Anyone who opens the door to an opponent's has to know that any contents of their own will be revealed in due course. The differences exist in whether what's discovered is acknowledged and atoned for and then sent to its grave; or defended, though the ethics of society evolved.
The former can press on. The latter will turn quickly to dust.
Yet every campaign in every nation seems to think that one will not beget the other — that dragging out secrets will not have a correlative effect. Such thinking shows what’s either feeblemindedness or the rampant self-delusionment of ego-driven idiocy. Neither is good.
Yet voters seem immune to revelations that besmirch their chosen candidate. At least, they do these days. A change of heart or mind is seen as weakness. That is totally and rationally wrong.
The ability to face up to facts and apply them to prior conclusions is a sign of intelligent thought. And the willingness to acknowledge that the new information is persuasive (and verifiable) enough to reach a different opinion takes strength.
It’s not the courage of one’s convictions that matters. It’s the ability to face up to the past. And then change.