to the day he turned in his report to Barr.
- 34: people indicted as a result of Mueller's investigation, including Russian nationals and several former Trump aides and advisors. * aucun en relation avec une collusion avec la Russie
- 19: lawyers who were employed by the special counsel's office, according to a letter Barr sent to Congress on Sunday.
- About 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other staff that assisted with the investigation.
- More than 2,800 subpoenas issued by the Special Counsel's office, that's an average of at least four per day.
- Nearly 500 search warrants executed.
- More than 230 orders for communication records.
- Nearly 50 authorized orders for the use of pen registers, a tool that lets the government know who someone is communicating with and when, but not what they said.
- 13 evidence requests to foreign governments
- 500 witnesses interviewed
- $25 million in posted costs as of February
Sans oublier 3 autres investigations bi-partisanes du dernier Congres (a majorite Republicaine) qui elles aussi sont arrivees aux memes conclusions. Ce qui n'empeche pas la Chambre maintenant aux mains des Democrates de vouloir redemarrer au moins une nouvelle investigation.

N'oublions pas non plus que les affaires du Donald sont passees au crible par la Court du District Sud de New York. Ils l'auront d'une facon ou une autre, non mais!!

Une derniere petite remarque, les Democrates n'ont vu aucune necessite d'investigation lorsque Obama avait ete surpris par micro ouvert a dire:

The Democrats — including Jerrold Nadler (Judiciary) and Eliot Engel (Foreign Affairs); Elijah Cummings (Oversight and Reform); Adam Schiff (Intelligence), Maxine Waters (Financial Services) Richard Neal (Ways and Means) 1— say since the Justice Department asserts a sitting president can't be indicted, 2 Barr's failure to release evidence of criminal or other misconduct by Trump "would raise serious questions about whether the Department of Justice policy is being used as a pretext for a cover-up of misconduct." 3
1)      Nadler, Cummings, Shiff, Waters n’ont qu’un but: l’impeachment de 45 (en particulier Waters). Ils n’ont eu cesse d’insulter le president, tous mais en particulier Shiff qui disait avoir des preuves de sa culpabilite.
2)      De Toutes facons, Mueller ne pouvait pas inculper le president c’est exact, mais il n’avait pas non plus a arriver a la conclusion qu’il n’y avait pas de collusion.
3)      Deja apres Loretta Lynn *meeting sur le tarmac avec Bill Clinton avant l’interrogation d’Hillary “pour echanger des nouvelles de leurs petits enfants” ca pourrait faire sourire. Mais on peut toute de meme imaginer qu’apres une telle investigation, Mueller aurait fait savoir si le condense de Barr ne correspondait pas a l’essence de son rapport.
  Bill Barr, in a letter to House and Senate Judiciary committee leadership: "I remain committed to as much transparency as possible, and I will keep you informed as to the status of my review."
Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow: "We’re pleased that the Office of Special Counsel has delivered its report to the Attorney General pursuant to the regulations. Attorney General Barr will determine the appropriate next steps."
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders: "The next steps are up to Attorney General Barr, and we look forward to the process taking its course. The White House has not received or been briefed on the Special Counsel’s report."

Les Democrates demandent de voir le rapport au complet, ce qui est impossible pour des raisons de securite. Evidemment, ca laisse la porte ouverte a ceux qui diront qu’il y a un manqué de transparence. Le rapport (en trois volumes) de Clinton a ete lui aussi largement expurge, pour eviter en autres “trop d’embarrassement a Bill”..

Long mais comme toujours avec lui tres interessant.

j'aime beaucoup Linsay Graham, meme s'il ne m'est arrivee de ne pas etre de son avis.

Purdue Pharma settles with Oklahoma in landmark opioid lawsuit

Purdue Pharma and the state of Oklahoma have agreed to a $270 million settlement in a lawsuit that claims the illegal marketing of OxyContin helped lead to the opioid crisis. The deal could influence the thousands of lawsuits facing opioid companies across the country. Nearly every state has filed lawsuits against drugmakers, distributors and retailers. Experts said the Oklahoma lawsuit is likely to be a preview of the legal arguments presented to a jury in a federal opioid trial in October.

Que de questions on a le droit de se poser.....

Rahm Emanuel considers suing Jussie Smollett to recoup money wasted on investigation: report

Nouvelles en langue anglaise - Page 13 SmollettFNF032719

Nouvelles en langue anglaise - Page 13 SmollettFNF032719

After publicly blasting the decision to drop 16 charges against embattled "Empire" star Jussie Smollett, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is considering suing the actor to recoup some of the money the city wasted on the lengthy investigation, according to reports.
Emanuel wants to recoup close to $150,000, CBS News reported. Charges against Smollett were dropped after 16 hours of community service and an agreement to forfeit his $10,000, a figure Emanuel said Tuesday "doesn't even come close to what the city spent in resources" on the case.
While the exact cost of the Smollett investigation is unknown, 24 detectives were removed from regular cases, expending up to 1,000 hours, overtime not included to work on the Smollett case. Police also spent dozens of hours of examining surveillance video from 55 city pod cams and private cameras. They also executed 50 search warrants and subpoenas for phone, social media and financial documents. During the 23-day investigation, [size=18]Chicago was also hit with at least 20 murders and 134 sexual assaults, according to the Chicago Police Department's crime statistics.[/size]
Both Emanuel and Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson were visibly furious Tuesday after hearing that prosecutors had abruptly dropped all charges against Smollett, abandoning the high-profile criminal case only five weeks after the allegations were filed.
Emanuel, who leaves office in May after two terms, said Wednesday it was unconscionable for prosecutors to dismiss the case.

"This is actually making a fool of all of us," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Emanuel said he wanted to "get to the bottom of this."
"Especially [in] a city that embraced not only him as an actor but more importantly the values of being whoever you are, whoever you love, whatever your background is, you have a home here. He took that, turned it around and tried to self-promote himself. And the fact is, he's walking around with no sense of contrition, no sense of remorse, and the fact is also the state's attorney is saying he's actually guilty of this hoax, and he's walking around saying, 'No, I'm innocent.'," Emanuel fumed.
Johnson, the city's top cop, said Tuesday that Smollett still owes Chicago an apology.
"If you want to say you're innocent of the situation, you take your day in court," said Johnson. "I would never hide behind a brokered deal in secrecy, period."
Smollett reported on Jan. 29 that he was attacked around 2 a.m. on his way home from a sandwich shop. Smollett said two masked men shouted racial and anti-gay slurs, poured bleach on him, beat him and tied a rope around his neck. He claimed they shouted, “This is MAGA country” — a reference to President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan. Smollett told police he could see that one of his attackers was white because he could see the skin around his eyes.

The news of such a heinous attack quickly garnered national attention. The Chicago police were taken to task for failing to protect their citizens or find the assailants behind the brutal beatdown.
Soon though, the tides shifted and investigators accused Smollett of making the whole thing up because he was unhappy with his pay on "Empire" and believed the publicity ginned up from the incident would promote his career.
Smollett plays the gay character Jamal Lyon on "Empire," a Fox television show that follows a black family as they navigate the ups and downs of the recording history.
Smollett was initially charged with one count of lying to the authorities on Feb. 20. A few days later, a grand jury indicted him on 16 felony counts of lying to authorities — eight counts for what he told the officer who responded to the report of the Jan. 29 attack in downtown Chicago, and eight counts for what he later told a detective about being the victim of a brutal racist and homophobic beating by two masked men.
A week before the alleged attack, Smollett told authorities he received a threatening letter at work. Chicago police pushed back and accused Smollett of faking the letter as well.

For his part, Smollett has always maintained his innocence. After the charges were dropped Tuesday, he posed with fans outside the courthouse and thanked his friends and family for standing by him. He also thanked the state of Illinois for "attempting to do what's right."
“Not for a moment was it in vain. I’ve been truthful and consistent on every level since day one,” he said. “I would not be my mother’s son if I was capable of one drop of what I was accused of."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Chicago's top cop 'furious' after prosecutors drop all charges against Jussie Smollett

Did Michelle Obama play a role in Jussie Smollett's dropped charges?

Kalawasa Messages : 6064 Date d'inscription : 15/10/2017

Quand vous êtes noir, gris, juif, gay, voire drogué : vous êtes automatiquement quelqu'un de bien, et ça, ça me gonfle vraiment . Mais attention au retour de balancier ! Twisted Evil

Ras le bol du politiquement correct !

Ca ne semble pas etre la fin de ses ennuis: Jussie Smollett hoax charges dropped, but federal investigation, lawsuits could be next

Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise

Re: Nouvelles en langue anglaise