File:Project FULSOME renewal.jpg


 * Source
 * GCHQ Harrigan Letter - Susan Rice Requests UK Continued Surveillance Of Trump Transition Team - @sealeney on Twitter, December 30, 2017
 * GCHQ given permission to spy on US political opponents to the current administration. - mynameisdock on Reddit, December 30, 2017


 * Other sources
 * #TrishTheDish‏ @TrishaDishes on Twitter, January 19, 2018

Is it authentic?
There is a similar document online from 2008: The similarities and differences weight in on the FULSOME document being authentic. The Intercept does not have the original British document, but a PDF printout, possibly done in the U.S. It lacks the original font and layout information. It could thus not have been the basis of a crude forgery. (Note, how the GCHQ logo is skewed in the 2008 pdf.) The FULSOME document retains the original layout and Times font. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * GCHQ Application for Renewal of Warrant GPW/1160 - published by The Intercept, June 22, 2015 (PDF)

This other document here could be the real deal, note different date format, placing, salutation, signature without name/title repeated, so it seems fake to me FWIW (and there is no reason to expect this sort of thing being real and on twitter) --Resup (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * PDFfiller sucks. I cannot access the document. It loads for 1 seconds and then times out. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

More sources

 * EXCLUSIVE: Six U.S Agencies Conspired to Illegally Wiretap Trump; British Intel Used as NSA Front to Spy on Campaign - True Pundit, September 20, 2017
 * ''Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA’s Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
 * ''To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
 * ''The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates.
 * ''GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA’s headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates.
 * ''The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
 * ''The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump’s associates appear compromised.
 * ''Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.
 * ''After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said.
 * ''By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade.
 * ''The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered “poisoned fruit.”


 * No wires to tap. I do not know whether Napolitano version (video) (text) is true (and it was officially denied) but on a technical side at least he makes more sense than the above version. Mueller will have any of what really exist anyway; this may be aimed to prevent it being used by promoting, rightly or wrongly, a version of events that it was obtained illegally. This is a technical comment, I have no idea what really happened, and so take no position (and prefer to stay out altogether) --Resup (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

More here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)