Rosenstein's Attempts to Appease President

It is widely believed that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has acceded to the demands of President Trump, to investigate the president's investigators, and of House Republicans, for disclosure of classified documents, in order to preserve his job and, thus, buy time for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to complete his inquiry. The expectation is that Mr. Mueller's findings will result in an indictment or report that will bring an end to the Trump presidency.

The concern is that by complying with those outrageous demands Mr. Rosenstein will have compromised the independence of the Justice Department and the sanctity of the investigative process. That outcome would damage bedrock principles of our democracy beyond repair.

This  Hobson's choice, between surrender or ouster, has been foisted upon Mr. Rosenstein by the cowardice or complicity of congressional Republicans.

Cutting Gun Crime in Chicago

The pro-gun lobby is fond of citing Chicago as a city with tough gun laws that, nevertheless, is awash in gun-related deaths. The message; tough gun control laws are ineffective. As the NYTimes reports (5/11/2018, A17) the Justice Department is using Chicago as a model in an effort to cut gun crime. A goal of that effort is to stem trafficking in firearms from other states, such as Arkansas, into Illinois. What this demonstrates is that tough gun laws in one city cannot be effective if many other cities in the country have lax rules and, thus, serve as open markets for weapons that are then funneled nation-wide into places with strict control.

The solution is obvious. Gun-related crimes can be reduced only if there is put in place a national policy that restricts the easy availability of guns everywhere in the nation.

Mueller's Questions for Trump

After reviewing the list of questions that Special Counsel Mueller purportedly wants to ask President Trump, as reported by the NYTimes, Sean Hannity castigated Mr.Mueller for delving into the thought process of the president. How, Mr. Hannity demanded to know, can one be criminally punished for what he is thinking?  Such inquiry is outrageous, said Hannity. What Mr. Hannity does not seem to realize, or chooses to ignore, is that a person's intent is almost always a required element of a crime. Thus, while President Trump may have been empowered to fire FBI Director James Comey, that action may constitute the crime of obstruction if it was corruptly motivated (i.e. intended to thwart an ongoing investigation).

One time-honored way, among several, to discern a person's intent is to ask him what he was thinking when he took the suspect action. Of course, given Mr. Trump's patent disregard for truth, Mr. Mueller would be well-advised to assess intent from what the president said to others about the reason for his action (eg, to the Russian ambassador and to Lester Holt of NBC) and by examining other relevant circumstances from which intent may be inferred.