ed wrote:gnome wrote:I don't think the impact of a crime can be reduced only to which law was violated. There is a fair discussion to be had in how significant foreign interference was in our election or in our political culture. That is not settled by dismissing it because some of it was done by "only" identity theft.
Also, are there not occasionally good reasons for a special investigation to start with the small as part of checking for a larger problem?
The law is the law. What you are describing sounds uncomfortably close to the legal principles in the Third Reich where investigations, [B]absent a crime, were ongoing and where, if a person were released from custody, they could be scooped up again because of the larger, undefined, impact of their crime.[B]
I don't dismiss interference in our elections any more than I dismiss the impact of people participating who should not be. If there is evidence of a crime, it should be investigated.
(Bolding mine) I do not advocate prosecuting anyone for a non-crime. I do advocate that the severity of an actual crime may be affected by their intent.
Saying "russians" as license to have an open ended exploration of everything about everybody Muller feels should be investigated stinks. That is nazi behavior.
And, I submit, few could emerge from such an investigation unscathed, unindited and financially intact.
Possibly, but if you want to press the point with an example, a plan to commit multiple identity thefts doesn't fit the profile of relative innocence you seem to present. The only thing separating this aspect from precisely what Mueller is charged with looking for is the illegal participation of the domestic campaign. I don't think it's unreasonable to look for that among people who are trying to act in secret, and breaking laws to do it.