[CyberDildonics]

That's just straight up what-about-ism. Any corruption in the past or from opposing political parties has zero to do with current corruption. The law doesn't take two people and pit them against each other for who violated a law the most. Any corruption is unacceptable.

[sonnyblarney]

I'm not pitting two people against one another - I'm indicating the sad hypocrisy on the part of all of you arguing corruption here.

The indication is that because he was part of a private non-profit - is that there is some kind of inherent shadiness - which is wrong.

The radical partisanship here has thrown all of the otherwise great debaters on here into a hissy fit.

There is no story.

He was part of an advocacy group from years ago - it likely has nothing to do with anything.

He could have been a private lawyer, or worked at any other private firm and it would indicate the same degree of ostensible corruption.