In particular, Holman Jenkins. I went through today’s (7/22/20) WSJ op-ed pages like I usually do. I want to do a better job of understanding the content of their arguments because so often I just get disturbed by the conclusions that I shake my head without giving them their due of actually reading the material. In working through Jenkins article this morning, I kind of remember why – well, at least one part of it – their writing just isn’t very good. To unpack all the points and figure out where things are assertions, where they are fact based and the apparent obfuscation which almost seems intentional to confuse just to get to the points.

I think his article’s point is that he has figure out that ‘it makes sense’ and therefore ‘is likely’ that the FBI’s leaks of information which appear buttress the case for some kind of collusion with Russia are a distraction from the FBI itself being a stooge for Russia in terms of the HRC emails.

By the end of the piece, its clear this is just Jenkins speculation and that it ‘fits’ to him, but nothing more. Along the way, though, he often conflates what ‘the FBI’ does with what specific individuals thought- or just hints at it. I think he’s talking about margin-notes from P. Strzok in interviewing a Steele source where he (PS) doubted elements of the source. Okay, but it’s a bit of an extrapolation to the view of the FBI.

Jenkins seems to make a lot of two things: 1) the coincidence in timing of the HRC investigation denouement and the probing of Trump campaign for Russia ties; and 2) what Jenkins sees as the contradiction between the PS comment and public statements made about the Steele-related investigation. Kind of thin I think. Oh, in between there’s the cry about why an appendix in an Inspector Generals’ report isn’t getting trumpeted because *surely* it is the key to this whole mess. An there’s a particularly awfully written paragraph about ‘lending verisimilitude to the media leaks’ via the use of dossier material in the FISA court requests. I had to read actual sentence 5 times to figure out what he was trying to say – as in ‘what is the subject’ and ‘what is the verb’. I’ll bet Holman had an orgasm using ‘verisimilitude’.

The claims that I would like to understand better are that the ‘FBI knew the collusion asserts were unfounded, false, baseless’ and also the legitimacy of the FISA court requests. Jenkins’ end-note speculates that Carter Page was an informant mischaracterized as a Kremlin agent. (at least I think that’s what he’s speculating’ -again, clarity is not a strong point with Holman).