One of the many gratuitous epistemic mistakes that the Democrats drove home with a sledgehammer all year was that, say, something someone once wrote in Breitbart is decisive evidence that Donald Trump is a white supremacist and that racism was the basis of his victory. Why hasn't he condemned Milo Yiannopoulos?! Condemning him twice isn't enough; it must be an incessant drumbeat of repudiation. It took him 72 hours or whatever to repudiate David Duke. They were using stuff like that as dispositive evidence. What could be more obvious? Now, the Chicago torturers oppose Trump, and so does Chuck Schumer. Coincidence? Man, Schumer has been slow to condemn it; it's like he's winking at his supporters. Everyone knows what he really means by his omissions, who he really is appealing to.
One slight difficulty with this is that it is impossible to know the whole history of everyone who may ever have agreed with you about something. But there is a solution. I personally have a policy of condemning in the strongest and most profane possible terms and, with a kind of physical loathing, repudiating utterly all who may have ever supported me for any reason or for no reason at all. There is no place for that in our society. Good enough? I will repeat incessantly, indefinitely.