I’ve reached the conclusion that those who try to defend Johnson in the face of all the indisputable evidence against him must breathe through their bottoms - there’s no way they could breathe through their noses, or even their mouths, with their heads buried so deep in the sand.

People are not necessarily defending Johnson, but working on the basis that 'due process' must be observed.
There are too many here who would condemn him before the evidence has been viewed and decided upon.
Several have said "He's had one fine, there will be more, he should go now". No, it has stopped at one fine.
Others are saying "He lied to parliament about it". But they don't quote him. Yes he said "No rules were broken", but as part of a longer comment "I have been assured that nor rules were broken".
Can we at least wait for the privileges committee to look at this and make a decision?

All else is 'prejudice'. Check that for a definition if you need to.