Wall Street Journal calls for investigation into the FBI !!!

Here's something you can bet CNN won't report on.

Now that it's been established that, yes, the FBI was spying on Trump's people, and that James Comey among others appear to have committed perjury by denying that any such spying took place, the Wall Street Journal has published an editorial calling for congress to invesigate the FBI's role in meddling with the 2016 election!

It seems there are still a few responsible journalists out there, and they have a problem with how it appears that President Obama mobilized the FBI and the Justice Department to spy on his political opponents. One of the specific items they're calling to investigate is whether the Steele Dossier was the basis for the FISA warrants. Since the dossier is mostly phony rumors gathered from Russian websites, it could be concluded that the Mueller investigation itself constitutes Russian interference in our democracy.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Who's going to investigate the FBI? The FBI? lol....

The FBI has so much dirt on congress, kickbacks, pedophilia, corruption x10, ...It could blow up in their faces, bigly....

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Since the dossier is mostly phony rumors gathered from Russian websites

Who said it was [mostly phony rumours]...[gathered from Russian websites] since those are both leading remarks to your premise? which is otherwise wonky anyway.

The other thing, the WSJ story itself...just for proper context rather than Zero Hedge.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Here's something you can bet CNN won't report on.

Ironically, you start off "here's something you can bet CNN won't report on" and then proceed to link a ZH blog post, written about a WSJ editorial that cites... CNN as its source.

DOH. The WSJ editorial — which is an editorial, not reporting — wouldn't exist without the CNN reporting. Do you not see how bizarre that is? CNN was the source of the information, WSJ was the source of an opinion based on that information and yet you're praising editorial staff at WSJ as "a few responsible journalists" for their opinion while simultaneously bashing CNN for reporting the information but not giving you an opinion.

It seems there are still a few responsible journalists out there, and they have a problem with how it appears that President Obama mobilized the FBI and the Justice Department to spy on his political opponents. One of the specific items they're calling to investigate is whether the Steele Dossier was the basis for the FISA warrants. Since the dossier is mostly phony rumors gathered from Russian websites, it could be concluded that the Mueller investigation itself constitutes Russian interference in our democracy.

And now you're conflating the Mueller investigation with a possible investigation conducted by the FBI which may or may not have had anything at all to do with the Steele Dossier.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Ironically, you start off "here's something you can bet CNN won't report on" and then proceed to link a ZH blog post, written about a WSJ editorial that cites... CNN as its source.

My gut wants to guffaw, but my eyes only want to cry.

Yea, the topic isn't important enough to discuss, let's focus on CNN and junk.

Finally people are coming around. I'm not aware of the legalities in regards to the FBI meddling in the election, but the Wall Street Journal is right: Congress needs to learn how the FBI meddled in the 2016 campaign.

Thats some press(ure) applying coverage there, Journal.

Please show us how you cover for them usually, but pretend here to keep up appearances.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But the can of worms associated with that is large. How influential was POTUS in that? How influential and how much power did the DNC have with all that?

It's sad that this will also turn into a partisan "US vs. THEM" scenario, when the implications go so far beyond dem/repub it's not close to funny.

What might the plebe's think when the other team finds a way to weaponize the IC for their political agenda? Will it also be something we can just ignore? Like the immigration laws that aren't warm and fuzzy.

a reply to: network dude

It's dangerous. It means the country is no more than a banana republic. That is an impetus for revolt.

Sorry not enough voter interest in it.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Who's going to investigate the FBI? The FBI? lol....

The FBI has so much dirt on congress, kickbacks, pedophilia, corruption x10, ...It could blow up in their faces, bigly....

How about... the American people?

Open up all the dirt on everyone they've got. Let it all loose on the internet.

Guaranteed revolution within 48 hours.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I cannot read the WSJ piece because of the subscription wall, but just the title alone seems to be a rather large assumption. It assumes the FBI did meddle in the election without having any evidence and as is usually the case with conspiracy-minded zeolots, use circumstantial evidence in order to drive the conspiracy.

One being the Pissy dossier and another being the conspiracies leveled at Comey.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Finally people are coming around. I'm not aware of the legalities in regards to the FBI meddling in the election, but the Wall Street Journal is right: Congress needs to learn how the FBI meddled in the 2016 campaign.

Coming around to what? I notice that you said, "how the FBI meddled" rather than "if the FBI meddled" as though it's a foregone conclusion.

1. What constitutes meddling in this case?
2. Is there any evidence of that occurring?

The same CNN report also claims that Manafort was under surveillance as early as 2014. Short of some sort of prescience or time travel, that could not have been related to the election. It would surprise me if Manafort wasn't under surveillance earlier than 2014.

The profound concerns inherent in such matters are readily apparent but at the same time, is anyone actually going to argue that joining a political campaign shields one from investigation?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Coming around to what? I notice that you said, "how the FBI meddled" rather than "if the FBI meddled" as though it's a foregone conclusion.

That's what I was thinking. It appears many have made up their mind, yet lack the proper evidence to support such an accusation.

The profound concerns inherent in such matters are readily apparent but at the same time, is anyone actually going to argue that joining a political campaign shields one from investigation?

Exactly. Just because someone may be involved in a political campaign, that does not mean they are immune from being investigated for their potentially illegal actions.

a reply to: network dude

It's sad that this will also turn into a partisan "US vs. THEM" scenario, when the implications go so far beyond dem/repub it's not close to funny.

I think we crossed that bridge when the President accused his predecessor of "wiretapping" him to advantage his opponent and the administration accused one of our closest allies of conducting the surveillance.

While I certainly wouldn't put it past the Do Nothing Republican Congress (well, except the constant failures to take away healthcare) to launch an investigation this stupid ... perhaps we should remember (those of us who understand how this government works, anyway) that the Congress has constant oversight hearings over the FBI and other Executive Branch agencies.

My question is ... why now? Why is Murdoch's WSJ (and the rest of the right-wing echo chamber) gearing up for this crap now?

The investigations must be getting close to things they don't want us to know. Obvious ploys.

The other funny thing about investigations ... they have to have some purpose to look for some sort of wrongdoing based on evidence. What evidence of wrong-doing does the WSJ have that they gleaned from a CNN article?

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Here's something you can bet CNN won't report on.

the Wall Street Journal has published an editorial

LOL! So CNN is supposed to report other new papers' opinions now? Isn't that how Fake News is created? Well I guess you don't mind since that is what you are doing by posting a Drudge Report link instead of the actual primary source, the Wall Street Journal editorial in question. Also speaking of the DR, how can you talk about a Wall Street Journal editorial and link to Drudge Report?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It seems the powers behind the right-wing media are getting nervous.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Or lazy... Clearly they have determined that their readers have thrown all pretenses of skepticism and intellectual due diligence out the window with the way they are in your face with their bs these days.