And yes, I am perfectly aware of what Obama did to Manning and Snowden. I objected to that at the time, and still do.
One of the stupidities of overly polarized politics is that people assume that you must be on one side or the other. This would be a bad assumption to make about me.
Hasn't is not correct. The Obama Administration was notoriously terrible towards the press. The below from an article published today: https://news.grabien.com/story-why-it-will-be-hard-trump-sur...
Obama Admin on Fox News: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html
The [Obama] administration sought to deny Fox News' participation in executive branch news-making events -- which only failed after other networks admirably refused to participate if Fox News were excluded. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-ne...
James Rosen, reported accurate information about North Korea leaked by a member of the Obama State Department, Eric Holder ordered his movements to be tracked, his phone records seized, and went "judge shopping" until he found one willing to grant such a warrant without telling Rosen himself. Holder even told Google to not notify Rosen that the government was monitoring his email. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-just...
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-prosecutors-foug...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-in-ap-r...
The New York Times's James Risen was targeted for almost the entirety of Obama's two terms. His crime? Reporting accurate information the Obama Administration didn't want reported. "Along the way, we found out that the government had spied on virtually every aspect of James Risen’s digital life from phone calls, to emails, to credit card statements, bank records and more," https://freedom.press/news-advocacy/the-james-risen-case-and...
The Associated Press experienced similar surveillance. For two months, the Department of Justice tracked 20 AP reporters' calls, ostensibly over their reporting into a Libyan terrorist's failed plot. Why was reporting on a failed plot so threatening? The AP said it was because the administration wanted to announce the news itself. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-question-whethe...
Just pointing out that 'Hasn't' is not correct. Carry on...
Obama waged a campaign against leakers. Most of what you refer to was tied to that. Related, see the fact that he used the Espionage Act more than everyone else. That phrasing is precise, Obama used it more than all other presidents combined.
He also faced a sustained propaganda campaign from Fox News. (The results of which were regular grist for Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.) He therefore treated them as an enemy.
This was unfortunate, but not really comparable to Trump's treating anyone who disagrees with obvious outright lies as an enemy. And Trump's declaring most of the media enemies, and issuing a variety of thinly veiled threats to them.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama's unfortunate espionage act record eclipsed as well... :-(
At any rate, whatever. I am not going to be silenced by your keyboard
Anyone who values reality should recognize detailed valid criticism for what it is, and support it. Especially if it is your position being criticized. Statements need to be judged by evidence of accuracy, and not agreement with your preconceptions.
A detailed post, offering correction and full of links and exact quotes should therefore be voted up, not down.
Trump seems to be going after any federal agency that does not pursue goals that he wants.
Seems as if what Trump has initiated is no different than previous administrations upon taking office [0]. Are you sure there's some clear break from past precedent?
Or take the reinstatement of the Holman rule. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house.... This rule allows politicians to target individual civil servants. This is again not business as normal. This rule was removed under Ronald Reagan in 1983. No administration since has sought its reinstatement. This again fits into the theme of creating "chilling effects" from partisan oversight of what is supposed to be a politically neutral organization.
For a third example, see http://www.salon.com/2017/01/10/please-dont-tell-us-the-trut.... The CBO is widely viewed as neutral, and has been kept that way for many years. It routinely provides estimates for every bill of what that bill's impacts are likely to be, including the estimates of the impact on our deficit. However House Republicans want to repeal the Affordable Care Act and do not wish to be embarrassed by estimates of how much removing some of its inflation limiting provisions will impact our federal deficit. So they are banning the CBO from calculating this number.
I can cite plenty of precedents for all of these actions. They are all before my birth, or in other countries. They are emphatically NOT business as usual in the modern USA.