Alek Boyd, the investigative reporter most responsible for the exposure of Venezuelan Chavista corruption, and a likely target himself of Fusion GPS's smear ops, has spotted a little discrepancy in the story Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson told Congress in his testimony and what was reported about him a few weeks earlier.

From Fox News on Nov. 7:

The co-founder of Fusion GPS, the firm behind the unverified Trump dossier, met with a Russian lawyer before and after a key meeting she had last year with Trump’s son, Fox News has learned.

From the Daily Caller on Nov. 21:

Simpson testified that he did not know that Veselnitskaya had visited Trump Tower until it was reported in the press earlier this year.

Veselnitskaya is Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who is linked to the Kremlin effort to persuade the U.S. to lift sanctions on Russian officials connected to the murder of Russian bookkeeper Sergei Magnitsky, who was tortured to death in a Russian prison after uncovering a multimillion-dollar tax fraud by Russian officials, making it known, and not backing down.

Given that he was being paid by the Russians to help lift sanctions, something he says he regrets doing, and given that he was paid by the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump, his claim to not knowing about the Veselnitskaya meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. is a little hard to believe.  He had two clients who would have wanted to know about it, one on each side of that meeting table.

It's possible that it's true.  Perhaps Veselnitskaya, who is under sanctions herself for her associations with Magnitsky's killers, really did waltz into the U.S. on a visa she was not supposed to have (it was suspiciously issued by Obama officials) and take in a meeting with Trump Jr. and then not tell Simpson about it at her before-and-after meetings with him.  It's also possible that Fox News's Catherine Herridge got the story wrong and had a bad source, though she is not known for errors.

Or it's possible he's not telling the truth.

What's needed is for reporters to ask questions about these discrepancies and get some more detailed reporting out.  Questions should be asked at a minimum.

This brings to light the most recent news: that Fusion GPS paid off reporters under the cover of "research."  And as the House Intelligence Committee noted in the Daily Caller piece linked above, these reporters did reporting as late as October on the topic of Russian collusion in the 2016 election, at which Fusion GPS finds itself mired.

If someone is taking $100,000 or so in payoffs for conveying certain "narratives," or for any reason whatsoever, would he be likely to ask tough questions about Fusion GPS?  Would he be likely to expose his paymaster?  Even if it's on his beat?  Would he really endanger those $100,000 paychecks he wants no one to know about, or risk the wrath of Fusion GPS, which could open its books on the payoffs any time it likes?

It shows the extent to which media corruption can taint the news.  Right now, reporters should be asking thousands of questions about the discrepancy between Fusion GPS and reports of its knowledge of now denied meetings with Donald Trump, Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya.

They're not.  Who, again, got paid off?