The smoking gun is a redacted paragraph that says the FBI met with the DNC's head lawyers? Based on this, and other dubious claims - like the outright lie that the investigation into the Trump campaign was spurred by the Steele dossier (
source - it was the Australian ambassador) - the author concludes that there's sufficient evidence to say there was a criminal conspiracy instigated by the DOJ against Trump:
"There is now a concrete storyline backed by irrefutable evidence: The FBI allowed itself to take political opposition research created by one party to defeat another in an election, treated it like actionable intelligence, presented it to the court as substantiated, and then used it to justify spying on an adviser for the campaign of that party's duly chosen nominee for president in the final days of a presidential election."
That is quite a leap - from redacted mention of a meeting, to a conspiracy against the Trump campaign. Wouldn't it make sense that the FBI would be in contact with DNC representatives considering they'd been hacked? There are a lot of reasons why the FBI and the DNC's lawyers may have had contact, and why it might have been redacted. That doesn't prove wrongdoing, and it certainly doesn't prove the assertion that there was a criminal conspiracy against Trump.
Finally it's important to note that both of your sources are not investigative - they're opinion pieces by the same author,
John Solomon, who has a long history of dubious reporting.
Here's a piece describing his reputation among journalists.