Way more important than the North Korea - US summit. Keep this good stuff coming!
Good point. No telling what Daddy will give away.
After Clinton, Bush and Obama, what’s left to give?
18 moths ago retards were saying we? were on the brink of nuclear war because of Trump. Now that that’s not the truth, retards are mad that Trump is talking to N Korea and is “freindly with a dictator”
JFC
Personally I’m kind of horrified that our badass “businessman” President has given away things to N Korea without getting a fucking thing in return. But he’s on your team and you couldn’t fucking care less.
Yet you defend the Iran give away to this day
You couldn't suck Obama's dick hard enough and he gave away the farm in cash and allowed Iran to build a nuke
Now you're concerned. Got it.
The return of Iranian assets had been adjudicated and we were on the hook. I realize laws mean little to the lawless, but that’s where things stood at that moment. Good thing we were also negotiating a nuke agreement. Yes?
Then how did we hold it so long? Then suddenly it was OK to hand them cash they promptly used fund other terrorists to kill our troops and and help build their nuke program.
Way more important than the North Korea - US summit. Keep this good stuff coming!
Good point. No telling what Daddy will give away.
After Clinton, Bush and Obama, what’s left to give?
18 moths ago retards were saying we? were on the brink of nuclear war because of Trump. Now that that’s not the truth, retards are mad that Trump is talking to N Korea and is “freindly with a dictator”
JFC
Personally I’m kind of horrified that our badass “businessman” President has given away things to N Korea without getting a fucking thing in return. But he’s on your team and you couldn’t fucking care less.
Yet you defend the Iran give away to this day
You couldn't suck Obama's dick hard enough and he gave away the farm in cash and allowed Iran to build a nuke
Now you're concerned. Got it.
That was Iran's money, you old moron.
Sure it was. And Obama all of a sudden had to send a couple hundred billion cash to the Mullahs to pay back the Shah
And we are the stupid ones. JFC great talking point that is already debunked moron
Debunked by whom?
Iran paid for military equipment before the Islamic Revolution. It was never paid. This is only a controversial issue among dipshits like you who don't know anything about the world beyond their own zip code.
Did we send the money to the Shah. Why did we all of a sudden have to pay a 1979 bill to the people who over threw the regime
This is as fun as a blue dress, a stain, and a cigar. What a cesspool of bullshit. Government is the greatest reality TV of all. Way better than Vanderpimp hoes.
Way more important than the North Korea - US summit. Keep this good stuff coming!
Good point. No telling what Daddy will give away.
After Clinton, Bush and Obama, what’s left to give?
18 moths ago retards were saying we? were on the brink of nuclear war because of Trump. Now that that’s not the truth, retards are mad that Trump is talking to N Korea and is “freindly with a dictator”
JFC
Personally I’m kind of horrified that our badass “businessman” President has given away things to N Korea without getting a fucking thing in return. But he’s on your team and you couldn’t fucking care less.
Yet you defend the Iran give away to this day
You couldn't suck Obama's dick hard enough and he gave away the farm in cash and allowed Iran to build a nuke
Now you're concerned. Got it.
That was Iran's money, you old moron.
Sure it was. And Obama all of a sudden had to send a couple hundred billion cash to the Mullahs to pay back the Shah
And we are the stupid ones. JFC great talking point that is already debunked moron
Debunked by whom?
Iran paid for military equipment before the Islamic Revolution. It was never paid. This is only a controversial issue among dipshits like you who don't know anything about the world beyond their own zip code.
Did we send the money to the Shah. Why did we all of a sudden have to pay a 1979 bill to the people who over threw the regime
Use your head idiot
This is what you call debunked? You're even more senile than I thought
Way more important than the North Korea - US summit. Keep this good stuff coming!
Good point. No telling what Daddy will give away.
After Clinton, Bush and Obama, what’s left to give?
18 moths ago retards were saying we? were on the brink of nuclear war because of Trump. Now that that’s not the truth, retards are mad that Trump is talking to N Korea and is “freindly with a dictator”
JFC
Personally I’m kind of horrified that our badass “businessman” President has given away things to N Korea without getting a fucking thing in return. But he’s on your team and you couldn’t fucking care less.
Yet you defend the Iran give away to this day
You couldn't suck Obama's dick hard enough and he gave away the farm in cash and allowed Iran to build a nuke
Now you're concerned. Got it.
The return of Iranian assets had been adjudicated and we were on the hook. I realize laws mean little to the lawless, but that’s where things stood at that moment. Good thing we were also negotiating a nuke agreement. Yes?
We were not on the hook but I knew you'd take another run at Obama's dick.
I'll wait to see the NK deal before I hate it. If it is half as bad as the bullshit "deal" Obama negotiated I'll rip it.
You lost any ability to pretend you give a shit about bad deals
The deal Iran is complying with is your example of a bullshit deal? When facts don’t matter you get President Daddy. Congratulations, Race!
Way more important than the North Korea - US summit. Keep this good stuff coming!
Good point. No telling what Daddy will give away.
After Clinton, Bush and Obama, what’s left to give?
18 moths ago retards were saying we? were on the brink of nuclear war because of Trump. Now that that’s not the truth, retards are mad that Trump is talking to N Korea and is “freindly with a dictator”
JFC
People who do nuclear threat analysis for a living said that was the most dangerous time since probably the Cuban Missile Crisis. Certainly the most since the end of the Cold War.
Maybe stick to just repeating my posts back to me because when you actually try to talk with the adults it just reveals that you're a manchild with a hilariously inflated sense of your own intelligence.
It was a dangerous time. Everyone said so.
Awesome argument. It actually goes back to the Sark days here. And you wonder why you are mocked.
You look over Cohen's shoulder and there sits one of the biggest Clinton loyalists... Lanny Davis. Anyone that doesn't see the truth here, get fucked. It wasn't her turn, except to pay for the actual crimes that mafia of a family has committed. We voted our President into office, not Russia. They are bitter that they got caught, that she didn't win, and their corruption was exposed. Uranium One, easy enough. I hope they try to impeach the greatest President for the American people, because I think at that point the light will shine and expose all the rats. Declass, all of it, fuck it.
Uranium One
holy shit you people are incredible. I would say don't breed but you're all old, so your worthless spawn are most likely already haunting this world
Amid all the fuss over President Obama’s “ransom” payment to Iran to free US hostages, less scrutinized is the president’s justification for airlifting cash to Tehran: that we owed them the money. It deserves more attention, because the administration has failed to make its case.
To review: On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration not only paid $400 million in cash to Iran on Jan. 17, but $1.3 billion more in cash in two subsequent shipments — all in Swiss francs, euros and other currencies. The administration claims the payments were returning money Iran paid in 1979 under the Foreign Military Sales program for military equipment it ordered but did not receive, plus interest.
It’s a misdirection. And as Congress returns from its recess, it’s time to focus on two key questions the administration has been refusing to answer ever since the beginning of the year: How was the payment calculated, and was it really due?
In his Jan. 17 announcement, Obama cast the payment as a favorable settlement of Iran’s claim for its 1979 payment. He said he had potentially saved “billions of dollars” Iran could have pursued at the Iran-US Claims Tribunal at The Hague. But the administration has repeatedly refused to answer questions about the merits of the claim or the amount of the payment.
Not for lack of trying on the part of Congress.
On Feb. 3, Rep. Edward J. Royce (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, requested “all legal analyses . . . evaluating the likelihood of Iran prevailing in this dispute” and a “detailed explanation of how the interest payment to Iran of $1.3 billion was calculated.”
Six weeks later, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield responded that the United States “could well have faced significant [additional] exposure in the billions of dollars,” because “Iran was of course seeking very high rates of interest,” and “we are confident that this was a good settlement for the American taxpayer.”
But she provided neither a legal analysis of the claim nor a calculation of the interest paid.
The State Department’s response also noted that the United States “has a significant counterclaim against Iran arising out of the [Foreign Military Sales] program” seeking “substantial damages.” But the administration has declined to explain the nature and amount of its counterclaim, or why it paid Iran’s claim and left its own counterclaim for future litigation.
Moreover, the administration had more than $400 million in other claims against Iran, arising under the “Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act,” for court judgments it holds against Iran for terrorist attacks against Americans. That law specifically provided that “no funds shall be paid to Iran . . . from the Foreign Military Sales Fund, until [such claims] have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.”
In a Jan. 29 letter, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) asked why the administration had paid Iran its claim before Iran satisfied the VTVPA claims — which total $465 million plus interest. The administration responded it had resolved the VTVPA claims “by securing a favorable resolution on the interest owed” Iran. But in a June 1 letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Royce computed the maximum Iranian claim arising out of the 1979 payment as $1.8 billion — before considering any offsets in American claims against Iran.
We currently don’t know whether, after such offsets, the United States owed Iran anything at all.
In his Aug. 4 press conference, the president contended that “we were completely open with everybody” about the payment to Iran. He said his lawyers assessed that “there was significant litigation risk” regarding Iran’s claim.
But the administration hasn’t disclosed how it calculated its payment, or the amount of its counterclaim, or how the VTVPA claims were resolved by the payment, or why the administration thought Iran would prevail in a lawsuit that surely would have considered counterclaims.
Since the administration has withheld the legal analysis, the computation, the details of the offsets and counterclaims and the explanation of why it paid Iran without first consulting the relevant congressional committees, we need more information to evaluate the administration’s repeated insistence that this was a good deal.
We need — to be specific — the information Congress has been requesting for more than seven months.
Way more important than the North Korea - US summit. Keep this good stuff coming!
Good point. No telling what Daddy will give away.
After Clinton, Bush and Obama, what’s left to give?
18 moths ago retards were saying we? were on the brink of nuclear war because of Trump. Now that that’s not the truth, retards are mad that Trump is talking to N Korea and is “freindly with a dictator”
JFC
People who do nuclear threat analysis for a living said that was the most dangerous time since probably the Cuban Missile Crisis. Certainly the most since the end of the Cold War.
Maybe stick to just repeating my posts back to me because when you actually try to talk with the adults it just reveals that you're a manchild with a hilariously inflated sense of your own intelligence.
It was a dangerous time. Everyone said so.
Awesome argument. It actually goes back to the Sark days here. And you wonder why you are mocked.
"Nuclear war didn't happen. Thank you President T!"
You look over Cohen's shoulder and there sits one of the biggest Clinton loyalists... Lanny Davis. Anyone that doesn't see the truth here, get fucked. It wasn't her turn, except to pay for the actual crimes that mafia of a family has committed. We voted our President into office, not Russia. They are bitter that they got caught, that she didn't win, and their corruption was exposed. Uranium One, easy enough. I hope they try to impeach the greatest President for the American people, because I think at that point the light will shine and expose all the rats. Declass, all of it, fuck it.
Uranium One
holy shit you people are incredible. I would say don't breed but you're all old, so your worthless spawn are most likely already haunting this world
Amid all the fuss over President Obama’s “ransom” payment to Iran to free US hostages, less scrutinized is the president’s justification for airlifting cash to Tehran: that we owed them the money. It deserves more attention, because the administration has failed to make its case.
To review: On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration not only paid $400 million in cash to Iran on Jan. 17, but $1.3 billion more in cash in two subsequent shipments — all in Swiss francs, euros and other currencies. The administration claims the payments were returning money Iran paid in 1979 under the Foreign Military Sales program for military equipment it ordered but did not receive, plus interest.
It’s a misdirection. And as Congress returns from its recess, it’s time to focus on two key questions the administration has been refusing to answer ever since the beginning of the year: How was the payment calculated, and was it really due?
In his Jan. 17 announcement, Obama cast the payment as a favorable settlement of Iran’s claim for its 1979 payment. He said he had potentially saved “billions of dollars” Iran could have pursued at the Iran-US Claims Tribunal at The Hague. But the administration has repeatedly refused to answer questions about the merits of the claim or the amount of the payment.
Not for lack of trying on the part of Congress.
On Feb. 3, Rep. Edward J. Royce (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, requested “all legal analyses . . . evaluating the likelihood of Iran prevailing in this dispute” and a “detailed explanation of how the interest payment to Iran of $1.3 billion was calculated.”
Six weeks later, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield responded that the United States “could well have faced significant [additional] exposure in the billions of dollars,” because “Iran was of course seeking very high rates of interest,” and “we are confident that this was a good settlement for the American taxpayer.”
But she provided neither a legal analysis of the claim nor a calculation of the interest paid.
The State Department’s response also noted that the United States “has a significant counterclaim against Iran arising out of the [Foreign Military Sales] program” seeking “substantial damages.” But the administration has declined to explain the nature and amount of its counterclaim, or why it paid Iran’s claim and left its own counterclaim for future litigation.
Moreover, the administration had more than $400 million in other claims against Iran, arising under the “Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act,” for court judgments it holds against Iran for terrorist attacks against Americans. That law specifically provided that “no funds shall be paid to Iran . . . from the Foreign Military Sales Fund, until [such claims] have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.”
In a Jan. 29 letter, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) asked why the administration had paid Iran its claim before Iran satisfied the VTVPA claims — which total $465 million plus interest. The administration responded it had resolved the VTVPA claims “by securing a favorable resolution on the interest owed” Iran. But in a June 1 letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Royce computed the maximum Iranian claim arising out of the 1979 payment as $1.8 billion — before considering any offsets in American claims against Iran.
We currently don’t know whether, after such offsets, the United States owed Iran anything at all.
In his Aug. 4 press conference, the president contended that “we were completely open with everybody” about the payment to Iran. He said his lawyers assessed that “there was significant litigation risk” regarding Iran’s claim.
But the administration hasn’t disclosed how it calculated its payment, or the amount of its counterclaim, or how the VTVPA claims were resolved by the payment, or why the administration thought Iran would prevail in a lawsuit that surely would have considered counterclaims.
Since the administration has withheld the legal analysis, the computation, the details of the offsets and counterclaims and the explanation of why it paid Iran without first consulting the relevant congressional committees, we need more information to evaluate the administration’s repeated insistence that this was a good deal.
We need — to be specific — the information Congress has been requesting for more than seven months.
Amid all the fuss over President Obama’s “ransom” payment to Iran to free US hostages, less scrutinized is the president’s justification for airlifting cash to Tehran: that we owed them the money. It deserves more attention, because the administration has failed to make its case.
To review: On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration not only paid $400 million in cash to Iran on Jan. 17, but $1.3 billion more in cash in two subsequent shipments — all in Swiss francs, euros and other currencies. The administration claims the payments were returning money Iran paid in 1979 under the Foreign Military Sales program for military equipment it ordered but did not receive, plus interest.
It’s a misdirection. And as Congress returns from its recess, it’s time to focus on two key questions the administration has been refusing to answer ever since the beginning of the year: How was the payment calculated, and was it really due?
In his Jan. 17 announcement, Obama cast the payment as a favorable settlement of Iran’s claim for its 1979 payment. He said he had potentially saved “billions of dollars” Iran could have pursued at the Iran-US Claims Tribunal at The Hague. But the administration has repeatedly refused to answer questions about the merits of the claim or the amount of the payment.
Not for lack of trying on the part of Congress.
On Feb. 3, Rep. Edward J. Royce (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, requested “all legal analyses . . . evaluating the likelihood of Iran prevailing in this dispute” and a “detailed explanation of how the interest payment to Iran of $1.3 billion was calculated.”
Six weeks later, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield responded that the United States “could well have faced significant [additional] exposure in the billions of dollars,” because “Iran was of course seeking very high rates of interest,” and “we are confident that this was a good settlement for the American taxpayer.”
But she provided neither a legal analysis of the claim nor a calculation of the interest paid.
The State Department’s response also noted that the United States “has a significant counterclaim against Iran arising out of the [Foreign Military Sales] program” seeking “substantial damages.” But the administration has declined to explain the nature and amount of its counterclaim, or why it paid Iran’s claim and left its own counterclaim for future litigation.
Moreover, the administration had more than $400 million in other claims against Iran, arising under the “Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act,” for court judgments it holds against Iran for terrorist attacks against Americans. That law specifically provided that “no funds shall be paid to Iran . . . from the Foreign Military Sales Fund, until [such claims] have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.”
In a Jan. 29 letter, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) asked why the administration had paid Iran its claim before Iran satisfied the VTVPA claims — which total $465 million plus interest. The administration responded it had resolved the VTVPA claims “by securing a favorable resolution on the interest owed” Iran. But in a June 1 letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Royce computed the maximum Iranian claim arising out of the 1979 payment as $1.8 billion — before considering any offsets in American claims against Iran.
We currently don’t know whether, after such offsets, the United States owed Iran anything at all.
In his Aug. 4 press conference, the president contended that “we were completely open with everybody” about the payment to Iran. He said his lawyers assessed that “there was significant litigation risk” regarding Iran’s claim.
But the administration hasn’t disclosed how it calculated its payment, or the amount of its counterclaim, or how the VTVPA claims were resolved by the payment, or why the administration thought Iran would prevail in a lawsuit that surely would have considered counterclaims.
Since the administration has withheld the legal analysis, the computation, the details of the offsets and counterclaims and the explanation of why it paid Iran without first consulting the relevant congressional committees, we need more information to evaluate the administration’s repeated insistence that this was a good deal.
We need — to be specific — the information Congress has been requesting for more than seven months.
Reading the stuff last night from Cohen's testimony, I thought Trump would have some serious problems following his appearance before Congress. I've watched 30 minutes of the testimony. Michael Cohen is not objectively credible. Each side is going to believe or disbelieve what they want. Opponents have always thought Trump was a racist scumbag, and supporters either don't care or don't believe. I don't see how this testimony changes anything. Wasserburg-Schultz tried to get #Collusion out of Cohen and that didn't go anywhere.
You look over Cohen's shoulder and there sits one of the biggest Clinton loyalists... Lanny Davis. Anyone that doesn't see the truth here, get fucked. It wasn't her turn, except to pay for the actual crimes that mafia of a family has committed. We voted our President into office, not Russia. They are bitter that they got caught, that she didn't win, and their corruption was exposed. Uranium One, easy enough. I hope they try to impeach the greatest President for the American people, because I think at that point the light will shine and expose all the rats. Declass, all of it, fuck it.
Uranium One
holy shit you people are incredible. I would say don't breed but you're all old, so your worthless spawn are most likely already haunting this world
They are and they are well armed!
And Mall Cop Man marks a strange evolutionary detour.
Reading the stuff last night from Cohen's testimony, I thought Trump would have some serious problems following his appearance before Congress. I've watched 30 minutes of the testimony. Michael Cohen is not objectively credible. Each side is going to believe or disbelieve what they want. Opponents have always thought Trump was a racist scumbag, and supporters either don't care or don't believe. I don't see how this testimony changes anything. Wasserburg-Schultz tried to get #Collusion out of Cohen and that didn't go anywhere.
Reading the stuff last night from Cohen's testimony, I thought Trump would have some serious problems following his appearance before Congress. I've watched 30 minutes of the testimony. Michael Cohen is not objectively credible. Each side is going to believe or disbelieve what they want. Opponents have always thought Trump was a racist scumbag, and supporters either don't care or don't believe. I don't see how this testimony changes anything. Wasserburg-Schultz tried to get #Collusion out of Cohen and that didn't go anywhere.
Dog and pony show of horseshit. What a waste of time.
Comments
Use your head idiot
Awesome argument. It actually goes back to the Sark days here. And you wonder why you are mocked.
To review: On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration not only paid $400 million in cash to Iran on Jan. 17, but $1.3 billion more in cash in two subsequent shipments — all in Swiss francs, euros and other currencies. The administration claims the payments were returning money Iran paid in 1979 under the Foreign Military Sales program for military equipment it ordered but did not receive, plus interest.
It’s a misdirection. And as Congress returns from its recess, it’s time to focus on two key questions the administration has been refusing to answer ever since the beginning of the year: How was the payment calculated, and was it really due?
In his Jan. 17 announcement, Obama cast the payment as a favorable settlement of Iran’s claim for its 1979 payment. He said he had potentially saved “billions of dollars” Iran could have pursued at the Iran-US Claims Tribunal at The Hague. But the administration has repeatedly refused to answer questions about the merits of the claim or the amount of the payment.
Not for lack of trying on the part of Congress.
On Feb. 3, Rep. Edward J. Royce (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, requested “all legal analyses . . . evaluating the likelihood of Iran prevailing in this dispute” and a “detailed explanation of how the interest payment to Iran of $1.3 billion was calculated.”
Six weeks later, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield responded that the United States “could well have faced significant [additional] exposure in the billions of dollars,” because “Iran was of course seeking very high rates of interest,” and “we are confident that this was a good settlement for the American taxpayer.”
But she provided neither a legal analysis of the claim nor a calculation of the interest paid.
The State Department’s response also noted that the United States “has a significant counterclaim against Iran arising out of the [Foreign Military Sales] program” seeking “substantial damages.” But the administration has declined to explain the nature and amount of its counterclaim, or why it paid Iran’s claim and left its own counterclaim for future litigation.
Moreover, the administration had more than $400 million in other claims against Iran, arising under the “Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act,” for court judgments it holds against Iran for terrorist attacks against Americans. That law specifically provided that “no funds shall be paid to Iran . . . from the Foreign Military Sales Fund, until [such claims] have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.”
In a Jan. 29 letter, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) asked why the administration had paid Iran its claim before Iran satisfied the VTVPA claims — which total $465 million plus interest. The administration responded it had resolved the VTVPA claims “by securing a favorable resolution on the interest owed” Iran. But in a June 1 letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Royce computed the maximum Iranian claim arising out of the 1979 payment as $1.8 billion — before considering any offsets in American claims against Iran.
We currently don’t know whether, after such offsets, the United States owed Iran anything at all.
In his Aug. 4 press conference, the president contended that “we were completely open with everybody” about the payment to Iran. He said his lawyers assessed that “there was significant litigation risk” regarding Iran’s claim.
But the administration hasn’t disclosed how it calculated its payment, or the amount of its counterclaim, or how the VTVPA claims were resolved by the payment, or why the administration thought Iran would prevail in a lawsuit that surely would have considered counterclaims.
Since the administration has withheld the legal analysis, the computation, the details of the offsets and counterclaims and the explanation of why it paid Iran without first consulting the relevant congressional committees, we need more information to evaluate the administration’s repeated insistence that this was a good deal.
We need — to be specific — the information Congress has been requesting for more than seven months.
https://nypost.com/2016/09/08/no-we-didnt-owe-iran-that-1-7-billion-ransom-payment/
There was no need to pay them shit