
Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping him before election - koolba
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/04/trump-accuses-obama-wiretapping-him-before-election/98734316/
======
MisterWebz
Most likely related: [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-
trum...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-
wiretap)

Apparently a FISA request was made to wiretap Trump or people from his
campaign. It was denied the first time, but a second one which narrowed the
scope of surveillance got accepted.

~~~
1337biz
Thanks for bringing an actual realistic explanation for what might be behind
this.

------
mwambua
Where do you guys go to find logical commentary on political articles now that
HN is flagging everything political?

~~~
69mlgsniperdad
Unfortunately there isn't really anywhere else where facts are not censored,
shadow-banned, or shilled into oblivion. For instance, pre-election, I made an
entirely 100% truthful meaningful comment on this site, a story about a
Wikileaks email dump, I pasted several links directly to the Wikileaks DKIM
verified emails for reference. I had a dozen or so up-votes, then stopped
receiving replies. I posted on the other similar story which was very hot, and
received no votes in either direction, nor any responses. Upon logging out,
realized I had been shadow-banned. Ten or so posts appeared on inline on the
stories, but every single thing I typed, would only show up if I was logged
in.

After searching everywhere for rules, or anyone anywhere mentioning that hn
shadow-bans dissent, or shadow-bans anything for that matter; I emailed hn. I
received a reply saying that I was indeed shadow-banned, however, it was in
response to a comment I made 300 days prior. In summary I comment with facts
and sources in a respectful passive manner in response to a fallacious top
comment, get up-voted, and then shadow-banned 15 minutes later for that
comment, and everything subsequent, but because of a comment I made 300 days
prior. #FreeSpeech

Edit: r/the_donald might be the place for you. Although, some aren't yet
mentally equipped to make such a leap in just a single stride.

~~~
mwambua
Thanks... I don't think I'm ready for r/the_donald

It doesn't take a very balanced approach to politics... much like hn
sometimes.

------
diego_moita
The master of propaganda in a post facts, post truth era: they make an
accusation, you throw back a truthiness[0].

It will work as long as there are 63 million true believers blindingly
accepting everything he says.

It will take a very long time (maybe 8 years), but eventually reality always
break through and the trick looks stale and obvious.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness)

~~~
bmelton
I think that it's a worthwhile exercise in politics to both

a) not assume that the guy you like is always telling the truth, and

b) not assume that the guy you don't like is always lying

My favorite (recent) reference to how to evaluate a politician's claims is
this article[1] from Popehat.

As a politically aware member of neither party, I've found the in _many_
cases, diligence has been the only thing that enabled me to understand the
point a political adversary was trying to make, instead of simply parroting
whatever clichéd soundbite I read from whichever website that broke the news.

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be skeptical of a politician's claims.
Indeed, I would prefer that more people were more skeptical of the claims of
every politician, but that means not giving a free pass to the politicians
they like, and being perfectly willing to call bullshit on your favorite
political agents, even if you agree with them in other areas, and even if you
agree with them on the claim they're making now.

Allowing our politicians the luxury of getting away unchecked with lies is
dangerous, but it seems that most Americans are happy to do so if they're okay
with the agenda the lie is made in support of. I really hope that changes.

[1] - [https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-
a-s...](https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-search-
warrant-application/)

------
jorts
That website has the most obnoxious mobile ads I've ever seen. I couldn't get
out of them without clicking on the product or closing chrome.

------
Jerry2
Watergate 2.0

------
69mlgsniperdad
I think it would be wise for those who cannot begin to fathom, the possibility
that Trump has good intentions and knows how to execute(but not the best
communicator) while Obama was a criminal and may very well be arrested in the
near future, begin to prepare themselves for a massive shock. It explains the
amount of $ being poured in to fund and organize useless protests, or protests
with minimal (extremely minimal) chances of any impact whatsoever. It also
explains why different media outlets, who are in a financial free fall,
continue to "misfire" or "misquote" (lie), while they have record low (and
still plummeting) levels of trust among an also plummeting viewership.

------
gillianlish
"Well, if he had nothing to hide then he had nothing to be worried about. "

lol constitution wut

------
joeclark77
Wouldn't it be funny if all of Obama's sleazy tricks orchestrating leaks, etc,
ended up making Trump stronger and putting Obama in prison?

~~~
maxerickson
You think the level headed constitutional lawyer was recklessly breaking the
law in the last months of his presidency?

If Obama did directly order wire taps of Trump campaign personnel, his ass
will be covered 6 ways to Sunday.

~~~
RodericDay
that level headed constitutional lawyer bald facedly lied to his nation about
his inability to pardon Snowden without trial, knowing full well what Ford
afforded Nixon. If the wire tapping ensures a Clinton presidency, which most
expected, there would 100% be no blowback.

I'm anti-Trump but let's acknowledge Obama was a shady figure

~~~
RodericDay
I love HackerNews. People are clinging really hard to the idea that Obama was
a great guy or whatever. I'm going to take my little -3 point soapbox and lead
anyone who wants to understand how bad Obama's presidency was to this reading
list by left-wing writer Emmett Rensin:

[http://www.bookforum.com/booklist/17438](http://www.bookforum.com/booklist/17438)

 _The era of Obama is over. Now the majority of Americans may see it clearly
for the first time. Over the past eight years, it has become apparent that
President Obama 's presence in office was a distortion. His calm demeanor and
steady optimism seduced liberals into thinking that they were living in
good—if occasionally dull—days, at war with an intransigent Congressional GOP,
but blind to the breadth and power of the reaction brewing below. Liberals
were often frustrated by the slow progress under Obama, even offended by the
indifference and injustice that persisted in the practice of American power,
but the White House and its boosters in the respectable media always had their
rebuke: Don't worry. We're getting there. Trust the process._

 _That calm is over and for many, the sudden chaos of the political situation
comes as a shock. What happened? When did the country become so precarious
again? But there is no "again." None of this is sudden. It is only that, in
the absence of President Obama, every cruelty that persisted or grew under his
stewardship has come fully out into the open. Some of this was the former
president's doing. Some of it was not. But none of our problems are concealed
by the veneer of steady progress anymore._

Obama was a bad president, Clinton was a bad candidate, and the Democrats are
the main group to blame, since their failure gave an odious Trump the
presidency, no matter how much saber-rattling tries to pin it on Russia.

~~~
xbmcuser
He wasn't he ranks in the top 10 best presidents US has had. Unlike you I am
not just saying it or making it up but talking about a ranking made by
university professors and academics who ranked all US presidents according to
how well or badly they did.

