Obama pays $400 million to Iran who releases four hostages

[ruger1800]

Oliver North had to testify before Congress for stuff less shady than this.

if the quote " I don't recall" is considered testimony

 

[foszoe]

if the quote " I don't recall" is considered testimony

Wr can look at the official transcripts if we really want to see.

 

[IndyDave1776]

...well, basically exactly as shady.

But, the point stands. Our ruling class has no respect for the law, as they are clearly held to some other standard.

As to his international debacle du jour, Obama clearly has no head for chess. Money for hostages? Call it what you will, but if you are willing to pay for hostages...they will find some to sell.

According to the existing sanctions against Iran (yes, there are still sanctions in place), US banks can't do transactions with Iran. So, cash it is (but not US cash).

That makes it OK?

Yes, it's called money laundering. If you or I do it, it's illegal. When governments (or the Clintons) do it, it's all hunky dory.

Yeah, no one ever went after LBJ about his handling of Vietnam, or "incursions" into Cambodia. Nope. No one. Ever.

/Walter Cron...who??
//Monica who??
///What blue dress??

OK, let's run with this. Where was anyone addressing Billy Jeff's efforts to undermine the republic while we had gratuitous coverage of his dick?

If you can't cite your sources, don't make claims.


In this case, you must reject the Kenyan's claims pertaining to eligibility and his educational history.

Kindly post the security arrangements of Clinton's server. Cite your sources.

I don't know about him, but as many reports as there have been about the insufficient security on Hillary's server, I am not about to go prepare a bibliography for you.

Clinton didn't destroy 22M e-mails; Bush did. Where was the House Oversight Committee on that?

If it is suspected that there was more than routine house-cleaning and/or a breach of legal requirements, there should have been questions raised. By the way, who ran the House for the last two years of Bush's administration and the first two years of the Kenyan's administration? Oh, yes, it was the Democrat's own Wicked W(b)itch of the West.

Sane like Bush or Trump? Really???

You obviously either didn't read or didn't comprehend what he said or you would have understood the significance of the phrase 'not this time'. Are you sure about that 140?

You think Fox News is "fair and balanced"? You think Wikileaks is an unimpeachable source? "News" today is entertainment, as evidenced by NBC News showing the latest viral videos. The journalism of Cronkite is long gone.

Are you sure old Walter was so fair and balanced? I will grant you that he did work for a living in ways that are no longer common, but I would definitely not consider him an objective source any more than the present pack of hacks.

 

[kiddchaos]

35 year old international lawsuit settlement.

In very simple terms, this payment is the first installment of a refund for a weapons purchase America never delivered. It starts in 1979, the year of the Iranian Revolution.

The US did not pay a $400 million ?ransom? to Iran. Here?s what actually happened. - Vox

 

[jamil]

If you can't cite your sources, don't make claims.

I didn't make a claim. I said, "I thought". I'm not a journalist. You're not my editor. You're just a guy on the internet desperately trying to defend some very optically difficult actions from people on your side.

I don't have a cite because I believe--see, not a claim, not representing it as fact--I believe I heard it on a POTUS XM news brief several days ago, citing a "US official" saying something about Iranians preferring cash. And having reread the WSJ piece, it seems to have been a quote from that.

The administration has since claimed that the US paid them in cash because laws make it difficult to pay them any other way. I think there's a "proxy" option though. Paying through a third party. I don't know if that was even discussed. That option is more complicated. Would have taken more time to set up on both ends of the transaction. And if it's just a settlement of payment from the trust fund, we're not pressed for time. But, if it's as the optics suggest, well, I can see why the administration would need to expedite the payments.

And, I can see why the Iranians would prefer cash. Less time needed to coordinate a third-party payment. Easier to distribute cash to Hezbollah. More expedient for Iran than us, unless loosing the funds were part of the deal to get the hostages back.

Kindly post the security arrangements of Clinton's server. Cite your sources.

Is the security of Hillary's server even in question? Really? Okay. Maybe you get your news from Salon. Maybe you really didn't know. Nevertheless, I'm sure your superior intelligence can at least help you find Comey's testimony. Kindly refer to his testimony and what the FBI investigation concluded about the security of Hillary's email.

Clinton didn't destroy 22M e-mails; Bush did. Where was the House Oversight Committee on that?


Sane like Bush or Trump? Really???

"But Bush!" Really? I'm gonna start thinking that's all you got.

See, here's the thing. That **** doesn't really work. I'm not a fan. So that boat don't float. You'll need to find a better deflection than "but Bush!"

Again, saying someone else did it too is not an argument. If someone else did do the equivalent, I don't give a flying **** what party letter they put by their name. If they're guilty of wrongdoing, they're guilty and should face consequences. But we're not discussing Bush and his transgressions right now. The immediate subject is Clinton's transgressions. So defend that. Bringing up someone else isn't a defense. Okay?

Okay. You've told us you're a smart guy. I'm sure you can find transcripts on the interwebz. So, citing beyond that isn't necessary. Here are some facts. According to the FBI, Clinton sent and received 110 emails that were marked as classified *at the time*. According to Comey's testimony, Clinton would have to have known the emails were classified, at the time. That means she did not tell the truth, and continues to not tell the truth, when she insists that she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time they were transmitted.

Now what follows is an opinion/conclusion. I thought I should mention that just in case. Hillary has put herself into the precarious but familiar position where she has to either admit she lied, or admit she was incompetent.

You think Fox News is "fair and balanced"? You think Wikileaks is an unimpeachable source? "News" today is entertainment, as evidenced by NBC News showing the latest viral videos. The journalism of Cronkite is long gone.

Oh jeez. Turns out I was wrong. "But Bush!" isn't all you got. You've also got "But FOX NEWS!"



Look, man. I'm not a fan of *any* of the news media. That includes Fox News. They're all biased. They all selectively report the truth. It's part entertainment, but also and part "picking presidents". It's not hard to guess which president a given news outlet wants just by assessing the direction of the bias. More and more, ideologically bent news sites, like Breitbart, Salon, Slate, don't just selectively report news. They actually make **** up.

I watch, listen to, and read as many news sources as I have time to consume, and try to build some sense of the true story. Yes, that includes Fox News. And also CNN, NPR, PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, occasionally MSNBC, NY Times (EEK!), WaPo, Huffpo, The Hill, Politico, RCP, Twitter, and many others.

I would not be surprised to find out that the RNC has a similar cozy relationship with Fox News and other conservative outlets, that the DNC has with the other major news players. I've always suspected that was the case with many news sources--not that it was all that hard to hard to guess the party loyalties of the major players in the news.

The recent wikileaks dump gave confirmation of cooperation between the DNC and the news media. Doesn't that bother you? I mean, is that really okay with you? It's not okay with me. If the RNC got caught doing the same thing, I would find neither solace nor satisfaction in simply retorting "well the DNC/liberal press did it too." That's such obvious nonsense. That's a facebook quality argument. And it's no less so when you do it.

/rant

 

[IndyDave1776]

...well, basically exactly as shady.

But, the point stands. Our ruling class has no respect for the law, as they are clearly held to some other standard.

As to his international debacle du jour, Obama clearly has no head for chess. Money for hostages? Call it what you will, but if you are willing to pay for hostages...they will find some to sell.

According to the existing sanctions against Iran (yes, there are still sanctions in place), US banks can't do transactions with Iran. So, cash it is (but not US cash).

Yes, it's called money laundering. If you or I do it, it's illegal. When governments (or the Clintons) do it, it's all hunky dory.

Yeah, no one ever went after LBJ about his handling of Vietnam, or "incursions" into Cambodia. Nope. No one. Ever.

/Walter Cron...who??
//Monica who??
///What blue dress??

35 year old international lawsuit settlement.

In very simple terms, this payment is the first installment of a refund for a weapons purchase America never delivered. It starts in 1979, the year of the Iranian Revolution.

The US did not pay a $400 million ?ransom? to Iran. Here?s what actually happened. - Vox

OK, if this is so, one wonders about a couple of things:

1. Why did Obama agree to such a deal as presented in your link?

2. Why were hostages held until the payment was made?

 

[oldpink]

OK, if this is so, one wonders about a couple of things:

1. Why did Obama agree to such a deal as presented in your link?

2. Why were hostages held until the payment was made?

Yep, and even if we are to suspend all disbelief and accept BHO's claim that this wasn't really​ a ransom, that's irrelevant, because the Iranians certainly think it was.

 

[kiddchaos]

OK, if this is so, one wonders about a couple of things:

1. Why did Obama agree to such a deal as presented in your link?
2. Why were hostages held until the payment was made?

I respectfully reply:
1. Please don't give me the 'Obama runs the entire government' argument unless you can prove it was only him that made the decision.
2. If that were the case, I suppose we would have paid ISIS for those american journalists, which we did not, which therefore shoots down your generalization.

Let's make one thing clear, all governments (and most businesses for that matter) are cluster full of bad decisions.

 

[jamil]

I respectfully reply:
1. Please don't give me the 'Obama runs the entire government' argument unless you can prove it was only him that made the decision.
2. If that were the case, I suppose we would have paid ISIS for those american journalists, which we did not, which therefore shoots down your generalization.

Imagine seeing that "that's not how this works" meme. I just don't wanna mess with finding it and posting it using a phone.

 

[oldpink]

Imagine seeing that "that's not how this works" meme. I just don't wanna mess with finding it and posting it using a phone.

 

[kiddchaos]

best of luck guys.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Yes, we heard Obama say that. I also heard him say Benghazi was a youtube video.

35 year old international lawsuit settlement. ry simple terms, this payment is the first installment of a refund for a weapons purchase America never delivered. It starts in 1979, the year of the Iranian Revolution.

The US did not pay a $400 million ?ransom? to Iran. Here?s what actually happened. - Vox

 

[oldpink]

best of luck guys.

Truth hurts, and in this case it's clearly excruciating.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I respectfully reply:
1. Please don't give me the 'Obama runs the entire government' argument unless you can prove it was only him that made the decision.
2. If that were the case, I suppose we would have paid ISIS for those american journalists, which we did not, which therefore shoots down your generalization.

Let's make one thing clear, all governments (and most businesses for that matter) are cluster full of bad decisions.

1. I would have to find it implausible that this happened in a dark corner without Obama's knowledge and approval, if not direction. If it were a decision regarding a wayward tourist in Jordan, I could believe that Obama had no idea. Transporting $400M and retrieving hostages from Iran, not so much.

2. I fail to see where I have made any generalization or what ISIS may or may not have to do with anything being addressed. I said quite specifically that the requirement of receiving $400M in cash prior to the release of hostages is suggestive of the nature of the situation.

 

[david890]

The recent wikileaks dump gave confirmation of cooperation between the DNC and the news media.

You believe Wikileaks to be an unimpeachable source of fact? Really? Assange has yet to release details that can be confirmed by a 3rd party, be it a US source or any of the reputable security firms working out of Europe.

 

[printcraft]

Originally Posted by jamil
The recent wikileaks dump gave confirmation of cooperation between the DNC and the news media.

You believe Wikileaks to be an unimpeachable source of fact? Really? Assange has yet to release details that can be confirmed by a 3rd party, be it a US source or any of the reputable security firms working out of Europe.

Really?
Why did debbie blabbermouth schultz resign?
How about the other resignations at the DNC?
Just coincidence right?

 

[david890]

OK, if this is so, one wonders about a couple of things:

1. Why did Obama agree to such a deal as presented in your link?

Because we're getting "hostages" back for nothing. It was their money in the first place.

2. Why were hostages held until the payment was made?

Perhaps because Iran wouldn't release them without getting their money first?

 

[david890]

Really?
Why did debbie blabbermouth schultz resign?
How about the other resignations at the DNC?
Just coincidence right?

No, but my point remains true. Wikileaks hasn't allowed anyone else to examine and vet the data.

 

[printcraft]

No, but my point remains true. Wikileaks hasn't allowed anyone else to examine and vet the data.

Your only point of contention is that they have not given over the data to a separate source to vet it.... NOT that the data is false.
10-4
So you are admitting that there was/is collusion between the the DNC and the media.
Thank you for clarifying.

 

[KG1]

Your only point of contention is that they have not given over the data to a separate source to vet it.... NOT that the data is false.
10-4
So you are admitting that there was/is collusion between the the DNC and the media.
Thank you for clarifying.

Nobody gives a rats rear end about vetting or refuting the data as evidenced by the fact that they're to busy trying to deflect focus away from what's in the data with stupid **** like trying to make a bogus case against Trump for his obvious to anyone without an agenda, sarcastic comment asking the Russians to locate Hitlary's deleted emails if they have them.

To this date I don't think i've seen any serious effort to refudiate the data. Just a deflection away from what's in the data.