<entire text of wsj editorial removed>
Reported.
Go away, troll.
Where did you cut-and-paste this from?
We could have had a decent discussion about this WSJ op-ed if the OP had simply posted a link and included his thoughts and/or motivations for sharing this article with us.
But he didn’t.
So, not the slightest hint of corruption in the Trump administration. Is that your position, Chip?
Here.
Another far-right opinion piece from The Wall Street Journal?
How predictable.
The OP seems unaware of the critical difference between information and disinformation.
Your obsession with Trump is noted. The article clearly shows how the Mueller investigation is comprised. No?
How so?
Do you have anything to say about that massive cut-and-paste in the OP?
The “article” that you stole without attribution was another WSJ far right opinion piece.
No. Do you believe that your cut and paste job somehow handwaves away the dozens of indictments and multiple guilty pleas related to the Mueller investigation? If so, good luck with that.
P.S. your apparent obsession with Hillary Clinton is likewise noted.
Not really, no. Not even if you meant “compromised”.
There’s a fair amount of unsupported assertion and insinuation but little actual evidence. Most of the quotes are fragments and taken out of context, with the author’s intended new and misleading narrative woven around them. Sift out the factual information and there’s very little there.
The author is very keen to assert that Ohr’s testimony paints a clear picture that the FBI, the Justice Department and the Democrats all lied, yet if it’s so damning why is there so little of Ohr’s actual testimony presented? And why does the article veer off onto tangents that have nothing to do with Ohr’s testimony? And in the highly unlikely event that both Ohr’s and the FBI’s version of events are accurately portrayed, why is Ohr’s testimony more credible?
I could also mention that some of the assertions in the article are at odds with actual evidence (the FISA stuff has long been debunked) but even without other information added, the article falls apart with the slightest application of critical thinking.
Which is why it’s disinformation. Strassel is lying her ass off to discredit an investigation that already has a metric shit-ton of substantive evidence against the Trump campaign. Any ideas why she might be doing this?
NO.
“believes”, “confirmed” by partisan sources and, “maybe that was the case” that the dossier was not the reason to start the investigation, and other items show why that weasel language opinion piece is, well, an opinion dude. Not really clear.
In a thread titled “Corruption” the OP consists of a stolen article, thus setting a new record for fucking it up.
Strassel is a right-wing conspiracy monger known for making up ‘Trump is being PERSECUTED!!!’ claims at the drop of a hat and with no evidence whatsoever.
If Strassel said the sky was blue I would go outside to check. Of course, she’d also say a blue sky is a Democratic plot when it should rightfully be GOP Red.
Search warrant affidavits don’t have to objectively lay out all the evidence for and against the warrant. They’re allowed to lay out the facts they think are most helpful and leave out other facts. They do have to be honest, of course. But they don’t have to be “fair and balanced.” I’ve seen lots of search warrant applications. Then don’t tell the whole story, nor are they required to.
That said, if there as something improper about the Page warrant application, that would not mean the FBI was corrupt or that the Special Counsel isn’t legitimately working on the case.
I didn’t find your thread title to be very descriptive.