Skip to main content

We’re all waiting for a verdict in the Sussmann trial, the big question being: Is it possible to convict a Dem in DC? BREAKING: NOT GUILTY

 Mark Wauck reported:

But now on to the news of the day. We’re all waiting for a verdict in the Sussmann trial, the big question being: Is it possible to convict a Dem in DC?

BREAKING: NOT GUILTY. So, that question has been answered—to not many people’s surprise, given the outrageous jury makeup. Jonathan Turley comments:

Sussmann was found not guilty. Many of us viewed the evidence as overwhelming. Yet, the jury either believed he did not lie or that the lie was not material.

Below is my column in The Hill on the Sussmann trial and the striking comparisons with prior prosecutions of Trump officials like Michael Flynn. The court has limited the evidence available to the…

...The judge imposed limitations on the scope of evidence and examinations in the case. Those orders prevent prosecutors from showing more about the development of this false claim and the role of the campaign.

...The Durham team was hit with limiting court orders and a jury that was hardly ideal. The limitations on this trial only reinforces the need for a Special Counsel report.

What else is there to say?

We’re also waiting for SCOTUS decisions on abortion and gun laws.

In the meantime, the political buzz is about the total disarray of the Zhou regime—something pretty much the whole world has been aware of from day one. The buzz for today was caused by an NBC article that runs along the lines that Red State sketches out:

Civil War Explodes in the White House as the Rush to Absolve Joe Biden of All His Failures Commences

For well over a year, the open civil war within the Democratic Party has been impossible to dismiss. There have been direct conflicts between the progressive caucus and the so-called “moderates” within the party, with the latter desperately trying to hang on in their swing districts.

Yeah, no sh*t. And as if open civil war within the Dem party weren’t great enough, Nan Pelosi’s husband was—against all odds, and after a four hour delay—arrested for over imbibing his own product, driving through a stop sign and hitting another car in the oncoming lane. While driving a non-electric vehicle, a Porsche no less.

That hasn’t slowed down Nan’s devoutly Catholic war on anti-abortion bishes. Gotta luv the intro to Raymond Arroyo’s explanation—the girl says, Raymond, a lot of people don’t understand how things work in the Catholic church. Another no sh*t moment! I call that the Conciliar church, btw, but your preferences may vary. One way or another, I doubt Nan’s holy war will gain any more traction than other Dem holy wars—like, on guns, on people who disagree with them, etc.

But back to the White House!

The link above provides the standard take—that it’s all rather baffling and that nobody is more baffled about it all than Zhou himself. But Joe Cunningham, also at Red State, has dredged up an old Politico that puts a bit of spin on things that’s more explanatory. The question as Cunningham frames it is:

Who Really Is the President?

And he turns to Politico to provide what seems to be a cogent answer. Given that personnel is policy, it follows out that the person appointing people to policy decision making positions in the Zhou regime must be the real president. And, according to Politico, that person is Liz Warren.

Here’s the situation that we’re all aware of:

In its detailed report, NBC News paints a picture of a President who has little to no control over the office and a staff dead set on making sure its agenda is the President’s focus rather than the other way around.

As my colleague Bonchie mentioned earlier this morning, part of the news report seems fixated on absolving Biden of the mistakes of his administration. However, it could be that something much more nefarious is afoot. It’s not that Biden isn’t at fault, but that Biden isn’t in control of his own policies, having shopped most of the work out to staffers from among the far left.

And here’s the explanation:

If Biden is not in control of his administration, and if his Chief of Staff is incapable of keeping things together, then who is actually in charge?

As it turns out, POLITICO may have given us that answer back in March.

Warren’s expanding network in the upper echelons of the administration includes protégés who helped execute her aggressive oversight of big banks and other corporations as well as friends who share her views of the risks looming on Wall Street. But it goes beyond finance, covering pivotal posts at the Department of Education and even the National Security Council.

“The Warren recruits mark a victory for the progressive movement, which has supported her years long “personnel is policy” campaign to chip away at the dominance of corporate insiders in setting policy for Democrats. Those who took on the fight with Warren say they’re pleasantly surprised it has produced so many results under Biden, reflecting a new emphasis on inequality and challenging corporate power. Industry lobbyists, in turn, warn that banks, private equity firms and consumer lenders should pay close attention.

The Biden administration has basically contracted its staffing out to Elizabeth Warren (and, very likely, other far-left politicians). As a result, a lot of policies Elizabeth Warren and the gang love are actually getting pushed by this administration.

What happened is that Biden had to make concessions to the left when he came into office to try and prevent a civil war from breaking out within his own party. So, his team has been allowing Warren staffers to come over and take pivotal roles in the administration. It’s probably not just Warren, either, but that’s the one group of far-left acolytes we know through reports have come aboard.

The Politico article paints a picture of Warren and her gang challenging “corporate power” and “industry lobbyists” but, while I find the general explanation—Zhou had to concede personnel decisions, and therefore policy decisions, to the far Left—the idea that this amounts to a challenge to “corporate power” seems more of a figment of Politico’s and Warren’s imagination. I mean, Pfizer, Moderna? Moreover, I just don’t see most of the failures that are reflected in Zhou’s abysmal approval ratings—crime, border security, inflation, supply chains, craziness in schools and pretty much everywhere, and so forth—resulting from the regime getting tough on corporate bigwigs.

Perhaps getting tough on corporations was the original idea, maybe Warren thought that was what she was doing. But, if so, it appears that everything has gotten totally out of hand because the totally woke have taken over the levers of government. Those are the people on the warpath (haha! Fauxcahontas!) against normals, which is the overriding reality of America today. Corporate welfare seems largely unaffected, if affected at all—just look at corporate bottom lines.


If you liked this post from Meaning In History, why not share it?


Mark Wauck


Popular posts from this blog

Bioweapons Expert Dr. Francis Boyle On Coronavirus

March 13, 2020     : A recent interview with Bioweapons expert Dr. Francis Boyle published by GreatGameIndia and conducted by Geopolitics & Empire , has been exploding across the world the past few days as the truth is emerging on the origins of the Coronavirus Bioweapon . Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush... ... Dr. Francis Boyle:   All these BSL-4 labs are by United States, Europe, Russia, China, Israel are all there to research, develop, test biological warfare agents.  There’s really no legitimate scientific reas

Former advisor to Sec. of Defense, Col. Douglas MacGregor: "the next phase of the Ukrainian War will not only destroy the Ukrainian state. It will also demolish the last vestiges of the postwar liberal order"

Macgregor appears to cite intel sources for his numbers and timetable—and I assume he really does have good sources. He says the offensive will happen “not sooner than 12/10 and not later than 12/19.” It will involve something like 540,000 troops with 1,500 tanks, thousands of other armored vehicles, huge numbers of helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, and bombers. These are numbers he says that have been confirmed by US intel. - Mark Wauck [] Modern Diplomacy reports that  "Douglas Macgregor , Col. (ret.), who was the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration" says that  "the next phase of the Ukrainian War will not only destroy the Ukrainian state. It will also demolish the last vestiges of the postwar liberal order": The Biden administration repeated

Mainstream Media: "Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?" & "Biden's arrogant anti-Russian sanctions have amounted to a price hike on working class Americans that have so far failed to weaken the Russian economy"

  Mainstream Media Acknowledges Biden’s “Arrogant” Sanctions On Russia Are Damning Americans:     @MaxBlumenthal Biden's arrogant anti-Russian sanctions have amounted to a price hike on working class Americans that have so far failed to weaken the Russian economy. His neocon policy accelerates the process of de-dollarization, diplomatic isolation & imperial decline. The mainstream new outlet asked "Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?": Remember the claims that Russia’s economy was more or less irrelevant, merely the equivalent of a small, not very impressive European country? “Putin, who has an economy the size of Italy,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea, “[is] playing a poker game with a pair of twos and winning.” Of increasing Russian diplomatic and geopolitical influence in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, The Economist asked in 2019, “How did a country with an economy the size of Spain … ach