Review of FVEY, the spying, and the impact of DECLAS.

The Five Eyes was formally founded in the aftermath of the Second World War, through the multilateral agreement for co-operation in signals intelligence (SIGINT), known as the UKUSA Agreement, on 5 March 1946. Initially, compromising only the UK and the United States, it expanded to also include Canada in 1948 and Australia and New Zealand in 1956.

The FVEY agreements originated from military SIGINT and were initially used for the cold-war. Since SIGINT is the NSA’s primary mission, it would seem that most FVEY cooperation efforts with the US would involve the NSA, even though all the other IC members also have their own surveillance capabilities. I’m not clear on how Five Eyes operations are supposed to be authorized and approved, or what the chain of command would be. Based on the Q drops and other info, it appears to have been initiated/authorized at the WH, coordinated through the State Department (JK). The CIA used backchannels with UK and Austrailia to set up and perform the surveillance with spies from those countries (which explains the Brennan and Clapper’s involvement and their public attacks on Trump).

Alternatively, they just could have gotten their own rogue CIA/FBI agents to do the surveillance on the Trump Team and pretended to use FVEY as cover.

FISA DECLAS will reveal how it all happened, and identify many of the bad actors on both sides of the pond.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/is-the-five-eyes-alliance-conspiring-to-spy-on-you/277190/

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/RawSIGINTGuidelines-as-approved-redacted.pdf

https://www.lawfareblog.com/newly-disclosed-documents-five-eyes-alliance-and-what-they-tell-us-about-intelligence-sharing

https://providencemag.com/2017/05/know-five-eyes-intelligence-community/

https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-data-collection-faq

>>6121196

Questions about the FISA surveillance data used for the Russia investigation.

I’m not very knowledgeable in this area, so chime in if you are knowledgeable or have thoughts.

Based on the Q drops, the Russia investigation was initiated with the fabricated intel from the dossier that was passed back and forth between Clapper/Brennan/McCain/the Press, etc. Based on that, it appears that FBI counterintelligence investigation was started, which including the requests for the FISA warrants.

But who conducted the surveillance on the the Trump campaign AFTER the FISA warrants were issued? Surely the FISA warrants included electronic surveillance. The narrative they constructed for this plot claims that the initial information implicating the Trump campaign was conducted by foreign intelligence agencies MI6/GCHQ and passed to US intelligence officials (Brennan/Clapper) through FVEY arrangements. Fine, but doesn’t the NSA also have the legal authority to gather at least some info on US citizens already? Aren’t they the experts in this area? It seems doubtful that the NSA was consulted or included in the investigation to support the fraudulent investigation. But wouldn’t this be normal procedure for a counterintelligence investigation?

“Section 702 of FISA allows the NSA to conduct a “programmatic surveillance” program called PRISM. The parameters of PRISM, including how the NSA may target individuals and what can be shared with the CIA and FBI, are presented to and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and renewable annually.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/47428/dont-fall-hype-702-fbi-works/

Well, we know why the NSA couldn’t be trusted in their conspiracy to commit treason, or to participate in a setup like this, so the FBI had to conduct their own surveillance and try to collect their own info using HUMINT (Trump Tower meeting) and whatever electronic surveillance they could muster. It also sure looks like there was surveillance going on PRIOR to the FISA warrants. Who was doing the surveillance? Wouldn’t it be illegal if the CIA was involved with that? It would surely not be the normal approach used to monitor a US citizen within the USA. Would presidential authorization be needed if the CIA was being used? Brennan and Clapper’s public statements indicate they were trying to cover up for something.

Doesn’t the FBI usually rely on the NSA for gathering it’s electronic surveillance, especially for counterintelligence? Doesn’t the FBI usually have to go through some bureaucratic process/procedure to request NSA collected data from an individual become a target so the NSA can focus it’s resources and attention on certain individuals?

Moreover, what if the FISA requests DID NOT include information that was cited as being collected by the NSA? Wouldn’t that raise a red flag to the FISA court, who presumably would see NSA-gathered material included in probably ALL of the FISA requests they see?

“It’s worth emphasizing here that unlike the CIA or NSA, whose primary mission is to collect and analyze intelligence, the FBI is a law enforcement agency. Although it may collect intelligence, that function is ancillary and supportive to its primary job of investigating and preventing violations of federal law and threats to national security.”

(from same link as above)

>>6121215

The FBI uses one database for all of its investigative functions. Beginning in 2011, the FBI developed a system called the Data Integration and Visualization System, or DIVS. The purpose of DIVS is to aggregate information from a number of different government databases into a single system, allowing for one-stop shopping across all government-collected data. For instance, visa applications and issuances from the Department of State, or information collected by the Department of Homeland Security…

The point is for the government to have the ability to quickly “connect the dots” between information collected by various agencies on a single individual or related cases – something that, had it been possible to do prior to 9/11, might have prevented that tragedy from taking place.

Only agents who work national security cases, have gone through FISA training, and have the appropriate clearance levels may continue to access the full 702 data at this stage.

In fact, phrases like “just get a warrant” fail to grasp that a warrant would never issue at such an early stage of any investigation. Search warrants are an investigative tool that is used after months, and sometimes years, of investigative activity – this is why in the FBI they are only authorized for Full Investigations. FBI agents spend hundreds of hours interviewing witnesses and contacts, conducting surveillance, digging through trash, using undercover informants, and obtaining third-party records, among other techniques, to obtain evidence of a crime (or in the case of individual FISAs, acting as a foreign agent). Agents and prosecutors then spend weeks drafting affidavits that detail the evidence gathered to present to a court. Ironically, a search warrant requirement for Section 702 suggests that agents should “build a case” and use even more aggressive and intrusive tactics against an individual simply to view a discrete set of communications it already has and that might ultimately be benign – or even exculpatory.

https://vault.fbi.gov/FBI%20Domestic%20Investigations%20and%20Operations%20Guide%20%28DIOG%29/fbi-domestic-investigations-and-operations-guide-diog-2013-version/FBI%20Domestic%20Investigations%20and%20Operations%20Guide%20%28DIOG%29%202013%20Version%20Part%2001%20of%2001/view

https://www.justsecurity.org/47428/dont-fall-hype-702-fbi-works/

>>6121272

Hannity made several Q references last night, Avalanche, Tick-Tock, etc. He seems to be stumbling with his words sometimes lately, as though he's nervous and trying to be careful not to mess up the precise messages he's been instructed to deliver from Q.

He also mentioned last night that it would be another two year process to unravel the FISA abuse story to the normies from the Senate. See attached Q post 2444.

Here’s a thought–Why don’t we develop an internet search engine for ourselves, one where each user has the option to screen out results from certain information providers (website domains, etc.) that are known to contain flawed information. Each user could decide for themselves what sources could make it to the search results or which sources could be screened out.

Why should we give a corporate Search Engine Provider, a Social Media Provider, or the Government, the power to decide for us what sources might contain flawed content, or objectionable content, or dangerous content?

You can do this already for a lot of things–blocking certain numbers on your phone, blocking certain channels on your TV. You can already create a whitelist or blacklist for certain domains or email addresses for receiving emails – giving you at least a little control over all the spam trying to make it to your inbox. You know it wouldn’t be very hard to add that screening feature for the search data after it reaches your computer. You know you don’t need anyone else to decide these things for you. And I know you don’t want to decide these things for anybody else either.