My goal is to make the point that Schneiderman's physical violence against women cannot be dismissed so blithely simply because someone more powerful broke campaign finance law, nor should it be presumed these women are paid slanderers.
I'd say you've done it, except nobody's actually said otherwise; nobody's saying that what he's accused of doing is in any way acceptable, and the closest any of us have come to presuming the women are being anything other than truthful is to note that, in light of certain inconsistencies they admit to in their accounts, there remains a level of uncertainty as to what actually happened that I at least would like to see better accounted for simply so that we're condemning him for the right things. That these accusations may be literally Trumped up is, together with the possibility of a misunderstanding on someone's part regarding consent, a possibility we owe it to everyone involved to rule out to a reasonable degree of certainty. That said, I think him being guilty of exactly what he's been accused of is the most likely possibility by far. It's just that there's no ongoing threat to anyone so I don't mind letting the process play out in the most thorough way available.
None of that is in any way relevant to Trump's conduct, which is also despicable; if you want to draw a comparison between them, it would be fair to say that the very probably illegal payment to Stormy Daniels and the NDA being matters of record makes her account of her relationship with Trump somewhat more straightforward to credit given only what we know now. If you want another comparsion, the possible existence of GRU kompromat on Trump suggests that there may be an immediate threat of our government being unduly influenced by a foreign power, while establishing the truth of Schneiderman's conduct is urgent only in the sense that everyone involved deserves a speedy trial.
See, Shazbot, the law is not a game; you don't have to decide which team committed more fouls. You can, should, and must take each case on its merits separately. That's what the rule of law
is.