Subscriptions, Current Issue & Back Issues

Current Issue | Annual Subscriptions | Back Issues

The Assault on Trump, By Paul Craig Roberts

Assault On Trump

The Assault on Trump

Paul Craig Roberts

We are witnessing an assault by the national security state and its liberal media on a President of the United States that is unprecedented.

 

Wild and unsupported accusations of treasonous or illegal Russian connections have been the mainstay of the news since Trump’s campaign for president. These accusations have reached the point that there is an impeachment movement driven by the national security state and its liberal media and endorsed by Democrats, the American leftwing which has turned against the working class as “Trump deplorables,” and luminaries such as Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe. The Washington Post, which was not present at the meeting of President Trump with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, purports to know that Trump gave Lavrov US national security information.

The Russian government has offered the presstitute media a transcript of the meeting, but, of course, the pressitutes are not interested.

The latest story is that Trump tried to bribe FBI Director Comey, before he fired him, not to investigate Trump as part of the “Russian investigation.” Clearly there is no intelligence left in the American media. The President doesn’t need to bribe someone he can fire.

What we are witnessing is the determination of the national security state to keep their prized “Russian Threat” in its assigned role as the Number One Threat to the US. The liberal media, owned by the CIA since the 1950s is in accord with this goal.

The American media is so accustomed to its enslavement by the national security state that it does not think of the consequences. But Professor Stephen Cohen does. I agree with him that the greatest threat to national security “is this assault on President Trump.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47076.htm

Cohen said that there is a 4th branch of government, the intelligence community, which obstruts the management of American foreign affairs by the executive branch and Congress.

As an example, he reminded us that “In 2016, President Obama worked out a deal with Russian President Putin for military cooperation in Syria. He said he was going to share intelligence with Russia, just like Trump and the Russians were supposed to do the other day. Our department of defense said it wouldn’t share intelligence. And a few days later, they killed Syrian soldiers, violating the agreement, and that was the end of that. So, we can ask, who is making our foreign policy in Washington today?”

In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy thought he was in charge, and he was assassinated for his belief. JFK blocked an invasion of Cuba, the Northwoods project, a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, and spoke of ending the Cold War.

In the 1970s President Nixon was driven from office, because he thought he was in charge of foreign policy. Like Kennedy, Nixon was a threat to the national security state. Nixon pushed through SALT 1 and the anti-ABM Treaty, and he opened to China, defusing those tensions as well. The military/security complex saw its budget dwindling as the threat dwindled. Nixon also determined to withdraw from Vietnam, but was constrained by the national security state. Nixon, the most knowledgeable president about foreign affairs, was forced from office, because his efforts in behalf of peace constituted a threat to the power and profit of the military/security complex.

It is important to understand that there is no evidence whatsoever against Nixon in the Washington Post “investigation.” The Post’s reporters simply put together a collection of inuendoes that cast aspersion on Nixon, whose “crime” was to say that he learned of the Watergate buglary at a later date than he actually did. Nixon kept the burglary quiet until after his reelection, because he knew that the CIA’s Washington Post would use it in an effort to prevent his reelection.

The “crime” for which Nixon was really removed was his success in establishing more peaceful and stable relations with Russia and China.

Trump, being in real estate and entertainment, was unaware of the landmines on which he was stepping when he said it was time to normalize relations with Russia and to rethink the purpose of NATO.

The US military/security complex sits on a budget extracted from very hard-pressed American taxpayers of $1,000 billion dollars annually. By threatening to normalize relations with the enemy which was created in order to justify this vast budget, Trump presented as the major threat to the American National Security State’s power and profit.

This is why Trump will be broken and/or removed as President of the United States.

Once again democracy in American is proving to be powerless. There is no one in Washington who can help Trump. Those who could help him, such as myself, cannot be confirmed by the US Senate, which is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military/security complex, Wall Street, and the Israel Lobby.

Trump tried to connect the suffering American people to their government, an act of treason against the oligarchy, who are making an example of Trump that will dissuade politicians in the future from making populist appeals to the people.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/18/the-assault-on-trump

 

NY Library Brings Drag Queen To Kid’s Story Hour

The Associated Press released video footage from inside a Brooklyn public library as it hosts Drag Queen Story Hour for kids, something that has been scheduled every month since last fall.

The children sit around as a man who calls his alter-ego Lil’ Miss Hot Mess reads them stories and leads them in sing-alongs about drag queens. In the AP video, he reads a story about a female character whose friends think she should be less of a tomboy and dress and act like a girl. In another story, you hear the man read to the kids, “We can both be grooms.”

Lil’ Miss Hot Mess asks the kids, “Who wants to be a drag queen when they grow up?”

“Drag Queen Story Hour is fantastic because it addresses all of these issues of gender fluidity and self acceptance and all of these topics that, um, are real — are very, very real,” said Kat Savage of the Brooklyn Public Library.

And the packed room of parents apparently loved it.

“It was great!” one enthusiastic mother said. “So much energy.”

Another mother said, “You know, that’s what I’m looking for in all of our outings, is to present different ways of being in the world and make that fun and available to my kid.”

The library has received some backlash for hosting this reading hour, but Lil’ Miss Hot Mess, who doesn’t give his real name for fear of harassment, doesn’t mind: “Those are people who think gay people are sinful, or evil, or, you know, bad to begin with. So, we’re just starting from such different places that it’s kind of irrelevant to me.”

Plans are to expand the program to other libraries in New York City.

Vice did a short film on these monthly drag queen story hours when they began last year and discovered they also happen in San Francisco. A mother interviewed for the film said she’s already taken her daughter to two of them and is glad to expose her preschool daughter to the concept:

“From the very beginning, kids are pushed into these gender roles, which is absolutely absurd because they’re just kids. I want her to have the opportunity to just be whoever she’s going to be, and know that her parents are going to love her and be happy whether she’s a she or a he or anywhere in between.”

More:

https://thecontrail.com/forum/topics/nyc-san-francisco-public-libraries-host-monthly-drag-queen-story?xg_source=activity

(Thanks Snafu!)

If China Can Fund infrastructure with Its Own Credit, So Can We

Image result for china credit infrastructure funding

May 15th-19th has been designated “National Infrastructure Week” by the US Chambers of Commerce, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and over 150 affiliates. Their message: “It’s time to rebuild.” Ever since ASCE began issuing its “National Infrastructure Report Card” in 1998, the nation has gotten a dismal grade of D or D+. In the meantime, the estimated cost of fixing its infrastructure has gone up from $1.3 trillion to $4.6 trillion.

While American politicians debate endlessly over how to finance the needed fixes and which ones to implement, the Chinese have managed to fund massive infrastructure projects all across their country, including 12,000 miles of high-speed rail built just in the last decade. How have they done it, and why can’t we?

A key difference between China and the US is that the Chinese government owns the majority of its banks. About 40% of the funding for its giant railway project comes from bonds issued by the Ministry of Railway, 10-20% comes from provincial and local governments, and the remaining 40-50% is provided by loans from federally-owned banks and financial institutions. Like private banks, state-owned banks simply create money as credit on their books. (More on this below.) The difference is that they return their profits to the government, making the loans interest-free; and the loans can be rolled over indefinitely. In effect, the Chinese government decides what work it wants done, draws on its own national credit card, pays Chinese workers to do it, and repays the loans with the proceeds.

The US government could do that too, without raising taxes, slashing services, cutting pensions, or privatizing industries. How this could be done quickly and cheaply will be considered here, after a look at the funding proposals currently on the table and at why they are not satisfactory solutions to the nation’s growing infrastructure deficit.

The Endless Debate over Funding and the Relentless Push to Privatize

 In a May 15, 2017, report on In the Public Interest, the debate taking shape heading into National Infrastructure Week was summarized like this:

The Trump administration, road privatization industry, and a broad mix of congressional leaders are keen on ramping up a large private financing component (under the marketing rubric of ‘public-private partnerships’), but have not yet reached full agreement on what the proportion should be between tax breaks and new public money—and where that money would come from. Over 500 projects are being pitched to the White House. . . .

Democrats have had a full plan on the table since January, advocating for new federal funding and a program of infrastructure renewal spread through a broad range of sectors and regions. And last week, a coalition of right wing, Koch-backed groups led by Freedom Partners . . .  released a letter encouraging Congress “to prioritize fiscal responsibility” and focus instead on slashing public transportation, splitting up transportation policy into the individual states, and eliminating labor and environmental protections (i.e., gutting the permitting process). They attacked the idea of a national infrastructure bank and . . . targeted the most important proposal of the Trump administration . . . —to finance new infrastructure by tax reform to enable repatriation of overseas corporate revenues . . . .

In a November 2014 editorial titled “How Two Billionaires Are Destroying High Speed Rail in America,” author Julie Doubleday observed that the US push against public mass transit has been led by a think tank called the Reason Foundation, which is funded by the Koch brothers. Their $44 billion fortune comes largely from Koch Industries, an oil and gas conglomerate with a vested interest in mass transit’s competitors, those single-rider vehicles using the roads that are heavily subsidized by the federal government.

Clearly, not all Republicans are opposed to funding infrastructure, since Donald Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan was a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, and his Republican base voted him into office. But “establishment Republicans” have traditionally opposed infrastructure spending. Why? According to a May 15, 2015 article in Daily Kos titled “Why Do Republicans Really Oppose Infrastructure Spending?”:

Republicans – at the behest of their mega-bank/private equity patrons – really, deeply want to privatize the nation’s infrastructure and turn such public resources into privately owned, profit centers.  More than anything else, this privatization fetish explains Republicans’ efforts to gut and discredit public infrastructure  . . . .

If the goal is to privatize and monetize public assets, the last thing Republicans are going to do is fund and maintain public confidence in such assets.  Rather, when private equity wants to acquire something, the typical playbook is to first make sure that such assets are what is known as “distressed assets” (i.e., cheaper to buy).

A similar argument was advanced by Noam Chomsky in a 2011 lecture titled “The State-Corporate Complex: A Threat to Freedom and Survival”. He said:

[T]here is a standard technique of privatization, namely defund what you want to privatize. Like when Thatcher wanted to [privatize] the railroads, first thing to do is defund them, then they don’t work and people get angry and they want a change. You say okay, privatize them . . . .

What’s Wrong with Public-Private Partnerships?

Privatization (or “asset relocation” as it is sometimes euphemistically called) means selling public utilities to private equity investors, who them rent them back to the public, squeezing their profits from high user fees and tolls. Private equity investment now generates an average return of about 11.8 percent annually on a ten-year basis. That puts the cost to the public of financing $1 trillion in infrastructure projects over 10 years at around $1.18 trillion, more than doubling the cost. Moving assets off the government’s balance sheet by privatizing them looks attractive to politicians concerned with this year’s bottom line, but it’s a bad deal for the public. Decades from now, people will still be paying higher tolls for the sake of Wall Street profits on an asset that could have belonged to them all along.

One example is the Dulles Greenway, a toll road outside Washington, D.C., nicknamed the “Champagne Highway” due to its extraordinarily high rates and severe underutilization in a region crippled by chronic traffic problems. Local (mostly Republican) officials have tried in vain for years to either force the private owners to lower the toll rates or have the state take the road into public ownership. In 2014, the private operators of the Indiana Toll Road, one of the best-known public-private partnerships (PPPs), filed for bankruptcy after demand dropped, due at least in part to rising toll rates. Other high-profile PPP bankruptcies have occurred in San Diego, CA; Richmond, VA; and Texas.

Countering the dogma that “private companies can always do it better and cheaper,” studies have found that on average, private contractors charge more than twice as much as the government would have paid federal workers for the same job. A 2011 report by the Brookings Institution found that “in practice [PPPs] have been dogged by contract design problems, waste, and unrealistic expectations.” In their 2015 report “Why Public-Private Partnerships Don’t Work,” Public Services International stated that “[E]xperience over the last 15 years shows that PPPs are an expensive and inefficient way of financing infrastructure and divert government spending away from other public services. They conceal public borrowing, while providing long-term state guarantees for profits to private companies.” They also divert public money away from the neediest infrastructure projects, which may not deliver sizable returns, in favor of those big-ticket items that will deliver hefty profits to investors.

A Better Way to Design an Infrastructure Bank

The Trump team has also reportedly discussed the possibility of an infrastructure bank, but that proposal faces similar hurdles. The details of the proposal are as yet unknown, but past conceptions of an infrastructure bank envision a quasi-bank (not a physical, deposit-taking institution) seeded by the federal government, possibly from taxes on the repatriation of offshore corporate profits. The bank would issue bonds, tax credits, and loan guarantees to state and local governments to leverage private sector investment. As with the private equity proposal, an infrastructure bank would rely on public-private partnerships and investors who would be disinclined to invest in projects that did not generate hefty returns. And those returns would again be paid by the public in the form of tolls, fees, higher rates, and payments from state and local governments.

There is another way to set up a publicly-owned bank. Today’s infrastructure banks are basically revolving funds. A dollar invested is a dollar lent, which must return to the bank (with interest) before it can be lent again. A chartered depository bank, on the other hand, can turn a one-dollar investment into ten dollars in loans. It can do this because depository banks actually create deposits when they make loans. This was acknowledged by economists both at the Bank of England (in a March 2014 paper entitled “Money Creation in the Modern Economy”) and at the Bundesbank (the German central bank) in an April 2017 report.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, money is not fixed and scarce. It is “elastic”: it is created when loans are made and extinguished when they are paid off. The Bank of England report said that private banks create nearly 97 percent of the money supply today. Borrowing from banks (rather than the bond market) expands the circulating money supply. This is something the Federal Reserve tried but failed to do with its quantitative easing (QE) policies: stimulate the economy by expanding the bank lending that expands the money supply.

The stellar (and only) model of a publicly-owned depository bank in the United States is the Bank of North Dakota (BND). It holds all of its home state’s revenues as deposits by law, acting as a sort of “mini-Fed” for North Dakota. According to reports, the BND is more profitable even than Goldman Sachs, has a better credit rating than J.P. Morgan Chase, and has seen solid profit growth for almost 15 years. The BND continued to report record profits after two years of oil bust in the state, suggesting that it is highly profitable on its own merits because of its business model. The BND does not pay bonuses, fees, or commissions; has no high paid executives; does not speculate on risky derivatives; does not have multiple branches; does not need to advertise; and does not have private shareholders seeking short-term profits. The profits return to the bank, which distributes them as dividends to the state.

The federal government could set up a bank on a similar model. It has massive revenues, which it could leverage into credit for its own purposes. Since financing is typically about 50 percent of the cost of infrastructure, the government could cut infrastructure costs in half by borrowing from its own bank. Public-private partnerships are a good deal for investors but a bad deal for the public. The federal government can generate its own credit without private financial middlemen. That is how China does it, and we can too.

For more detail on this and other ways to solve the infrastructure problem without raising taxes,  slashing services, or privatizing public assets, see Ellen Brown, “Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure,”a policy brief for the Next System Project, March 2017.

______________________

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, a Senior Fellow of the Democracy Collaborative, and author of twelve books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

If China Can Fund infrastructure with Its Own Credit, So Can We

Defiant Julian Assange Speaks From The London Embassy In Ecuador: Video

 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has claimed an “important victory” as he spoke outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London hours after Sweden dropped the rape case against him.

Raising a clenched fist to supporters outside his makeshift home for the past five years, the Australian claimed the “war is just commencing”.

“Today is an important victory for me and for the UN human rights system but it by no means erases… seven years without charge while my children grew up without me.

“That is not something I can forgive. It is not something I can forget.”

His comments this afternoon come after he today posted a picture of himself on social media with a beaming smile after Swedish prosecutors dropped the rape case against him.

Australian parents who don’t vaccinate their children will be fined $14 per week by the authoritarian regime

This is disgusting. Australia has truly surrendered it’s freedom of choice:

Image: Australian parents who don’t vaccinate their children will be fined $14 per week by the authoritarian regime

(Natural News) If you live in Australia and want to exercise your right not to vaccinate your kids, you’d better be prepared to pay for that privilege. The new federal budget will see parents who don’t vaccinate losing AUD$14 per week, which equates to around USD$10.49 at today’s rate, from their family tax benefit payments. The measure will be set in motion starting July 2018, and it is expected to raise millions of dollars while punishing those who don’t want to vaccinate their kids.

Health Minister Greg Hunt and Social Services Minister Christian Porter have said that taking this approach rather than withholding a supplement at the end of the year would be a good way to constantly remind parents that they need to vaccinate their kids. It will also apply to families who do not get their four-year-olds a health check, which presumably is yet another way to try to push vaccines on kids.

Families who want to catch up on their vaccines will be able to do so for free under a $14 million program. The government will also spend $5 million to promote the benefits of vaccination in areas that have lower immunization rates, such as the far north coast of New South Wales.

Australia is a hostile place for anti-vaxxers

Most countries take a dim view of those who oppose vaccines, but Australia is a particularly unfriendly place for them. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s “No Jab, No Play” policy excludes kids who haven’t been vaccinated from going to preschool or childcare unless they have an official medical exemption. “Vaccine objection” would not be considered a valid reason to skip the shots under the proposal. Laws that prevent unvaccinated children from going to school already exist in some parts of Australia, including Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales.

Meanwhile, the recently updated vaccination standards of The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia urged members of the public to report any midwives and nurses who are sharing beliefs that could be construed as opposing vaccination.

In addition, some Australian children are being denied medical treatment because their immunizations are not up to date. A poll of more than 2,000 parents found that one out of every six children who were not current on their vaccinations had been refused care. According to that study, 95 percent of the country’s children were fully vaccinated despite the fact that a third of parents had concerns and one-tenth of parents felt vaccines could be behind autism.

Vaccine injury reports average at 125 per day in our nation, which is hardly a drop in the bucket. In 2016, more than 45,000 adverse events following vaccinations were reported, some of which were life-threatening. This only pertains to the cases that were actually reported; many are never reported because the parents don’t understand the process or have been convinced by medical professionals that doing so is not necessary.

Vaccines are loaded with dangerous chemicals, chemical adjuvants and other toxins that can cause many adverse effects, including death. While the Australian government seems to think this financial punishment will serve as quite a deterrent, it’s safe to assume that many parents will be all too glad to part with AUD$14 to avoid having to shoot their children up with formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury, among other toxins.

Sources:

News.com.au

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Vaccines.news

ABC.net.au

HeraldSun.com.au

Another Huge Global Cyber Attack Underway

– Learn More:

https://www.rt.com/news/388749-wannacry-adylkuzz-worldwide-cyberattack-nsa/

https://www.rt.com/viral/388717-shadow-brokers-monthly-subscription/

Inside Britain’s secret underground city built during the Cold War to protect the government from nuclear attack

Thomas Colson
Business Insider Australia – ‎Thursday‎, ‎18‎ ‎May‎ ‎2017
Inside Britain’s secret underground city built during the Cold War to protect the government from nuclear attack

In December 2004, a short announcement was posted on the Ministry of Defence’s website.

It read: “A formerly secret Government underground site near Corsham in Wiltshire, which was a potential relocation site for the Government in the event of a nuclear war, was declassified at the end of 2004.”

This was the first official acknowledgement of an urban fortress lying beneath the picturesque English town of Corsham which was, for around forty years, the British military’s most closely-guarded secret.

The threat of war hung over the west in the 1950s, and the Cabinet Office decided that an alternative seat of government was needed to prepare for the worst-case scenario: all-out nuclear war.

In 1955, Central Government War Headquarters was commissioned, and work to transform the space began in earnest (it was never referred to as a “bunker” in government literature, but Burlington was one of its many contemporary codenames and the alliterative phrase stuck.)

Set within a 240-acre abandoned quarry, it was a sprawling underground city, a 35-acre network of hidden entrances, streets, canteens, and purpose-built rooms designed to house the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan along with the entire British government — even, it seems, the Royal Family — in the event of nuclear attack.

It had everything that 4,000 government staff — though not their families — would need to survive for 90 days in conditions of thermonuclear war, or a major conflict with the Soviet Union: 100ft-deep reinforced concrete walls, bedrooms and offices, wired telephones, a bakery, a hospital — even a BBC broadcasting studio to communicate with survivors.

Business Insider obtained the following photos from the Ministry of Defence. They were taken in 2005. Though the site has been declassified since 2004, much of what is known about it has been in the public domain since 1982, when journalist Duncan Campbell reported its existence.

This is the story of the “Burlington Bunker.”

Read the rest and lots of images here:

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/inside-britains-secret-underground-city-built-during-the-cold-war-to-protect-the-government-from-nuclear-attack/ar-BBBfRRw?li=BBqdk7Q&ocid=SK2MDHP

The Comey affair; lies and reality pass like trains in the night by Jon Rappoport

Comey Affair

The Comey affair; lies and reality pass like trains in the night

by Jon Rappoport

May 14, 2017

NEWSMAN #1: Trump fired Comey.

NEWSMAN #2: Biggest thing since the great Chicago fire of 1871.

NEWSMAN #1: Bigger. How do we play this? The Democrats wanted Comey’s head for what he did to Hillary. Trump just fired Comey. I’m confused.

NEWSMAN #2: Doesn’t matter. Say Trump just burned up the Constitution. Say he hates dogs and little children. Say his hair is actually a wig made of Russian sable.

NEWSMAN #1: What about the truth?

NEWSMAN #2: The what? You poor sap. Truth is relative to agenda. Did you miss that lesson in journalism school?

NEWSMAN #1: I didn’t go to journalism school. I got my PhD in philosophy at Yale. I wrote my thesis on a comparison of “an” and “the” in ancient Babylonia.

Fired FBI Director Comey is obviously in trouble. Cry for him. He’ll have to go on food stamps and welfare now, won’t he? Will he be able to collect Social Security? He’s too young! He needs crowdfunding. Send canned food.

The media are portraying Trump firing Comey as “breathtaking,” “stunning,” “shocking.” They’re saying this is how Washington is reacting.

If you live in Washington, try to find somebody who is really sucking air and trying to breathe. Find somebody who is leaning against a wall because he’s stunned. Find somebody whose eyes are rolling up inside his head from the shock.

It’s all made up. It’s all hyped.

Washington politicians may be pretending shock and amazement for the cameras, but that’s about it.

And if you travel outside Washington, most people don’t care about Comey. People are fired from their jobs all the time. People are let go for many reasons. People who can’t afford to be unemployed. Comey, on the other hand, is thinking about a book deal. He might be planning a vacation. He might be talking to Obama about doing some elite “community organizing.” He’ll be fielding offers to sit on corporate boards. His biggest worry: “Do I go on the talk shows right away or do I wait?”

Washington insiders aren’t shocked by anything. They just play that role on television.

When an interesting event occurs, like Trump firing Comey, Washington pols meet with their staffs and plan their public response. They look for a personal advantage. “How can I play this?” “Can I use this to get ahead?” “Let’s go for the Trump impeachment angle.”

Comey himself knew he was on the verge of getting fired. There wasn’t any mystery about it. He kept pushing the fantastical Trump-Russia investigation. He didn’t bother looking into Trump-team leaks that were the result of domestic hacking. His initial reaction to getting fired—he thought it was a joke, a prank—was nonsensical. He knew. He knew he was on the edge.

Right now, Comey is wondering how far he can move from his former job and maintain credibility as a non-partisan figure. Or: can he go the other way and sign on with Obama? Can he approach Hillary and mend fences? Can he lobby? How can he successfully position himself for the “next chapter of his life?”

I once interviewed a troubled Washington politician who had jumped the wrong way on an important decision involving his Party. He was toast. With me, he mouthed all sorts of gumble-jumble about “sticking to his guns,” but I could see his wheels were turning. He was contemplating his future. Where could he go? What could he do to make hay after public office? These people don’t waste time. They move on. Nobody cares. It’s politics.

Comey rolled the dice and lost. He knew he could lose. As he was rolling those dice, he was already thinking about his image and whether he could emerge as a hero or a martyr. Or whether he had already played out all his political capital. If so, his next gig would land him in the private sector, or with a prestigious foundation.

Washington is a mix of musical chairs and checkers. Doors open, doors close, the players scramble for a spot.

Nobody is shocked.

In the swamp, nobody is amazed.

The media pretend shock, awe, and amazement, because when they do, their ratings go up.

Right now, in that vein, they’re all jockeying for a chance to interview Comey. He’s the next big “get.”

“Tell Mr. Comey we can do this anywhere he wants to. In his living room, his study, or we’ll put him in a quiet studio. And we’ll walk along a riverbank, stroll through a forest. It’ll be dignified. Absolutely no gossip. He’s a major figure. We’ll accord him all the respect he deserves. We’ll track his career from the early days. He’s a…statesman. We hold him in the highest regard. We’d like to do this long-form, as a two-parter, on consecutive nights. An hour each night. Only one commercial per half-hour. We want to give him the widest possible exposure. All of America wants to hear what he has to say at this crucial moment. As a token of our appreciation and an expression of concern, we’re prepared to FedEx him a dozen cans of baked beans and several flank steaks from Safeway, because we know he’s currently unemployed…”

And then there was the Comey farewell letter to his FBI people.

As you read it, try to hold back the tears.

“I have said to you before that, in times of turbulence, the American people should see the FBI as a rock of competence, honesty, and independence. What makes leaving the FBI hard is the nature and quality of its people, who together make it that rock for America.”

“It is very hard to leave a group of people who are committed only to doing the right thing. My hope is that you will continue to live our values and the mission of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution. If you do that, you too will be sad when you leave, and the American people will be safer.”

Competence? Committed to doing the right thing? Upholding the Constitution and the law?

Comey was obviously excluding himself from that reference.

Recall his surreal press conference during the presidential campaign, during which he acted as FBI director, Attorney General, and grand jury, when he recited a list of felonies Hillary Clinton had committed in the handling of her private email server…and then said he was not recommending prosecution, because Hillary showed no intent to deceive or do harm. Comey obviously knew intent was no part of the law, which was written to make sure negligence alone, in the handling of classified materials, was sufficient to prosecute and convict a perpetrator.

A number of FBI agents weren’t happy with Comey then. Not at all. The new Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe belatedly confirmed it in testimony before Congress on Thursday: “…there were folks within our agency that were frustrated with the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about those concerns.”

You bet.

As for the unparalleled honesty of the FBI Comey referred to in his farewell letter, where does one begin?

Let’s take a peek at just one area: the vaunted FBI lab, where evidence in crime investigations is analyzed.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: “Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload”’.”

Buckle up for this one. March 22, 1997, CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

If you’re thinking the FBI’s fake investigation of the Oklahoma bombing evidence opens the door to a whole new direction in the case, you’re right. (I wrote a book about false evidence in the OKC bombing in 1995.)

Yes, there are honest and honorable agents at the FBI, but let’s not go overboard with Comey and his sop of a farewell letter.

Comey postures. He works the “honor” angle. He tap dances. He puts out pure jive.

In 2013, before his appointment as FBI director, Comey was brought in by the scandal-ridden HSBC Bank, to oversee efforts to clean up its act—in particular, money laundering for drug cartels.

Comey was positioned as the face of honesty and competence for HSBC.

How well did he do, before he exited his position? How much crime and how many criminals did he leave behind?

Three years later, after Comey had departed, The NY Times wrote: “HSBC Bank Executives Face Charges in $3.5 Billion Currency [Fraud] Case … Traders Use Front-Running to Profit From Client Orders…”

I guess Comey didn’t clean up the HSBC mess. There were a few things he didn’t notice while he was there. A few thing he left behind. A few billion things.

And now, far more interesting than “why was Comey really fired from the FBI”: what corruption he did he leave behind at the FBI that we don’t know about?

The old saying, fake it ‘til you make it, applies. Comey faked it until he made it. And then he faked it again.

Now he’ll move into a new role. Who knows, some day, as history is rewritten, people may be saying he was the only honest man in Washington.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: I’m writing a book about Comey, comparing him to Gandhi.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Who wins?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: Comey, in a landslide. He stood up against the titanic forces of evil in Washington.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: You have a publisher?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: The US Printing Office. My uncle owns it.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: I thought that was a government department.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: The New York Times bought it.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Your uncle owns the New York Times?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: He owns the company that owns Facebook and Google. They own the New York Times.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Wow. What’s the name of the company your uncle owns?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: Clinton and Comey. It’s a law firm and a foundation. Their headquarters are in Jerusalem, Riyadh, and the Vatican.

The Comey affair; lies and reality pass like trains in the night