You said it yourself a few months back when that German guy, I forget his name right off the bat, was doing a trail run video of testimony, or something of that nature, like he was before the court. I think I asked if that was real, or finally getting somewhere, and you replied it was never going to go anywhere despite them doing a documentary of the evidence they'd collected.
No, what I was getting on about, was you thinking they were destroying evidence deliberately, they weren't. They were trying to create demand for the upcoming "vaccine" season. You probably seen where some tiny place USA's health department came out and said they weren't going to provide covid vaccines anymore, one, the demand isn't there for them, and two, providing the vaccines to them was essentially saying they endorsed the safety of the vaccine. With the latter half of that being huge, even from a tiny little community to admit.

That's the way it's been for quite some time, the demand is dwindling leaving them with overstock. The gimmick is to come up a new variant that creates demand as those still taking them aren't going to get vaccinated again for the same variant. Doesn't matter here what the ICC says, look at Israel and Gaza as an example and the outcome over the arrest warrants. The US doesn't participate, and they threatened to sanction them, the US just threatened to crush the countries who voted for the warrants.
Here, now, thanks to Trump's political prosecution calls, they all have immunity. Every single one of them. Funny how that was the only case that ended up thus far being heard by the supreme court. The one that would give them "all" immunity from prosecution, the entire executive branch. It was never about presidential immunity, especially given how Trump was presenting the case, he based his case on that only congress through impeachment can prosecute a president. If that were the case, the SC would have agreed, but that's not what they were getting at. Not in the form of how James Sherk's constitutional option was first presented as a theory that presidents have immunity from prosecution in 2017 working as an advisor to Trump. They wanted to test that theory. It was not noted in any of the articles I read involving James Sherks he was basing that on congress being the only one's who can prosecute a president through impeachment but that's the argument they gave to get it to the SC. No one was even aware of the basis of the argument until one of the SC justices brought it to light. I can't repeat word for word what he said without having to go look, but it's in the judgement and narrowing it down it basically just means it was to far a stretch. It went from being focused on presidential immunity to conduct between executive branch members and the need not to impair the function of executive branch members by threats of prosecution. There will be exigencies, way to many to list, that can result in the prosecution of executive branch members, if they are found to be egregious acts conducted outside the authority of the executive branch. First, though, they have to build a strong enough case, and in building that case they can't use any private discussions on the matter, or be forced to turn over documents, or compelled to testify. Neither can anyone else outside the executive branch who worked with them, they all have immunity from prosecution unless an obvious, egregious crime(s) took place that the evidence collected presents a compelling case that a crime was committed by executive branch members outside the authority they hold. Then and only then can they be compelled to turn over documents/discussions and be compelled to testify. So if no one talks, they all walk, every last one of them. All the way back to the Bush family to the finality. Including Dick Cheney, and I say that because the reality is that Liz Cheney wasn't having some kind of mid life crisis and wanted to go into politics, her entry into politics coincided with the discussion back in 2017 when they found themselves discussing the matter. Her abrupt exit wasn't really because Trump took her down, it was because her job was done. She had just as much a compelling reason to get these political prosecutions calls going to get it to the SC as Trump did, she wanted to protect her dad, and in doing so, she was the only trusted viable means of communication between what was about to transpire back to the Bush/Cheney family.

You guys are so horrible at connecting the dots, I have to do all this work for you to shed the light, but you get all the pay and high glory while you grant me a penny pittance.