(12-14-2018 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My question is, what do these payments have to with showing collusion with Russia?
An investigation looks into a specific matter. An investigator looking into, say, a murder or rape does not look for tax law violations or indict people other than the target for failure to perform a fiduciary duty.
A witch hunt looks for anything on anybody.

These are NOT part of the Mueller probe. These are charges brought about by the SDNY - not being made by those in your supposed witch hunt.
Trying to tie these together suggests you want prosecutors to look the other way when they believe they have evidence of a crime.

Are you suggesting that they arose totally independently of the Mueller investigation? Considering the Mueller referred the case to them, that seems an improbable leap.
That is mentioned at
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-ref...osecutors/

Nope - I know how they got started. I specifically said they are not part of the Mueller investigation (which they aren’t).
That’s why I asked the last question - Mueller provided information on crimes to another prosecutor. If you want to complain about these being part of a witch hunt, you’re suggesting that you want prosecutors to look the other way when they see evidence of crimes.

Mueller farmed them out because New York was where the evidence was, and the SDNY legal staff was in better shape to prosecute them. It's really classic witch hunt--we found something that may be outside our scope, so let's turn it over to somebody under whose purview it falls. Anything to pursue anything.

So what should Mueller have done? Ignored evidence of crimes?

The reason I say this isn't part of the witch hunt is he passed of the investigation. He knew it was not within his original scope, so we handed it to someone else. If Mueller really did want to get Trump, no matter what, what incentive is there to lose oversight of the investigation?