What the January 6 Committee Hearings Won’t Cover

A sham congressional committee working with a corrupt Justice Department boosted by a dishonest national media can only be expected to create political propaganda.

by Julie Kelly reporting for American Greatness

U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) promises the January 6 Select committee hearings “will tell a story that will blow the roof of the House.” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) insists the committee’s “job is to tell the truth.” Turncoat Republican Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) claims her fellow committee members will be “focused on facts, not rhetoric, and we will present those facts without exaggeration, no matter what criticism we face.” 

After a year of unrestrained investigation led by seasoned federal prosecutors who interrogated at least 1,000 witnesses and collected hundreds of thousands of documents including records once considered privileged material, the committee will present its findings to the American people beginning with a much-hyped primetime hearing Thursday night. Their bottom-line task is to convince the public that Trump led a “coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election,” according to a committee tweet last week. 

To spark interest in the hearing, the committee has hired, at taxpayer expense, a veteran television producer to create a “blockbuster investigative special” featuring clips of the protest and witness interviews.

Democrats hope “chilling” revelations about the four-hour disturbance at the Capitol more than 17 months ago will prevent an electoral bloodbath for the party this November. Collaboration between Congress and Joe Biden’s Justice Department has resulted in contempt charges against Trump confidants Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon; meanwhile, Biden’s handpicked U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has criminally indicted more than 800 Americans for protesting Biden’s election on January 6.

On the same day last week, FBI agents arrested Navarro in public at a D.C. airport and arrested two men from Florida on charges of civil disorder and three misdemeanors related to the Capitol protest.

Contrary to what Cheney and her Trump-hating inquisitors say, the January 6 committee is far from a truth-finding mission. In fact, what the committee fails to address will speak more to its true motivations—to drive a stake in the heart of a political movement that refuses to die and, in some regards, is stronger than ever—not prevent another “insurrection” in the future, which is how the committee was sold to the country.

While committee members attempt to criminalize complaints of a “stolen” presidential election—an accusation the very same people once leveled regarding Donald Trump’s win in 2016—evidence key to providing a full, unvarnished account of what happened on January 6 is unlikely to be made available to the public. At the same time, already established aspects of that day will be ignored and falsehoods promoted as reality.

For example, will the committee release 14,000 hours of surveillance video to show what happened inside and outside of the Capitol building on January 6? Biden’s Justice Department quickly designated the footage as “highly sensitive government material” that remains under strict protective orders in court proceedings. 

Allowing the public to view most of the video is the best way to uncover the “truth” about what happened that day. Why continue to conceal it? If January 6 is comparable to 9/11 and other deadly terror attacks, as Biden and his appartchiks insist, Cheney and her colleagues should authorize the immediate and unedited release of all publicly-funded security video.

And what about the security video from January 5? Will the committee explain why Capitol police erased almost all the surveillance video from the day before the protest? Democratic lawmakers have accused Republicans of conducting “reconnaissance tours” in anticipation of the so-called insurrection, but all security video that could have proven that claim oddly has been purged from Capitol police video files. Tampering with evidence surrounding the crime of the century? Certainly this should shock the “rule of law” consciences of Cheney and company.

Where are the internal investigative reports on police misconduct on January 6? Will the committee make public the inquiry into the police killing of Ashli Babbitt? What about the three other fatalities that day? Democrats continually describe January 6 as a “deadly” insurrection but the only people who died were Trump supporters. Will Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill), who cried at testimony by police officers during last July’s hearing, shed similar tears for four dead Americans whose deaths were wholly or partially a result of excessive force used on January 6?

The public has been told the death toll could’ve been much higher that day. Just imagine the bloodshed if two pipe bombs had exploded a few blocks from the Capitol building. To that end, will the committee finally identify the alleged pipe bomber responsible for planting explosives outside the headquarters of both the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee on the evening of January 5? 

Reports of the bombs initiated panic on January 6 and prompted the evacuation of adjacent House buildings; lawmakers and commentators immediately speculated the perpetrator was a Trump supporter. The FBI released grainy video of the suspect shortly after the Capitol protest and offered a hefty reward for his capture. 

But despite the FBI’s use of extensive tools, including geofence warrants, to track down Capitol protesters, the department still hasn’t been able to identify the pipe bomber. Further, the department appears to have lost interest in the crime—an inexplicable move since the Justice Department finally admitted in court filings last year that Senator Kamala Harris was inside the DNC building, not inside the Capitol building as the government claimed in court documents for over a year, when Capitol police located the explosive. Surely the committee has a heightened interest in finding the man who could have killed a sitting U.S. Senator and incoming vice president just hours before Congress certified her election, right? Where is the final FBI report on the incident?

Speaking of the FBI, will the committee disclose how many undercover agents and informants were in any way involved with January 6? Reporting by the New York Times last year confirmed at least two informants infiltrated the Proud Boys months before and were among the first to “breach” the perimeter of the grounds. 

Court filings reveal that undercover federal agents were stationed around the building before the chaos unfolded; hundreds of elite FBI agents were summoned to Quantico the weekend before January 6 and deployed to downtown D.C. that morning. For what?

A top FBI official refused to say whether FBI agents or informants provoked or engaged in violent behavior that day. As the recent trial of Michael Sussmann again showed, a seamless relationship exists between Democratic Party interests and the nation’s top law enforcement agency—so much so that the FBI has a workplace at Perkins Coie, the Democrats’ powerhouse law firm.

And will the committee finally give the long-awaited answer to the question, “Who is Ray Epps?” Speculation that Epps, seen on video numerous times directing people to go inside the building on January 6, was a federal agent because he was removed from the FBI’s most wanted list and faced no charges more than a year later, strangely prompted the committee to rush to Epps’ defense. Kinzinger stated on Twitter that committee investigators had interviewed Epps and a transcript would be released. That was five months ago.

It’s highly unlikely, of course, that the committee will address any of those matters during this week’s hearing or in subsequent performances. Meanwhile, congenital liars such as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) will perpetuate long-debunked narratives including the number of police officers who died as a result of January 6 (the answer is none) or that Trump loyalists brought firearms into the building (they didn’t).

A sham congressional committee working with a corrupt Justice Department boosted by a dishonest national media can only be expected to create political propaganda, not expose the truth; no matter how hard Liz Cheney pretends her vengeance mission is legitimate, most of the American public isn’t buying what she’s selling. 

X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- June 7

 

7 state primaries tonight, including in a few big blue states! Good luck to all conservatives tonight! I'll try to keep track of the results the best I can (it'll help if Breitbart has a live wire tonight), and friendly reminder, some results may take a little while to get because of time zone differences on my end. (Cali's polls close at 8 pm PT, and that's 11 pm in my zone).

Here's tonight's news:

We Can’t Be Ukraine Hawks Forever

posted by Ross Douthat at New York Times

Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory? Over the years I’ve heard this parody of academic pomposity put in the lips of various targets, from French intellectuals to University of Chicago economists. Lately, though, I’ve begun thinking it myself — about the hawkish side in the debate over the Ukraine War, whose practical policies have so far achieved favorable results but whose deeper theories of the conflict still seem implausible, unworkable or dangerous.

I was not a Ukraine hawk before the war came. I felt the United States had overextended itself with its half-open door to NATO membership, and that eastern Ukraine, at least, wasn’t defensible against Russian aggression without a full-scale American military commitment. Sending arms to Kyiv probably made sense, but as a means of eventually bogging down a Russian incursion, not stopping it outright. And a Ukrainian collapse, of the kind we saw from our client government in Afghanistan, seemed within the realm of possibility.

The war itself has defied those expectations. The hawks were proved right about Ukraine’s simple capacity to fight. They were proved right that American arms could actually help blunt a Russian invasion, not just create an insurgency behind its lines. And their psychological read on Vladimir Putin has been partly vindicated as well: His choices suggest a man motivated as much by imperial restoration as by anti-NATO defensiveness, and his conduct of the war offers little evidence that there is a stable, permanent peace available, even with Ukrainian concessions.

So in the realm of practical policy to date, I have joined the hawks. Our military support for Ukraine has worked: We have safeguarded a sovereign nation and weakened a rival without dangerous escalation from the Russian side. And for now, with Russia continuing to mount offensives while mostly avoiding the bargaining table, there isn’t any obvious off-ramp to peace that we ought to force Kyiv to take.

Yet when I read the broader theories of hawkish commentators, their ideas about America’s strategic vision and what kind of endgame we should be seeking in the war, I still find myself baffled by their confidence and absolutism.

For instance, for all their defensive successes, we have not yet established that Ukraine’s military can regain significant amounts of territory in the country’s south and east. Yet we have Anne Applebaum of The Atlantic insisting that only Putin’s defeat and indeed “humiliation” can restore European stability, while elsewhere in the same magazine Casey Michel calls for dismantling the Russian Federation, framed as the “decolonization” of Russia’s remaining empire, as the only policy for lasting peace.

Or again, the United States has currently committed an extraordinary sum to back Ukraine — far more than we spent in foreign aid to Afghanistan in any recent year, for instance — and our support roughly trebles the support offered by the European Union. Yet when this newspaper’s editorial board raised questions about the sustainability of such support, the response from many Ukraine hawks was a furious how dare you — with an emphasis, to quoteBenjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution, on Ukraine’s absolute right to fight “until every inch of their territory is free,” America’s strictly “modest” and “advisory” role in Ukrainian decision making and the importance of offering Kyiv, if not a blank check, at least a “very very big check with more checks to follow.”

These theories all seem to confuse what is desirable with what is likely, and what is morally ideal with what is strategically achievable. I have written previouslyabout the risks of nuclear escalation in the event of a Russian military collapse, risks that hawkish theories understate. But given the state of the war right now, the more likely near-future scenario is one where Russian collapse remains a pleasant fancy, the conflict becomes stalemated and frozen, and we have to put our Ukrainian policy on a sustainable footing without removing Putin’s regime or dismantling the Russian empire.

In that scenario, our plan cannot be to keep writing countless checks while tiptoeing modestly around the Ukrainians and letting them dictate the ends to which our guns and weaponry are used. The United States is an embattled global hegemon facing threats more significant than Russia. We are also an internally divided country led by an unpopular president whose majorities may be poised for political collapse. So if Kyiv and Moscow are headed for a multiyear or even multidecade frozen conflict, we will need to push Ukraine toward its most realistic rather than its most ambitious military strategy. And just as urgently, we will need to shift some of the burden of supporting Kyiv from our own budget to our European allies.

Those goals are compatible with what we’ve done to date, and they can obviously be adapted if better opportunities suddenly arise. But a good strategic theory needs to assume difficulty, challenge, limits. The danger now is that the practical achievements of our hawkish policy encourage the opposite kind of theorizing, a hubris that squanders our still provisional success.

Biden Admin Quietly Raised the Ethanol in Summer Blend Gas from 10% to 15% =Three Predictable Problems Will Surface

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

Last Friday the Biden administration raised the mandatory amount of biofuel, specifically ethanol, that must be blended within the U.S. gasoline supply.  The previous amount of 10% (summer blend) was raised to a year-round 15% (waiver) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  This is likely to lead to two sets of bigger issues, less food and higher gas prices.

♦ First issue. – The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a government mandate, passed in 2005 and expanded in 2007, that requires growing volumes of biofuels to be blended into U.S. transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel every year.  Approximately 40 percent of corn grown in the U.S. is used for ethanol.  Raising the amount of ethanol required in gasoline will result in the need for more biofuel (corn).  With farming costs and outputs already under pressure this could be problematic.

♦ Second issue – The EPA enforces the biofuel standard by requiring refineries to submit purchase credits (known as Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proving the purchases.  This enforcement requirement sets up a system where the RIN credits are bought and sold by small refineries who do not have the infrastructure to do the blending process.  They purchase second-hand RIN credits from parties that blended or imported biofuels directly. This sets up a secondary income stream, a trading market for the larger oil companies, refineries and importers.

The RIN credit trading platform is similar to what we might expect to see if the ‘Carbon Trading’ scheme was ever put into place.   However, now that summer biofuel requirements for blended gasoline have gone from 10% to 15%, the price of the RIN credits will likely jump.  This will cost refineries billions in additional expenses,…. which will mean the cost of the gasoline from the refineries will increase,….. which will mean the cost of the gasoline at the pump will go higher.

The EPA theory is that RIN credits should be expensive thereby forcing all oil refineries to invest in infrastructure that makes the blended fuel.  All of the infrastructure from the refinery to the gas station would need to be modified to facilitate the new 15% RFS standard.  Again, higher prices at the pumps as a result of oil companies and refineries needing to spend billions on upgrades.   Which brings us to issue number three.

♦ Third Issue – “Ethanol is a valuable source of octane in finished gasoline, but it is chemically different than petroleum gasoline and cannot be used in concentrations above 10 percent in small engines — like outboard boat motors, motorcycles, lawnmowers, generators or chain saws — or in any cars made before 2001. Complicating matters further, most cars on the road today still aren’t warrantied to run on gasoline with more than 10 percent ethanol. Retail stations also must have compatible infrastructure in order to sell gasoline with higher ethanol blends.”  This issue is known within the industry as “The Blend Wall.”

The net result of Joe Biden’s EPA raising the mandatory amount of biofuel that must be present in the U.S. gas supply is this:

(1) Less food as more corn is needed for ethanol.

(2) Higher prices for finished and blended gasoline.

(3) Vehicle engines breaking down at a much higher rate. 

The predictable Biden outcome is the absolute worst scenario for the middle-class.

ABC Article on the EPA change HERE.

AFPM Background Information HERE.

WASHINGTON – “The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers group, which represents refineries, called the 2022 figure “bewildering and contrary to the administration’s claims to be doing everything in their power to provide relief to consumers.” The group said unachievable mandates will increase fuel production costs and keep consumer prices high.” (more)

Study on Mask Mandates Will Have the Hysterics Seething

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

The National Pulse is reporting on a new study out of Kansas that completely contradicts the conventional wisdom regarding mask mandates and COVID-19.

According to the study, fatalities were actually ~50 percent higher in places with mandates vs. those without mandates, and there are a few reasons to suspect why that might be.

The observational study – “The Foegen Effect: A Mechanism by Which Facemasks Contribute to the COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate” – was published in Medicine in February 2022, authored by German doctor Zacharias Fögen.

The paper analyzed “whether mandatory mask use influenced the case fatality rate in Kansas” during the time period of August 1st, 2020 to October 15th. Kansas was used for comparison because the state allowed each of its 105 counties to decide whether or not to implement mask mandates, with 81 counties deciding against the measure.

“The most important finding from this study is that contrary to the accepted thought that fewer people are dying because infection rates are reduced by masks, this was not the case,” summarized the paper.

“Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ∼50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.”

I’ve written extensively (see here, here, and here) on the lack of efficacy of masks, specifically regarding mandates, noting that time and again, real-world data has shown no correlation between mandates and infection rates. When you compare countries that strictly enforced such mandates and then looked at those that didn’t, it was clear the masking was simply not working. The same goes when you compare US states or even US counties. And while some of that could be blamed on non-compliance, the lack of any real statistical difference says it all.

So why might this latest study have found what if found? It doesn’t take a doctor to theorize that people wearing dirty masks all day and re-inhaling droplets that may get caught is probably not the healthiest thing. Further, it’s not exactly speculatory to suggest that many people absconded from social distancing because they were given a false sense of protection from all the hysteria over wearing masks. How many times have you seen someone in an N95 right on someone’s backside in a line, thinking they are protected?

Of course, you can expect those who look at masks as a religious rite to continue to push them. Their seething will not end anytime soon. Still, this should serve as a lesson going forward that just because the government proclaims something, that doesn’t make it true. Any municipality still using mask mandates is spitting in the face of objective data at this point.

Michael Sussmann Free And Peter Navarro In Shackles Epitomize America’s Two-Tier Justice

What do you do when your every institution has been weaponized against you? 

What do you do when there is a two-tier, no-justice system?

by Ben Weingarten for The Federalist

The split-screen of a smug and triumphant Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann walking free from D.C. federal court, and a harried and bewildered former Donald Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro being hauled before it, following his account of a harrowing arrest and detainment, ought to be ingrained indelibly in the American mind.

It sends an unmistakable message: We can get you anytime, anywhere, on any grounds we choose. You can’t touch even a single one of ours.

If by some strange occurrence one of ours is brought before a court, the judge and jury will be rigged against you. “I dare you to ask me to recuse with an acquaintance on the stand,” the judge will say. “What’s a lie to our FBI among friends,” the jury will say. Especially when the lie is a useful one.  

The institutions Democrats’ comrade colluded with will be absolved of blame by the putatively adversarial prosecutor representing you, the people. That prosecutor will be plodding, and hew to process crimes against bit players, while the statutes of limitations for the most serious crimes committed by the biggest fish lapse.

You won’t be able to discern whether he is building a masterful case to take us all down, or insulating the very institutions he has served for and with for years, and to which he ultimately answers. That’s the point.

Real conspiracies to concoct fake ones aimed at destroying your singular representative against us will neither be fully revealed nor prosecuted. You will be made to accept it, hanging on every unredacted morsel and revelation, yet waiting in vain for justice.

Conversely, if anyone who can even be remotely affiliated with you ever lashes out in any way — say, over an election in which rules were changed on the fly by non-legislators; an election in which those altered rules created an unprecedented opportunity for fraud that could never be audited because of its remote nature; an election that the most powerful institutions in the country colluded to “fortify” on behalf of their man; an election in which not a court in the land would hear the cases on their merits — it will be cast as an insurrection undertaken by terrorists. (If you raise these points, of course, you too may be cast as a potential terrorist, and at minimum censored.)

Never mind your universal condemnation of the worst acts among the small percentage of the tens of thousands of peaceful, which opponents use to smear your entire movement; that the Democrat narrative is fraudulent: that the only fatalities were found among the putative terrorists. Leftists lie about that point and won’t release the thousands of hours of footage of what transpired. They won’t tell you what their assets were doing on the ground and won’t actually charge anyone with insurrection while they equate them with 9/11 hijackers, kamikaze pilots, and Confederates.

They’ll hold some of the “insurrectionists,” even those slapped with trumped-up trespassing charges, in jail for months on end, and make their lives a living hell. They’ll argue to similarly disposed judges that political wrongthink makes Americans a danger to society, demanding they be kept in jail. They’ll argue for giving the accused terrorism enhancements in their sentences. Some will be pushed to suicide.

When their allies burn down cities, they’ll release them en masse, and if absolutely unavoidable, ensure their sentences are minimized. You won’t mind.

They’ll smear your entire political movement as terroristic in the court of Congress when they can’t do it in the court of law. They’ll pursue again your singular representative, his colleagues, allies, and on down to the most remotely related activists with a congressional probe consisting entirely of us — kind of like the juries you’ll be up in front of. 

The probe will be of dubious constitutionality. It will break their own rules. It will abuse targets with the most awesome and chilling powers they have, and seek to break and bankrupt them. They won’t be able to do a thing about it. The process, at minimum, will be the punishment. If they refuse to participate in their own self-immolation, the ruling class will sic their friends in law enforcement on them to hold them criminally liable.

They’ll wreck executive privilege and destroy a whole host of norms in the process while claiming we’re defending them. Do you think your leader will hold us to account?

And then they’ll engage in a society-wide war on wrongthink aimed at smearing and toxifying anyone who dares hold your views, censoring them, hounding them out of public life, and threatening to treat them as terrorists too. They’ll begin the work of building a social credit system with American characteristics where your every wrong thought can and will be used against you.

If you question the ruling class’s authority or the legitimacy of their rule, well, they have a domestic counterterrorism plan for that. This is our democracy, you see. And in our democracy, we win, and you lose.

What do you do when your every institution has been weaponized against you? What do you do when there is a two-tier, no-justice system? What do you do when all the foundations of the system you thought we had have been eroded?

These are the questions those who ask our vote must answer. If they cannot, or will not do so — if they refuse to even recognize the magnitude and gravity of the rampant injustices we are facing as a people — they are simply unfit to lead.

Biden Makes Yet Another Wrong Move in a Desperate Attempt to Raise His Approval Rating

Brandon Morse reporting for RedState 

To say that President Joe Biden’s approval rating has cratered is putting it lightly. The man’s popularity has been on a swift decline for some time now, and as more and more mistakes are made by his administration and every public appearance brings on a new wave of embarrassment, his image continues to sink in the eyes of the American people.

(READ: Joe Biden Is Really Upset That He’s Now More Unpopular Than Donald Trump)

Attempts are being made to raise his popularity level. It started with an attempt at diverting the blame for the issues he and his administration caused to others. From oil companies to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Biden has attempted to deflect in order to take the heat off of him to no avail. There have even been attempts at distracting the public with events such as the leaked draft decision on Roe v. Wade from the Supreme Court, but it didn’t save him either.

Putting paint on rust doesn’t take away the rust.

Now Biden’s handlers are reaching out to their Hollywood friends to help “Weekend at Bernie’s” Biden’s popularity. They think that if they can get him in with people others find entertaining, then they can certainly make Biden seem a bit more likable. After all, more people vote based on their emotions than anything else. Especially since it did so well for then-President Barack Obama. It’s a smart move.

Or it would be if Biden was actually meeting up with someone that was capable of convincing centrists and independents to like him. In their desperation, Biden’s handlers reached out to late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel.

They may as well have reached out to Michael Moore. Kimmel isn’t the play given the fact that Kimmel has made every attempt possible at alienating himself from half of America. His very open contempt for those who lean right borders on the obsessive and gets him to produce “jokes” that are just mean-spirited comments with applause prompts for the audience.

He’s repeatedly proven himself to be a hypocrite, abandoning his “noble” leftist beliefs if it means he can use them to attack people on the right with as much malice and bile as he can.

(READ: Jimmy Kimmel Accidentally Tells Us Who the Left Really Are)

Sending Biden to Kimmel is not the play if they’re attempting to help with the former’s approval rating. In reality, it will just confirm to many in America that Biden isn’t the “uniter” that he likes to say he is, but that he’s willing to be around those who are divisive and hateful toward those who don’t believe as they do.

His handlers could, at this point, understand that Kimmel isn’t someone who will convince moderates to like Biden but to shore up his current base of voters. The issue is that any funny and personable moments Kimmel can gift to Biden in his studio will be wildly overshadowed by the hardships being endured by American families in the home.

Again, putting paint on rust doesn’t take away the rust…and there’s a hell of a lot of rust here. Going on Kimmel is just going to add more.

Sad Joe and the no good, very bad presidency

Joe Biden finally realizes he’s not the guy in charge.

posted by Dianny at Patriot Retort

On Sunday, Politico published a report that describes a White House in disarray with morale plummeting and old Sad Joe finally waking up to his no good, very bad presidency.

But since it’s a Democrat-leaning outlet, Politico goes out of its way to absolve this White House of any blame for the disarray it caused. You see, Sad Joe is just a helpless victim of circumstances that his team of bumbling halfwits is powerless to do anything about.

President Joe Biden and his aides have grown increasingly frustrated by their inability to turn the tide against a cascade of challenges threatening to overwhelm the administration.

Soaring global inflation. Rising fuel prices. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A Supreme Court poised to take away a constitutional right. [What?!] A potentially resurgent pandemic. A Congress too deadlocked to tackle sweeping gun safety legislation even amid an onslaught of mass shootings.

In crisis after crisis, the White House has found itself either limited or helpless in its efforts to combat the forces pummeling them. Morale inside 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is plummeting amid growing fears that the parallels to Jimmy Carter, another first-term Democrat plagued by soaring prices and a foreign policy morass, will stick.

Hey, Politico, maybe the reason Biden and his aides aren’t able to “turn the tide” or “combat the forces pummeling them” is that they created the tide and unleashed the forces. And screw you for thinking Biden and his White House are the ones getting pummeled right now, you ass cracks.

But the thing that’s giving Sad Joe an even bigger sadz is the discovery that his approval rating has cratered so much that he’s sunk below former President Donald Trump’s polling.

Wait until he finds out that he has the lowest approval rating of every president in modern history. He’ll have to break out the jumbo tub of ice cream to anger-eat his way through the pain.

As with the NBC News report last week, this Politico piece also reveals that Sad Joe has finally figured out that he isn’t in charge of his White House. Apparently, the “President and Commander-in-Chief” went off on curse-laden tirades accusing his staff of keeping him in the dark on the baby formula shortage. It’s never his fault, you see.

One of two things is true. Either they did keep him in the dark because he’s not the guy in charge and they keep him in the dark about everything or they told him, but because he’s not the guy in charge, President Soup-for-Brains forgot all about it.

Either way, he’s not the guy in charge.

The Politico report also notes that Jill Biden and Joe’s sister Valerie are irritated that the White House is managing Sad Joe “with kid gloves,” refusing to let “Joe be Joe” by letting him out of his cage to interact with the public more often.

Oh, please, White House staff, please listen to Jill and Valerie.

Send that broken-down old coot out to tell the people being crushed by his disastrous economy that they’ve never had it so good.

Send him out to attack half the country as racists while calling all gun owners murderers for daring to own the most popular self-defense rifle in the country.

Give the old man ample opportunity to stick his foot so far down his throat that he can tickle his kidneys.

Then maybe Jill and Valerie will remember why old Sad Joe was kept hidden in the basement during the 2020 campaign.

Letting “Joe be Joe” is exactly what the people in charge of the White House want to prevent.

Things are bad enough for the Democrats already without old Joe making the situation even worse.