Journalists were completely open at the time that they could not find any wrongdoing by the Clintons or the foundation—no evidence of conflicts of interest or of Clinton selling State Department access to donors—yet the story remained hugely important because, they said, it looked bad. Indeed, “optics” became the go-to campaign theme for journalists who couldn't find any proof of Clinton malfeasance. (See also: the campaign coverage of her paid speeches.)

“Let’s be clear, this is all innuendo at this point. No pay for play has been proven. No smoking gun has been found,” announced NBC’s Chuck Todd. “But like many of these Clinton scandals, it looks bad.” "There's no question the optics are bad for Clinton and the Clinton Foundation," NPR said, while conceding that "no proof has emerged that any official favors—regulations, government contracts, international deals—were curried in exchange for donations or pledges." And from CNN's Anderson Cooper: "At the very least, there is an appearance of a conflict of interest for the foundation.”

Perhaps the strangest Clinton Foundation optics presentation came from a New York Times news report that claimed “the potential for real or perceived conflicts of interest” was causing problems for the candidate. Wait, what? Not only was Clinton being graded on perceived conflicts of interest, but also on potential perceived ones. Talk about a can't-win situation.

It got so weird that some newspaper editorial boards demanded the Clintons shut down their A-rated landmark global charity simply because the optics were bad, because it didn't "look good" in the eyes of the accusatory Beltway press. The Optics Police were furious.

Most of that type of commentary got packed away once Trump was sworn into office, but was dutifully brought back last month in order to ding Democrats once again. Mueller’s testimony before congressional committees about the Russia investigation painted a devastating picture of a White House hijacked by a criminal enterprise and a president who does not shy away from obstructing justice and betraying his country for personal gain. But, uh oh! The optics were all wrong.

"On substance, Democrats got what they wanted: that Mueller didn’t charge Pres. Trump because of the OLC guidance, that he could be indicted after he leaves office, among other things," NBC's Chuck Todd announced. "But on optics, this was a disaster."

Fox News' Chris Wallace called the hearings "a disaster for the Democrats." “Impeachment’s over,” ABC News' Terry Moran announced, noting that Democrats “needed more fuel for any kind of impeachment effort.” CBS News' Major Garrett claimed that Mueller lacked the look of a "matinee idol or the central galvanizing figure of that drama." And CNN's David Axelrod said the hearings were “very, very painful to watch.”

"The grossness continued Thursday morning as both the Washington Post and the New York Times ran articles declaring that Mueller's inability to play to the cameras means that any hope of impeachment is probably dead," noted Amanda Marcotte at Salon.

This is where I will remind readers that the Mueller hearings were such a "disaster" for Democrats—indeed, such an optics failure—that 25 (!) additional members of Congress have since come out in favor of impeachment proceedings against Trump. Talk about the media completely missing the story. But that's what happens when they're blinded by a Democratic "optics" pursuit.

It's so strange that they have so little interest in applying those same optics standards to Trump.

Eric Boehlert is a veteran progressive writer and media analyst, formerly with Media Matters and Salon. He is the author of Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush and Bloggers on the Bus. You can follow him on Twitter @EricBoehlert.

This post was written and reported through our Daily Kos freelance program.