I don't want you to get the impression that I'm taking your criticism seriously, Crunch, because I know you're intellectually dishonest in all your interactions here, but I do want to acknowledge that I think William sincerely does not recognize how far his impressions deviate from reality.
Actually, Tom - it is an observable trait in this forum for the Never-Trumpers, who are the haters, to point at their victims as the bullies. If one stands up for oneself and posits facts and truths that the bullies proclaim as dealt with and proved wrong (when they're not), then that person is castigated.
I have seen almost every Leftist here, including Never-Trumpers use the bully fallacy: Laughter by Intimidation. Representing the advocate as being out of step with "right-thinking people" to the point where everyone laughs at your ridiculous viewpoint. No rebuttal is offered - just ridicule the messenger.
I say most people know Hillary is guilty of several crimes. I am not met with proof of innocence or challenges to the codes she provably violated, nor shown any error in basic facts, just called names. The only real answer to that they may use is to call most people too stupid to know she broke the law. The law was broken. That is not in dispute. But that is never admitted to. The next step? Laughter by Intimidation. They don't seem to understand that using that fallacy is a indication to indict themselves.
Notice the thrust is against how far "impressions deviate from reality." Two mistakes in that. Facts not in dispute are not merely "impressions." The other mistake is for "Reality" to be subjective for them to decide upon.
Look, Judge Christopher Cooper far transgresses the appearance of impropriety. The facts are clear: he did work with Sussmann in the DOJ. His wife defended Lisa Page. Cooper is an acknowledged and self-admitted Democrat functionary. Merrick Garland married him. Does anyone here think that not excluding a prospect for the jury from the panel because she and Sussmann are both parents on the same sports team is beyond the pale? Can a jury prospect who contributed money to the group under scrutiny be an acceptable juror? According to Tom and others here, what impressions deviate from reality?
You see the reality is that in DC, Democrats are the vast (91%) majority and have a history of subscribing to the idea that the ends justify the means. When the Judge doesn't even try to look fair in establishing a jury, then the fix is in, isn't it?