
Britain's GCHQ agency denies wiretapping Donald Trump - iamflimflam1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39300191
======
grabcocque
The State Department has issued an apology to GCHQ via diplomatic channels.
Which is unprecedented. The US should not be needing to apologise to one of
its closest allies, ever.

I agree with John Gruber on this, POTUS's allegations are the actions of a man
whose elevator does not go all the way to the penthouse of Trump Tower.

~~~
MisterWebz
_The State Department has issued an apology to GCHQ via diplomatic channels._

Do you have a source for this?

~~~
TYPE_FASTER
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/us-makes-
formal-a...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/us-makes-formal-
apology-britain-white-house-accuses-gchq-wiretapping/)

"Intelligence sources told The Telegraph that both Mr Spicer and General
McMaster, the US National Security Adviser, have apologised over the claims.
"The apology came direct from them," a source said.

General McMaster contacted Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the Prime Minister's National
Security adviser, to apologise for the comments. Mr Spicer conveyed his
apology through Sir Kim Darroch, Britain's US ambassador."

~~~
MisterWebz
Here's another quote from the article:

 _Intelligence sources told The Telegraph that both Mr Spicer and General
McMaster, the US National Security Adviser, have apologised over the claims.
"The apology came direct from them," a source said._

It's based on an anonymous source.

Here's another quote from that same article:

 _" 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 - he
used GCHQ."_

So we're going to discard what several anonymous sources said, but we will
believe what some other anonymous source said?

~~~
TYPE_FASTER
Right, it goes both ways. Trump based his tweet on Fox News reporting from an
anonymous source. The Telegraph is reporting from an anonymous source. Do you
believe both of them?

~~~
cpncrunch
GCHQ has now made a public statement, so the Telegraph was correct. It isn't
in the habit of publishing made-up bullshit (aka fake news). Fox, on the other
hand...

------
SideburnsOfDoom
There's GCHQ's usual silence - at most they say "we don't comment, can neither
confirm nor deny, etc."

There's a denial.

And there's saying it's "nonsense, utterly ridiculous and should be ignored"
which goes beyond a mere denial. For GCHQ, this is very strong language.

~~~
bayes
You're probably right - although saying the accusations are "nonsense, utterly
ridiculous and should be ignored" isn't strictly speaking the same as saying
that they're untrue. GCHQ could believe that (although they happen to be true)
it's nonsense and utterly ridiculous for commentators to be asserting so
without any evidence, and it would be much better for everyone to ignore the
accusation.

~~~
jgrahamc
I'm British, we don't like to overstate things. When you see GCHQ call
something "nonsense" and "utterly ridiculous" you can be assured that they are
denying it.

And I think there's something more. I would read into their statement that
they are very angry.

~~~
alex_hitchins
Yes, this is exactly that I took from it. It's a massive slap in the face. We
aren't even going to bother with protocol, you a being a major bell-end.

~~~
ollie87
American's need to start using bell-end as an insult.

~~~
alex_hitchins
It would be welcome relief from 'ass-hat'

------
TorKlingberg
For me, it's not that I have complete faith in the morality of Obama, NSA &
GCHQ. It's that Trump has not presented any evidence for his claims, even
circumstantial. If he believes something, there should be a reason for those
beliefs, and he should be able to present it. There is no point debating
someone who refuses to support their stance.

~~~
coldtea
>For me, it's not that I have complete faith in the morality of Obama, NSA &
GCHQ. It's that Trump has not presented any evidence for his claims, even
circumstantial.*

Whether Trump, Obama, Clinton or even Pailin had said it, and whether they
gave evidence or not, it's obvious that it happens.

Not from an smoking-gun evidence based standpoint, but from a knowing history,
and people, and such agencies priorities and how lose their leashes are
standpoint.

When it comes to such agencies, evidence is the last thing one would find.
It's not like their advertise their operations except in extreme fiascos. But
such wiretapping is completely in agreement with the essence of what they do.

~~~
TorKlingberg
I cannot base my beliefs about specific events on my general sense of what
kinds of things happens. To take an example claim: "Trump is getting money
that are essentially bribes from a Brazilian oil company." That feels
plausible to me, and fits my general view of Trump and the world. But I don't
believe it's true, in fact I just made it up.

~~~
coldtea
> _I cannot base my beliefs about specific events on my general sense of what
> kinds of things happens._

Lacking concrete evidence, that's exactly the kind of thing you should base
your beliefs of specific events on.

~~~
TorKlingberg
Not without any specific evidence. Otherwise I'd have to believe an almost
infinite number of things that seem possible and fit my worldview.

~~~
coldtea
> _Otherwise I 'd have to believe an almost infinite number of things that
> seem possible and fit my worldview._

You don't have to believe them as absolute facts, just assign a possibility to
them.

After all, nothing, even "this table is real" has a 100% fact status (we might
be in a dream or a simulation).

------
paulajohnson
Its curious that the GCHQ statement doesn't actually contradict Trump. Trump
claims he was wiretapped _before_ the election, but GCHQ have denied spying on
him when he was president-elect, i.e. _after_ the election.

~~~
ealexhudson
Trump's tweet was, "Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump
Tower just before the victory."

"just before" reads to me as the starting point in his accusation, not the
ending point?

~~~
mcintyre1994
I wouldn't try to read anything logical or coherent into that tweet, Sean
Spicer has been trying to walk it back and say it's just about surveillance in
general and wasn't specifically about Obama.

------
danbruc
What is even the problem here? Why shouldn't the GCHQ wire tap the US
president? At best you could complain about US intelligence agencies if they
used foreign intelligence agencies to circumvent restrictions on targeting US
citizens. But foreign intelligence agencies spying on US citizens, especially
politicians and not average citizens? No matter whether it is the GCHQ, Russia
or somebody else, that is simply their job, especially since the US itself
doesn't care much about friends and enemies in this regard.

~~~
cpncrunch
>Why shouldn't the GCHQ wire tap the US president?

Because it would be highly embarrassing for the UK if that actually happened,
and would severely damage the special relationship.

~~~
danbruc
Why would that be embarrassing for the UK? Maybe you could call it
embarrassing for US counter intelligence but even there it only seems
justified if it would be done in a blunt manner and still go unnoticed. I
won't dispute that it would not be good for the relations between the US and
the UK, on the other hand the US doesn't care much either when it is spying on
allied leaders. So the UK spying on the US president seems fair game under
current circumstances.

~~~
cpncrunch
Is there any evidence that UK/USA is spying on each other _without_ the other
country's permission and knowledge? It seems unlikely...

~~~
danbruc
Maybe Five Eyes members give each other a special treatment, maybe they share
enough information that additional spying isn't worth it. With Germany there
is at least one example that I am aware of where the US spied on a close ally
and as far as I can tell did so without permission.

But that is actually somewhat besides the point. I don't know whether the UK
spies on the US in ways unknown to the US, I am not even sure whether or not
it is likely that the UK wiretapped Trump even give the GCHQ statement. My
point was merely that it would not be too surprising or outrageous if they
did.

~~~
cpncrunch
>With Germany there is at least one example that I am aware of where the US
spied on a close ally and as far as I can tell did so without permission.

And that caused a big scandal. I wonder if the USA is still doing it.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the USA is more powerful than UK or
Germany, so it's possible they feel they can get away with it if nobody finds
out.

~~~
danbruc
The US refused to sign any no-spy deal with Germany and did not rule out
spying on the German government in the future. They may or may not be doing it
currently, but they certainly still consider it legitimate. It also seems
unlikely that Germany was an exceptional case, it seems more likely that the
US is spying on all governments of interest, it just did not become public.
This makes me also quite wary with respect to the UK. They may have special
enough relations to get a different treatment but I don't think that the UK
should feel too comfortable even with such agreements in place.

If nobody finds out, you always get away with it, no matter how much or little
power you have. The interesting case is if someone finds out, how well do you
survive the ensuing fallout? In this case more power may of course be helpful.

------
grabcocque
Bear in mind, Trump has already rescheduled a state visit to the UK leery of
the reception he's gonna get from British people, whose attitude towards him
could be described as "lukewarm" at best This sort of thing most certainly
won't help.

~~~
techterrier
crowds as far as the eye can see, waving the flag and chanting 'Oi! Trump!
Wanker!'

~~~
arethuza
Off topic: ~15 years ago a colleague stayed in a small town in Colorado where
everyone seemed to use "wanker" as a term of endearment. My colleague, being
from the UK, was surprised to be greeted with the statement "Oh you're from
the UK you must be a wanker".

Apparently this was caused by the local policeman being from the UK and he'd
been going round using the term for years and the locals had interpreted it as
something nice.

~~~
pjbster
Aside: where on the scale of U.S. epithets would the term "wanker" fall? Would
"cock-sucker" be about right?

(I got asked this very question by an American relation a few years back.)

~~~
jadell
As an American somewhat versed in British TV and movies, I always assumed
wanker to be more equal to "asshole" or "son of a bitch", something you call
your friends when they've done something bone-headed or mean-spirited.
Definitely below "cock-sucker" in severity and far, far below "motherfucker".

~~~
pjbster
Thank you. I feel suitably enlightened :-)

------
cpncrunch
Now that Trump has severely pissed off every intelligence service, what
consequences do you think this will have? Will they be more hesitant to share
intelligence with him?

------
fahadkhan
Don't think this would be within GCHQ's remit, more MI6.

~~~
louthy
GCHQ is signals intelligence, so if he was tapped, it was probably by GCHQ.
But let's face it, he wasn't, Trump is an imbecile that is just parroting
right-wing media accusations.

~~~
tankenmate
You kind of have to wonder if Trump is even aware of the implications and
consequences of what happens when POTUS spouts off completely unsubstantiated
conspiracy theories. You have to wonder if he fully groks that he isn't "just
some rich guy" any more.

------
Kenji
Why would anyone ever believe what an intelligence agency says? This would be
akin to listening to a snake oil salesman about the qualities of snake oil.

EDIT: My point is much larger than whether or not they wiretapped Donald
Trump. My point is that what an intelligence agency says about what it's doing
is completely irrelevant because it has very low correlation to what they
actually do.

~~~
paulgb
Suppose it is true that they wiretapped him. Then Trump has every incentive to
prove it so, at huge risk of embarrassment to them. They could easily say "no
comment" and nobody would blink an eye. So why actively lie about it?

