That is the question Paul Waldman asks in a thorough piece that went up at The Washington Post this afternoon, with the full title of Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?
There is lots of material here. Waldman points out the discrepancy about how supposed scandals of the two nominees are covered, with multiple reporters assigned to cover any aspect of anything about Hillary Clinton, whereas perhaps some individual reporter or three comes up with something about Trump which gets mentioned in passing, not pursued further, and then dropped.
The end result of this process is that because of all that repeated examination of Clinton’s affairs, people become convinced that she must be corrupt to the core.
There is, Waldman points out, a lot of negative coverage about Trump, but usually about his latest crazy statements (or tweets), meaning his very long history of corrution gets ignored.