If you have no reason to believe it's true, and understand the rumor to be unsubstantiated, why bother to spread it?

Because the question was what they might be charged with, not what they did.

Did you expect the government to charge people in good faith? It doesn't matter it if it's true or not, even putting them in the slammer for a long time while awaiting trial and forcing them to hire expensive attorneys is a win.

▲

sjsdaiuasgdia 11 hours ago | parent [-]

No, I don't expect the Trump administration to operate in good faith.

The post you replied to didn't ask what they might be charged with. It asked what they "plan" to charge.

And you replied with internet rumor nonsense. It's actually fine to say "I don't know" or simply not reply at all when someone asks a question to which you do not have an answer.

▲

andreygrehov 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Several undercover reporters have reported this. They are obviously lying. If the administration confirms the same, they are obviously lying. Who shall we believe then? The NYTimes?

▲

plorg 7 hours ago | parent [-]

These "undercover" reporters have screenshots, surely they could show one of actual crimes instead of something that you keep willfully misinterpreting as such. We've already given you the mundane explanation, but it seemingly relies too much on people being able to work together as social creatures and not enough on a technological system.

What this reads as is a bunch of credulous X users trying to one-up each other and looking for reasons that Trump and his cronies are not once again lying to your face.

It is neither necessary nor particularly useful for them to be running plates for reasons you've already identified.

▲

andreygrehov 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> surely they could show one of actual crimes

That's exactly what they have done - shared the information pointing to the organized attempt to interfere with the ongoing federal operation. This is a crime.

	▲	plorg 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You keep saying this, but there actually is a legal standard for this, and following people around, yelling at them, none of that is interference with public acts.