Everyone knows that the proper role of the executive branch in response to judicial opinions they don’t like is to openly tolerate and excuse unlawful assemblies outside the houses of judges.
If you had a senior role in a government office and get saying that it screwed up on your stuff that means (1) you screwed up or (2) you had no juice. Why would you cop to either? It’s important dynamic for journos: why do you want to hear from someone who’s (1) or (2)?