Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
You are bad at this. Trump is terrible on so many levels. But keep sucking his dick, his balls on your chin are a good look on you.
PS paying off foreign governments is something pretty much every president has done. It's part of the job.
Speed limit IQ.
None of this discussion is about Trump...it's about the actual event of Obama paying Iran for hostages, which is not something every President does. And yet you are still too stupid to realize this and ramble on about Trump. I guess we shouldn't expect more.
You fucking brought up Trump. Here was your quote I was responding to.
For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
You clearly got amnesia at what you posted.
For all the hypothetical discussion (i.e. Trump...let me guess, you are too dumb to understand the word hypothetical), this is something that actually happened. And yet all you do is scream Trump.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
You are bad at this. Trump is terrible on so many levels. But keep sucking his dick, his balls on your chin are a good look on you.
PS paying off foreign governments is something pretty much every president has done. It's part of the job.
Speed limit IQ.
None of this discussion is about Trump...it's about the actual event of Obama paying Iran for hostages, which is not something every President does. And yet you are still too stupid to realize this and ramble on about Trump. I guess we shouldn't expect more.
You fucking brought up Trump. Here was your quote I was responding to.
For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
You clearly got amnesia at what you posted.
For all the hypothetical discussion (i.e. Trump...let me guess, you are too dumb to understand the word hypothetical), this is something that actually happened. And yet all you do is scream Trump.
Ironic.
A piss-poor way to say "I know you are but what am I"...you know, the thing you whine about in other threads about other people doing.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
You are bad at this. Trump is terrible on so many levels. But keep sucking his dick, his balls on your chin are a good look on you.
PS paying off foreign governments is something pretty much every president has done. It's part of the job.
Speed limit IQ.
None of this discussion is about Trump...it's about the actual event of Obama paying Iran for hostages, which is not something every President does. And yet you are still too stupid to realize this and ramble on about Trump. I guess we shouldn't expect more.
You fucking brought up Trump. Here was your quote I was responding to.
For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
You clearly got amnesia at what you posted.
For all the hypothetical discussion (i.e. Trump...let me guess, you are too dumb to understand the word hypothetical), this is something that actually happened. And yet all you do is scream Trump.
Ironic.
A piss-poor way to say "I know you are but what am I"...you know, the thing you whine about in other threads about other people doing.
#MoreBrillianceFromHondoFS
Actually no. I'll type slow so you understand. See, you posted a short bus implying I'm handicapped, or retarded. In the same post you make a fucktarded argument.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
Agree. But given this episode's opportunity to expose @HoustonHusky as the blubbering imbecile that he is, once again, made it worthwhile.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
The press release shown above is dated January 17. The Obama Administration was transparent. What are they supposed to do, interrupt your Dr. Phil for an Important Diplomatic Announcement? Blame the Fair and Balanced media for not picking up on it at the time.
Also, it's pretty clear that separate teams of negotiators dealt with this issue and the prisoner swap.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
The press release shown above is dated January 17. The Obama Administration was transparent. What are they supposed to do, interrupt your Dr. Phil for an Important Diplomatic Announcement? Blame the Fair and Balanced media for not picking up on it at the time.
Also, it's pretty clear that separate teams of negotiators dealt with this issue and the prisoner swap.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
The press release shown above is dated January 17. The Obama Administration was transparent. What are they supposed to do, interrupt your Dr. Phil for an Important Diplomatic Announcement? Blame the Fair and Balanced media for not picking up on it at the time.
Also, it's pretty clear that separate teams of negotiators dealt with this issue and the prisoner swap.
Disagree.
"State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Wednesday that three separate teams of negotiators were assembled to conduct talks with Iran on the nuclear deal, the prisoner swap and the financial settlement. That move to silo the teams allowed the administration to argue that the deals were not linked and that the $1.7 billion saved taxpayers’ money because the United States most likely would have paid more if the matter had gone to arbitration."
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
The press release shown above is dated January 17. The Obama Administration was transparent. What are they supposed to do, interrupt your Dr. Phil for an Important Diplomatic Announcement? Blame the Fair and Balanced media for not picking up on it at the time.
Also, it's pretty clear that separate teams of negotiators dealt with this issue and the prisoner swap.
Disagree.
"State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Wednesday that three separate teams of negotiators were assembled to conduct talks with Iran on the nuclear deal, the prisoner swap and the financial settlement. That move to silo the teams allowed the administration to argue that the deals were not linked and that the $1.7 billion saved taxpayers’ money because the United States most likely would have paid more if the matter had gone to arbitration."
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
The press release shown above is dated January 17. The Obama Administration was transparent. What are they supposed to do, interrupt your Dr. Phil for an Important Diplomatic Announcement? Blame the Fair and Balanced media for not picking up on it at the time.
Also, it's pretty clear that separate teams of negotiators dealt with this issue and the prisoner swap.
Disagree.
"State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Wednesday that three separate teams of negotiators were assembled to conduct talks with Iran on the nuclear deal, the prisoner swap and the financial settlement. That move to silo the teams allowed the administration to argue that the deals were not linked and that the $1.7 billion saved taxpayers’ money because the United States most likely would have paid more if the matter had gone to arbitration."
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
Agree. But given this episode's opportunity to expose @HoustonHusky as the blubbering imbecile that he is, once again, made it worthwhile.
Apparently the DOJ thought differently, but again why bring actual overstepping of govt into this.
I'm sure all these folks were/would be just as ambivalent if a Republican ignored their DOJ...
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
Agree. But given this episode's opportunity to expose @HoustonHusky as the blubbering imbecile that he is, once again, made it worthwhile.
Apparently the DOJ thought differently, but again why bring actual overstepping of govt into this.
I'm sure all these folks were/would be just as ambivalent if a Republican ignored their DOJ...
You act like things are rigged for Democrats. You are already throwing in the towel this election. Nice work.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.
He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.
The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.
I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.
Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.
I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?
Press Statement John Kerry Secretary of State Washington, DC January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
Agree. But given this episode's opportunity to expose @HoustonHusky as the blubbering imbecile that he is, once again, made it worthwhile.
Apparently the DOJ thought differently, but again why bring actual overstepping of govt into this.
I'm sure all these folks were/would be just as ambivalent if a Republican ignored their DOJ...
You act like things are rigged for Democrats. You are already throwing in the towel this election. Nice work.
I'd be bitter too if I supported Trump.
I didn't say anything of the sort...in fact I was careful not too. But we all see your touch with reality is limited at best...but what more can you expect from a minimum wage Hillary shill.
Comments
#MoreBrillianceFromHondoFS
Probably will too
Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement
Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
January 17, 2016
Share
The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.
This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.
This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.
Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.
All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.
There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.
The Obama administration should have been transparent about this
Also, it's pretty clear that separate teams of negotiators dealt with this issue and the prisoner swap.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/was-the-400-million-in-cash-paid-after-the-iran-prisoner-deal-really-ransom/2016/08/03/569f855e-59a8-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html
Nice.
I'm sure all these folks were/would be just as ambivalent if a Republican ignored their DOJ...
I'd be bitter too if I supported Trump.
Speed limit IQ...