Thread by @DanielRAlonso

Short THREAD re: #JussieSmollett: @chicagotribune writes that "[i]n a telephone interview, Eric Sussman, Magat’s predecessor as Foxx’s top aide, said the abrupt, secretive nature of the deal ... /1
chicagotribune.com/news/local/bre…

... 'raises questions as to whether there is embarrassing information the state’s attorney’s office doesn’t want the public to know.'” Wow. /2

I can't stress enough how unusual it is that the former #2 at a major prosecutor's office is publicly suggesting that the decision by his successor is suspect. /3

Here's more: “'I’ve never, ever seen anything like this,' Sussman, now in private practice, said of the decision to drop charges so soon after an indictment." /4

Questions public needs answers to:
1. Why did Magats drop case after indictment in such an unusual manner?
2. Why didn't he insist on stipulation to the facts by #Smollett?
3. Why did @SAKimFoxx recuse?
4. Was Foxx involved in the dismissal decision?
5. Why was case sealed? /5

This last point bears emphasis. I'm no expert on Chicago practice, but I'm told that dismissed indictments are *not* ordinarily sealed unless they are juveniles. If that's true, why was this one sealed? /6

As I wrote in today's @NYDailyNews, "[T]he public should not condemn Foxx's office just yet. But it deserves answers, immediately." /7
nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-ope…