Donald Trump says that the Clinton Foundation, and specifically the donations it accepted during her tenure as Secretary of State, should be fully investigated. Of the few things I agree with from Donald, this one I agree with the most of all. Of course it should be investigated. It’s shady (or as Trump puts it “the most corrupt enterprise in political history”), selling access and favors is despicable, and the people who buy it are usually nefarious individuals of low character.

Oh by the way Trump was one of them.

Yeah. Genius.

That’s a tweet from Brian Fallon, who is Hillary Clinton’s press secretary. He is in a position to know when the donations were given. He’s swinging wild because the evidence mounting against her is astonishing. More than half of the people who are not part of our government that met with Hillary while she was Secretary of State were Clinton Foundation donors, reports the AP. There were thousands upon thousands of emails and hundreds of millions of dollars at play, and favors were done. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, and even the MSM isn’t ignoring this smoke. Fallon should be worried.

Trump, meanwhile, has defended his practice of donating to democrats, and specifically his donations to and praise of Hillary Clinton, as being simply the totally defensible and understandable and necessary nature of doing business. He was stacking up favor with her so she would be amenable and helpful to him.

You know, like a transaction.

You know, like the exact kind of transaction he is stating should be investigated.

You know, like this thing he did for his business was part of something that he described this week as “a clear example of a RICO enterprise.” Something that he says “corrupted and disgraced” the State Department. He’s saying that about a practice that he not only participated in but defended as merely sensible on his part. “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do,” he said. “As a businessman, I need that.”

Some offer a defense by asking if Trump got any access or any greased wheels as a result of his donation, as if to suggest that maybe he was just being charitable or there is no harm, no foul. But charity is not the reason that Donald Trump himself offers, as you can see, and he claims it was very successful. He’s said it on dozens of occasions this election. It’s his characterization. Who says he was donating to the Clintons for access? Donald Trump said that. “I’ve got to give to [politicians], because when I want something, I get it. When I call, they kiss my ass.” His words. Case closed.

This absolutely does matter, despite the fact that the above tweet is from a desperate Clintonite.

I mean, do you know why the people who buy influence thus peddled are usually nefarious and of low character? Because what they need and want, what they get from the Clintons, they can’t get without paying. It is for that very reason it is such a despised practice. But even for those of less degenerate intent it is still a gross perversion of our system of government. Yet Trump not only admits to participating but cites it as an example of his business savvy. He’s essentially arguing that it’s smart to cheat while condemning the practice of cheating and demanding that it be investigated. Fallon, on the other hand, is arguing neither of them be investigated.

National Review’s Dan McLaughlin, formerly of RedState, has the perfect response:

But Trump’s fans, at least those replying on Twitter, see no conflict here, and that’s the perfect example of the abandonment of moral, ethical, and common sense standards that occur when one jumps on the Trump train. The “hey I know it’s corrupt because I was part of it” argument only works if you actually condemn your own participation, not if you brag about it as a smart and reasonable example of why you are great at business. And even then it only half works.

If your hit man is arrested for murdering who you hired him to murder, you’re probably going to be in some hot water too, you see. You can’t argue that you’re just super great at knowing who needed murderin’. It is either a reprehensible perversion of governance over which the American people should be outraged, or, you know, it isn’t. Degrees of culpability exist, but absolution is laughable.

Yet that’s where we are. One of the candidates for President is demanding the other be condemned and investigated criminally for participation in a mutual transaction between the two of them. And his supporters think it’s fine because she was selling while he was merely buying. It really is an absurd situation. Very 2016.

We should though. We should investigate. Hillary has stonewalled on this, like everything else, but the evidence can’t be ignored. This should be investigated and all participants roundly denounced. All.

Now, I will leave you with this to ponder. Last Thursday Trump suggested giving Hillary the “benefit of the doubt” on this Clinton Foundation/Secretary of State business. Isn’t that interesting?

I’m just saying. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, y’all.