we wait to hear what Barr actually has to say. Especially considering their own qualifier "Mr. Barr has privately praised Mr. Horowitz for his work and has not made clear whether he will publicly disagree with the report."

Do you think their might be reason for these "sources", and the NYT, to preemptively discredit or smear anything Barr might actually say? For fear of what the Barr/Durham report might say?

FWIW I long ago said I am not expecting much from the IG report. Like the last one, I expect a collective yawn and nothing much, with both sides trying to spin it as much as possible of course. If anything noteworthy comes from this "witch hunt", it will come from Barr/Durham I would think. All the more reason to discredit that before it's ever released. Just as has been the plan from the "outrage" over first his calling it "spying", then from his summary of the Mueller report, and any opportunity since. And for which they thank you for your foot soldier efforts. :-)

Again, I'll wait to just see what the actual IG and Barr/Durham report have to say. Personally, I find it rather disgusting what they've been trying to do to Barr since before he was even confirmed. And I can see why folks like Brennan and Clapper would have motive to do so. He's served this country well, has been highly respected his entire career, and had no reason to take the AG job a second time (career wise), other than wanting to get the Justice Dept back to the respect it should carry. Sorry, but trying to portray him as just an opportunist and boot licker for Trump doesn't square with reality.