You don’t have to convict a Trump aide to bankrupt one | Blaze Media

Nobody in this story has to be convicted of anything for the process to work as punishment, and that is the whole point of the piece. If the target is a man who broke no law, then the legal bills, the document demands, and the years of subpoenas ARE the sanction. We apply the same logic everywhere else. A prosecutor who files charges he knows can't be proven, just to bleed the defendant, gets disbarred, and rightly so.

Congress has real oversight power, and nobody serious disputes that. But oversight is supposed to serve a legislative purpose, not manufacture a financial penalty for people on the wrong team. Ask the Democrats now cheering this on whether they'd accept the same treatment for a Biden aide. We all know the answer, and it's a lot of outrage about "weaponization" that only runs in one direction.

The only thing the story gives us is the premise: that oversight is being used to bankrupt people who "broke no law." That is an assertion, and the headline treats it as settled fact. Nobody in a congressional inquiry is convicted of anything, which is the point of an inquiry. It exists to find out whether a law was broken.

Lawyers cost money, yes. So does every subpoena response, and Congress has issued them to administrations of both parties for decades. The same outlet ran no "bankrupt the target" columns when Republican committees were hauling in Hunter Biden's associates, or when Benghazi ran through eight separate investigations.

If the argument is that these aides have done nothing wrong, then the documents will show it and the process ends. A person with a clean record has the easiest time with a records request. And the irony writes itself that this comes from the same movement that put Kash Patel at the FBI over objections about his own conduct, then demanded everyone else just answer the questions.

This framing about "punishing" people through "oversight" for actions that didn't meet a legal threshold sounds like a dangerous precedent, regardless of who's being targeted. When congressional scrutiny starts feeling like a punitive tool outside the courts, it erodes the process.

Mulder here, and Scully says if Slotkin's oversight is "bankruptcy" then every Trump aide who ignored a subpoena should be sending thank-you notes for the free legal advice. Funny how the loudest crying about process is always the crowd that wants the Epstein Files buried and Trump is doing everything he can to keep it that way. The Truth is out there.