If you blinked, you missed it.

The New York Times quietly amended a report last week that originally claimed embattled National Rifle Association Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre had discussed bankrolling President Trump’s impeachment defense in return for assurances the White House would back off gun-control legislation.

All language alleging a quid pro quo between the president and the NRA has been removed since from the Times report. There is no editor’s note highlighting the change.

A spokeswoman for the paper defended the move Wednesday, telling the Washington Examiner that the story’s unannounced changes are representative of the Times’ normal editing process.

"We regularly edit web stories to refine the story, add new information, additional context or analysis," she said, "The crux of the story – that according to sources familiar with the meeting, President Trump met with Wayne LaPeirre of the N.R.A. and discussed prospective gun legislation as well as whether the N.R.A. could provide support for the president as he faces an impeachment inquiry and re-election – never changed."

The Sept. 27 Times article, authored by reporters Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni, began originally with these paragraphs:

President Trump met on Friday with Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive of the National Rifle Association, to discuss how the N.R.A. could provide financial support for the president’s defense as he faces political headwinds, including impeachment, according to two people familiar with the meeting.



It was not clear whether Mr. Trump asked Mr. LaPierre for his support, or if the idea was pitched by the N.R.A. But in return for the support, Mr. LaPierre asked that the White House “stop the games” over gun control legislation, people familiar with the meeting said.

A few commentators, reporters, and Democratic lawmakers were quick to highlight what certainly sounded like swampy, if not outright criminal, behavior from Trump and LaPierre.

“If the below article is accurate, it appears [Donald Trump] seeks to trade action on legislation in exchange for financial support from the [NRA]. That would be illegal. A felony, to be exact,” said Rep. Ted Lieu of California.

The New Yorker’s Ben Taub summarized the article thusly, "Trump asks NRA to help pay for his legal defense. Perhaps, La Pierre replies — if you ‘stop the games’ over gun control.”

Said the Washington Post’s Helaine Olen, “Donald Trump does not appear to understand what quid pro quo is and why it's wrong.”

"Trump met with Wayne LaPierre and asked if the NRA would finance his impeachment defense. LaPierre said he would if Trump promised not to pursue any gun legislation," self-described "journalist" Judd Legum claimed in a tweet that has been shared by more than 17,400 social media users.

Then something happened the same day as the report's publication. The Times amended the article to remove all language alleging a tit-for-tat between Trump and LaPierre. The report's opening passages now read:

President Trump met in the White House on Friday with Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive of the National Rifle Association, and discussed prospective gun legislation and whether the N.R.A. could provide support for the president as he faces impeachment and a more difficult re-election campaign, according to two people familiar with the meeting.



During the meeting, Mr. LaPierre asked that the White House “stop the games” over gun control legislation, people familiar with the meeting said. It was not clear whether Mr. Trump asked Mr. LaPierre for his support, or what that support would look like.

Let's see where that leaves us: The story is no longer that LaPierre pledged financial assistance to the president’s impeachment defense in return for a promise that the White House back away from gun-control legislation. The story is now that LaPierre met with the president to discuss gun legislation and maybe, possibly, probably talk about the NRA’s support for the president going forward.

Is that really the story? That the head of gun-rights group met with the president to lobby on the behalf of his group? That is one heck of a scoop you got there, New York Times.

Oh, and for what it is worth, the NRA definitively denied the paper’s since-deleted allegations.

“The NRA categorically denies any discussion occurred about special arrangements pertaining to the NRA’s support of the President and vice versa,” said a representative.

That is not a non-denial denial. That is just a flat denial. Ordinarily, I would say this is bit of a he said/she said. But the NRA's strong denial coupled with the Times stealth-editing suggest here that the paper got the story wrong in a big way.