Thread by @JSchanzer

Let me respond to all 9 of these.

1. The broader network probably doesn't fit the legal definition, but specific nodes in the network almost certainly do. We should pursue those.

2. I can think of at least 2 more not yet designated: Islah (Yemen) & Hizb al-Watan (Libya)

https://twitter.com/MicheleDDunne/status/1124315838536912896

3. Yes, a sweeping designation would cause problems. But narrow designations, if they meet criteria, is the mission and mandate. We should sanction those that deserve it.

4. 100%correct. We sanction based on violence, not evil ideas. This is why we should name MB a hate group.

5. We don't designate for political reasons. We have a legal criteria and professional bureaucrats/ Your insinuation that it/they can be manipulated for political reasons is actually offensive.

6. We don't know what the sentiment would be. Conjecture.

7. Again, this is all conjecture. We dont know what IS or AQ would do, and we don't know how effective they would be.

8. Assuming that a blanket designation is not feasible for reasons of bureaucracy and legal criteria, this is moot. But concerns noted.

9. I find this one the most puzzling. Treasury and State are strapped. But hey, this is a bureaucratic move. We're not deploying forces.

In summary: let the bureaucracy look into the smaller groups and see what pans out. And declare the MB to be a hate group. Because they are.