In a way, this reminds me of Iran-Contra.
Reagan's defense was that he was unaware of the actions of his subordinates. To me, that wasn't a defense; it was an indictment. I could have accepted Reagan saying that he and Congress differed on what privileges the Constitution afforded the Executive branch, as far as foreign policy constraints from Congress; I'd have respected a battle between Executive and Legislative in SCOTUS. But I'd have voted against Reagan, had he been eligible to run for a third term, because I was disgusted that he could be ignorant of such a large plan within his administration, or that he could expect me to believe that he was ignorant of it, yet competent to serve as President.
Seems to me the press was all over the Reagan administration over Iran-Contra....
My views on the current Administration, President, and AG are much the same in this instance as they were over Iran-Contra. If they were truly ignorant, then they are incompetent. If they were not ignorant of it, then they wilfully violated the law, and the public trust... So actually, it's worse than Iran-Contra, as I can't actually assign a potentially worthy motive nor justification.
Yet the press isn't really all over this. They might eventually be embarrassed into having to provide real coverage, as I agree with those posters who've theorized the MSM will realize they are being scooped left and right and are starting to look incompetent.