On the political prosecutions you can't test a theory all the way to the SC if you don't have calls of political prosecution. Back in 2017, a guy, James Sherk, who worked in policy for the Trump administration came up with something called a Constitutional Option, a theory that presidents had immunity from official duties conducted in office. Like I said you can't test that theory without a prosecution. In my opinion though, this wasn't just about a president having immunity, and granting immunity to executive branch members. Which is what the SC ruling did. This protects them all, Trump, Fauci, Walsinky, Brix, etc., even big pharma members who engaged with executive branch members on the vaccines, none of those individuals can be compelled to testify against executive branch members unless they were to do so willingly or enough information was collected that showed an obvious egregious crime was committed.

That was just the heads of the executive branch in that ruling. The next up, the document case, will go as far as to declare that the employees under executive branch members, employees like the ones who would, say, carry around boxes at the behest of a head of an executive branch, also have immunity. The reason I say that is because of Edwin Meese's Amicus Curiae, which was suppose have been developed as a friend of the court brief during the immunity hearing, it wasn't because Trump and Jack Smith agreed to introduce it as a Writ. Which makes it it's own case to be heard sometime before the end of the SC session this year. Trump got it introduced but Smith had to agree to it. Now, from my understanding is that if it doesn't make the SC docket this year, the arguments within produced by Meese, get left standing. Within that document is an argument he puts forth that basically says, "to argue this point as Smith has produced it, would mean that anyone working within the executive branch has immunity". Meese, an esteemed fellow of National Heritage, of which National Heritage has had a canny way of influencing policy during different administrations, picks cases that have gone before the SC before to make his argument(s), and there's a reason for this in this particular case, and they termed it something to the nature of "updating precedents for today's times". I am telling you, they are a sticky wicked bunch, by the time it is all said and done for, everyone involved in the covid and vaccine scams will walk free, which is the real intent behind it all. No more propping up demented old men to play the fall guy.

This too, in my opinion, is why you seen the entry of Liz Chaney into politics in 2017, because gain of function research began under her father and George Bush on the corona virus. She had a self vested interest in promoting the political prosecution agenda, to protect her father. Not only that, but the reality is, is that the "in the knows" have to keep it within "in the knows", no better trusted currier than family.

Some of it you can just explain away like Boeing did after having admitted they lost billions on Trump's plane deal, it was to bolster his image as a great negotiator, same can be said for creating a Teflon Don image.

You have to remember also, or keep in mind, none of this works unless everyone hates on Trump. Michael Moore, who I've written about, and am convinced he came up with the initial script on all this, which by the way has turned out to be pretty accurate, coined "They see the elites who ruined their lives hate Trump, wall street hates Trump, corporate America hates Trump, the career politicians hate Trump, the media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him and now hate him. Thank you media. The enemy of my enemy is who I am voting for on November 8th."

You should really read my op: Giving Them What They Want, you'll see that Trump's just taking us admittingly just like Moore, to what the two call "the promised land".
@sunlit7/giving-them-what-they-want