Monday Reading

As always, please go to the links for the full articles/ op eds.

The self- proclaimed "King of Debt" has some 'splainin' to do (to Special Counsel Mueller):

In the nine years before he ran for president, Donald Trump’s company spent more than $400 million in cash on new properties — including 14 transactions paid for in full, without borrowing from banks — during a buying binge that defied real estate industry practices and Trump’s own history as the self-described “King of Debt.” 

Trump’s vast outlay of cash, tracked through public records and totaled publicly here for the first time, provides a new window into the president’s private company, which discloses few details about its finances. 

It shows that Trump had access to far more cash than previously known, despite his string of commercial bankruptcies and the Great Recession’s hammering of the real estate industry.  

Why did the “King of Debt,” as he has called himself in interviews, turn away from that strategy, defying the real estate wisdom that it’s unwise to risk so much of one’s own money in a few projects?  

And how did Trump — who had money tied up in golf courses and buildings — raise enough liquid assets to go on this cash buying spree? 

How do you say "useful idiot" in Russian? This is why he didn't want Mueller looking into his business dealings (too late!).

Ta-Nehisi Coates puts the Trump/ Kanye bromance in a larger frame. This is a small snippet in a tour- de- force piece of journalism:

... Like Trump, West is a persistent bearer of slights large and small—but mostly small. (Jay-Z, Beyoncé, Barack Obama, and Nike all came in for a harangue.) Like Trump, West is a narcissist, “the greatest artist of all time,” he claimed, helming what would soon be “the biggest apparel company in human history.” And, like Trump, West is shockingly ignorant. Chicago was “the murder capital of the world,” West asserted, when in fact Chicago is not even the murder capital of America. West’s ignorance is not merely deep, but also dangerous. For if Chicago truly is “the murder capital of the world,” then perhaps it is in need of the federal occupation threatened by Trump. [snip] 

West might plead ignorance—“I don’t have all the answers that a celebrity is supposed to have,” he told Charlamagne. But no citizen claiming such a large portion of the public square as West can be granted reprieve. The planks of Trumpism are clear—the better banning of Muslims, the improved scapegoating of Latinos, the endorsement of racist conspiracy, the denialism of science, the cheering of economic charlatans, the urging on of barbarian cops and barbarian bosses, the cheering of torture, and the condemnation of whole countries. The pain of these policies is not equally distributed. Indeed the rule of Donald Trump is predicated on the infliction of maximum misery on West’s most ardent parishioners, the portions of America, the muck, that made the god Kanye possible.

This is one of the best reads we've had in a long time from one of the finest writers and thinkers anywhere today.

Toxic Republican Don "Big Shit" Blankenship is the latest worthy to feel the wheels on Rump's bus go 'round and 'round, all over him:

President Donald Trump on Monday urged voters in West Virginia to reject former coal executive and GOP Senate candidate Don Blankenship, throwing his support behind the two other major contenders in Tuesday’s primary. 

All three leading candidates in the GOP primary have tried to attach themselves to Trump by emphasizing their commitment to his agenda. Last month, Trump invited two of them, Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.) and Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), to appear with him at a White House event on taxes. Blankenship was not asked to attend. 

Claiming that Blankenship “can’t win the General Election,” Trump on Monday alluded to the U.S. Senate special election in Alabama last year, where he made a similar endorsement. He initially endorsed the establishment candidate, then-Sen. Luther Strange (R), over challenger Roy Moore, who had a history of controversy.

With satire not being too far from the truth these days, The Onion has a great send- up of Big Shit (h/t Silver Spring Bureau Chief Brian):

RAWL, WV—Extolling the variety of ways his past actions continue to benefit the hard-working people of West Virginia, a new campaign ad from Senate hopeful Don Blankenship aired Friday touting the multitude of new jobs created in the wake of the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster. “I’m Don Blankenship, and I’m proud to say that my vision and leadership created countless new job opportunities in the fields of search and rescue, emergency surgery, funeral services, and many more,” said Blankenship, referring to the 2010 mine explosion that killed 29 workers, for which he served a year in prison for conspiring to violate federal mine safety standards. “From trauma specialists and morticians all the way down to the manufacturers of vigil candles, gravestones, and sympathy cards, I’m committed to putting West Virginians to work. I’ve even created 29 new coal mining jobs. Can Mitch McConnell say the same?” Blankenship concluded the ad with a stern condemnation of the “big-government” safety regulations hell-bent on stifling the state’s economic growth. 

In case you missed the report in The Guardian over the weekend on Rump's accomplices hiring an Israeli dirty tricks outfit to find dirt on key Obama officials involved in the Iran nuclear deal, here's the gist of the story:

Aides to Donald Trump, the US president, hired an Israeli private intelligence agency to orchestrate a “dirty ops” campaign against key individuals from the Obama administration who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, the Observer can reveal. 

People in the Trump camp contacted private investigators in May last year to “get dirt” on Ben Rhodes, who had been one of Barack Obama’s top national security advisers, and Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to Obama, as part of an elaborate attempt to discredit the deal. 

The extraordinary revelations come days before Trump’s 12 May deadline to either scrap or continue to abide by the international deal limiting Iran’s nuclear programme.  

Jack Straw, who as [British] foreign secretary was involved in earlier efforts to restrict Iranian weapons, said: “These are extraordinary and appalling allegations but which also illustrate a high level of desperation by Trump and [the Israeli prime minister] Benjamin Netanyahu, not so much to discredit the deal but to undermine those around it.”

Someone is desperate to have the U.S. fight a proxy war with Iran.  Hmmm, wonder who =cough= Netanyahu =cough= Saudis =cough=.

Our blogging friend Infidel 753 caps off the reading with his link round- up of "various interesting stuff" he's come across this past week.  Always worth the time to check out.

A Conservative Takedown Of "Comprehensively Wrong" Marco Rubio

This is from Daniel Larison in "The American Conservative":

It takes special determination to be as comprehensively wrong about something as Rubio has been about diplomacy with Iran over the last few years. Two years ago, Rubio was feigning interest in negotiations while insisting on maximalist conditions that would have made an agreement impossible. Had the U.S. followed his recommendations, there would have been no deal and Iran’s nuclear program would not be under the significant restrictions now imposed upon it. If the U.S. had demanded “zero enrichment” as Rubio wished, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium would not have been shipped out of the country as it has been, but would have remained in Iran’s control and would have continued to expand. A year ago, Rubio was certain that Iran would never abide by any agreement that it made. This month, the IAEA has certified that Iran is in compliance with the agreement, just as it complied with the interim agreement that he also bitterly opposed. Despite his best efforts to tack on irrelevant amendments to the Senate’s oversight legislation to try to sabotage the deal, the deal went forward and has already yielded significant nonproliferation benefits in just its first few months.

Like other Iran hawks, Rubio is reduced to bemoaning non-existent “appeasement” while ignoring the substantial benefits for the U.S. that diplomacy with Iran has already produced.

Yes, young Sen. Marco"Glug Glug" Rubio (R-MIAmi), the corporate media's darling, a man of astute international strategery, called to account in... The American Conservative.  But remember, to the Very Serious People, he's one of the"well- qualified" Republicans running for President!

(h/t Lawyers, Guns, & Money)

(Photo:  "Gee, maybe someday I can grow up to be President!")

"Disqualified"

After taking a week to digest its implications, influential blogger Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has a must read essay today on why Sen. Schumer's plan to vote against the Iran nuclear deal disqualifies him from being the next leader of the Democrats in the Senate.  Please read his arguments, which lead to this conclusion:

So why did Schumer oppose the deal? I think he moves in circles, personal and financial, where this deal is simply anathema and he doesn’t feel he can or wants to buck that opinion. He may also believe he can have his cake and eat it too - vote against, satisfy, and stay good with key supporters and not block its adoption. This is actually what I see as the most likely answer. He may also feel uncomfortable enough on this hot seat that he simply won’t look at the logic of the situation.

I can't know and frankly I don’t care. The bright line is that he’s smart enough to know better.

I’ve heard some say that this creates tension for him “on the left” in his quest to become Minority or Majority Leader. This is silly pundit talk. This isn’t the public option. This isn’t something supported by the foreign policy “left”. It’s very basic and mainstream and necessary. The fact that the neoconservatives who gamed the country into the Iraq disaster favor it does not change that.

Democratic senators who don’t reconsider support for Schumer as the leader of their caucus are making a big, big mistake. He should be ruled out of consideration for the job.  (our emphasis)

As Marshall demonstrates, surely Schumer is intelligent enough to know that the arguments he used to advance his position are dishonest and destructive.  That's what makes putting him into any future leadership role in the Senate so toxic.  Far from taking a principled position of conscience, Schumer has succumbed to the most banal impulses at a most critical moment in the history of our nation and of the nations in the Middle East.  This too- clever- by- half pol is hoping things will blow over (as opposed to blow up?) by the time Democrats vote for their next Senate leader.  There will be many of us trying to make sure that doesn't happen.

Marshall links to an op/ ed today by Fareed Zakaria, who takes Schumer's "reasoning" and demolishes it point by point, much as Jeffrey Lewis did earlier in Foreign Policy. Both are well worth reading to get a sense of how Schumer, a man who clearly knows better, has stood logic on its head for his own selfish reasons.

Insipid Political Analysis Peaks

Ruth Marcus must've taken that call from her Georgetown salon pal Sen. Chuck Schumer (?-Wall Street), because she's criticizing President Obama's defense of the Iran nuclear deal.  Here's how she leads in:

President Obama says those who oppose the Iran nuclear deal are either ideological or illogical. I support the deal, yet I think this assessment is incorrect and unfair. It diminishes the president’s case for congressional approval.

Unfair!  How dare the President call those sweet, reasonable Republicans "ideological!"  The ones who were against the deal before it was even negotiated.  The ones who liken him to Neville Chamberlain.  The ones who say the deal is like "marching Israelis to door of the oven." The 47 who signed an arguably treasonous letter to the Ayatollahs, attempting to undermine our negotiations with a foreign power.

Unfair!  How dare the President call those same Republicans and some Likudnik/ craven "Democrats" illogical!  Chuck Schumer illogical?  Because he thinks if the deal is rejected U.S. sanctions will remain in place and will work?  Here's BooMan's rejoinder to that priceless piece of nonsense:

Because sanctions don't work on Iran unless we're willing to sanction those who violate the sanctions on Iran [Ed.: our European allies, Russia and China]. And we're not going to do that because that would be completely insane in this context.

But, as I've said, Ruth Marcus knows this very well. And, yet, she chose to use her precious space in the Washington Post to troll the president for being dismissive and exasperated and unaccommodating of the people who are just talking the worst nonsense about this deal.  (our emphasis)

No, the main reason Ms. Marcus is clutching her pearls at President Obama's forceful and accurate framing of the opposition is that the opposition now includes her fellow situational "Democrat," the slippery Sen. Schumer (who's apparently been burning up the phone lines to shore up support for himself - unfortunately with some success).

As BooMan quotes Secretary of State Kerry's response to Schumer's, and now by extension Marcus's arguments, "Are you kidding me?"

BONUS:  Ed Kilgore adds:

... It struck me as confirmation that until the day Barack Obama leaves office, he will be blamed for the irrational rage and obstructionism of his opponents no matter what he does.

Think about what that opposition has said and done on the Iran deal: they invited a foreign head-of-government to attack it in the U.S. Congress while negotiations were still ongoing; they denounced it as treason before they had even read its terms; and now the presidential candidates among them are swearing they will abrogate it at the very first opportunity. And Obama is supposed to respect these people and those who have fecklessly joined them with their finicky misgivings?

BONUS II:  Danny Goldberg at DWT has more on the betrayal by Schumer and other Likudnik "Democrats."

Be Careful Who You Lie Down With

Because, you know, fleas:

Over the weekend, GOP presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) held a rally in the town of Newnan, a small city to the south of Atlanta. I attended the rally, and asked Cruz if he thought that [New York "Democrat" Charles] Schumer was doing the right thing by opposing the deal.

“Absolutely, and I sung his praises and I'm glad to have his support and hope more Democrats follow,” Cruz replied.

Definitive proof you got it wrong, Chuck.  And why you should never be Senate Democratic Leader.  Never.

(h/t Zaid Jilani, AlterNet)

BONUS:  Jeffrey Lewis at Foreign Policy has a good read on Schumer's craven betrayal (our characterization) as he deconstructs Schumer's phony arguments against the Iran nuclear deal, starting with this appetizer:

“Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey,” [former New Jersey Sen. and Gov. Jon] Corzine was quoted as saying in New York magazine. “Take a little bite of it and he will throw his own feces at you.”

On Thursday evening, right in the middle of the first GOP debate, Schumer reached back, took aim, and heaved a large one. He penned a long piece for Medium that some anonymous hack described as “thoughtful and deliberate.” Uh, ok. Maybe compared to Mike Huckabee’s outrage about “oven doors,” but good grief our standards for political discourse have fallen. Schumer’s missive came across a bit like your crazy uncle who gets his opinions from talk radio and wants to set you straight at Thanksgiving.

(Photo:  Schumer and pal "Tailgunner Ted" Cruz)

Sen. Charles Schumer: Profile In Cowardice

Last night, New York Sen. Charles Schumer (?-Wall Street), in line to be the next leader of the Democrats in the Senate, stuck a knife in the back of his President:

Sen. Charles E. Schumer announced his opposition Thursday night to President Obama’s nuclear pact with Iran, becoming the most senior Democrat to break ranks with the administration.

The likely next leader of Senate Democrats, Schumer (N.Y.) said his three-week reading of the proposal left him unconvinced. “There is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one,” he said, referring to the nuclear pact.

Normally, Schumer would want maximum publicity for himself (after all, it's said the most dangerous place in Washington is between Schumer and a TV camera).  But, because he's a coward, he chose to release his announcement while attention was diverted to last night's Republican debate cattle show, whose politicians he is now in league with.

 In a better world, this act of treachery would disqualify Schumer from any further consideration as Sen. Harry Reid's successor;  in fact, in a better world, Schumer would never have been considered a candidate to represent the Democratic Party in the Senate leadership to begin with.  But, it's well known why Schumer got the nod instead of the more reliable Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) -- he's an effective shake down artist fund raiser for fellow Senators, gathering big checks from the Wall Street millionaires that he then feels obliged to protect whenever he can.

This is a betrayal on a matter of the highest national security and the security of the region.  This is a betrayal that is not based on "principle" but on craven calculation.  This is a betrayal that should not be countenanced by Senate Democrats ... but it will be, because they find it extremely hard to bite the hand that feeds them. And that, perhaps, is the worst betrayal of all.

UPDATE:  MoveOn is pushing to have Schumer defeated for party leader in the Senate.

UPDATE II:  Here's part of what Carol Giacomo at the New York Times had to say:

New York’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer, has cast his lot with Republican presidential candidates, other hardliners and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in declaring his opposition to the nuclear agreement that President Obama and five other world leaders negotiated with Iran. Given Mr. Schumer’s wrong-headed and irresponsible decision, Democrats may want to reconsider whether he is the best candidate to be their next leader in the Senate, a job he desperately wants.

(Photo:  Sen. Schumer - "Have I not got a deal for you!")

Strong Support For Iran Nuclear Agreement (Updated)

A new Public Policy poll says Americans support the Iran nuclear agreement by a wide margin:

-Only 38% of voters are opposed to the Iran deal, compared to 54% who are supportive of it. Democratic voters (75/17) are far more united in their favor for the agreement than Republicans (36/54) are in their opposition to it. Voters within every gender, race, and age group are in support of it, reflecting the broad based mandate for the deal.

-Similarly 54% of voters want their members of Congress to vote to allow the agreement to move forward, compared to just 39% who would like to see it blocked. (our emphasis)

Despite a well-bankrolled, wildly misleading p.r. campaign to discredit the agreement, led by a front group of A.I.P.A.C., so far Americans aren't buying the increasingly shrill attacks meant to sabotage the accord.  However, a vote in Congress isn't due until September and opinion can move in the direction of the Likudniks and chronic crackpots of the Republican Party, though not likely enough to garner a veto-overriding 2/3 majority in either house of Congress.  Nevertheless, we need more, louder and sustained pushback like this (in this case from President Obama):

“We’ve had a sitting senator [Sen. Tom "Ear to Ear" Cotton] call John Kerry Pontius Pilate. We’ve had a sitting senator [Sen. "Tailgunner Ted" Cruz], who also happens to be running for president, suggest that I’m the leading state sponsor of terrorism. These are leaders in the Republican Party.”

Let's not obscure who these crackpots and seditionists are, please.  Let's name them and shame them for the dishonor they bring upon America (and Israel, for that matter).

UPDATE:  Jewish Americans aren't fooled by the extremist rhetoric, either:

By a wide margin [49% to 31%], American Jews support the recently concluded agreement with Iran to restrict its nuclear program, and a clear majority of Jews wants Congress to approve the deal. In fact, as compared with Americans generally, Jews are more supportive of the “Iran deal,” in large part because Jews are more liberal and more Democratic in their identities. It turns out that liberals (Jewish or not) support the deal far more than conservatives (Jewish or not), just as most Democrats are in favor, while most Republicans are opposed.