I’m not a big fan of the term “hate crime” because the definition of one is vague and nebulous at best, obfuscating and confusing at worst. The term “hate crime” suggests that certain crimes should be judged and punished more harshly depending on the motive of the perpetrator.
Theoretically, the criminal act is considered worse if racism, homophobia, or some other prejudice is the primary motive. But is that really true?
Even if it is true, why should it matter?
Let’s say person “A” murders person “B” in some heinous manner, let’s say by nailing them to a tree–is the crime really worse if the perpetrator and victim are of different races or have different sexual preferences?
Personally, I wouldn’t really care too much one way or the other even if the perpetrator and victim were different species. I’d care that a living creature had been nailed to a tree for no justifiable reason. In my opinion, there is something seriously wrong with a human being who would torture an animal or a person and take pleasure from watching them suffer. Someone that evil shouldn’t be allowed to live.
Jussie Smollett hates President Donald Trump so much that he paid two black men $3,500 (unfortunately for him paid by check, leaving a paper trail) to “attack” him with bleach, claiming they were Trump supporters shouting “Make America Great Again” and racist, homophobic slurs. His t-shirt says it all, doesn’t it?
Smollett caused the city of Chicago to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars paying the police to waste hundreds of man-hours investigating a bogus “hate crime.” Hate crime hoaxes have become all the rage over the past two years, probably due to Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).
Journalist Andy Ngo has done a remarkable job in compiling a list of roughly thirty alleged hate crimes reported since Donald Trump became president that turned out to be hoaxes. It’s one thing to report illegal activity that the police investigate and fail to find sufficient evidence to charge someone with a crime, and quite another for the police to investigate and then discover the claim was a hoax. An insidious lie meant to foment hate and destroy reputations.
There’s only one way to put a stop to this crap. It’s got to hurt just as much to falsely accuse someone of a “hate crime” as it does to commit one, because the false accusation IS a hate crime.
Therefore, Jussie Smollett should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. He should have the book thrown at him because he brazenly lied and repeatedly, with malicious intent to inflict maximum harm on his perceived enemies (meaning President Donald Trump and approximately 63 million people who voted for him). In my never-humble-enough opinion, there’s only one way Smollett should be able to mitigate his sentence to avoid spending significant time in prison, and that’s by fully cooperating with prosecutors and testifying against the brains of the operation.
Yes, I think somebody else planned the Smollett hoax.
Even though it was poorly planned and executed, Smollett doesn’t appear to have been smart enough to think of it himself. In my opinion, the number one candidate to be named the real “brain” behind this operation should be Senator Kamala Harris. Why, you might ask? Just watch her reaction on the video below, when a reporter confronts her about Smollett and the hoax. She looks around in total panic.
The timing of Smollett’s hoax claims would have been suspicious even if Smollett hadn’t appeared at campaign events for Harris in the past. Knowing that such a connection exists makes it seem even more likely that Harris is behind the plot: almost immediately after Smollett’s hoax claims went public, she described the alleged incident as a “modern day lynching.” Smollett’s mythical account conveniently included a noose to fit the narrative, making it ridiculously easy for Harris to leverage the media coverage to have her bill co-sponsored by Spartacus passed–a bill that makes lynching someone because of their race or sexual orientation a federal crime. Smollett would receive the benefit of the new publicity and Harris receive the benefit of having her bill passed into law, which would probably give a significant boost to her presidential aspirations. It almost worked. The bill cleared Congress, but Trump hasn’t signed it.
Why should he, when Congress won’t give him money for the border wall?
Harris says she’s concerned about the recent developments in Jussie Smollett’s case.
If she was behind the hoax, she most certainly should be concerned about a premature end to her presidential aspirations coming soon.
Yep!