As in any kind pursuit for justice, the difference is in the quality of evidence.
Kav and Trump were assumed guilty with no solid evidence linking them to the crime. There was an investigation and a lot of the evidence (w/c were shown to the public) were inconclusive.
Smollet was guilty as sin with a paper trail and witnesses. This was open and shut but the prosecutor just decided to drop the charges. Which made this look corrupt as heck.
Big difference here.
Yeah, no. Smollett had a mountain of evidence against him, confessions from his co-conspirators, receipts for the items, signed checks, pictures of the co-conspirators with him, video evidence that showed him walking around calmly right after it allegedly happened, etc.. Plus his story was rather ridiculous to begin with starting with the premise that two guys were walking around Chicago on one of the coldest nights in years with a rope and a bottle containing some substance and recognized a B-List celebrity they could attack.
Kavanaugh had one woman making an allegation with details so vague that they could never be substantiated.
Trump just survived a two-year investigation which looked high and low for any evidence of guilt and couldn't find anything on him.
I wasn't serious, that's why I made the joke about why guilty verdicts aren't trending, as if the decisions are being made by the public socially. That and since it seemed like there was actually more than enough hard evidence against Smollett, and how he blamed the corrupt system, which is what it seems he used to get away with it, makes me wonder if the world really is flat and upside down, because the laws and rules don't seem to always apply, even though we're told they do.