Republicans are advancing the thesis that our Justice Department and the FBI are in need of oversight! Really?

 Now I can imagine a scenario in which there's plenty of need of law enforcement oversight: in non-democratic countries or where there is not allegiance to the "rule of law" principle in the administering of justice.  A case in point in the US: law enforcement officers who beat up on some civilian and think of some violation of conduct that would justify such conduct upon a civilian; then assert that violation was committed by an innocent but criminally abused citizen.  Such an incident should be the subject of judicial review.

And were the FBI were found to invent the application of a "rule of law" already on the books was applicable in asserting that x-person did the crime of stealing merchandise from a burning building, when that citizen x-person was thousands of miles away from the scene of the crime, then the incident should be the subject of criminal court review.

And why must the oversight be limited to incidents in which there is pro and con evidence of a citizen's being involved in its commitment?  The reason is because the question to be decided is only did the accused do it or was he involved in it?  The rule is not being challenged, surly, only its proper application in some instance.

Why so?  Because the system is actually working without much criticism!  We know how it works; and we know decisively that it is working, because of the manifold instances in which we believe it to work!

That is to say, there are a manifold of instances, constantly everyday, in which we act with confidence that the system is doing just fine--pronouncing "guilty" vs. "not guilty"!  And that is, there's little raising of valid objection to the jurisprudence decision on its basis.