Internet Site Claims to have part of the memo

I see moderator action on this thread, but no reason why?

We can't post to the HOAX forums now can we? I don't know.

Since Snowden started talking about mass surveillance co-operation between GCHQ and NSA, I'm not the slightest bit surprised that we've been doing this.

Strange, that.

originally posted by: badw0lf
I see moderator action on this thread, but no reason why?

We can't post to the HOAX forums now can we? I don't know.

I am all for using the HOAX bin, so good on you, mods, for doing that, but (I think) it is paramount that it is explicitly said why a thread is moved there. Otherwise (I think) we risk that our members see it as illigit, and then the hoax label becomes pointless or even counterproductive, reinforcing the conspiracy point of view of the given topic.

So this is my encouragement to you, mods, to always include a bit of text describing the basis for the decision to hoax-bin a topic.

what happened to the phrase here on ATS....."extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof"....there is a whole lot of criminal dealings 'speculation' out there about trump and the Russian mob, but it has not been made public due to a lack of public evidence.....

And what exactly is the problem so many people have with the idea of 'If a candidate might have been compromised by a hostile foreign power, then the intelligence agencies should check it out just in case'?

Why is that so screamingly unacceptable?

If Trump didn't do anything wrong, then surveillance to make sure he's not compromised by hostile foreign powers shouldn't be a problem should it?

This is exactly what our intelligence agencies should be doing. Making sure our politicians aren't agents of foreign powers.

originally posted by: badw0lf
I see moderator action on this thread, but no reason why?

We can't post to the HOAX forums now can we? I don't know.

Other than the utter unreliability of the source, the document was clearly drafted to provide an incriminating narrative. As Ignorant_ape pointed out, an actual request would not need to provide so much detail. A simple: Request for authorization to extend FULSOME A/16/02/05 would have done the trick. Real spies don't tend to talk too much about what they are actually doing. (Or send memos like this on letterhead.)

originally posted by: Painterz
And what exactly is the problem so many people have with the idea of 'If a candidate might have been compromised by a hostile foreign power, then the intelligence agencies should check it out just in case'?

Why is that so screamingly unacceptable?

If Trump didn't do anything wrong, then surveillance to make sure he's not compromised by hostile foreign powers shouldn't be a problem should it?

This is exactly what our intelligence agencies should be doing. Making sure our politicians aren't agents of foreign powers.

OH NO!!.....don't bring logic into a rightwing or foreign-based rant, it's not acceptable here.....only democrats, the free press, and the American government are suppose to be the enemy of the people....

a reply to: jimmyx

It hasn't been made public because they are still building their case.

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: badw0lf
I see moderator action on this thread, but no reason why?

We can't post to the HOAX forums now can we? I don't know.

I am all for using the HOAX bin, so good on you, mods, for doing that, but (I think) it is paramount that it is explicitly said why a thread is moved there. Otherwise (I think) we risk that our members see it as illigit, and then the hoax label becomes pointless or even counterproductive, reinforcing the conspiracy point of view of the given topic.

So this is my encouragement to you, mods, to always include a bit of text describing the basis for the decision to hoax-bin a topic.

Oh I wasn't saying I disagree with the action. Plenty of threads have been moved here, and so they should have been. Was just querying the reason. If it's an arbitrary action, then as you say, it defeats the purpose.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: badw0lf
I see moderator action on this thread, but no reason why?

We can't post to the HOAX forums now can we? I don't know.

Other than the utter unreliability of the source, the document was clearly drafted to provide an incriminating narrative.

Fair enough. A note to state as much would have sufficed, but it is what it is.

a reply to: badw0lf

hi - could you please explain what you meann by :

but it is what it is.

as for the alledged letter

2 things stand out after reading a hi quality image :

1 - project fulsome . here [ UK ] - an activity of the scope alledged to comprimise " project fulsome " - would be " operation fulsome "

2 - organization . here in the UK we have organisation - its a minor detail - but i believe that the alledged letter was written bt an american , not the oxford educated director of GCHQ

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: badw0lf

hi - could you please explain what you meann by :

but it is what it is.

It is in the hoax bin and nothing will see that change. It is what it is.