washingtonmonthly--2020-01-06--Who Does Maryland’s Governor Really Work For?

For years , Never Trump Republicans have courted Larry Hogan to run for president .
It ’ s easy to see why .
He ’ s won two gubernatorial elections in Maryland , where Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one ; he ’ s currently one of the most popular governors in America ; and he ’ s widely viewed as a moderate who ’ s willing to reach across the aisle .
The late-night talk-show host Seth Meyers recently described him as “ a Republican who believes in climate change.
” In June , he ’ s publishing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laying the groundwork for a 2024 presidential bid .
Last spring , he launched a national advocacy group , An America United , designed to break partisan gridlock and “ bring people together to advance bold , common-sense solutions for all Americans.
” Simply put , everything about Larry Hogan ’ s public image would lead you to believe he ’ s the opposite of Donald Trump .
But Hogan , it turns out , has more in common with Trump than his reputation suggests .
Both are real-estate executives who have refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
Just as Trump maintained his ownership of the Trump Organization when he became president , Hogan maintained ownership of HOGAN , a multipurpose real-estate brokerage firm , when he became governor .
Both have left close family members in charge of their businesses—Trump with his children ; Hogan with his brother , Timothy—and created arrangements that allow them to be apprised of the company ’ s dealings .
In other words , they have set up situations in which they can use their powerful government positions to increase their private profits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s signature policies has been to expand state spending on roads , highways , and bridges at the expense of mass transit .
His most controversial policy to date was to cancel the Red Line—a planned $ 2.9 billion metro rail line through Baltimore , for which the state had already acquired land .
In the process , Hogan gave up $ 900 million in federal aid from the Obama administration .
As The Baltimore Sun put it , “ Hogan freed up hundred [ sic ] of millions of dollars he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift in the state ’ s transportation priorities from public transit to road projects.
” Hogan has advanced a number of major state transportation projects that are near properties his company owns , a development that can boost the value of those properties .
Before canceling the Red Line , he approved construction of an interchange down the road from a parcel of land his company controlled .
Later , he approved millions of dollars in road and sidewalk improvements near property he had bought approximately two years earlier and was turning into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that an official may not partake in a decision if the official or a qualifying relative—defined as a parent , spouse , child , or sibling—has an economic interest in the matter and the official or employee knows of the interest .
These decisions “ certainly seem to implicate the statute , ” said Virginia Canter , the chief ethics counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and a former ethics adviser for the International Monetary Fund .
“ It looks like there ’ s credible evidence of a violation.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grown while he has been in office .
In 2014 , the year before he became governor , his company had ownership in 30 real-estate limited-liability companies , or LLCs , according to his financial-disclosure forms .
Now , he has 43 .
HOGAN is currently selling or leasing more than 20 properties throughout the state , according to its website , and has completed other real-estate deals over the past five years .
But Hogan has not revealed payments he has received from specific real-estate transactions while in office .
“ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the state—who he ’ s in charge of regulating in one way or another—and the public has no idea who they are , ” said Democrat John Willis , a former Maryland secretary of state and now a University of Baltimore politics professor and a historian of Maryland politics and government .
Hogan ’ s income has far exceeded his official yearly government salary of roughly $ 180,000 .
From 2015 to 2018 , his first three years as governor , he made a total of roughly $ 2.4 million , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which he released during his 2018 reelection campaign .
But he has refused to release his returns for the years before he became governor , much like Donald Trump , giving the public no way to compare his earnings before and after he ascended to Annapolis .
In addition , the tax returns Hogan has released do not include attached statements detailing the sources of his private income , effectively hiding what entities were paying him .
The amount he ’ s made while in office is unprecedented .
According to Willis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor than any other governor in the history of the state— and is the only one to have made millions of dollars while in office .
In February 2018 , Maryland Matters , a state-based politics and policy website , reported that Hogan held ownership in a company called Brandywine Crossing Realty Partners LLC .
The company was chartered on March 9 , 2015 , and it became a controlling partner for a parcel of land behind the Brandywine Crossing Shopping Center in Prince George ’ s County .
The land was just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transportation project : a new highway interchange .
As Maryland Matters reported , development funding for this project was first allocated by Hogan ’ s predecessor , Democrat Martin O ’ Malley , and it had been studied by state transportation planners since 1984 .
“ There is no indication that the governor deliberately took an official action to benefit himself financially , ” the site wrote .
But there ’ s more to the story—and reason for greater concern .
Several months before the governor ’ s company took control of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration—not O ’ Malley ’ s—earmarked $ 58 million to build this interchange .
In April 2015 , the general assembly approved the project .
Hogan did not notify legislators that he had property interests nearby before the vote .
The allocation for the interchange was made as part of Maryland ’ s annual transportation budget process .
Each September , the Maryland governor releases a draft six-year transportation budget .
It includes transit projects that the government is considering or actively building , along with the phase that each is in .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a finalized version .
The legislature then takes several months to deliberate on the budget—for which the gubernatorial staff lobbies—before voting on it .
Lawmakers can vote down individual projects but can ’ t add any .
In O ’ Malley ’ s final 2014–19 transportation budget , the Brandywine project was in a planning phase of development .
When O ’ Malley released Maryland ’ s draft 2015–20 transportation budget , it was not mentioned .
But when Hogan released the finalized 2015–20 budget five months later , he moved the overpass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in new funding .
A source familiar with the situation said that the decision to expedite the project was made during meetings that included the governor , which took place in November and December 2014 , after Hogan was elected but before he was sworn in .
Hogan didn ’ t become a controlling partner for the Brandywine property until the following March , but it ’ s not clear when his negotiations to gain a stake in the property began .
Real-estate executives I spoke to who are familiar with the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past , said these deals typically take months ( and in some cases years ) to complete .
Hogan ’ s communications director , Michael Ricci , said that advancing the Brandywine project had nothing to do with Hogan .
“ The governor has never made a decision on an individual project , ” he said .
But a Maryland Department of Transportation ( MDOT ) official familiar with the process , who spoke on the condition of anonymity , said that wasn ’ t true .
Ricci ’ s claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t pass the laugh test.
” The governor , at the very least , has signed off on every decision .
“ The [ transportation ] secretary can propose it , but it ’ s the governor ’ s call , ” the official said .
Maryland ’ s constitution declares that the governor is responsible for sending the budget to the legislature “ in such form and detail as he shall determine.
” Warren Deschenaux , who directed Annapolis ’ s nonpartisan Department of Legislative Services for decades , said Maryland ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most executive driven in the nation .
He called Hogan ’ s claim that he hasn ’ t made any decisions in his transportation budget a “ ridiculous assertion.
” Former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening , a Democrat , added that the governor is the sole official responsible for moving transportation projects into construction : “ Those decisions are going to have to be the governor ’ s decision and not someone in government bureaucracy.
” Multiple legislators said they were not informed of the governor ’ s nearby real-estate interests before voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly had none of this information when working on the budget committees or in discussions , ” said Bill Ferguson , a Democratic Maryland state senator , when we spoke in September .
( In October , Ferguson was selected to become the Maryland Senate ’ s next president . )
“ Had I known this information , I think there would have been much more targeted and purposeful questions about the necessity of projects that appear to have a financial benefit to the governor.
” ( Hogan listed his holdings in real-estate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Ethics Commission , filed 17 days after the legislature approved his first budget , but he did not identify specific properties , let alone the dates of acquisition . )
Greg Slater , the Maryland State Highway Administration ’ s administrator , told me that transportation planners make a variety of recommendations for what belongs in the budget and at what phase .
One of the reasons the Hogan administration advanced the interchange , Slater said , was that the state had completed “ right-of-way ” —meaning it had purchased the land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-of-way and engineering were still in process when it was advanced , according to MDOT records .
( In December 2019 , Hogan nominated Slater to be Maryland ’ s new transportation secretary . )
Hogan himself has taken credit for the Brandywine interchange .
“ Our administration promised to fix Maryland ’ s crumbling roads and bridges , as well [ as ] address the worst traffic in the nation , and with the MD 5 interchange project , we are doing exactly what we said we would do , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This important project will help remove a major bottleneck in Prince George ’ s County.
” Hogan awarded the contract to build the Brandywine interchange to Facchina Construction Company , according to records obtained by the Washington Monthly through Maryland ’ s Public Information Act .
Facchina donated to Hogan ’ s reelection campaign one year before receiving the contract .
The interchange is scheduled to be completed by the late spring of 2020 .
Experts I spoke with who reviewed Maryland ’ s ethics laws were alarmed by the Hogan administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ properties .
Richard Painter , a professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush , said that Hogan should have been prohibited from participating in the decision .
“ The [ ethics law ] language suggests that he should recuse because the official or employee or qualifying relative—he himself—has an interest in the matter and he knows of the interest , ” Painter told me .
Hogan has a history of investing in the area surrounding the Brandywine project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his administration , the government has also advanced a number of other improvements in the same vicinity , including the construction of embankments , exit ramps , and median piers ; pavement upgrades ; a new park-and-ride lot ; and a bridge .
At the same time , Hogan ’ s business has been increasing its portfolio near all of these improvements .
In early 2017 , HOGAN purchased a new parcel of land for $ 2.2 million near the interchange , where , according to a Maryland real-estate newsletter , it plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical office space , and an assisted-living center .
Most recently , the company bought 14 additional parcels of land in Brandywine near the interchange for more than $ 1.2 million , according to public land records .
I asked Mike Sponseller , a HOGAN vice president , whether the interchange project contributed to the firm ’ s increased investment in the area .
“ Yeah , ” he said .
“ Infrastructural updates are incredibly important to facilitating new development .
Infrastructure contributes to land value , contributes to access , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only place where Hogan has advanced construction projects near his existing property interests .
On November 12 , 2014 , just eight days after his election , Hogan ’ s company bought a parcel of land from Maryland ’ s State Highway Administration in Severn , Maryland , for $ 400,000 .
The sale was conducted through a public auction , and only one bid was made : by Timothy Hogan .
In November 2014 , HOGAN created a new LLC called the Villas at Severn Crest .
Since Larry Hogan took office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of transportation projects that could boost the value of that property , including intersection improvements and road resurfacing less than a mile away , which started in 2018 .
In addition to his Brandywine and Severn properties , HOGAN chartered a company in West Hyattsville in early March 2015 that bought a parcel of land a half mile off Queens Chapel Road .
The company is turning the parcel into a townhouse development .
In his 2017 transportation budget , Hogan put $ 23.5 million in road and crosswalk improvements on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a mile from the property .
( Previously , this project had been in a planning phase . )
Lawmakers said they were not told at the time that he owned a property near the road improvements .
Larry Hogan , 63 , has been steeped in politics since childhood .
His father , Lawrence Hogan Sr. , won a seat in Congress when his son was 12 , and he gained fame as the first Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee to call for Richard Nixon ’ s impeachment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ office himself .
Throughout the 1980s and ’ 90s , Hogan Jr. tried unsuccessfully to win a seat in Congress .
Instead of going to Capitol Hill , he went into real estate .
In 1985 , he founded HOGAN , his real-estate firm .
He wasn ’ t always successful .
Hogan filed for bankruptcy in 1994 when he couldn ’ t pay back multiple longtime lenders who called in their loans , and he was forced to liquidate his assets , including by selling his house for $ 750,000 .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brother joined the firm in 1999 .
In 2003 , Hogan got his first political break when Bob Ehrlich was elected governor , the first Republican to win in Maryland since Spiro Agnew .
Ehrlich appointed Hogan to a cabinet post in charge of filling jobs at Maryland state agencies , boards , and commissions .
After Ehrlich lost his reelection campaign to Martin O ’ Malley four years later , Hogan founded a political advocacy group , Change Maryland , which tallied O ’ Malley ’ s tax increases .
That became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gubernatorial bid , which he won as part of a wave election that saw GOP victories all across the country .
Hogan finally got his chance to serve in elected office .
But Hogan ’ s election came with an immediate complication : What would he do with his real-estate business ?
Maryland ethics law bans officials or employees from making decisions on matters in which they have an economic interest .
But the law states that this prohibition does “ not apply if participation is allowed as to officials and employees subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State ] Ethics Commission.
” Hogan reached out to the ethics commission for advice .
One day after Hogan was inaugurated , on January 22 , 2015 , Maryland State Ethics Commission executive director Michael Lord wrote back with guidance .
His letter was designed to “ serve as an interim approach pending the full resolution of possible financial interest issues.
” Those issues , Lord said , could take “ a number of months ” to fully sort out .
In the guidelines Lord sent to Hogan , he told the governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibition on making decisions that impacted his financial interests .
Lord wrote : Later in the letter , Lord wrote , “ The Commission has determined that participation includes supervision of others involved in a matter.
” In December 2015 , Hogan entered into a trust agreement that he asserted would prevent conflicts of interest .
On April 15 , 2016 , the trust was approved by the state ethics commission .
Between Hogan ’ s inauguration and the trust agreement ’ s approval , the governor submitted two transportation budgets—including the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least seven newly created real-estate LLCs .
In other words , Hogan ’ s real-estate business was growing just as he was supposed to be separating himself from it .
In an email , Ricci said that given the length of time it took the commission to deliberate , much of this was both unavoidable and acceptable .
“ Since before being sworn into office , the governor ’ s representatives requested and received guidance from the Ethics Commission to ensure full compliance with the Public Ethics Law , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sent to Hogan the day after his inauguration , in which the chairman stated that the commission “ appreciates the efforts that have been made to date by the Governor and his team to address the complicated issues involving his private business interests and his sincere desire to ensure compliance with the Ethics law.
” But even after Hogan began talks with the ethics commission , there were signs that he had not made a clear break from his business .
In February 2015 , while serving as governor , Hogan himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a press release issued by his private company .
His administration began construction on projects near both the Villas at Severn Crest and the Riverfront at West Hyattsville after his trust went into place .
Hogan refused multiple requests to be interviewed .
“ Washington Monthly is making absolutely baseless allegations that the state ’ s major media outlets have already thoroughly vetted and rejected , ” Ricci wrote in an emailed statement .
“ With the advice and agreement of the Ethics Commission , the governor has gone above and beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are several different ways by which Hogan could have separated himself from his business .
Craig Holman , a government-affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen , a nonprofit good-government group , said that the most robust way would be to divest entirely .
It ’ s an approach that some Democrats in the Maryland legislature have also endorsed .
“ When you have a business owner who takes the reins of government , that business owner needs to remember that he is no longer simply beholden to his business interest , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ He is beholden to the interests of the people of the state .
If those business interests are not something that you are willing to give up , then you frankly don ’ t deserve to be in that position.
” Some members of the conservative movement disagree .
Kendra Arnold , the head of the Foundation for Accountability and Public Trust , an organization once led by former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker , told The Baltimore Sun in 2018 that it was “ not realistic ” for public officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone divest themselves of every interest they have is not a reasonable requirement , ” she said .
Reformers are not asking for politicians to divest from every stock or mutual fund , of course .
And Hogan ’ s real-estate empire—which has properties across the state he governs—is not a typical business .
But experts like Holman argue that when politicians do maintain their business interests while in office , they should have to place them into a blind trust , managed by an independent entity with which they have no prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , he put his peanut farm into a blind trust .
But Hogan ’ s trust is not blind .
The ethics commission granted the governor a “ financial-interest exemption , ” which allows him to continue to own real-estate projects and to be apprised of his company ’ s business dealings , as well as how much money he ’ s making .
In a letter to Lord , Hogan wrote that the arrangement “ will not prevent me from requesting or receiving information about the status of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status of its current investments and , [ sic ] the identity of the investors and the locations of real property in which the Hogan Companies have an investment.
” Ricci said Hogan opted for this type of arrangement because a “ blind trust is generally reserved for passive investments .
Given that the trust represents an active and ongoing business , it is sensible to have it managed by experts in the field.
” Ricci said that , as part of the deal , the governor promised to not participate in matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance consultation or solicitation of advice with respect to the business activities of the trust , ” Ricci told me .
“ In short , this trust goes further than current Maryland law.
” But the trustees Hogan chose to manage his holdings are not just experts in the real-estate field—they are his previous business associates : Victor White , the chief operating officer of HOGAN ; Jacob Ermer , the executive vice president of HOGAN ; and David Weiss , a former broker at HOGAN .
According to public records , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His brother , Timothy , is in charge of his company .
As governor , Hogan has maintained a close relationship with all four of these individuals .
He had at least eight meetings with them between 2015 and 2018 , according to his meeting calendar , obtained by the Washington Monthly through a Public Information Act request .
Kathleen Clark , a government ethics professor at the Washington University in St. Louis ’ s School of Law , said it was “ misleading ” to even call the arrangement a trust because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investments and assets .
“ He owns it , he will benefit from it , he is not shielded from knowledge of what the holdings are , ” she said .
This faulty arrangement is , in part , the responsibility of the Maryland State Ethics Commission , which granted Hogan the financial-interest exemption and signed off on the trust .
The commission ’ s decision speaks to the overall weakness of Maryland ’ s ethics laws .
The Center for Public Integrity , in its 2015 State Integrity Report , the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a D overall for integrity—and an F for ethics enforcement .
( Maryland passed a law in 2017 that strengthened certain provisions in the state ’ s public ethics law—mainly toughening the regulations governing when and how former legislators can become lobbyists . )
Still , the ethics commission made it clear that financial-interest exceptions do not allow officials to participate in government decisions that impact their outside business .
“ Even when the Commission grants an exception or exemption , all of the other provisions of the Ethics Law continue to apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ August 2019 memo to state workers .
“ For example , the employee or an official may not participate in any matters on behalf of the State relating to the employee ’ s secondary employer or entity where the ownership interest lies even if the Commission grants an exemption or exception.
” In its specific guidance to Hogan , the commission stated that Hogan could , and should , identify “ a specific person within the Governor ’ s Office to act in his place on any such matters that come to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial interest in his businesses.
” Yet when I asked Ricci , Hogan ’ s spokesperson , if the governor had ever recused himself from a decision in his transportation budget that could impact his properties , he was clear that Hogan had not .
“ The answer is no , ” Ricci said .
“ The governor does not make decisions on individual projects , so he has no decisions to recuse himself from.
” The ethics commission did indicate that it ’ s these kinds of discrete decisions Hogan should avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it wrote that the participation restrictions refer to specific matters , “ not to broad policy matters where his businesses are among a small number directly affected.
” But senior Maryland officials , past and present , said the governor routinely makes specific calls on infrastructure projects and , indeed , is the official responsible for making such calls .
Maryland law allows state officials or employees to participate in decisions from which they would otherwise be barred , as long as they are the only person authorized to make those decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when officials are exempted from participation prohibitions by necessity , they must publicly disclose their conflict of interest .
Multiple legislators said Hogan did not disclose real-estate interests before they voted on his proposed transportation projects .
Last October , Hogan endorsed the Ukraine-related impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump .
“ I think we do need an inquiry because we have to get to the bottom of it , ” he said in a televised interview .
“ I don ’ t see any other way to get to the facts.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silent over the president ’ s alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause .
In fact , in 2018 , he withheld $ 1 million from the Maryland attorney general ’ s office to stop a series of lawsuits against Trump , the most prominent of which alleged that the president was using his position to bolster his real-estate empire ’ s profits .
The governor justified his decision on fiscal grounds .
“ The administration takes its responsibility to find efficiency and savings in the state budget extremely seriously , ” Doug Mayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , told The Baltimore Sun .
“ This is a perfect example of that .
”

For years, Never Trump Republicans have courted Larry Hogan to run for president. It’s easy to see why. He’s won two gubernatorial elections in Maryland, where Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one; he’s currently one of the most popular governors in America; and he’s widely viewed as a moderate who’s willing to reach across the aisle. The late-night talk-show host Seth Meyers recently described him as “a Republican who believes in climate change.” In June, he’s publishing a memoir—a move that suggests he’s laying the groundwork for a 2024 presidential bid. Last spring, he launched a national advocacy group, An America United, designed to break partisan gridlock and “bring people together to advance bold, common-sense solutions for all Americans.” Simply put, everything about Larry Hogan’s public image would lead you to believe he’s the opposite of Donald Trump.
But Hogan, it turns out, has more in common with Trump than his reputation suggests.
Both are real-estate executives who have refused to relinquish their private businesses while in office. Just as Trump maintained his ownership of the Trump Organization when he became president, Hogan maintained ownership of HOGAN, a multipurpose real-estate brokerage firm, when he became governor. Both have left close family members in charge of their businesses—Trump with his children; Hogan with his brother, Timothy—and created arrangements that allow them to be apprised of the company’s dealings. In other words, they have set up situations in which they can use their powerful government positions to increase their private profits.
As governor, one of Hogan’s signature policies has been to expand state spending on roads, highways, and bridges at the expense of mass transit. His most controversial policy to date was to cancel the Red Line—a planned $2.9 billion metro rail line through Baltimore, for which the state had already acquired land. In the process, Hogan gave up $900 million in federal aid from the Obama administration. As The Baltimore Sun put it, “Hogan freed up hundred [sic] of millions of dollars he plans to use to undertake a significant shift in the state’s transportation priorities from public transit to road projects.”
Hogan has advanced a number of major state transportation projects that are near properties his company owns, a development that can boost the value of those properties. Before canceling the Red Line, he approved construction of an interchange down the road from a parcel of land his company controlled. Later, he approved millions of dollars in road and sidewalk improvements near property he had bought approximately two years earlier and was turning into a housing development.
Maryland law says that an official may not partake in a decision if the official or a qualifying relative—defined as a parent, spouse, child, or sibling—has an economic interest in the matter and the official or employee knows of the interest. These decisions “certainly seem to implicate the statute,” said Virginia Canter, the chief ethics counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and a former ethics adviser for the International Monetary Fund. “It looks like there’s credible evidence of a violation.”
Hogan’s real-estate business has only grown while he has been in office. In 2014, the year before he became governor, his company had ownership in 30 real-estate limited-liability companies, or LLCs, according to his financial-disclosure forms. Now, he has 43. HOGAN is currently selling or leasing more than 20 properties throughout the state, according to its website, and has completed other real-estate deals over the past five years.
But Hogan has not revealed payments he has received from specific real-estate transactions while in office. “He’s getting paid by developers all across the state—who he’s in charge of regulating in one way or another—and the public has no idea who they are,” said Democrat John Willis, a former Maryland secretary of state and now a University of Baltimore politics professor and a historian of Maryland politics and government.
Hogan’s income has far exceeded his official yearly government salary of roughly $180,000. From 2015 to 2018, his first three years as governor, he made a total of roughly $2.4 million, according to his tax returns for those years, which he released during his 2018 reelection campaign. But he has refused to release his returns for the years before he became governor, much like Donald Trump, giving the public no way to compare his earnings before and after he ascended to Annapolis. In addition, the tax returns Hogan has released do not include attached statements detailing the sources of his private income, effectively hiding what entities were paying him.
The amount he’s made while in office is unprecedented. According to Willis, Hogan has made more money as governor than any other governor in the history of the state— and is the only one to have made millions of dollars while in office.
In February 2018, Maryland Matters, a state-based politics and policy website, reported that Hogan held ownership in a company called Brandywine Crossing Realty Partners LLC. The company was chartered on March 9, 2015, and it became a controlling partner for a parcel of land behind the Brandywine Crossing Shopping Center in Prince George’s County. The land was just down the road from a major state transportation project: a new highway interchange.
As Maryland Matters reported, development funding for this project was first allocated by Hogan’s predecessor, Democrat Martin O’Malley, and it had been studied by state transportation planners since 1984. “There is no indication that the governor deliberately took an official action to benefit himself financially,” the site wrote.
But there’s more to the story—and reason for greater concern.
Several months before the governor’s company took control of the Brandywine land parcel, Hogan’s administration—not O’Malley’s—earmarked $58 million to build this interchange. In April 2015, the general assembly approved the project. Hogan did not notify legislators that he had property interests nearby before the vote.
Maryland law says that an official may not partake in a decision if the official or a qualifying relative—defined as a parent, spouse, child, or sibling—has an economic interest in the matter. Hogans’s real-estate firm is run by his brother.
The allocation for the interchange was made as part of Maryland’s annual transportation budget process. Each September, the Maryland governor releases a draft six-year transportation budget. It includes transit projects that the government is considering or actively building, along with the phase that each is in. The following January, the governor releases a finalized version. The legislature then takes several months to deliberate on the budget—for which the gubernatorial staff lobbies—before voting on it. Lawmakers can vote down individual projects but can’t add any.
In O’Malley’s final 2014–19 transportation budget, the Brandywine project was in a planning phase of development. When O’Malley released Maryland’s draft 2015–20 transportation budget, it was not mentioned. But when Hogan released the finalized 2015–20 budget five months later, he moved the overpass into construction and added $58 million in new funding. A source familiar with the situation said that the decision to expedite the project was made during meetings that included the governor, which took place in November and December 2014, after Hogan was elected but before he was sworn in. Hogan didn’t become a controlling partner for the Brandywine property until the following March, but it’s not clear when his negotiations to gain a stake in the property began. Real-estate executives I spoke to who are familiar with the process, and who have worked with HOGAN in the past, said these deals typically take months (and in some cases years) to complete.
Hogan’s communications director, Michael Ricci, said that advancing the Brandywine project had nothing to do with Hogan. “The governor has never made a decision on an individual project,” he said.
But a Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) official familiar with the process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that wasn’t true. Ricci’s claim, he added, “doesn’t pass the laugh test.” The governor, at the very least, has signed off on every decision. “The [transportation] secretary can propose it, but it’s the governor’s call,” the official said.
Maryland’s constitution declares that the governor is responsible for sending the budget to the legislature “in such form and detail as he shall determine.” Warren Deschenaux, who directed Annapolis’s nonpartisan Department of Legislative Services for decades, said Maryland’s transportation-infrastructure process is one of the most executive driven in the nation. He called Hogan’s claim that he hasn’t made any decisions in his transportation budget a “ridiculous assertion.”
Former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening, a Democrat, added that the governor is the sole official responsible for moving transportation projects into construction: “Those decisions are going to have to be the governor’s decision and not someone in government bureaucracy.”
Multiple legislators said they were not informed of the governor’s nearby real-estate interests before voting on his transportation budget. “I certainly had none of this information when working on the budget committees or in discussions,” said Bill Ferguson, a Democratic Maryland state senator, when we spoke in September. (In October, Ferguson was selected to become the Maryland Senate’s next president.) “Had I known this information, I think there would have been much more targeted and purposeful questions about the necessity of projects that appear to have a financial benefit to the governor.” (Hogan listed his holdings in real-estate LLCs in his submission to the Maryland State Ethics Commission, filed 17 days after the legislature approved his first budget, but he did not identify specific properties, let alone the dates of acquisition.)
Greg Slater, the Maryland State Highway Administration’s administrator, told me that transportation planners make a variety of recommendations for what belongs in the budget and at what phase. One of the reasons the Hogan administration advanced the interchange, Slater said, was that the state had completed “right-of-way”—meaning it had purchased the land needed to construct the project. But right-of-way and engineering were still in process when it was advanced, according to MDOT records. (In December 2019, Hogan nominated Slater to be Maryland’s new transportation secretary.)
Hogan himself has taken credit for the Brandywine interchange. “Our administration promised to fix Maryland’s crumbling roads and bridges, as well [as] address the worst traffic in the nation, and with the MD 5 interchange project, we are doing exactly what we said we would do,” the governor said in a press release. “This important project will help remove a major bottleneck in Prince George’s County.”
Hogan awarded the contract to build the Brandywine interchange to Facchina Construction Company, according to records obtained by the Washington Monthly through Maryland’s Public Information Act. Facchina donated to Hogan’s reelection campaign one year before receiving the contract. The interchange is scheduled to be completed by the late spring of 2020.
Experts I spoke with who reviewed Maryland’s ethics laws were alarmed by the Hogan administration’s decisions around Brandywine and other properties. Richard Painter, a professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, said that Hogan should have been prohibited from participating in the decision. “The [ethics law] language suggests that he should recuse because the official or employee or qualifying relative—he himself—has an interest in the matter and he knows of the interest,” Painter told me.
Hogan has a history of investing in the area surrounding the Brandywine project that dates back to 2003. Under his administration, the government has also advanced a number of other improvements in the same vicinity, including the construction of embankments, exit ramps, and median piers; pavement upgrades; a new park-and-ride lot; and a bridge.
At the same time, Hogan’s business has been increasing its portfolio near all of these improvements. In early 2017, HOGAN purchased a new parcel of land for $2.2 million near the interchange, where, according to a Maryland real-estate newsletter, it plans to build townhouses, apartments, a medical office space, and an assisted-living center. Most recently, the company bought 14 additional parcels of land in Brandywine near the interchange for more than $1.2 million, according to public land records.
I asked Mike Sponseller, a HOGAN vice president, whether the interchange project contributed to the firm’s increased investment in the area. “Yeah,” he said. “Infrastructural updates are incredibly important to facilitating new development. Infrastructure contributes to land value, contributes to access, of course.”
Brandywine isn’t the only place where Hogan has advanced construction projects near his existing property interests. On November 12, 2014, just eight days after his election, Hogan’s company bought a parcel of land from Maryland’s State Highway Administration in Severn, Maryland, for $400,000. The sale was conducted through a public auction, and only one bid was made: by Timothy Hogan. In November 2014, HOGAN created a new LLC called the Villas at Severn Crest. Since Larry Hogan took office, the State Highway Administration has begun a number of transportation projects that could boost the value of that property, including intersection improvements and road resurfacing less than a mile away, which started in 2018.
In addition to his Brandywine and Severn properties, HOGAN chartered a company in West Hyattsville in early March 2015 that bought a parcel of land a half mile off Queens Chapel Road. The company is turning the parcel into a townhouse development. In his 2017 transportation budget, Hogan put $23.5 million in road and crosswalk improvements on Queens Chapel Road into construction, less than a mile from the property. (Previously, this project had been in a planning phase.) Lawmakers said they were not told at the time that he owned a property near the road improvements.
[media-credit name=”Amy Swan” align=”alignnone” width=”750″] [/media-credit]
Larry Hogan, 63, has been steeped in politics since childhood. His father, Lawrence Hogan Sr., won a seat in Congress when his son was 12, and he gained fame as the first Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee to call for Richard Nixon’s impeachment. The younger Hogan nurtured dreams of holding office himself. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, Hogan Jr. tried unsuccessfully to win a seat in Congress.
Instead of going to Capitol Hill, he went into real estate. In 1985, he founded HOGAN, his real-estate firm. He wasn’t always successful. Hogan filed for bankruptcy in 1994 when he couldn’t pay back multiple longtime lenders who called in their loans, and he was forced to liquidate his assets, including by selling his house for $750,000. He later rebuilt his business, and his brother joined the firm in 1999.
In 2003, Hogan got his first political break when Bob Ehrlich was elected governor, the first Republican to win in Maryland since Spiro Agnew. Ehrlich appointed Hogan to a cabinet post in charge of filling jobs at Maryland state agencies, boards, and commissions. After Ehrlich lost his reelection campaign to Martin O’Malley four years later, Hogan founded a political advocacy group, Change Maryland, which tallied O’Malley’s tax increases. That became the springboard for Hogan’s 2014 gubernatorial bid, which he won as part of a wave election that saw GOP victories all across the country. Hogan finally got his chance to serve in elected office.
But Hogan’s election came with an immediate complication: What would he do with his real-estate business? Maryland ethics law bans officials or employees from making decisions on matters in which they have an economic interest. But the law states that this prohibition does “not apply if participation is allowed as to officials and employees subject to the authority of the [Maryland State] Ethics Commission.” Hogan reached out to the ethics commission for advice.
One day after Hogan was inaugurated, on January 22, 2015, Maryland State Ethics Commission executive director Michael Lord wrote back with guidance. His letter was designed to “serve as an interim approach pending the full resolution of possible financial interest issues.” Those issues, Lord said, could take “a number of months” to fully sort out.
In the guidelines Lord sent to Hogan, he told the governor to follow the ethics law’s prohibition on making decisions that impacted his financial interests. Lord wrote:
The Law provides that an official may not participate in a matter if (1) the official or a qualifying relative (defined as parent, spouse, child or sibling) has an interest in the matter, or (2) any of the following is a party to a matter: (i) a business entity in which the official has a direct financial interest; or (ii) a business entity, including a limited liability company, of which the official or a qualifying relative is an officer, director, trustee, partner or employee. Given these limitations, the Governor should not personally participate in any matter that may come before him or a state agency that involves [his] businesses, or any matter in which he or any of his qualifying relatives or a company that employs them have an interest.
Later in the letter, Lord wrote, “The Commission has determined that participation includes supervision of others involved in a matter.”
In December 2015, Hogan entered into a trust agreement that he asserted would prevent conflicts of interest. On April 15, 2016, the trust was approved by the state ethics commission. Between Hogan’s inauguration and the trust agreement’s approval, the governor submitted two transportation budgets—including the one advancing the Brandywine interchange—and gained ownership of at least seven newly created real-estate LLCs. In other words, Hogan’s real-estate business was growing just as he was supposed to be separating himself from it.
In an email, Ricci said that given the length of time it took the commission to deliberate, much of this was both unavoidable and acceptable. “Since before being sworn into office, the governor’s representatives requested and received guidance from the Ethics Commission to ensure full compliance with the Public Ethics Law,” he said. Ricci cited the letter from Lord, sent to Hogan the day after his inauguration, in which the chairman stated that the commission “appreciates the efforts that have been made to date by the Governor and his team to address the complicated issues involving his private business interests and his sincere desire to ensure compliance with the Ethics law.”
But even after Hogan began talks with the ethics commission, there were signs that he had not made a clear break from his business. In February 2015, while serving as governor, Hogan himself announced a $3.4 million real-estate transaction in a press release issued by his private company. His administration began construction on projects near both the Villas at Severn Crest and the Riverfront at West Hyattsville after his trust went into place.
Hogan refused multiple requests to be interviewed. “Washington Monthly is making absolutely baseless allegations that the state’s major media outlets have already thoroughly vetted and rejected,” Ricci wrote in an emailed statement. “With the advice and agreement of the Ethics Commission, the governor has gone above and beyond to comply with Public Ethics Law.”
There are several different ways by which Hogan could have separated himself from his business. Craig Holman, a government-affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a nonprofit good-government group, said that the most robust way would be to divest entirely. It’s an approach that some Democrats in the Maryland legislature have also endorsed. “When you have a business owner who takes the reins of government, that business owner needs to remember that he is no longer simply beholden to his business interest,” said Kirill Reznik, a Democratic state delegate. “He is beholden to the interests of the people of the state. If those business interests are not something that you are willing to give up, then you frankly don’t deserve to be in that position.”
Some members of the conservative movement disagree. Kendra Arnold, the head of the Foundation for Accountability and Public Trust, an organization once led by former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, told The Baltimore Sun in 2018 that it was “not realistic” for public officials to sell their businesses. “Having everyone divest themselves of every interest they have is not a reasonable requirement,” she said.
Reformers are not asking for politicians to divest from every stock or mutual fund, of course. And Hogan’s real-estate empire—which has properties across the state he governs—is not a typical business. But experts like Holman argue that when politicians do maintain their business interests while in office, they should have to place them into a blind trust, managed by an independent entity with which they have no prior relationship. When Jimmy Carter became president, for example, he put his peanut farm into a blind trust.
But Hogan’s trust is not blind. The ethics commission granted the governor a “financial-interest exemption,” which allows him to continue to own real-estate projects and to be apprised of his company’s business dealings, as well as how much money he’s making. In a letter to Lord, Hogan wrote that the arrangement “will not prevent me from requesting or receiving information about the status of the Hogan Companies . . . including the status of its current investments and, [sic] the identity of the investors and the locations of real property in which the Hogan Companies have an investment.”
Ricci said Hogan opted for this type of arrangement because a “blind trust is generally reserved for passive investments. Given that the trust represents an active and ongoing business, it is sensible to have it managed by experts in the field.” Ricci said that, as part of the deal, the governor promised to not participate in matters involving HOGAN. “The agreement prohibits advance consultation or solicitation of advice with respect to the business activities of the trust,” Ricci told me. “In short, this trust goes further than current Maryland law.”
But the trustees Hogan chose to manage his holdings are not just experts in the real-estate field—they are his previous business associates: Victor White, the chief operating officer of HOGAN; Jacob Ermer, the executive vice president of HOGAN; and David Weiss, a former broker at HOGAN. According to public records, all of them are Hogan campaign contributors. His brother, Timothy, is in charge of his company.
As governor, Hogan has maintained a close relationship with all four of these individuals. He had at least eight meetings with them between 2015 and 2018, according to his meeting calendar, obtained by the Washington Monthly through a Public Information Act request.
Hogan withheld $1 million from the Maryland attorney general to stop lawsuits against Trump, the most prominent of which alleged that the president was using his position to bolster his real-estate profits.
Kathleen Clark, a government ethics professor at the Washington University in St. Louis’s School of Law, said it was “misleading” to even call the arrangement a trust because Hogan is kept fully apprised of his investments and assets. “He owns it, he will benefit from it, he is not shielded from knowledge of what the holdings are,” she said.
This faulty arrangement is, in part, the responsibility of the Maryland State Ethics Commission, which granted Hogan the financial-interest exemption and signed off on the trust. The commission’s decision speaks to the overall weakness of Maryland’s ethics laws. The Center for Public Integrity, in its 2015 State Integrity Report, the most recent to date, gave the state a D overall for integrity—and an F for ethics enforcement. (Maryland passed a law in 2017 that strengthened certain provisions in the state’s public ethics law—mainly toughening the regulations governing when and how former legislators can become lobbyists.)
Still, the ethics commission made it clear that financial-interest exceptions do not allow officials to participate in government decisions that impact their outside business. “Even when the Commission grants an exception or exemption, all of the other provisions of the Ethics Law continue to apply,” the commission wrote in an August 2019 memo to state workers. “For example, the employee or an official may not participate in any matters on behalf of the State relating to the employee’s secondary employer or entity where the ownership interest lies even if the Commission grants an exemption or exception.”
In its specific guidance to Hogan, the commission stated that Hogan could, and should, identify “a specific person within the Governor’s Office to act in his place on any such matters that come to the Office while he continues to retain his financial interest in his businesses.” Yet when I asked Ricci, Hogan’s spokesperson, if the governor had ever recused himself from a decision in his transportation budget that could impact his properties, he was clear that Hogan had not. “The answer is no,” Ricci said. “The governor does not make decisions on individual projects, so he has no decisions to recuse himself from.”
The ethics commission did indicate that it’s these kinds of discrete decisions Hogan should avoid making. In its guidance to Hogan, it wrote that the participation restrictions refer to specific matters, “not to broad policy matters where his businesses are among a small number directly affected.” But senior Maryland officials, past and present, said the governor routinely makes specific calls on infrastructure projects and, indeed, is the official responsible for making such calls.
Maryland law allows state officials or employees to participate in decisions from which they would otherwise be barred, as long as they are the only person authorized to make those decisions. But the law also states that when officials are exempted from participation prohibitions by necessity, they must publicly disclose their conflict of interest. Multiple legislators said Hogan did not disclose real-estate interests before they voted on his proposed transportation projects.
Last October, Hogan endorsed the Ukraine-related impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. “I think we do need an inquiry because we have to get to the bottom of it,” he said in a televised interview. “I don’t see any other way to get to the facts.”
But Hogan has been, at best, silent over the president’s alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. In fact, in 2018, he withheld $1 million from the Maryland attorney general’s office to stop a series of lawsuits against Trump, the most prominent of which alleged that the president was using his position to bolster his real-estate empire’s profits.
The governor justified his decision on fiscal grounds. “The administration takes its responsibility to find efficiency and savings in the state budget extremely seriously,” Doug Mayer, a spokesperson for Hogan at the time, told The Baltimore Sun. “This is a perfect example of that.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-06--It Would Take Just 20 Republican Senators With a Conscience to End This

Having already plunged the Middle East into an escalating catastrophic crisis , Donald Trump is doubling down on his initial threat of war crimes against Iran and its people .
He is also threatening to “ charge ” Iraq with “ sanctions like they ’ ve never seen before ” in response to expelling American forces–because apparently not only does Trump not understand basic diplomacy or consequences , he apparently believes that countries pay sanctions like he believes they pay tariffs .
Without hyperbole , the president is a reckless , dangerous imbecile who should not be managing a local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States of America .
But the president ’ s behavior should not shock us .
We all know who and what he is .
We all know the character of his shrinking number of rallygoers and core supporters , the ones who would cheer on acts of genocide to bring about Biblical Armaggeddon while aggressively waving the stars and stripes and branding objectors as soy-addled snowflakes .
They are who they are .
But the most accountable people in America now are the craven Republican elected officials who have the power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The President of the United States will soon stand trial in the Senate for bribing and extorting a vulnerable foreign power in order to manufacture dirt on a political opponent .
The President ’ s threatened and real war crimes against Iran will serve as context and backdrop for that vote .
All it would take is 20 Republican Senators to say no .
To say that enough is enough .
To put the interests of the United States ahead of their temporary partisan interests .
It would only take well under half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right thing .
It wouldn ’ t even cost them that much as a party .
Democrats are extremely unlikely to lose the House in 2020–hence the large number of Republican retirements .
The Senate is likely to be deadlocked .
Getting rid of Trump would still leave Mike Pence in the White House with the ability to nominate extremist Federalist Society judges .
Sure , they would face some primary challenges .
But most would survive them .
Those who didn ’ t would still get to retire and make millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would otherwise .
Twenty is all it would take to end this nightmare .
The power is literally in their hands .
There ’ s nothing the rest of us can do until November 2020 to oust the destructive madman in the White House , but there is something they can do .
If they don ’ t , the result damage is their fault more than Trump ’ s .
He just is what he is .
If they knowingly allow him to continue , everything he does is directly their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable accordingly .

Having already plunged the Middle East into an escalating catastrophic crisis, Donald Trump is doubling down on his initial threat of war crimes against Iran and its people. He is also threatening to “charge” Iraq with “sanctions like they’ve never seen before” in response to expelling American forces–because apparently not only does Trump not understand basic diplomacy or consequences, he apparently believes that countries pay sanctions like he believes they pay tariffs. Without hyperbole, the president is a reckless, dangerous imbecile who should not be managing a local fast food franchise, much less the United States of America.
But the president’s behavior should not shock us. We all know who and what he is. We all know the character of his shrinking number of rallygoers and core supporters, the ones who would cheer on acts of genocide to bring about Biblical Armaggeddon while aggressively waving the stars and stripes and branding objectors as soy-addled snowflakes. They are who they are.
But the most accountable people in America now are the craven Republican elected officials who have the power to stop this, yet refuse to. The President of the United States will soon stand trial in the Senate for bribing and extorting a vulnerable foreign power in order to manufacture dirt on a political opponent. The President’s threatened and real war crimes against Iran will serve as context and backdrop for that vote.
All it would take is 20 Republican Senators to say no. To say that enough is enough. To put the interests of the United States ahead of their temporary partisan interests. It would only take well under half of the GOP Senate caucus to do the right thing.
It wouldn’t even cost them that much as a party. Democrats are extremely unlikely to lose the House in 2020–hence the large number of Republican retirements. The Senate is likely to be deadlocked. Getting rid of Trump would still leave Mike Pence in the White House with the ability to nominate extremist Federalist Society judges.
Sure, they would face some primary challenges. But most would survive them. Those who didn’t would still get to retire and make millions as lobbyists with a cleaner conscience than they would otherwise.
Twenty is all it would take to end this nightmare. The power is literally in their hands. There’s nothing the rest of us can do until November 2020 to oust the destructive madman in the White House, but there is something they can do.
If they don’t, the result damage is their fault more than Trump’s. He just is what he is. If they knowingly allow him to continue, everything he does is directly their fault. And they should be held accountable accordingly.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-05--Trump’s Reckless Strike on Soleimani Has Led to a Global Catastrophe

Interventionists and anti-imperialists don ’ t agree on much in foreign policy .
But even if they take directly opposite approaches , they tend to agree that championing democratic values and human rights should be a primary goal of American foreign policy , and that it ’ s better for other nations to see the United States as a friend than as an enemy .
On both of those counts , Donald Trump ’ s reckless decision to assassinate a prominent Iranian general has been a colossal failure .
This isn ’ t just the opinion of some leftist writer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew it would be a gigantic mistake , which is why neither Republican nor Democratic administrations took this action in the past .
Commanders only presented Trump with the option of doing so in order to make the other better options seem more reasonable by contrast–a huge mistake when dealing with a Commander-in-Chief as devoid of common sense and moral responsibility as Donald Trump .
The attack itself was ostensibly a violation of international law and Geneva Conventions .
The president ’ s gross threat the following day to attack Iranian cultural sites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far less strategically or morally defensible .
Now the position of both America and western liberal values in the Middle East is unquestionable weaker , which should concern both leftists and neoconservatives alike .
Within the first 48 hours after the strike , the following developments have occurred : 1 ) Iran has formally withdrawn from their nuclear agreement with the United States .
The deal reached by the Obama Administration with Iran was a landmark achievement of diplomacy , one that defused tensions in the region while setting the two nations on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saudi Arabia to at least appear to be on better behavior .
Donald Trump decided to scrap the deal entirely for reasons that remain unclear , but appear to be caused by simple petty animus against former President Obama himself , and perhaps influence from both the hyper-conservative governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel .
Saudi Arabia in particular has become emboldened against the broader program of human rights as tensions between Iran and the United States have risen .
Now Iran will feel free to put its nuclear program into high gear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ middle east that could escalate Sunni-Shia conflicts to the level of potential global catastrophe .
2 ) Iraq ’ s parliament has voted to oust all U.S. troops from Iraq .
Iraq considered Soleimani an invited guest , and his killing was an extraordinary violation of Iraqi sovereignty .
Anti-interventionists on the left will cheer this development for some good reasons : American troops should have left Iraq long ago if at all possible , and should never have been there in the first place .
But once we were there , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s always better to leave as a respected and honored guest , rather than be kicked out in anger .
Iraq will now be inclined to turn to Iran , Russia and China for strategic alliance–a situation that works not only against American interests , but also against progressive interests in the world broadly speaking .
America has much to answer for on the world stage , but it benefits neither the neoconservative cause of Pax Americana nor the progressive interest of human rights and global cooperation to give greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a white supremacist fossil-fueled mafia kleptocracy , and a corrupt surveillance state autocracy actively engaged in mass ethnic cleansing .
3 ) The Iranian people are now rallying to their government in massive numbers to mourn Soleimani just a month after engaging in widespread anti-government protest .
A longstanding objective of American foreign policy on both the right and the left has been to weaken Iran ’ s theocratic government and promote liberal democratic values within the country .
There can be no question that killing Soleimani has been counterproductive to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise at all : not only is it a matter of wounded national pride , Soleimani for all his many evils was seen as a key figure in the battle against hated Sunni extremist powers , especially ISIS , in Shi ’ ite Iran .
Which brings us to the next disaster : 4 ) The U.S. led coalition has suspended its battle against ISIS .
The rise of ISIS has been one of the most alarming developments of the last decade , and the fight to contain and eliminate it has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a tragically ignored power vacuum among conservative Sunnis in Iraq and Syria resulting from the misbegotten American invasion .
All other concerns in the Middle East pale in comparison to taming the threat from ISIS and its attempt to foster a globally self-organized agenda of violent illiberalism .
Iran has been a key opponent of ISIS , and fostering closer diplomacy with Iran and Shi ’ ites in the region has been crucial in the battle against the so-called Islamic State .
The Trump ’ s administration ’ s betrayal of anti-ISIS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now with U.S. forces unwelcome and potentially under attack across the region , ISIS will be much freer to being re-organizing and recruiting .
Needless to say , this is dangerous not only to those in the region , but to everyone around the world .
All of this is just in the last 24 hours .
More dominoes will be sure to fall soon .
It ’ s not yet clear how Iran will respond to Soleimani ’ s killing , or what the out-of-control Trump Administration ’ s counter-response is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s safe to assume that both sides will continue to posture in a toxic attempt to save face in front of each other , and to distract from their unpopularity domestically , in a cycle of violence that could lead to a catastrophic war .
It ’ s impossible to predict the future with confidence , but one thing is abundantly clear : Trump and his enablers have dramatically weakened the position of both America and western liberal values , setting the world on a much more dangerous course .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive or conservative perspective , one that leads only to increased death and misery , weakens international cooperation and strengthens the hand of the worst actors on the world stage .

Interventionists and anti-imperialists don’t agree on much in foreign policy. But even if they take directly opposite approaches, they tend to agree that championing democratic values and human rights should be a primary goal of American foreign policy, and that it’s better for other nations to see the United States as a friend than as an enemy.
On both of those counts, Donald Trump’s reckless decision to assassinate a prominent Iranian general has been a colossal failure. This isn’t just the opinion of some leftist writer at a liberal magazine. Military strategists knew it would be a gigantic mistake, which is why neither Republican nor Democratic administrations took this action in the past. Commanders only presented Trump with the option of doing so in order to make the other better options seem more reasonable by contrast–a huge mistake when dealing with a Commander-in-Chief as devoid of common sense and moral responsibility as Donald Trump.
The attack itself was ostensibly a violation of international law and Geneva Conventions. The president’s gross threat the following day to attack Iranian cultural sites was an even clearer crime, and far less strategically or morally defensible.
Now the position of both America and western liberal values in the Middle East is unquestionable weaker, which should concern both leftists and neoconservatives alike. Within the first 48 hours after the strike, the following developments have occurred:
1) Iran has formally withdrawn from their nuclear agreement with the United States. The deal reached by the Obama Administration with Iran was a landmark achievement of diplomacy, one that defused tensions in the region while setting the two nations on a diplomatic rapprochement and forcing Iranian rival Saudi Arabia to at least appear to be on better behavior. Donald Trump decided to scrap the deal entirely for reasons that remain unclear, but appear to be caused by simple petty animus against former President Obama himself, and perhaps influence from both the hyper-conservative governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia in particular has become emboldened against the broader program of human rights as tensions between Iran and the United States have risen.
Now Iran will feel free to put its nuclear program into high gear, igniting an arms race in the middle east that could escalate Sunni-Shia conflicts to the level of potential global catastrophe.
2) Iraq’s parliament has voted to oust all U.S. troops from Iraq. Iraq considered Soleimani an invited guest, and his killing was an extraordinary violation of Iraqi sovereignty. Anti-interventionists on the left will cheer this development for some good reasons: American troops should have left Iraq long ago if at all possible, and should never have been there in the first place. But once we were there, this is the worst possible way to exit. It’s always better to leave as a respected and honored guest, rather than be kicked out in anger. Iraq will now be inclined to turn to Iran, Russia and China for strategic alliance–a situation that works not only against American interests, but also against progressive interests in the world broadly speaking. America has much to answer for on the world stage, but it benefits neither the neoconservative cause of Pax Americana nor the progressive interest of human rights and global cooperation to give greater power to a murderously repressive conservative theocracy, a white supremacist fossil-fueled mafia kleptocracy, and a corrupt surveillance state autocracy actively engaged in mass ethnic cleansing.
3) The Iranian people are now rallying to their government in massive numbers to mourn Soleimani just a month after engaging in widespread anti-government protest. A longstanding objective of American foreign policy on both the right and the left has been to weaken Iran’s theocratic government and promote liberal democratic values within the country. There can be no question that killing Soleimani has been counterproductive to that goal. This should come as no surprise at all: not only is it a matter of wounded national pride, Soleimani for all his many evils was seen as a key figure in the battle against hated Sunni extremist powers, especially ISIS, in Shi’ite Iran. Which brings us to the next disaster:
4) The U.S. led coalition has suspended its battle against ISIS. The rise of ISIS has been one of the most alarming developments of the last decade, and the fight to contain and eliminate it has been difficult. ISIS rose as a result of a tragically ignored power vacuum among conservative Sunnis in Iraq and Syria resulting from the misbegotten American invasion. All other concerns in the Middle East pale in comparison to taming the threat from ISIS and its attempt to foster a globally self-organized agenda of violent illiberalism. Iran has been a key opponent of ISIS, and fostering closer diplomacy with Iran and Shi’ites in the region has been crucial in the battle against the so-called Islamic State. The Trump’s administration’s betrayal of anti-ISIS Kurdish fighters also doesn’t help. Now with U.S. forces unwelcome and potentially under attack across the region, ISIS will be much freer to being re-organizing and recruiting. Needless to say, this is dangerous not only to those in the region, but to everyone around the world.
All of this is just in the last 24 hours. More dominoes will be sure to fall soon. It’s not yet clear how Iran will respond to Soleimani’s killing, or what the out-of-control Trump Administration’s counter-response is likely to be. But it’s safe to assume that both sides will continue to posture in a toxic attempt to save face in front of each other, and to distract from their unpopularity domestically, in a cycle of violence that could lead to a catastrophic war.
It’s impossible to predict the future with confidence, but one thing is abundantly clear: Trump and his enablers have dramatically weakened the position of both America and western liberal values, setting the world on a much more dangerous course. It’s a disastrously bad outcome from either a progressive or conservative perspective, one that leads only to increased death and misery, weakens international cooperation and strengthens the hand of the worst actors on the world stage.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-05--Donald Trump Just Threatened War Crimes Against Iran

The President of the United States , one Donald J. Trump , just posted this statement on twitter : Just in case the tweets are deleted in the future , here is what he said : “ Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American , & badly wounded many others , not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime , including recently……..hundreds of Iranian protesters .
He was already attacking our Embassy , and preparing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran has been nothing but problems for many years .
Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans , or American assets , we have………targeted 52 Iranian sites ( representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago ) , some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture , and those targets , and Iran itself , WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD .
The USA wants no more threats !
” It is worth noting that the destruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime under the United Nations , in a rule targeting not only ISIS and Al Qaeda but all combatants on any side : This is no idle rule .
A radical Islamist is already doing nine years ’ hard time at the Hague for destruction of cultural heritage sites in Timbuktu : A militant has been found guilty of a war crime for intentionally destroying cultural sites — a first for the International Criminal Court in The Hague .
Ahmed al-Faqi al-Mahdi has been sentenced to nine years in prison for his role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the door of a mosque in the Malian city of Timbuktu in 2012 .
The sites were destroyed by “ individuals , some armed with weapons , with a variety of tools , including pickaxes and iron bars , ” according to court documents .
Actions of deliberate cultural cleansing have come under increased scrutiny by the United Nations as a result of atrocities by fundamentalist extremists aligned Taliban , Al Qaeda and Islamic State .
Destroying the cultural history of a people is tantamount to destroying the people themselves .
The obliteration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ casus belli against the Taliban even before 9/11 , and after the invasion of Iraq the apparent failure of U.S. troops to adequately secure the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad from looters was and remains a major scandal .
Farther back in the past , Adolf Hitler ’ s own generals disobeyed the order to destroy important cultural heritage sites like the Eiffel Tower as the Germans retreated–because that ’ s the sort of thing only the most monstrous of monsters do .
One is reminded of the famous scene in Raiders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pointing a grenade launcher at the Nazi troops carrying the Ark of the Covenant .
The villainous Vichy archaeologist Belloq calls Indy ’ s bluff , however , correctly reminding him that “ we are simply passing through history .
This , this *is* history.
” It is impossible to know at this point which sites in Iran Donald Trump is threatening .
But we do know that the history of the people of Persia is long , rich , and storied , against the backdrop of which the current conflict since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minor blip .
The country is full of ancient and more heritage sites that are the pride of all human civilization , core to the identity not just of the Iranian people but of all mankind .
The president of the United States is threatening Iran with cultural extinction .
That is a war crime .
Threatening a war crime is also war crime .
And this president must be held accountable for it , whether while in office or afterward as need be .

The President of the United States, one Donald J. Trump, just posted this statement on twitter:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112
Just in case the tweets are deleted in the future, here is what he said:
“Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently……..hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have………targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!”
It is worth noting that the destruction of cultural heritage sites is a war crime under the United Nations, in a rule targeting not only ISIS and Al Qaeda but all combatants on any side:
The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Friday condemning the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage and warning the Islamic State extremist group, al-Qaeda and other combatants that such attacks may constitute war crimes. The resolution approved by the UN’s most powerful body expands previous measures which were limited to the illicit trafficking in looted cultural items to fund terrorism, and focused on Iraq and Syria where Islamic State extremists have destroyed ancient sites including Palmyra. The newly adopted measure targets not only IS, al-Qaeda and its affiliates but all parties to conflicts.
This is no idle rule. A radical Islamist is already doing nine years’ hard time at the Hague for destruction of cultural heritage sites in Timbuktu:
A militant has been found guilty of a war crime for intentionally destroying cultural sites — a first for the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Ahmed al-Faqi al-Mahdi has been sentenced to nine years in prison for his role in the destruction of nine mausoleums and the door of a mosque in the Malian city of Timbuktu in 2012. The sites were destroyed by “individuals, some armed with weapons, with a variety of tools, including pickaxes and iron bars,” according to court documents.
Actions of deliberate cultural cleansing have come under increased scrutiny by the United Nations as a result of atrocities by fundamentalist extremists aligned Taliban, Al Qaeda and Islamic State. Destroying the cultural history of a people is tantamount to destroying the people themselves. The obliteration of the Bamiyan Buddhas was nearly a casus belli against the Taliban even before 9/11, and after the invasion of Iraq the apparent failure of U.S. troops to adequately secure the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad from looters was and remains a major scandal. Farther back in the past, Adolf Hitler’s own generals disobeyed the order to destroy important cultural heritage sites like the Eiffel Tower as the Germans retreated–because that’s the sort of thing only the most monstrous of monsters do.
One is reminded of the famous scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indiana Jones is pointing a grenade launcher at the Nazi troops carrying the Ark of the Covenant. The villainous Vichy archaeologist Belloq calls Indy’s bluff, however, correctly reminding him that “we are simply passing through history. This, this *is* history.”
It is impossible to know at this point which sites in Iran Donald Trump is threatening. But we do know that the history of the people of Persia is long, rich, and storied, against the backdrop of which the current conflict since the rise of the Ayatollahs is a minor blip. The country is full of ancient and more heritage sites that are the pride of all human civilization, core to the identity not just of the Iranian people but of all mankind.
The president of the United States is threatening Iran with cultural extinction. That is a war crime. Threatening a war crime is also war crime. And this president must be held accountable for it, whether while in office or afterward as need be.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-04--We Cannot Afford a War with Iran

We Cannot Afford a War with Iran

The assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani constitutes a dangerous escalation of hostilities between the United States and Iran .
Foreign policy wonks will debate the relative merits of the targeted killing for years : Soleimani was a brutal operative with a lot of blood on his hands , including American blood .
But as a matter of pure realpolitik , it ’ s not at all clear that assassinating him actually prevented any further Iranian attacks on American positions in Iraq .
As a matter of law , killing him without notifying , much less gaining the approval of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a military and diplomatic standpoint , it puts the world on the brink of a disastrous conflict we can ill afford .
The Iranian government will almost certainly escalate violence in response as a matter of pride and principle .
To make matters even worse , we can ’ t expect the reckless Trump administration to respond with intelligence or forbearance .
The most frustrating part is that we didn ’ t need to get to this point .
The Obama administration won a hard-fought nuclear deal with Iran that built a groundwork @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration stupidly tossed all that aside for reasons that appear to be a combination of petty resentment of Mr. Obama himself , jingoistic posturing machismo , and imperialistic ambitions .
Now a president whose sole redeeming quality was not embroiling the United States in yet another war in the Middle East appears poised to do exactly that , whether as an intentional wag-the-dog distraction in an election year ( and during his impeachment ) , or a matter of simple bumbling incompetence .
But since it is an election year where competing budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endless debates and discussion , we should also talk about the cost of this potential conflict .
War and peace are never light subject matters , and the prospect of armed conflict makes all secondary considerations seem like childishness or moral cowardice .
But it does matter .
The architects of the invasion of Iraq assured the American public that it would be a quick and cheap war .
Instead , the cost of our cumulative wars in the Middle East likely exceeds a whopping $ 6 trillion by now , with nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq .
A war with Iran would almost certainly cost many trillions more ; and who knows how many lives ?
The mere prospect of the wealthiest country in the history of the human race squandering its money in this way is a moral outrage dwarfed only by the horrors of war itself .
We know that just $ 300 billion would go a long way toward mitigating the climate crisis .
Eliminating all student loan debt would cost around $ 1.6 trillion ( though that overstates the case due to the enormous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
We could end world hunger for just $ 30 billion a year by some estimates .
Universal Pre-K ?
$ 140 billion a year—and again , that would have gigantic economic stimulus benefits .
And so on .
These sound like big numbers when mentioned in a domestic policy debate .
Journalists demand—and politicians provide—detailed plans for how to pay for big proposals .
But for some reason , we are allowing one of the least responsible and most reckless administrations in U.S. history to assassinate foreign officials without Congressional approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this action in a manner that could easily draw us into a long-lasting conflict costing many trillions of dollars , and we are barely even having a conversation about cost .
This is madness .
The world is literally burning .
People are dying without healthcare , homelessness is spiking , and people are facing exorbitant education , housing and others costs .
We are constantly told that there isn ’ t enough money to pay for big structural fixes to these issues .
We spend months debating the funding details for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , centrist Senators grimly intone about the deficit as an excuse to vote no on anything that does more than nibble around the edges of these problems .
But for some reason , this logic never seems to apply to matters of war .
That needs to change .
The stakes are too high in both blood and treasure .

The assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani constitutes a dangerous escalation of hostilities between the United States and Iran. Foreign policy wonks will debate the relative merits of the targeted killing for years: Soleimani was a brutal operative with a lot of blood on his hands, including American blood. But as a matter of pure realpolitik, it’s not at all clear that assassinating him actually prevented any further Iranian attacks on American positions in Iraq. As a matter of law, killing him without notifying, much less gaining the approval of Congress, is extremely questionable. From a military and diplomatic standpoint, it puts the world on the brink of a disastrous conflict we can ill afford. The Iranian government will almost certainly escalate violence in response as a matter of pride and principle. To make matters even worse, we can’t expect the reckless Trump administration to respond with intelligence or forbearance.
The most frustrating part is that we didn’t need to get to this point. The Obama administration won a hard-fought nuclear deal with Iran that built a groundwork for diplomacy and peace. The Trump administration stupidly tossed all that aside for reasons that appear to be a combination of petty resentment of Mr. Obama himself, jingoistic posturing machismo, and imperialistic ambitions. Now a president whose sole redeeming quality was not embroiling the United States in yet another war in the Middle East appears poised to do exactly that, whether as an intentional wag-the-dog distraction in an election year (and during his impeachment), or a matter of simple bumbling incompetence.
But since it is an election year where competing budget and policy proposals are the subject of endless debates and discussion, we should also talk about the cost of this potential conflict. War and peace are never light subject matters, and the prospect of armed conflict makes all secondary considerations seem like childishness or moral cowardice. But it does matter.
The architects of the invasion of Iraq assured the American public that it would be a quick and cheap war. Instead, the cost of our cumulative wars in the Middle East likely exceeds a whopping $6 trillion by now, with nearly $3 trillion of that spent in Iraq. A war with Iran would almost certainly cost many trillions more; and who knows how many lives?
The mere prospect of the wealthiest country in the history of the human race squandering its money in this way is a moral outrage dwarfed only by the horrors of war itself. We know that just $300 billion would go a long way toward mitigating the climate crisis. Eliminating all student loan debt would cost around $1.6 trillion (though that overstates the case due to the enormous economic stimulus that doing so would provide). We could end world hunger for just $30 billion a year by some estimates. Universal Pre-K? $140 billion a year—and again, that would have gigantic economic stimulus benefits. And so on.
These sound like big numbers when mentioned in a domestic policy debate. Journalists demand—and politicians provide—detailed plans for how to pay for big proposals.
But for some reason, we are allowing one of the least responsible and most reckless administrations in U.S. history to assassinate foreign officials without Congressional approval. Even worse, Trump carried out this action in a manner that could easily draw us into a long-lasting conflict costing many trillions of dollars, and we are barely even having a conversation about cost. This is madness.
The world is literally burning. People are dying without healthcare, homelessness is spiking, and people are facing exorbitant education, housing and others costs. We are constantly told that there isn’t enough money to pay for big structural fixes to these issues. We spend months debating the funding details for all of them, and then after the election, centrist Senators grimly intone about the deficit as an excuse to vote no on anything that does more than nibble around the edges of these problems.
But for some reason, this logic never seems to apply to matters of war. That needs to change. The stakes are too high in both blood and treasure.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-03--Why Trump Is Escalating Tensions with Iran

One of the themes that has emerged in the Trump era is that “ there is a tweet for everything.
” It refers to the fact that whenever Trump says or does something , there is a tweet from his past demonstrating his hypocrisy .
For example , even as the current occupant of the Oval Office has spent twice as much time on a golf course as Obama , Trump regularly complained that his predecessor played too much golf , tweeting about it 27 times from 2011 to 2016 .
There is no great mystery about why there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sociopathic as Donald Trump engages in projection when attacking their opponents .
That is because they are incapable of empathy or being able to see another person ’ s point of view .
Absent any other point of reference , they simply project their own reactions onto others .
Trump is obviously obsessed with playing golf , so regardless of the facts , he projected that obsession onto Obama .
The assassination of Qassem Soleimani and escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran led to another moment of “ there is a tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those tweets were coupled with this video Trump released in November of 2011 .
Trump projected that Obama was under pressure with the upcoming 2012 election and that he would respond by going to war with Iran—because that is precisely what Trump would do under those circumstances .
Fast forward almost nine years and it becomes clear that , as Trump faces the pressure of both impeachment and the 2020 election , he is responding by igniting a conflict with Iran .
Trump also projected his inability to negotiate onto his predecessor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is worth remembering that Barack Obama took up residence in Trump ’ s head at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011 just a few months before that first tweet about Iran .
Not only did Obama roast Trump for his birtherism lie , he did so while approving the mission that ultimately killed Osama bin Laden .
This is all connected in Trump ’ s twisted mind .
We ’ re already hearing from some quarters that taking out Soleimani is a bigger accomplishment than killing bin Laden .
It is only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same thing from Trump .
The consequences of this latest move are grave and will unfold over the coming days and weeks .
At this point , the administration is sending mixed messages about the goal of this assassination .
On the one hand , they claim that it was designed to protect U.S. personnel abroad .
At the same time , consular operations in Baghdad have been suspended and the State Department issued a security alert urging Americans to depart Iraq immediately .
Obviously , Americans in the Middle East are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action .
Iraq has responded by condemning the assassination , calling it “ a flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty and a dangerous escalation.
” They have initiated an emergency session of parliament to make “ decisive decisions that put an end to US presence inside Iraq.
” In Iran , Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said “ severe revenge awaits the criminals ” behind the attack .
We can only watch and wait to see how all of this plays out .
But it is important to keep in mind that almost nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would do under pressure by projecting it onto Obama .

One of the themes that has emerged in the Trump era is that “there is a tweet for everything.” It refers to the fact that whenever Trump says or does something, there is a tweet from his past demonstrating his hypocrisy. For example, even as the current occupant of the Oval Office has spent twice as much time on a golf course as Obama, Trump regularly complained that his predecessor played too much golf, tweeting about it 27 times from 2011 to 2016.
There is no great mystery about why there is a tweet for everything. Anyone as sociopathic as Donald Trump engages in projection when attacking their opponents. That is because they are incapable of empathy or being able to see another person’s point of view. Absent any other point of reference, they simply project their own reactions onto others. Trump is obviously obsessed with playing golf, so regardless of the facts, he projected that obsession onto Obama.
The assassination of Qassem Soleimani and escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran led to another moment of “there is a tweet for everything” on Thursday night.
Those tweets were coupled with this video Trump released in November of 2011.
Trump projected that Obama was under pressure with the upcoming 2012 election and that he would respond by going to war with Iran—because that is precisely what Trump would do under those circumstances. Fast forward almost nine years and it becomes clear that, as Trump faces the pressure of both impeachment and the 2020 election, he is responding by igniting a conflict with Iran.
Trump also projected his inability to negotiate onto his predecessor, as has now become obvious.
It is worth remembering that Barack Obama took up residence in Trump’s head at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011 just a few months before that first tweet about Iran. Not only did Obama roast Trump for his birtherism lie, he did so while approving the mission that ultimately killed Osama bin Laden. This is all connected in Trump’s twisted mind. We’re already hearing from some quarters that taking out Soleimani is a bigger accomplishment than killing bin Laden.
It is only a matter of time before we hear the same thing from Trump.
The consequences of this latest move are grave and will unfold over the coming days and weeks. At this point, the administration is sending mixed messages about the goal of this assassination. On the one hand, they claim that it was designed to protect U.S. personnel abroad.
At the same time, consular operations in Baghdad have been suspended and the State Department issued a security alert urging Americans to depart Iraq immediately. Obviously, Americans in the Middle East are less safe as a result of this action.
Iraq has responded by condemning the assassination, calling it “a flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty and a dangerous escalation.” They have initiated an emergency session of parliament to make “decisive decisions that put an end to US presence inside Iraq.” In Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said “severe revenge awaits the criminals” behind the attack.
We can only watch and wait to see how all of this plays out. But it is important to keep in mind that almost nine years ago, Trump signaled exactly what he would do under pressure by projecting it onto Obama.