Thread by @crepeau

The State's Attorney's FOIA office sent a huge document dump of internal communications related to the #JussieSmollett case.

Here's Kim Foxx to her top deputy, complaining that Smollett's 16-count indictment was excessive:

I've reached out to ask why Foxx was talking to her colleague about the case if she was in fact "walled off"/recused. Haven't yet heard back.

It is fairly common to charge one crime in several different ways, and eventually drop a ton of counts right before trial. But it was a lot more common in the Alvarez administration; Foxx's office has been pushing to de-emphasize that.

also notable: I requested all the SAO's internal files on the matter ... and was denied since Smollett's court file/criminal records were sealed by court order the day charges were dropped, at his attorney's request.

These texts mostly prove what we already knew: the office was caught flat-footed by the huge press reaction after case was dropped. "Just wish I could have anticipated the magnitude of this response and planned a bit better!”

full story: chicagotribune.com/news/local/bre…

one detail I couldn't fit into the story before deadline and I'm kicking myself:

Foxx and several of her staffers are all on a group text named ... "Foxxhole"

I can attest to this, there was a nasty stampede trying to get copies of Smollett's bond proffer after the hearing in February. @jmetr22b is my witness here.

in which John Kass gets a "bless his heart" from the State's Attorney

feels like half the reporters in town are mentioned somewhere in these texts, particularly the day after charges were dropped and Foxx was making the interview rounds

again ... we're learning a lot about the PR response to the charges being dropped, and basically nothing about why the charges were dropped. Which is still the question everyone wants answered.

We got a huge volume of documents today but none of the prosecutors' internal case files. Because, they say, the order sealing Smollett's public file also sealed up other records from SAO (CPD gives the same reason)

Here's what we did get: dozens of pages detailing which documents/emails weren't released (many of which were themselves partially redacted). Here's a small taste.