Press "Enter" to skip to content


24 Feb 20

ANSWERING THIS ONE QUESTION MAY IDENTIFY Q AND HERE’S WHY. Does anybody know the identity to subject “17” in the (17) 702 FISA re-authorizations as per Admiral Rogers testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee circa 07 Jun 17? There it is – that’s it.

Beyond the obvious, here’s the rationale that makes this a possible map to Q’s identity. To begin, if someone else has already covered this, I haven’t seen it. I’m putting that card down now in case these comments are old news.

Getting to it – if you’re looking to target the President of the United States using section 702 authority, to the letter of the law you would be compelled to work from the outside-in. You would have to establish cause on the perimeter and work your way inward linking one subject umbrella to the next. Eventually, one of those umbrellas would overhang the President and 702 authority could be warranted and justifiable.


Why does Admiral Rogers state, “We will not, we will not, re-authorize 17.” Sidebar – odd voice inflection with “17.”? In this case, working outside-in reasonably equates to working from the 1st target (first outside point whereby cause was established) for 702 re-authorization all of the way to the 17th target (last inside target, 1 of 17 for cause and the ultimate objective) for 702 re-authorization. Moreover, the court the denied 17’s re-authorization to only to later grant it in March 2017; after having been satisfied with requested remedies. Why would the court be reluctant to do that? Is it because of the nature of “17’s” identity or perhaps the position he holds? Seems like a likely starting point for questions. Who was 17? How is 17 relevant to these matters? What position does 17 hold? Those represent a good start.

Of great importance are the strict Constitutional protections afforded to Americans that make targeting them extremely difficult and the only feasible means to assign this vector of the intelligence apparatus to probe a specific (or any other) American would be to establish cause outside of the country and work back inward to DC. Moreover, recall that it was initially a counter-intelligence investigation that was opened against the President; one with a lower legal predication threshold so as to circumvent the very Constitutional protections designed to prevent something like just like this from happening. Recall further that said investigation was later converted to a criminal one relative to the Mueller Probe and the investigation(s) preceding it.

It’s also important to note this in Admiral Roger’s statement – he explicitly said “re-authorization” not “authorization;” thus implying that this was germane to a continuance of something already ongoing. Whomever 17 may be, Rogers tells us that 17 was already being investigated.

Consider this excerpt from Jeff Carlson over at The Markets Work,

October 21 2016 – DOJ & FBI seek and receive a Title I FISA probable cause order authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. At this point, the FISA Court is unaware of the Section 702 violations.

October 24 2016 – Rogers verbally informs the FISA Court of Section 702(17) violations.

October 26 2016 – Rogers formally informs the FISA Court of 702(17) violations in writing.

November 17 2016 (morning) – Rogers travels to meet President-Elect Trump and his Transition Team in Trump Tower. Rogers does not inform DNI James Clapper.

November 17 2016 (evening) – Trump Transition Team announces they are moving all transition activity to Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey.


So who was “17” in the 702 FISA re-authorizations? Why was Rogers compelled to go see President Trump so close to the discovery of the violations; especially with the 17th and presumably last violation in such close proximity to said visit? Why wasn’t DNI Clapper informed? Who has Clapper been specifically targeting this entire time? Why was “17” treated so differently than 1-16? What made “17” anomalous and special?

Who is subject “17” in the (17) 702 FISA re-authorizations as per Admiral Rogers testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee circa 07 Jun 17? Answer this question and you may know who Q is. Or so it seems. I wonder if that answer comports with other information – see HERE.

Be First to Comment

Leave a ReplyCancel reply