There’s a lot of hand-wringing going on over the idea Donald Trump’s response to some federal court orders has put us in a soup called “constitutional crisis.”  Well the soup may soon be heated up and served, but so far it’s still in Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s can.  Trump hasn’t spit in the eye of a judge yet, he’s more or less playing by the rules.  If he gets a “NO” from SCOTUS in a case and ignores them, yes, we’ll be in hot water (and Trump will probably in a trifecta – three impeachments! – and this time might be convicted).  But not yet, so everybody should take a chill pill.

Some Americans are suffering from a severe case of premature pearl-clutching.  Donald Trump may at some point trigger a constitutional crisis by defying federal court orders.  But, that hasn’t happened yet, so his critics may fall prey to “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” syndrome.  Plus, a California jury is struggling with its verdict in the case of a judge who shot his wife to death after she dared him to pull the trigger.  After the shooting he texted his bailiff to say he wouldn’t be in court the next day – he’ll be in custody.

The “trial of the century” resulted in “the worst jury verdict of the century.”  How did it happen?  What better source to consult than Marcia Clark, the lead prosecutor.  Why did a downtown LA jury vote for OJ?  And, did the DA’s office blow the case by insisting that the trial be held in downtown LA, instead of a courthouse in West LA, where the crime occurred?  Clark’s answers may shock you.

This year is the 30th anniversary of the not guilty verdict in O.J. Simpson’s murder case.  How did a guy facing overwhelming evidence of guilt beat the rap?

In this report you’ll learn how the Los Angeles County DA had a sure win if he’d just chosen to try the case in West Los Angeles, where the crime occurred.

 Instead, overconfidence and a desire for a conviction by a diverse jury led the DA to commit a colossal blunder.

Are we in for the ultimate in irony?  Biden pardons himself, after Dems blasted a presidential self-pardon as illegal?  And if he DOESN’T pardon himself and Trump’s DOJ indicts him, he relies on SCOTUS’ “presidential immunity” decision, after Dems blasted it as wrong-headed?

Plus, Canada as our 51st state is a stretch – but maybe Denmark wants to unload Greenland.  Looks like we’d need to pay a cool $1 trillion.  That’d buy a lot of pastries.

Gloria Allread is back, and – shocker – she’s angry! Her client was bounced off a Delta flight for trying to soar braless. 

Gloria’s got us thinking:  Why are guys the only ones can stroll around topless in public?   San Francisco has experimented with dropping its anti-nudity ordinance – should we give that a try?  Or should we just face facts, our society considers women’s breasts to be sex objects – manboobs, not so much.

Just when we thought toxic partisanship couldn’t get any worse, we have an epidemic of people saying, “Yes, but . . . .”  Yes, executing business executives is bad, BUT my goodness folks are frustrated over the handling of health insurance claims.  Really?  How about no ifs, ands or buts:  Murder is inexcusable.  Maybe we all agree on that, full stop.  Then, pick another day to talk about how to reform the health care system.

Who doesn’t have compassion for Joe Biden – he loses one son to cancer, then almost loses another one to addiction and prison.  But a TEN-YEAR PARDON, the start of which was 90 days before Hunter joined the Burisma board?

And, does this guarantee Trump will pardon all 645 people sentenced for January 6 crimes?

 It’s the season for happy criminal defendants!  Jussie Smollett’s conviction was tossed because prosecutors failed to honor deal.  Jack Smith threw in the towel on TrumpLaw.  And the Menendez Brothers hope they’ll be walking free in January.

Hey they’ve got seven weeks before the GOP takes over the White House and the Senate. Dems are saying we can do this – Sotomayor quits, Biden nominates a replacement, and the Dem-controlled Senate installs her before January.

One possible catch:  SHE MAY NOT BE READY TO RETIRE.  Biden’s likely response:  Uh, you do remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg, right?  DO YOU WANT THE CONSERVATIVES TO HAVE A 7-2 MAJORITY??