Bias is determined by the middle, the facts in the middle...is there credible proof, or is there a complete lack of proof? Charging with no clear proof but beliefs and rhetoric is the one side of the bias sword, failing to charge when there is proof is the bias that goes hand in hand with that mentality.

To charge is a response to crimes, if crimes are in evidence to a degree that there is proof enough to successfully prosecute, that is the unbiased result and actions in response to proof that laws were broken.

For the biased side to win in this circumstance, that would be bias not to prosecute.

The biased side always sees the opposite response as coming from a place of bias even though it comes from a place defined by the rule of law and holding law breakers accountable...

The middle ground determines if there is bias, both sides can't be right. Trump isn't being prosecuted because of a political bias, he is in trouble because he broke the law.

Bias is determined by the middle, the facts in the middle...is there credible proof, or is there a complete lack of proof? Charging with no clear proof but beliefs and rhetoric is the one side of the bias sword, failing to charge when there is proof is the bias that goes hand in hand with that mentality.

To charge is a response to crimes, if crimes are in evidence to a degree that there is proof enough to successfully prosecute, that is the unbiased result and actions in response to proof that laws were broken.

For the biased side to win in this circumstance, that would be bias not to prosecute.

The biased side always sees the opposite response as coming from a place of bias even though it comes from a place defined by the rule of law and holding law breakers accountable...

The middle ground determines if there is bias, both sides can't be right. Trump isn't being prosecuted because of a political bias, he is in trouble because he broke the law.

Bias is determined by the middle, the facts in the middle...is there credible proof, or is there a complete lack of proof? Charging with no clear proof but beliefs and rhetoric is the one side of the bias sword, failing to charge when there is proof is the bias that goes hand in hand with that mentality.

To charge is a response to crimes, if crimes are in evidence to a degree that there is proof enough to successfully prosecute, that is the unbiased result and actions in response to proof that laws were broken.

For the biased side to win in this circumstance, that would be bias not to prosecute.

The biased side always sees the opposite response as coming from a place of bias even though it comes from a place defined by the rule of law and holding law breakers accountable...

The middle ground determines if there is bias, both sides can't be right. Trump isn't being prosecuted because of a political bias, he is in trouble because he broke the law.

Bias is determined by the middle, the facts in the middle...is there credible proof, or is there a complete lack of proof? Charging with no clear proof but beliefs and rhetoric is the one side of the bias sword, failing to charge when there is proof is the bias that goes hand in hand with that mentality.

To charge is a response to crimes, if crimes are in evidence to a degree that there is proof enough to successfully prosecute, that is the unbiased result and actions in response to proof that laws were broken.

For the biased side to win in this circumstance, that would be bias not to prosecute.

The biased side always sees the opposite response as coming from a place of bias even though it comes from a place defined by the rule of law and holding law breakers accountable...

The middle ground determines if there is bias, both sides can't be right. Trump isn't being prosecuted because of a political bias, he is in trouble because he broke the law.

Bias is determined by the middle, the facts in the middle...is there credible proof, or is there a complete lack of proof? Charging with no clear proof but beliefs and rhetoric is the one side of the bias sword, failing to charge when there is proof is the bias that goes hand in hand with that mentality.

To charge is a response to crimes, if crimes are in evidence to a degree that there is proof enough to successfully prosecute, that is the unbiased result and actions in response to proof that laws were broken.

For the biased side to win in this circumstance, that would be bias not to prosecute.

The biased side always sees the opposite response as coming from a place of bias even though it comes from a place defined by the rule of law and holding law breakers accountable...

The middle ground determines if there is bias, both sides can't be right. Trump isn't being prosecuted because of a political bias, he is in trouble because he broke the law.

German's Ministry of Justice Judge Dr. Ernst Janning’s confession from Judgment at Nuremberg

Your Honor, I was content to sit silent during this trial..... It is not easy to tell the t***h. But if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it, wh**ever the pain and humiliation.

I had reached my verdict on the Feldenstein case before I ever came into the courtroom. I would have found him guilty, wh**ever the evidence. It was not a trial at all. It was a sacrificial ritual in which Feldenstein, the Jew, was the helpless victim....I am aware. I am aware! My counsel would have you believe we were not aware of the concentration camps. Not aware? Where were we? Where were we when Hitler began shrieking his h**e in Reichstag? Where were we when our neighbors were being d**gged out in the middle of the night to Dachau?! Where were we when every village in Germany has a railroad terminal where cattle cars were filled with children being carried out to their extermination! Where were we when they cried out in the night to us. Were we deaf, dumb, blind?.... My counsel says we were not aware of the extermination of the millions. He would give you the excuse we were only aware of the extermination of the hundreds. Does that make us any the less guilty? Maybe we didn't know the details. But if we didn't know, it was because we didn't want to know…

I am going to tell them the t***h. I am going to tell them the t***h if the whole world conspires against it. I am going to tell them the t***h about their Ministry of Justice. Werner Lammpe, an old man who cries into his Bible now, an old man who profited by stealing the property of every man he sent to a concentration camp. Friedrich Hofstetter, the 'good German' who knew how to take orders, who sent men before him to be sterilized like so many digits. …And Ernst Janning, worse than any of them because he knew what they were, and he went along with them. Ernst Janning - who made his life excrement, because he walked with them!

Bias is determined by the middle, the facts in the middle...is there credible proof, or is there a complete lack of proof? Charging with no clear proof but beliefs and rhetoric is the one side of the bias sword, failing to charge when there is proof is the bias that goes hand in hand with that mentality.

To charge is a response to crimes, if crimes are in evidence to a degree that there is proof enough to successfully prosecute, that is the unbiased result and actions in response to proof that laws were broken.

For the biased side to win in this circumstance, that would be bias not to prosecute.

The biased side always sees the opposite response as coming from a place of bias even though it comes from a place defined by the rule of law and holding law breakers accountable...

The middle ground determines if there is bias, both sides can't be right. Trump isn't being prosecuted because of a political bias, he is in trouble because he broke the law.