Hosting "The Politics Hour" was fun, but there was one moment that needs some correcting. When we asked her about @cmdgrosso becoming a lobbyist, @MayorBowser accused us of "disparate treatment" in how we reported on him versus Vincent Orange back in 2016. Well...

Orange and Grosso's situations are hugely different. Orange wanted to take the top job at @dcchamber while in his final four months on the Council. There was an outcry for obvious reasons: a sitting lawmaker moonlighting as the head of a prominent trade group.

Grosso, on the other hand, won't become a lobbyist until he's formally out of office. And he recused himself from a number of votes before even announcing the new job because the bills involved future clients.

Whatever you make of Grosso becoming a lobbyist is one thing, but it's fair to say he followed normal procedure in getting there. Orange did not; he literally tried to take a lobbyist job while being a lawmaker. That's an opening for SO MANY conflicts.

Now, Grosso will have to watch out what he lobbies on; the usual cooling-off period applies, so he shouldn't lobby his old staff or on specific issues for a set amount of time. But at least he didn't try to take two jobs at once!

It's literally an apples and oranges (get it?) situation. Can reporters be accused of "disparate treatment" in how they covered both cases? Maybe, in that we fairly noted that one case was more of an ethical minefield than the other.

But no, no reporter set out to unfairly hassle Orange and then go easy on Grosso. One tried to hold two conflicting jobs at once, the other didn't. Simple as that.