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)? In case you are curious the answer is no... I was curious, so I checked:Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal SettlementHague Claims Tribunal SettlementPress StatementJohn KerrySecretary of StateWashington, DCJanuary 17, 2016ShareThe 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.Speed limit IQ...
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)? In case you are curious the answer is no... I was curious, so I checked:Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal SettlementHague Claims Tribunal SettlementPress StatementJohn KerrySecretary of StateWashington, DCJanuary 17, 2016ShareThe 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.
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)? In case you are curious the answer is no... I was curious, so I checked:Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal SettlementHague Claims Tribunal SettlementPress StatementJohn KerrySecretary of StateWashington, DCJanuary 17, 2016ShareThe 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)? In case you are curious the answer is no... I was curious, so I checked:Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal SettlementHague Claims Tribunal SettlementPress StatementJohn KerrySecretary of StateWashington, DCJanuary 17, 2016ShareThe 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)? In case you are curious the answer is no... I was curious, so I checked:Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal SettlementHague Claims Tribunal SettlementPress StatementJohn KerrySecretary of StateWashington, DCJanuary 17, 2016ShareThe 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)? In case you are curious the answer is no... I was curious, so I checked:Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal SettlementHague Claims Tribunal SettlementPress StatementJohn KerrySecretary of StateWashington, DCJanuary 17, 2016ShareThe 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)? In case you are curious the answer is no...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
WASHINGTON—Senior Justice Department officials objected to sending a plane loaded with cash to Tehran at the same time that Iran released four imprisoned Americans, but their objections were overruled by the State Department, according to people familiar with the discussions.After announcing the release of the Americans in January, President Barack Obama also said the U.S. would pay $1.7 billion to Iran to settle a failed arms deal dating back to 1979. What wasn’t disclosed then was that the first payment would be $400 million in cash, flown in at the same time, as The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.The timing and manner of the payment raised alarms at the Justice Department, according to those familiar with the discussions. “People knew what it was going to look like, and there was concern the Iranians probably did consider it a ransom payment,’’ said one of the people.
Justice Department officials didn’t object to the $1.7 billion settlement, which they viewed as a bargain given decades of inflation and the circumstances of the original deal, these people said.But their concerns show that even within the Obama administration there were worries that the pallets of cash could send the wrong signal to Iran—and potentially to others—about U.S. policy when it came to hostages.The U.S. has a longstanding policy of not paying ransom to hostage-takers. The issue has long been a difficult one for the Justice Department and the FBI, which was criticized last year for providing intelligence assistance to a U.S. family as it tried to buy the freedom of an American aid worker in Pakistan.
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)? In case you are curious the answer is no... I was curious, so I checked:Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal SettlementHague Claims Tribunal SettlementPress StatementJohn KerrySecretary of StateWashington, DCJanuary 17, 2016ShareThe 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.
wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.No clue how, but I'm sure a bunch of you lemmings are going to defend this and say Hillary will be better.
Why are you all burying the lead?Yet another mess created by Boomers that REAL Americans have to clean up.
Iran will use it to kill Americans. Obama will rejoice.
Iran will use it to kill Americans. Obama will rejoice. As long as you are on of them, I'd say #WorthIt
Iran will use it to kill Americans. Obama will rejoice. As long as you are on of them, I'd say #WorthIt Hoping they target you at the gay disco.
Iran will use it to kill Americans. Obama will rejoice. As long as you are on of them, I'd say #WorthIt Hoping they target you at the gay disco. I hope so too.Guarantees my survival.
Iran will use it to kill Americans. Obama will rejoice. As long as you are on of them, I'd say #WorthIt Hoping they target you at the gay disco. I hope so too.Guarantees my survival. Lead does cure AIDS but it's a very short term solution.
