In anything resembling a rational political discourse, the fact that Donald Trump's foundation broke the law by giving a donation to the reelection campaign of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi while she was deciding whether or not to join a case against Trump University ought to be causing a fucking orgy of scandal coverage all over the mainstream media. It sure as shit looks like Trump gave Bondi $25,000 after which she dropped the case against Trump U and didn't even bother with the possibly more vile Trump Institute, which was based in Florida. That's the kind of blatant quid pro quo that would make Hillary Clinton conspiracists blow a load all over Sean Hannity.
But for Pam Bondi, it sure as shit appears that this kind of graft was as ordinary as gators and heroin in the Sunshine State.
For instance, Bondi's predecessor, Bill McCollum, had sued travel agencies like Expedia who were trying to get out of paying certain taxes in Florida. A few junkets and some money funneled through the Republican Attorneys General Association later, and, in 2014, Bondi said that there was no need to continue the lawsuit.
This was part of her cozy relationship with the now-defunct law firm Dickstein Shapiro, which contributed nearly $25,000 to Bondi's campaign war chest (which seems to be the going rate for her). Bondi didn't pursue cases against the firm's clients, like Herbalife and, hey, a for-profit college. Dickstein Shapiro was eventually cleared when it was investigated for trying to buy influence with Bondi, but, shit, if we use Republican standards for what lengthy investigations prove, then everyone involved was guilty as fuck. The Florida press started calling Bondi's m.o. "pay to look away."
You know, one of the things that Hillary and Bill Clinton are constantly barraged with is how they do things that make them "look guilty." They "act" like they've done something wrong, although, shit, if people were constantly accusing you of humping dogs, you'd be a little paranoid when you're photographed in close proximity to a schnauzer even if you had no intention of fucking it at all.
Here we have a case where something not only looks wrong, but something wrong happened. The Trump Foundation did something illegal and paid a fine for it. Trump has dismissed it as insignificant, and it looks like the media is going to buy that. Why would that be? Is it just that Trump never pretended to be anything but a sleazy carnival barker while the Clintons have the gall to get drugs to kids in Africa and claim they never profit from it?
I'm all for holding Hillary Clinton to a high ethical standard, but harping on her supposed quid pro quo while the Trump thing has occurred is like taking a photo of a dog shitting on a sidewalk while behind you someone is setting the whole block on fire.
Trump speaks incredibly highly of Bondi. She has been under nearly constant criticism for possibly doing almost exactly what Trump criticizes Clinton for. I guess that's the kind of hypocrisy we expect from our Republican candidates.
