[mycodendral]

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]

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]

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]

> 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.

[mycodendral]

This is getting ridiculous.

> ‘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.’

Let’s just agree on this and move on. I’m not interested in debating semantics over whether that functionally differs from saying they are investigating a crime.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> I’m not interested in debating semantics over whether that functionally differs from saying they are investigating a crime.

That's good for you but I am interested in this discussion. Language matters; saying they are investigating a crime does make it sound like a crime occurred.

[mycodendral]

I don't need to prove that FBI investigations are crime-related. That's the presumed norm, not a claim requiring evidence.

If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.