‘British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia’:-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
&
GCHQ ‘told US security services about meetings between Donald Trump’s team and Russia’:-
&
‘Ex-MI6 chief says Donald Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to keep his empire afloat’:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-mi6-chief-says-donald-10217616
Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?
Sorry mate - could you be a little more specific on what they denied - and what they are now ‘owning up to’?
That British Intelligence apparently gave the U.S. Intel they gained from surveillance of Trump Staff/Russia ties. Sorry that wasn’t clear. This information was clearly available weeks ago here in the States and some people got tossed under the bus for even insinuating that British Intelligence had or shared any such Intel with the U.S… Now they’ve owned up to it after the fact.
Ah, right - I get you.
I thought the accusations from weeks ago were of British Intelligenece spying on Trump/ Trump Towers on behalf of the American Security Services? Whereas the news linked by me is of the British giving a heads-up to their US counterparts after trailing/spying on Russian counterparts and possible Russian agents - going back some time - and as to a pattern emerging over meetings with Trump’s people (along with article that has the ex-MI6 Chief thinking that Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to help keep his empire afloat around the time of the financial crisis in 2008(-ish)).
I think they are two very different things - and the British Services were correct in denying that were spying on Trump/Trump Towers on behalf of the US Services.
The US and Brits, along with other allies often keep each other abreast of information and goings on (though likely keep the really interesting stuff from each other 😉)
Personally, I would not doubt the possibility of the U.K. doing the footwork for the U.S. overseas like this. Admitting it would be a far different matter of course.
It’s a possibility - though quite unlikely given the size of the UK security services these days - due to the cuts they have suffered over the past few years. It’s more likely we’d be getting more of our info ‘2nd hand’ from the US and our other allies than before - and concentrating our resources more on anti-terror (Middle East & North Africa) and the Russians.
I doubt we even spy on the US and other allies much these days…
Anyway, the rare.us article is stretching at best - and ignores the fact that it was the UK spying on the Russians that incidentally came up with a pattern of meetings by Trump’s people with those Russians - to which the US Security Services (along with our other European allies) was tipped off about. There is no proof in that story of anything apart from some very loose conjecture to try and give some semblance of credence (in the form of a question in the editorial title) to what Judge Andrew Napolitano mistakenly stated and inferred ‘from his source’ that we were spying on Trump (for ourselves or for the US).
If this is all we’re talking about, GCHQ denied what Judge Napolitano said simply because it was flat-out wrong. Not only wrong, but so outrageously wrong it would have been a treaty violation if true, which is why there was the raft of apologies afterwards. It wasn’t merely a matter of some talking head making shit up–it was a diplomatic incident. I’m sad to see some people (rare.us) insist on pursuing the imaginary storyline even now that the evidence proving it false is out there for everyone to see.
I posted it as a reference, not some top secret black op undercover treaty violation that needs to be pursued, no need to be cryptically dramatic about it.
😉