Let's grant everything you state here about Trump and Kushner to be true. I'm not arguing against that. Yes, it's all bad. All of it. No citations necessary. I believe you.
I really want to know this: Given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, how are you making the determination that some things are not important and other things are important. How are you deciding that?
For instance, that the FBI may have influenced the election is not important information, but that Jared Kushner's business dealings are important.
The FBI reporting on Hillary's emails only served to damage her campaign. What she did was wrong but less wrong than Trump. Note that the Trump administration actively communicated in side channels to avoid scrutiny. And the recent news about stolen classified information
What do you want out the email controversy? That she be disqualified and/or imprisoned? And knowing what you know now about Trump, would you apply the same metrics?
It's not whataboutism here -- it's the selective outrage that I take issue with.
I really want to know this: Given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, how are you making the determination that some things are not important and other things are important. How are you deciding that?
For instance, that the FBI may have influenced the election is not important information, but that Jared Kushner's business dealings are important.
Just, how do you make that evaluation?