A quote by Adam Smith:

"Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."

Protection and Cover-Up Racket

The Republican Party has signed on to protect and to cover-up the crimes of Donald Trump. If they can steal the next election, they will. From the bottom to the top, their goal is to protect Donald Trump and to ignore any and all crimes he may have committed. Why?

Because they believe Joe Biden and the "progressive agenda" are worse than a criminal and a sociopathic dictator. Their propaganda machine has been very effective.

There is no logic or reason to their thinking. There is no communicating with them. It is a battle for the soul of America. We can fight them at the polls or we can fight them in the streets. Everyone should vote, or America may change in a very dramatic fashion.

What is your grade for the Supreme Court? (poll)

Why Trump is not attacking Pecker?

Because Pecker has a lot more evidence on Trump that he is not talking about. If he were to open up, it would be devastating for Trump.

Trump is very happy with what has been made public up to this point, in my opinion.

Because, he does not attack those that support him or those that can be of benefit to him or those that can possibly compromise him.

He attacks those that are not on his side or those that are in a position to threaten him in the future.

I have a hunch that Pecker has done a lot of favors for Trump that have not been reported?

Personal actions vs official actions?

This seems to be the thrust of Trump's entire defense.

Surely, it was a "personal" decision to sit for 3 hours and do nothing as insurrectionists were attacking our Capitol?

If he had ordered the National Guard to shoot to kill, and 200 of the rioters had been killed, then that would have been an "official" decision?

Surely it was an "official" decision when he ordered his people to make fraudulent ballots to try and steal an election, since he was still President at the time?

Of course, it would have been a private, "personal" decision to pay off people before the election because he was still a private citizen when the decision was made. It was not an "official" action.

In reality, it is nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters and confuse any jurors that might be asked to judge his actions.

In an attempt to justify his criminal actions, he wants people to divide them into private vs official duties of the President. If they were private or personal action, then they are not important to any criminal investigation. If the crimes were committed while he was president, then he is immune from any prosecution, because they were all part of his official duties.

Confused yet?

Supreme Court wanted to talk about a "hypothetical" case...

They did not want to talk about the Trump case specifically.

At one time, Justice Alito said he did not want to talk about those specific facts brought up by the prosecution lawyer, but another imaginary case. What would keep every President after Trump from prosecuting their predecessor, he wanted to know?

None of the conservative Justices wanted to address the crimes of Donald Trump, although Amy Coney Barrett did get in a useful line of questioning at one time for the Trump lawyer.

Over-all, they appeared out of touch with reality. They offered no reason for people to be confident or optimistic that they would do anything that was not helpful to Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

Maybe they were just trying to keep on the good side of Trump. After all, they are in no rush to offer any guidance or judgement.

The Supreme Court looked like it was playing to an audience of one.

Just like the Republicans in the House and Senate.

Have we lost the Supreme Court? Have they become part of the cult?

The country truly needed them. But they do not seem to have the patriotic fervor to defend our democracy. They do not realize that they are voting for themselves to become puppets.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,..."

We should note where they placed "justice" in the Preamble.

The US Supreme Court is broken.

Enjoy this "hush money" trial, because there probably will not be another.

David Pecker is sleazy. He is only talking enough to keep himself out of jail. He made a deal. Hopefully no one will try to portray him as an honest broker.

When Michael Cohen comes up to testify, they will probably slice and dice him every which way from Sunday. They will massacre him.

Nobody knows what the jury is taking from this, but we should not be surprised if there is a hung jury at the end.

The Supreme Court and other "Judges" are making sure that Trump is able to delay his other trials until after the election, and then, they may all disappear.

Enjoy this charade. It may be all that we get?

The people are so numb, nothing shocks them anymore, not even the Supreme Court.

Everything is accepted as normal, if it comes from Trump or his lawyers. Murder? Violent coup? Stealing nuclear secrets? Nothing matters anymore. They are dead and incapable of thinking.

They can ignore the truth but they cannot ignore the consequences of the truth.

The Supreme Court is caught up in the chaos and confusion...

They seem to be talking to just hear themselves talk.

They sit there in total seriousness as Trump's lawyer argues for absolute immunity. They ponder the legitimacy of the lawyer's responses as he tells them that no president will ever be able to act boldly again, for fear of being held criminally responsible for his actions.

Yes, it is part of the official duties of a president if he sells nuclear secrets to a foreign enemy. It is part of his official duties if he gets his military to assassinate his political rivals. It is OK to lead a coup to overthrow our government. It is part of his official duties to lead a fraudulent effort to put fake ballots in front of the Congress and the National Archives, in order to say he won the election.

And yet, most of them sit there enthralled by the possibility and reasonableness of the lawyer's ridiculous and insane claims.

They have lost their minds. How do they continue with this charade? Why do they act as if this is a serious question for them to rule upon?