That court of
 justice then, O judges, was not like a court of justice; for in it there was no moderation
 preserved, no regard was had to custom and usage, nor was the cause of the defendant properly
 advocated. It was all violence, and, as I have said before, a sort of earthquake or tempest,—it
 was anything rather than a court of justice, or a legal discussion, or a judicial investigation.
 But if there be any one who thinks that that was a regular proceeding, and who thinks it right
 to adhere to the decision that was then delivered; still he ought to separate this cause from
 that one. For it is said that a great many things were demanded of him either because he had not
 taken the oath to observe the law, or because he had not cast lots for electing judges in the
 room of those to whom objection had been made in a legal manner. But the case of Cluentius can
 in no particular be connected with these, laws, in accordance with which a penalty was sought to
 be recovered from Junius . Oh, but Bulbus also was condemned. Add that he was condemned of treason, in
 order that you may understand that this trial has no connection with that one. But this charge
 was brought against him. I confess it; but it was also made evident by the letters of Caius
 Cosconius and by the evidence of many witnesses, that a legion in Illyricum had been tampered with by him; and that charge was one peculiarly
 belonging to that sort of investigation, and was one which was comprehended under the law of
 treason. But this was an exceedingly great disadvantage to him. That is mere guess work; and if
 we may have recourse to that, take care, I beg you, that my conjecture be not far the more
 accurate of the two. For my opinion is, that Bulbus, because he was a worthless, base, dishonest
 man, and because he came before the court contaminated with many crimes of the deepest dye, was
 on that account the more easily condemned. But you, out of Bulbus's whole case, select that
 which seems to suit your own purpose, in order that you may say that it was that which
 influenced the judges. Therefore, this decision in the case of Bulbus ought not to be any greater injury to this
 cause, than those two which were mentioned by the prosecutor in the case of Publius Popillius
 and Titus Gutta, who were prosecuted for corruption,—who were accused by men who had themselves
 been convicted of bribery, and whom I do not imagine to have been restored to their original
 position merely because they had proved that these other men also had taken money for the
 purpose of influencing their decision, or because they proved to the judges that they had
 detected others in the same sort of offence of which they had themselves been guilty; and that,
 therefore, they were entitled to the rewards offered by the law. Therefore, I think that no one
 can doubt that that conviction for bribery can in no possible way be connected with the cause of
 Cluentius and with your decision. What! not if Stalenus was
 condemned? I do not say at this present moment, O judges, that which I am not sure ought to be
 said at all, that he was convicted of treason,—I do not read over to you the testimonies of most
 honourable men, which were given against Stalenus by men who were lieutenants, and prefects, and
 military tribunes, under Mamercus Aemilius, that most illustrious man, by whose evidence it was
 made quite plain that it was chiefly through his instrumentality, when he was quaestor, that a
 seditious spirit was stirred up in the army. I do not even read to you that evidence which was
 given concerning these six hundred thousand sesterces, which when he had received on presences
 connected with the trial of Safinius, he retained and embezzled as he did afterwards in the case
 of the trial of Oppianicus. I say nothing of all these
 things, and of many others which were stated against Stalenus at that trial. This I do say,—that
 Publius and Lucius Cominius, Roman knights, most honourable and eloquent men, had the same
 dispute with Stalenus then, whom they were accusing, that I now have with Attius. The Cominii
 said the same thing that I say now,—that Stalenus received money from Oppianicus to induce him
 to corrupt the tribunal, and Stalenus said that he had received it to conciliate good-will
 towards him.