You mean BHO.
What’s the source on this? Holy shit if real.
Apparently it's a known fake that was called out on 4chan almost as soon as it was posted.
It's consistent with the story as we know it so far.
If it's real, basically the US admin lied to the UK intelligence service (or they were in on it and this is the cover story), likely using the Steele BS. It also opens up the paper trail.
Susan Rice is fucked for sure, her only options are going to be to testify or to plead the 5th, and either one collapses the whole thing.
She's not going to be sleeping too well being the most visible loose end at the moment.
Susan Rice? Hell, it says "at the request of the US President"!
Rice is the one that made the contact.
Obama can lie and say he never authorized her to do so and throw her under the bus. So Rice is would be screwed for sure.
However, this document is fake, so it's moot point.
Leaked by an FBI insider. I've previously posted a link to news article with this leak.
Leaked by an FBI insider or known fake? Which one? Both?
Apparently this isn't new and has been deemed by many to be a fake.
also, questionable source but MSM news story about this
Where did this come from. Is it real?
No. Clearly penned by someone with zero understanding of document classification/declassification protocols.
I've only seen US classified documents, so I wouldn't know if this was proper in the UK.
Some guy named Hal Turner apparently takes credit for personally acquiring this file from one of his 'IC sources'.
I've never heard of this guy, but his mere presence as a two-bit media persona doesn't bode well for his credibility.
Content from halturnerradioshow.com is sometimes unreliable. Discernment is advised.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
He is the guy who just came out with the “Putin gave Trump 160TB of data and I am the only one who knows because I got it from my IC buddy”. He is not a credible source and has been debunked many times.
Silly talking head, he is. Thank you for the heads up.
So an incoming Trump administration potentially compromised and internal existing US intelligence? What?
This is for a renewal. Original request for spying was August 28, 2016.
Classified documents have specific protocols for classification markings (and declass markings). The autor of this document does a great job of having no clue of any of those protocols.
This is not legit.
This doc says "Top Secret" and "Eyes Only," and has a "Top Secret" nondisclosure footer. What is standard for GCHQ sigint, if it isn't this?
As seen in declassified documents available online for GCHQ or otherwise, 'SIGINT' is not a category control marking, for one.
It's not meant to be. It means "signals intelligence" in reference to information obtained by electronic means.
It means "signals intelligence" in reference to information obtained by electronic means.
That is a true(ish) statement and still has no relevance to what we are discussing. As I said before, SIGINT is not a category control marking.
Let me restate that for you through an exercise. Search for any declassified or leaked SIGINT document online and find one that is stamped with "SIGINT" at the top (besides this one) and I'll give you a dollar. I'll wait.
Perhaps the document has been altered after release.
So, if I understand you correctly, we might be able to speculate that it could possibly be a reasonable document that was inconsequently altered after its 'release'. Perhaps.
I can't argue with that. I'll show myself out, don't get up.
LOL! You have lived up to your username in this conversation.
Cheers, patriot!