While I don't like anonymous sources in general (http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/03/reader-rep-sources-say-this-column-is-great/), I'll give The Washington Post the benefit of the doubt, in this case, at least for a few weeks while this all gets sorted out; WaPo has to stand by this anonymous group (its source), which I'm sure will be vetted mercilessly in the coming weeks. So let's come back to this in a while and see what stands up. You and Greenwald are right to raise alarms; I commend you for that; and theoretically, WaPo is taking a big risk (betting the company's credibility is not something, I suspect, they would do lightly). So, yes, I do see problems with anonymous sources, which I have written about extensively (http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/05/reader-rep-we-need-to-know-where-information-is-coming-from/), but they also are needed at times to break big stories, like Watergate. Soon enough, we'll find out if this was such a case or not. ...