4 ms·

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 supp

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.
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime. Those were your incorrect projections. You say, ‘I’m doubting the validity of the investigation. It appears as though they are not investigating a crime.’ Do you have evidence for that, or are you basing it entirely on the phrase ‘investigating a protest’? What do you think that means, and what exactly are you asserting they are doing?
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime. Well, this is not true. Yet again I simply must explain that writing the words "they're investigating a crime" is literally a point that hinges on there being a specific crime. Without that, and especially with the words "we want to ask you questions about a protest", it is not reasonable to say that. Minimally, when someone else asks for a source, they probably don't just need to be told what the FBI is. I can, at least, assert with evidence that they are not investigating a crime. You've so far failed to assert with evidence that they are investigating a crime. You may not feel you need evidence to assert that but basic logic suggests otherwise.

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.
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime. Those were your incorrect projections. You say, ‘I’m doubting the validity of the investigation. It appears as though they are not investigating a crime.’ Do you have evidence for that, or are you basing it entirely on the phrase ‘investigating a protest’? What do you think that means, and what exactly are you asserting they are doing?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      > None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime. Well, this is not true. Yet again I simply must explain that writing the words "they're investigating a crime" is literally a point that hinges on there being a specific crime. Without that, and especially with the words "we want to ask you questions about a protest", it is not reasonable to say that. Minimally, when someone else asks for a source, they probably don't just need to be told what the FBI is. I can, at least, assert with evidence that they are not investigating a crime. You've so far failed to assert with evidence that they are investigating a crime. You may not feel you need evidence to assert that but basic logic suggests otherwise.