>Quite a few of the people quoted in the article are identified, seem to be in position to know what they're talking about and definitely exist.
The people identified in the article don't know anything. The people who are the basis for the allegation are unidentified.
>By "weasel words" you mean OP (and NYT) don't state as facts things which are, while very likely, not confirmed to be facts?
No, I mean the sentence is written in such a way that it can't be falsified. That's perfectly reasonable in this case, especially since the article doesn't include anything that would qualify as actual proof.
The people identified in the article don't know anything. The people who are the basis for the allegation are unidentified.
>By "weasel words" you mean OP (and NYT) don't state as facts things which are, while very likely, not confirmed to be facts?
No, I mean the sentence is written in such a way that it can't be falsified. That's perfectly reasonable in this case, especially since the article doesn't include anything that would qualify as actual proof.