Here we have a quintessential example of purely speculative opinion masquerading as credible reporting. Using typical word-salad, weasel words, and nicely camouflaged qualifiers, this outlet, amongst others who do the same exact thing of course, put the 'bad' in bad journalism. To wit: "Sources believe ..." These "sources" are never identified. "There is increasing confidence..." Amongst whom confidence is "increasing" is never revealed. "...multiple sources who have been briefed..." Again, who, is never named. "This may be the "costliest government cover-up of all time," one of the sources said." Anonymous quote from unknown source. And the piece continues on in this vein. Now and then, as a sop, to whatever this particular outlet consider integrity, words and phrases like: "it’s not definitive" "we don't know for certain." and others are used to provide a semblance, at least, of uncertainty. But, taken as a whole, in terms of its crafting, a casual read might cause the reader to think the accusations are facts and the information definitive. None of which is actually the case. This is yellow journalism at its most vile.