mycodendral

Look up camping EDM festivals.

It's giving ensloppification

In this case conspiracy is using communication to coordinate illegal impediment.

Insurrection is a choice with consequences

Ah yes, the typical language of peaceful protestors

Are you capable of accurately describing the other sides argument?

Trump’s speech does not meet that standard. It lacked coordination, targeting, or intent to physically interfere. The Minnesota case is different because it includes coordinated dispatch, targeting of ICE activity, and sharing de-arrest material with the stated intent to impede operations. That coordination and intent is the legal difference.

"molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties"

The explicit coordination of things like: vehicle blocking, personnel blocking, personnel removal, disruptive distraction could clearly qualify.

How the courts choose to interpret & prosecute is up to them.

The statute defines a crime that is distinguishable from peaceful protest/1A. You are free to interpret that however you like in relation to what is occurring.

Yes, they are federal officers. There is no pattern of mass kidnappings by impersonators occurring here.

Interpreting masked officers in tactical gear as kidnappers, or claiming that a patch saying “ICE” is insufficient identification, is not a legally valid basis for suspicion or resistance.

This statute defines the conditions where free speech transitions to criminal activity.

You can interpret it however you like.

18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer

18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer

Freedom of expression does not include freedom from prosecution for real crimes.

Federal felony, not free speech.

18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer

18 U.S.C. § 372 — Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

Federal felony

you have a more direct way?

the value is the directness, not implied origination

not everyone cares about playing voldemort

It’s incoherent if you value rule of law, markets, property, rights, or stability.

If you’re willing to abandon all that over your police grievance, then sure, it’s coherent as anarchy.

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.

Sure, that works. Wasn't my original point, but it's more related to our recent discussion, and I don't think either of us disagree with that.

I'd say yours is:

This isn't a criminal investigation

Ok. If you want to continue, then summarize my argument effectively and I'll let you know if you've got it right or wrong.

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.

Ok, so you want to rewrite the existing legal force framework. Again, good luck with that. Folks who argue this rarely provide a coherent alternative that holds up to scrutiny.

‘If a cop can arrest or shoot you, then you should be able to arrest and shoot cops too.’

Let me know when you’ve proposed a coherent legal framework that’s actually consistent with that idea.

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?

NSPM-7 isn’t a license for thought policing. It’s an investigative strategy for identifying actual criminal activity within the bounds of existing law and oversight.

Referencing Minority Report is a false analogy that ignores the film’s real controversy, which was about punishing people for crimes that hadn’t happened, not investigating credible threats.

There are no new federal crimes being prosecuted that are tied to speech. Investigations still operate under existing law targeting criminal conduct, not expression.

You seem to think that monitoring rhetoric is inherently authoritarian, but it isn’t. Those markers are used to flag potential risks, not to criminalize beliefs. The strategy is about identifying when ideology begins translating into real-world violence, which is a basic and necessary function of law enforcement, not government overreach.

Ok you're clearly not interested in actual discussion. You assume my perspective incorrectly and call bullshit when I clarify, that’s bad faith. You also seem unable to grasp that your false assumptions distort how you interpret everything that follows.

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?

It’s unreasonable to assume the FBI is doing anything but investigating crime without evidence. The man was voluntarily interviewed because his name came up in an investigation. Most interviewees are leads, not suspects. People are mistaking routine inquiries for persecution. Saying “we’re investigating the protest” is like saying “we’re investigating the football game.” It refers to related incidents, not the activity itself.

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.

I think I see where you’re getting tripped up. You’ve taken my use of ‘adversarial’ to mean I believe the interviewee is personally being investigated or prosecuted for a crime. That’s not what that means.

My mention of federal obstruction was just an example to illustrate why the FBI might be investigating at all. It was a hypothetical meant to show that the investigation likely concerns criminal activity surrounding the protest, not the protest or his speech itself.

I’m never suggested the person interviewed is guilty or even a suspect. He’s a lead, someone questioned because he may have information relevant to a broader investigation.

By now it should be clear that the only nonsense here has come from your misinterpretation and bad faith assumptions. Do you have any more bullshit for me to correct, or are you actually interested in understanding what I said?