A "SMOKING GUN" SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO BRING DOWN DONALD TRUMP...BUT WE PROBABLY WILL NEED IT

After reading this editorial, please express your own thoughts.  At the bottom, please click on the word "Comments" below the copyright and type your remarks in the box.  When finished,  please click on the word "Publish."  Please also share a link to this column with others in your e-mail directory and on social media.

This copyrighted column - in part or in its entirety - may be freely shared among individuals, and it may be reprinted, republished, or quoted in any medium, including broadcast, cable, satellite, print, Internet, and other forms of media, but only when crediting Gary B. Duglin and The Controversy.    

     Combined with general facts - yes, they are facts - along with my personal opinions, today's column focuses, in part, on a bit of United States history too.  Donald Trump and any Trump Republicans or other Trump cheerleaders should pay close attention to this editorial, as should Democrats and everyone else who opposes the current Oval Office occupant.

     On August 5th, 1974, the American public was privy to what had been a secret tape, which was clandestinely recorded by President Richard Nixon.  It was a tape that was recorded six days after the June 17th break-in by five men at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, DC.  On that tape, Americans were able to hear the president of the United States give an order where he broke the law. Thus, Mr. Nixon proved to our country and to the world that he was indeed "a crook."  Although President Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate break-in, nor did he have any knowledge about it until after the fact, Mr. Nixon was involved in a cover-up of the crime, which was worse than the break-in itself.  That said, whether President Nixon was absolutely unaware of the break-in before it happened, or if Mr. Nixon himself ordered it, remains a mystery to some people, and it's a controversial subject among some politicians and historians.  But I tend to agree with conventional wisdom that President Nixon learned of the crime after the burglars were caught in the act.  But spearheading the cover-up is what eventually caused Mr. Nixon to resign the presidency in disgrace.  On June 23rd, 1972, President Nixon instructed White House Chief of Staff H. R. "Bob" Haldeman to have the C.I.A. block the F.B.I.'s investigation in to the attempted burglary at the Watergate office building.  In other words, Mr. Nixon dictated Haldeman to obstruct the investigation.  President Nixon's words on that tape were a crystal clear command and, in a sense, was his confession to obstruction of justice.

     Two days after he heard President Nixon's direction, Republican Congressman Barber Conable - who was a longtime ally of Mr. Nixon - reviewed the complete transcript of the tape and famously remarked that the recording "looked like a smoking gun."  GOP support for the 36th president quickly evaporated on Capitol Hill.  Three top Republicans - Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona (center in the photo), who was the Republican nominee for president in 1964, but was defeated in 

a landslide by the incumbent President Lyndon Baines Johnson... Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania (left in the photo)...and House Minority Leader John Rhodes of Arizona (right in the photo) - took the short journey down Pennsylvania Avenue to inform President Nixon that a majority of the House of Representatives were ready to impeach and, from the Senate, at least 67 of the 100 senators would vote to convict and remove him from office.  In fact, Senator Goldwater and Senator Scott informed President Nixon that fewer than 15 senators were willing to even consider acquittal.  In other words, his goose was cooked.

     On the evening of August 8th, in a televised speech, Richard Nixon addressed the nation and announced, "I shall resign the presidency, effective  

at noon tomorrow." Vice President Gerald Ford was sworn in as our 37th president at noon on August 9th.

     But here's the kicker.  Prior to the infamous tape becoming public, the House Judiciary Committee - including support by some Republicans - had already voted in favor of three Articles of Impeachment.  That audio recording was the icing on the cake, but the decision to impeach President Nixon had previously been on the minds of numerous Members of Congress, be them Democrats or Republicans.  The portrait had been painted of an American president who had abused his presidential power.

     The outcome for Richard Nixon's presidency - his forced resignation - was the result not only of that tape recording, but many months of investigations by the U.S. Congress and by a special prosecutor, not to mention the journalistic efforts by The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.  When all was said and done, there was enough witness testimony and documentary evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Nixon was guilty of criminal activity.  And although the "smoking gun" fired the bullet that would bring death to the Nixon presidency, we cannot ignore everything else that was discovered beforehand, over more than a two-year period.

     America shouldn't need "a Perry Mason" to present that "smoking gun" at the end of a crime drama, when obviously there are enough facts for a jury to determine guilt or innocence.  But since I doubt that Donald Trump will break down and admit to the crimes that Democrats and so many legal and constitutional scholars have alleged he has committed - as a result of the plethora of evidence staring in our faces - the Congress of 2019 is probably going to need a "smoking gun" before they can do to him what the Congress of 1974 did to Richard Nixon.

     I was counting on Special Counsel Robert Mueller to find that "smoking gun," and maybe he already has, but we just don't know it yet.  Maybe that's why Attorney General William Barr kept his cards so close to his vest and wasn't about to show them to anybody when he testified under oath before the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, April 9th, 2019 and when he did the same, in sworn testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, April 10th.  Therefore, it is imperative that Congress and the American people are able to read the entire Mueller Report. 

     One has to sit back and wonder why the chief law enforcement officer of our land would go before Congress and accuse the federal government of "spying" on a political candidate and his campaign.  But Attorney General Barr, on April 10th, was

asked by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat from New Hampshire, "You're not suggesting that spying occurred?"  After a brief pause, Barr articulated 

with crisp certainty, "I think spying did occur."  But later on in the hearing, Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat from Hawaii, wanted to give Barr a chance to clarify his "unnecessarily inflammatory" remark because, as Schatz emphasized, "the word spying 

could cause everybody in the cable news ecosystem to freak out."  Barr's reply was rather strange to say the least.  "I'm not sure of all the connotations of that word." The attorney general of the United States doesn't know the precise definition of the word "spying" or how Congress and the American people are going to perceive what Barr means by the use of that word?  Really?  Seriously?  But Barr tried to walk back his original testimony by saying, "I want to make sure there was no unauthorized surveillance."  Sorry Bill, but you can't unscramble the egg.

     Generally speaking, when people think of "spying," they envision fictitious characters like Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin of U.N.C.L.E., not special agents of the F.B.I.  "Spying" takes on a sinister connotation of espionage and other nefarious actions. According to Dictionary.com, a spy is "a person employed by a government to obtain secret information or intelligence about another, usually hostile, country." And Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines spy as "one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information; a person employed by one nation to secretly convey classified information of strategic importance to another nation; a person who conveys the trade secrets of one company to another."  There is no evidence whatsoever of any "spying" of Donald Trump or his campaign by the F.B.I., the C.I.A., or any other U.S. intelligence

agency, or anyone else for that matter, who was covered under the umbrella of President Barack Obama's administration.  FISA warrants are court authorized documents that are signed by prosecutors or - in at least one case pertaining to the 

Russia investigation - by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and then by judges, as FISA warrants go through a rigorous process before being issued.  They are valid tools that prosecutors use in a criminal investigation, not "spying."  Attorney General Barr should know better - and I'm sure he does - that the Russia probe, before and with Robert Mueller, was and still is a lawful investigation. For Barr to label any part of it as "spying" is totally bogus.  But the attorney general is toeing not only the Republican line, but at the top of his list is the Trump line, when it should be the people's line. 

     At The White House on Thursday, April 11th, Trump applauded Barr's comments as he wholeheartedly agreed with the attorney general.  "I think what he said was absolutely true.  There was absolutely spying in to my campaign.  I'll go a step further. In my opinion it was illegal spying, unprecedented spying, and something that should never be allowed to happen in our country again.  And I think his answer was actually a very accurate one."

     Democrats were flabbergasted - if not angry, and rightfully so - by Barr's "spying" reference. Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York and the Senate Minority Leader, told reporters on April 11th that Barr's notion that Trump and his campaign were spied upon has "just destroyed the scintilla of credibility he had left." In the Senate's sister chamber, 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, did not mince words when she was interviewed by The Associated Press on April 10th. "I don't trust Barr.  I trust Mueller."  Speaker Pelosi also noted that Barr is "not the attorney general of Donald Trump.  He is the attorney general of the United States."

         Why would William Barr make such an incendiary statement about "spying?" 

At the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Republican Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas was also curious. But Barr's answer is not one that I accept, and neither does much of Congress and probably most of America.  "There is a basis for my concern," Barr told Moran in a definitive tone, "but I'm not going to discuss the basis." 

     Barr's evasive attitude is another of the many reasons why he needs to provide the full, unredacted report by Special Counsel Mueller to Congress.  America's lawmakers must continue to insist that the entire word for word document be delivered to Congress, exactly how Mueller wrote it. House of Representatives Democrats had given Barr an April 2nd deadline to submit the full report, but Barr snubbed our legislative branch of government with disdain.

     Let me remind my readers - as I wrote in my Saturday, April 6th column, "As attorney general, William Barr works for us...for you...and for me.  And so does Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  Barr's job is not to protect Donald Trump.  It's to protect the U.S. Constitution and the American people.  Congress must demand transparency and full disclosure from the Department of Justice.  After all, on March 14th a House resolution passed by a unanimous, bipartisan vote of 420 to 0 that called for 'a full release' of all of Mueller's findings, and that means not only his report, but every file, every note, every shred of evidence.  Unless it affects the national security of our country, there can be no secrets.  Absolutely nothing should be concealed.  Otherwise...the stench of a cover-up will linger on for decades to come."

     Representative Jerry Nadler, Democrat from New York, continues to threaten Attorney General Barr - as he should do - that Congress will issue a subpoena for the full, unredacted Mueller Report.  On Wednesday, April 3rd, Nadler's House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to authorize the chairman to issue said report.  Chairman Nadler says, if necessary, he is willing to take the issue of the Mueller Report to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Barr has announced that he will deliver the report to Congress by this upcoming week, but he sounds like much of it will be blackened.  Some legal experts have predicted that more than half of the report will be redacted, especially all grand jury materials, including witness testimonies.

     There is precedent in U.S. history when grand jury testimonies have been disclosed. I also wrote the following in my April 6th editorial, but it's worth repeating here because Attorney General Barr is either ignorant to the facts or he believes that most people are oblivious to the truth. However, Americans are more sophisticated and more learned than Barr might think.  "It should be remembered that with the Watergate investigation, Judge John Sirica overruled grand jury secrecy and gave testimonies by witnesses to Congress.  The same should happen with the Mueller Report."  That was 1974 and the House Judiciary Committee had already begun proceedings to impeach President Richard Nixon.  

     On Friday, April 12th, I was listening to part of Sean Hannity's radio show.  It's always productive to find out what lies the opposition is telling, and Hannity told a whopper.  He said it's "illegal" to release any grand jury testimony.  Hannity is wrong. It is not "illegal."  Dictionary.com defines "illegal" as "forbidden by law or statute."  If something is "forbidden," it should not be allowed.  Therefore, something cannot be considered "illegal" - or against the law - if a judge can circumvent that law with a stroke of a pen.  Others will debate my logic, but if a judge can ignore a law - specifically Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure - then such a law cannot be 100 percent "illegal."  If it was always "illegal" to release grand jury materials, then Congress would have never seen or heard such testimonies during Watergate.  

     But on Friday, April 5th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the case of McKeever v. Barr.  In a divided decision, the judges ruled that a district court does not have the inherent authority to release grand jury information. But there is a silver lining for Democrats, as there are provisions where Rule 6(e) can basically be tossed into the trash.  Barbara McQuade is a University of Michigan law professor, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, and a MSNBC legal analyst.  McQuade was interviewed by the online publication, WHO.WHAT.WHY. and she makes an optimistic observation that the House Judiciary Committee should still be able to obtain grand jury information.  Under legal rules that oversee the disclosure of grand jury materials, McQuade notes that elements from a grand jury can be shared with another grand jury or in connection with another judicial proceeding.  In 1974, in the case of Haldeman v. Sirica, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that it was lawful for the House Judiciary Committee to receive grand jury information because the committee was "acting as a grand jury in an impeachment proceeding."  McQuade also points out that the 2019 committee would not have to actually vote to impeach Donald Trump.  House Judiciary representatives have the "responsibility to impeach," so therefore those Members of Congress need access to grand jury materials before they can decide on moving forward with impeachment.  

     By Attorney General Barr giving a thumbs down to requesting a judge to release grand jury information and testimonies, that's all the ammunition Congressman Nadler needed to push him in to opening an impeachment inquiry in to Trump, which I believe is what's coming next.  And with a subpoena for the Mueller Report in his pocket, a judge is likely to grant the full, unredacted report to be given to Congress, including the secret grand jury materials.

     Meanwhile, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat from California, told 

MSNBC's Chris Hayes on his All In program on April 9th that getting the entire Mueller Report without any redactions is "priority" one for Democrats.  "We're going to insist on it.  We have the right to see that information...and, at the end of the day, there is a provision within the grand jury rules to provide that to Congress.  We have seen that provision used in the past.  We've seen the same Justice Department, just last year, decide that the interest of transparency outweigh the interest of third parties who were not indicted."  And Congressman Schiff firmly stated, "Our first priority is getting the fully, unredacted report...and I think it's most essential that the public get to see the product of Bob Mueller's work."

     As Attorney General Barr accused the Obama administration of "spying," Donald Trump catapulted his evil hate to a higher level on April 10th.  Trump's viciousness soared into the stratosphere when he called Mueller's investigation in to Russian interference in our 2016 election as "an attempted coup."  Trump told reporters outside The White House that "It was an illegal investigation.  It was started illegally. Everything about it was crooked.  Every single thing about it."  Trump continued with his vulgarity.  "This was an attempted take-down of a president and we beat them. We beat them.  So the Mueller Report, when they talk about obstruction, we fight back.  You know why we fight back?  Because I knew how illegal this whole thing was.  It was a scam."  And Trump's venom got even worse.  "What they did was treason.  What they did was terrible.  What they did was against our Constitution and everything we stand for." 

     Donald Trump is out of control.  To accuse Robert Mueller and his team of investigators of "treason" is beyond repugnant and beyond reprehensible.  There was nothing "illegal" about the Mueller probe.  It is exactly what our Founding Fathers would expect to be done when there are serious allegations that the president committed a crime.  But Donald Trump has gone off the deep end.  His explosive behavior is merely Trump thinking that if he is vile and wicked enough, he just might convince other voters - besides his base - that he, Trump, is an innocent victim... when in reality, he's the one who has actually broken the laws.  So let me clue you in, Donald.  When it comes to this investigation, you haven't beaten anybody yet... and my money is on Congress that you never will. 

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

     "We'll talk again." 

The Controversy is a publication of GBD Productions.  Founder and Editor-In-Chief of The Controversy is Gary B. Duglin.

Please express your personal opinions by following the instructions printed at the top of this column.  And thank you for reading The Controversy.

Photo credits: VIEWpress/Corbis/Getty Images (Donald Trump #1), The White House Archives (Former President Richard Nixon and Former White House Chief of Staff H. R. "Bob" Haldeman), Collection of the United States House of Representatives (Former Representative Barber Conable), The Republic (Former Senator Hugh Scott, Former Senator Barry Goldwater and Former Representative John Rhodes), The White House Archives (Former President Lyndon Baines Johnson), Richard Nixon Foundation (Former President Richard Nixon), Getty Images (Former President Gerald Ford), The Washington Post (Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward), Paisano Productions and the CBS Television Network (Raymond Burr as Perry Mason), Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call (Special Counsel Robert Mueller), Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images (Attorney General William Barr), C-SPAN Screenshot (Senator Jeanne Shaheen), Zach Gibson/Getty Images (Senator Brian Schatz), Arena Productions/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Television/NBC Television Network (Robert Vaughn as Napoleon Solo and David McCallum as Illya Kuryakin), NBC News Screenshot (Former President Barack Obama), Alexander Drago/Reuters (Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein), Kevin Lamarque/Reuters (Donald Trump #2), MSNBC Screenshot (Senator Chuck Schumer), J. Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press (Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi), Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images (Senator Jerry Moran), Lauren Victoria Burke/The Associated Press (Representative Jerry Nadler), The Associated Press (Former Judge John Sirica), MSNBC Screenshot (Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade), MSNBC Screenshot (Representative Adam Schiff), MSNBC Screenshot (Chris Hayes) and AFP (Donald Trump #3)

Copyright 2019 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net.  All Rights Reserved.