"And certain people with a certain disposition to want to believe stuff that logically makes no sense- such that Pollard- in his position- would have known names of deep cover CIA agents."
That's not the claim.
The documents he gave to Israel included raw intelligence information from American agents in the USSR. Once that material reached Moscow, it was a simple matter of checking who had access to that specific information.
One document could point to fifty or a hundred people--say, everyone working on a new fighter's radar system. But a second related document on a different topic could narrow it down to ten to twenty people (basically, those who worked with the material in both of those documents). The third, fourth, and fifth related documents would narrow it down to the one and only guy working in all five areas.
And THAT is the problem.
Pollard refused to identify which documents he passed to Israel. Hell, he even refused to admit that he'd signed out a bunch of documents (so many that he needed a hand truck to haul them out to his car), despite his signature in the logbook and eyewitness testimony. The documents that he'd signed out were not relevant to his assigned duties; they were only of interest to the USSR, but he was being tasked by Israel to collect that information.
Once again. All this that you think you know is from sources that can't be vouched for.
You still can not explain Weinberger's recent quote.
But this would. If after all those CIA and FBI agents were caught as Soviet spies it was made obvious that they were the source of what the Soviets learned and that Pollard in retrospect was trivial.