Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 215

TV’s Frink said:
Than god we didn’t put that warmongering Hillary in the White House. Also her emails.

Alderaan said:
Hillary is more pro war than Trump. She was literally quoting Dick Cheney propaganda on the campaign trail.
I guess that doesn’t fit your narrative though.

TV’s Frink said:
I guess you missed the point.

Here, Alderaan. Let me help you:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

‘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’:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/13/ex-british-spy-chief-sir-richard-dearlove-suggests-donald-trump/

&

‘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 😉)

Jetrell Fo said:

If Clinton would be in office this would have escalated far sooner and possibly at an even higher price. She’s a warmonger, no getting around it, because war makes money. Money and power have always been the basis of her rhetoric.

Jetrell Fo said:

I’ve also said I’d have given Hillary Clinton the same chance had she won.

Ok.

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

‘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’:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/13/ex-british-spy-chief-sir-richard-dearlove-suggests-donald-trump/

&

‘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.

http://rare.us/rare-politics/so-was-judge-andrew-napolitano-right-all-along-about-obama-and-the-brits-spying-on-trump/

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).

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

‘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’:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/13/ex-british-spy-chief-sir-richard-dearlove-suggests-donald-trump/

&

‘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.

http://rare.us/rare-politics/so-was-judge-andrew-napolitano-right-all-along-about-obama-and-the-brits-spying-on-trump/

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.

CatBus said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

‘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’:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/13/ex-british-spy-chief-sir-richard-dearlove-suggests-donald-trump/

&

‘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.

http://rare.us/rare-politics/so-was-judge-andrew-napolitano-right-all-along-about-obama-and-the-brits-spying-on-trump/

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 completely agree - which is why I was a little confused to Fo’s ‘Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?’ when that hasn’t actually happened (and there is nothing to ‘own up to’) - and certainly not from the 3 news links I posted.

Jetrell Fo said:

cryptically dramatic

Hello new user titl… grr, dammit Jay!

Jetrell Fo said:

Napolitano wrote on March 16: “Sources have told me that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s calls.”

Notice he uses the words “most likely”. That is not him saying “it was absolutely” what happened. If anyone here thinks for one second that there is absolutely NO possibility beyond a doubt, that this couldn’t happen between close allies, you’d be kidding yourself. I never said it happened this way either but I do believe that the possibility that it did is far more likely.

There is no way allies would tell the world they committed a “treaty violation” to help out another nation. They would not want anyone to be considering such a thing that is why they wouldn’t want someone saying it publicly … it would put them in a spot they were trying to stay out of by being quite about it.

“Jetrell Fo said:
Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?”

Then there is nothing to own up to then at all, no? Despite your words clearly claiming ‘but now they have own up to it’)…

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Napolitano wrote on March 16: “Sources have told me that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s calls.”

Notice he uses the words “most likely”. That is not him saying “it was absolutely” what happened. If anyone here thinks for one second that there is absolutely NO possibility beyond a doubt, that this couldn’t happen between close allies, you’d be kidding yourself. I never said it happened this way either but I do believe that the possibility that it did is far more likely.

There is no way allies would tell the world they committed a “treaty violation” to help out another nation. They would not want anyone to be considering such a thing that is why they wouldn’t want someone saying it publicly … it would put them in a spot they were trying to stay out of by being quite about it.

“Jetrell Fo said:
Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?”

Then there is nothing to own up to then at all, no? Despite your words clearly claiming ‘but now they have own up to it’)…

Well mate … there’s these … what do you make of them?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/andrew-napolitano-legal-analyst-first-claimed-gchq-asked-wiretap/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

Well, one of those articles was one of the three I posted originally. So what are you asking exactly?

N Korea missile launch fails day after military parade…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39612095

Say what you like about North Korea but they’ve got some skillful pilots. They give the Red Arrows a run for their money and are (forced) applause worthy…

Looks like we get to live another week before WW3 starts.