Obama Admin. Ransoms 4 Americans for $400 million

[Clean]

According to the WSJ: "WASHINGTON—The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward."

The Washington Times says: "The Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. and European officials and congressional sources, reported that the administration procured the money from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands. The money was stacked on wooden pallets and flown to Tehran in an unmarked cargo plane."

U. S. law prevented the Admin. from paying the ransom in American dollars, so they paid it in Euros, Swiss francs, and other currencies.

Caught with their pants down, the smooth as silk, Obama Admin. didn't miss a beat. It denied it was a ransom payment (even though that's what the Iranian Ayatollahs called it). They claim it was the first payment to resolve some pre-1979, $1.7 billion arms dispute with Iran, which is probably why it was paid in cash and shipped on an unmarked cargo plane in secret.

Since then, Iran has arrested two more Americans. At $100 million per American, this could get costly. That's probably why no other admin. ever wanted to put a price on American lives.

Iran will be able to put all this cash infusion to good use funding world terrorism. And they say Trump is unfit to be President!

 

[WorsterMan]

Since then, Iran has arrested two more Americans. At $100 million per American, this could get costly.

Now we know at least 2 things with this regime in the White House:

1. The number of "detained" Americans in Iran will go up in the future.
2. The bounty / cost of release of detained Americans will only go up - way up.

 

[Joe Fan]

Is this worse than Iran-Contra/Ollie North?

 

[Brad Austin]

Obama's next book...

"How to secretly make the leading Muslim country in the world a nuclear power and fund their anti-American terrorist operations with American money"

Makes Trump's "we're gonna build a wall and Mexico is gonna pay for it" look like amateur hour.

Obama knows Iran will continue terrorizing American interests and has already paid many millions to advance their efforts.

People who don't believe this traitor knows exactly what he's doing to sabotage America are clueless. His Dad/hero would be so proud of his accomplishments.

 

[I35]

Brad, shortly the libs will be here trying to make what you say sound like crazy talk. Although they listen to what Obama says instead of watching his actions.

 

[4th_floor]

This is almost as bad as trading 5 Taliban commanders for one deserter.

 

[Clean]

I thought Ed Royce, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman summed this sordid affair up nicely;

“The logistics of this payment -- literally delivering a plane full of cash to evade U.S. law -- shows yet again the extraordinary lengths the Obama administration will go to accommodate Iran, all while hiding the facts from Congress and the American people,”.

Just further proof that Obama has allowed Iran to bend the U.S. over a stump in order to get this "treaty" with Iran, which he seems to believe will cement his legacy as a peace maker. I think history will group Obama's foreign policy in with Neville Chamberlain's appeasement foreign policy and we all know how that went.

 

[I35]

The administration keeps calling the $400 million Irans money that they are giving them from a lawsuit that is been going on since the late 70's. The lawsuit is not settled and by most accounts, Iran would be on the losing side of that lawsuit. On top of that, there is no way we can be forced to pay them according to WSJ. So this administration is giving $400 million to a country that supports all the terror networks.

There are a lot of coincidence according to our leaders. 4 hostages and $400 million. On the same day they paid the hostages were released? This is just a mountain of corruption with this party and administration. They are wanting the biggest corrupt person ever to represent them and be out next president. No thank you.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Not too surprising really. Nothing about our current political class surprises me anymore.

 

[Joe Fan]

The transfer of prisoners and cash was on the same day

 

[Mr. Deez]

A condemnation of the Iran deal from an unusual source. Link.

 

[Clean]

I listened to Obama's rambling disclaimer that it wasn't ransom for as long as I could stand it yesterday. All I can say is that his explanation doesn't pass the smell test; a bunch of lawyers recommended that the U.S. pay back the 1.7 billion we confiscated in 1979 or we could get sued, blah, blah, blah.

So why did we pay it in untraceable cash? We couldn't pay it through the normal banking channels, if this is above board? Even if we haven't done business with Iran in 35 years, plenty of countries have.

Obama can fool the American press, who yearn to believe him, but the Iranians know it was a ransom. I even heard on the radio this morning that one of the hostages said that he was told that he'd be released when the plane landed.


http://theduran.com/american-hostag...ve-obamas-400-million-cash-plane-landed-iran/

 

[4th_floor]

The transfer of prisoners and cash was on the same day

Actually the prisoners were not allowed to leave until the plane with the cash arrived and the presence of the cash was confirmed. This is according to one of the prisoners.

 

[Seattle Husker]

This is bad from any angle. Even if you take the BO Administration at it's word (a stretch) that this was coincidence and a prior commitment, there is only 1 way to look at it from Iran's perspective, a paid ransom. Mental gymnastics by the BO Administration can't bely the fact that they were given $400M on the same day they released 4 prisoners. It doesn't matter that this was supposedly Iran's money anyway. It was paid to get back 4 prisoners.

Per NPR this morning, there are now more US citizen prisoners in Iran than there were prior to this deal.

 

[Phil Elliott]

This was not only ransom, it was money-laundering. Dems are lawless crooks.

 

[nashhorn]

So......did Bill have money on Lynch's plane? Just wondering.

 

[theiioftx]

None of this can be true. I see none of this on CNN.

 

[NJlonghorn]

None of this can be true. I see none of this on CNN.

CNN has reported extensively on the Iran payments, both in print and in video. It is worth noting that the reports have been quite critical of Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/opinions/iran-payments-ghitis/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/politics/iran-400-million-kerry-rejects-ransom/index.html



http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html



I agree that CNN is biased, but not nearly as biased as you make them out to be.

 

[theiioftx]

A current scan of CNN has nothing on it. A huge story, but dropped after one day. They are every much biased as MSNBC.

 

[NJlonghorn]

A current scan of CNN has nothing on it. A huge story, but dropped after one day. They are every much biased as MSNBC.

In that last 48 hours or so, I've been to cnn.com several times. The Iran payments issue has been on the front page every time. In particular, when I looked earlier to respond to your post, one of the articles I cited to appeared under the "politics" tab on the main page of CNN.com.

When I looked again just now, the earlier link was still there and a new one had showed up under "top stories":

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/trump-iran-video-cash-payment/index.html

I'm guessing you still won't be satisfied, because neither link is preceded by "Obama is a total fraud" flashing in neon letters.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Oh, and by the way, one of the other top stories is this article, which has a headline of "Clinton repeats debunked claim about FBI email investigation" and begins with the following sentence:

Hillary Clinton is repeating her false claim that the FBI said her statements on her use of a private email were "truthful."
​

I'm not saying that CNN is fair and balanced -- they aren't. But they are way closer to the middle than MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[theiioftx]

Oh, and by the way, one of the other top stories is this article, which has a headline of "Clinton repeats debunked claim about FBI email investigation" and begins with the following sentence:

Hillary Clinton is repeating her false claim that the FBI said her statements on her use of a private email were "truthful."
​

I'm not saying that CNN is fair and balanced -- they aren't. But they are way closer to the middle than MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right.

And just like I believe Hillary, I believe you are not a left leaning liberal as you profess. And by the way, if you do not believe Obama is a fraud, we know who you really support in this election.

 

[Joe Fan]

WH admitted the bribe may be used by Iran for terrorism

 

[UTChE96]

I'm not saying that CNN is fair and balanced -- they aren't. But they are way closer to the middle than MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right.

Depends. I would say the Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace is the most objective Sunday morning news show on TV right now. They are equally tough on both sides. Closest thing we have to Tim Russert's MTP back in the day. But on the other hand, Hannity is the equivalent of Chris Matthews.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'd put Hannity more in a class with Rachel Maddow than with Matthews.

 

[Clean]

I'd put Hannity more in a class with Rachel Maddow than with Matthews.

I'd put Mr. "Obama sends a thrill up my leg" Matthews in the same class as Maddow, Hannity, and Olberman. Some lean left. Some lean right. But, honesty in reporting isn't what they're about.

 

[I35]

Recently CNN has move way left towards msnbc (if not more). They haven't been honest about anything recently. Maybe they only get this way every four years for the Presidency.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

The point I read this weekend that summed up the ridiculous nature of the response was that if it's true that the administration had the attitude that "we knew it wasn't for ransom, even if Iran decided to represent it that way", they really don't have much of a clue behind the reasoning for not paying ransom to begin with.

The whole point is so that countries don't start taking more hostages because they can get more ransom payments. It doesn't help when we pay Iran a bunch of money and say "well, it wasn't REALLY a ransom payment even if they THOUGHT it was." If they thought it was a ransom payment, then they'll "think" they can do it again and get the same result.

 

[Horn6721]

Perhaps BO might have used some of that not ransom money to pay American victims of Iran who have been awarded damages.