Jetrell Fo said:
oojason said:
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?
I am only asking your opinion on their content, nothing more.
Ok, thought you may have wanted the contrast between the two.
The Telegraph piece highlights the ex-Judge’s unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims - and seems none of his ‘three intelligence sources’ had much of an idea of what was actually going on - so much so it is surprising an ex-Judge, who apparently ‘an experienced legal affairs expert’, went ahead with those claims which were basically ‘hearsay’.
The Guardian piece is an account (like a fair few others around that time) of how British Intelligence tipped off the US, and other allies, about strange patterns of meetings between Russian agents (or suspected Russian agents) and some of Trump’s people, after monitoring/spying on the Russians.
Quite how you managed to link the 3 original pieces I listed to what this ex-Judge has incorrectly claimed recently (and then wrote ‘Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?’) is beyond me - I thought you were being deliberately ignorant or obtuse, were on a wind-up, or seemingly hadn’t read the full articles - as I’m struggling to come up with other reasons as to how/why you did.
As I stated I before…
'I thought the accusations from weeks ago were of British Intelligence 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 😉)’
Thankfully, it seems we’ve moved on to other subjects.
