How is that substantively different from the way I put it?
You have argued that the correct legal interpretation of Mueller's authorization includes events not related to the Trump campaign
All you have described just now is what makes this scope expansion legitimate, he finds the trail, he can follow it. You didn't describe any boundary to stop these trails. Start with people in Trump's campaign, investigate them, find some crime unrelated to the campaign, and bingo, off to the races. If the person has relatives, they get swept in too, off to more races.
You have cited a few examples of investigations that you find are legitimately in the scope of DOJ Order 3915-2017, and most of those have absolutely nothing to do with the campaign. For all of those, you assert they are in the scope of authporization to Mueller.
So how exactly is "Mueller's authorization includes events not related to the Trump campaign" a misstatment of your position?
I stand by post 59. He can follow any trail he finds as the Investigation proceeds. You claim this is not the case
We will see who ends up being right. We can already see that you claim he is already outside the scope...yet you aren’t privy to information and trails he is finding
We will see who is right