Cohen testimony
Comments
-
Are you really trying to say that a person standing next to a black dude somehow means he doesn't say racist shit?RaceBannon said:
-
yeah that's what i'm saying, smart guyGrundleStiltzkin said:
Funny how Cohen was Dear Leader's lapdog until, what, six months ago?MariotaTheGawd said:
convenient that one of Dear Leader's closest associates for years isn't credible nowGrundleStiltzkin said: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.
-
So you don’t know what it was. Got it!MariotaTheGawd said:
If you're half as smart as you think you are, you would deconstruct the fallacy. It's morons who yell "logical fallacy!"MikeDamone said:
Imagine defending the use of logical fallacies. Using the term “smack talk, what are you,MariotaTheGawd said:
imagine going with logical fallacy smack talk. what are you, 20?MikeDamone said:
HondoFS with the logical fallacy for the win!MariotaTheGawd said:
man you really owned me with this hack job from a murdoch-owned tabloidRaceBannon said: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.
https://nypost.com/2016/09/08/no-we-didnt-owe-iran-that-1-7-billion-ransom-payment/
12? -
Tell yourself whatever you need to. I'm sure your kids are very proud of you.MikeDamone said:
So you don’t know what it was. Got it!MariotaTheGawd said:
If you're half as smart as you think you are, you would deconstruct the fallacy. It's morons who yell "logical fallacy!"MikeDamone said:
Imagine defending the use of logical fallacies. Using the term “smack talk, what are you,MariotaTheGawd said:
imagine going with logical fallacy smack talk. what are you, 20?MikeDamone said:
HondoFS with the logical fallacy for the win!MariotaTheGawd said:
man you really owned me with this hack job from a murdoch-owned tabloidRaceBannon said: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.
https://nypost.com/2016/09/08/no-we-didnt-owe-iran-that-1-7-billion-ransom-payment/
12? -
Let’s do another Benghazi hearing. Just for fun.jecornel said:
Dog and pony show of horseshit. What a waste of time.GrundleStiltzkin said: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.
-
Maybe if they put Hillary Clinton under oath one more time she'll reveal the secrets of the pizza shop new world order pedo ringHHusky said:
Let’s do another Benghazi hearing. Just for fun.jecornel said:
Dog and pony show of horseshit. What a waste of time.GrundleStiltzkin said: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.
-
2001400ex said:
Are you really trying to say that a person standing next to a black dude somehow means he doesn't say racist shit?RaceBannon said:
-
For something “not objectively” credible, why would trumpartds mark meadows and Jim Jordan protest so vehemently.
They sound concerned and angry. -
Hey idiot. I didn't say Trump was a white supremacist. I said he says racist shit. And he's gone to court for racist policies in the past. HTH.Sledog said:2001400ex said:
Are you really trying to say that a person standing next to a black dude somehow means he doesn't say racist shit?RaceBannon said: -
Jim Jordan is a disgrace
