Supreme Court Janus Ruling

When the Supreme Court, in Citizens United, opened the floodgates for corporate money to dominate American politics, the cop out was that unions also benefitted and would be free to counter corporate influence with their own large war chests. Now the court has wiped away even that illusory solace. In its latest ruling, Janus v. AFSCME, the court has struck the death knell of unions, at least in the public sector, by holding that non-union workers may not be required to pay their reduced share of the costs of the unions' core activities (especially collective bargaining) even though those workers get all the benefits won by the unions and their contributions may not be used to support the unions' political activities. 

The likely effect of this reversal of long-followed precedent by the court's slim conservative majority will be to cause unions to drastically shrink or even disappear, leaving the field of political funding to the corporate beneficiaries of Citizens United.

Fruit of the Poison Tree Scam

Opinion writers at the Wall Street Journal have invoked the legal doctrine known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" to discredit the Mueller investigation. They argue that, because an FBI agent who was in on the initiation of a probe into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign has been shown to have had a strong aversion to Donald Trump, the entire investigation, including the current version headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is tainted and any findings made or actions taken will be inadmissible and of no legal weight.
Patently, those editorial writers either failed to consult knowledgeable lawyers or received very bad legal advice. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was created by courts to prevent and deter police and prosecutors from using evidence that would not have been discovered but for a seminal violation of an offender's constitutional rights.
Even if the investigation into Trump-Russia collusion originated from improper motives, a highly doubtful claim, the subsequent discovery of incriminating evidence by that investigation is, nevertheless, admissible provided it was not illegally obtained, i.e. did not flow from a violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.
Since the argument has no legal merit, it would seem to be part of an orchestrated campaign to politically undermine any findings that may be adverse to the Trump campaign.

Fruit of the Poison Tree Scam

Opinion writers at the Wall Street Journal have invoked the legal doctrine known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" to discredit the Mueller investigation. They argue that, because an FBI agent who was in on the initiation of a probe into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign has been shown to have had a strong aversion to Donald Trump, the entire investigation, including the current version headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is tainted and any findings made or actions taken will be inadmissible and of no legal weight.
Patently, those editorial writers either failed to consult knowledgeable lawyers or received very bad legal advice. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was created by courts to prevent and deter police and prosecutors from using evidence that would not have been discovered but for a seminal violation of an offender's constitutional rights.
Even if the investigation into Trump-Russia collusion originated from improper motives, a highly doubtful claim, the subsequent discovery of incriminating evidence by that investigation is, nevertheless, admissible provided it was not illegally obtained, i.e. did not flow from a violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.
Since the argument has no legal merit, it would seem to be part of an orchestrated campaign to politically undermine any findings that may be adverse to the Trump campaign.

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.

House Committee Sham Report

Surprise, surprise! The Republican majority of the House Intelligence Committee, headed by that intrepid investigator Devon Nunes, has concluded its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election by issuing a report which finds no evidence  that the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow.

To reach this warped result, the Republican committee members were required to ignore facts, curtail inquiry, leave key witnesses unexamined, essential documents unprocured and to leap from unwarranted assumptions to a foregone conclusion.

Presumably, this rush to rash judgment will not deter the real investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Mueller, an investigation likely to end with a very different outcome.