Trump is not guilty of the trumped up charges
Even if he were, I think people are starting to notice the following oddities:
The E. Jean Caroll Case
Its odd to claim that saying you didn't rape someone is defamation. Its odder still to award the plaintiff 100m dollars.
The Property Valuation Case
Its odd to for the state to claim that you committed fraud while the supposed victims allege no such thing. Its odder still to impose a judgment of half a billion when the obscure execute order that the case rested on called for administrative fines.
The Georgia RICO Case
Its odd to bring a RICO case on events that occurred only once (patterns of behavior being the basis of RICO statutes). Its odder still that your supposed role in all this was something the the WashintonPost retracted the story for.
The Hush Money Case
Its odd that the prosecution managed to turn misdemeanor book keeping crimes in 30 felonies. Its odder still that your the only guy on trial for paying a former mistress with your own damn money.
The Classified Documents Case
Its odd that the government always knew where the documents were the whole time and that the GSA shipped you the documents in question. Its odder still this is the first time the National Archives got law enforcement involved when they always have a fight with outgoing Presidents over document possession.
The Jan 6th Case
To be honest, I haven't even looked at this one. But its odd that neither Trump nor any of the peons crushed by the DoJ have been charged with insurrection, given that is what is alleged to have happened.
Would you know the source of the info in the screen shots? Testimony in court? By who?
They were warned that even moderates would start to see the selective and sloppy prosecutions as politically motivated. They were warned that people would place the blame for weaponizing the justices system at the feet of the DNC/progressives. They were warned that people are not quite as dumb as journalists think they are. So. What exactly did they expect?
Harsh Mistress mini series
I'm surprised this hasn't been done before. On the surface its about polyamorous commies fighting the man, you'd think that would probably get some attention on Hollywood writing rooms.
"Have Spacesuit - Will Travel" should be added to to list for anyone who likes Heinlein. Its about a boy who refurbished an old spacesuit as part of his fascination with spaceflight and is subsequently abducted by aliens. The suit comes in handy.
In fiction: The Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brien. A series of stories about a British naval captain and his best friend during the Napoleonic era. "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" was based on these books, and if you enjoyed the movie at all I highly recommend the books. A few things that set it apart from the movie is the constant peppering of both dry and absurd humor and that Dr. Maturin's character is far more developed. If you're into audiobooks the recordings by Patrick Tull are so good as to elevate the material, a good option for commuting or as an alternative to screen time.
The Brother Cadfael Mysteries by Ellis Peters. A rather comfy murder mystery series set during 12th century England about a Benedictine monk figuring out who done it. Amusingly because Peters wound up writing about of dozen of the books, its hard not to wonder if the little town its set in was not the murder capital of Europe ate the time, a common problem with mystery series.
In nonfiction: The Last Superstition by Edward Feser. A response to the 'New Atheist' movement (Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, et al.). I'm a friendly audience, but there is a great deal to be learned even is Feser is preaching to the converted, as it were. One odd thing if someone picks it up as a skeptic: skip the first chapter. Fesser attempts to imitate the snarky style of the New Atheists in the first chapter but doesn't really have the chops for it, and he cops to this in the chapter itself. Unless of course your an Atheist and still like to see someone crap on the likes of Dawkins or Hitchens anyways.
The military has, for more than a century, utilized standardized aptitude testing and IQ tests because they know damn well that below a certain point a soldier is more a a liability than an asset. And they know no amount of training will change this. I believe that there is a law that prohibits inducting anyone with an IQ below 82. Of course they don't IQ test anymore. This will be a disaster.
Edit: Double checked my statement and the law bit seems incorrect. I got this from J Peterson ("fact checkers" did the 'he is essentially but not technically correct bit'). His point that below a certain point of intelligence the military knows from long experience that such people are not useful and probably damaging still stands.