Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel angrily lashes out after prosecutors drop Jussie Smollett charges

Actor Jussie Smollett leaves court after charges against him were dropped by state prosecutors in Chicago, Illinois, U.S. March 26, 2019. REUTERS/Kamil Krzaczynski

Story by Reuters
Written by Brendan O'Brien and Gina Cherelus

CHICAGO - Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel angrily lashed out on Tuesday after prosecutors dropped charges that had accused "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett of staging a phony hate crime that hit hot-button issues of race, sexuality and America's political divide.

Smollett, who is black and gay, had earlier described the move as a complete vindication, and said he had told the truth when he said two masked men threw a noose around his neck and poured chemicals on him while yelling racist and homophobic slurs in January.

Emanuel criticized the move by Cook County prosecutors, saying he stood by the police investigation.

"This is a whitewash of justice," Emanuel told a news conference. "From top to bottom, this is not on the level."

Prosecutors could not immediately be reached for a response.

That came hours after Smollett stood by his earlier accusations, which drew worldwide attention.

"I've been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one," Smollett told reporters earlier on Tuesday outside a Chicago courthouse, where he posed for photos with supporters after a brief court hearing during which prosecutors abandoned the case.

Prosecutors had charged Smollett on Feb. 21 with filing a false report, accusing the actor of paying two brothers $3,500 to stage the attack in an effort to use the notoriety to advance his career.

The brothers, who were arrested after getting captured on surveillance footage near the site of the alleged assault, confessed to their role in Smollett's plot and were released without charges, authorities said in February. One of them had worked with Smollett on "Empire," Fox's hip-hop drama, according to police.

Bill O’Reilly Returns To Radio With 15-Minute Daily Feature.

Story by Inside Radio

A decade after he left radio to take on a larger role at Fox News Channel, Bill O’Reilly is returning to the airwaves. Unlike the long form daypart show he hosted for six years, the controversial conservative host is taking the short-form route with “The O’Reilly Update,” a 15-minute daily radio program launching April 29 at 11:30am.

A program description from syndicator Key Networks say the feature “cuts through the anonymous sources and phony stories dominating today’s news cycle and brings O’Reilly’s trademark ‘no spin’ analysis.”

Key Networks is part of barter-based radio vendor Sun & Fun Media, which offers stations a variety of promotion, marketing and sales products and services. Rob Koblasz is CEO and Dennis Green is chief revenue officer.

“More than ever before, Americans need accurate information and honest news analysis in order to make intelligent decisions,” O’Reilly said in the announcement. “It is all about protecting yourself and your family. “The daily ‘O’Reilly Update’ will arm you with facts, and provide opinion based on those facts.” The 15-minute feature includes network ads with two minutes of local avails.

O’Reilly’s original “Radio Factor” ended its six year run in February 2009. Then Fox News Channel’s top-rated host, O’Reilly had just signed a new four-year $40 million contract to remain at the cable network for several more years and no longer had time for the three-hour Westwood One-syndicated radio show, which aired on 300 stations. “My duties at Fox are expanding, I just can’t work 60 hours a week,” he told the Washington Post in late 2008. But in April 2017, after 21 years as the face of Fox News, O’Reilly was fired. The move came two weeks after revelations that 5 women were paid millions in settlements after claims of sexual harassment.

Dennis Green, who handled affiliate sales for O’Reilly’s first radio show, is now in charge of clearing his new daily feature. “On the Mount Rushmore of spoken word talent you must include Bill O’Reilly,” Green said. “It’s an honor to bring Bill back to radio to deliver appointment listening and revenue opportunities for affiliate stations in a unique format.”

State-Sponsored Islamophobia & Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Embolden Right-Wing Terrorists

Story by Democracy Now

Fifty people are dead, and millions around the globe are mourning, following the massacre at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Friday. The terrorist attack unfolded during Friday prayer, when a lone gunman and avid white supremacist opened fire on worshipers while live-streaming the attack on Facebook. It was the deadliest shooting in the country’s modern history. The youngest of the dead is 3-year-old Mucad Ibrahim. Police have arrested and charged a 28-year-old Australian white supremacist named Brenton Tarrant with the killings. Tarrant published a manifesto praising President Donald Trump as “a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.” Trump has refused to acknowledge the global rise of white nationalism in the wake of the attack. We speak with Khaled Beydoun, a law professor at the University of Arkansas and the author of “American Islamophobia: Understanding the Roots and Rise of Fear.” He says, “There’s an underbelly of anti-Muslim animus that facilitates the emergence of the very brazen Islamophobia we see today, weaponized by people like President Trump or by terrorists on the ground in places like New Zealand who commit massacres like we saw on Friday.”

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. We’re continuing our coverage of Friday’s massacre in New Zealand, when a white supremacist gunman shot dead 50 Muslim worshipers at two mosques in Christchurch. We turn now to President Trump’s response to the attacks. On Friday, he was asked about the increasing threat of white nationalism.

REPORTER: Do you see, today, white nationalism as a rising threat around the world?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don’t, really. I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems, I guess. If you look at what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that’s the case. I don’t know enough about it yet. They’re just learning about the person and the people involved. But it’s certainly a terrible thing, terrible thing.

AMY GOODMAN: On the same day of the massacre in New Zealand—that was Friday—President Trump signed his first presidential veto, after lawmakers in both houses of Congress voted in favor of a resolution reversing Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump claimed there was an “invasion” occurring on the southern border.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Congress’s vote to deny the crisis on the southern border is a vote against reality. It’s against reality. It is a tremendous national emergency. It is a tremendous crisis. Last month, more than 76,000 illegal migrants arrived at our border. We’re on track for a million illegal aliens to rush our borders. People hate the word “invasion,” but that’s what it is. It’s an invasion of drugs and criminals and people. We have no idea who they are. … We’re bursting at the seams. You can only do so much. And the only option then is to release them, but we can’t do that, either, because when you release them, they come into our society. And in many cases, they’re stone cold criminals. And in many cases, and in some cases, you have killers coming in and murderers coming in. And we’re not going to allow that to happen.

AMY GOODMAN: President Trump’s use of the word “invasion” came just hours after the New Zealand gunman issued a manifesto where he described immigrants as “invaders.” In the same manifesto, the government praised Trump as a “symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.”

Well, for more, we are going to Khaled Beydoun, law professor at the University of Arkansas, author of American Islamophobia: Understanding the Roots and Rise of Fear. We’re also joined by Christian Picciolini, founder of Free Radicals Project, a nonprofit helping people disengage from hate and violent extremism. Picciolini was a leading neo-Nazi skinhead and far-right extremist in the '80s and ’90s, now the author of White American Youth: My Descent into America's Most Violent Hate Movement—and How I Got Out.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Professor Khaled Beydoun, can you respond to what happened in New Zealand?

KHALED BEYDOUN: Yeah. Generally, you know, first, it just kind of struck me as an individual, being American Muslim myself, having family members who wear the hijab, having family members who were at the—who were going to the mosque. The next day, I, myself, was going to the mosque. So, you know, it struck a real, deep, personal cord. Fear, obviously, because this kind of thing can happen in the United States, especially with the kind of brazen rhetoric we see from the president. So, before I can kind of wrap my head around the politics of everything, it was a real kind of moment of chilling fear that set in.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about why you decided to start a Twitter thread with images of the victims of Friday’s massacre? And what happened when you started posting those pictures?

KHALED BEYDOUN: Yeah. You know, I was doing a lot of media the morning of, here in the States, after the massacre. And I just felt a bit dissatisfied. There was, you know, a fixation on the terrorist, the manifesto of the terrorist, you know, a lot of centering of him, at the expense of not focusing on the victims. And given my work on Islamophobia, there’s a tendency in mainstream media to kind of clump up specifically Muslim victimhood as faceless, monolithic, dehumanized sort of blocs of people. So I wanted to take that opportunity to really put a face on who the victims were, tell their stories, draw real human connections, that really resonated with people on social media.

AMY GOODMAN: And what was the response to what you started posting?

KHALED BEYDOUN: You know, it was a series of responses. I think that the most sort of striking responses were after the thread had caught some attention and was, you know, generating an audience. I was getting messages from family members of a lot of the victims, friends of the victims, classmates of the victims, telling me more about them, feeding me with more intimate information about who they were. And I tried to compile as much information about these individuals in the rolling thread, again, to humanize these people and show that the people who were killed, the 50 people, were far more than just statistics. These were individuals who led lives. They were young kids, 3 years old, like you mentioned earlier on, with Mucad Ibrahim. They were individuals who were as old as 72, somebody like [Haji-Daoud] Nabi, who was the first identified victim, standing at the door, who welcomed in the terrorist into the mosque. So I tried as much as possible to really put a face on who these people were, illustrating stories, again, that showed that these people were far more than just statistics.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you respond to the alleged shooter, in his so-called manifesto, more than 80 pages, praising Trump as a “symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose”?

KHALED BEYDOUN: You know, I think that whether it’s causation or correlation, this kind of rhetoric that we see from white supremacists at the very top, like President Trump, whether it be words like “Islam hates us” or using dog whistles like “invasion,” this is emboldening terrorists like the terrorist in New Zealand, in Christchurch. We can see the exact same language being used in his manifesto. So, you know, I write in the book, in the American Islamophobia book, that it’s important to kind of think about this political rhetoric as far more than just words, but actual dictates, that are authorizing individuals on the ground to engage in this vigilante violence and to inflict extreme tragedy onto individuals who look like the kind of invaders that Trump is talking about.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk more about, well, what’s the title of your book, Khaled Beydoun, American Islamophobia: Understanding the Roots and Rise of Fear.

KHALED BEYDOUN: So, the book looks to track the history, the genesis, the evolution of Islamophobia as both a popular but also a state-sponsored phenomenon. What’s happened in recent years, with the rise of Trump, is that Islamophobia has become recognized as a form of animus, a form of bigotry. But in the book, I try to show that this form of animus and this form of racism and anti-religious bigotry has deep roots in the United States, both in the legal system, in the media imagination, in the political discourses. There’s an underbelly of anti-Muslim animus that facilitates the emergence of the very brazen Islamophobia we see today, weaponized by people like President Trump or by terrorists on the ground in places like New Zealand who commit massacres like we saw on Friday.

Read more: https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/18/state_sponsored_islamophobia_trumps_anti_immigrant?utm_source=Democracy+Now%21&utm_campaign=0dc6b7f102-Daily_Digest_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fa2346a853-0dc6b7f102-190301493

Paul Manafort sentenced to a total of 7.5 years in prison. 'It is hard to overstate the number of lies.'

Paul Manafort at the Republican Convention in Cleveland in 2016 (Reuters/Carlo Allegri)

Story by USA Today
Written by Kristine Phillips and Kevin Johnson and Brad Heath


WASHINGTON – Paul Manafort, the man who helped guide Donald Trump to the presidency, was sentenced to a total of more than seven years in federal prison on Wednesday after a judge added 43 months to the sentence he received in another case last week.

The pair of prison sentences marks the end of Manafort's abrupt transformation from a globe-trotting political operative with mansions and lavish clothing to a frail-looking, wheelchair-bound, gray-haired inmate who, in his own words, had been "humiliated" by his changed circumstances.

Manafort, speaking from a wheelchair, told the judge: "I want to say to you now that I am sorry for what I've done."

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson appeared unpersuaded. She said Manafort had spent much of his career "gaming the system," that he cheated taxpayers so that he could maintain an extravagant lifestyle with "more suits than a man can wear, and that he remained unrepentant despite his apology. "Saying I’m sorry I got caught is not an inspiring plea for leniency."

A federal judge in Virginia sentenced Manafort to 47 months in prison last week for a scheme to defraud banks and taxpayers out of millions of dollars.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson added more than three years to that total on Wednesday in a related case in Washington, where he faced a maximum of 10 years. She also ordered him to spend three years on federal supervision when he is freed from prison and to pay $6 million in restitution. The nine months he has already spent in jail will count toward his sentence.

Her decision brings Manafort's total prison sentence to 7⅓ years.

"It is hard to overstate the number of lies and the amount of fraud and the extraordinary amount of money involved," Jackson said. And she blasted him for concealing his activities from the government and for lying to federal investigators after promising to cooperate with them.

"If people don't have the facts, democracy can't work," she said.

Manafort pleaded with Jackson to spare him from the prospect of spending the remainder of his life in federal prison. "Please let me and my wife be together," said Manafort, who turns 70 in less than three weeks.

Jackson began the hearing on a skeptical note. As the hearing began in a packed courtroom Wednesday morning, Jackson told Manafort that his repeated lies to federal investigators – after he promised to cooperate with them – would be relevant to how much time he should serve in prison.

Manafort pleaded guilty to two felonies in Washington as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's nearly two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. It was up to Jackson to decide whether whatever punishment she imposes runs at the same time as the Virginia prison sentence, or whether he must serve them one after the other.

Andrew Weissmann, one of the prosecutors, said Manafort lied for years to government officials by not disclosing his lobbying work in Ukraine, as federal law requires. “He not only kept what he was doing from the American public; he also kept what he was doing from the people he was lobbying.” For years, Weissmann said, Manafort hid off-shore accounts, falsified tax returns and faked loans to disguise income he’d earned from his work in Ukraine.

"Paul Manafort’s upbringing, his education, his means, his opportunities could have led him to lead a life and to be a leading example in this country. At each juncture, though, Mr. Manafort chose to take a different path," Weissmann said. "He engaged in crime again and again."

Manafort's lawyer said he found himself entangled in the high-profile, high-pressure investigation of Russian election interference, even though he was charged with unrelated crimes. Kevin Downing, one of Paul Manafort's defense lawyers, urged Jackson to consider the intense public scrutiny Manafort has faced since he was indicted in 2017.

"But for a short stint as a campaign manager (for President Trump), I don't think we would be here today," Downing said.

Prosecutors have urged Jackson to impose a significant sentence, describing Manafort as a “hardened” criminal who “repeatedly and brazenly violated the law” for more than a decade and whose crimes continued even after his indictment in 2017. Defense attorneys have said a lengthy prison term would likely amount to a life sentence for Manafort. They said Manafort’s crimes do not rise to the organized crimes of drug cartels, and that the charges aren't about “collusion” with Russia, which was the central focus of Mueller's investigation.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis in Virginia heeded defense attorneys’ call for leniency on Thursday, when he sentenced Manafort to nearly four years in prison and three years on federal supervision for masterminding a scheme to defraud banks and taxpayers out of millions of dollars he had amassed through years of illicit lobbying work on behalf of a pro-Russian political faction in Ukraine. The sentence fell far below the 20 to 24 years that federal sentencing guidelines had recommended.

Jackson dismissed Manafort's refrain that the charges were unrelated to Russia as something that should have no bearing on his sentence.

Jackson revoked Manafort’s bail last summer following allegations that he tried to obstruct the Russia inquiry while on house arrest. She sided with prosecutors last month that Manafort violated his plea agreement by lying repeatedly to prosecutors and the FBI after promising to cooperate.

"I would be even more surprised if her sentence reflected the sort of leniency that Judge Ellis showed," said Ken White, a defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. "I think she views him as someone who acted badly during the course of the case ... I would be very, very worried about this next step if I were Manafort or his lawyers."

Ellis’ sentence surprised some legal experts and was promptly met with backlash, particularly from Democratic lawmakers.

A USA TODAY analysis of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's data found that Manafort received the type of sentencing available only to people who cooperated with the government. And his 47-month punishment is lower than those of many defendants who prosecutors deemed as cooperative.

Manafort's lawyers have asserted that he cooperated with the special counsel, citing about a dozen interviews with prosecutors totaling more than 50 hours. But prosecutors disputed that that amounted to cooperation, saying Manafort had failed to provide useful information and had lied to investigators and to a grand jury.

The analysis found that of the nearly 67,000 defendants sentenced in federal courts in the 2017 fiscal year, 308 whose guideline calculations called for them to serve at least 15 years in prison wound up receiving less than five years. The majority of these defendants received this kind of break in sentencing because the government asked for it and because they cooperated with prosecutors.

Manafort, whom prosecutors did not believe substantially cooperated, received a sentence below that. In fact, of those 308 cases, there's was one fraud case in which the sentence was comparable to Manafort's. It involved a defendant in New York who faced a recommended minimum of 188 months and was sentenced to 30 months.

Jackson is also presiding over the case of Roger Stone, another Trump adviser indicted as part of the Mueller investigation. Last month, Jackson found herself in the national spotlight after a picture of her next to what appeared to be cross hairs was posted on Stone's Instagram account.

Josh Rahmani Named Senior Vice President National and Network Sales for Radio One and Reach Media

Story by Radio Facts

Josh Rahmani (photo left)

Today, David Kantor, CEO of Radio One and Reach Media, announced the appointment of Josh Rahmani to Senior Vice President, National and Network Sales.

Rahmani has been with Radio One since 2005. In his newly expanded role, Rahmani will provide leadership for National sales, partnerships and sponsorships through multiple channels related to Radio One’s 59 Radio Stations in 15 markets, Reach Media’s Syndicated and Network programs totaling 500 affiliations, digital/social media, 100 annual live events and audio platforms. The appointment is effective immediately.

In his new role, Rahmani will continue to collaborate with managers across all markets, departments, and levels at Radio One and Reach Media to ensure continuity of all national and corporate partnerships, initiatives, and campaigns for multiple platforms. His focus will extend into growing the national and corporate sales team to include additional sales leaders, a national partnerships group, sales marketers, and revenue management positions while continuing to lead the sales teams in bringing innovative cross-platform integrated revenue generating initiatives to the company’s growing audio landscape.

In making the appointment, Radio One and Reach Media CEO, David Kantor stated, “Josh has led our national radio team for several years. He was instrumental in developing and implementing our corporate sales and partnership effort. Based on this success it made great sense to put our network team under his direction. All our national sales efforts are now under his direction. Josh’s commitment and passion for what we do at Radio One has been exhibited over the years, consistently delivering leadership throughout the company and maintaining great relationships with our partners in advertising and sponsorship.”

In reflecting on his new responsibilities, Rahmani stated; “During this exciting time of growth and change in our audio industry, I am honored to continue working with our incredible team of sales professionals to bring our national multi-platform scale of audio, digital, social, and live event properties to our valued advertisers. We have more to offer to their brands than ever so that they can connect with the cultural influence of Radio One, Reach Media and our highly loyal and engaged African-American consumers. I am grateful to Cathy Hughes, Alfred Liggins, and David Kantor for their continued support and for providing me with the opportunity to continue to grow Urban One’s national radio platform.”

Josh Rahmani has advanced in his career at Radio One beginning as a Corporate Sales Assistant in Washington, DC, moving through Account Executive, Director of Sales, and then relocating to New York to help continue growing Radio One’s Corporate Sales team. In 2013, with Radio One and Reach Media forming a partnership and merging sales forces, Rahmani continued as a vital contributor as Director, Ad Sales-NY for Reach Media. Rahmani was promoted in 2016 to Vice President, National Sales for Radio One responsible for managing all national and corporate sales for the local market radio group. He is a graduate of the University of Maryland, and resides in New York City.

Radio Listening Habits Are Changing

The changing times of radio listening are happening right now. Overall every day usage of radio is changing. Younger people have simply left radio for other music sources they see as fresh and new. Millennials think radio plays the same five songs over and over, and that could be the fault of radio itself.

Millennials think there are way too many commercials on radio, and too much talk. Most are moving on to Pandora, iTunes, Spotify, Youtube and the Internet for music. In the report it was noted that they like the variety of online listening.

The recent survey says Classic hits and Classic Rock will be the last two viable radio formats around programming to old white guys.

If you review the latest diary ratings and PPM markets, older formats are scoring high. Something to think about.

What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Singer Michael Jackson Performing on Stage at Madison Square Garden (Photo by Rick Maiman/Sygma via Getty Images)GETTY

Story by Forbes
Written by Joe Vogel

(Joe Vogel's disclaimer: this article is not intended as a review of Leaving Neverland, which I have not seen, but rather of the context behind the allegations in the documentary)

When Michael Jackson died in 2009, Wade Robson—the former choreographer whose allegations of abuse are at the center of a controversial new documentary, Leaving Neverland—wrote in tribute to his friend:

"Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk."
________________________________________________________________________

Robson was twenty-seven years old at the time. Four years earlier, he testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial (as an adult) that nothing sexual ever happened between them. Prior to the trial Robson hadn’t seen Jackson for years and was under no obligation to be a witness for the defense. He faced a withering cross-examination, understanding the penalty of perjury for lying under oath. But Robson adamantly, confidently, and credibly asserted that nothing sexual ever happened.

What changed between then and now? A few things:

In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, ONE. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.

In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”

That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.

In 2013, Robson filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, along with James Safechuck, who also spent time with Jackson in the late ‘80s. Safechuck claimed he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.

In 2019, the Sundance Film Festival premiered a documentary based entirely on Robson and Safechuck's allegations. While the documentary is obviously emotionally disturbing given the content, it presents no new evidence or witnesses. The film's director, Dan Reed, acknowledged not wanting to interview other key figures because it might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell.

It is tempting for the media to tie Jackson into a larger cultural narrative about sexual misconduct. R. Kelly was rightfully taken down by a documentary, and many other high-profile figures have been exposed in recent years, so surely, the logic goes, Michael Jackson must be guilty as well. Yet that is a dangerous leap—particularly with America's history of unjustly targeting and convicting black men—that fair-minded people would be wise to consider more carefully before condemning the artist. It is no accident that one of Jackson’s favorite books (and movies) was To Kill a Mockingbird, a story about a black man—Tom Robinson—destroyed by false allegations.

The media’s largely uncritical, de-contextualized takes out of Sundance seem to have forgotten: no allegations have been more publicly scrutinized than those against Michael Jackson. They elicited a two-year feeding frenzy in the mid-90s and then again in the mid-2000s, when Jackson faced an exhaustive criminal trial. His homes were ransacked in two unannounced raids by law enforcement. Nothing incriminating was found. Jackson was acquitted of all charges in 2005 by a conservative Santa Maria jury. The FBI, likewise, conducted a thorough investigation. Its 300-page file on the pop star, released under the Freedom of Information Act, found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, dozens of individuals who spent time with Jackson as kids continue to assert nothing sexual ever happened. This includes hundreds of sick and terminally ill children such as Bela Farkas (for whom Jackson paid for a life-saving liver transplant) and Ryan White (whom Jackson befriended and supported in his final years battling AIDS); it includes lesser-known figures like Brett Barnes and Frank Cascio; it includes celebrities like Macaulay Culkin, Sean Lennon, Emmanuel Lewis, Alfonso Ribeiro, and Corey Feldman; it includes Jackson’s nieces and nephews; and it includes his own three children.

The allegations surrounding Jackson largely faded over the past decade for a reason: unlike the Bill Cosby or R. Kelly cases, the more people looked into the Jackson allegations, the more the evidence vindicated him. The prosecution’s case in 2005 was so absurd Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi described it like this:

Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types: grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment… or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can. The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris. The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse…

In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.

What’s changed since then?

In Robson’s case, decades after the alleged incidents took place, he was barbecuing with Michael Jackson and his children. He was asking for tickets to the artist’s memorial. He was participating in tributes. “I still have my mobile phone with his number in it,” Robson wrote in 2009, “I just can’t bear the thought of deleting his messages.”

Then, suddenly, after twenty years, his story changed and with his new claims came a $1.5 billion dollar lawsuit.

As an eccentric, wealthy, African American man, Michael Jackson has always been a target for litigation. During the 1980s and 1990s, dozens of women falsely claimed he was the father of their children. He faced multiple lawsuits falsely claiming he plagiarized various songs. As recently as 2010, a woman named Billie Jean filed a frivolous $600 million paternity lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate.

As someone who has done an enormous amount of research on the artist, interviewed many people who were close to him, and been granted access to a lot of private information, my assessment is that the evidence simply does not point to Michael Jackson's guilt. In contrast to Robson and Safechuck’s revised accounts, there is a remarkable consistency to the way people who knew the artist speak of him—whether friends, family members, collaborators, fellow artists, recording engineers, attorneys, business associates, security guards, former spouses, his own children—people who knew him in every capacity imaginable. Michael, they say, was gentle, brilliant, sensitive, sometimes naive, sometimes childish, sometimes oblivious to perceptions. But none believe he was a child molester.
__________________________________________________________________________

Read More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/?fbclid=IwAR0LwV4bRhga0pYVjLLXBLYgcBDWt7Z_MUS9k00AtlJvKRFUShOQKF6VAYo#1135024d640f