hillery can't stop - Page 19

I think it has to do with our integrity as a nation. If we won't follow our own laws, then how can we expect any other countries to honor their agreements with us?

If we want to start paying ransom, then we need to change the laws. You are the one pointing out fascism at ever wicked Trump turn, so why don't you see that too, when Obama does a shady move?

Really, all he had to do was change the drop to a different day! Or pay US dollars.... but for some reason it was important enough not to do either of those things.

He is talking about this now... Brb...he's leaning on the need "to clear the accounts angle" .... A bank wire transfer makes that argument... Silly. Now he moves to the deflection on the angle you are taking -- that the work-around, worked. Why we could not establish a banking relationship and a wire transfer is a circle argument. Really, in this day and age. A systems analyst could do that on a weekend.

According to him, they knew what they wanted to do since January. 

 

No mention here of the ransom money.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/john-kerry-money-iran-sanctions-terrorism/

Kerry is pathetic. Saying iran will have a lot of problems with congress if they use any of the 'sanctions' money for terrorism.

The obvious problem with the obama regime paying ransom on top of the 7 iranians swaped for 4 Americans, is that the obama regime has put a $100,000,000.00 (one hundred million dollar) price tag on the head of every American citizen, giving much incentive for Iranians to capture every  American they can get hold of....thanks B hussein !

Laundering us$ to provide material support for terrorist org, as the ob'ama regime did, is frowned upon.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339B

 

This is what should happen to all involved in the money drop to iran...

http://abc11.com/news/nc-man-charged-with-conspiring-to-help-isis-feds-say/1456879/

It wasn't ransom and any member of congress who says that is lying since they were aware of what was going on at the time. It was reported in the news at the time. This isn't some breaking story.

We had 400 million dollars that belonged to Iran since 1979. Iran has been trying to get that money back since 1979. This has been ongoing in international court since 1979. The idea that this became an issue recently with the taking prisoner of several Americans ignores that history and a paper trail that's over 30 years long.

If a prisoner exchange became part of the deal so what? That isn't ransom. We were working out a nuclear deal. The money, Iran's money, was part of it. They wanted a lot more because of interest but didn't get it. Why don't people see a prisoner exchange as simply a sign of good faith? None of this was secret so why all of the conspiracy theories? Had we entered into a nuclear deal and returned their money but left out the hostages then the crybaby hypocrites would have something else to cry about.

As far as putting a price on the heads of Americans goes: Reagan did shady deals, unquestionably shady deals, with Iran to get hostages back and did that put a price on our heads? But what's good for Reagan isn't good for Obama. Also, why would Iran capture Americans now? We haven't made all the payments so that would jeopardize that. Iran also gets a lot more monetary benefit from this nuclear deal than 100 million dollars.

Even without hostages this deal was going to happen. This is the ignorance of people. They ignore the fact that we have a nuclear deal with Iran now. Using the ransom logic we could say that we only entered into the deal to get hostages back. All of the ransom theorists have to explain the nuclear deal aspect of these events.

Again ask yourselves, if congress knew about this in January why didn't they cry ransom back then?

Ask yourself...why do you alibi and make excuses for the dictator in cheif and why do you hate the USA and why are you such a crybaby? You epitomize the globalist ant-American cult.

Iran Takes Another American Hostage After Obama's $400 Million 'Side Deal'

'Back when the Iran Deal was being negotiated, we learned that the State Department had authorized secret “side deals” to handle matters they didn’t want to discuss in front of Congress. We’ve just learned the answer to one of the important questions:  did the President know that secrets were being kept from Congress?

The answer is yes.

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.

Wooden 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.

Pallets of cash have a predictable effect on hostage-takers.  Want to guess what it was?

When Iranian authorities this week confirmed the arrest of an Iranian-American from San Diego visiting his ailing mother in his country of birth, it rang familiar.

A father-and-son pair of Iranian-Americans have also been imprisoned in Iran for months, with little news of their detention leaking out. Journalist Jason Rezaian, also a dual national, was released in January as part of a prisoner swap as the Iran nuclear deal took effect.

And that’s only the Americans.

It is illegal for the United States government to pay for hostages to be released from captivity.  This law exists for a good reason.  The reason is that providing incentives to hostage-takers means that you get more hostages.  As with anything else, if you provide incentives for the behavior you get more of the behavior.'

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/03/iran-takes-another-american-hostage-obamas-400-million-side-deal/

"hillery can't stop"   She isn't the only one. ^ lol.

 

Meanwhile Meliane Trump was an illegal immigrant, who broke the law to stay in America. Deport her! SMH.

GSD, lol,lol,lol

Why didn't congress cry "ransom" back in January? Apparently, the Obama administration wasn't being very forthcoming with the details. Not like now. If you want to give Obama a pat on the back for engineering a work-around that worked because the goal of freeing hostages is a noble one, then I think it only fair to stop demonizing Reagan for doing what amounts to the same thing. Do a little research on the banking situation, too, and you will see how the only reason the deal had to be made in an exchange currency and flown in pallets by a Switzerland plane, wasn't about getting the assets to clear, it was because legally our sanctions regarding them as terrorist supporters remain in place and we legally shouldn't have been able to do that. There is now a precedent that Iran understands, and that is, while USA says they don't pay ransom for hostages, what we will do is release frozen assets for hostages. And really, I don't think that difference matters much to the Iranian government, they surely wrote off the frozen assets from 1978 a while back, but it makes for great leverage in their favor. I have no idea how the supposed interest is supposedly calculated at $1.7 billion dollars, or deemed to belong to them, either. It seems we are crazy, IMHO to think frozen assets of enemies are to be allowed any sort of safekeeping for an interest bonus. The Iran Nuclear deal bought a years time in terms of capabilities for completing a bomb, didn't it? It doesn't guarantee much beyond that, and even that depends on inspectors, that if I recall, in the past they had a bad habit of being booted out at the most trickiest of times. Yet, as a best deal to date goes, it is that.