You said at the University of Chicago on October 13th that a Democratic Congress should pursue “signature cases” not just against the president but “on the people who enabled him.” You then stated the purpose explicitly: “I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration? Like, that sounds fun, I might get an opportunity.’ I want them to be like, ‘Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, and so let me avoid participating in that.’ I want that deterrence message.”That is not a statement about prosecuting proven crimes. It is a stated intention to use the prospect of investigation and legal trouble to discourage young people from considering public service in an administration they support. When challenged, you reframed the remarks as applying only to people who “break the law” or aid in “stealing taxpayer money.” The original comment did not contain that limitation; the deterrence of prospective hires was the point you emphasized. Holding individuals accountable for actual violations of law is ordinary. Treating service in a lawfully elected administration itself as the trigger for “signature cases” and a deliberate “deterrence message” to keep people out of government is something else. The candor gap is between those two descriptions of your position.