On 2020-11-16 8:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Former President Barack Obama, who presided over historic abuses of
> presidency surveillance powers, is as soon as once more attacking one
> of many principal targets. 4 years after the Obama Justice Division
> misled a federal court docket into approving a surveillance warrant
> towards a Trump marketing campaign affiliate, Mr. Obama is evaluating
> President Donald Trump to a murderous dictator.
>
> Requested in a Sunday interview for the CBS Information program "60
> Minutes" about Mr. Trump's claims of voter fraud within the current
> election, Mr. Obama responded:
>
> The president doesn't prefer to lose and- by no means admits
> loss. I'm extra troubled by the truth that different Republican
> officers who clearly know higher are going together with this,
> are humoring him on this vogue. It's yet one more step in
> delegitimizing not simply the incoming Biden administration,
> however democracy usually. I believe that there was this sense
> during the last a number of years that actually something goes
> and is justified as a way to get energy. And that's not
> distinctive to the USA. There are sturdy males and dictators
> all over the world who assume that, "I can do something to
> remain in energy. I can kill folks. I can throw them in jail.
> I can run phony elections. I can suppress journalists."
> However that's not who we're presupposed to be.
>
I don't know who wrote what purports to be Obama's remarks but I have
trouble imagining that HE did. The weird phraseology reads like a Google
Translation from English to a foreign language and then back to English.
Examples: "humoring him on the vogue"
"delegitimizing ..., however democracy usually"
"remain in energy"
"that's not who we're PRESUPPOSED to be"
> No matter one thinks of Mr. Trump's claims-or Mr. Obama's over-the-top
> comparability to dictators-Mr. Pelley has chosen one in every of
> America's least credible advocates for presidential restraint.
>
That last sentence also has some wonky phrasing so I think the whole
article is off, not just the Obama quote.
> Bradford Betz of Fox Information fairly notes:
>
> .Obama's time in workplace was not at all the paragon of a
> presidency sure by the principles of a liberal democratic
> republic. Court docket paperwork launched in early 2013
> confirmed that the Obama administration secretly monitored
> Fox Information' James Rosen - whom the FBI dubbed a "felony
> co-conspirator," regardless of by no means being charged with
> a criminal offense.
>
> Although Trump has been forceful in his denunciation of the
> press, the Obama administration arguably went additional,
> evoking the Espionage Act to prosecute extra folks underneath
> the legislation for leaking delicate info than all earlier
> administrations mixed.
>
> As a part of an investigation into the disclosure of details
> about a botched Al Qaeda terrorist plot, the Obama
> administration, with out discover, obtained the data of 20
> Related Press workplace cellphone strains and reviews'
> residence and cell telephones.
More weird phrasing: "the Obama administration arguably went additional".
>
> Early in Mr. Obama's second time period the AP reported:
>
> The Justice Division secretly obtained two months of phone
> data of reporters and editors for the Related Press in what
> the information cooperative's high government known as a
> "large and unprecedented intrusion" into how information
> organizations collect the information.
>
I've never heard of an organization called "Related Press".
> Talking of large and unprecedented intrusions and makes an attempt to
> delegitimize a presidential administration, it was 4 years in the past
> this month that the Obama FBI fired Christopher Steele as a
> confidential supply for trigger, discovered new causes to doubt his
> reviews, and likewise discovered that he was engaged on behalf of the
> Hillary Clinton marketing campaign-but _nonetheless_ continued to
> advertise his bogus claims of Russian collusion.
>
More weird phrasing: "confidential supply for trigger".
> However now Mr. Pelley of CBS presents Mr. Obama as a gracious
> predecessor. The robust interrogator from CBS even presses Mr. Obama,
> who's publishing his newest autobiography, to concede that he might
> have been too form
How can someone be "too form"?? Is this supposed to be "too firm"? But
the subject line asserts he was too nice, not too firm. This makes no
sense.
> to political opponents. Right here's the CBS
> transcript:
>
> Scott Pelley: In your e-book, you ask, quote, "Whether or
> not I used to be too tempered in talking the reality, too
> cautious in phrase or deed." Many Individuals, Mr. President,
> imagine you had been too cautious, too tempered.
>
> Barack Obama: Yeah. a reputable and comprehensible criticism.
> On the finish of the day, I persistently tried to deal with
> my political opposition within the methods I'd wish to be
> handled, To not overreact when, for instance, someone yells,
> "You lie," in the midst of me giving a joint congressional
> handle.
What is a "joint congressional handle"? Surely he means SPEECH, not handle!
>
> Barack Obama: I perceive why there have been instances the
> place my supporters needed me to be extra pugilistic, to, you
> already know, pop people within the head and duke it out a bit
> of bit extra.
>
"Pop people within the head"???
> Scott Pelley: Was it a mistake that you simply didn't?
>
> Barack Obama: Each president brings a sure temperament to
> workplace. I believe a part of the explanation I received
> elected was as a result of I despatched a message that
> basically I imagine the American individuals are good and
> respectable, and that politics doesn't should be some cage
> match in- through which all people is- goes at one another's
> throats and that we will agree with out being unpleasant.
>
> What a man.
>
And so on. I think I've made my point: this article in the original
might have been perfectly coherent but it's been altered in such a way
as to greatly undermine its credibility as real journalism. Or maybe
someone's trying to avoid a claim of copyright infringement by not
citing the actual article but instead double-translating it?
--
Rhino