Dick Polman marvels at the disparate treatment.
Imagine the outcry if Hillary Clinton’s transition team was led by a scandal-plagued sleaze whose gubernatorial reign was best known for shutting traffic lanes on a major bridge, jeopardizing the public’s safety for the sole purpose of punishing a local mayor who’d refused to endorse. Imagine the outcry if Clinton’s transition leader was named by federal prosecutors, on day one of a major federal trial, as being fully aware of the bridge scandal while it was happening. Imagine the outcry if Clinton then came forward to robustly defend her aide, calling him “a spectacular advocate.”
We all know what would happen. The mainstream media would nail Clinton for the “perception” that a “shadow” had been cast over her campaign. They would assail her for refusing to dump the aide. They would amplify Donald Trump’s inevitable declaration that this episode proved the perfidy of “Crooked Hillary.”
But since Trump is inexplicably permitted to play by banana-republic rules, there will be no such equivalent oucry over the fact that his own transition leader, Chris Christie, was outed yesterday in federal court by a prosecutor who said he was fully aware of the bridge closures while they were happening. It was a milestone moment in the long-running scandal, the first time that a federal official has said such a thing in a formal judicial proceeding, and it flatly contradicted Christie’s long-running lie (which he repeated Sunday on CNN) that he has been exonerated by all the investigations.
More troubled waters at the link.