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.
It is if it has the elements of a hate crime. That makes it automatically Federal jurisdiction. You don't think the law is constitutional - the Supreme Court disagrees. The law, as written and enforced and adjudicated - is that the FBI have jurisdiction in a hate crime.
Why would we have to show that? Are you of the view that his family was in on the faking?
No, I'm not, but that was Crunch's entire premise - that the family was in on it, that a lawyer with ties to the Obama's was in on the coverup. Did you read what I was responding to?
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.
I can't see why they wouldn't. It isn't like the Chicago PD did any super sleuthing. They got the camera footage and traced the only possible suspects - exactly as any other investigator would have.
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.
Not sure how to respond, you seem rational and then head off to the land of crazy conspiracy theorists.
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.
Hoax reports of a federal crime are a federal crime itself.
Strawman again? I've never once said there would be a cover up. There doesn't have to be to just let it die.
"Letting it die" is a cover up.
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.
So their biases are so severe it will make them utterly incompetent, incapable of the extremely basic investigation skills demonstrated by the Chicago PD? Seriously?
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?
A hate crime against a celebrity who is a minority. That means that it will be persued by the press on a regular basis and by the African Ameican community, that there will be pressure from the public, including wealthy and powerful people to get it solved.
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 do think that Hillary Clinton's actions were a direct and intentional frustration of government transparency. I've stated that before. I'm not sure why I should feel any shame - my beliefs are fully consistent. I've called for very strict laws with serious teeth, but those laws didn't exist - so it was something entirely predictable.
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.
Who are the activists you are refering to? Are the FBI agents now 'activists'? Your not making much sense.
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 they were in on the hoax, escalating to the FBI is a garunteed worse loss. I can't believe you think that going from a probably misdemeanor with probation as worse case scenario to lying to federal agents and the potential felonies and serious penalties can be a "win". It is perhaps one of the most irrational things you can believe.
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.
No, only if there is an extremely probable outcome of them "letting it die", can you posit it as a reason to think there could be a positive outcome by escalting.
Since that's what you did, and that's what I did, your conclusion by inference is flawed.
No, if there is a 1 in 10 chance of them "letting it die" or other outcome that benefits Jussie, and 9 in 10 chance they discover the hoax and come down hard, it is never rational to escalate it. You seem to be arguing as if letting it die or other positive outcome for Jussie is a likely outcome without any justification.
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?
I assumed you were making Crunches argument - that they were escalating because the family was in on the hoax, rather than they were escalating because they wanted the best possible investigators. The whole "they were seeking to escalate so that the FBI would let it die" argument only makes sense if they were in on the hoax (which I was expressing doesn't at all make sense since any rational person would expect the FBI to be more competent and have more severe penalties and so the last thing you'd want is to escalate it to the FBI).
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.
Ok, I misunderstood because you seemed to be trying to argue that Crunch's conspiracy theory was correct. My apologies for the confusion. Can we agree that "if they knew about the hoax, escalating to the FBI is an utterly insane and moronic move that no savy lawyer, savy prosecutor, or family member with half a brain would think is a good idea, let alone a 'victory'"?
