I read that opinion article and found it wanting. He hardly mentioned that 9 agencies were involved, that HRC did not attend the meetings, that she did not weigh in on the decision to approve (as is common), or that the reason the informant got a light sentence is because he was (duh) an informant. He cites a donor to the Clintons who gave his money when she wasn't even SoS and even (for extra dramatic effect) claims Rosenstein was an Obama appointee. You see, if you mention Obama then it helps trigger folks who don't want to look into the facts.

It's all just a rambling set of connections that begins to fall apart once it's exposed to even minor scrutiny. The main source cited in the article is Clinton Cash - written by a partisan hack artist. Politifact (who unlike National Review, is not known to hype fake scandals for partisan reasons - see Benghazi if you need more) did a nice rundown of all this, check it out.