At the time, Donald Trump jnr issued a statement explaining that he and the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, had "primarily discussed a programme about the adoption of Russian children." We have since learned that the elder Trump actually dictated that statement.
Quickly, though, that explanation fell apart, and we learned that Trump jnr had actually been promised harmful information about Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
President Trump himself seemed to shrug it off, saying in July 2017 that, "from a practical standpoint, most people would have taken that meeting".
He added: "It's called opposition research or even research into your opponent."
But at the same time, he still suggested that the meeting was, in large part, about adoption.
Today's tweet appears to acknowledge that the meeting was actually predicated on opposition research: "This was a meeting to get information on an opponent."
The initial denial - which, again, Trump himself dictated - is pretty irreconcilable with that. You could perhaps argue that adoption was mostly discussed, even if the meeting was set up to discuss oppo research, but that's a stretch.
And if you're Robert Mueller and you're looking at whether Trump obstructed justice, you've now got even more evidence of a clear attempt to mislead the public and obscure the truth.
Trump's July 2017 comments came before we knew he was involved in drafting that initial misleading response; now Trump is in the public record as having authored it.
The second issue here are the final words of the tweet. "I did not know about it!" This is something Trump has said regularly about the Trump Tower meeting, and something he has re-upped now that Michael Cohen is reportedly telling people that Trump did know about it.
But here's the thing: This is a tweet about how the Trump Tower meeting was totally fine - nothing illegal to see here. If you've got no real concern about legal exposure from the meeting, why distance yourself from it?
Trump seems to be arguing against his own point by assuring us that he had nothing to do with this meeting, which - oh, by the way - was totally on the up-and-up.
Trump might as well have just confirmed the Post's report that he is worried about what the meeting portends for his son.
Is this tweet, in and of itself, damning? Probably not.
But obstruction-of-justice cases are about proving that someone had "corrupt intent" when they took the actions they did.
And for the second time in less than a week, Trump tweeted something that suggested his intent wasn't terribly wholesome.
He also suggested that he isn't as convinced as he'd like us to believe that there's nothing to see here.
