That sounds like... they did extensive research and standard journalistic double-checking so it's probably correct?

The WSJ isn't some random blog. Regardless of what you think of their opinion pages, their reporting is generally factually legit.

So you seem to be suggesting that their story is, indeed, correct.

Good, then I also did "extensive research and standard journalistic double-checking" or whatever.

Fantastic! You interviewed dozens of people directly involved? And corroborated everything independently at least once?

Then please share your own version of events, we'd all love to read it! If you spent weeks doing all that research, I'm sure it was so others could learn?

?? that quote makes me think it's accurate, not inaccurate