It's an article by a guy who you call the "best investigative reporter in the country." It references "Justice Department documents" but doesn't have any links to them or titles for them.
And if he can't get the simplest, most easily verifiable fact about Rosenstein correct, then what exactly makes you think anything else there is accurate?
I'm looking for something that would stand up as evidence -- not an article with vague references to unnamed documents. Even if everything he has said here is true, there is nothing here that is any more credible than an "unnamed source."
The public story isn’t that far developed, as the FBI informant still hasn’t testified that we know of. But we do know that Mueller, McCabe and Rosenstein were responsible for the investigation, and the uranium sale still went through, which is reason enough to question why they are now given the ultimate responsibilty to investigate the President. At least for most people here, although we do have our share still defending them for some reason.