The liberal watchdog group Media Matters attacked Fox News three years ago for wanting a special prosecutor to look into how the Obama administration politicized the IRS.

However, all the liberal groups are salivating at having a special prosecutor go after Trump.

Four years ago, it became clear Obama was directing the IRS to keep conservative groups from getting IRS recognition, with his administration using the IRS to harass tea party groups.

This was blatantly illegal, but because the US Justice Department was dragging its heels and slow to investigate, Fox News started calling for a special prosecutor.

From Media Matters:

As Fox News continues to push for a special prosecutor to investigate the Obama administration, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has come out in opposition to that idea in favor of congressional investigations that will extract a “political price.”

Over the last few weeks, Fox has repeatedly distorted the facts to make the case for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS’ scrutiny of conservative political groups. 

Characterizing this movement as “dumber follows dumb,” the Wall Street Journal — like Fox News, owned by News Corp. — has come out in opposition to a special prosecutor for the IRS’ politicized handling of nonprofits in a May 29 editorial.

The Journal argues that these investigations are “best handled in Congressional hearings” and that calls for a special prosecutor are “cheap political grace.” 

But the paper doesn’t urge this course of action for because it’s simply seeking an unbiased finding of what went wrong and how to fix it. The Journal writes that instead of waiting for “potential indictments” — which the board warns “would extend well past the 2014 election” — hearings should take place to “educate the public” so that the White House will be forced to assert executive privilege which will carry a “political price.”

So while Fox News makes a dishonest case for an open-ended investigation by a special prosecutor in order to paint the Obama administration in the worst possible light, their colleagues at the Journal support congressional investigations which they believe would help Republicans at the ballot box.

To the Wall Street Journal’s credit, at least they are consistent.  They posted an editorial where they said “Special prosecutors are still a bad idea.”

Four years ago, the WSJ editorial said:

No IRS Special Prosecutor

Indictments are less important than political accountability.

Like dumber follows dumb, the scandal of politicized IRS tax enforcement has been followed by calls for a “special prosecutor.” Republicans are predictably leading this call against a Democratic Administration, but this is one case in which the GOP should hope it doesn’t get its way.

And now they are saying the same thing:

Democrats and their media allies finally got their man.

After weeks of political pressure, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein blinked late Wednesday and announced that he has named a special counsel to investigate Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. These expeditions rarely end well for anyone, and Democrats are 

“These expeditions rarely end well for anyone, and Democrats are hoping this one will bedevil the Trump administration for the next four years,” the Wednesday editorial said after former FBI Director Robert Mueller appointed to the post.

“The problem with special counsels, as we’ve learned again and again, is that they are by definition politically unaccountable,” the editorial board wrote shortly after the Wednesday night announcement.

“What the country really needs is a full accounting of how the Russians tried to influence the election and whether any Americans assisted them.

“That is fundamentally a counterintelligence investigation, but Mr. Mueller will be under pressure to bring criminal indictments of some kind to justify his existence.”

I’ll try to give credit where credit is due.  It is rare for ‘Big Media’ to be consistent in its principles, but the Wall Street Journal shows consistency in this instance.