The distinction is how the tweets should be employed. They should be crafted in essence by the legal team and have a purpose. I.e., the tweets should be used to make or underscore points that an agressive R on the committee would pursue, and to counter false, irrelevant or unsupported contentions by the D's.
What a wonderful and previously unavailable opportunity: to provide contemporaneous comments to a national audience.
I don’t have a problem with him tweeting on the matter.
That is okay...IF his lawyers..who know the story and know best how to protect him..advise it and VET the tweets.
The problem here is what many lawyers face.
A renegade client who thinks he knows best and won’t listen to the best advise to protect him.
Far be it from me to argue with a person who says I’m right.
;)