First, it makes me sad that so many people seem to think investigating an assault or battery claim is a federal matter rather than a state.
For hate crimes it is indeed a federal matter, and at that time in the investigation it had a number of specific elements that Smollet claimed suggested it was a hate crime.
Again, these crimes are a state matter. You are missing my point, or rather skipping over it by begging the question.
Converting a state crime - battery - into a federal crime is a violation of the Constitution. The federal government does not have as an enumerated power the ability to prosecute these crimes. "Hate crimes" are a farce designed to make us overlook the gross federal power expansion.
There's nothing about an assault or battery case that is more of a federal issue than a state one. End of story.
You've gone off on a tangent, but I'm not sure how this helps Smollet cover up his staged crime?
Why would we have to show that? Are you of the view that his family was in on the faking?
When hate crime investigators discover a hoax, what do you think their response will be?
If they discover a hoax.
It's rare that there is even 75% certainty on what happened. Whether a case is a hoax, never solved, or puts the wrong person in jail can come down to what an investigator expects to see and wants to see.
If you "always believe the victim" is the FBI still looking for the white assailants?
I'm honestly not sure what happens if they realize it's most likely a hoax, but don't think they can prove it, while during the delay he gets tied into a political movement. Do you think the FBI has a tolerance for hurting the DNC's electoral chances if Smollet gets on a stage with the leading Dem candidates because of the power of his issue?
3 years ago I'd be a lot more confident than I am now after seeing some of the crooked inner workings of the DOJ/FBI revealed.
Myself, I'd expect a wrath of god response - people doing hoaxes undermines the very serious nature of the crime. So I'm really not clear why you think the Smollet family would think it a good idea if they were in on the hoax.
Never implied they were "in on the hoax," nor is it necessary. They wanted to interfere with the CPD, most likely because they heard that the CPD though Smollet's story wasn't adding up.
What would their "wrath" be based on? Lieing to the FBI? What
federal charges are implicated? Process crimes only, because substantive criminal law isn't a federal issue. Most likely they'd have to dump it back to Illinois.
Your further responses are rather odd, they work in the hate crime unit ... so they will cover up a hate crime hoax because ... 
??
Strawman again? I've never once said there would be a cover up. There doesn't have to be to just let it die.
I can't understand how you imagine that they would look kindly on a hoax that spits in the face of their zeal.
They won't decide to accept it was a hoax. They'll believe the victim and chalk it up to not being able to prove the case because they can't find the assailants.
Sure they'll have suspicions that he made it up, but their leanings will make it a reluctant idea at best.
You seem to have this bizarre juxtaposition - hates hate crime but will aide and abet a hate crime hoax to the detriment of their career and reputation. I don't think anyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist can resolve these contradictions.
This is getting to be a bit silly on your part. There's no plausible detriment to their career or reputation from letting the case go cold. FBI could stay radio silent for years and then just announce the case was closed without charges (the media would just assume they never found the assailants).
Where is the magically consequence to their career or reputation you keep asserting that we are ignoring coming from?
Do you feel shame in believing in government transparency and not seeing Hillary Clinton's server as a direct and intentional frustration of government transparency? I doubt it. Activists can rationalize bizarre contradictions with surprising ease. All they'd have to do to resolve the conflict, is believe Jussie and decide they didn't catch the "guys." That's literally it. Just believe they were real because Jussie said so. I mean honestly, you just lectured us in the other thread that Ford's statements on Kavanaugh are "credible" what's different here?
We don't. We can rely on the strong implication that they knew the CPD had serious doubts and was investigating them (since Foxx told us they knew of the leaks, and we know what the leaks said). That alone is enough to try and get them off the case.
But you still aren't explaining why the FBI wouldn't follow up and it end up even worse for Jussie?
Possible reasons have been explained several times, how am I not explaining it?
But more significantly, it's a false choice you're trying to force. If the family knew the CPD didn't believe him, how could switching the field not be better for him in their point of view? Whether they thought the CPD was racist/homophobic or knew Jussie's story didn't add up doesn't matter if they already knew the CPD was inclined to think it was made up.
Whether or not the FBI somehow guaranteed a win for Jussie is a red herring, when it looked like the CPD was a likely "loss."
If the case is transferred not one person risked their career by just letting it die.
You haven't explained why they "let it die". To the FBI this is a high profile hate crime. There would be pressure to solve it. Why wouldn't the hate crimes division discover it is a hoax, and zealously seek prosecution agains the hoax perpetrator?
I don't know that they would let it die. This is just one possibility that your logic on what was going on was flawed. If you posit it
must be worse if it goes to the FBI and I show that it can easily not be then your conclusion by inference is flawed.
Since that's what you did, and that's what I did, your conclusion by inference is flawed.
I admit I am at a loss trying to see your reasoning. The bizarre conspiracy theory makes more sense then the reasoning you have provided.
A "bizarre conspiracy theory" makes more sense than a family that hears the CPD doesn't believe their relative seeking to have the case transferred to the FBI?
In what world is it that a family's action that is completely logical based on what we know they were aware of, less sensible than a bizarre conspiracy theory?
You seem to be overly fixated on the FBI "going along with a Hoax," which is the conspiracy theory rather than what I actually said. That's a long way to go to try and claim you must be right because the other side is pushing a conspiracy theory.
No. It's certainly possible, but it's not the best fit for the facts we know.
Well I think you have some clarification that is needed for your reasoning to "fit the facts". You have at least two items that seem completely contrary to human nature and rational thought.
Name them. The
only assumption I make, and it's not even necessary, is that Jussie's family probably thought the CPD was investigating Jussie rather than the crime because he's black/gay.
Not one other thing that I included isn't a fact.
Jussie's family knew about the leaks (it's clear in the texts).
We knew what the leaks were about - see first posts in this thread - therefore they did too.
The leaks implied strongly the CPD didn't believe Jussie's story.
Jussies's family pushed to have the CPD investigation shut down in favor of the FBI.
There's nothing more needed to get from A to B. No grand secret conspiracy. No guaranty of a Federal win. Nothing.