Fox News Gets Revenge On Jussie Smollett Before Appeal: “We’re excited for viewers to hear the real stories behind this scandal from the Osundairo brothers for the very first time”

Fox News is checkmating disgraced actor Jussie Smollett before his desperate attempt to appeal his conviction for blaming Trump supporters for a fake racial incident. Trump supporters have not forgotten what Smollett tried to do or how Chicago prosecutors tried to let him off.

Fox will release an exclusive five-part docuseries “Jussie Smollett: Anatomy of a Hoax” on March 13th, announced John Finley, the streaming platform’s Executive Vice President. The series will feature the first time ever exclusive interviews with brothers Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo who were part of an elaborate plot to perpetrate a staged hate crime on actor Jussie Smollett but have never spoken to the media about their role in the hoax.

Finley said, “Anatomy of a Hoax takes a deep dive into a scam that reverberated through the worlds of entertainment, pop culture and politics. We’re excited for viewers to hear the real stories behind this scandal from the Osundairo brothers for the very first time.”

The Osundairo brothers will unravel the details from the planning of the fake crime, its execution and all that ensued in the aftermath.

In January 2019, Smollett claimed to have been attacked on a Chicago street by two men who were said to have shouted “this is MAGA country” while beating and putting a noose around his neck. 

After an investigation, Chicago police discovered the attack was staged, and that Smollett had hired the Osundairo brothers to carry out the crime.

So Fox News is releasing the documentary that will end any hope Smollett has of getting his conviction tossed, on the eve of Smollett’s appeal.

Smollett filed court documents seeking a retrial in his conviction. Jussie’s lawyers are arguing in the Illinois First District Appellate Court that trial judge James Linn was prejudiced against them, sandbagged their work during cross-examination, and let prosecutors strike a disproportionate amount of potential Black jurors and a gay juror.

His lawyers also make the shocking claim that Linn went too far at sentencing claiming he took “on a personal retributive tone, based on speculative information”

The filing says:

“From the very start of the circuit court’s order granting the appointment of a special prosecutor, Judge Toomin explicitly, unequivocally, and improperly set forth an opinion that Mr. Smollett was, in fact, guilty of charges which a) Mr. Smollett specifically pled not guilty to, and b) which, at the time of the appointment, had been duly dismissed.

“More importantly, Illinois courts have repeatedly held that a police department or other government agency is not considered a ‘victim’ within the meaning of the restitution statute.

“Mr. Smollett’s Constitutional rights to due process and to a fair trial were denied by prosecutorial misconduct including allegations that a defense witness was pressured to change his statement, two distinct Doyle violations during trial, and shifting the burden during closing arguments.

“A prosecutor may be considered to have shifted the burden of proof by suggesting to the jury that the defendant was obligated to present evidence at trial. 

“Here, in rebuttal closing arguments, the prosecutor argued, “Mr. Uche gave you no evidence of any video that was missing” (R3226). This comment is the equivalent to asking “where’s the evidence.” 

“By arguing to the jury that the counsel for the defendant failed to prove a fact or produce evidence that defendant had absolutely no burden to prove, the prosecutor implied that Mr. Smollett was required to prove his own innocence. 

“That implication alone is sufficient to result in substantial prejudice to the defendant,” the filing says.

“The second instance occurred when the Prosecution asked Abimbola Osundairo if Defendant “ever made a statement to the public where he admitted that the hate crime was a hoax. 

“Again, Illinois Courts have held that a prosecutor’s line of questioning suggesting that “defendant’s trial testimony was fabricated because he could have told the police officers the same story during the investigation but did not” was specifically improper. 

“This can be particularly where a defendant’s credibility is integral to his defense, as was the case here. 

“In fact, even the trial court sustaining an objection and giving instructions to the jury does not cure and thus still constitutes reversible error.”