I'm a little upset

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Kizmet, Mar 6, 2017.

  1. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    I think Obama tapped my phone. Now where did I leave that Conspiracy Theory thread? Oh, I know, Obama must have stolen it when he was tapping my phone.:eek1:
  2. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Don't be too upset, it was actually the Russians who tapped your phone.
  3. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    What idea are you trying to communicate? That you think that Trump's allegation that the Obama administration bugged his phones is outlandish?

    I disagree. Trump's claim seems more than plausible to me.

    The Obama administration FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) affidavits requesting the secret intelligence court to authorize surveillance are evidence. The applicant (Justice department lawyers) would have been required to present "probable cause" that Trump and his people were foreign agents, since FISA is concerned with intercepting communications between foreign powers and their agents in the United States, even if the latter are US citizens. (Hence it provides exceptions to the laws prohibiting the intelligence agencies from spying on Americans.) But... this example seems to have essentially been a fishing expedition that tried (unsuccessfully) to produce evidence of exactly that 'probable cause'. So what was alleged in the initial affidavit? (If there was any misrepresentation there, then that would be a felony.)

    The whole idea that an opposing political campaign are alleged to have been foreign agents and hence subject to electronic surveillance by the party in power is unprecedented. (Damn, I bet Richard Nixon wishes he had thought of that. But FISA was enacted during the Carter administration, though popular mythology often attributes it to George W. Bush.)


    One day before his inauguration, the January 19, 2017 New York Times ran a story (based as always on unnamed "sources") about Trump and his people being investigated by the outgoing Obama administration for their alleged contacts with the Russians. The very first sentence reads (highlighting by me), "American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump..."


    The very lawyerly and artfully worded "denial" on Obama confidant Valerie Jarett's Twitter account is also confirmation of a sort.

    That text says that Obama never ordered surveillance on Trump or any US citizen because his White House never interfered in independent Justice Department investigations. Which comes very close to confirming that the Obama Justice Department was indeed doing it. (It's useful to remember that under Eric Holder and then Loretta Lynch, the Obama Justice Department was hugely politicized and functioned as the enforcement arm of the democratic party.) Obama's people now want to distance themselves from their own investigation as much as possible, which is very understandable.


    I don't think that there's much question that it was happening and that the monitoring of the opposing campaign/incoming administration included communications intercepts.

    The New York Times was happily reporting it as fact just a few weeks ago, secure in the belief that the news that Trump was being investigated and his communications intercepted discredited his new Presidency.

    Now suddenly the whole idea's a psychotic delusion. Amazing how quickly that turned.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 6, 2017
  4. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Heirophant makes sense. Just because Trump is a semi-literate loose cannon doesn't mean this sort of thing would be even slightly out of character for the Obama administration. And those FISA secret courts are a continuous perversion of justice, regardless of what administration initially launched them.
  5. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Or it could be that trump read the story on breibert, and took it as fact. Kind of like when he took the Infowars story about 3-5 million illegals voting for Hilary, thus costing him the popular vote. He said an investigation would take place, but we haven't heard anything about that have we?

    Trump's wiretap claim: How a conspiracy theory got its start - Mar. 6, 2017

    "An incendiary idea first put forward by right-wing radio host Mark Levin is now burning across Washington, fanned by President Trump's tweets and a huge number of supportive commentators and websites -- even though the facts don't back up the conclusion."

    "Breitbart News has given the conspiracy theory a name: "DeepStateGate."

    "Levin's original idea, advanced on Thursday, was that former President Barack Obama and his allies have mounted a "silent coup" against Trump using "police state" tactics. Levin cherry-picked news stories that supported his thesis and omitted information that cut against it."

    If he has any evidence, fine, show it. He hasn't offered any credible evidence. My guess is he read it on Breibert or some other hack news, and started tweeting about it. Of course, I also think he is trying to deflect and change the subject away from the Russia issue. He was VERY upset when Session recused himself. Apparently, there was chaos in the White house upon hearing that Sessions recused himself.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 6, 2017
  6. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Please show me that story.
  7. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

  8. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

  9. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

  10. Helpful2013

    Helpful2013 Active Member

    Obama’s NSA spying on Congress

    Not living in the US, I don’t follow all the domestic political news, but I was appalled when Obama’s National Security Agency was caught spying on Congress, and I expected a great outcry from members of that body. Of course, if they had been secretly meeting with corporate donors or running around on their spouse, the NSA had all that as well, which would explain Congress' almost complete silence on the executive branch spying on the legislative.

    The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/nsa-spying-bernie-sanders-members-congress

    The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-danger-of-nsa-spying-on-members-of-congress/282827/
  11. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Would you be a big upset?

    That's much like people saying, "I'm a little behind today." Are they otherwise big behinds?
  12. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    As an adverb. But you knew that.

    lit·tle /ˈlidl/


    adjective: little; comparative adjective: littler; superlative adjective: littlest

    1. small in size, amount, or degree (often used to convey an appealing diminutiveness or express an affectionate or condescending attitude).
    "the plants will grow into little bushes"

    synonyms: small, small-scale, compact; More
    mini, miniature, tiny, minute, minuscule;

    toy, baby, pocket, undersized, dwarf, midget, wee;

    informalteeny-weeny, teensy-weensy, itsy-bitsy, itty-bitty, little-bitty, half-pint, vest-pocket, li'l, micro

    "a little writing desk"
    •short, small, slight, petite, diminutive, tiny;
    elfin, dwarfish, midget, pygmy, Lilliputian;

    informalteeny-weeny, pint-sized, peewee

    "a little man"

    antonyms: big, large

    •(of a person) young or younger.
    "my little brother"

    synonyms: young, younger, junior, small, baby, infant
    "my little sister"

    antonyms: big, elder

    •denoting something, especially a place, that is named after a similar larger one.
    adjective: Little

    "New York's Little Italy"

    •used in names of animals and plants that are smaller than related kinds, e.g., little grebe.

    •of short distance or duration.
    "stay for a little while"

    synonyms: brief, short, short-lived; More
    fleeting, momentary, transitory, transient;

    fast, quick, hasty, cursory

    "I was a bodyguard for a little while"

    antonyms: long

    •relatively unimportant; trivial (often used ironically).
    "we have a little problem"

    synonyms: minor, unimportant, insignificant, trivial, trifling, petty, paltry, inconsequential, nugatory; More
    informaldinky, piddling

    "a few little problems"
    antonyms: important, significant

    determiner & pronoun

    determiner: little; pronoun: little

    1. a small amount of.
    "we got a little help from my sister"

    synonyms: some, a small amount of, a bit of, a touch of, a soupçon of, a dash of, a taste of, a spot of; More
    a shade of, a suggestion of, a trace of, a hint of, a suspicion of;

    a dribble of, a splash of, a pinch of, a sprinkling of, a speck of;

    informala smidgen of, a tad of

    "add a little vinegar"

    •a short time or distance.
    "after a little, the rain stopped"

    synonyms: a short time, a little while, a bit, an interval, a short period; More
    a minute, a moment, a second, an instant;

    informala sec, a mo, a jiffy

    "after a little, Oliver came in"

    2. used to emphasize how small an amount is.
    "I have little doubt of their identity"

    synonyms: hardly any, not much, slight, scant, limited, restricted, modest, little or/to no, minimal, negligible
    "they have little political influence"

    antonyms: considerable


    adverb: little; comparative adverb: less; superlative adverb: least

    1. to a small extent.
    "he reminded me a little of my parents"

    synonyms: slightly, faintly, remotely, vaguely; More
    somewhat, a little bit, to some degree

    "this reminds me a little of the Adriatic"

    2. (used for emphasis) only to a small extent; not much or often.
    "he was little known in this country"
  13. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    That reminds me of something since the word midget is listed up there. In the old days, they used to have midget throwing contests. do they still have them? And if so, are they called "little person" throwing contests now?
  14. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

  15. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    This is lamentable lowering of the bar: just because something "makes sense" doesn't make it "true". Good propaganda always "makes sense" by playing to people's preconceived notions. Note that this:

    ...is false (do you really think that FBI is the enforcement arm of the democratic party?); also, it's nebulous enough to be meaningless. If it were true, would it mean that Obama ordered an illegal wiretap? No.

    BTW, this means someone at the FBI thought that Trump campaign Russian connection could plausibly enough amount to a crime. This is more dirt than anyone ever had on Clinton. The strongest thing people were able to say about the whole "EMAILZ!!!" nontrovercy is "FBI investigates"; an investigation Clinton camp apparently cooperated with and at no point did FBI suggest anyone was a Russian agent. Yet it costed her the election.
  16. airtorn

    airtorn Moderator

    Sir Mix-A-Lot would approve of that.
  17. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

  18. jhp

    jhp Member

    Never heard of a conspiracy theory that was ever true.
  19. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

  20. b4cz28

    b4cz28 Active Member

    I will do you one better. The New York Times claimed he was wire taped, then when it swung the other way went back and altered the title.

    That's ethical right?

    New York Times Changes January Headline to Remove Mention of Wiretapping

Share This Page