'Utterly ridiculous': GCHQ shreds Spicer's claim that UK spy agency wiretapped Trump

Allow me to emphasise that I nearly spit my Assam on the display at reading this description in combination with this name.

Are you sure I can’t convince you that only multilateral solutions can save us, and that even the thought of a leader of the free world is misleading?


I know it’s ridiculous. That’s what makes it funny.

I’m also perfectly aware that a “leader of the free world” is an oxymoron. But that the US fell so far into fascism is kinda funny as well.


It will be a cold day in Hell when the Secret Squirrels in Cheltenham take orders from a US official.

UPDATE: I mean, getting them to take orders from UK officials is hard enough.


Okay. Where does the presidential level of classified material start, and then Mr. TRUMP spouting classified accusations out unverified or documented to public press? A that is my first question, second why does the NSA and the German intelligence have a wifi spot/ code in germany working together?. As I am doing laundry in germany, I click on the available wifi codes and one is directed to these two yokes working together!.. that’s right, NSA and BND wifi code please.

Just wait until President Bannon finds out about “Five Eyes” and realizes that there are three more countries they could blame.


True and true. However, please don’t do that again.

I can only take that much. Adenauer was bad enough, Kohl was already too much, but I don’t think that I can any longer uphold my lifetime opposition against those so-called conservatives if Merkel, of all people, will go into mainstream history as the person who “lead the free world” through an abyss of near-global right-wing populist period of darkness.

Get a grip, US of A, you can’t just become the reason for me developing a kind of political Stockholm Syndrom…


Just wait until the Australian crew at DSD reply to blaming. The UK response to the slight on their integrity and independence was bound by English reserve and by the conventions of diplomacy. Australians, not so much.



Yeah, honestly the only thing that should be disputed (as others have mentioned) is that Obama somehow could direct the actions of GCHQ in this way. I still don’t know why the answer isn’t “Yeah we were watching you, you’re an unhinged asshole. But what are you complaining about? We let you become president when we absolutely could’ve stopped it.”


UK calls 45 on his bullshit.


Obama hired GQ magazine to do his spying!
(I’m just posting things hoping I can get trump or spicer to repeat them.)


If someone made accusations of Trump the way he does about others, seems to me he’d sue them for defamation.


But comments from his lips… surely he would need to be sued for defication!

1 Like

BREAKING: GCHQ has reversed itself and owned up to this.


It would certainly appear that Team Trump is, as usual, operating on superb information; adequate sanity, etc. wasn’t one of the Exciting Things We Learned About surveillance, back when that was still a major topic, that “do the domestic surveillance you aren’t allowed to by having one of your Five Eyes buddies handle it as foreign surveillance” was a routine strategy?

Especially given that the president has an atypically good position from which to pry open the Top Secret stash, they’ve done a notably unconvincing job of backing up the assertions of wiretapping(much less selective, politically motivated, wiretapping); but the mere fact that Trump is scum doesn’t exactly improve my impression of the GCHQ’s honesty.

In this case, they haven’t ‘shredded’ anything, just issued a slightly more colorful denial than is customary. They haven’t given us much reason to trust their denials in the past; and I’m not sure why we should start now.

1 Like

Someone I know was, back in the day when this happened, positively vetted in the UK to work for an intelligence agency which shall be nameless. This someone soon decided that the US offered better opportunities (British spies are notoriously underpaid on the basis that the senior ranks used to be independently wealthy.)
The time came post acquisition of US citizenship when it was necessary to be cleared by a US agency to work on sensitive stuff. At the first interview he observed brightly that his pre-US life would be easy to check because he had been positively vetted in the UK.
There was apparently a long silence and then the interviewer said “That’s going to be awkward…all those guys over there are commie fags.”


nice GQHQ IQ, there.

I agree. To a point.

For those not familiar with UK policy, they usual reply is something along the lines of “As this relates to matters of operational intelligence, we are unable to comment”. This deadpan reply is given to questions about UFO sightings that ask for radar records. It is also used to stop people asking random questions that may revel by the answerong or not answering where the borders of secrets lie.

Any such reply would feed the paranoia of the Ornage One. That would be funny, and that was what I was hoping for. But there is a point where you ought to say “Oh grow up, you buffoon! This is clearly nonsense. The Queen is not putting voices in your head by radio waves. GCHQ is not run by Obama”.

And, because I am occasionally proud of my country, I would top it off with “What evidence do you have? Nothing. Which is exactly what you would have if we were doing it. Good night. Sweet dreams”. Preferably delivered in an Orson Welles “The Shadow Knows” voice.


The enormous electronic spying base at Harrogate is in fact entirely US-controlled. We already know that, for instance, the RAF cannot use many US-supplied aircraft except on missions in US-approved areas. And then there’s “five eyes”. I am sure that Obama would not have directed GCHQ, but equally it is far from impossible that a US TLA would make use of very high level contacts with a British FLA, as a result of a general expression of interest by a Secretary of State. (For obvious reasons of a melanin nature I assume Kerry would have more influence than Obama on a US TLA).


Does anyone know is Andrew Napolitano a commentator, or part of the news staff. Does Fox stand behind what he says, ie. they trust his 3 unnamed sources and have vetted the story, or is he just an entertainer with no expectation to be accurate?

1 Like