WSJ Calls For Mueller’s Resignation After He ‘Colluded With Clinton’

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) are calling for special counsel Robert Mueller to resign as evidence has emerged that the Clinton’s colluded with the FBI to drum up support for a phoney Trump-Russia investigation.

“It turns out that Russia has sown distrust in the U.S. political system—aided and abetted by the Democratic Party, and perhaps the FBI,” the WSJ editorial team began. “This is an about-face from the dominant media narrative of the last year, and it requires a full investigation.”

Businessinsider.com reports: The editorial argued that a Washington Post report published Tuesday “revealed” that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired the Perkins Coie law firm, which in turn retained the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and funded a now-infamous dossier containing salacious allegations about Trump’s ties to Russia. The dossier was compiled by ex-British spy, Christopher Steele, who has several deep Russian sources.

“Strip out the middlemen, and it appears that Democrats paid for Russians to compile wild allegations about a US presidential candidate,” the editorial said. “Did someone say ‘collusion’?”

WSJ calls for Mueller's immediate resignation

It had been previously reported that Democrats took over funding for the opposition research from anti-Trump Republicans after Trump won the GOP nomination. On Friday, lawyers for The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication, told the House Intelligence Committee that the outlet originally funded the dossier’s production.

The FBI also reached an agreement before Election Day to continue paying Steele for his work, though the plan was terminated after BuzzFeed published the dossier in January.

The Journal’s editorial board said revelations about who had financed the Steele dossier indicated that the “FBI’s role in Russia’s election interference must now be investigated.”


Mueller, the board continued, is a former FBI director who worked closely with former FBI director James Comey. Mueller was appointed special counsel after Trump fired Comey in May, and he is tasked with investigating Russia’s election interference, as well as whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow to tilt the election in his favor.

Comey was spearheading the bureau’s Trump-Russia investigation in 2016, when it was in possession of the Steele dossier. “It is no slur against Mr. Mueller’s integrity to say that he lacks the critical distance to conduct a credible probe of the bureau he ran for a dozen years,” The Journal’s editorial board said. “He could best serve the country by resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest.”

It continued and said the revelations about who funded the Steel dossier posed a “troubling question” regarding the FBI’s involvement in what it called a “Russian disinformation campaign.”

“Did the dossier trigger the FBI probe of the Trump campaign, and did Mr. Comey or his agents use it as evidence to seek wiretapping approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Trump campaign aides?” the editorial said.

The board was likely referring to CNN’s report in April that the bureau used information in the dossier to support its request for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant targeting Carter Page, an early foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.

Legal experts told Business Insider at the time, however, that if CNN’s report was true, it indicated that the FBI had enough confidence in the dossier’s validity to work to corroborate it and present it in court.

And while the document does contain several unproven allegations, it has been reported that the FBI is using it as a “roadmap” for its investigation. The Senate Intelligence Committee also revealed earlier this month that it has been “working backwards” to verify the document’s allegations.

Nevertheless, The Journal’s editorial board called for Congress to home in on the FBI’s role in producing the dossier and to reinstate the embattled Rep. Devin Nunes as chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Nunes recused himself from the panel’s Russia investigation after it emerged that he briefed the White House on classified information without briefining his committee first.

Despite recusing himself, Nunes quickly began conducting his own investigation into “unmaskings” by the Obama administration and the credibility of the dossier, and subpoenaed Fusion GPS to appear before the committee.

Views: 49

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

LOL Tif

The WSJ is a rather imperfect organization and is only partially conservative.

Some things it says will reflect conservative values. That leads to trusting everything they say.

Watch out. Mueller is no saint by any standard. We do not need the WSJ to tell us that.

Good morning Gregory,

 a lot of people are digging and trying to find out more, and soon something will turn up.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

ALERT ALERT

OMG!! -> Government Now Wants To Seize Your Car For Going 5MPH Over The Limit

We’ve discussed this on and off for several years now. Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to seize assets and cash from citizens without any due process or judicial oversight.

You don’t even have to be charged with a crime. You are assumed guilty unless you can somehow prove your innocence.

Of course, not everyone has this ability… if you aren’t local, state, or federal law enforcement, this is called stealing, and you go to prison.

But the government is actually a bigger problem than common thieves.

A 2015 report showed that law enforcement used civil asset forfeiture to steal more from US residents than every thief, robber, and burglar in America combined.

About $4.5 BILLION worth of cash, cars, homes, and other property is taken by civil asset forfeiture each year – hundreds of millions more than common criminals steal.

And it happens at every level. Your local cop can use civil asset forfeiture just like your state trooper. And then any one of the armed agents of the US government—from the FBI to the Fish and Wildlife Service—can rob you for whatever reason they want.

This travesty continues to grow because the cops who take your stuff get to keep it. Police departments and government agencies around the country depend on civil asset forfeiture to boost their budgets.

Cops will literally keep some of the cars they take as squad cars. And they make a fortune auctioning off the houses, boats, and anything else they confiscate.

Obviously this gives cops an incentive to steal, whether or not they actually think the property was used in a crime, or acquired illegally. Remember, civil asset forfeiture adds billions every year to their bottom line.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case of civil asset forfeiture.

Tyson Timbs was convicted of selling a small amount of drugs to an undercover police officer. He was sentenced to house arrest, and paid about $1,200 in fines.

But then police used civil asset forfeiture to take his $42,000 Land Rover which Timbs purchased with money from a life insurance policy after his father died. The money did not come from selling drugs, or any other illegal activity.

Timbs sued, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court, because every lower court in Indiana said the forfeiture was perfectly legit.

The case revolves around whether or not the seizure of the Land Rover was an excessive fine under the 8th amendment, and whether or not this protection against excessive fines applies to state governments.

And the public got some crazy insight into the government’s position.

The Indiana Solicitor General was arguing in favor of civil asset forfeiture when Justice Stephen Breyer asked him a hypothetical.

Breyer asked, if a state needs revenue, could it force someone to forfeit their Bugatti, Mercedes, or Ferrari for speeding? Even if they were going just 5 miles per hour over the speed limit?

And the utterly appalling answer from the Indiana Solicitor General was, yes.

That’s right… the official government position is that they can steal any amount of your property in “connection” with any crime whatsoever, no matter how trivial the crime may be… even exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles per hour.

This is how overbearing and authoritarian the government has become in the land of the free.

This is how much power your local cop has… and the power only grows as you go to state, and federal officials.

If there is any solace in any of this, it is that the other Supreme Court Justices were reportedly laughing at this exchange.

The justices seemed incredulous that Indiana’s top lawyer was using such absurd assertions and flimsy reasoning in his arguments.

So, for now, we can keep our cars if we get pulled over for speeding. But that may not always be the case…

Depending on how this is ruled, it could pave the way for even more egregious abuses of power… or it could curb the practice, and reign in these thieves in uniforms.

Just understand where the government is coming from. These politicians, bureaucrats and officers think they can do whatever they want. Absolutely anything goes, with no limitation whatsoever.

And that makes it a little tough to feel like you really live in the land of the free.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service