Dynasties of power and self-interest everywhere except in the Constitution

I have written in the past about the dynastic and nepotistic nature of some corners of the governance of our Republic.  See Insiders all the way down and Genealogy of the Mandarin Class.  Another example came to the surface this week when it was revealed that Maurene Comey, assistant district attorney of the Southern District of New York, is one of the lead prosecutors in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell.  Ghislaine Maxwell being the co-conspirator and procurer for Jeffrey Epstein.  

Comey was also on the team of prosecutors leading the case against Jeffrey Epstein before his suicide in jail brought the case to a close.  The Jeffrey Epstein of the "Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself" meme.  

Epstein was infamous for his Lolita Express flights with underage women and famous men such as Bill Clinton.  It has been widely observed that Epstein's death before testimony was remarkably convenient for the famous passengers of Lolita Express.  Epstein's circle of friends was dominated by powerful Democrats and he was a significant funder of various Democrat campaigns.

James Comey was one of the trio of intelligence agency leaders (Comey, Clapper, and Brennan) who allied against President Trump during the Trump administration and since 2018 has been closely affiliated with the Democratic Party.  Comey's dirty tricks around the Steele Dossier have made it clear that that affiliation was preceded by covert actions of the part of Comey to bring down the Trump Administration through strategic leaks of information known to be untrue.  

So here we have Democratic Party aligned James Comey's daughter as lead prosecutor of an individual who can shed light on the illegal actions of Democratic Party movers and shakers.  

I have no issue with the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell.  I think most would agree that incarcerating child abusers, especially child abusers in positions of political power, is a good thing.  But the James Comey: Maurene Comey: Epstein/Maxwell/Democratic Party nexus is almost unavoidably eye-catching.  I suspect, and hope, that there is nothing significant in this alignment but when we evolve into a nation governed by nepotistic dynasts, it can't help but look suspicious.

Another example came from Glenn Greenwald's publication of How the Corporate Media Launched a Disinformation Campaign to Protect Fauci by Leighton Woodhouse.  Read the article for the horror that is not being covered by the mainstream media.  But this is the section that especially attracted my attention.

The central claim is that NIAID under Fauci has funded pointless and cruel research on dogs and then lied about it.  Woodhouse reveals something of which I was unaware.  It is one  more example of the interwoven interests in Washington, D.C. and how the insiders look after their own interests. 

NIAID denied funding this one experiment, However, NIAID has confirmed that it has funded experiments by the same researchers that involved infecting dogs in Tunisia with leshmaniasis by way of sand flies. If you find yourself confused by that sentence because it sounds like they are saying that they funded almost exactly the same research which shaped the experiment that they are now denying having funded, you are not confused at all. That is literally what they’re saying. The only difference is that, in the Tunisia experiment which NIAID admits they funded, the dogs were put outside to be eaten by sand flies, not kept inside with their heads in mesh bags.

The researchers published the findings of the disputed experiment in a journal called PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. One of the Editors-in-Chief of that journal is a scientist named Shaden Kamhawi. As Editor-in-Chief of a small journal, it is reasonable to assume that she approved this politically inflammatory “correction” that her journal issued about the funding of the Tunisia experiment. But at least for now, we cannot say so definitively because Kamhawi — refusing basic transparency about what her journal published — ignored an email I sent her with a list of detailed questions.

Kamhawi is an expert on both leishmaniasis and sand flies. She herself has conducted experiments on dogs in which she exposed them to sand flies to infect them with leishmaniasis. In fact just last year, she published a paper on the subject that was co-authored by the scientist who conducted the Tunisia experiment. The editor, that is to say, is herself one of the scientists whose work came under fire with the revelation of these gruesome experiments. In fact, White Coat Waste has exposed and publicized her own past work.

On top of all of that, Kamhawi works for NIAID. Not only that, but she serves on NIAID’s Animal Care and Use Committee, and is therefore directly implicated in the allegations White Coat Waste has made, both in terms of her own prior research and also in terms of her role in authorizing the funding of this kind of animal cruelty in general. As the editor who presumably approved the “correction” about NIAID’s funding of the Tunisia experiment, the only way Kamhawi could be more conflicted is if she were Anthony Fauci himself.

In light of all of this information, does NIAID’s denial that it funded this particular experiment seem credible? Would you expect reporters at The Washington Post to have a few follow-up questions to NIAID before blindly accepting its version of events and rushing to malign the entire story as a “false claim” and as “right-wing disinformation”?

 

 I would have, too. And that’s why this was such an educational moment for me. Call me naive, but as cynical as I am about the media, it is still shocking to witness the extent to which once illustrious newspapers like The Washington Post have been completely transformed into adjuncts for the communications departments of the politicians they favor.

Dynasties of power and self-interest everywhere except in the Constitution.