Members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team say Attorney General William Barr has soft-pedaled the findings of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether President Trump committed an obstruction-of-justice offense, according to the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Be wary of these news reports. We've been burned before by supposedly momentous, anonymously sourced Russian collusion “scoops.”

The Times' report, titled “Some on Mueller’s Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed,” does not include any quotes, anonymous or otherwise. Rather, the entire story revolves around the authors paraphrasing nameless “government officials and others familiar with [the Mueller team’s] simmering frustrations,” anonymous “government officials familiar with Mr. Barr’s thinking,” and anonymous “government officials familiar with the investigation.”

In contrast, the Post’s article, titled “Limited information Barr has shared about Russia investigation frustrated some on Mueller’s team,” provides quotes, though they are anonymously sourced.

“It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” one person told the paper. A “U.S. official” who was “briefed on the matter” also said, “There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead.” The Mueller report was prepared “so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately — or very quickly,” the “U.S. official” added. “It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.”

Like the Times, the Post’s article doesn’t directly quote or even paraphrase members of Mueller's team. Rather, the article attributes its findings to “people familiar with the matter,” “two people familiar with their reactions,” and “people familiar with their responses.”

A healthy amount of skepticism is deserved here, especially considering we have spent the last two years watching dozens of these anonymously sourced collusion news reports fall apart. I'm going to wait until someone goes on the record or provides evidence to back up what these unnamed “government officials” suggest. That's based on the press' lousy track record of such anonymous Mueller bombshells, which previously guaranteed prosecutions or even impeachment.

Barr announced on March 24 that the special counsel had failed to “establish that the members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Barr also said the investigation's 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, and 500 witness interviews could not find enough evidence “to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

Whatever complaints Mueller’s underlings may have, that there will be no further prosecutions speaks volumes. Also, the attorney general has put his name on his assessment, taking on reputational risk, whereas the Times' and the Post’s sources remain anonymous. Moreover, I’m leery of the fact that the allegations are just vague enough as not to be open to obvious and easy refutation, but not so vague that they don’t sound scandalous.

The “familiar” sources declined to elaborate what, specifically, Barr has downplayed. We don’t even know how many members of the special counsel’s team allegedly feel this way. There’s also nothing in either article indicating that the sources have even glimpsed the Mueller report. All we know is that “government officials” who are “familiar” with other people’s thinking claim certain members of the special counsel’s team are supposedly upset with the attorney general’s evaluation of their work. Upset about what, exactly, we don’t know.

Meanwhile, Mueller himself has not disputed Barr's assessment. And Mueller has gone on the record before to refute mischaracterizations of his team’s findings. If Barr has undersold the special counsel’s investigation, Mueller has picked a funny time to go silent.