As Twitchy reported Wednesday night, the New York Times dropped what some called a “bombshell,” tweeting that associates of investigators on Robert Mueller’s team had heard that the Mueller report was much more damaging to President Trump than Attorney General William Barr had let on in his letter — which is exactly the sort of red meat Times readers were starving for.

Trump addressed the piece himself in a tweet Thursday morning, reminding the Times that they are a “fake news” paper. But Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel really went after the Times, dissecting the sourcing on the big Times bombshell. Remember, the unnamed sources weren’t even investigators but “associates” of investigators.

1) The (cough) "sourcing" in the lede paragraph of the NYT's new frontpage "cover up" conspiracy claim is Exhibit A of journalism that has lost all standards. — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) April 4, 2019

2) Apparently, "some" of Mueller's "investigators" have told "associates" their thoughts. And "government officials" and "others" who are "familiar" with those thoughts report a giant smear against AG Barr. — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) April 4, 2019

3) How many is some? (Two?) How high up are these investigators? (A principal attorney? Or the dude who does Lexis-Nexis searches?) Who are the associates? (Other people on the Mueller team? An old college professor? A secretary in their law office?) — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) April 4, 2019

4) Are these "government officials" in executive branch? Or is it… Adam Schiff? And please explain "others"? What the heck is an "other"? A CNN analyst? — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) April 4, 2019

5) Here's another possible lede, one entirely plausible give the vagueness: "A couple of Democratic partisans on Mueller's team are mad at Barr, and they told John Brennan and Fusion GPS, and they told us." Doesn't have quite the same punch, does it? — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) April 4, 2019

To be honest, that’s exactly what we thought after seeing the tweet Wednesday night. Of course, there will be a partisan investigator or two who really would have liked to have found more that was damaging to the president. We seem to recall a couple having an affair at the FBI who weren’t too keen on Trump being elected …

Quadruple hearsay? — Barry Collins (@jbarrycollins1) April 4, 2019

Heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another… — F Jackie (@F_Twittter) April 4, 2019

I thought it was me. I read the article twice and couldn’t find a single credible source. Are there any journalists at the NYT? — Arleen Zank (@arleenzank) April 4, 2019

Why are we even giving this NYT article any credit? IT SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. More of the same misleading gobbledygook. That “some on Mueller’s team are “extremely displeased” with Barr’s summary on obstruction? Literally doesn’t mean anything. — Socrates Johnson (@socratesjonson) April 4, 2019

If some are displeased are some pleased? As stated, meaningless. — Stephen Deck (@stever1552) April 4, 2019

To sum it all up, its just Andrew Weissman bitching and crying that they couldnt actually find anything — Shane Flannagan (@shaneflannagan) April 4, 2019

As a former broadcast journalist it pains me to see how objective journalism has tanked. — D. Mikels (@demonstrative00) April 4, 2019

The @nytimes has never gotten over Walter Duranty. — Roger Simon (@rogerlsimon) April 4, 2019

Nothing new to see here. "Smear"=#DeepState's modus operandi. It's a knee jerk response for them. Anyone who gets in their way or tries to change 'their facts' puts them in automatic crocodile roll. Spinning disinfo & confusion is Dems & Deep States field of expertise. #KAG — Jean Taylor Towry (@jtaylortowry) April 4, 2019

Fake news, right on cue! — Rick Crainium (@RickCrainium) April 4, 2019

Stay tuned for all the News Innuendos at 5!!!

This is EXACTLY how propaganda is accomplished; good work, Kimberley. — Dave Bass (@DaveBass4) April 4, 2019

Nailed it. — Rad Gumbo (@IDW71009) April 4, 2019

Related: