[skellington]

In the sense that they are trying to get him for things that they would never even consider charging a Democrat for, yes.

That doesn't mean he did or did not do something illegal. The difference is Hillary/etc. can't be prosecuted for anything.

How many campaign finance skeletons do you think most of the big politicians have in their closets that will never be investigated much less prosecuted?

[zo1]

At the very least we have to concede that investigation and likelihood of prosecution is proportional to the noise that is made in the media and by vocal voices. It's a thousand tiny little decisions that affect the direction on the aggregate.

I'm trying to keep this comment impartial. But I want to note that right now there is a huge belief that the media and companies and the wider "acceptable" social narrative are biased against a lot of the core beliefs that people on the right align to. I too hold that belief, and I've yet to see sufficient proof to convince me otherwise.

You combine these two wide points, and I'd argue that we should sympathize with those people and not call them "crazy conspiratists" for trying to shed light on this. It's actually a difficult to prove and isolate, second-order type of conclusion.