3 ms·

Requesting a source for that is pointless. It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure. I’m not making a specific allegation, I

Requesting a source for that is pointless. It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure. I’m not making a specific allegation, I’m describing routine investigative behavior. If you doubt it, you’re free to verify it yourself.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure. The only thing the officers told the guy is "We're investigating the protest that happened". Then they asked him questions about the protest organizers and if/how he knew them. It's unreasonable to then say "they're investigating a crime"; they're obviously investigating protected speech and public assembly. They even claim they are investigating such. At that point it's actually reasonable to expect a source for the (counter-)claim that they're really investigating a crime. > I’m not making a specific allegation Well, except "they're investigating a crime". They are not investigating a crime. They are investigating. Whether or not they are investigating a crime comes down to whether or not a crime was committed. To say they are investigating a crime means you know what they are investigating.
- mycodendral 1y ago
  If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that. ‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the target. The reasonable interpretation is that they’re investigating criminal activity connected to it, not the protest itself. As I already explained, the FBI rarely specifies the exact crime during interviews. If they said ‘We’re investigating the football team,’ you would assume they’re looking into possible crimes related to the team, not that playing football itself is under investigation. Your interpretation is pedantic and paranoid without justification.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that. I'm saying these officers are idiots who believe the words of liars because it is convenient for them and because the lies happen to match their preconceived notions. > ‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the target. Right, it doesn't "imply", it states explicitly. > The reasonable interpretation is that they’re investigating criminal activity connected to it, not the protest itself. They will say "events related to". Minimally, if they say "the protest", it is reasonable to think that is the subject in their own heads. The officers involved believe they're investigating speech and assembly. That is a reasonable observation. > As I already explained, the FBI rarely specifies the exact crime during interviews. Regardless, they provide an accurate depiction of the actual subject of their investigation. > If they said ‘We’re investigating the football team,’ you would assume they’re looking into possible crimes related to the team, not that playing football itself is under investigation. I would, of course, think they are investigating people who organize and/or participate in the football team, the same as if they said "the protest". > Your interpretation is pedantic and paranoid without justification. Your interpretation is imprecise and credulous without justification.
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      Seems you’re committed to your interpretation regardless of what I clarify. At this point there’s nothing productive left to discuss regarding my perspective. It's still unclear what exactly you're asserting, though. If they aren't conducting a criminal investigation, what exactly do you think they're doing?
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        Seems you're committed to your misdirections regardless of what I point out. At this point there's nothing left to discuss regarding your failure of communication. > If they aren't conducting a criminal investigation, what exactly do you think they're doing? If you'll notice, I've been trying to get you to explain what crime you think they're investigating. I'm not doubting that they are acting in their official capacity; obviously they're conducting a "criminal investigation" insofar as they are a crime-investigating organization conducting an investigation. Instead, I'm doubting the validity of the investigation. It appears as though they are not investigating a crime.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

> It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure. The only thing the officers told the guy is "We're investigating the protest that happened". Then they asked him questions about the protest organizers and if/how he knew them. It's unreasonable to then say "they're investigating a crime"; they're obviously investigating protected speech and public assembly. They even claim they are investigating such. At that point it's actually reasonable to expect a source for the (counter-)claim that they're really investigating a crime. > I’m not making a specific allegation Well, except "they're investigating a crime". They are not investigating a crime. They are investigating. Whether or not they are investigating a crime comes down to whether or not a crime was committed. To say they are investigating a crime means you know what they are investigating.

mycodendral 1y ago
If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that. ‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the target. The reasonable interpretation is that they’re investigating criminal activity connected to it, not the protest itself. As I already explained, the FBI rarely specifies the exact crime during interviews. If they said ‘We’re investigating the football team,’ you would assume they’re looking into possible crimes related to the team, not that playing football itself is under investigation. Your interpretation is pedantic and paranoid without justification.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that. I'm saying these officers are idiots who believe the words of liars because it is convenient for them and because the lies happen to match their preconceived notions. > ‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the target. Right, it doesn't "imply", it states explicitly. > The reasonable interpretation is that they’re investigating criminal activity connected to it, not the protest itself. They will say "events related to". Minimally, if they say "the protest", it is reasonable to think that is the subject in their own heads. The officers involved believe they're investigating speech and assembly. That is a reasonable observation. > As I already explained, the FBI rarely specifies the exact crime during interviews. Regardless, they provide an accurate depiction of the actual subject of their investigation. > If they said ‘We’re investigating the football team,’ you would assume they’re looking into possible crimes related to the team, not that playing football itself is under investigation. I would, of course, think they are investigating people who organize and/or participate in the football team, the same as if they said "the protest". > Your interpretation is pedantic and paranoid without justification. Your interpretation is imprecise and credulous without justification.
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    Seems you’re committed to your interpretation regardless of what I clarify. At this point there’s nothing productive left to discuss regarding my perspective. It's still unclear what exactly you're asserting, though. If they aren't conducting a criminal investigation, what exactly do you think they're doing?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      Seems you're committed to your misdirections regardless of what I point out. At this point there's nothing left to discuss regarding your failure of communication. > If they aren't conducting a criminal investigation, what exactly do you think they're doing? If you'll notice, I've been trying to get you to explain what crime you think they're investigating. I'm not doubting that they are acting in their official capacity; obviously they're conducting a "criminal investigation" insofar as they are a crime-investigating organization conducting an investigation. Instead, I'm doubting the validity of the investigation. It appears as though they are not investigating a crime.