That would sure make the most sense, but the article says this:
It may simply be wrongly written, but the grammar as written is clear (at least with respect to the subject/verb...the pronoun is clear as mud). The sense is that Harnden implicated somebody, and Rodgers was yapping about it.
Now if it said:
Then that would make more sense. But that's clearly not what it says. Maybe it's supposed to say that, but it doesn't.