comment: >
  
  The facts they state are woefully insufficient though.
  Its probably worth mentioning that Trump was investigated by Congress and a Special Counsel for links to Russia (with numerous links between Trump's associates and Russian officials being discovered), and impeached for withdrawing military aid for Ukraine. 
  I'd suggest that those facts are relevant.
  The reader can then decide for themselves whether he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
context: There's nothing bizarre about it. Trump is backing Putin like he always does.
  Deeply frustrating journalism. Trump is being let off the hook. 
  Trump is Putin's patsy. We all know it. Journalists need to quit being afraid to mention it. >
  
  I think this is one of those stories where the writer just states the facts with as much whimsy as his editor will allow, and let’s you, the reader, draw your own conclusions.