> 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.