I make this statement entirely outside of any commentary as to whether they actually do deserve it or not.

True. But you're not making this statement out of any pragmatic context whatsoever.

Raising an hypothetical is a conversational act. It reflects intentions and beliefs, and it has practical and discursivr implications. At the minimum, raising an hypothetical reflects beliefs about what is pertinent to bring to the conversation.

Contemplating the hypothetical that Clinton committed crimes whenever Trump's alleged crimes are brought is entertaining the false idea that there are comparisons and equivalences to be drawn between the two, that this is a pertinent thing to do.

That this is a reflex for many (just like it's a common reflex to prefix approval of Clinton with "I don't really like her but...") is indicative that the propaganda is guiding the conversation. It's not necessarily guiding what thoughts people endorse, but it is guiding what thoughts they are inclined to entertain. In other words it's guiding the conversational pragmatics. And that's already a problem.