It wasn't meant to be a personal insult: from day one, Trump flaunted several financial rules of the presidency - rules that are there to protect him from exactly this, by the way; they're not there for my benefit - and it seemed to center around his covering up what kind of leverage people had over him. Upon investigating that, the people who agreed to help him cover his tracks were charged for it and the ones who refused to weren't and the report clearly states in no uncertain terms that those refusals to carry out his orders are the only thing that's been keeping his presidency going.
The way you describe it - looked for one thing, found another, no evidence of the original claim - it doesn't match what happened. Which means you either didn't really understand it to begin with - or, worse, you intentionally took part in a campaign to spread misinformation about it - and the more insulting thing would be for me to assume the latter.