> Presumably WaPo verified the claims made in this article.
If they had verified the claims, why wouldn't they say so? It would certainly make the article more effective. I don't have any particular belief in the government and police, but I do pay close attention to what articles are implying versus what they are claiming, because for an honest news source, it tends to highlight the differences between what they have verified and what they haven't.
Edit: to be completely clear, the article does not say the prosecutor made these threats. The article says that the defense attorney says the prosecutor made these threats.
If they had verified the claims, why wouldn't they say so? It would certainly make the article more effective. I don't have any particular belief in the government and police, but I do pay close attention to what articles are implying versus what they are claiming, because for an honest news source, it tends to highlight the differences between what they have verified and what they haven't.
Edit: to be completely clear, the article does not say the prosecutor made these threats. The article says that the defense attorney says the prosecutor made these threats.