DEAR CNN: The ‘Trump Donor’ Charged With Campaign Finance And Lobbying Crimes Donated To OBAMA And HILLARY — Is THAT News?

Has anyone else noticed a pattern of the media spotlighting Republican connections to dubious characters while downplaying BIGGER Democrat connections to the very same people?

For example, Manafort — connected to the Trump campaign — was a national news story when the FBI kicked in his door at six in the morning. He wound up sitting in solitary confinement in Rikers.

His business partner, Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary’s Campaign Manager, somehow skated away with immunity.

And it is curious, (or strangely incurious) how the media takes very little interest in such irregularities.

This case is yet another such example.

As you read the media citation take note of two details. The underscoring of the connection to Trump in the beginning of the story, followed by the description of the political connections (AND the bulk of the actual CRIMES he is being charged with) much further down.

Hilarious @thedailybeast and others reporting “Trump campaign donor charged” why are they leaving out the $1.2 million he gave to @BarackObama or the $500k to @HillaryClinton? First line of indictment is “from 2010 through present” #FactsMatter #ImaadZuberi https://t.co/gtBXTUpFXp

— Rosie Memos (@almostjingo) October 22, 2019

So @SDNYnews subpoenaed Inauguration records specific to Imaad Zuberi? If accepting donations from him is illegal than @HillaryClinton & @BarackObama should be worried. He was on Obama’s National Finance Committee and coined a “Hillblazer” by Podesta team.https://t.co/2D4iob5F2M pic.twitter.com/mskvv3iA4f

— Rosie Memos (@almostjingo) February 5, 2019

Whoops. There’s Podesta’s name again. (By the way, did we ever get to the bottom of his 75000 shares in a Russian energy company?)

…“The disclosure that Clinton Chair John Podesta transferred his shares in Putin-backed Joule Unlimited to an anonymous holding company when he joined the Obama Administration is extremely concerning,” said Donald Trump Senior Communications Advisor Jason Miller in a statement.

Now that we know the game they are playing in advance, let’s take a look at that article

You will notice right there in the first two paragraphs, we’ve got: a Trump connection, a criminal accusation, and a presumption of guilt. (Conveniently enough for Trump-haters, this guilt is transferrable to anyone he associates with. This is crafted to create maximum impact on Trump.)

Federal prosecutors charged a California-based money manager, who donated nearly $1 million to President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee, with foreign lobbying practices violations, tax evasion and breaking campaign finance laws, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

Imaad Zuberi, 49, is expected to plead guilty to the charges, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California said.
Source: ABCNews

Some people have moved on by that point. In that case, the damage is done.

Others will read further on and find the next paragraph gives some additional information.

Prior to his donations to the Trump inaugural committee, Zuberi had long been a prolific political donor to Democrats, including President Barack Obama and Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. After the election, Zuberi’s company, Avenue Ventures, donated $900,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee, according to FEC records.

Many of the crimes described by federal prosecutors took place prior to his donation to Trump. The candidates to whom Zuberi funneled money are not named in the court records, but are said to include both federal and state campaigns.

According to court documents filed Tuesday, federal prosecutors said Zuberi had “solicited foreign nationals and representatives of foreign governments with claims he could use his influence in Washington, D.C. to change United States foreign policy and create business opportunities for his clients and himself.”
Source: ABCNews

In straight news stories, the less important details are generally added further down. Readers know this, so information further down is given less weight than the drive-by smearing in the first paragraph.

You will notice they include an impressive six-figure dollar amount for the Trump campaign, but no equivalent figure in the Hillary or Obama campaign.

Did he give the other campaigns just as much? Maybe. But they don’t give us that information. Fortunately, we’ve found such information elsewhere:

Imaad Zuberi, age 45, is a private equity fund manager, venture capitalist, and an elite political fundraiser. He was among the top tier of bundlers for Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, meaning he delivered $500,000 or more in contributions. He’s already among Clinton’s “Hillblazers,” bundling $100,000 for her presidential campaign in its first months. Among the perks of delivering that much money to candidates is access to them, and advertising that access caught the eye of those who wanted some of it for themselves. — ForeignPolicy

Does that LOOK like a deeply-committed MAGA-man to YOU?

If he was attempting to use donations to kiss up to powerful powerful politicians (at both Federal AND State levels), and (once he had it) try to sell whatever influence he has (or claims to have) to foreign lobbyists, the fact that he funded Hillary’s camp too suggests he was simply playing both sides. The Foreign Policy article from some years ago supports that claim.

In other words, if he did what they claim he did this was an act of pure political (and financial) opportunism.

If both sides took money, the culpability or lack thereof should balance out, right? Sure — unless you start with the assumption that Orange Man Bad. That changes everything.

And we can absolutely TRUST these journalists for their objectivity, right?

Remember how ABC claimed that they accidentally ran footage of Kentucky as though it were an attack by Turkey on the Syrian Kurds?

We know it was no accident.

Alex Jones helpfully ran a side-by side clip of the bogus video beside the original undoctored one that had no filters applied to it. Those filters made the fake look like it was happening on a grander scale and had been filmed with much poorer quality equipment.

But that Syrian video was just an ‘accident’.

And we can absolutely trust ABC to be an objective source of impartial reporting.

Yeah right, and I’ve got some land in Florida for you.