She's an economist who works with the highest level globalists pushing trade agreements that DIRECTLY assault our sovereignty, and openly push the creation of the North American Union to REPLACE Canada, the United States and Mexico, both economically AND politically.
And all your lawerly micro-parsing doesn't change that one single tiny bit.
She's a traitor.
She's an economist who worked in the Bush White House, where a lot of others worked. If her choosing to work for George W. Bush in 2000 disqualifies her husband, because you don't like the person she was assigned to work with for one year of her time there, then you have an exceptionally broad definition of "traitor".
My "lawyerly micro-parsing" was intended to show the details of the relationships you implied. The organizations you cited were ones that one of her White House supervisors worked for either before or after she worked for him, not organizations she chose to work for. The exception was one where she disagreed with the part of their conclusions that bothered me. Obviously I failed in communicating that, but at least I shared the facts.