Compare and contrast with the treatment given to Paul Manafort–

Today also comes the news that, despite multiple reports of a a ton of extremely suspicious activities that point to the unauthorized penetration and hacking of the computers of dozens of Democrat members of the House of Representatives, a judge in DC has sentenced former Democrat Computer IT administrator, Pakistani Imran Awan, formerly very close to Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to no jail time, no fines for his admitted bank fraud, and just three months of supervised community service as his punishment.

Since Awan was not charged for any of his other very suspicious activities involving Congress, not tried for bank fraud, but for a bargained down charge of merely lying on a loan application, this allowed prosecutors to sweep this whole much more important and consequential Congressional computer scandal under the rug.

In imposing her less than nothing sentence, the Obama appointed judge even went so far as to say that Awan had, in fact, been persecuted, and had “suffered enough.”

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/life_of_emile_zola/

The review that I most agree with says this:
“In 1862, Emile Zola(Paul Muni) and his friend Paul Cezanne(Vladimir Sokoloff) are a pair of starving and freezing artists trying to survive in Paris. Even a regular job in a bookstore does not last long for Zola. What does change Zola’s fortunes is an opportune encounter with Nana(Edna O’Brien Moore) after they save her from arrest by the police. After which, she relays her story of woe which inspires Zola to write a novel. That turns out to be the first of many bestsellers for him and the beginning of a very comfortable life. And then there is the case of Alfred Dreyfus(Joseph Schildkraut). Despite its title, “The Life of Emile Zola” is really not a biopic. Rather, its first thirty minutes about Zola’s rise to fame just serves as a prelude to its take on the Alfred Dreyfus case which might have been still controversial at the time this was made. As such, this movie makes an excellent case for the role of the artist in society being a socially conscious one to which it provides a prime example. That comes complete with rousing speeches, very good performances and crowd scenes which Shakespeare would be proud of.”

He leaves off the point that Zola struggled a long time before writing his accusation of the injustice against Dreyfus, and was so vilified (and prosecuted) by the populace, media, government, and military that he had to move to England (giving up a lot of that comfort and public acclaim) until he (and Dreyfus) were finally vindicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair

“The Dreyfus Affair (French: l’affaire Dreyfus, pronounced [la.f?? d??.fys]) was a political scandal that divided the Third French Republic from 1894 until its resolution in 1906. The affair is often seen as a modern and universal symbol of injustice,[1] and it remains one of the most notable examples of a complex miscarriage of justice and antisemitism The major role played by the press and public opinion proved influential in the lasting social conflict..

The scandal began in December 1894 with the treason conviction of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young Alsatian French artillery officer of Jewish descent. Sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly communicating French military secrets to the German Embassy in Paris, Dreyfus was imprisoned on Devil’s Island in French Guiana, where he spent nearly five years.

Evidence came to light in 1896—primarily through an investigation instigated by Georges Picquart, head of counter-espionage—identifying a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy as the real culprit. After high-ranking military officials suppressed the new evidence, a military court unanimously acquitted Esterhazy after a trial lasting only two days. The Army then accused Dreyfus with additional charges based on falsified documents. Word of the military court’s framing of Dreyfus and of an attempted cover-up began to spread, chiefly owing to J‘accuse…!, a vehement open letter published in a Paris newspaper in January 1898 by writer Émile Zola. Activists put pressure on the government to reopen the case.

In 1899, Dreyfus was returned to France for another trial. …The new trial resulted in another conviction and a 10-year sentence, but Dreyfus was given a pardon and set free. Eventually all the accusations against Dreyfus were demonstrated to be baseless. In 1906 Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a major in the French Army. He served during the whole of World War I, ending his service with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. He died in 1935.

The affair from 1894 to 1906 divided France deeply and lastingly into two opposing camps: the pro-Army, mostly Catholic “anti-Dreyfusards” and the anticlerical, pro-republican Dreyfusards. It embittered French politics and encouraged radicalization.”

After the publication of J’Accuse:

“General Billot, Minister of War, filed a complaint against Zola and Alexandre Perrenx, the manager of L’Aurore, to be heard at the Assises of the Seine from 7 to 23 February 1898. Defamation of a public authority was liable to trial in the Cour d’Assises, while insults to private figures—such as journalists and intellectuals—uttered by the nationalist and antisemitic press were limited to the civil adversarial system. (The taxpayer is at risk in the first case, while only the plaintiff is at risk in the second.) The minister referred to only three passages of Zola’s article,[140] eighteen lines out of hundreds. He accused Zola of having written that the court martial had committed “unlawful acts […] by order”.[141] The trial opened in an atmosphere of extreme violence—Zola had been the object of “the most shameful attacks”[Note 29] as well as important support and congratulations.[Note 30]

Fernand Labori, Zola’s lawyer, intended to call about 200 witnesses. The details of the Dreyfus Affair, unknown to most of the public, were published in the press. Several papers[Note 31] published shorthand notes verbatim of the debates every day to build support in the population. These notes were, for the Dreyfusards, an essential tool for later debates. The nationalists, behind Henri Rochefort, however, were more visible and organized riots, which forced the prefect of police to intervene to protect Zola whenever he left the facility[142] after every hearing.[143]

This trial was also the scene of a real legal battle in which the rights of the defence were constantly violated.[144] Many observers were aware of the collusion between France’s political and military worlds. Evidently the court received instructions not to raise the subject of former judicial errors. President Delegorgue, on the pretext of the long duration of the hearings, juggled the law incessantly to ensure that the trial dealt only with the alleged defamation by Zola. Delegorgue’s phrase “the question will not be put” was repeated dozens of times.[145].

Zola was sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of 3,000 francs,[Note 32] which was the maximum penalty. This harshness was due to the atmosphere of violence surrounding the trial. “The excitement of the audience and the exasperation of the crowd in front of the courthouse were so violent that one could fear the worst excesses if the jury acquitted Mr. Zola”.[147] However, the Zola trial was rather a victory for the Dreyfusards.[148] Indeed, the affair and its contradictions had been widely discussed throughout the trial, especially by the military. In addition, the violent attacks against Zola and the injustice of the conviction of Dreyfus reinforced the commitment of the Dreyfusards. … Even more than the Dreyfus Affair the Zola affair resulted in a regrouping of intellectual forces into two opposing camps.

On 2 April 1898 an application to the Supreme Court received a favourable response. This was the court’s first intervention in the affair. The military court made the complaint, rather than the minister. Prosecutor-General Manau supported a review of the Dreyfus trial and strongly opposed the anti-Semites. The judges of the military court, whom Zola had challenged, sued him for libel. The case was brought before the Assizes of Seine-et-Oise in Versailles where the public was considered more favourable to the army and more nationalistic. On 23 May 1898, at the first hearing, Mr. Labori appealed to the Supreme Court regarding the change of jurisdiction, which adjourned the trial and postponed the hearing to 18 July 1898. Labori advised Zola to leave France for England before the end of the trial, which the writer did, departing for a one-year exile in England. The defendants were convicted again. As for Colonel Picquart, he found himself again in prison.

Henry unmasked, the case is rekindled

The acquittal of Esterhazy, the convictions of Émile Zola and of Georges Picquart, and the continued presence of an innocent man in prison had a considerable national and international effect.[151] France was exposed as an arbitrary state, which contradicted its founding republican principles. Anti-Semitism made considerable progress and riots were common throughout the year 1898. However politicians were still in denial about the affair. In April and May 1898, they were mostly concerned with elections, “

“plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”

Guilty on 8 counts: 1 of hiding foreign bank accounts, 2 of defrauding lenders, and 5 of tax evasion.

How do any of us–if not present at the incident itself, in it’s entirety–ever know for sure what happened, who was there, what their demeanor was, what they said and/or did, or what the event that happened really and fully consisted of?

How are we to know if something of key importance is being hidden from us, and just not reported on? Can we ever be sure that the MSM has just not collectively turned it’s head away from something they just don’t want to see, or us to know?

If we don’t have all of the background information–the real, true, actual, objective, and complete facts–how can we sort the truly significant from what is not of any real significance and consequence? Spend our time thinking about and dealing with the mountain, and not the molehill.

Which one of us can know with certainty–if not intimately involved in something–if some key piece of information is missing, or if some key document has either been withheld, has been tampered with, or is being willfully misinterpreted?

Here is where an objective, honest, and thorough Press–reporting things “without fear or favor,” as they used to say– is so critically important, and today’s Press is neither objective, nor honest, nor thorough.

As long as the Left and their servants the MSM control the “narrative,” we will never be fully sure that we are being told, “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” about anything, much less things of great significance and consequence.