Her case should be investigated with fairness.
She is not personally against the President, but his ways of implementing his policies.
how can you tell that shes not personally against the President ? whereas shes always including the president about that "DDS" which is she can't present concrete evidence about it linking to the president . How come hes defending the witness he presented during the senate hearing ? shes the senate head of the hearing ( don't know exactly the term ) and he must be neutral not to be the lawyer of the witness.