Jonathan Chait is also looking at America’s crookedest mayor.

New York Magazine

Rudy Giuliani is in an enormous amount of trouble. His two partners, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, have already been arrested, and Giuliani himself is under investigation. We learned last week that the investigation concerns his own potential profit. Over the last two days, a flood of leaks has detailed the potential crimes he may have committed. And today, the New York Times and Washington Post both have new stories about Giuliani pursuing business deals with Ukrainian government officials at the same time he was lobbying them on Trump’s behalf. All this misconduct is on top of the basic political shakedown Trump is getting impeached over. Some of the draft agreements Giuliani was trying to strike included deals for Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, two Republican lawyers close to Trump. There does not appear to be much room for Giuliani to deny any of these reports. His “discussions with Ukrainian officials proceeded far enough along that he prepared at least one retainer agreement, on his company letterhead, that he signed,” reports the Times.

While many media pundits have been at great pains to point out that, as Trump’s person attorney, Giuliani is protected by client-attorney privilege on his work in Ukraine, there is an out. Trump has been in a hurry over the last week to put some distance between himself and America’s mayor-who-got-kicked-out-of-the-mayor’s-mansion-for-cheating-on-his-cousin. Specifically, Trump has said he did not order Giuliani to go to Ukraine and find someone to make claims against Joe Biden. Trump is, of course, patently lying (you don’t have to look any further than his “perfect phone call” to see that), but toss a subpoena at Giuliani anyway. Trump can’t claim attorney privilege and claim that Giuliani wasn’t working for him at the same time.

Though of course he will, because neither paradox nor hypocrisy is a thing Republicans worry about.

The first and most important thing to understand about these deals is that there is no possible set of mitigating circumstances that might make the negotiations remotely ethical. Ukraine was and is desperate for the support of the American government, because it has been fending off a low-grade Russian invasion for years and fighting to maintain its territorial integrity against Vladimir Putin’s barely disguised ambition to swallow it back into the Russian empire. Trump has repeatedly urged Ukrainian officials — both through his intermediaries, and in a phone call with its president — to deal with Giuliani.

Charles Pierce of that incredibly discussion fusion of ICE and Trump University.

Esquire

Let’s say you’re a highly motivated immigrant kid from India who comes (legally) to Michigan. You want to study, say, computer science. So you run into another student from India who tells you about this place called the University of Farmington, where you can get your degree. The cost is relatively cheap as American colleges go: $12,000 a year, plus fees. This sounds great, you think. Then, one day, after you’ve paid your money, the gang from ICE shows up, busts you for immigration violations, keeps all the money you paid for your classes, and ships you back to India. Or, they offer you a chance to pitch this university to other people in your same situation, people who get deported later. Then you get busted for fraud and sent to jail. But at least you’re still in the United States for a while, so there’s that. Welcome to United States immigration policy in 2019….

If you haven’t read the original Detroit Free Press article on this, or the DailyKos coverage, I encourage you to do so now. There may not be any story over the last three years as slimy is this one. And that’s saying a helluva lot.

First, you convince some students that your university is real so you can bust them. Then you convince other students that they should help you recruit still other students for your university. Then you bust this second group of students and the people you entrapped to entrap them. Lovely. … Of course, the whole scam was set up as yet another vehicle to restrict immigration to this country, and to delegitimize programs already in place. In related news, you all are still paying Stephen Miller’s salary.

Evan Thomas on how much easier it was to remove Nixon than Trump.

Washington Post

On Aug. 7, 1974, Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona led a small delegation of GOP congressional leaders to the Oval Office to tell President Richard M. Nixon that he no longer had enough support to survive an impeachment trial in the Senate. Multiple books have replayed the storied moment: the curmudgeonly Goldwater sitting opposite the president’s desk; House Republican leader John Rhodes sitting to one side; Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott to the other. It became received wisdom that the trio’s visitation altered history. After all, Nixon announced his resignation the next day. In reality, Nixon didn’t need to be persuaded. When he met with Goldwater and Co., Nixon had already decided to resign (he was a good vote counter). The senators, as it turned out, never used the word “resign.” Instead, they told the president he had lost his party’s support. It’s true what they say about the Oval Office: Not even giant killers speak their minds in that haunted room.

Not that Trump would know, since he has stopped using the Oval Office and now engages in 24/7 Executive Time.

Nonetheless, we can wonder what it would take to make history, in effect, repeat itself. What would compel President Trump’s own party to show him the door? The answer, it appears, is nothing. The Republicans are even more dug in on Trump than they were on Nixon. It could happen — but only if congressional leaders are willing to risk a true constitutional crisis. ... If Democratic leaders are serious about convicting Trump of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” — as opposed to merely making a political statement — they need to embark on a longer, more arduous path. Investigators would have to subpoena all the witnesses and documents from a White House that would resist, claiming executive privilege and presidential immunity. The legal arguments would wend their way to the Supreme Court — slowly, very slowly, as Trump’s lawyers continue to resist and delay. But if the courts wish to, they can speed things up. That’s what happened 45 years ago. The Supreme Court decided United States v. Nixon in July 1974 after less than four months of legal jousting.

That is the decision ahead: Move this along fast, knowing that Republicans have already set up the Senate for a speedy “All Good” rubber stamp, or continue to make the case in the House. That second option looks tempting because it seems that every day more information comes out that confirms Trump’s actions against Ukraine and undermines the hastily erected Republican defense. But the calculus is far from cut and dry. Trump is guilty, yes. Will Republicans admit as much if the public gets another chance to see, in detail, both the testimony of the witnesses and the obstruction from the White House? There seems to be no evidence that a single Republican will be swayed by facts.

Leonard Pitts on how to fight back against evil actions being taken in all our names.

Miami Herald

Here in the season of festivity and light, it’s probably natural that we don’t think much about how it feels to be a child in a chainlink cage, a woman sleeping on concrete, a man denied soap, toothpaste and medicine. In the season of home for the holidays, who wants to be reminded of those who have no home to go to? Of those who are mistreated as a matter of policy by our government? And thus, by us. We are, in the best of circumstances, a nation of restless, fleeting attentions. And that is all the more true in this era where news bombards us and crises — constitutional, existential — have become routine. So who can be surprised if the images that dominated hearts and headlines just a few months ago — people jammed in pens, families torn apart, a little girl and her father face down in the Rio Grande — have largely receded from the forefront of our thoughts?

Anyone who ever wondered about how the citizens of any society, including World War II Germany, could have stood by while their nation’s engaged in actions that were clearly, intentionally, and outrageously evil, should have those questions cleared up by name. This is how you do it. This is how we do it. Every day, an hour at a time.

We have moved on. But the fact that refugees and immigrants are no longer in the news doesn’t mean they have gone away. It just means we no longer see them. Their plight has become wallpaper. If you find that unconscionable, especially in this country and especially in this season, there may be consolation in knowing that there are dozens of organizations fighting for them and that many could use your help. Here’s a random sampling:

Pitts calls for Americans to show their unwillingness to let these actions slide through donations — but not necessarily in the form of money. Go read the rest, there are almost certainly ways in which you can contribute to resisting evil that go beyond cutting a check.

And finally, here’s one last important opinion: All pie > Any cake.