No, see... you can't see the difference because you didn't SEE either commit any crimes. You're nothing more than a spec in the court of public opinion privy to exactly what you're entitled to as such; nothing but an article. Yet if you had half a brain and were aware of what's happened in the last 20 years on any level, you'd put 5k on Trump having raped a kid before you put a nickle on Lauer having done the same. One was likely to have been an inappropriate perv a month ago ... the other is and has been unabashedly so for decades, and had supporters campaign for him by suggesting it was irrelevant to character. If you weren't ready to condemn either without firsthand proof, you'd either not be carrying pitchforks, or you'd have one in both hands. This selective bullshit and immediate condemnation after what the country did during the last election is some of the most transparently hypocritical bullshit I've ever seen.
If someone said Trump should be fired tomorrow because he was accused of acting inappropriate, would you need a response or action from his employer, or would you need to see the evidence of what he did, before agreeing? I'd believe it immediately.... and yet still defend his right to keep his position until the conclusion of a trial. Because that's how it's supposed to work. This public trial shit is just a joke when it's coming from a people who've so emphatically and proudly abandoned a higher moral ground.
....? Really?
Try harder.
