In a NY Times article titled "Michelle Obama and the Evolution of a First Lady", there is this sentence:
Rahm Emanuel, then chief of staff, repeated the first lady’s criticisms to colleagues with indignation, according to three of them.
Is this correct usage? For me, it reads as if Rahm repeated it to angry colleagues (i.e. colleagues with indignation). But clearly the intent is that Rahm was angry and the three colleagues noticed that he was angry when he talked to them.
Or, is a comma required after "criticisms to colleagues"?
Or should it have been rephrased like this? "Three of Rahm's colleagues said that an incensed Rahm, then chief of staff, repeated the first lady’s criticisms to them." But Rahm is mentioned twice here.