Thread by @DaytimeDan

So, since it was asked, here's what IMO so many who have been indignantly rallying around her are missing when it comes to topic of @ewarren and her legal consulting fees.

Spoiler: it's not the fees.

Instead, please meet the monster you created, Doctor Frankenstein... 1/

https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/1203874975205208066

First, let me say: I could not care less that she made money. Warren supplemented her academic salary, which is something absolutely every academic who can, does. My father was an historian, wrote books (for money!) & lectured (also for money!) & it helped pay for things for 2/

his family. I know! Good for them both.

I also never got worked up over Warren's tax returns from that era not being released (I'll admit it is interesting that she chose to release most - not all - compensation records and not tax returns) but whatever, I really don't care. 3/

But it struck me this morning when I saw this comment from someone who (after being called out for equating the consulting fees to full-time income when it was always a supplement to Warren's salary) wrote this interesting statement: 4/

https://twitter.com/transscribe/status/1204005583810187264

She's right!! There is zero evidence that Warren did anything wrong or corrupt at all. None. Personally, I don't believe she did anything wrong at all. I wouldn't think so if she made $20M instead of $2.

The fees or private work are not evidence of malfeasance or corruption. 5/

This issue is this: Elizabeth Warren has been implying EXACTLY that about so many other Democrats.

That they are somehow corrupt or impure by making money...or even raising money to campaign.

She was "troubled" by a private citizen's speaking fee: 6/ politico.com/story/2017/04/…

She implied fundraisers held by @PeteButtigieg are somehow evidence of corruption. If you think I'm leaping to conclusions, those were her words, saying we must track promises he makes in in these events, 'citing Americans' concerns about "corruption."' 7/ cnn.com/2019/12/05/pol…

She attacked @JoeBiden for allowing a Super PAC to raise money and advocate for him. "The Democratic primary should belong to grassroots supporters and grassroots donors, not the rich and powerful" again implying corruption that Biden "belongs" to rich 8/ boston.com/news/politics/…

The issue isn't the fees.

It's the hypocrisy.

It's the purity tests that she levies against so many others (and let's be fair, @BernieSanders was the godfather of this), purity tests that limit Democrats' ability to compete politically within the legal rules in ways that 9/

no Republican would think twice about, and even worse, applies that purity to the PRIVATE lives of citizens after they've completed their immense public service contributions (thank you President Obama).

If you are passionately and indignantly pushing back against the 10/

implication that Warren's fees were somehow "corrupting," understand that THIS is the monster that she & Sanders have helped create first by repeatedly drawing unfounded conclusions & not-too-subtle implications of corruption against other Democrats.

Warren is not corrupt 11/

but where was your passionate defense of Obama when she was "troubled," or of Hillary Clinton when she was being bombarded as corrupt by Bernie Sanders and his allies?

Did you get indignant at the implication?

Or did you allow it to take hold and fester amongst many in 12/

our party?

If you did, you have joined Sanders & Warren in creating a monster that has been destructive to our party and absolutely helped de-motivate enough people to let Trump win the general election 2016.

So while I see the indigence from so many of the famous... 13/

"blue checks," while they are expressing outrage perhaps they should think once or twice about how ANYONE could see private fees as being evidence of corruption.

It did not happen out of thin air.

Instead, please meet the monster you have created Dr. Frankstein. /end