TLDR
One of the worst arguments about the Trump trial is done by people who out of one side of their mouth they will say that there is a two tier justice system against black people and then out of the other side of their mouth, when it concerns Trump, deny the existence of a two tier justice system. It either exists or it doesn't. So it leads me to believe that these people who talk out of both sides of their mouth are well aware that they're doing it. But utilizing the argument in such a manner has such an appeal as a tool to shut any argument down they default to it because they've had some prior level of success with it.
For myself, I'm completely and shamelessly deaf to the tactic. A person either has the principle to carry it across the board or they do not. Some people can, I think. But those people can show the comparative process, stats and a conclusion. To be fair, not too many people take the time to do that.
This case with Trump is so public, so showcased, that using a comparison is rather easy. Where it is difficult to do is when it's somebody that nobody ever heard of, never makes the news.
In this Trump trial, is it really a political ideology when people point out the rather stark contrast of equal application of the law? Or is it the oversaturation of media walking us through it day by day, where even medias like CNN show how Clinton was dealt with concerning her campaign finance indiscretions vs Trump's campaign?
I think Clinton is a horrible person and an ass. I think Trump is a horrible person and an ass. That says nothing about their political careers or whatever ideology they have. But to me, it shows that if you stand two jackasses side by side I'm having a hard time telling them apart. But I can clearly see that one got slapped on the nose and one got bull whipped. Figuratively speaking, of course.