3/ Albanese defended her actions as mere “recommendations.” But we showed: “That framing is inconsistent with the record. Albanese’s advocacy is instructional and operational. Her statements and writings consistently urge specific prosecutorial and case-related outcomes rather than engage in abstract policy debate. Indeed, that conduct extends beyond public commentary. For example, Albanese sent formal written communications to U.S.-based nonprofit organizations accusing them of involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and related offenses, and warning that they and their executives faced potential criminal liability... Such actions reflect advocacy aimed at specific legal outcomes rather than generalized debate.”