The headline and the tone of the article show there is a desired result or conclusion the author wants the reader to glean. However, I believe this work was a great example of investigative work, getting comments from multiple sources, looking into travel documents, etc.

I can agree with reviewer Jacob B. that the tone of the piece insinuates strongly that there was wrong-doing by some in the Trump Administration, however I'm very impressed with the depth of investigation CNN took for this piece. The accompanying video is also very illustrative of the situation. I would have liked to have seen more balance in the reporting, unless there was more evidence to support their authors' framing that wrong-doing occurred.

This piece is at least balanced enough to seek comments, and report the response from the attorney representing the holding company over the project. Having said that, the selected verbiage is heavily biased in the direction of drawing a conclusion that there was wrong doing without facts to back it up.

This article cites multiple sources of information to support the reporting. It also reports responses (or lack of response) from multiple individuals contacted for the story.