I really want to know why this isn't a bigger story.
Because it's 8,000 fucking words of New Yorker goodness. I read the Vox TL;DR - "t’s a very long New Yorker-y story that deserves your time and attention" - but it still only swirls around this final point: - Davidson quotes an expert on Iran who says “It looks like Azarpassillo is a front organization for the Revolutionary Guard.” So. It's a Seymour Hersch without Seymour Hersch, who would have led with "Trump Organization Laundered Money For Iran." Give it a few. Thing is, we're at the point where "laundered money for Iran" is one of the least crazy things of the week.
The title of this piece in confounding, to use an understatement. Talk about burying the lead. It's as if they don't want people to read it. It's not a literary or rhetorical exercise; it's an expose of the fucking President doing illegal business with one of our biggest adversaries. I read it at lunch today, and my lunch break turned a lot longer than I originally had anticipated.
My Copy-editor pedantry is coming out. I apologize in advance. The phrase is, "Burying the lede." Yes, "lead" is grammatically correct, but lede, graf, slug, byline, and other words have a specific meaning in the editing world. And we'd like to keep them, please!
> corrupt government leaders often use their children... to distance themselves from illicit projects. Such an official [puts] a company in the relative’s name which appears to be independent but is controlled by the official. A patently obviously arrangement that no rational person would believe. Right?
Reason #1: 2016 was bad, but 2017 is like stapling your eyelids open in the hopes that you don't pass out. Hopefully everyone's personal lives were 110% stable going into this thing. Hahah, yeah.