Osundairo Brothers File Federal Defamation Lawsuit Against Jussie Smollett’s Attorneys
Ola and Abel Osundairo
Brothers Ola and Abel Osundairo have filed a federal lawsuit against Jussie Smollett’s attorneys Mark Geragos, Tina Glandian and the Geragos & Geragos law firm, saying the lawyers defamed them.
The brothers told police they were paid by Smollett to stage the hate crime against the Empire actor. Smollett was indicted on 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct on March 6 for falsifying reports that he was the victim of a hate crime. Those charges were abruptly dropped on March 26 and the case sealed with no new evidence that materially changed the facts presented in the case.
Said the Osundairo’s lawyer Gloria Schmidt: “Attorneys Mark Geragos and Tina Glandian, through their continued false statements and hateful rhetoric, have only deepened the damage that was cause by the very first out of 16 counts of lies that were told to the police that started this whole situation.”
Schmidt added: “As far as their participation in this publicity stunt, they’ve realized that it was wrong, they’ve apologized for it, and they’ve expressed more than once that they are tremendously regretful for the role that they played in it. But make no mistake, they had no role in calling the police, and they had no role in defrauding the Police Department.”
The Chicago Sun-Times reports: ‘The Osundairo brothers contend in a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday that “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett paid them “a sum of money to stage the attack [against Smollett] to benefit himself” and “directed every aspect of the attack, including the location and the noose.”’
Reads the lawsuit: “Defendants made these comments knowing they were untrue to distract from Mr. Smollett’s farce and to promote themselves and the Geragos & Geragos Law Firm. Statements indicating Plaintiffs actually criminally battered Mr. Smollett without his consent are patently false and defamatory, as Mr. Smollett originated, planned, and orchestrated the attack.”
These are versions of stories told by, first, Democrats, and second, Republicans. Let’s set aside the merits of these stories – at least for the moment (I know, it’s not easy to do!).
These stories are, essentially, allegations of disloyalty. And they foretell national ruin if the other side achieves its goals.
American history is filled with examples where one partisan side alleges that some idea embraced by the other side threatens to compromise American national strength or sovereignty – and even threatens the existence of the country.
But it’s unusual to see what is happening in America today.
Now, it’s not just one side of the partisan divide accusing the other of disloyalty and disdain for American safety and values. It’s both sides. One need look no further than the cable news networks for evidence of how entrenched this form of partisanship has become.
It turns out that the way partisans debate has an impact on how Americans view democracy itself.
So what does it mean to America that both sides are accusing each other of betraying their country?
For example, during the Civil War, the principle that “every Democrat may not be a traitor, but every traitor is a Democrat” was a familiar refrain in the Republican North.
Democrats often responded to these attacks, both in the 19th and 20th centuries, in a cautious and defensive manner.
Instead of counter-attacking, Democrats often tried to change the subject by focusing public debate on other issue areas. In many cases, Democrats attempted to defend themselves by echoing the positions and talking points of their more nationalistic rivals.
Similarly, in American political history, when accusations about loyalty to America erupted, it’s usually been one-sided. The “accused” side remains on the defensive, protesting its commitment to the country without advancing an accusatory counterclaim.
This pattern tends to consolidate public opinion. One party accuses, the other denies, but both sides publicly appear in relative agreement about the nature of the national threat.
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Republicans labeled Democrats as “soft” on terrorism and claimed that their reluctance to increase the number of troops committed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would “embolden” America’s enemies.
Democrats backpedaled in response. They asserted that they too were committed to fighting terrorism, but that they would use a different approach to address this threat.
Both sides then – and now
In my research I found that the partisan politics of the 1790s featured a pattern of mutual recrimination that is comparable to today’s polarized political debates.
During this period, there were few policy disputes that were considered safe from these incendiary suspicions. Disputes ranging from trade and immigration to fiscal and monetary policy all seemed to trigger accusations among partisans that their rivals were under the spell of foreign interests and ideas.
As a new generation of partisan newspapers took center stage, the media abetted the conflict. A rising class of “printer-editors” forged new partisan channels for the circulation of political news. These printer-editors expanded their newspaper readership by increasing coverage of political scandals and public controversy. Sound familiar?
Many of the leading political controversies conveyed in the partisan press of the 1790s, moreover, stirred up apocalyptic fears. Partisan opponents accused each other of national disloyalty. They said the republic would be irreversibly damaged if their opponents were not stopped.
1798 cartoon shows Congressman Matthew Lyon, a Jeffersonian Republican, and Roger Griswold, a Federalist, fighting in Philadelphia’s Congress Hall after Griswold insulted Lyon. Library of Congress
Partisans conceive of irreparable consequences in different ways. The idea of surrender to a hostile foreign power is one way of envisioning national ruin. Partisan accusations in the 1790s that the other side would submit to the control of Great Britain or France fit this pattern. The Cold War accusation that left-leaning Americans took orders from the Kremlin followed a similar logic.
Today’s version of the foreign influence accusation is the alarm raised in recent months by many of Trump’s critics that President Trump may have been under Vladimir Putin’s thumb.
Contemporary conservatives are focused on a different national security threat – and a different partisan culprit.
Liberal Democrats, they argue, are hellbent on repopulating the country with “Third World foreigners.”
Such accusations often include reference to the problem of permeable borders. This is the belief that an otherwise whole or united country will be penetrated by foreign gangs and other “bad hombres,” in the president’s phrase.
Apocalyptic partisanship’s consequences
Apocalyptic narratives raise the stakes of partisan disputes. They induce opposing sides to dig in when engaged in public negotiation. They also deny the legitimacy of their opponent’s participation in the political process.
Without a shared understanding of the opposition’s legitimacy, political competitors treat one another like enemies. As I explain in “Embracing Dissent,” this doesn’t necessarily lead to political violence or civil war.
This pattern of debate does, however, come with a key drawback.
The resulting maelstrom of suspicion and distrust undermines the standing of professionals in vital fields like science and journalism and in institutions like the courts, the military and intelligence agencies. Experts, in this context, can’t be completely apolitical, impartial and above the political fray, can they? After all, if politicians of the opposing party can’t be trusted, then their allies in other institutions can’t be either.
It may not be evident to partisans in the thick of the fight, but apocalyptic narratives alter the hopes and aspirations Americans have for democracy itself.
Should Americans hope for a politics that allows for compromise and mutual adjustment? Or is democracy little more than a forum where rivals draw lines in the sand and hurl recriminations at one another?
Should Americans expect and accept a political process that yields incremental policy change over time? Or does the republic face challenges so great that nothing short of a dramatic course correction will suffice to save the country?
Much depends on the nature of issues that are up for debate. But much also depends on how Americans choose to debate them.
ICYMI — U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR MAJOR CIVIL RIGHTS CASES ON ANTI-LGBTQ DISCRIMINATION: Several federal courts have ruled that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination that violates federal law. The Trump-Pence administration, however, has recently threatened to redefine federal sex discrimination through regulations attempting to erase protections for transgender people, and has asked the Supreme Court to reverse course and bar LGBTQ people from receiving federal nondiscrimination protections. More from HRC, Advocate, CNBC, ABC, CBS and The Associated Press.
Huge news: #SCOTUS will hear three cases involving whether #TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ employees from discrimination. This will be a landmark moment for equality that will define the legacies of the Supreme Court justices. t.co/yMl1nzLbYt
MAJOR CORPORATIONS RELEASE LETTER OPPOSING ANTI-LGBTQ “SLATE OF HATE” IN TENNESSEE: The signers are Hilton, IKEA North America Services, LLC, InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG), Lyft, Marriott International, MassMutual, Nike, Inc. Replacements, Ltd., Unilever and Warby Parker. “We are grateful to the corporations that have signed this letter opposing these harmful bills, and we implore Tennessee’s lawmakers to heed their warning that discrimination will be bad for business,” said Beck Bailey, HRC Acting Director of the Workplace Equality Program (@TheBeckBailey). Read the letter here.
Top music execs say “Slate of Hate” sends “clear message LGBT artists, songwriter and employees are not welcome.” “The continued success and growth of our business here depends on our ability to recruit and retain a best-in-class, diverse workforce,” Warner Music execs said in letter to Gov. Bill Lee. Read more at the Tennessean.
And check out the Tennessee Equality Project’s video on the discriminatory adoption bill being considered by the legislature. Watch it here.
TUESDAY TWEET — AS MILITARY ACADEMIES BEGIN TO IMPLEMENT TRANS TROOP BAN, VICE INTERVIEWS OPENLY TRANSGENDER MEMBER OF U.S. AIR FORCE: “My immediate reaction was, I was devastated. I was. It broke me. It was like, I’m about to get kicked out of the military,” says Senior Airman Sterling Crutcher (@sterlingwelsh14). Read Shawna Thomas’s (@Shawna) report at VICE News.
Because Sterling Crutcher was already serving openly in the military, the ban won’t apply to him. Still, “It broke me,” he said. t.co/PbNKzQXyjq
FOLLOWING REPORTS THAT WYOMING SCHOOL DISTRICT BANNED LGBTQ-SUPPORTIVE FLAGS & CLOTHING AT JR. HIGH, SUPERINTENDENT SAYS NOT SO: The clarification came after racist and anti-LGBTQ flyers were reportedly taped up around the school. More from Wyoming News.
RULING FROM FED APPEALS COURT — FOSTER CARE AGENCY RECEIVING TAXPAYER $$$ CAN’T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LGBTQ COUPLES: Read more at NPR and Philly.com.
A federal appeals court ruled Philadelphia is entitled to require taxpayer-funded child welfare agencies to abide by non-discrimination laws.
Qualified prospective LGBTQ parents should not be turned away simply because of who they are. t.co/8XeF21peuL
TRANSGENDER WOMAN FROM HONDURAS FINALLY GRANTED ASYLUM AFTER A YEAR IN U.S. DETENTION: “In Ms. [Nicole] García Aguilar’s case we forced ICE to review what it was doing to one person, but this is an out-of-control agency that refuses to follow the law unless sued. That’s not how government should operate,” said ACLU attorney Kristin Love. More from The Guardian.
GLOBAL EQUALITY NEWS
MALAYSIAN POLICE INVESTIGATING LGBTQ ADVOCATE FOR SPEAKING AT U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: Numan Afifi (@NumanAfifi) shared on social media that he “will not bow down to these acts to harass or intimidate me.” More from Gay Star News.
TURKISH COURT LIFTS BAN ON LGBTQ PRIDE EVENTS IN NATION’S CAPITAL: More from Pink News.
GERMAN BISHOP INITIATES DISCUSSION AROUND CATHOLIC CHURCH BLESSING SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS: More from New Ways Ministry.
READING RAINBOW – Bookmark now to read on your lunch break!
OutSports interviews a bisexual high school baseball player who called out an opposing team for using anti-LGBTQ slurs; Dr. Guy Ringler (@gayfertility) writes for Advocate about efforts across Asia to help same-sexcouples achieve parenthood through surrogacy
THR reports that the June 19 fundraiser at Ryan Murphy and David Miller’s home will be co-hosted by Matt Bomer and Simon Halls, Bryan Lourd and Bruce Bozzi, Greg Berlanti and Robbie Rogers, plus Kevin Huvane, Billy Eichner, Jess Cagle and Matt Whitney.
Last week, Variety reported that Buttigieg had attracted a swath of Hollywood donors in his first quarter of fundraising, including ‘Neal Baer, director John August, writer-producer Joshua Brand, writer-producer Dana Calvo, writer Ilene Chaiken, Laurie David, writer-producer Alex Gansa, writer James Gleick, Mandy Moore, Ryan Reynolds, writer Eric Roth, writer Paul Rudnick, “Game of Thrones” executive producer Carolyn Strauss, Lynne Wasserman, actor Carl Weathers and Bradley Whitford. Other donors included sportscaster Rich Eisen and former 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch, along with former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Caroline Kennedy.’ Also Ken Olin and Jane Lynch.
