>This is pure hypothetical. No it's not. That's how things are handled in investigations. >They have not been charged for impersonating a governmental authority, which is a crime. You said you know nothing about it, and now you're trying to tell me you do. Show me where they actually impersonated a government authority. All they've done is claim that they were working for this imaginary task force. What's the point of going after that if they're being investigated for bogger things? It interferes in the bigger investigation. >this website is like the shit we use to write on bathroom walls in Junior High about teachers I didn't like So what? A lot of people don't believe these guys, including people who create shitty little websites. But more important is the fact that the people these two work with will create those sorts of sites so that people like you will think that the claims are all made up by idiots who make those sorts of websites, and they get them to the top of the search results because Google is working with them. It's a counter-intel tactic. You say I'm posing hypotheticals, but what are you doing here?? >He's still posting articles though and is a free man. He can still post things if he's on the lam. And even if he's free, so what? This is all beside the point. >Timothy Holmseth is not a whistle-blower. Not a legitimate one. What do you think he's doing posting, though? Why is he posting it? >I don't care about the Timothy Holmseth. I only referenced him for the purpose of the interviews surrounding Jacob Wetterling's kidnapping saga. Bullshit. Go back and read what you said. You started out by defending him, saying you knew of him when I stated that he's a fake. You've been doing nothing but try to defend him. You mentioned that other guy in passing to make other claims. Now you're even claiming that you know he's not a whistleblower. >Secondly, I don't care about this. Then why in the fuck are you talking to me??