Trump’s Corruption Double-Whammy That The Media Is Letting Slide

Imagine for a second that Hillary Clinton is operating a business that has run afoul of its customers, and some even believe they were defrauded and are suing to get their money back. Then imagine that there is a pattern of Clinton donating money to those attorneys general and in return, they drop their investigations into Clinton’s business.

Now imagine that happening and the media barely focusing on it, instead choosing to bang the drum for another storyline, which is an attack on Donald Trump.

That’s what has happened with Donald Trump and Trump University and the campaign donations he made, followed by skating on possible charges and probes.

The IRS recently fined Trump because one of his charities made a donation to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi. After Trump gave this money to Bondi’s political campaign, she decided not to go forward with an investigation of Trump University.

In [its 2013] tax filings, The Post reported, the Trump Foundation did not notify the IRS of this political donation. Instead, Trump’s foundation listed a donation – also for $25,000 – to a Kansas charity with a name similar to that of Bondi’s political group. In fact, Trump’s foundation had not given the Kansas group any money.

The prohibited gift was, in effect, replaced with an innocent-sounding but nonexistent donation.

In Texas, instead of investigating Trump University, then-attorney general Greg Abbott (now governor) chose to instead allocate time to figuring out how to calculate his campaign money that he received from Donald Trump.

The AP reported that Abbott, a Republican, was serving as Texas Attorney General at the time, and opened a civil investigation of “possibly deceptive trade practices” into Trump University, but quietly dropped it when the organization agreed to end its operations in Texas.

Trump subsequently donated $35,000 to Abbott’s successful gubernatorial campaign, according to records obtained by the AP.

In a normal world, these donations from Trump and the favorable treatment his possibly criminal and corrupt enterprise got from attorneys general would trigger some kind of frenzy in the press. Questions would be raised about “pay for play,” “quid pro quo.” Instead there has been largely silence on these cases, choosing to highlight the “optics” that “could” cause trouble for Hillary Clinton.

I’ve heard for years that there is a “liberal media” out there. I’m still looking for it.

Featured image via Flickr