There's a 15-paragraph New York Times article this morning w/the headline "Trump Says Payment to Stormy Daniels did not Violate Campaign Laws". In none of these paragraphs does the NYT even attempt to investigate the question of whether this is true, or what laws apply.
Lowly net-trash like Buzzfeed called a law professor and got a quote to explain the legal issues around what Trump now says he did, but the NYT just sorta put a claim up & let it stand. They quote an anonymous advocacy group saying this "strengthens the case", but don't elaborate
If you look, you realize there's very little *in* the NYT article; in fact it seems to be a common genre of NYT/WaPo article these days where journalists simply take a Trump tweet and write an article around it. Here they *imply*, but don't say, someone wrote the tweets for Trump 
As if, as Journalists, the New York Times is not allowed to tell the truth, but they can speak in a tortured wink-nudge code that allows the Elect to understand what is happening
UPDATE: @nothings pointed out to me my screenshot doesn't match the article text. Looks like the NYT updated this article. The article is now 19 paragraphs, the Common Cause people get to explain their legal theory, and the "implied but not said" allegation is now spelled out.
It is, however, still three reporters from an American journalism institution spending most of a morning writing a long story attempting to explain what the weird old man who took control of the Presidency is posting about this morning on the Internet.
