Ah, The New York Times. They sure love unnamed sources. Like that time when they cited “unnamed sources” to help build the case that Iraq was developing nukes. How well did that work out?
And now they’re at it again with the Mueller report, releasing a story moments ago citing unnamed officials in the Mueller team who say the report is worse for Trump than Barr’s summary indicated.
And, coming after many paragraphs, here is the money quote from the linked Times story:
It was unclear how much discussion Mr. Mueller and his investigators had with senior Justice Department officials about how their findings would be made public. It was also unclear how widespread the vexation is among the special counsel team, which included 19 lawyers, about 40 F.B.I. agents and other personnel.
So basically, who knows how many of these people are actually displeased with Barr’s summary.
And does it really matter?
Allow me to go a step further. Is anyone surprised that the AG would release a summary that might be a little favorable to the President who appointed him?
The important thing from Barr’s summary is not that it may cast a certain light on the report, but that it fairly summarizes the findings. No obstruction of justice. No collusion. These are clear facts.
For Barr to have lied about those would be a national catastrophe and scandal beyond all scandals, but guess what? He didn’t lie about those facts in his summary.
This is a nothingburger.