Why are out-of-state Charlotte rioters not being prosecuted for crossing state lines to engage in destruction and rioting?

Why are out-of-state Charlotte rioters not being prosecuted for crossing state lines to engage in destruction and rioting?

By James Longstreet

The non-enforcement of the law has become sport in the past eight years.  Hidden under gimmicks such as “prosecutorial discretion” and other feints, the Department of Justice and other such entities have seemed to turn their backs when full frontal execution of the law was required.  A curious disinterest for certain laws is in play.
We receive a constant dose of stories revealing the non-enforcement of immigration law.
In lockstep is the complete disregard for the laws on the books designed to quell situations such as Ferguson, Dallas, Baltimore, and now Charlotte.
Two years ago, I authored an article for American Thinker titled “The Anti Riot Act. One more law unenforced by this administration.”
In a recent article in ZeroHedge, an official of the Charlotte Police Department notes that “70% of those arrested” have out-of-state identification.  This should pique the interest of federal authorities.  It doesn’t.

Criminals disguised as protestors cross state lines to engage in destruction and rioting.  Has anyone heard of the statute that prohibits crossing state lines to engage in such behavior being enforced by federal authorities?
From the Federal Judicial Center, 2101. Riots:

(a) (1) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent –
(A) to incite a riot; or (B) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or (C) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or (D) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) In any prosecution under this section, proof that a defendant engaged or attempted to engage in one or more of the overt acts described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) and (1) has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or (2) has use of or used any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including but not limited to, mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, to communicate with or broadcast to any person or group of persons prior to such overt acts, such travel or use shall be admissible proof to establish that such defendant traveled in or used such facility of interstate or foreign commerce.

There is a wisdom to such laws, one that predicts how local situations can blossom into much larger events when interlopers are allowed to exacerbate the situation.  These laws need to be enforced.  They are not.  It is fair to ask, “Why not?”
Recall in Ferguson that the influx of non-residents (Revolution Club of Chicago, New Black Panthers, etc.) who came to join in the fray was noted by local authorities, yet there was no action from federal authorities regarding the enforcement of statues prohibiting the crossing of state lines to engage in such behavior.

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)” source

There are two clarities.  The administration has sympathies in one direction, and the Department of Justice has disinterest in another direction.
Enter George Soros.  The Washington Times has noted that the Ferguson protests/riots were funded by George Soros.  Now BLM.
From the article in ZeroHedge:

… hackers with DCLeaks.com published OSF (Soros’s Open Society Foundations) documents showing that the Soros group had already given at least $650,000 directly to BLM. … Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records reviewed by The Washington Times[.] … Since 2003, Soros has contributed $54 million to federal candidates and committees.

It seems that with the distribution of all this money, there has been a sponsorship of certain activities by Soros, and also a very detectible disinterest by those who should be intensely concerned about those very activities.
What has Soros attempted to achieve with such largess?  Looking at where the current allegiances align, it is interesting to speculate where that $54 million may have fallen.
Noting the Soros funding of BLM, we also have Hillary Clinton as a (BLM) Black Lives Matter proponent and Barack Obama with BLM sympathies and invitations to the White House.  On the other side of the ledger, we have Obama’s Department of Justice seemingly unconcerned that laws prohibiting the crossing of state lines to incite riots are being violated.  Coincidental?
Certainly something new is going on, and Mr. Soros musn’t be displeased.