I think the media latches onto simple corruption cases like this because they’re easy for people to grasp.
“Trump overpays donor to do subpar job on major national monument, ruining it” is a simple quid pro quo with visible (and ironically metaphorical) results.
It’s a little harder to talk about all his insider trading schemes, Melania movie $40M kickback, crypto rugpulls, campaign finance violations, etc. Because those have more plausible deniability and the results don’t have immediate and observable effects - often just pay for play schemes between him & corporations which are less concrete.
People can either delude themselves into thinking it’s legitimate because they don’t understand financial stuff/how things typically worked before being massively corrupt, or because it’s initially just Trump making money (usually illegally) which is something they expect him to do and the illegality is difficult to explain or not very hard-hitting.
I think the media latches onto simple corruption cases like this because they’re easy for people to grasp.
“Trump overpays donor to do subpar job on major national monument, ruining it” is a simple quid pro quo with visible (and ironically metaphorical) results.
It’s a little harder to talk about all his insider trading schemes, Melania movie $40M kickback, crypto rugpulls, campaign finance violations, etc. Because those have more plausible deniability and the results don’t have immediate and observable effects - often just pay for play schemes between him & corporations which are less concrete.
People can either delude themselves into thinking it’s legitimate because they don’t understand financial stuff/how things typically worked before being massively corrupt, or because it’s initially just Trump making money (usually illegally) which is something they expect him to do and the illegality is difficult to explain or not very hard-hitting.
MSMs arnt talking about the actual things like insider trading because most of them are owned trump lvoing conservatives.