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.