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

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yeah I dont buy this document as authentic.

If it was released by the DNI, surely the usual right leaning media would have discussed it.

I can agree with that.
There would be no need need for such a physical communique to begin with.
Napolitano started much of the hullaballoo anyway, and he wasn't sacked, he was suspended, and only that his sources were then deemed legit unto themselves.
Napolitano's source was Larry C.Johnson, who did say from his own sources that GCHQ was passing information to US intel on the Trump campaign, but that there was no wire-tapping by GCHQ on Trump, nor intervention by Obama.
Trump then ran with the wire tap publicly, ultimately blaming Spicer for commenting on the same meme without sourcing, after GCHQ spoke out.

Besides that, The Guardian in April had said that several European agencies did pick up communications between Russia and and Trump campaign officials, and that was passed to US intelligence, as a matter of course that would have to include GCHQ and indeed some material seems to go back to 2015, and I'm betting that some might have been actively sourced after the Republican convention in the matter of Ukraine aid, when several calls were made by the Trump team, and ultimately aid was more restricted, rather than being increased, and nobody in intel has mentioned them since. A s for a FISA,there is one seems to be about information on two banks, and as far as I'm concerned not much of a surprise. Whatever, there's not much doubt that the Trump team were being watched, and for some time by intel without any presidential involvement.
Here's the link to the Guardian story, you can make your own mind up as to what makes the real sense.
www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

1st, I am guessing the first thread was put in the hoax bin because it was from Hal Turner. When i read that link you gave and read Turner claiming that he was the first to come up with this document, it was obviously a lie from Turner because this document had been posted before Turner did.

2nd. The second thread was again still made under the assumption that this document was from Hal Turner, which is still not true. Not to mention the fact that the Trump administration was already talking about this document in specific and that former President Obama used GCHQ to spy on President elect Trump.

What many in the left couldn't put together is that neither President Trump, nor his staff just "made up these claims". NSA chief Admiral Mike Rogers was the one who saw what had happened, and he is the one who went to President Trump with the evidence.

a reply to: smurfy

What makes sense?... perhaps you forget that Clapper was asked about whether or not the NSA had collected massive amount of information/communications from U.S. persons, and Clapper claimed that they didn't... But we later found, thanks to Snowden, that Clapper had lied... That's what "spy agencies do" they lie about what they do... Just because GCHQ claimed that the statements made by President Trump and his administration were "ludicrous" doesn't make it true. There have been other threads about GCHQ collecting information from other U.S. persons, which was proven by Snowden and his leaks, yet GCHQ also claimed that they didn't collect info on U.S. persons...

BTW, just to prove how this claim made by you and the GCHQ is false here is a link from 2015 which proves the GCHQ did in fact collect data from millions of people, including in the U.S.

Now, it is important to note the following.

...
The Tribunal will only search for records shared between the NSA and GCHQ prior to December 2014. And, unfortunately, it won’t reveal if the GCHQ obtained data about you on its own and/or shared it with the NSA, or if the NSA spied on you and didn’t share that data with GCHQ. The amount of data the Tribunal will search may also be limited.
...

www.wired.com...

a reply to: smurfy

BTW, isn't it ironic that GCHQ claims it wasn't spying on Trump and his campaign but at the same time that article you link says that GCHQ was the first one to notice people connected with "Trump supposedly communicating with known or suspected Russian agents"?...

Not to mention that GCHQ can make this claim but they don't give any evidence to the public that would corroborate their claim?... If they can make this public then they should be able to provide the evidence, but they don't... They just make a claim and try to make no distinction between "suspected and known Russian agents"...

BTW, there is a big difference between "known Russian agents" and "suspected Russian agents"... But in that statement GCHQ doesn't want you to understand that there is a difference... GCHQ can claim "they suspect a Russian business owner might be a Russian agent" without having any evidence to their statement being true.

Not to mention the only reason why GCHQ would make this claim public is for purely political reasons, because they are not supposed to leak this to the press... But isn't it ironic how "spy agencies" like GCHQ can "leak" information about U.S. persons purely for political reasons?... But like i wrote earlier, even though they are "supposedly leaking" this they don't provide any evidence that corroborates their argument. In fact, they provide no evidence at all, so they did this purely for political reasons and nothing more.

BTW, perhaps people don't know this but...

By Alexander Robertson For Mailonline

Published: 10:10 EST, 23 January 2017
...

Britain's spy chief Robert Hannigan quits for 'personal reasons' after just three years in the job

Surprise, surprise... but yeah...for personal reasons... Riiiiiight... Heck, it's completely a coincidence that this was announced not long after Trump was officially U.S. President...

Donald Trump is officially the U.S. president
January 20, 2017
...

theweek.com...

Let's talk hypothetically, couldn't it be possible that Trump after being told by NSA Chief Mike Rogers that GCHQ had been spying on him, and after officially taking the office of the President, isn't it possible that the President of the United States contacted the British and he could have told them that the only way to move forward as allies and partners was if the GCHQ, the same British agency which had spied on Trump, would have a new director?

Of course Hannigan could claim that he was quitting simply for personal reasons... After all, it is not that uncommon for political figures to be given the choice to quit on their own accord after a political scandal they were involved in, and they can claim they are quitting "purely for personal reasons"...

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Question.

So this is now the third thread basically on this same document.

The first one was quickly put into the hoax bin.

The second was a thread discussing this as it being a hoax.

The question then is why is this thread still up if it has already been posted twice both times as a hoax?

I just think it a valid question to ask I relation to this thread.

That is a very valid question. This is the response I got for why my thread was sent to the HOAX bin.

ATS has a policy of placing Turner News sourced threads into HOAX

So it doesn't mean it is a hoax, it is just their policy.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Question.

So this is now the third thread basically on this same document.

The first one was quickly put into the hoax bin.

The second was a thread discussing this as it being a hoax.

The question then is why is this thread still up if it has already been posted twice both times as a hoax?

I just think it a valid question to ask I relation to this thread.

You can report the thread if you think it needs to be moved. Yammering about it in a post is pointless.

It has been reported, by multiple people, yet here it still remains.

Well I'm not sure how we would know this, but honestly why is this so critical? It hasn't even been up 24 hours.

I feel like you're bashing not only the OP, but now the mods. If you reported it somebody will look at it. They could be discussing it now.

Because it references the same document that has already been discussed and determined to be a hoax. Why would it need further discussion? Furthermore, I'm not bashing anyone but merely stating fact.

Because of the different source.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

1st, I am guessing the first thread was put in the hoax bin because it was from Hal Turner.

And you would be correct.

a reply to: alphabetaone

BTW...the signature wasn't "lifted from his letter of resignation"... Hannigan used an e-signature, and it can easily be proven.

If you look at Hannigan's letter of resignation it proves he had been using an e-signature.



www.gchq.gov.uk...

See the part I circled in red? if it had been signed with a pen you would be seeing at least a faint outline, but you don't see any outline at all on the right side of the l. The right side is white. This happens in e-signatures when you don't apply enough pressure to the e-pen.

The signatures are the same because Hannigan used an e-signature for his correspondence.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Excellent find.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It's being reported that President Obama has retained the services of a D.C. law firm that specializes in defending government officials.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Question.

So this is now the third thread basically on this same document.

The first one was quickly put into the hoax bin.

The second was a thread discussing this as it being a hoax.

The question then is why is this thread still up if it has already been posted twice both times as a hoax?

I just think it a valid question to ask I relation to this thread.

You can report the thread if you think it needs to be moved. Yammering about it in a post is pointless.

It has been reported, by multiple people, yet here it still remains.

Well I'm not sure how we would know this, but honestly why is this so critical? It hasn't even been up 24 hours.

I feel like you're bashing not only the OP, but now the mods. If you reported it somebody will look at it. They could be discussing it now.

Because it references the same document that has already been discussed and determined to be a hoax. Why would it need further discussion? Furthermore, I'm not bashing anyone but merely stating fact.

Seems the mods have discussed this and find it plausible rather than a hoax. So are you complaining about the mods or complaining because it goes against your narrative? Either you think the mods have failed or you want to censor things against your narrative.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Ok now why does the Oxford educated head of GCHQ misspell “Organization” (using the American spelling)

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Question.

So this is now the third thread basically on this same document.

The first one was quickly put into the hoax bin.

The second was a thread discussing this as it being a hoax.

The question then is why is this thread still up if it has already been posted twice both times as a hoax?

I just think it a valid question to ask I relation to this thread.

You can report the thread if you think it needs to be moved. Yammering about it in a post is pointless.

It has been reported, by multiple people, yet here it still remains.

Well I'm not sure how we would know this, but honestly why is this so critical? It hasn't even been up 24 hours.

I feel like you're bashing not only the OP, but now the mods. If you reported it somebody will look at it. They could be discussing it now.

Because it references the same document that has already been discussed and determined to be a hoax. Why would it need further discussion? Furthermore, I'm not bashing anyone but merely stating fact.

Seems the mods have discussed this and find it plausible rather than a hoax. So are you complaining about the mods or complaining because it goes against your narrative? Either you think the mods have failed or you want to censor things against your narrative.

I'm not complaining about anything with one exception, if the thread I linked which contained a document (the same one in this thread) that was perpetuating a hoax, then there's no reason why this one shouldn't be. How many different languages do you need me to describe this to you in? I'm fluent in 3, let me know if Russian or Spanish will work for you better than English.

It was not the same document that is in this thread. Two separate documents.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Ok now why does the Oxford educated head of GCHQ misspell “Organization” (using the American spelling)

Could it have been meant for an American?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Question.

So this is now the third thread basically on this same document.

The first one was quickly put into the hoax bin.

The second was a thread discussing this as it being a hoax.

The question then is why is this thread still up if it has already been posted twice both times as a hoax?

I just think it a valid question to ask I relation to this thread.

You can report the thread if you think it needs to be moved. Yammering about it in a post is pointless.

It has been reported, by multiple people, yet here it still remains.

Well I'm not sure how we would know this, but honestly why is this so critical? It hasn't even been up 24 hours.

I feel like you're bashing not only the OP, but now the mods. If you reported it somebody will look at it. They could be discussing it now.

Because it references the same document that has already been discussed and determined to be a hoax. Why would it need further discussion? Furthermore, I'm not bashing anyone but merely stating fact.

Seems the mods have discussed this and find it plausible rather than a hoax. So are you complaining about the mods or complaining because it goes against your narrative? Either you think the mods have failed or you want to censor things against your narrative.

It does indeed appear as if something changed within the minds of ATS moderators between Sunday night, (first thread which is now in HOAX forum) and Tuesday night, when this identical thread was created.

One thing to consider is that the first thread was hammered hard as being "fake news", right from the start, by member "AllAroundYou". He probably officially reported it as well. I don't think the thread made it to page 2 before getting Hoax bin'd.

a reply to: 3daysgone

If writing to an English chap would you change your spelling? from American English to English?.
Can you find official letters in which they do change the spelling?.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Question.

So this is now the third thread basically on this same document.

The first one was quickly put into the hoax bin.

The second was a thread discussing this as it being a hoax.

The question then is why is this thread still up if it has already been posted twice both times as a hoax?

I just think it a valid question to ask I relation to this thread.

You can report the thread if you think it needs to be moved. Yammering about it in a post is pointless.

It has been reported, by multiple people, yet here it still remains.

Well I'm not sure how we would know this, but honestly why is this so critical? It hasn't even been up 24 hours.

I feel like you're bashing not only the OP, but now the mods. If you reported it somebody will look at it. They could be discussing it now.

Because it references the same document that has already been discussed and determined to be a hoax. Why would it need further discussion? Furthermore, I'm not bashing anyone but merely stating fact.

Seems the mods have discussed this and find it plausible rather than a hoax. So are you complaining about the mods or complaining because it goes against your narrative? Either you think the mods have failed or you want to censor things against your narrative.

I'm not complaining about anything with one exception, if the thread I linked which contained a document (the same one in this thread) that was perpetuating a hoax, then there's no reason why this one shouldn't be. How many different languages do you need me to describe this to you in? I'm fluent in 3, let me know if Russian or Spanish will work for you better than English.

I speak logic and English fluently at the same time, could you do both?

As I said maybe the mods discussed it and decided it didn't belong in the hoax bin. I don't care about, nor did I assess, the OP. I'll wait for verified sources. Things just seem to be getting real and people, such as yourself, seem to be getting ready to get out the pitchforks. Even if the memo is fake it's starting to look like the premise is real. Merits discussion apparently or the mods would have binned it. If the topic remains and you continue to bash it as a hoax, then it sure seems you are blaming the mods. Not sure how else it can be interpreted.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

IMO, the below article lends more credibility to the authenticity of the GCHQ document you linked to, in the Opening Post of this thread.

Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

The issue of GCHQ’s role in the FBI’s ongoing investigation into possible cooperation between the Trump campaign and Moscow is highly sensitive. In March Trump tweeted that Barack Obama had illegally “wiretapped” him in Trump Tower.

The person described US intelligence as being “very late to the game”. The FBI’s director, James Comey, altered his position after the election and Trump’s victory, becoming “more affirmative” and with a “higher level of concern”.

Comey’s apparent shift may have followed a mid-October decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) court to approve a secret surveillance order.

Much More at - www.theguardian.com... (April 13, 2017)