"According to a Daily Signal analysis of pay records, the FBI has spent 16,000 more man-hours (7.84 man-years) dealing with January 6th crimes than investigating BLM riots."
Just to note: the majority of charges for the post-George Floyd riots are limited to state/county criminal codes and not Federal-level - so it makes a lot of sense that the FBI would spend a lot more time on January 6-related investigations as those are explicitly in their jurisdiction.
If the feds can free up dozens of agents to arrest a single abortion protester on trumped up charges and to hound dissatisfied parents who pissed off a school board, surely they could expand their domestic terror (which is not even a crime) investigations in the interest of protecting conservative principles. They claim it's difficult because many of those hate crimes occur at night. I suspect it's really because those particular evil doers vote democrat just as do the burners and looters. For sure, those haters will not be pursued and punished by blue cities and blue states. In Portland, the charges are dismissed. Philadelphia just agreed to pay over $9 million for interfering with the right of 200 rioters to burn, loot and injure.
As of Jan 23: 10 seditious conspiracy convictions.
"Free speech" and "lawful institutions" are not inherently conservative - so you're going to need to expound on what principles you are referring to here.
I'd argue free speech is a classical liberalism principle, one that formerly was embraced - and is currently under attack by - American conservatives.
Lawful institutions is neither liberal nor conservative.
So, back to the statement about the FBI "protecting conservative principles": they should be enforcing the law, not conservative or liberal principles.
Good piece. It's sad that the criminal elite can throw so many wrenches at the justice system that the context and urgency fade from memory, and opportunity costs eventually overtake the value of the effort. The worst outcome is the white flag of surrender, a signal to to the white-collar world that crime pays.
Of course, the right is howling about street crime in Manhattan to discredit Bragg. As if street crime is anywhere near as destructive as white-collar crime. As if white-collar crime doesn't CAUSE street crime. As if crime in Manhattan hasn't been declining precipitously for a year now. As if Manhattan isn't one of the safest places to live in the United States of America, according to easily verifiable data.
The only time street crime is worse than white-collar crime is when it happens to you personally, or some loved one of yours is killed by it. Of course we should all have a reasonable expectation of safety. Many leftists would gladly trade that safety for social justice--except when it happens to them.
I agree that we all have a reasonable expectation (and right) to safety. My car was stolen out of my driveway just a few months back and it cost me two weeks' pay. Someone was shot at a gas station 1/10 mile from my house last week. I'm not exactly singing this narrative from an ivory tower in a gated community.
However, I reject the misuse of data (and anecdotes) to fearmonger about street crime and manipulate policy priorities. I reject the assumption that the dependent variable of public safety is most responsive to the controlled variable of police funding.
But most of all, I reject the use of fear propaganda to smokescreen white-collar crime. It bears repeating that white-collar crime CAUSES the conditions of poverty and ruptured trust that lead to street crime. You might be able to tamp down street crime with more police, but the misallocated resources are ultimately making the problem worse by permitting white-collar crime to proliferate.
"According to a Daily Signal analysis of pay records, the FBI has spent 16,000 more man-hours (7.84 man-years) dealing with January 6th crimes than investigating BLM riots."
Just to note: the majority of charges for the post-George Floyd riots are limited to state/county criminal codes and not Federal-level - so it makes a lot of sense that the FBI would spend a lot more time on January 6-related investigations as those are explicitly in their jurisdiction.
If the feds can free up dozens of agents to arrest a single abortion protester on trumped up charges and to hound dissatisfied parents who pissed off a school board, surely they could expand their domestic terror (which is not even a crime) investigations in the interest of protecting conservative principles. They claim it's difficult because many of those hate crimes occur at night. I suspect it's really because those particular evil doers vote democrat just as do the burners and looters. For sure, those haters will not be pursued and punished by blue cities and blue states. In Portland, the charges are dismissed. Philadelphia just agreed to pay over $9 million for interfering with the right of 200 rioters to burn, loot and injure.
On the one hand you have random rioting, on the other hand seditious conspiracy: which do you prioritize?
And "prioritize conservative principles" sure sounds like political consideration as opposed to a legal consideration.
How many seditious conspiracy convictions?
I said "protect" conservative principles just as all peaceful free speech and lawful institutions should be protected - not just democrat voters.
As of Jan 23: 10 seditious conspiracy convictions.
"Free speech" and "lawful institutions" are not inherently conservative - so you're going to need to expound on what principles you are referring to here.
"'Free speech' and 'lawful institutions' are not inherently conservative" that's a mouthful. Where did you get that idea?
I'd argue free speech is a classical liberalism principle, one that formerly was embraced - and is currently under attack by - American conservatives.
Lawful institutions is neither liberal nor conservative.
So, back to the statement about the FBI "protecting conservative principles": they should be enforcing the law, not conservative or liberal principles.
Thanks. I thought the number was four or less.
The ongoing comparisons between these two events are really disappointing.
Good piece. It's sad that the criminal elite can throw so many wrenches at the justice system that the context and urgency fade from memory, and opportunity costs eventually overtake the value of the effort. The worst outcome is the white flag of surrender, a signal to to the white-collar world that crime pays.
Of course, the right is howling about street crime in Manhattan to discredit Bragg. As if street crime is anywhere near as destructive as white-collar crime. As if white-collar crime doesn't CAUSE street crime. As if crime in Manhattan hasn't been declining precipitously for a year now. As if Manhattan isn't one of the safest places to live in the United States of America, according to easily verifiable data.
Hell of a time to be alive.
The only time street crime is worse than white-collar crime is when it happens to you personally, or some loved one of yours is killed by it. Of course we should all have a reasonable expectation of safety. Many leftists would gladly trade that safety for social justice--except when it happens to them.
I agree that we all have a reasonable expectation (and right) to safety. My car was stolen out of my driveway just a few months back and it cost me two weeks' pay. Someone was shot at a gas station 1/10 mile from my house last week. I'm not exactly singing this narrative from an ivory tower in a gated community.
However, I reject the misuse of data (and anecdotes) to fearmonger about street crime and manipulate policy priorities. I reject the assumption that the dependent variable of public safety is most responsive to the controlled variable of police funding.
But most of all, I reject the use of fear propaganda to smokescreen white-collar crime. It bears repeating that white-collar crime CAUSES the conditions of poverty and ruptured trust that lead to street crime. You might be able to tamp down street crime with more police, but the misallocated resources are ultimately making the problem worse by permitting white-collar crime to proliferate.