By Rekha Basu

Des Moines Register

When news broke that the FBI had stumbled upon a possibly new cache of Clinton emails in connection with a fresh Anthony Weiner sexting probe, I felt duty-bound to seek out and watch “Weiner.” The documentary was made with the permission of the former New York Democratic congressman who is married to Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin.

Weiner was running for New York mayor during the filming. Then a new sexting scandal cropped up and torpedoed his campaign. I thought the film might hint at what sensitive information the couple shared, or whether Weiner might try to throw his wife and her boss under the bus to divert the spotlight from his sexting scandals.

OK, that last sentence is not entirely true. I didn’t just have high-minded reasons for wanting to see the film, which I finally watched Monday on Showtime. I’ve developed a personal fascination with Weiner’s and Abedin’s relationship. Like me, she’s a South Asian woman with roots in a traditional culture; liberated enough to pick her own spouse — a white American man — but not, until recently, outraged enough by his betrayals to send him packing. (He has been implicated in worse sexting incidents since the film was made.) I imagined how embarrassing it would feel to have to explain to my own South Asian parents such shaming conduct by a husband I chose.

I bring that up because my obvious anti-Weiner feelings tend to funnel any new information I get on him into the same narrative. It doesn’t matter that his political priorities largely match my own. I see a liar who puts himself ahead of others and repeatedly disrespects his wife and child.

I think Hillary Clinton’s harshest critics use a similar filter to examine everything she does. Some of the dislike is instinctive and personal; they can’t see past her mistakes to her ideas, plans or leadership qualities. Fine, we all bring our personal biases into our assessment of public figures. What bothers me is that some of Clinton’s worst critics don’t subject Donald Trump to the same scrutiny. They fault her for seeming to weigh her words for the impact they might have, while giving Trump points for being blunt and authentic — even when what he says isn’t true or is offensive.

The challenge is to recognize our own biases and sift through what’s important and what isn’t. But that has gotten harder to know, against the constant drone of TV talking heads trading not in hard facts but in theories.

The news media share some blame. When advisers to the presidential campaigns moonlight as paid contributors, they naturally spin their facts to favor their candidates. CNN this week ended its contract with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile after it was discovered through WikiLeaks that she had informed the Clinton campaign about upcoming questions to be asked in a debate. But Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, remains a paid CNN contributor and informal campaign adviser. Why? Instead of political figures or other news people, why not have actual outside experts to discuss and offer context on tax policy or foreign policy?

When Bernie Sanders was competing against Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but famously told her no one cared about “your damn e-mails,” it was a refreshingly generous comment that allowed others to put the e-mail issue into perspective. Sanders was more skeptical about Clinton’s speaking fees and ties to corporate America. But he has since endorsed her over Trump, telling his followers their movement had influenced her. It did.

We don’t want a president who is motivated by private financial gain. But how do you know whether Trump or Clinton is more suspect?

GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan, in voting for Trump, said of the Clintons: “They live beyond the rules and they live to work the system to help themselves.” We’ve heard lots about the Clinton Foundation’s donors and what they might expect in return.

But what about Trump, who admitted to donating to Clinton’s campaign because it helped get her to his wedding, and defended not paying federal income taxes because that “makes me smart.” Now the New York Times is reporting that he used some loophole to avoid reporting hundreds of millions in income that should have been taxed. And it said he received tax benefits “for losing vast amounts of other people’s money.”

A Washington Post investigation, meanwhile, finds Trump’s personal and foundation’s charitable contributions fall far short of his claims. It said he sought credit for charity he had not given or had claimed other people’s donations as his own. Though Trump hasn’t released his tax returns, the Post found $7.8 million he had personally given since the early 1980s, of which $5.5 million went to the Trump Foundation. It found evidence of only one donation between 2008 and this spring for under $10,000. Trump later told the paper he had given out millions.

Voters need to judge based on what we know: 1) whether Clinton or Trump would be less selfishly motivated, and 2) who would be more likely to pass financial reforms to keep private big money from influencing elections. Clinton pledges to introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to spend unlimited sums to influence election outcomes. Trump has been critical of the ruling but hasn’t outlined any steps to repeal it.

While we grapple with FBI Director James Comey’s notification to Congress last week of perhaps more Clinton emails, what do we make of Comey reportedly urging against disclosure of Russia’s alleged hacking of U.S. computers, and potential links to Trump so close to the election ?

I learned little of value from the Weiner film, besides the title character’s ability to change the subject and blame his accusers when he’s in the hot seat. I still saw a liar who always puts himself ahead of others. And for all the late breaking news, the spin and the selective release of information, we should know well enough by now which of the two candidates we’d trust to lead this country.

That’s why I’m with her.

Rekha Basu is a columnist for the Des Moines Register