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

This is just proof that British intelligence is far more intelligent than American intelligence......

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

I speak logic and English fluently

Is that so?

Even if the memo is fake it's starting to look like the premise is real.

You can't base a factual premise on a fake source...it seems your linguistics are at odds with reality.

In all earnest, I could care less about the document or it's authenticity, I already know what's real and what isn't. You seem to mistake me for someone who gives a s__t about the prevalent echo chamber that surrounds anything having to do with Trump. My sole interest in this thread was simply to point out that othersideofthecoin had a valid point while you were all deriding him/her for it....anything beyond that, is your imagination and your problem to deal with, not mine.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
The following is a batch of documents which have been leaked. Of concern in particular is one top secret document which shows former President Obama himself requested the British intelligence to spy on U.S. Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Later, but in the same document it shows that Susan Rice also requested the British to continue the surveillance.

Link

For the sake of argument, lets say you are correct.

That the intelligence community under the Obama Administration allowed or encouraged MI6 spy on the Trump campaign.

For what purpose? No one believed Trump to be an actual competitive threat?

What if MI6 had spied on Hillary and found her team working secretly with Russia?
Would you be all riled up about it then?

You seem to be hyper-freaked about potential sources, but not so much interested in the actual intelligence revealed or the reasons folks were looking closely in the first place.

This stands in weird hypocritical contrast to cheering the DNC leaks by Russia and celebrating every little morsel.
The standard retort then was "WHO CARES WHO LEAKED IT!!! IS IT TRUE?"

NOW...the retort is..WHO CARES IF IT IS TRUE!!! WHERE DID THE INFORMATION COME FROM!!"

originally posted by: alphabetaone

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.

Yes you are complaining... It has been explained to you that the first thread was linked to "Hal Turner", Hal Turner claimed that he was the one who got someone to leak it to him, which is false. This thread points to another source which posted this about 20 days before Turner posted it in his website. It seems that ATS has a policy that all threads linked to "Hal Turner" are immediately labeled as a hoax. It is not that the story is a hoax, but that ATS has Hal Turner, among some other people as hoaxers. Some of these people deserve it meanwhile others imo don't.

Barack Obama wore many hats. Check out this photo from 2005 of Illinois Senator Obama.
townhall.com... career-n2439796

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Thanks for that link, very interesting.

originally posted by: testingtesting
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?.

Yeah, I was just brainstorming there. Probably not.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

For the sake of argument, lets say you are correct.

That the intelligence community under the Obama Administration allowed or encouraged MI6 spy on the Trump campaign.

For what purpose? No one believed Trump to be an actual competitive threat?

It was part of a contingency plan. Do you forget the talks about "the insurance policy in case Trump won"?...

originally posted by: soberbacchus
What if MI6 had spied on Hillary and found her team working secretly with Russia?
Would you be all riled up about it then?

You seem to be hyper-freaked about potential sources, but not so much interested in the actual intelligence revealed or the reasons folks were looking closely in the first place.

First of all, stop making assumptions and stop derailing by making a claim that "what if the Reps did it to Hillary"... They didn't do it to Hillary... Not to mention the fact, again, that there was no evidence whatsoever that there was any collusion... You forget the fact that all the claims from the DNC/left-wing media have been proven to be false. Instead what was found is that the DNC denied the FBI access to their servers when there "was an alleged hacking of a foreign power on a U.S. political party"... When something like this happens the FBI has to investigate it. Comey and McCabe should have done their jobs and should have subpoena the DNC for obstructing an FBI investigation. They didn't do this, and instead made all efforts to claim that Hillary email scandal "wasn't done with intent", except for the fact that intent doesn't have to be proven for a criminal conviction...

You also forget that the "Russian dossier" was all a lie, and the Obama administration used a lie to request the FISA courts to allow them to spy on Trump, his Corporation and all people tied to him.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
This stands in weird hypocritical contrast to cheering the DNC leaks by Russia and celebrating every little morsel.
The standard retort then was "WHO CARES WHO LEAKED IT!!! IS IT TRUE?"

First of all, Russia didn't leak anything... The leak seems to have been Seth Rich who worked for the DNC but who was a supporter of Sanders. It seems that when Rich saw all the illegal actions the DNC took to make Hillary win, supposedly stealing a lot of votes from Sanders, Rich decided to leak this. The leak was from inside the DNC. Not long after the leak Seth Rich was found dead from a "botched up attempted robbery." That's too much of a coincidence. Wikileaks/Asange said from day 1 that the Russians were not the leak, and a former British ambassador also stated he knew who the leak was, and it wasn't the Russians.

Second of all, the report from Crowdstrike has been proven to be nothing but a fantasy concocted by Crowdstrike, who made another fake report claiming the same Russian hackers who hacked the DNC also used a virus in an app to destroy the majority of the artillery units of the Ukraine. The Ukrainian government, and the sources used by Crowdstrike all stated this was a lie. The event was made up by Crowstrike. The DNC contracted Crowdstrike, and the FBI also had a contract with Crowdstrike for $150,000 U.S.D. at the same time that Crowdstrike was contracted by the DNC. The CIA, the FBI, and the DNC all used Crowdstrike false claims as evidence.

This was from the beginning an operation by the DNC, Obama officials and even Obama himself who from the start worked together with firms like Crowdstrike and Fusion GPS who paid journalists to publish fake claims about Presidential candidate Trump, and they continued paying these journalists from left-wing media like CNN just to inundate the public with false claims about Trump, and now President Trump. This is a conspiracy to assassinate in the eyes of the public a Presidential candidate, and for the past year a President of the U.S. with false allegations/claims.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Yeah there's a reason they don't want to provide the proof for their "memo"...

That reason is because the unredacted copy that the FBI and the left-wing media want Nuñez to give to the public has the names of the people in various government agencies who committed these crimes. It is illegal to disseminate the names of those people in the government who committed the crimes... Nuñez can't give this neither to the FBI for them tom leak it to the press/public, nor to the press to leak it to the public, because then the evidence can be buried, and Nuñez too for making public the names of government officials involved in a crime... In order to read the unredacted copy you need a security clearance. All Senators have this clearance, but the majority of the people in the public does not have the clearance. Hence Nuñez cannot just make the evidence public... This is the reason why Republicans are trying to find a way to give this information to the public...

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Xcathdra

There was a thread in ATS about this document, giving a link to the document itself from last year?

No - Judge Napalitano (Fox News contributor) provided this info from one of his sources. He was originally fired for providing info that was claimed to be false however after 2 or 3 days he was reinstated because his source checked out. Only Fox News reported on it and GCHQ response was typically British.

I see what you meant now. Also, remember that President Trump was told by NSA chief Michael Rogers that the GCHQ was spying on him, President Trump told the media, and the left in general laughed at him thinking he made this up... Now everything is coming together and it's being shown that neither President Trump, nor Nuñez were lying or "making things up".

I truly wish they could simply provide all this evidence, but it's all classified, and the Trump administration has to be cautious with this. If they slip and the names of those involved in the crimes mentioned in the memo is made public without authorization, it can be used against the charges made in the investigation itself. Remember that the FBI leaked to the press the names of the people they were investigating, including Donald Trump. This is a crime, but if the Trump administration finds a way to leak these names, this could be used to claim the FBI people who also leaked names should not be held accountable for such a crime "since Republicans did it too".

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

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

Nice catch.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

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

Heck, you want to see an official UK gov site spell "organizations" like Americans do?...

Guidance
List of MAA approved organizations

This is a consolidated list of approved organizations within the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) Approval Schemes.
...

www.gov.uk...

Anything else?...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Curiously your link uses 's' instead of 'z' in the address. Further:

18 January 2018
The list of MAA approved organizations has been updated.
10 October 2017
The MAA approved list of organisations has been updated.

Seems to be a recent change; I would suggest that popular auto-correction software based primarily from American companies is causing this.

originally posted by: Greven
...
Seems to be a recent change; I would suggest that popular auto-correction software based primarily from American companies is causing this.

Why recent?... What gave you the assumption that this is recent? Not to mention, this is an official UK gov site. Hannigan could also be using auto-correction software that would have spelled the word as Americans do, just like in that link i gave.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Um, why recent? Did you not... read your link?

17 March 2017
First published.

The page is less than a year old, and everything prior to 18 January 2018 uses 's' spelling - like the address.

It isn't out of the realm of possibility that the same could happen in a document, granted.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

My research over the past 2 days confirms your statements. Britains Signal Intelligence agency (GCHQ) was the spy. GCHQ stated that Trump and Trump Associate communications were scooped up by accident, but that's what they HAVE to say.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Um, why recent? Did you not... read your link?

17 March 2017
First published.

The page is less than a year old, and everything prior to 18 January 2018 uses 's' spelling - like the address.

It isn't out of the realm of possibility that the same could happen in a document, granted.

March 2017 is not that recent. Not to mention you are assuming this hasn't happened in the past. However, what this proves is that British officials also have used the American spelling for "organization/s".

Here is another, and look at date of publication.

Guidance
Maintenance Approved Organization Scheme (MAOS)

Military Aviation Authority (MAA) information and forms relating to the Maintenance Approved Organization Scheme (MAOS).
Published 19 November 2014
Last updated 16 January 2017 — see all updates

From:
Ministry of Defence and Military Aviation Authority
...

www.gov.uk...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
March 2017 is not that recent.

It's recent enough that it so happens to be when the GCHQ called this "utterly ridiculous" when Napolitano first tried to use it as evidence that Obama "tapped his lines" at Trump tower.

So, does your breaking news here offer any evidence other that some obscure image from a photo repository that even the GCHQ denies and that the White House has reassured this particular conspiracy theory wont be repeated?

If you've got something new by all means post it, otherwise this has already been debunked by the GCHQ themselves thus rendering it a HOAX.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

It's recent enough that it so happens to be when the GCHQ called this "utterly ridiculous" when Napolitano first tried to use it as evidence that Obama "tapped his lines" at Trump tower.

So, does your breaking news here offer any evidence other that some obscure image from a photo repository that even the GCHQ denies and that the White House has reassured this particular conspiracy theory wont be repeated?

If you've got something new by all means post it, otherwise this has already been debunked by the GCHQ themselves thus rendering it a HOAX.

...and I showed another UK official link from 2014 in which they used the American spelling of "organizations/s"...

"Here is another, and look at date of publication.

Guidance
Maintenance Approved Organization Scheme (MAOS)

Military Aviation Authority (MAA) information and forms relating to the Maintenance Approved Organization Scheme (MAOS).
Published 19 November 2014
Last updated 16 January 2017 — see all updates

From:
Ministry of Defence and Military Aviation Authority
...

www.gov.uk..."

BTW, Just because the GCHQ claim it is not true, doesn't make it so... GCHQ also lies like Clapper lied... So your argument is completely false and misleading.

NSA Chief Rogers met with President Trump before President Trump mentioned that he knew GCHQ had been spying on him... President Trump didn't make it up, and neither did Nuñez...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: alphabetaone

It's recent enough that it so happens to be when the GCHQ called this "utterly ridiculous" when Napolitano first tried to use it as evidence that Obama "tapped his lines" at Trump tower.

So, does your breaking news here offer any evidence other that some obscure image from a photo repository that even the GCHQ denies and that the White House has reassured this particular conspiracy theory wont be repeated?

If you've got something new by all means post it, otherwise this has already been debunked by the GCHQ themselves thus rendering it a HOAX.

...and I showed another UK official link from 2014 in which they used the American spelling of "organizations/s"...

Who gives a s__t the spelling, as though that's the important element in this particular story. What is wrong with you?

BTW, Just because the GCHQ claim it is not true, doesn't make it so... GCHQ also lies like Clapper lied... So your argument is completely false and misleading.

NSA Chief Rogers met with President Trump before President Trump mentioned that he knew GCHQ had been spying on him... President Trump didn't make it up, and neither did Nuñez...

Yea, sorry, I think Clapper, the GCHQ and probably my local grocer seem to have a bit more credibility than you do and your unsubstantiated images from IMGUR.