Replies

It’s not just that. For decades the feds have been encroaching on state authority by making redundant laws, then inserting themselves into “interesting” and “high profile” cases.

This was exacerbated by the FBI’s “We’re in charge, it’s our case, get out of the way” attitude to local and state authorities, that bred a lot of resentment in them.

Much of it began during the Civil Rights years in the 1960s, when local and state authorities (and juries) would both disregard the law (on the down side), or obey the letter of the law (on the upside).

That is, at first, the feds would intervene because racism was involved; but later this turned into intervention because people they wanted persecuted were not being persecuted. Back then, a case like Zimmerman-Martin, when he was acquitted, the feds would immediately charge him with a redundant charge, like violating Martin’s civil rights.

Fortunately the states adapted to this corruption, so they try cases to guarantee that the feds can’t pull stunts like this. The Zimmerman case, for example, was filled with reversible errors that favored the prosecution, which would have in turn hopelessly fouled a federal case.

The big problem these days is that the feds have gone so nonsensically hog wild, both with domestic intelligence gathering (via 16 major intelligence agencies), and 100+ federal police agencies, *and* giving police authority to non-intelligence and non-police agencies, that the level of *inefficiency* has just skyrocketed.

These agencies are collecting immense piles of utterly useless minutiae, which even when data mined produce little or nothing of value; while at the same time they have been ordered to ignore real threats that are plain and obvious even to laymen.

The end result creates the impression that the federal government is a blind, angry and upset imbecile, swinging around a broom at a group of wicked small boys who are throwing road apples at him.