Thread by @saradannerdukic

Subjective: “he’s an a$$hole.” “He’s insane.” “He golfs too much.”

Not subjective: signatures on loans, wire transfers, digital currency transfers, routing + housing of stolen data +/or PII, intercepts, emails, statements under oath, statements to the FBI, tax returns, text messages, DMs…you get the idea.

I believe that this 👆is what Madame Speaker means when she says she wants facts.

If you were standing trial, and the prosecutor said “I’m going to indict you no matter what because no one likes you,” would you feel that was justice?

If the prosecutor had gone on every news channel possible saying “I’m going to indict so-and-so no matter what,” would that help or hurt that prosecutor’s case?

What’s more, suppose a weapon exists that can spin just about anything, get anyone to believe anything, get the news to run anyone, cover whatever is desired? What would be easier to spin? People’s emotions, or wire transfers?

“But there are already facts.” Yes, that’s true. But this isn’t just about him. If it were, then I'd be saying yes - let's go, right now.

This is about a vast network of organized crime.

It's about some really, really bad guys who want to do really, really bad things to us - including the House Dems searching for facts - who use him as their tool.

He’s a tool. He’s a symptom. We need to get rid of the problem. Getting rid of one cockroach doesn’t purge an infestation.