The Clinton Foundation gets all the scrutiny from the press, but I think a nudge will be necessary before the press pays serious attention to the Trump Foundation's dealings in Florida:
... on September 1, news broke that the Trump Foundation “violated tax laws by giving a political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general.” It was required to pay a $2500 fine to the IRS.
The details of the case are even more unseemly. Florida’s Attorney General was considering opening an investigation into Trump University, which is accused of defrauding students. Bondi herself contacted Trump and asked for a political contribution. After a political committee associated with her campaign received the illegal $25,000 contribution, she decided not to pursue it.
The story has something that none of the Clinton Foundation stories have: Actual evidence of illegal conduct. In this case, not only is there concrete evidence that the Trump Foundation broke the law, but a formal finding of wrongdoing by the IRS.
So far, the press certainly doesn't seem to have any inclination to mention it:
I think the Clinton campaign should make an ad about the Trump Foundation. It may not be a message that wins over voters in key states, but ads become news of their own these days, and maybe the slap in the face the media needs on this subject is a Clinton paid ad. God forbid the press should do its job without that prodding.
Meanwhile, at Mediaite, John Ziegler wonders why the press won't talk about Trump's birtherism.
So why has the media not obsessed over [this] issue ...?
... The more likely explanation is that the definition of “news” in our short-attention- span culture dictates that unless there is a compelling “hook” to discuss an issue on that particular day, then it just never happens (“Look, Trump just tweeted something weird!”). With that in mind, Trump deciding not to talk at all about this issue may be the smartest thing he has done in the general election. I will be curious to see whether the news media ultimately lets him get away with it.
Right -- throughout this campaign, Trump has said he won't talk about his birtherism, and the press has been completely deferential to his wish to avoid the subject. Also, the press covered the subject years ago, so why bring it up now? (The answer would seem obvious: because he wasn't running for president years ago, and his running for president now.)
I think it's pssoible that the Clinton campaign is saving up a birther ad for later in the campaign. It seems like something Team Clinton might want to remind voters of right before they go into the voting booth.
If so, that could be another example of the Clintonites doing what the press should be doing. It's not going to happen otherwise, is it?
Crossposted at No More Mr. Nice Blog