Inside The HPSCI Memo – A Key Distinction Being Conflated “Title I” -vs- “Title VII”…

There is a key distinction being overlooked, perhaps conflated, by many who are reviewing the recently released HPSCI memo as it relates to the outlined targeting of U.S. individual Carter Page.

In the HPSCI outline it specifically notes the targeting of U.S. individual Carter Page was NOT a FISA Title VII search request.  Title VII is FISA(702), the incidental collection of U.S. person information as it relates to National Security or Counterintelligence operations targeting foreign individuals.

The FISA ‘warrant’ request, against Carter Page, was made October 21st, 2016, under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  Meaning the surveillance application was specifically stating, to the court, the U.S. individual was likely an actual agent of a foreign government, ie. “a spy.

The DOJ (National Security Division) and the FBI (Counterintelligence Division) were not asking to review ancillary data collected on U.S. Person Carter Page as an outcome of surveillance on a foreign person, or foreign agent; that would be Title 7 (FISA-702).

In action outlined within the HPSCI memo, the DOJ and FBI were specifically telling the FISA court they had evidence that U.S. Person Carter Page was working as an agent of a foreign government. He was their target, and therefore requesting direct FISA Title 1 surveillance of that target on October 21st, 2016.

To give validity to the underlying position of the DOJ and FBI, the justice department used: the Clinton-Steele Dossier; media reports from -and of- the Clinton-Steele dossier; and opposition research provided by Clinton financed Fusion-GPS through Nellie Ohr, so they could monitor U.S. Person Carter Page.

In total, this sketchy assembly of political campaign research was used by the FBI as evidence to back-up their claim U.S. person Carter Page was working as a foreign agent; essentially saying: he was a spy.  This application assembly was then certified on four different occasions by specific officials within the DOJ and FBI.

Without knowing the court had been provided political research, the FISA Court granted the FBI full surveillance authority for U.S. Person Carter Page.   The distinction is rather stark.

The FBI were not targeting Page incidentally as an outcome of foreign intelligence collection; the FBI was targeting Carter Page directly. AND as such they carried full surveillance authority upon all of this activities, interactions, communications and contacts therein.

Because of this direct approach, any group, organization or entity who came in contact with U.S. Person Carter Page was then open for ancillary review and FBI investigation.  Those who engaged in contact with Carter Page became subject to surveillance and searches in the same manner as if Page was an actual foreign agent.

Legal commentary thread on #Memo by Robert Barnes:

It is important to remember that FISA courts are not like other courts; there needs to be specific evidence of a particular national security threat to circumvent regular federal courts.

It is a HIGHER standard because its jurisdiction is LIMITED
FISA courts have LIMITED jurisdiction because the scope of the invasive tools of the NSA is far more INVASIVE than regular wiretaps, due to the SECRET nature of such courts, and from the risk of forum shopping with the limited number and deferential nature of FISA Judges.

That is why Congress imposed SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS on access to FISA courts and use of FISA evidence. To access FISA courts, only the highest ranking FBI officials must vet and approve, a high ranking DOJ official must authorize, and they must re-vet and re-approve every 90 days.

To spy on Americans through a FISA court, the FBI must show the target is an “agent of a foreign power,” not merely in contact with a foreign power. The law makes it difficult to show someone is an “agent of a foreign power” to make sure it is not misused to spy on Americans.

The law does not allow the FBI to call an American an “agent of a foreign power” unless they can show the person “knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power” AND the nature of their activity is criminalized.

Claiming someone is an “agent of a foreign power” is a difficult standard to ever show, and should never happen to a domestic political opponent in a domestic political campaign. That is why the FBI had to cook the books — put a bogus informant on their team & lie to the courts.

Trump’s winning caused a problem for Comey & Comey’s firing caused a problem for Rosenstein. Both Comey & Rosenstein signed off on the bogus affidavits to the FISA court to continue spying on Trump team members post-election and post-inauguration. They needed Mueller to cover up.

Key fact about Mueller: he is very close friends with Comey, and was the mentor and close friend of Rosenstein. Mueller is also expert at covering up for lawless law enforcement: see his role with Whitey Bulger, BCCI, HSBC, Waco, Noriega, IRS/Tea Party & Fast & Furious.

FISA law protects Americans from lawless spying by masking & deletion of intercepted data. If an American’s conversations are intercepted, his identity must remain hidden, and if no p/c of a crime, his conversations deleted. Hence, the importance of @Cernovich Susan Rice story.

FBI turned over their NSA spying capacity to a private lobbying company in order to promote a smear campaign against a domestic political opponent. Fearing being caught, they appointed a special counsel (Mueller) to cover for them by accusing the man (Trump) who might expose them (link)

Here’s the HPSCI Point and Counterpoint as released earlier:


This entry was posted in AG Jeff Sessions, CIA, Clinton(s), Cold Anger, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, FBI, Jeff Sessions, media bias, Notorious Liars, NSA, President Trump, Russia, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, USA, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

947 Responses to Inside The HPSCI Memo – A Key Distinction Being Conflated “Title I” -vs- “Title VII”…

  1. JustSomeInputFromAz says:

    I hope Cry’en Chuck becomes a casualty of the fallout:

    Liked by 1 person

    • Carrie2 says:

      Justsome input: Dear Chuckie, you should never have said what you threatened our President with the intelligence agencies. It is a clear clue that you are part of the problem and hence another traitor for the gallows. Couldn’t happen to a nicer fellow!

      Liked by 3 people

  2. alliwantissometruth says:

    Everything comes out in the wash, if the laundry is taken out of the washing machine

    Truth is on our side. The documentation is there

    The only way to hide the truth is to keep the laundry safely inside the machine

    The washing machine is doing it’s job right now, but when the cycle is done, will the laundry be taken out for all to see, or will the previously stained clothes be left in?

    This bulls*** will go on & on, but it’s up to us, we the people, to look past the nonsense & determine if we’ll tolerate the filth that’s left in the machine or demand clean & fresh clothes

    What happened is so painfully obvious, so ridiculously in your face, it’s an absolute insult to even consider this wan’t an act of absolute usurpation of law & order & the peoples right of self governance

    That we even have to play this game after all that’s been exposed is absurd, but it’s how we as a people respond that will be the ultimate test of how this country will go forward from here

    Liked by 2 people

    • trialbytruth says:

      Your last paragraph can be interpreted as a call to reason or a call to arms.

      I think weaponized reason is the way to go. Truth will have its way, but we must tolerate no less then truth.

      Liked by 1 person

    • TruthSeeker says:

      Perhaps we need another hashtag campaign. Maybe #ReleaseSupportingDocuments. Anyone got something catchier?


  3. Chickficshun says:

    Sundance. Another thing I keep harping on is the Title 1. The government basically said Page is a verified known spy for a foreign adversary. Ok. Why is he running around now? A verified spy running around suing media companies and now the government?

    But I remembered reading his prepared very long statement he gave either prior or after his congressional testimony. I’m not even sure ge ever testified to congress either.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. trialbytruth says:

    I am beginning to suspect this is orchestrated theater regarding C Page. I am starting to think that it is bait for the media to resist the truth on the basis it was just Page.

    Obviously we have not even begun to discuss the unmasking Nunes referred to in his initial press conference. Nunes knows title I does not have to be unmasked. That would indicate there is still a tittle VII to be discussed.

    One thing that argues against this was the title VII renewal when President Trump indicate it wasn,t what was used to spy on him. So who was being unmasked??

    Liked by 1 person

  5. thetruthisoutthere says:

    Is Sundance still a Rosenstein supporter?


  6. Garth Michaels says:

    And, what was it again that DOJ used to give validity to their underlying position that Carter Page was working as a foreign agent? Why was this “validity” provided by DOJ? Without this fraudulent information, would the DOJ request have been granted? What effects would result from using fraudulent data as “validity,” particularly for the FISA warrant extensions on the investigation? What legal consequences would arise if proven – you know – by the Nunes memo?


  7. Merc says:

    Can you reference the Title I and Title VII and why if it isn’t a 7 it has to be a 1? Thanks


  8. R. French Brinton says:


    The exact reason the dems are trying to hide the lie, that was told to the FISA Court and keep from the American people (will be exposed once the lie is exposed that resides inside the actual FISA Aplication), is because it leads to only one place. That place is at the feet of Obama, Hillary, and the Democrate party.  We can only debate their motive for their big lie right now. But in time their motive will become apparent, but I know that many patriots will make sure light is shined on their plotted and treasonous collusion. But for now, here’s the big lie.

    They Quaranteed the FISA Court they were only interested in Carter Page and in no way they were going to target Trump or his campaign in a larger context, and that the awsome powers granted under a 702 title 1 warrent would not be directed at a presidential candidate.  Basically creating a legal, backdoor spying apparatus to be used against political apponents and shredding the constitutions foundation of “we the people”.

    The dems memo is trying to cover up this lie. I believe this, because i think their memo will try to paint the picture that it was disclosed to the court that the Steele Dossie was the result of political opposition research.  I do believe that this was disclosed to the court. But I also suspect that the Applications overall theme and interest was in Carter Page alone.  That only came to light within the Justice Department as a result of the information that was found within the Dossie itself.  So they presented to the court the argument, that even though the information about Carter Page came from opposition research,  that fact alone did not nigate the fact that they believed (and probably presented additional evidence to the court about Carter Page, the second Steele Dossie) Carter Page was a Spy working for a foreign power, Russia. They effectively painted  two separate issues independentof of each other that the court could address. Their concern about the government abusing the powers for political purpposes and protecting the nation from foreign powers, even if it was only discovered within a Dossie that’s overall purpose was to falsely accuse and damage a presidential candidate.  As long as the target was not going to accomplish the Dossies overall intention. Then the two issues could be separated from each other.

    I believe when he DOJ went to the court in July of 2016, they were denied the 702 search warrent of Carter Page because the Trump campaign would inavertly be wiretapped in the process. That concern of the court overshadowed the concern of a potential US citizen, that presented no emediate and grave danger to our government, that could be easily addressed after the election if Trump won the presidency.  Carter Page in the current role he held as a civilian and advisor to a presidential candidate presented no potential risk to the nation. After the election it potentially became a different story. But they would cross that bridge when they got their.

    September 16, 2016 page resigned or was removed from the Trump campaign and was no longer involved in any capacity.  THAT FUNDIMENTLY CHANGED THE COURTS ORIGIONAL CONCERN THAT CAUSED THE DENIAL OF THE ORIGIONAL APPLICATION.  1 of 12 to only ever be denied. This fact deminstrates how concerened the court was in allowing the government to allow the potential servalance  of a presidential candidate.

    The DOJ on October 26th, 2016 resamitted the Application for approval. Now that Carter Page was no longer involved in TRUMPS campaign, they pressed to the court their concern of Russian interference in our election, and that Carter Page was a spy for Russia, that it was imperative to the integrity of our election system to put him emediatly under servalance and learn if Carter Page was working for the Russians to achieve undermining the election in a significant way, like hacking the voting machines.

    The court agreed with DOJ and issued the warrent.  Because they were falsely assured it had nothing to do with Trump, would not be used to spy on Trump, because Trump was not the purpose, concern, reason or suspect in colluding with Russia.

    Soon as it was approved, the DOJ turned the government survalance tools on Trump.

    But Why? We all know, and soon the nation will know.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. CraigR says:

    What would prevent news media who interviewed Carter Page while he was under Title 1 surveillance from being surveilled in the same manner the Trump campaign was? SD wrote:

    “Those who engaged in contact with Carter Page became subject to surveillance and searches in the same manner as if Page was an actual foreign agent.”

    Does being merely “engaged in contact” open someone’s organization to surveillance theoretically?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s