If the last book I reviewed, Condemned, by Keith Lamar, laments how poor, black and other minorities get the short end of the stick as far as the criminal justice system goes in the U.S., Untouchable clearly demonstrates the exact opposite. Author Elie Honig, a former US prosecutor for the Southern District of New York and CNN senior legal analyst details how powerful people often shield themselves effectively from criminal prosecution, even when they are clearly guilty as sin. Honig shifts between focusing on some of the mob bosses and underlings he went after and Donald J. Trump. Not surprisingly, many of the tactics and built in defenses, are exactly the same. Each of his chapters demonstrates a slightly different defense that protects the most powerful, typically those at the very top of the criminal enterprise, like the Don or Mafia head, as well as the president of the United States. For example chapter one, "Do What You Have to Do" demonstrates that a kingpin need not be specific to be understood and this complicates matters for prosecutors who may lack a smoking gun. This theme is picked up in a later chapter - Say it Without Saying it. Other chapters discuss how lawyers that represent underlings often serve the Godfather, the impossibly high cost of legal representation that favors the rich over everyone else, how difficult it is to go after those at the apex of an organization as opposed to those at the lowest levels (to get the guy at the top you have to flip a lot of underlings), fear among jurors and others in the family, Omerta or enforcing silence, individual and systemic biases, among other factors. It is a fascinating litany. And when Honig focuses on Trump, you see how the office of the presidency offers even more advantages. Untouchable came out before Trump was eventually indicted. But even so, Honig is not optimistic of Trump's chances of being convicted. He feels that both Fani Willis and Merrick Garland waited much too long and squandered some early advantages. Honig is an excellent lawyer and analyst and I don't doubt he may be correct, as much as I wish he were not. ( )