Right, but that doesn't answer my question. If anything, it makes me more curious, since this isn't the first time he's been singled out for doing the same thing that virtually all of them do as a matter of course.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing - quite the contrary. Charging (and preferably removing from office and imprisoning) corrupt politicians is not only a good thing, but arguably the single best thing we could do as a nation right now. Official corruption is at the heart of virtually every single ill that this country currently suffers.

But it's notably a thing that's almost never prosecuted, in spite of the fact that it's not only widespread, but often brazen.

So again, I'm just curious what's special about him - why a government that generally turns a blind eye to corruption has chosen to prosecute this particular instance of it.