Now, let’s pause for a moment and let the gravity of these two scandals sink in: An aide to Clinton is married to a jackass who can’t keep his dick in his pants versus Donald Trump apparently bribing an attorney general of the third-largest state in the nation to prevent legal action being brought against him. And adding to that, when the payoff came to light, Trump lied, saying he had never spoken to the attorney general before the illegal contribution was made, when in fact, he had.

With all that in mind, what level of importance do you think The New York Times gave to these two stories?

Based on a Nexis search of the past two weeks, The Times carried five news stories that featured Anthony Weiner’s connection to Hillary Clinton. This included a page one article headlined “Weiner's Texts Cast Shadow on Campaign” (with Amy Chozick’s byline), where we learned that “Mr. Weinter’s extramarital behavior also threatens to remind voters about the troubles in the Clintons’ own marriage over the decades.” Another told us “Mr. Weiner’s ties to the Clinton campaign make his explicit messages a useful weapon by the Trump camp ...” Because something.

On Donald Trump’s potential bribery scandal? The Times had two whole articles. And in both of those articles, The Times uncritically included comments from Trump calling Bondi ''beyond reproach'' and claiming that he ''never spoke to her about that at all.'' In fact, said Trump, ''I never spoke to her, first of all, she's a fine person beyond reproach,'' he said when asked about the controversy. ''I never even spoke to her about it at all. She's a fine person. Never spoken to her about it. Never.''

Never. Ever. Except for the fact that the Associated Press had reported three months before that:

Florida’s attorney general personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump around the same time her office deliberated joining an investigation of alleged fraud at Trump University and its affiliates

To be fair to The New York Times, there are only so many hours in the day, and their crack squad of political reporters have to be stretched pretty thin, what with tracking down penis pictures and coming up with yet another way to say “while there is no evidence of wrongdoing, the optics of …” So little details like Bondi’s “personal solicitation” of Trump would have been easy to miss. Along with stories about Trump’s shady charity “donations,” his scamming of 9/11 funds, his tax returns, the white nationalist heading his campaign ...