1: I think the truth is somewhere between the claims of the Clinton campaign and that of defensive journalists.https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/772500994429247489 …
-
3.So far there are some examples of CF donors getting special access, like the Slim Fast guy, but many other donors would have access anyway
4. But just because the CF story is so far not much of anything doesn't mean journalists shouldn't dig.Relevant to how HRC would handle pres
-
-
5. But much more on point is Clinton email issues at State, which show sloppiness with how issue was handled and
-
6. Email handling reinforces perception that Clintons always play it close to the line and believe regular rules don't apply to them. BUT
-
7. On other hand, on issues of Trump's pay to play/access/potential governance style, there seems to be much less attention/evenhandedness
-
8. Best example, as
@JuddLegum pointed out,is failure of most media to cover Trump giving money to AGs to squelch Trump U investigations -
9. I blogged here (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86182 ) on
@Fahrenthold story on Trump donation to FL AG Bondihttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-pays-irs-a-penalty-for-his-foundation-violating-rules-with-gift-to-florida-attorney-general/?postshare=9471472847883822&tid=ss_tw-bottom … -
10. It is an excellent story that hasn't gotten much pickup. And as I say the real story is what's legal, not illegal.
-
11. Story shows that Trump engaged in pay-to-play to try to avoid civil (and maybe eventually criminal) investigations of fraud by Trump U
-
12. And Trump has admitted that the reason he gave $ to politicians (when he was still supposedly self-funding) was to buy influence/access
-
13. So on the transactional nature of politics Trump seems much worse than Clinton, and there's much more digging on this for journalists
-
14. Yet journalists don't cover the Trump influence access story nearly as much for a number of reasons:
-
15. (a) There's so much else about Trump to cover because he's outrageous and every speech sets a new fire
-
16. (b) There are rich stories from Trump's past, like his history of racial discrimination in housing
-
17. (c) Because Trump is so outrageous, the media seems less interested in the access/governing story which is so important
-
18. (d) Thanks to FOIA disclosures, there's always a new news peg for Clinton access stories but not for Trump, which requires digging
-
19. (e) Clinton campaign and HRC have longstanding antagonistic relationship with press, which just encourages aggressiveness on both sides
-
20. Clinton would actually help herself by doing regular press conferences and availabilities, which would lower temperature w/journalists
-
21. But watching Clinton campaign/allies tangling w/ ournalists like
@kenvogel just exacerbates animosity/feelings of mistreatment by both -
22. And in the end Clinton gets more disproportionate stories on sale of access /influence when Trump seems to be much bigger offender.~FIN~
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Would be more tolerable if the Trump scandals requiring no digging at all would get coverage.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.