Five Eyes

[H2O Man]

"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.


A while back, I quoted my late friend Rubin's saying that a mind with very little to compare, finds very little to understand. I explained that this was not intended as a comment on intelligence, but rather familiarity with a given subject. A person might be an expert at a system at one level, for example, but not familiar with the dynamics that come in play at a different level.

In order to not set one's self up for disappointment, it is important to understand the practices and rules governing the system being operated in. Let's consider an example that is currently at hand. For sake of discussion, perhaps we can start with the name Jack Smith. In doing so, based upon my reading of this forum, there seems to be two groups worth considering: those who have been so disappointed in past investigations, that they have lost hope in this one, and those who are hopeful at what I think is an unrealistic level.

First, let's look at a few cases so we have things to compare to the current situation. This may help us to understand what is possible, what is likely, and what will be very, very unlikely to happen. Many people of my generation wanted Richard Nixon prosecuted for his criminal actions in the vast series of crimes we know as Watergate. The myth is that Al Haig got Gerald Ford to agree to pardon Nixon, if poor Richard would just resign.

Like all myths, there is a thread of truth there. But Haig knew that Nixon'sdefense, if he was prosecuted, would have insisted they needed classified and highly classified documents on national security be turned over. There was zero chance that the highly classified documents would be turned over and made public. What Haig and Ford actually discussed was pardoning Nixon to put an end to "the long national nightmare" that prosecuting Nixon on the serious charges would have extended without success.

Some here have mentioned Patrick Fitzgerald's work on the Plame scandal. Although the operation was conducted out of the Office of the Vice President, many here at the time -- and definitely including myself -- were certain that George W. Bush was deeply involved. As it turned out, he wasn't. Dick Cheney was, however, neck-deep in what the OVP referred to as Scooter Libby's "black op." But because Libby refused to turn on Cheney, Fitzgerald was only able to prosecute and convict Libby.

At the time, no one was more disappointed than I was. I recall talking with one of my uncles, an investigator who had done trainings for both the FBI and CIA. He explained that Mr. Fitzgerald was going after Libby on the charges that were 95% likely to get convictions. And that Libby kept silent, because he was certain that Cheney could convince Bush to pardon him. Instead, my uncle pointed out, it resulted in Cheney being casterated within the administration, and Bush refusing to pardon Scooter.

At the same general time, there was another espionage scandal that was largely ignored by the mainstream media, involving the sharing of highly classified intelligence with a foreign country. It involved the Cheney policy towards Iran, and related to US miliary intelligence activities in Iraq. Without going into great detail, federal judge T/ S. Ellis ruled that the government would need to release highly classified intelligence to the defense teams, in order to move forward. The prosecution dropped the charges. The more highly classified the documents/ intelligence, the less likely a prosecution.

Others here have pointed out the Mueller Investigation. Although this led to the prosecution and conviction of numerous players involved -- including several of Trump's people -- many of us were hoping for a criminal prosecution of Trump. My uncle reminded me that Attorney General Barr was acting as Trump's personal lawyer and body guard, much as he had done to protect the players in the Iran-Contra crimes with Bush the Elder. He said that had Mr. Mueller openly said Trump had committed crimes, much less advocated the DOJ prosecute him, that Barr would have been able to dismiss the Mueller Report from being made public, and done more of a cover-up than he did when the heavily redacted report was published.

Comparing these cases with that which Jack Smith is currently overseeing, we should be able to come to a realistic understanding of how the stolen documents part of the investigations -- there is also January 6 -- might be handled, as well as how it almost certainly will not play out. Yet to do so requires that one have an understanding of more than U.S. federa law, although we can all agree that Trump violated some in stealing intelligence documents. One has to understand, for example, the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, as well as ECHELON. For the most highly classified documents that Trump had involve more than the United States. Thus, one should be familiar with things such as The Fifth Estate's recent documentary on what Trump unleashed by stealing these documents, from a Canadian point of view.

When we take these factors into consideration, it should help us understand that while it is unlikely that Smith has been brought in to make potential charges against Trump disappear, it is equally unlikely that Trump will be charged with the highest potential charges. This has to do with both the 95% chance of conviction, as well as not exposing what is high-level intelligence beyond what is exclusive to the US. Hopefully, this makes sense to those who expect nothing and those hoping for everything. More, as other countries do have a stake in this, and absolutely want some criminal convictions as Trump's consequence for dangerous criminal activity, it sheds light on why I have held since the day Jack Smith was appointed, that he is the perfect choice.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

1. Yet another outstanding post.

Thank you!

[H2O Man]

2. Thanks!

[Me.]

3. Very Interesting

Last edited Sun Nov 27, 2022, 10:56 PM - Edit history (1)

JUst the other day I made reference to the Plame threads and now you mention it for the first time in a long time. Many of us were disappointed that Fitzmas never came and no indictments, save Libby, were under the tree. INteresting that Liz Chenye, who was part of her father's dark operations, hook line and sinker, is on the opposite side of the aisle this time.I also can't help but wonder if tfg was ever personally involved with this and that is partially fueling her fury.

[H2O Man]

4. I found it interesting

that Trump pardoned Scooter.

[Me.]

8. Hmmm

I had forgotten that part

[H2O Man]

10. It was curious.

There was, I will speculate, a reason why he pardoned Scooter. It might have been something Barr was advocating earlier. But by that time, Trump no longer liked Barr. So I suspect that there was more to it.

[Me.]

16. Double Hmmm

so does scooter get to practice law again?

[H2O Man]

32. He is no longer

a convicted felon. At least not officially.

It's likely he had been doing "legal work" all along, though not signing legal documents or appearing in court. He had been taken care of, for keeping his mouth shut.

[cachukis]

5. In other words, there is a lot of stained laundry.

[H2O Man]

11. Right.

Convictions on a couple felonies that are not at risk of being overturned by the high court have the ability to put an end to this part of the long national nightmare.

[panader0]

6. I agree that Jack Smith is the perfect choice for this.

As far as exposing high level intelligence, it is likely that Trump has already done so.
Something good, on some level, will come from Smith's appointment as Special Investigator,
of that I have infinite hope.
Recommended.

[H2O Man]

12. Indeed, it is

likely that Trump has already shared high level intelligence. But to prove that would, of course, expose methods in sensitive areas. Our system of justice isn't perfect. But I agree that some good is to come.

[Timewas]

7. Good read

And sounds about right

My take is that nothing really serious will come of this.I also feel that in order to make some headway towards healing the large fissure in this country both between the populace and with the rest of the world some sort of charges need to be made.

[H2O Man]

15. Among the serious

things that already may have taken place, but that the public will never know about, would be if Trump shared the classified information on Iran has already been shared with the Saudis. Espescally if it came from another country.

I will be satisfied if Trump gets a few felony convictions. Yet even if he does, I know that it is unlikely he will be incarcerated. But "home arrest" is still a win. Not the one we really want, but a win.

[Timewas]

35. Yes

More than likely some things have been done and kept quiet.I agree,some charges need to be brought and tried,he needs to pay some sort of penalty even if it is home arrest and a felony record..

[Me.]

49. I Don't Doubt That It Was

as you remember Jared gave names of those Saudis who were not his friends to MBS and look what happened to all of them. And now they have a billion dollar deal cooking with the Sauds. Also, I believe, as others do, that Erdogan blackmailed tfg and Jared into no longer protecting the Kurds because they had evidence Jared was involved in the Khashoggi matter

[H2O Man]

50. I think that

Jared likely revealed things he shouldn't have to the Saudis. He seemed to have been confronted about some of his activities that resulted in his informing the DOJ/FBI where his father-in-law was hiding stolen documents.

[Me.]

60. HOw Did I Miss

THe fact that Jared sold out tfg and how then, can they both be in that Saudi business together. I understand Ivanka spent THanksgiving with the Saudis.

[H2O Man]

61. Nothing says Thanksgiving

like kissing a Saudi "prince's" ass.

[Bev54]

9. I agree that some of the evidence may be so sensitive it will be hard to try him on it

but at the same time there is likely some he can be tried on. Also if you watched W5 the 5 eyes are also very concerned about sharing information with the US if this is a result. I think it is time to put him away for ever and make it clear that the US will deal with the perpetrator no matter who, so people think twice in the future. Countries like Canada are already having to do their own assessment of the damage to some of their undercover operatives. This is not good.

[H2O Man]

18. Right.

Smith's job includes coordinating with other non-US intelligence agencies and governments, our intelligence agencies -- which have an obvious stake in this, and with the DOJ prosecutors to find the highest charges with the 95% or greater chance of conviction. And, at the same time, to oversee the J6 information specific to Trump.

On one hand, we are fortunate that Trump wasn't a more intelligent and self-disciplined criminal when it came to January 6. But at the same time, we are getting an idea of how much damage the sociopath did on the global scale.

[emulatorloo]

13. Excellent read. It is very kind of you to recount the actual history of the Plame investigation

rather than the shallow meme version known as ‘Fitzmas.’ Same goes for the actual history of the Mueller investigation.

Last section referring to 5 eyes and final paragraph ring really true to me.

[H2O Man]

19. Thank you!

I think it is essential for people to be aware of what Patrick's and Mr. Mueller's investigations were for -- what the rules they were operating under, which made some things possible, and others not a possibility.

Now, with Patrick Fitzgerald, just as many of us wanted Bush charged, just as many hoped that Rove would be indicted. And he almost was, until his lawyer informed Mr. Fitzgerald of a phone call Rove made that kept hi from being indicted. I can only speculate, but I think those on the "Fitzmas" bit don't remember the details.

I think that perhaps the best measure of Mr. Mueller's work, in terms of he was somehow involved in covering stuff up, is to compare his physical health at the time he was assigned, and compare it to him afterwords, like when he was testifying to Congress. I think that was a direct result of his unstanding the threats to our democracy, but being handcuffed in terms of being able to charge a great deal of the crimes.

[Saoirse9]

14. Good point about the sensitivity of the intelligence behind the investigation

This to me is your most salient point:

More, as other countries do have a stake in this, and absolutely want some criminal convictions as Trump's consequence for dangerous criminal activity, it sheds light on why I have held since the day Jack Smith was appointed, that he is the perfect choice.

We aren't the only country whose national secrets were exposed. Those other countries will want justice, and reassurance that this can never happen again. Never.

Our allies want the same thing the public at large want. Reassurance and justice. And perhaps you're right that Jack Smith is perfect for that reason.

I want to believe in that outcome.

[Me.]

17. Totally Agree With Everything You Said

Do I know you...

[H2O Man]

20. She seems

somehow familiar.

[Saoirse9]

24. My goodness but don't you seem vaguely familar

Like maybe someone I have known for nearly 20 years . . . .

[Me.]

28. ...

[H2O Man]

21. Thank you!

Much appreciated!

A close friend that I sent the link to this OP/thread contacted me to say she had just started watching The Fifth Estate's new documentary on the intelligence documents theft. This, I hold, provides eveidence that there is no such thing as "coincidence." I said that to say this: it was not a coincidence that Jack Smith was brought in when he was.

[Saoirse9]

25. Ooooh how do I watch that?

[H2O Man]

26. I watched it on youtube.

[Saoirse9]

27. Thanks!

[H2O Man]

30. You are welcome!

[Elessar Zappa]

22. Your posts always make me think.

Thank you for laying out the history of these investigations and what is likely to come in regards to Trump.

[H2O Man]

23. Thanks!

Then I have accomplished my goal.

I did resist the temptation to start talking about Iran-Contra, and the investigations. That one still annoys me. It left open the door on a lot of corruption that has followed on the national and international levels. But I'll think about doing an essay on how that might have been handled differently.

[Mr.Bill]

29. Like many, I had never heard of Jack Smith.

As soon as I read a bit about his background, my first thought was that there are international aspects to Trump's crimes. They didn't hire Jack Smith to put this whole thing to bed and forget about it.

[H2O Man]

31. Yes.

Exactly right.

[ancianita]

33. Thank you.

The DOJ has evidence far beyond what the Jan 6 Committee presented, particularly about the classified documents in Trump's possession.

I assume that under one law, Smith will file charges/counts for Trump's just taking government documents, period.
And I assume that under another law, the Espionage Act (?), Jack Smith will still file charges/counts for Trump's removing/mishandling of classified docs; how Smith can thread the classified evidence needle during the discovery period without revealing actual classified contents to the Defense is why, imo, he qualifies as your "perfect choice."

I hope he meets my unrealistic expectations.

[H2O Man]

34. Right.

I am confident that most people here will be satisfied -- maybe even happy -- as this unfolds. There are definitely felony charges that can be brought, tried, and result in convictions.

[ancianita]

36. Okay, then.

Those convictions will meet our expectations. After convictions, I hope his "house confinement" means that he is under 24/7/365 guard, so that all communications to him are completely controlled, and their contents on record; that if he's discovered breaking the confinement, he's ordered immediately to prison.

[H2O Man]

41. I hope that

any house confinement includes restrictions keeping him off social media.

[peggysue2]

37. Thank you for that Five Eyes/Fifth Estate documentary

Hadn't seen it before. Certainly underscores your OP that the higher the security level of the documents, the less chance that Trump will be charged with the highest potential crimes. Fortunately, there are other cases swirling around the ether. The main thing to remember is that a portion of protecting our democracy is on us, the average voter. As Maddow made clear in her podcast Ultra, we cannot rely on the courts alone, as much as we'd prefer. The power of our vote/voice is no small thing, the proof of which was demonstrated a few short weeks ago. The heralded Red Wave vanished, as in never happened.

The courts will do what they can do; the electorate must do what it can by holding the line.

Thanks for another interesting post!

[H2O Man]

42. Thanks!

I always enjoy listening to Peter Strzak. I was glad that The Fifth Estate interviewed him for the documentary.

The elections went well. Obviously, it could have been a lot worse. But I do think the republicans will engage in fidtractions and horseshit in the House.

[malaise]

38. Excellent OP my brother

[H2O Man]

43. Thank you!

I sent the link to a number of friends. One responded, "Ah, hard at work, I see!" I told her the only effort involved was not going off about the increasingly criminal nature of republicans. Other than that, it was just my talking out loud to myself, just on a key board. I will say that I'm happy that people seem to like it.

[malaise]

45. It's excellent

😀

[Hekate]

40. Very interesting -- and thanks

[H2O Man]

44. Thanks!

I'm still worn out from family events over the long weekend. Writing this helped me relax.

[malaise]

46. I met my oldest grand niece's boyfriend on Facetime

Getting together with them and their friends was very cool. We had a blast.

[H2O Man]

47. All four of

my children and many others were here. I think my grandson was the center of attention. The teenagers that were here were in a hurry to eat, and go out to hang out with their friends. It made for a fun time.

[malaise]

48. Lovely

I turned down the free ticket to head north for the gathering - I’m still uneasy about flying post- Covid 😀

[Martin Eden]

51. In order to have a trial on stealing highly classified documents

Is it necessary to publicly expose the contents of those documents, for the prosecution or the defense?

I would think it's possible for the classification level to be verified with the judge without an open court reading and cross examination of the contents.

[H2O Man]

53. Great question!

I cannot answer that accurately, as it is definitely something that I would venture people far better informed than I am would take differing stances on. At best, I could speculate. But I might be able to identify some factors involved.

The first would be precedent. As I noted in the OP, when the espionage case that was taking place at the time of the Plame scandal, the federal judge (Ellis) ruled that "discovery" allowed a defendant's legal team to all documentation the prosecutor had. As this included top secret documents, the charges were dropped. I think it is safe to say that the intelligence community influenced the prosecutor's decision on this. But certainly discovery is an issue.

This is distinct from when the Special Master was appointed to review what was taken from Trump's country club. Trump's legal team demanded access to the classified documents, and S.M. Raymond Dearie made clear that in that context, they had no right to access. Indeed, he noted that he would decide based upon classification, and not read the documents themselves.

Access to classified documents is generally based upon "need to know." If Smith attempted to prosecute, but deny access, would a federal judge rule against the defense team's right to discovery? I can't pretend to know. However, I refer to various cases heard by Judge T. S. Ellis 111 involving classified information and espionage, most recently the Kevin Mallory espionage case in 2017. Ellis seems to be experienced in this general type of case, and I am not aware of a history of his rulings leading to successful appeals. However, his "partial closing" ruling in the Rosen case did raise serious issues on the 5th and 6th Amendments, Indeed, a "silent witness" approach had been denied by several other judges in the past. And, of course, two of the three people charged with espionage in this case would have charges dropped, as the government was unwilling to make the evidence known to the juries.

This would seem, at least to me, to raise an important issue involving appeals, if the court did allow something akin to what you mention. And I think that Smith & Co are considering that factor, perhaps especially in light of the make up of the current Supreme Court. I think that they are much, much more likely to take the approach used against criminals ranging from Al Capone to Scooter Libby, and focus on those charges that are most likely to lead to felony convictions with little to no chance of a successful appeal. But that is just my opinion, of no more or less value than anyone else's.

[Martin Eden]

57. There needs to be a way around the loophole

Because otherwise, the more sensitive the intel (therefore the more serious the crime) the less likely justice can prevail for fear of revealing the intel.

[H2O Man]

58. I agree 100%

I do hope that Mr. Smith and the team of prosecutors find a way to do this. On one hand, I'll be satisfied with a few felony convictions, but on the other hand, I think if the most serious crimes are not prosecuted, it opens the door to other bad players. That pattern seems to have held true in my life-time, starting with Nixon, leading to Reagan, Bush, Bush-Cheney, and then Trump. While it is difficult for me to imagine someone worse than Trump, I certainly remember thinking no one could possibly be worse than Nixon. Naivete on my part back then.

[fightforfreedom]

52. There is one charge where you don't have to include, expose classified documents.

Obstruction of Justice. That is a felony. Trump was issued a grand jury subpoena for all the White house documents, not just secret documents.. He lied, he moved, hid documents. It doesn't matter if they are classified or not. He committed a serious felony.

As far as charging Trump with stealing top secret documents, that will be more difficult to prosecute and that is for Jack Smith to figure out. Personally, I do not see how that could go unanswered.

By the way, the charges were listed on the warrant. They don't list charges for the hell of it.

I am sticking with what I believe. The past is irrelevant when it comes to Trumps crimes. Nothing like this has ever happened before. These are unprecedented crimes.

When was the last time a president tried to over throw our country? When was the last time a president loaded up a moving truck with thousands of official White house documents that included hundreds of top secret documents? Never!

[H2O Man]

54. Great points!

I think that there are a number of serious felonies that Trump can -- and will -- be charged and convicted on. And that includes stealing the non-classified materials you mentioned, obstruction, etc.

The potential charges liste on the warrant might well involve others around Trump, too. Time will tell.

And you are 100% correct in that we are in unchartered waters. There are times when I think that as the former Commander in Chief, Trump should be tried in a military court.

[fightforfreedom]

55. Thank you.

Many people are forgetting obstructing a grand jury subpoena is a serious felony. You don't need the secret documents to prove that. They have Trump by the balls when it comes to Obstruction.

[H2O Man]

59. Right.

Obstruction is a serious charge. And there is no way to defend Trump on that, that I can see. It appears the FBI had an inside source, informing them of where Trump had hid at least some of the documents. From what I've seen, it appears rather likely the source is Jared, though it might be one of the lawyers.

[fightforfreedom]

56. If Trump had used the military on J6 he might have ended up in military court.

Because Trump crimes are so serious, so unprecedented, I believe it calls for an unprecedented response. They have to nail Trump and others with every charge possible. It is the only way to stop this type of madness from ever happening again.

To let these crimes go unanswered would lead them to be repeated again.

[TheRickles]

62. A late response, as I'm only now getting a chance to closely read your important and detailed post.

I'm still not clear about why you say, regarding the Mueller report, that Barr would have been able to dismiss it from being made public if Mueller had openly said that Trump had committed crimes. How would Barr's acting as Trump's personal attorney have affected that process, and why would that have allowed the report to be hidden? It wouldn't require release of classified info, so I guess I'm missing the point here. Thanks in advance for any clarification.

[H2O Man]

63. Good question!

That's an important question, and I appreciate that you asked it ..... for it helps us to put into proper perspective what Mr. Mueller could and could not do in regard to the report. This is the type of question that makes DU a valuable place for such discussions.

Mr. Mueller was appointed as special counsel by Deputy AG Rosenstein on May 17, 2017 -- a day after Mueller had met with Trump to discuss options for the president naming a new FBI director. This position was to oversee the Russian-Trump campaign connections. As such, Mueller was not an independent counsel, but rather, under the authority of Rosenstein (as AG Sessions had recused himself from the investigation).

An immediate critic of the Mueller investigation was the Bush the Elder's AG William Barr, a strong advocate of the unitary executive theory. It's worth noting that during the Clinton presidency, Barr had attacked the administration for what he said was non-cooperation with Independent Counsel Ken Starr. More, in the first two years of the Trump presidency, Barr would repeatedly say that investigating Mrs. Clinton was more important than what Mueller was doing. Then in June of 2018, Barr sent an unsolicited 20-page letter to the DOJ and to Trump's personal legal team, saying that the DOJ/Mueller had no right to investigate Trump for obstruction. Thus, it was a matter of time until this letter -- an obvious job application -- resulted in Barr being appointed AG.

On March 19, 2019, Mueller closed down the investigation, and turned the report over to Barr. It was entirely -- 100% -- up to Barr if the report would see the light of day. It was a DOJ report, and Barr and Barr alone had the legal authority at that time to determine who, if anyone, would see any of it.

On March 24, Barr sent Congress his infamous 4-page letter, saying in effect "nothing here to see." The contents of this lie, er, letter immediately became public, as Barr was doing his best to act as Trump's personal lawyer. Mueller would respond with a letter to Barr, noting that he had misrepresented the investigation's findings.On April 18, the Department of Justice published the highly redacted report.

As Attorney General, Barr had the legal authority to decide if the report was accepted, and if it would see the light of day -- at least during Trump's presidency. This is why those who subscribe to the unitary executive theory should never be in the executive office. I always suggest Arthur Schlesinge, Jr.'s 1973 book, "The Imperial Presidency," as the best source for information on how the powers of the presidency have expanded -- both when there is control of both Houses of Congress by his/her party, or if there is an impotent Congress. It is no coincidence that Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" was intended to weaken Congress while increasing internal hostilities, and that the Supreme Court damaged itself by selecting Bush for president a few years later.

[TheRickles]

64. Thanks. So now that we're in the post-Barr era, couldn't we see the unredacted Mueller report?

[Kid Berwyn]

65. (IN MOVIE SHORTS ANNOUNCER VOICE:)

“One man with all the authority he needs.”



“Break out the Agonizers!”



“All your database are belongs to us.”

[Lucinda]

66. ❤️ ✿❧🌿❧✿ ❤️