The Democrats’ special impeachment counsel on the House Judiciary Committee lays out President Trump’s shocking pattern of betrayals, lies, and high crimes, arguing articles of impeachment to the ultimate judges: the American people. In his behind-the-scenes account of the attempts to bring the president to justice—from filing the very first legal actions against him, through the Mueller report, to the turbulent impeachment and trial, to the president’s ongoing wrongdoing today—Norman Eisen, at the forefront of the battle since the day of Trump’s inauguration, pulls back the curtain on the process. He reveals ten proposed articles of impeachment, not just the two that were publicly tried, all of which he had a hand in drafting. He then guides us through Trump’s lifelong instincts that have dictated his presidency: a cycle of abuse, corruption, and relentless obstruction of the truth. Since taking the oath of office, Donald Trump has been on a spree of high crimes and misdemeanors, using the awesome power of the presidency for his own personal gain, at the expense of the American people. He has inflamed our divisions for his electoral benefit, with flagrant disregard for the Constitution that makes us America. Each step of the way, he has lied incessantly, including to cover up his crimes. And yet he remains in the country’s highest office. Congress, federal and state prosecutors, and courts have worked to hold the president accountable for his myriad offenses—with some surprising successes and devastating failures. Eisen, who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for Trump’s impeachment and trial, presents the case against Trump anew. Eisen’s gripping narrative and rousing closing argument—at turns revelatory, insightful, and enraging—will inspire our nation of judges. History has proven that this president’s nefarious behavior will continue, no matter the crisis. But, as Eisen’s candid retelling affirms, there is an ultimate constitutional power that transcends the president’s, a power that can and must defeat him if our nation is to survive. The verdict of the American people remains in the balance. It is time for us to act.

Considers legislation to eliminate tax exemptions for deferred income and reserves for estimated expenses.

One of the most-followed antitrust cases of recent times—United States v. Apple—reveals an often-missed truth: what Americans most fear is competition itself. In 2012 the Department of Justice accused Apple and five book publishers of conspiring to fix ebook prices. The evidence overwhelmingly showed an unadorned price-fixing conspiracy that cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet before, during, and after the trial millions of Americans sided with the defendants. Pundits on the left and right condemned the government for its decision to sue, decrying Amazon’s market share, railing against a new high-tech economy, and rallying to defend beloved authors and publishers. For many, Amazon was the one that should have been put on trial. But why? One fact went unrecognized and unreckoned with: in practice, Americans have long been ambivalent about competition. Chris Sagers, a renowned antitrust expert, meticulously pulls apart the misunderstandings and exaggerations that industries as diverse as mom-and-pop grocers and producers of cast-iron sewer pipes have cited to justify colluding to forestall competition. In each of these cases, antitrust law, a time-honored vehicle to promote competition, is put on the defensive. Herein lies the real insight of United States v. Apple. If we desire competition as a policy, we must make peace with its sometimes rough consequences. As bruising as markets in their ordinary operation often seem, letting market forces play out has almost always benefited the consumer. United States v. Apple shows why supporting cases that protect price competition, even when doing so hurts some of us, is crucial if antitrust law is to protect and maintain markets.

At a time when the hottest issue in US immigration law is the proposed action by President Obama to protect from deportation as many as 5 million illegals in the United States, the 1972 John Lennon deportation case takes on special relevance today, notwithstanding the passage of forty years since he was placed in deportation proceedings.For the first time, noted New York immigration attorney Leon Wildes tells the incredible story of this landmark case John Lennon vs. The U.S.A. -- that set up a battle of wills between John Lennon, Yoko Ono, and President Richard Nixon. Although Wildes did not even know who John Lennon and Yoko Ono were when he was originally retained by them, he developed a close relationship with them both during the eventual five-year period while he represented them and thereafter. This is their incredible story."