You disagree with “lawfare”, as in the biased application of the law to further individual interests? Having presented no hard evidence for your claims, I can

You disagree with “lawfare”, as in the biased application of the law to further individual interests? Having presented no hard evidence for your claims, I can only assume the standard you demand is the scrupulous separation of interests, conflicts, and bias to demonstrate the absence of bias beyond a reasonable doubt which is a laudable standard. Yet, you applaud to the clear, unabashed, unapologetic, intentionally biased application of the law to further individual interests. By an entity whose interests, conflicts, and bias are so thoroughly intertwined that the presence of bias is beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you please explain why you apply diametrically opposed standards of evidence based on their alignment to your in-group?