Are you basing that on viewing what he actually says and does, or through the filter of summaries by people who favour the status quo? Because listening to the new coverage, and then listening to the actual speeches and testimony show opposite conclusions from what I can see.
The adjectives you use seem to be trying to build emotional investment in framing this a good v evil, rather than a sober look at the facts on the ground.
The adjectives you use seem to be trying to build emotional investment in framing this a good v evil, rather than a sober look at the facts on the ground.