>>She claimed, without evidence, that Trump had spent “millions of dollars” to ruin her career.
If the source bothered to read her statement it clearly showed the context. Not that Trump spent it already but 'would have' if she stayed in to fight a primary challenge from him.
>>Her prediction that Democrats will sweep the midterms, our source said, is delusional.
Again, in her statement she mentioned not wanting to fight a primary challenge, straining her district any more publicly. She went on to explain what always happens in Washington. Congress was sidelined but a 2 month shutdown. A time where courageous legislation could have been passed. But now with reelection time approaching it becomes about safety voting to save their seats. Thus as always they never get anything done which leads typically to the other side taking over majority. She didn't want to go through being slandered publicly in a primary challenge by the President who feels he can wield all of us as weapons against his chosen opponents. Then 'should' the Dems take over majority she would be forced to then stand up for Trump in the impending impeachment. Loyalty goes both ways and should be expected from both sides.. Why should she stand up for him after he did this to her publicly. That was her point.. she foresees us losing the House because, as always, the party in power in Washington is getting nothing done for the people.. which leads to the other side taking over.