This is terrible reporting. Could the Guardian have shown the screenshot? Could they have asked what the context was? I don’t understand why this all is behind a mostly opaque screen. Why we are being told something that obfuscates what was said rather than giving us the chance to judge for ourselves.

Why wouldn’t the article name the Republicans that signed the letter? Seems like poor journalism?

Is there a good article anywhere that directly draws the line between cases he has seen and perks he has been given? I know that he should have to declare all of the trips, etc, and that that is a big problem. But I am interested in how he has directly damaged democracy in more obvious quid pro quo. I am especially interested in having an answer to anyone that tries to minimize what he has done.

“They indicted 7 people for Terrorism last year, in part because they encrypted their disks, used tail as their OS and signal for communication.” would work maybe.