The cons of liberals and progressives.
"I know a guy."
It is the oldest line in the book. It is a whisper of access, a promise that the rules of the road—the ones for the rest of us—might not apply to you.
We are currently watching the political stage set for the 120th Congress. There is a prevailing hope that, finally, the pendulum will swing, that the excesses of the right will be checked, and that the "liberal" institutions will step in to steer the ship away from the rocks. But there is a chasm here, one so deep it cannot be forded. Even if this Congress succeeds in blocking the chaotic impulses of the current administration, there is a yawning distance between simply preventing insanity and actually launching the country into a positive, constructive spiral.
I was reminded of this while reviewing Screen Recording 2026-06-11 135556.mp4. The article featured there, detailing the trajectory of Kathy Ruemmler, serves as a quiet, sobering proof of that chasm.
Ruemmler, once one of Obama’s top lawyers and White House Counsel, represents the seamless continuity of the elite. After the West Wing, she transitioned to the private sector, joining Latham & Watkins, where she quickly found herself navigating the orbit of Jeffrey Epstein. The article chronicles how she—a brilliant legal mind—ended up in email chains referring to Epstein as "Uncle Jeffrey," justifying her interactions by relying on a 2008 letter from a prosecutor that claimed there was no "credible evidence" Epstein knew his victims were underage.
The irony is not lost on anyone who pays attention. When the public looks at a figure like Todd Blanche representing Donald Trump, there is a predictable roar of outrage. People argue that he is currying favor with power, choosing loyalty over the country. And perhaps he is.
But for every Blanche, there is a Ruemmler.
The mechanism remains identical. It is the same "I know a guy" economy, whether the "guy" is a political firebrand or an infamous financier. It is the business of access, where the goal is to be in the room, to remain relevant, and to secure the next marquee client or the next philanthropic introduction.
The liberals and progressives may block the Trump administration’s next move, but that is a defensive maneuver, not a structural change. It is theater. While the audience argues over which political team is more virtuous, the players on both sides are often just different branches of the same elite tree, connected by the same middlemen, moving in the same circles, and playing by the same rules of access.
We are waiting for a savior in the form of a legislative body, but the article in Screen Recording 2026-06-11 135556.mp4 suggests that the problem is not a lack of the right people in power—it is the nature of the power structure itself. When the goal is to "get in the room," the moral calculus often disappears, regardless of which flag you are waving.
We are left hoping for a change, while the machinery stays exactly the same.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
She Was One of Obama’s Top Lawyers. How Did She Get Tangled Up With Epstein?
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/11/opinion/kathy-ruemmler-epstein-emails.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pVA.T3Sr.qo_68rgDDQT0&smid=url-share
I must say this: I think liberals love to drink Hope koolaid. Hope springs eternal. It wells up from their bosomy little hearts and says November everything shall change. The new Congress, the 120th, shall renew America. It shall not only stop Trump but it will create a positive virtuous cycle and the change of power will change everything.
We have seen that movie before too. It’s called gridlock. The President is stopped in the first year of the new Congress, lame duck in the second year and then it’s time to elect another guy. Who knows another guy. Who knows yet another guy.
All of us are morally corrupt. All of us. Not a single one of us deserves to be anywhere near power. Since I have no control over such matters, I can only rant and rave and some of us find it all very amusing, of that I am sure.
Liberals and Progressives: supported by black people, they supported the New Deal and expansion of benefits, often have the right intentions about racism, schisms, and so on, yet find themselves unable to change the dynamics of ghettos or segregated neighborhoods or being tough on crime in a prudent way.
Conservatives and Traditionalists: at the extremes have Trump and his Administration, at the less extremes have people like Reagan who started things that are still ongoing.
Both are part of the same System. The System decides the trajectory of the country: upward, downward, flatlining or downward sloping. The politicians simply say okay. As Carlin said: it’s not fair to blame them. I try to defend them as much as I can.
The ScreenRecording that Gemini is referring to in the article above the crosses is simply a 24 second recording of the New York Times article I sent to him since I was too lazy to copy and paste.
