> lots of people think he shouldn’t be indicted even if he committed a crime, or that he should be indicted even if he didn’t. I think both are wrong, and the only mistake is giving him special treatment. He should be charged if, and only if, the facts and law demonstrate that he broke the law.

You seem to be using "special treatment" differently between your sentences. Almost all crimes that get committed do not result in any indictments. Committing to indict if a law was broken is extremely unusual. Observing that a law was broken and then not indicting is the second-most-common case, behind only to failing to observe that a law was broken and then not indicting. Why is the normal case "special treatment" while the very rare case isn't?

It's not the fact its baseless, its the context around it. That's what's crazy. Your irrationality comes from the fact, you are trying to ignore the context around it.

Braggs is case is being criticized heavily from the LEFT and the RIGHT. It is unprecedented and to most of the world similar with banana republics and like reeks of a setup.

You got the New York Post, the New York Times, The Rolling Stone, ABC, Fortune, Slate, The Hill, NBC, National Review, Daily Beast, Politico and more saying this is a bad idea. Don't you wonder why people more familiar with politics who are democrats AND republicans than you think that is ?

So you make America look horrible in the face of - your allies in the elite political circles - your allies internationally - your core base

All the while selling Trump on his ultimate brand as the "Rebel", of which he sells T-shirts off.

You cannot ignore the context around all of this, which weakens America significantly in already trying time as countries around the world are dropping the reserve currency USD and also belief in American Ideals.