Former president Obama requested British intelligence To Spy on Donald Trump and His Organization.

a reply to: carewemust

It’s quite obviously a hoax though unless there is something else to back it up

a reply to: Grambler


Based on the patterns we've seen thus far, want to take a guess as to why this statement from GCHQ is labeled as "extremely rare".?

Britain's intelligence and security organisation has dismissed claims, suggested by the White House, that it helped Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump as "nonsense" in an incredibly rare public statement.

Source- dated March 17, 2017: www.telegraph.co.uk...

Why not British Intelligence spying on Trump at the behest of Obama?

WHY NOT?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: carewemust

It’s quite obviously a hoax though unless there is something else to back it up

Although I dongt think this document is authentic, I would not be in favor of putting it in the hoax bin.

My personal feelings are the hoax bin should be reserved for things that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt are hoaxes.

I dont know that this meets the standard, seeing as I havent seen much in the way of proof this is a hoax.

Where I stand now is I havent seen proof that its authentic or a hoax, but my gut tells me its fake, and I certainly wont base any of my opinions or commentary on the info that it contains, as I see no proof it is authentic.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler


Based on the patterns we've seen thus far, want to take a guess as to why this statement from GCHQ is labeled as "extremely rare".?

Britain's intelligence and security organisation has dismissed claims, suggested by the White House, that it helped Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump as "nonsense" in an incredibly rare public statement.

Source- dated March 17, 2017: www.telegraph.co.uk...

Why not British Intelligence spying on Trump at the behest of Obama?

WHY NOT?

It may well be that the UK spied on trump, perhaps even at Obamas behest.

That in no way proves the authenticity of this document though.

a reply to: Grambler

Yeah I would agree it’s not been 100% proven to be a hoax. If think only things that come from known hoaxer it were a hoax has been confirmed belong in the hoax bin.

How do you prove a negative, comes down to that.

This is a obviously fake. But to prove it absolutely as a fake is much harder

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler


Based on the patterns we've seen thus far, want to take a guess as to why this statement from GCHQ is labeled as "extremely rare".?

Britain's intelligence and security organisation has dismissed claims, suggested by the White House, that it helped Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump as "nonsense" in an incredibly rare public statement.

Source- dated March 17, 2017: www.telegraph.co.uk...

Why not British Intelligence spying on Trump at the behest of Obama?

WHY NOT?

It may well be that the UK spied on trump, perhaps even at Obamas behest.

That in no way proves the authenticity of this document though.

You are correct. However, AboveTopSecret.com is a conspiracy discussion website. When was the last time we were directed to discuss only those things that were proven as authentic?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler


Based on the patterns we've seen thus far, want to take a guess as to why this statement from GCHQ is labeled as "extremely rare".?

Britain's intelligence and security organisation has dismissed claims, suggested by the White House, that it helped Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump as "nonsense" in an incredibly rare public statement.

Source- dated March 17, 2017: www.telegraph.co.uk...

Why not British Intelligence spying on Trump at the behest of Obama?

WHY NOT?

It may well be that the UK spied on trump, perhaps even at Obamas behest.

That in no way proves the authenticity of this document though.

You are correct. However, AboveTopSecret.com is a conspiracy discussion website. When was the last time we were directed to discuss only those things that were proven as authentic?

For me though discussing a conspiracy should be done so using established facts and sound logic.

Otherwise I could start a thread every day claiming to have a new super power and just defend my claims saying this is a conspiracy site so anything goes.

We have the skunk works for that kind of thing.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

If it were a document purportedly from Iranian Intelligence, or even Mexican Intelligence, it would more easily be considered as authentic. But the British are our "best buds" on the planet. The USA's roots emanate from there.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

its a hoax

thread

the TL : DR synopsis :

who is micheal steele ?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

If it were a document purportedly from Iranian Intelligence, or even Mexican Intelligence, it would more easily be considered as authentic. But the British are our "best buds" on the planet. The USA's roots emanate from there.

And the document looks doctored, it looks looks it’s based on another document, there are a few small details that don’t seem right and lastly..... if this had really been leaked it would be leaked to Fox News and would be the biggest story on the globe.

The only sensible conclusion then is that it’s a fake

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler


Based on the patterns we've seen thus far, want to take a guess as to why this statement from GCHQ is labeled as "extremely rare".?

Britain's intelligence and security organisation has dismissed claims, suggested by the White House, that it helped Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump as "nonsense" in an incredibly rare public statement.

Source- dated March 17, 2017: www.telegraph.co.uk...

Why not British Intelligence spying on Trump at the behest of Obama?

WHY NOT?

It may well be that the UK spied on trump, perhaps even at Obamas behest.

That in no way proves the authenticity of this document though.

You are correct. However, AboveTopSecret.com is a conspiracy discussion website. When was the last time we were directed to discuss only those things that were proven as authentic?

For me though discussing a conspiracy should be done so using established facts and sound logic.

Otherwise I could start a thread every day claiming to have a new super power and just defend my claims saying this is a conspiracy site so anything goes.

We have the skunk works for that kind of thing.

Yes..I'm in a similar mindset most of the time. But this particular document dovetails with what the President (Trump) was alleging way back in March 2017. ( www.telegraph.co.uk... ) And thus far, President Trump has been generally correct in his statements regarding "Deep State" activities.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I have no idea what a REAL GCHQ intelligence letter/report looks like, vs. a FAKE one. But since you do, I'll defer to your judgement on this.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I have no idea what a REAL GCHQ intelligence letter/report looks like, vs. a FAKE one. But since you do, I'll defer to your judgement on this.

As was pointed out on the other thread.

Oxford educated heads of British intelligence don’t use the American spelling of “organisation”

I feel like you want to believe this is real.

Confirmation bias

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Makes you wonder who made it and for what purpose?.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Makes you wonder who made it and for what purpose?.

Could be anyone really.

I think if it was done by a government or intelligence people it would look better.

So I reckon it’s been done by a private individual for whatever reason they may have

a reply to: carewemust

it does not take much skill or knowledge to create plausible looking headers and footers that APPEAR to be indistigushable from genuine official documents

so - the key question is : who is micheal steele ?

Be careful. I posted something similar to this and it went to the hoax bin without an explanation, and I even stated that a site claims to have part of the memo, which was not a hoax because it did claim it.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This was posted on YT back around the time

a reply to: 3daysgone

Still a hoax though.