It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama used Britain's inteligence agencies to listen in on Trump

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
This means Obama Administration had access to intel on the Clinton Campaign too.

So they could easily come up with campaign tricks to counter all negative info.





posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



First show me proof Russians interfered in the election. I have yet to see any proof, only the word of intelligence agencies.


This is a given, and I won't relitigate this with you.



Now we have members of those agencies saying Obamas people went to Britain to get the to spy on trump.


Do we?


Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed “three intelligence sources” say President Obama looked to British spy agency GCHQ to obtain transcripts of conversations involving President Donald Trump


Sounds to me like Judge Andrew Napolitano is claiming that Obama asked to be "read in" on transpcipts that GCHQ already had. I see nothing in your source to indicate that Obama asked the GCHQ to perform the surveillance in the first place.



Obama then criticized Russia for having foreign influence....


Russian agents hacked the DNC and then leaked that information to WikiLeaks to be publicly released, in order to compromise the Democratic party and its nominee. That's a fact. Were Donald Trump's phone conversation ever published? Nope.

You're comparing apples and helicopters.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
Russian agents hacked the DNC and then leaked that information to WikiLeaks to be publicly released, in order to compromise the Democratic party and its nominee. That's a fact.


Russia denied this. There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC. It remains unknown the identity of the hacker Guccifer 2.0 who did this.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Sounds to me like you missed what the source said.

Its specifically says that the GCHQ has access to all of the NSA's database, and that Obama asked the GCHQ to obtain the conversation between Trump and russians.

The NSA sweeps up aall calls, and Obama knows this. So he asked to have access to Trumps calls. This is outrageous, and the fact that you would defend it is deeply troubling.

As for the Russiaa business, there is no proof at all Trump colluded with them, and I am not going to just take the intelligence agencies word that Russia is responsible without showing any evidence.

If you trust them so implicitly that you will take their word without proof, good for you. I am sure you believed them when they said they don't intentionally keep records of Americans too.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   


I believe that's what Obama said to Vladimir Putin, whose government DID interfere in our election.


Based on what? You're understand of Bill Maher's monologue? Try reading the actual reports. The NSA was actually less than convinced. So, to be clear... No proof of Russia hacking the DNC is worse than proof of the then current administration soliciting a foreign intelligence agency to obtain records from our own intelligence agency on his behalf to share with the candidate of his choosing? Just a hypothetical question, since no real proof exists Obama did this. I'd just like to hear the excuse you're warming up.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

This is quite an interesting subject. I hadn't really given it much thought but what we're talking about here essentially is ECHELON intercepts of communications with Russian officials.

I assume all the member nations have some mechanism whereby they can query other nations' databases of intercepts? So would this mean that the communications were captured by the NSA?

There are obviously concerning implications in survelliance of a presidential candidate or his campaign but does that mean that the federal government should not investigate possible crimes involving a presidential campaign? It seems to me that it really comes down to the circumstances and the process for initiating/conducting the investigation.

If there was reasonable cause for an investigation, the investigation wasn't directly overseen by the White House and warrants were properly obtained, it wouldn't seem that there was anything necessarily untoward but I'm honestly not that familiar with the mechanisms and law involved. I suspect there's probably a lot of gray area. I also can't help but consider not only the FBI investigation of Clinton that was taking place during the election but also the impact of the status updates from Comey.

Elections and butterfly wings right? (although the butterfly wings thing is actually a myth)

I'd fully support Congress getting serious about getting to the bottom of the Trump/campaign/admin dealings with Russia during the election as well as how it was investigated while Obama was in office.

As a side note, I do find it interesting how people have views of anonymous sources/leaks that are largely matters of political convenience. Will President Trump be tweeting about how horrible the leaks/purported leaks to The Very Faux Fox News are?



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




I believe that's what Obama said to Vladimir Putin, whose government DID interfere in our election.


So, If I have this straight: the British--a foreign government-- wiretapped the conversations of a U.S. presidential candidate. They, thereafter, released such information regarding these conversations to the man-- who was the current President at the time --who would then use such information against the aforementioned candidate with the intent to delegitimize him as a candidate, therefore influencing the election. All based upon the admitted specious premise that a foreign government was influencing the U.S. election in favor of said candidate.

Please tell me I'm not the only one that sees this as ironic and hypocritical.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler

Are you suggesting that Obama persoanlly contracted British intelligence, and Christopher Steele, to put together the infamous Dossier that's haunting the Trump administration today?


Lol yes haunting the trump admin lol sure it has 4 chan fan fiction in it where russian hookers wearing anime pajamas peed on trump so your right its infamous but wverytime they bring it up the left looks stupid and the dossier looks like fabrication where only the dumbest liberals would use it as an example of russian collusion. Lol peegaters are on another level that makes birthers look like phd's in comparison.



edit on 14-3-2017 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

First on your point about double standards about leaks. Yeah this is a huge problem. I chose to not believe anything without proof. So this story may be true, Trumps collusion with Russia may be true, Russia hacking the election may be true, but until I see proof myself, I will not just take anyone's word for it. I may support Trump, but we all have been burned by so many people on all sides that we should all demand proof.

Trump praised wikileaks during his campaign, and condemned them for vault 7. Enough said.

Should there have been an investigation if there was reasonable suspicion of Trump colluding with Russians? I guess, but this is a damn fine line. You better be very sure there is some wrongdoing going on, or you just justified spying on your political opponent.

The fact that all people have admitted they currently have no evidence of Trumps wrongdoing, and yet Obama spread the info as far as possible and now we see leaks to make Trump look bad is pretty damning in its own right.

But if the accusations in the OP are true, they are inexcusable no matter what suspicions were had. If Obama wanted to investigate Trumps team, they should have gotten warrants and did everything as by the books as possible. Asking a foreign agency to get info to claim plausible deniability is such an egregious abuse of power that it is indefensible.

Now this is IF the sources in the OP are correct. Again, until I see proof, it is all just suspicions as far as I am concerned.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Its specifically says that the GCHQ has access to all of the NSA's database, and that Obama asked the GCHQ to obtain the conversation between Trump and russians.


Your source says that President Obama asked for "transcripts". Do you believe that there exists transcripts of conversations between Donald Trump and some Russians? If so, that's pretty damning.



The NSA sweeps up aall calls, and Obama knows this. So he asked to have access to Trumps calls.


We're not talking about the NSA here, but wouldn't Obama already have access to NSA intel?



As for the Russiaa business, there is no proof at all Trump colluded with them


Now you're moving the goal post. Whether or not Trump colluded with Russian agents, and what he knew and when he knew it, are not the subject of this thread. This thread is about Obama asking to be "read in" on the international intel community's intel.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: windword




I believe that's what Obama said to Vladimir Putin, whose government DID interfere in our election.


So, If I have this straight: the British--a foreign government-- wiretapped the conversations of a U.S. presidential candidate. They, thereafter, released such information regarding these conversations to the man-- who was the current President at the time --who would then use such information against the aforementioned candidate with the intent to delegitimize him as a candidate, therefore influencing the election. All based upon the admitted specious premise that a foreign government was influencing the U.S. election in favor of said candidate.

Please tell me I'm not the only one that sees this as ironic and hypocritical.


The only thing I would point out is that the article says that Obamas admin asked Britains to look into the US's own NSA database (which Britains GCHQ has access to) to provide the transcripts.

So ion effect, the US spies on all of its people, but it would look bad for Obama to request info from the NSA because there would have been a papertrail for Obama or his team asking for this, and so they asked the GCHQ to basically unofficially give them the transcripts, thus slowing the Obama admin to claim they ordered no wiretaps.

But your post is correct, this is the height of irony if true.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: bender151



Based on what?


Based on Obama's own words.



And, based on Obama's subsequent Russian sanctions and the expulsions of Russian diplomats/spies.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Why would a transcript of Trump talking with Russians be damning? Is he not allowed to talk with Russians? Its only a problem if there was collusion going on, and so far everyone, including democrats and Clappers said there is no evidence of wrong doing.

The point is Obama wanted to know what Trump and his team were discussing, and they got that info. Then Obama declared that

Then Obama declared all info should be spread across all agencies and even other countries, knowing full well they had no proof of Trumps wrong doing.

Yet you have no problem with this. Well I guess if Trump asks Britain to spy on Schumer and Pelosi and others thats a ok by you, so long as there is a spurious allegation of them talking with foreigners.

See my post above about having access to the NSA.

Lastly, I am moving no goal post. The intelligence agencies have provided no proof of Trump russian collusion, OR Russian hacking.

If this evidence has been provided please show it to me.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

So if Russians interfered, the blame goes to the Administration at the time.




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Window dressing.




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You're making a lot of assumptions and inserting your own narrative.

Like I said, it is my understanding from what I've read about this in the past, that the Obama Administration was alerted by international intel agencies, that there was suspicious activity uncovered that could compromise US national security. President Obama asked to be "read in" on their intel.

It would have been negligent for him not to have pursued this intel.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
AFAIK, no formal investigation can be done on a private citizen unless that person is suspected of criminal or treasonous actions. AFAIK, Donald Trump was never a suspect. AFAIK, any investigation done on Donald Trump in the 2016 election is illegal.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Why would a transcript of Trump talking with Russians be damning?


For one thing, it would be damning because Trumpy swore he never spoke to any Russians, PERIOD!

It would be damning because the Russians were being accused of hacking the DNC and feeding that info to WikiLeaks at the time, and Trumpy was aware of the controversy. So unless he was telling them to "knock it off" he WAS colluding, or at the very least, his silence on the topic, while he was talking with the Russians, would have amounted to tacitly condoning it. He DID condone WikiLeaks during the election campaign, after all. "I love WikiLeaks" and "Russia, if youre listening...."

Another implication of Trumpy actually having phone conversations with Russian officials is the possibility of a violation of the Logan Act.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler

You're making a lot of assumptions and inserting your own narrative.

Like I said, it is my understanding from what I've read about this in the past, that the Obama Administration was alerted by international intel agencies, that there was suspicious activity uncovered that could compromise US national security. President Obama asked to be "read in" on their intel.

It would have been negligent for him not to have pursued this intel.



Ok very well thats your opinion. But you are admitting that Obama asked foreign intelligence officials to give him transcripts of Trumps calls.

So Obamas response to Trumps tweet saying he would never order a wiretap was just a word game. If you are right that it was perfectly acceptable for Obama to request this, why wouldn't he just come out and say that?

I think that the average person will disagree with you in an extreme way that this isn't a big deal.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler



Why would a transcript of Trump talking with Russians be damning?


For one thing, it would be damning because Trumpy swore he never spoke to any Russians, PERIOD!

It would be damning because the Russians were being accused of hacking the DNC and feeding that info to WikiLeaks at the time, and Trumpy was aware of the controversy. So unless he was telling them to "knock it off" he WAS colluding, or at the very least, his silence on the topic, while he was talking with the Russians, would have amounted to tacitly condoning it. He DID condone WikiLeaks during the election campaign, after all. "I love WikiLeaks" and "Russia, if youre listening...."

Another implication of Trumpy actually having phone conversations with Russian officials is the possibility of a violation of the Logan Act.



Well I have yet to see any proof that he personally talked to Russian officials, just that his team has. But under your interpretation, if any person, even a democrat communicated with russians knowing that they supposedly hacked the DNC, they are guilty of collusion.

So if any of Hillarys connections had contact with Russians, they too would be guilty of collusion, right?




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join