British security official denies UK spy agency eavesdropped on Trump

[webfact]

British security official denies UK spy agency eavesdropped on Trump

By Mark Hosenball

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump attends a meeting with U.S. House Deputy Whip team at the East room of the White House in Washington, U.S. March 7, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A UK spy agency did not eavesdrop on Donald Trump during and after last year's U.S. presidential election, a British security official said on Tuesday, denying an allegation by a U.S. television analyst.

 

The official, who is familiar with British government policy and security operations, told Reuters that the charge made on Tuesday by Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano, was "totally untrue and quite frankly absurd."

 

Trump, who became president in January, tweeted earlier this month that his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, wiretapped him during the late stages of the 2016 campaign. The Republican president offered no evidence for the allegation, which an Obama spokesman said was "simply false."

 

Senior Obama administration officials, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, have also denied any such wiretapping occurred.

 

On Monday, the U.S. Justice Department told the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee that it needed more time to respond to a demand for copies of any documents that might show Obama ordered eavesdropping on Trump.

 

On the "Fox & Friends" program, Napolitano, a political commentator and former New Jersey judge, said that rather than ordering U.S. agencies to spy on Trump, Obama obtained transcripts of Trump's conversations from Britain's Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, the equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency, which monitors overseas electronic communications.

"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command - he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice," Napolitano said, adding that the former president "used GCHQ."

 

GCHQ has a close relationship with the NSA, as well as with the eavesdropping agencies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand in a consortium called "Five Eyes."The British official said that under British law, GCHQ "can only gather intelligence for national security purposes" and noted that the U.S. election "clearly doesn't meet that criteria."

 

The official added that GCHQ "can only carry out intelligence operations where it is legal in both the U.S. and UK to do so."

 

Under U.S. law, presidents cannot direct wiretapping. Instead, the federal government can ask a court to authorize the action, but it must provide justification.

 

The British agency declined a request for comment.

 

(Reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by John Walcott and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-15

[sandrabbit]

There's so much mud being thrown now Trump must be hoping some of it sticks somewhere. Can't any of his advisors get him to stop tweeting and start acting presidential with dignity?. 

[Emster23]

Perhaps they listened for a while, but results were all gibberish and nonsense, decided it was all incomprehensible unbreakable code.

[sjbrownderby]

Kellyanne Conway now seems to be saying that the CIA are using microwaves to spy on people which dovetails neatly with comments made by Sean Spicer to the effect that when Trump tweeted about his phone being tapped he was referring in general to the many different means of electronic surveillance and when Trump tweeted about Obama wiretapping he didn't necessarily mean Obama, he could have meant any former black president of the USA. What is clear, however, is that a FISA warrant is not required to wiretap somebody's microwave. 

[Jonmarleesco]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

The official, who is familiar with British government policy and security operations, told Reuters that the charge made on Tuesday by Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano, was "totally untrue and quite frankly absurd."

Totally untrue and quite frankly absurd, but he/she is 'familiar' with British government policy and security operations. Notwithstanding Britons' familiarity with their government's policy and security operations, and its oft demonstrated unfamiliarity with the truth, that statement alone tells us it was highly likely.

[Jonmarleesco]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

The official added that GCHQ "can only carry out intelligence operations where it is legal in both the U.S. and UK to do so."

Of course. Heaven forbid we should assume anything else.

[Andaman Al]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command - he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice," Napolitano said, adding that the former president "used GCHQ."

is this the precursor to prepare us all for the fact the congressional office will find no evidence at all? What is going on in US politics is currently mindless. They say America is a patriotic nation - I have never seen so many public officials, people, politicians etc so willing to sell their country down the river for the prospect of some financial gain, position, power etc. The USA seems to be turning out to be the least patriotic nation on earth. The new campaign slogan for Trump devotees. "Patriotism assured - to whoever gives me the most dollars".

[darksidedog]

Truly amazing and ridiculous statement. Because it came from FOX, Donald and friends will probably believe it though.

I find it laughable that the US Government would ask the British to do their spying for them, when they are right there on the ground.

To put such trust in the British to hand over everything, without withholding a few juicy snippets? Seriously?

Is anyone in America actually doing anything productive? It seems everyone is spending all of their time whipping up more and more insane conspiracy theories.

[farcanell]

Why bother wire tapping? just read the tweets!

 

this guy outdoes the Thais when it comes to "finger pointing"... something I never thought would be possible.

[jobsworth]

how can anybody be expected to believe anything from any spy agency

like the nsa, gchq, cia or mi5. it is all lies, lies and more lies.

 

[darksidedog]

1 hour ago, jobsworth said:

how can anybody be expected to believe anything from any spy agency

like the nsa, gchq, cia or mi5. it is all lies, lies and more lies.

 

I would believe things from them a lot faster than I would from Breitbart, Levin or FOX.

With the agencies, they may well be lying, but with FOX et al you know they are.

Either that or they just made it up.

I reiterate my earlier comment. The suggestion America would ask the British to spy for them, annd hand over ALL the information is insane. And so is anyone who actually believes it.

The only reason I suspect this has come up is because they know NOTHING will be found in US records of any illegal eavesdropping.

Edited March 15, 2017 by darksidedog

[sjbrownderby]

44 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

I reiterate my earlier comment. The suggestion America would ask the British to spy for them, annd hand over ALL the information is insane. And so is anyone who actually believes it.

I do not think it is beyond the bounds of possibility that it could have happened or is happening. You only have to look as far as the case of Katharine Gun to realise that one such request was made a number of years ago. Katharine Gun worked at GCHQ and revealed the contents of an email from the NSA asking for help in carrying out electronic surveillance operations on certain UN delegations (based in New York City) prior to the start of the Iraq war. Also it is fact that the USA gives money to the UK for assistance in security and surveillance and we are talking over a hundred millions pounds so what do you think that would buy you?.........It buys complicity!

[darksidedog]

10 minutes ago, sjbrownderby said:

I do not think it is beyond the bounds of possibility that it could have happened or is happening. You only have to look as far as the case of Katharine Gun to realise that one such request was made a number of years ago. Katharine Gun worked at GCHQ and revealed the contents of an email from the NSA asking for help in carrying out electronic surveillance operations on certain UN delegations (based in New York City) prior to the start of the Iraq war. Also it is fact that the USA gives money to the UK for assistance in security and surveillance and we are talking over a hundred millions pounds so what do you think that would buy you?.........It buys complicity!

Yes, but here you are talking not about some UN delegations, based who knows where, but the (at the time), potential leader of the free world.

Do you seriously think that the UK Government would agree to clandestinely run surveillance, on something that has nothing to do with them, given the potential consequences?

Especially since being close to home, the US were perfectly capable of doing it themselves?

I repeat for the third and hopefully last time, anyone who thinks these accusations have any validity is insane.

And I would want to see some serious EVIDENCE, not some right wing whacko spouting B0ll0cks before I would withdraw that comment.

Edited March 15, 2017 by darksidedog

[sjbrownderby]

2 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Especially since being close to home, the US were perfectly capable of doing it themselves?

I repeat for the third and hopefully last time, anyone who thinks these accusations have any validity is insane.

Of course they were capable but were they inclined to expose their continued surveillance especially after a FISA warrant was turned down thus making it illegal to spy on the target of said warrant in the manner specified in the warrant? The easiest thing would be to turn to one of their partners in the 'Five Eyes' for assistance. It is possible that Trump was a second grade or incidental target. My reference to Katharine Gun was meant to show that a request to conduct electronic surveillance on a number of targets within the USA had been previously made. If the US was perfectly capable of doing it themselves then why did they want to co-opt GCHQ in that instance?

[darksidedog]

17 minutes ago, sjbrownderby said:

Of course they were capable but were they inclined to expose their continued surveillance especially after a FISA warrant was turned down thus making it illegal to spy on the target of said warrant in the manner specified in the warrant? The easiest thing would be to turn to one of their partners in the 'Five Eyes' for assistance. It is possible that Trump was a second grade or incidental target. My reference to Katharine Gun was meant to show that a request to conduct electronic surveillance on a number of targets within the USA had been previously made. If the US was perfectly capable of doing it themselves then why did they want to co-opt GCHQ in that instance?

Enough of this useless and stupid "they were capable" "it is possible" etc rubbish.

Come up with a single piece of actual EVIDENCE to back any of this up, or you are going to look seriously like a troll.

Come on, just a little bit. You do know what evidence is right? I have to ask, as it seems the sources for these ludicrous allegations don't.

FISA did authorise one thing. If I were you I would be worrying why they did so? Something had to be serious and compelling for them to do so. I wonder what it was?

I have zero evidence to back it up, but it is possible Donald is working for the Russians. Unlikely, but possible. Many things are possible, many things garbage, including sadly, to my mind at least, your posts. And this accusation from FOX and friends.

Edited March 15, 2017 by darksidedog

[Presto]

10 hours ago, sandrabbit said:

There's so much mud being thrown now Trump must be hoping some of it sticks somewhere. Can't any of his advisors get him to stop tweeting and start acting presidential with dignity?. 

Dignity? You're asking for a lot here!

[sjbrownderby]

29 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Enough of this useless and stupid "they were capable" "it is possible" etc rubbish.

Come up with a single piece of actual EVIDENCE to back any of this up, or you are going to look seriously like a troll.

Come on, just a little bit. You do know what evidence is right? I have to ask, as it seems the sources for these ludicrous allegations don't.

FISA did authorise one thing. If I were you I would be worrying why they did so? Something had to be serious and compelling for them to do so. I wonder what it was?

I have zero evidence to back it up, but it is possible Donald is working for the Russians. Unlikely, but possible. Many things are possible, many things garbage, including sadly, to my mind at least, your posts. And this accusation from FOX and friends.

I certainly do know what evidence is. I have presented it many times in a legal forum and I also know the difference between evidence and intelligence. I know that the vast majority of intelligence is unusable as evidence in a legal sense but that makes it no less useful. It would be surprising if the Russians did not mount some kind of operation to determine which presidential candidate would treat Russia more favourably if elected especially in the light of the tit-for-tat goings on after the Magnitsky Act which froze assets and imposed travel restrictions on certain Russian citizens. As for your request to come up with a single piece of evidence I have to say I can not. If I could I would not be wasting my time on you.

[Grouse]

The UK still has a seat at the top table. Why? GCHQ.

 

You will need to wait many years to find out what they know if ever.

 

I find that strangely comforting.

 

 

[darksidedog]

3 hours ago, sjbrownderby said:

I certainly do know what evidence is. I have presented it many times in a legal forum and I also know the difference between evidence and intelligence. I know that the vast majority of intelligence is unusable as evidence in a legal sense but that makes it no less useful. It would be surprising if the Russians did not mount some kind of operation to determine which presidential candidate would treat Russia more favourably if elected especially in the light of the tit-for-tat goings on after the Magnitsky Act which froze assets and imposed travel restrictions on certain Russian citizens. As for your request to come up with a single piece of evidence I have to say I can not. If I could I would not be wasting my time on you.

By the sound of things, it could hypotheticallty end up being the Russians who were wiretapping everyone! Many accusations. No evidence. Relax. It's a forum.

[sjbrownderby]

10 hours ago, darksidedog said:

By the sound of things, it could hypotheticallty end up being the Russians who were wiretapping everyone! Many accusations. No evidence. Relax. It's a forum.

Of course anyone who believes this is happening is insane, including the US Department of Justice: 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/us-department-of-justice-charges-four-in-yahoo-hacking-case-2017-3

[champers]

I would consider it as a dereliction of their duty if UK security services were not spying on Trump and Hilary Clinton too. The defence of UK citizens demands we need as much data as can be collected from allies and enemies alike.

[darksidedog]

On 15/03/2017 at 6:40 PM, sjbrownderby said:

I do not think it is beyond the bounds of possibility that it could have happened or is happening. You only have to look as far as the case of Katharine Gun to realise that one such request was made a number of years ago. Katharine Gun worked at GCHQ and revealed the contents of an email from the NSA asking for help in carrying out electronic surveillance operations on certain UN delegations (based in New York City) prior to the start of the Iraq war. Also it is fact that the USA gives money to the UK for assistance in security and surveillance and we are talking over a hundred millions pounds so what do you think that would buy you?.........It buys complicity!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/us-makes-formal-apology-britain-white-house-accuses-gchq-wiretapping/

Rick Ledgett, the number two at the US National Security Agency (NSA), said the claims were "arrant nonsense".

"Of course they wouldn't do it. It would be epically stupid," he told the BBC.

I believe that is game, set and match to me then?

[sjbrownderby]

7 hours ago, darksidedog said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/us-makes-formal-apology-britain-white-house-accuses-gchq-wiretapping/

Rick Ledgett, the number two at the US National Security Agency (NSA), said the claims were "arrant nonsense".

"Of course they wouldn't do it. It would be epically stupid," he told the BBC.

I believe that is game, set and match to me then?

Only if you believe what you read in the papers, I do not. Ever heard of 'plausible deniability'?