Why do you feel the need to manufacture theories that are unsupported by facts when the reality, intimidation by police, is bad enough?

I'm trying to manufacture a theory that better fits all the facts. Intimidation is a simple theory, and acceptable as a fallback, but if that's all that was going on, then it raises some questions.

> I'm trying to manufacture a theory that better fits all the facts. Intimidation is a simple theory, and acceptable as a fallback, but if that's all that was going on, then it raises some questions.

You definitely seem like you're trying to manufacture a theory, but nothing you've written "better fits all the facts."

At best, I think you're operating under a set of faulty assumptions that's causing you to mistakenly reject most likely explanation.

My guess is that they thought she had an insider giving her tips / interviews, and they were trying to catch this person.

Though the the surveillance and offers of transportation/"help" throughout the article appear to be about her, I think the real desire was to see who it was that she talked to and what they said.

Intimidation.

but it was local police, right? And it was entirely by implication?

Wouldn't that be like a new zealander visiting the LA and doing something the Bloods don't like, and so the bloods barge into his hotel room on the night before he returns to new zealand and says "hey is anybody else here"? Like, what's the intimidation? He's about to be beyond their reach, and they didn't even say anything explicitly.

If it's intimidation, it's both lame, ham handed, and ineffective.

An explanation that doesn't fit your opponent's behavior COULD still be correct, but maybe there's a better explanation - I don't know.

The intimidation is the police demonstrating their ability to intrude in her hotel room as they please. If the police wanted to take anything or hurt her, they could. They want her to relive that moment any time she performs an investigation the state may not agree with.

Any intimidation might also be aimed at potential informants. A journalist might see this action as a sign to dig in deeper, but an informant might see this as proof that the local authorities will know if you try to spill the beans.

"We could've killed you, don't come back here" is a pretty effective intimidation tactic.

your whatboutism to compare a street gang to justify the Chinese intimidation. That's a horrible comparison. A street gang actually don't touch civilians because it attracts negative attention and feud with other Crips members.

The Chinese leadership will kill as many civilians it needs because it is the only gang in town. Unchecked power at the hands of the few results in catastrophic consequences for the citizens. I'm sure they've learned their lesson from Cultural Revolution but unable to apply those lessons because those checks and balances, once again, is unavailable because Xi decided he wants to be like Putin.

My only immediate concern is for the people of China. If Russia is a model of what a nuclear armed dictator with an inferiority complex, there's no limit to what Xi can do to his country. He's already half way there, destroying the economy and the rivals to consolidate power. He doesn't care about the well being or the economy of the country. If he did, his actions would show otherwise.

> Wouldn't that be like a new zealander visiting the LA and doing something the Bloods don't like, and so the bloods barge into his hotel room on the night before he returns to new zealand and says "hey is anybody else here"? Like, what's the intimidation? He's about to be beyond their reach, and they didn't even say anything explicitly.

> If it's intimidation, it's both lame, ham handed, and ineffective.

The intimidation is that they've shown interest in her and that they can get to her. It appears that she may have been a Chinese citizen (her account is translated), and Chinese people who annoy government officials in China may eventually be disappear into prison.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusa...

> It seems more like they were looking for a specific person, instead of trying to intimidate directly.

That idea doesn't make any sense. They didn't search other rooms, and this person was a journalist that was covering a story that's more than likely embarrassing to one of their superiors.

It seems like they wanted to threaten and intimidate her in a deniable way. Their excuse was flimsy by design.