From the moment the charges were dropped against Jussie Smollett by State Attorney Kim Foxx, the first question on most people’s minds was “wait, wasn’t she recused?”

In fact, she had publicly proclaimed weeks earlier that she had recused herself from the case.

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx recused herself from the Jussie Smollett investigation after facilitating conversations between Smollett’s family and the Chicago Police Department, the state’s attorney’s office said Wednesday.

“Based on those prior conversations and out of an abundance of caution, last week State’s Attorney Foxx decided to remove herself from the decision making in this matter and delegated it to her First Assistant Joseph Magats, a 28-year veteran prosecutor,” he added.

It wasn’t really ambiguous at all. When you remove yourself from all decision making, that’s called recusing yourself. Her office also used the word as a descriptor of the situation at the time. Every media outlet reported this the same way and Foxx never sought to correct the record and assert she wasn’t really recused.

Well, that’s the she claim she’s making today. RedState writer Sister Toldjah first mention of this here. Now we are getting more reaction and details.

It was just a colloquialism, you see.

Even the original recusal was completely improper. Per Townhall, the non-Partisan Association of District Attornys put out this statement refuting what went on.

“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.

This doesn’t pass the smell test. Instead, it looks like a favor was called in or pressure was applied and Foxx returned from exile to make the corrupt call. We know she had improper contacts, which led to her original recusal. We also know that the deal given to Smollett was not only unusual, it was basically unheard of.

As the shoes continue to drop, it’s becoming more likely that Foxx will be the one under fire going forward vs. Smollett, who’s essentially gotten off scot-free. I see no chance the SA decides to re-charge him despite the fact that his agreement is supposedly only verbal. With the FBI not looking into Foxx’s behavior, hopefully we will begin to see just how far these corrupt dealings went and who else was involved.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.