Special prosecutor’s report reveals abuses, failures in Kim Foxx's work on Smollett hate crime hoax

The office of Cook County Attorney General Kim Foxx engaged in “substantial abuses” of discretion and operational failures in its handling of the initial case against Jussie Smollett, according to a report released Monday.

Special Prosecutor Dan Webb won the release of the report on his office’s investigation into the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (CCSAO) earlier that morning, arguing at a court hearing that it was necessary to restore public trust in the court system.

“The public’s perception is that it’s possible in Cook County there’s two different systems of justice,” Webb said. “One is for the ordinary person that finds himself or herself in issues with violating the law, and the other is with privileged people like Mr. Smollett.”

The investigation found that Foxx had made several false statements to the public related to the case, including in her Chicago Tribune op-ed defending her decision to drop the initial charges against Smollett.

Foxx also continued to communicate with Jussie Smollett’s sister, despite recusing herself from the case and repeatedly saying publicly she had cut off all communications with her.

Smollett was found guilty earlier this month on charges related to a hate crime he staged in Jan. 2019. He was first charged for the hoax in Feb. 2019, but the charges were abruptly dropped by Foxx’s office a month later in a decision decried by local police.

Webb said he would refer Foxx and her office to the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) for ethics violations. However, his investigation did not “develop evidence that would support any criminal charges against State’s Attorney Kim Foxx or any individual working at the CCSAO.”

“We respectfully disagree with the OSP’s findings of abuse of prosecutorial discretion,” said the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (CCSAO) in a statement. “A prosecutor’s discretion is as broad as any in the law, and differences of opinion as to how a case was handled do not signify an abuse of discretion. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the OSP did not find any criminal activity or undue influence on the part of the State’s Attorney or the CCSAO.”