And like everything else regarding Trump in the media coverage, it's two parallel universes.
Trump is (if possible) attempting to engage and create a working relationship with Russia. The alternative is Defcon 5 against the world's largest nuclear arsenal, I would think Democrats could understand that. Buchanan says here , as said previously in his books, that Russia and the U.S. while not friends, have shared strategic interests. And the last thing we want to do is drive Russia into a closer alliance against us with China.
Against the hysteria in the liberal media, Trump is doing what's in the best interest of the U.S. in playing hardball regarding trade with China and Europe. The average tariff to bring goods into the U.S. from Europe is about 2%. The average tariff to bring U.S. goods into Europe is about 10%.
That's why U.S. items, such as cars, are prohibitively expensive and don't sell much at all in Europe. Trump just wants to even the playing field, so that it truly is free trade.
Decades ago after World War II, we had lower tariffs on goods from Europe to help them rebuild after the war. But that was accomplished before 1960, and at some point we should have evened out the tariffs. Likewise Japan. Likewise China.
As Buchanan and Ingraham discuss, Russia has a shrinking population with about a 1.3 birthrate of children for every 2 parents. Russia's population is imploding, their economy is imploding, and they lost 33% of their land and half their population in the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union. In the last 2 decades, they even struggled to keep places like Chechnya and to keep two breakoff provinces Russia seized from former-Soviet Georgia in 2008. For whatever intent, the Russian military is exhausting itself even in these places, and eastern Ukraine. The only real threat Russia has to the rest of the world is their arsenal of 5,000 to 6,000 nuclear weapons.
And just 5 years ago, the Democrats saw acknowledged this (Obama in 2012 to Romney: "The 1980's are calling, they want their foreign policy back" in response to Romney citing a threat from Russia.) That while Russia is a threat, China is the greater and rising threat. And I would rather we re-negotiate trade deals now with China, while China is still relatively weak economically and dependent on the U.S. buying their manufactured products, than in 20 years when China has developed their own middle class and they no longer need the U.S. as buyers, and at a time when China has used the 400 billion in annual trade surpluses over 20 years to build themselves into the unchallenged world's greatest superpower. 400 billion a year in U.S./China trade deficit. And another 600 billion a year in Chinese intellectual property theft stolen from thr U.S. That if left to continue will not only fund their military, but allow them to surpass us in technology. Those two combined give them the cash to outpace our military over the long run.
So with China, and with all these nations, Trump has arrived just in time, to eliminate these trade deficits before we are too economically weak to resist them. All Trump is asking for is truly free trade with equal tariffs. And right now, the U.S. is still the dominant market, and the U.,S. has the strength to win, if there is a short-term economic trade war. If it comes to that.
But like everything else, don't expect European leaders or the liberal media to ever give Trump credit for that. For many decades, the U.S. could afford to be slowly bled to death by trade deficits with nations around the world. We no longer can. Imagine if those deficits were eliminated, and all that capital could be applied to pay down and eliminate our 21 trillion-dollar federal debt.
Securing U.S. borders, better U.S. trade deals negotiated, serious negotiations with Korea and China to "de-nuclearize the Korean peninsula" (if Korea does as it promised, and serious pressure if they don't), slashing federal business regulation, returning jobs, factories and growth to the U.S. All this, and still Trump is bashed in the media as if he were incompetent. At some point they will have to acknowledge this is a president whose accomplishments match or surpass those of Reagan or FDR.
The key point in the Lou Dobbs broadcast, from 10:00 to 16:00 in the video is that Deputy A.G. Rosenstein indicted 12 Russian nationals who will never be arrested or tried, jut to upstage Trump while he is in Helsinki, Finland meeting with Putin. And to distract from the Dems' embarrassing exposure in the congressional hearings of rogue deep state FBI agent Peter Strzok and his self-incriminating texts of the coup he participated in against Trump's election and presidency.
As Farrell of Judicial Watch says: "Engaging in very subversive behavior, while wrapping himself in the flag," in Rosenstein's calling for patriotism and non-partisanship, even as he engages in a partisan attack on the President.
I love how Democrats say, "Ohhh, how can you say that, Comey and Rubinstein are Republicans!" Republicans in name only. They are registered as Republicans so they can act as Democrats. Classic Alinsky tactics of infiltration. Comey in his 60 minutes interview said his wife and his 5 children all voted for and were deeply invested in Hillary Clinton winning. He declined to say who he voted for. Asked if he's a Democrat, he said "If not before, then now."
Likewise Rosenstein. I wish Trump would fire Rosenstein, and ask for Sessions' resignation, while selecting a replacement Attorney General. Who will actually pursue justice regarding the Hillary e-mails, Lois Lerner, and Peter Strzok's "insurance plan" to destroy Trump he boasted of in his texts with Lisa Page.
Farrell mentions CrowdStrike and the DNC server that was hacked, where the DNC-friendly CrowdStrike cyber-security company investigated the hacks, and the DNC didn't let the FBI investigate, to (obviously) conceal information from the public that was on their server, and their carelessness that compromised it.
On February 2, 2017, Politico reported 5 House IT staffers, including 3 brothers later identified as Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan, and two of their wives, Hina Alvi and Natalia Sova, were relieved of access to House computers and had been under criminal investigation since late 2016.[5] A sixth, Rao Abbas, privileges were also revoked.[6]
While full details were not disclosed, subsequently it was learned they managed office information technology for at least 80 Democratic members of the House, including members of the House Intelligence, Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs committees handling matters of national security.[7] It was also learned later Imran Awan worked for ex-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz,[8] had access to her iPad and password,[9] took $100,000 in cash from an Iraqi doctor who was part of the new Iraq government,[10] and was a suspect in the leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (despite verbose allegations of "Russian hacking," the DNC never allowed the FBI to examine its servers to determine if indeed the DNC had been hacked, or if the leaks come from an inside source).[11]
The suspects may have been involved in a leak of information that led to the ambush and death of Navy SEAL William Ryan Owen.[12]
Because the subjects were Muslim,[13] their activities were covered up and they were only relieved of duties without their names being released.[14]
This didn't equate to anything Obama did. You guys would have lynched him if he had done this. But I guess it's predictable that you would go with the "other guy did it too" argument. You're welcome to continue on with your shit show. Hopefully the rest of our country wakes up and starts paying attention.
No way this compares to Obama's weakness before the Russians. Trump compromised nothing, gave away nothing, and just expressed a willingness to improve relations with Putin.
Trump didn't "draw a line in the sand" in Syria and then cave. Trump didn't leave it to Putin to send him a lifeline in Syria, to let Russia verify Assad had no more chemical weapons, and then a year later enable Assad to slaughter Syrian civilians with chemical weapons! Trump didn't sit on his hands while Putin took Crimea. Trump didn't sit on his hands while Putin further invaded Eastern Ukraine. Quite the opposite, Trump is arming the Ukranians and pushing back on all these fronts, FAR from "being Putin's bitch".
Did Trump make some odd remarks in his press conference with Putin? Yeah. Did Trump give anything away on any of these fronts, or ease up on sanctions? Fuck no.
So I'm chalking it up to Art of the Deal tactics for opening further negotiation, while compromising nothing.
He's not the guy who promised to be "more flexible after the election" or who delivered a $150 billion palette of cash, just some somebody would pretend to be his friend. That was "Putin's bitch" Obama.
The piece of shit threw our intelligence agencies under the bus and than thought it was a wonderful idea to let Putin's people work with them. He picked the enemy's side.
That's total horseshit, M E M. Trump said he trusts the intelligence officials who tell him Russia hacked and sabotaged our 2016 elections. And he just said that Putin was "extremely powerful in his denial" Russia was involved. Trump didn't say he believed Putin. Trump didn't say he didn't believe his own intelligence officials.
The liberal narrative is that "Trump believes Putin over his own intelligence officials," which again, is horseshit. Trump never said that. But the human cattle who rely on CNN and MSNBC will believe that paraphrased twisting of the actual facts.
As revealing as the joint press conference of Trump and Putin, is the interview Chris Wallace did with Putin. Putin is clearly not telling the truth at multiple points, particularly where he is asked about the mysterious deaths of multiple political opponents of his, which for all his obfuscating, he never denies.
Laura Ingraham gave the best overview of what happened with the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki yesterday. Particularly the media spin, and hypocrisy relative to how they covered similar summits by Obama, Hillary, W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.
Hannity and Lou Dobbs also covered it well, but I think Ingraham gave the most persuasive arguments.
What particularly pissed me off were former CIA director Brennan's social media comments, accusing Trump of "treason". Not at all surprising that Obama appointed Brennan (who voted Communist Party USA for president in 1976, and then was still hired by the CIA. Likely another Alinsky disciple who pretended to be a moderate to infiltrate government to the highest levels. So he could sabotage it later. )
WB, unlike you I actually didn't need a partisan propaganda person to interpret what he said. It was pretty clear watching and listening to what he said with Putin. In fact it was so clear that today Trump changed his story after trashing the press. I don't believe he misspoke but I'm heartened that there must have been enough republicans on the other side that forced him to adjust. Sadly you are not part of that group.
My thoughts on the subject were formed from listening repeatedly to what Trump ACTUALLY SAID in that meeting, not from conservative spin by anyone after-the-fact. Most of Trump's critics were the usual "never Trumpers" who leap at every opportunity to attack Trump, to no effect. Such as Jeff Flaake and Bob Corker. The one other I can think of offhand who is a Trump supporter, but somewhat criticized Trump was Newt Gingrich, who simply said Trump needs to clarify the meaning of some of his remarks at the Trump-Putin summit.
But the fact remains: Trump promised nothing to Putin, and (as Laura Ingraham said in what I Youtubed above) Putin gained no concession in Syria, no concession in Crimea, no concession in East Ukraine, gained no concession in any relief of sanctions. In point of fact, Trumps actions, despite any friendly words to Putin, are to frustrate Russian ambitions on every one of these fronts.
And quite the opposite of me having my opinions spoon-fed to me by conservative pundits, I saw something that Ingraham never said. At one point she speculated asking if Trump were the treasonous Russian puppet the liberal media makes him out to be, "WHAT A RUSSIAN MOLE WOULD DO:" [] limit fracking, [] block oil and gas pipelines, [] cut U.S. military spending, [] reduce tensions with Iran.
Ingraham never said it, but I thought to myself reading that list: isn't it interesting that Trump didn't do these things. But Obama did all of them!
Years ago I said that if Obama were a sleeper agent sent by Russia to destroy the America, he could not be doing more damage to the United States. I think the only thing that restrained Obama from doing EVEN MORE damage to the U.S. was the concern of risking complete loss of political support that would have prevented a Democrat successor from replacing him, and prevented his legacy from continuing. Which, ironically, happened anyway. The republic lives!
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
You don't actually know what Trump promised Putin but they were happy in Moscow last night. Putin attacked our elections and lump stood there with Putin and apparently accidentally chose Putin's word over our intelligence. Putin chose well
We know what Trump HAS DONE to frustrate Russia's military/global ambitions.
Again:
[] Trump has armed and supported Ukraine against Russian invasion (Obama did nothing). [] Trump has destroyed ISIS in Iraq/Syria by 97%, and in the process killed about 200 Russian mercenaries in recent months. (Obama drew a "red line", and then left Russia, scout's honor, to vouch for Assad not having more chemical weapons. And then Assad killed a few hundred more people with chemical weapons.) [] Trump has tightened sanctions on Russia, and did not let up on them after the summit with Putin. (Again, far more so than Obama. ) [] Trump offered the U.S. as an alternative oil and natural gas source for Germany, Poland and other European nations, so they would no longer be dependent on Russian oil. (Obama, in contrast, in his first term negotiated away Poland and Czech Republic's missile shield WITHOUT EVEN TELLING THEM! And Obama declared war on the fossil feul industry. The opposite of increasing energy independence for the U.S. and Europe.)
It is HILARIOUS to me that Dems accuse Trump of "treason". Democrats since the days of FDR have been the party of treason and weakness toward Russia/communism, going back to the days of FDR and Vietnam. Former assistant attorney general Mark Levin last night gave an itemized list of Democrat treason regarding Russia, from the days of FDR and Truman right up to the present. Starting at 29:00 in last night's Hannity program:
The whole program is a great deconstruction of the Democrat hypocrisy on Trump's negotiation with Russia, detailing what Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama said publicly during their negotiations, which is virtually identical to what Trump is vilified by the media for. With the added contrast that unlike others who said positive and fluffy things about Putin, Trump in words was likewise congenial, but in ACTIONS has taken a much harder stance in pushing back Russian aggression.
Because Trump was diplomatic, the media and Dems rail on Trump for not being more confrontational and verbally accusing Putin.
If Trump had been more confrontational in harsh rhetoric toward Putin, the sam media and De3mocrats would be calling him a warmonger who was dangerous and would start a war. Catch 22. Trump just can't win. It's ridiculous. And deflects from Trump's accomplishments. Which is precisely the purpose.
Again, accusing Trump of being weak toward Russia is a propaganda scheme hatched by John Podesta, with the intent to hit Republicans where they are strongest, on national defense. With the dual purpose of hiding the ACTUAL treason of Democrats under Obama, and steadily occurring back to the days of FDR.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Trump's most prominent critic accusing him of treason John Brennanvoted the presidential candidate for Communist Party USA in 1976.
And former president Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis from age 10 into his college years, a man who was a Stalinist under FBI surveillance virtually his entire adult life, and worked for decades at various Soviet-funded newspapers and other Soviet-funded front organizations.
And that Barack Obama himself was a member of the communist pro-Soviet Students For a Democratic Society, an organization of hardcore communist leftists, and another SDS radical (who has since renounced Marxism) who spoke to Obama for several hours at one of these meetings described Obama as "a commited Marxist revolutionary." I would also point out that Obama has never renounced Marxism, and appointed many known Marxists to his administration, such as Anita Dunn, Mark Lloyd, Ron Bloom, Van Jones, and his most trusted advisor (who also has heavy ties to Frank Marshall Davis and Soviet front groups) Valerie Jarrett. Many of Obama's administration openly praised and quoted Mao, whose ideology they clearly shared. RON BLOOM: "We agree with Mao that the capitalist system is mostly a sham, and that power is administered at the barrel of a gun." MARK LLOYD: Hugo Chaves' government takeover of the broadcast networks of Venezuela was "Very effective, and a good model to follow." ANITA DUNN: Said in a videotaped speech that Mao Tse Tung is "one of her favorite philosophers."
Hillary Clinton as well is an Alinsky-ideological Marxist revolutionary, who calls cops "pigs", and hated police and military so much that she wouldn't let Pentagon officials visit the Bill Clinton White House in uniform, they had to wear business suits. And she was awful to secret service agents in her employ, to the point that Secret Service agents considered it "punishment" to be assigned to protect her. AND she compromised U.S. national security with her illegal private e-mail server to the Russians and Chinese, who hacked her most top secret e-mails at the highest level every day she was Secretary of State.
Bernie Sanders likewise is a far-left communist sympathizer who displayed a Soviet flag on the wall of his mayor's office for 10 years throughout the 1980's. And has praised the Castro regime, the Soviet Union (where he spent his honeymoon!), the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, and Vietnam. But somehow has never found anything nice to say about the United States.
There is nothing even close to that under Trump's presidency. And yet the media doesn't report it, and Democrats don't criticize it among their own. Outrageous hypocrisy, ignoring the REAL treason.
.... It is HILARIOUS to me that Dems accuse Trump of "treason". Democrats since the days of FDR have been the party of treason and weakness toward Russia/communism, going back to the days of FDR and Vietnam. ...
Personally I think treason isn't a word you should use so casually WB. It was wrong when Trump used it to accuse Dems and I think it's wrong to be using it to attack Trump. And not to be nasty but you have used it so much over the years it honestly doesn't mean much to see it in your posts. In the real word I have very good friends and relatives that are republicans. They are also my fellow countrymen.
As I said, going back to the time when FDR gave 100 million people in Eastern Europe to the Soviets, allowed them to steal our atomic bomb secrets in the late 1940's, avoided security procedures that would have prevented Soviet spies from infiltrating our government, Democrats siding with the enemy during the Vietnam war and helping spread their propaganda about our troops, Jimmy Carter's weakness and concessions to the Soviets that resulted in Soviet expansion into Angola, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua and TWO Cuban boatlifts that affected my region directly, resisting Reagan's rebuilding of our military, Ted Kennedy secretly negotiating with the Soviets to undermine Reagan, Democrats not supporting the war in Kuwait, Democrats calling Al Qaida fighters in Iraq "freedom fighters" (the guys severing heads of innocent people) and likening our soldiers in Iraq to "Soviet Gulags, Nazi storm troopers, and the Pol Pot regime" (an exact quote from Sen. Dick Durbin, that he after retracted and then pretended he never said, but it's on video.) And Obama prematurely pulling all our forces out of Iraq, including intelligence and forward observers, that caused Iraq to implode in Dec 2011. And in contrast how, in barely a year, Trump implemented military policy that has killed off ISIS in Iraq/Syria by 97%.
Feel free to tell me again, M E M, how Trump is being weak toward the Russians, or a "traitor", relative to 70 steady years of weakness and betrayal by the Democrats.
In the post I made yesterday that was somehow deleted, I cited Brad Jarrett who said that "treason" is very difficult to prove, and technically can only be done by betraying the U.S. to an enemy during a time of war. But just the same, Democrats are consistently weak, over decades, and in many of the examples I cited are openly sympathizing with the enemy during hot and cold wars, and even repeating their lying propaganda talking points about our military (Dick Durbin and John Kerry, to name only two examples).
We know what Trump HAS DONE to frustrate Russia's military/global ambitions.
Again:
[] Trump has armed and supported Ukraine against Russian invasion (Obama did nothing). [] Trump has destroyed ISIS in Iraq/Syria by 97%, and in the process killed about 200 Russian mercenaries in recent months. (Obama drew a "red line", and then left Russia, scout's honor, to vouch for Assad not having more chemical weapons. And then Assad killed a few hundred more people with chemical weapons.) [] Trump has tightened sanctions on Russia, and did not let up on them after the summit with Putin. (Again, far more so than Obama. ) [] Trump offered the U.S. as an alternative oil and natural gas source for Germany, Poland and other European nations, so they would no longer be dependent on Russian oil. (Obama, in contrast, in his first term negotiated away Poland and Czech Republic's missile shield WITHOUT EVEN TELLING THEM! And Obama declared war on the fossil feul industry. The opposite of increasing energy independence for the U.S. and Europe.)
It is HILARIOUS to me that Dems accuse Trump of "treason". Democrats since the days of FDR have been the party of treason and weakness toward Russia/communism, going back to the days of FDR and Vietnam. Former assistant attorney general Mark Levin last night gave an itemized list of Democrat treason regarding Russia, from the days of FDR and Truman right up to the present.
Whatever Trump's verbal gaff at Helsinki, Trump's ACTIONS speak volumes of his toughness with the Russians, like no other president, Democrat or Republican, in recent decades.
That you dismiss Trump's problem as just a verbal gaffe and embrace his hyperbole goes against your credibility. He's attacked our allies while praising Putin. I think he's creating conditions actually more favorable for Russia. Putin has not liked W, Obama nor Clinton. He sees Trump as somebody he can use. Why do you think that would be?
I embrace Trump's ACTIONS, how many times do I have to say that before it sinks in? There is nothing weak toward Russia in what Trump has done. And his friendly words toward Putin are virtually the same friendly compliments as Obama, W.Bush, and Bill Clinton, with the exception that his ACTIONS are much tougher.
The media is having a collective hissy-fit and portraying Trump's Helsinki summit as Armageddon and "treason" despite that, again, Trump's friendliness toward Putin is exactly the same as Trump's three predecessors over the last 20 years. The difference being, Trump limited his generosity to compliments, while his ACTIONS toward Putin remain tough. Trump isn't offering $150 billion dollar pallettes of cash to anyone, or withdrawing from anywhere. Quite the opposite, he has strengthened the NATO alliance by pushing our European allies to pony up the 50 billion or so they were previously not paying under other presidents, that they had contracted to pay and are now paying. Ukraine for sure are seeing the difference of Trump in office rather than Obama. Likewise Iraq/Suria.
Making the point in a funny way, Greg Gutfeld last night parodied the media with a fake movie trailer in the opening minutes of his show in "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE 2: THE WORST MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE EVER!"
I've seen other political pundits like former Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins say that Trump's prepared remarks at Helsinki were very strong and eloquent. And for the media to obsess over one little gaff that Trump corrected a day later is disproportionate and misrepresentative of what actually happened at Helsinki.
Trump has conceded nothing. And in his friendly approach to Putin in beginning talks, is no different than the three presidents who preceded him. It remains the strong pushback of Trumps ACTIONS as president that speak volumes to the Russians. Unlike his predecessors.
* Renegotiated trade deals with Mexico, Canada, South Korea and Japan
* Successfully pressured European nations to pay their contracted obligations for their own defense in the NATO organization.
* Utterly destroyed the last remnants of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. An hat was islamic khalifate that was still thrriving on Barack Obama's last daay, and is now completely annihilated as a state.
* Putting pressure on North Korea, and while yielding some unprecedented concessions such as release of prisoners, has not resulted in a peace deal yet to eliminate Kim Jong Un's missiles. But the sanctions are still tightening, and actually being enforced for probably the first time.
* Trump's pressure on China to loosen its tariffs, or suffer reciprocal tariffs from the United States. Nothing outrageous, just subjecting China to the same tariffs they have (deterring) U.S. imports into China. And for the first time in 30 years making clear China has to play by the rules like every other nation. They've enjoyed tade deficits of 400-plus billion a year for 30 years, and in addition steal up to 600 billion a year through cyber-theft of intellectual property. Either Gordon Chang or Michael Pillsbury have pointed out that China's t echnological advances over the last 30 years are completely due to intellectual theft, and that China spends zero on technological research.
* In the last few days, short of war, Trump is sending a naval fleet within striking distance of Iran, to deter them from whatever aggression they were recently planning.
The demonstration of strength (as opposed to Obama's 8 years of displaying timidity and weakness that encouraged aggression by China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and ISIS) will deter wars from occurring, rather than encourage them. Common sense.
The Obama administration is acknowledging its transfer of $1.7 billion to Iran earlier this year was made entirely in cash, using non-U.S. currency, as Republican critics of the transaction continued to denounce the payments.
Treasury Department spokeswoman Dawn Selak said in a statement late Tuesday that the cash payments were necessary because of the "effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions," which isolated Iran from the international finance system.
The $1.7 billion was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran. An initial $400 million of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency was delivered on pallets Jan. 17, the same day Tehran agreed to release four American prisoners.
The Obama administration had claimed the events were separate, but recently acknowledged the cash was used as leverage until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. The remaining $1.3 billion represented estimated interest on the Iranian cash the U.S. had held since the 1970s. The administration had previously declined to say if the interest was delivered to Iran in physical cash, as with the principal, or via a more regular banking mechanism.
Earlier Tuesday, officials from the State, Justice and Treasury departments held a closed-door briefing for congressional staff on the payments, according to a Capitol Hill aide familiar with the session. The officials said the $1.3 billion was paid in cash on Jan. 22 and Feb. 5. The aide was not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.
The money came from a little-known fund administered by the Treasury Department for settling litigation claims. The so-called Judgment Fund is taxpayer money Congress has permanently approved in the event it's needed, allowing the president to bypass direct congressional approval to make a settlement. The U.S. previously paid out $278 million in Iran-related claims by using the fund in 1991.
Republicans have decried the payments as ransom, a charge the Obama administration has rejected. On Tuesday, a group of Republican senators announced their support for legislation that would bar payments from the Judgment Fund to Iran until Tehran pays the nearly $55.6 billion that U.S. courts have judged that it owes to American victims of Iranian terrorism.
"President Obama's disastrous nuclear deal with Iran was sweetened with an illicit ransom payment and billions of dollars for the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism," said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the bill's primary sponsor.
Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA, Fullerton), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also introduced a bill that prohibits cash payments to Iran and demands transparency on future settlements.
"Sending the world's leading state sponsor of terror pallets of untraceable cash isn't just terrible policy," Royce said. "It's incredibly reckless, and it only puts bigger targets on the backs of Americans. ... This cash bonanza has emboldened Iran's radical regime, and undermined America's national security."
Both the House and Senate plan to hold hearings on the payments.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s Iran cash story oft-told, still bogus
By CALVIN WOODWARD, April 25, 2018
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump likes to tell a story about the U.S. paying out billions of dollars to Iran as part of the multinational deal freezing its nuclear program and easing sanctions against it. What he doesn’t say is that most of that money was Iran’s to begin with. The rest relates to an old debt the U.S. had with Iran.
The numbers and some details change in his retelling — dating back to the 2016 campaign — but his bottom line is always the same: The Obama administration was hoodwinked into giving Iran all that money, some of it in a huge and hidden bundle of cash.
The latest iteration of his claim Tuesday and the reality behind it:
TRUMP: “The Iran deal is a terrible deal. We paid $150 billion. We gave $1.8 billion in cash. That’s actual cash, barrels of cash. It’s insane. It’s ridiculous. It should have never been made. But we will be talking about it.” — remarks before a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. At a news conference Tuesday, he spoke about “giving them, Iran, $150 billion at one point.”
THE FACTS: There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. treasury. The money he refers to represents Iranian assets held abroad that were frozen until the deal was reached and Tehran was allowed to access its funds.
The payout of about $1.8 billion is a separate matter. That dates to the 1970s, when Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured.
That left people, businesses and governments in each country indebted to partners in the other, and these complex claims took decades to sort out in tribunals and arbitration. For its part, Iran paid settlements of more than $2.5 billion to U.S. citizens and businesses.
The day after the nuclear deal was implemented, the U.S. and Iran announced they had settled the claim over the 1970s military equipment order, with the U.S. agreeing to pay the $400 million principal along with about $1.3 billion in interest. The $400 million was paid in cash and flown to Tehran on a cargo plane, which gave rise to Trump’s dramatic accounts of money stuffed in barrels or boxes and delivered in the dead of night. The arrangement provided for the interest to be paid later, not crammed into containers.
Can you just feel the Trump-hatred in that "Fact-check"?
That money was owed to the government of the Shah of Iran in 1979, a government that was violently overthrown by Shi'Ite radicals in 1979. This is not the legitimate government of Iran that the money was owed to, but a rogue government that is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism. The money could have been witheld indefinitely until this Iranian government is overthrown or voted out.
And even secretary of state John Kerry who negotiated the deal in 2016 at the time acknowledged the likelihood these Obama "repayments" to Iran would be used to sponsor terrorism. In truth, it was paying Iran to accept the Obama Nuclear Deal.
JOHN KERRY: SOME SANCTIONS RELIEF MONEY FOR IRAN WILL GO TO TERRORISM
Davos, Switzerland (CNN) — Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged to CNBC Thursday that some of the money Iran received in sanctions relief would go to groups considered terrorists.
When asked about whether some the $150 billion in sanctions relief to Iran would go to terrorist groups, Kerry reiterated that, after settling debts, Iran would receive closer to $55 billion. He conceded some of that could go to groups considered terrorists, saying there was nothing the U.S. could do to prevent that.
"I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists," he said in the interview in Davos, referring to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. "You know, to some degree, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented."
But he added that "right now, we are not seeing the early delivery of funds going to that kind of endeavor at this point in time."
Earlier Thursday, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, Kerry defended the U.S. use of sanctions against Iran following charges by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in his interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour that the recent sanctions were illegal and that some in the U.S. were "addicted" to sanctions.
We have made it very clear that we use sanctions when we think they are appropriate in order to counter behavior that we believe has broken the law or has challenged the United Nations Security Council or threatened the United States, and we stand by our sanctions," Kerry told reporters. "We think they have been used judiciously and effectively and we are looking to move on now to put to test the willingness of Iran and other countries in the region to try to reduce tensions and move in a different direction."
He also said that there are such great demands on the Iranian government to develop the country that "there is no way they can succeed in what they want to do if they are very busy funding a lot of terrorism."
He continued, "If we catch them funding terrorism, they are going to have a problem with the United States Congress and other people, obviously." He added, "We are confident that this will not result in an increase somehow in the threat to any partner or any friend in the region."
Specifically, $400 million in purchased military equipment by Iran was frozen and put in a trust account, pending an decision by the Hague (the U.N.?) in a settlement between the U.S. and Iran over the frozen funds. The argument is that the Hague, based on recent rulings, would have settled against the U.S. requiring an even larger payment to Iran.
But I don't fully buy that, as the case had been pending for almost 40 years in 2016 when the payment was made. But it's at least a legalistic rationalization for the Obama payment, made by a W. Bush era lawyer and security advisor, no less. But it still doesn't take into account the cost of Iran-sponsored terrorism to the U.S. and other nations over the last 40 years across the Middle East and worldwide. Or that those awarded funds will "likely" go to funding further terrorism.
Borrowing a line from one of my favorite movies, Judgement at Nuremberg: "It may be logical, but it isn't right. And nothing on God's earth could ever make it so."
Several things have occurred in the last 2 months.
First, Iran has multiple times launched attacks on U.S. and other oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, mining ships, seizing vessels, and most recently a missile attack that was alleged to be from Yemen, but was traced back to Iran. Iran is desperately trying to start a war with the United States, and Democrats are giving Trump no credit for skillfully avoiding a war, and instead just continuing to tighten sanctions that are bringing Iran to the edge of collapse.
I don't think we've ever had a president who has more effectively used sanctions, with North Korea, with Iran, with Russia, with China, with Mexico, using our economic power to bring an enemy nation into submission, instead of a war. Instead of a costly war, it strenthens us while crippling them.
Trump was given no credit for avoiding a war when Iran was attacking ships with mines, and then shot down one of our unmanned military drones, resisting those within his security council who were pushing Trump to war. Against the wishes of his advissors, he averted a war, literally calling back the attack that would have killed about 150 Iranians. Trump called the potential attack too much, and "disproportionate".
And about a week ago, Trump fired (or accepted the resignation of, depending on which side you listen to) John Bolton. Which I think many agree lessens even more the chances of war.
In Afghanistan, Trump is attempting to end the war in Afghanistan, and was at least willing to have negotiations with the Taliban, until the Taliban launched an attack during the negotiation period and made it clear they were unserious about peace, and completely untrustworthy. But regardless, Trump is unconcerned with what is traditionally proper or acceptable, and is willing to explore all options before going to war. And no one running for the presidency, Democrat or Republican, in 2016 or now, would have made the innovative choices that Trump has, and avoided war, and at least met with Kim Jong Un, and offered meetings with the Ayatollah and with the Taliban, opening the door for negotiation and planting the seeds for later peace.
The Demcorats (and the establishment/never-Trump/Deep State Republicans) desperately want Trump to start a war that would hurt him in the polls, the only thing at this point that would obstruct Trump from getting re-elected in 2020, other than a failing economy. If Trump were going to start a war, he would be well advised to wait until after he is re-elected. But really, I think the obstruction to a peace deal, with Kim Jong Un, with China, with Iran, with the Taliban, is that they think they can hold out in the hope Trump will not be re-elected. But as soon as Trump is re-elected and they know they have to continue dealing with Trump, and with Trump's sanctionss, they will negotiate a trade deal. But the Democrats and our enemies worldwide have a shared goal of crippling Trump politically, and removing Trump from office, so they can go back to the shared business of selling out and destroying America.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Friday lashed out at Germany, the U.K. and France, calling them the “footmen of the U.S.,” days after the European countries moved to sanction the Islamic Republic for violating the controversial 2015 nuclear deal.
“The threat of the French & German govts & the vicious British govt to send Iran's case to the Security Council proved once again that they are the footmen of the US,” Khamenei said on Twitter. “These 3 countries are the ones who helped [former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein] as much as they could in his war against us.”
The three countries, which are members of the coalition that penned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) in 2015, on Tuesday had formally accused Iran of breaching the Obama-era nuclear deal, beginning a process that could result in the U.N. restoring sanctions on the rogue regime.
“We do this in good faith with the overarching objective of preserving the JCPoA and in the sincere hope of finding a way forward to resolve the impasse through constructive diplomatic dialogue while preserving the agreement and remaining within its framework,” the three countries’ foreign ministers said in a statement.
So for the first time, we have a president who is effectively using punishing sanctions and not just minimal token action, and the strangling effect of sanctions is yielding results and bringing the Iranian regime to the edge of capitulation. Despite the regime fighing for its life, the Iranian people are in the streets rebelling. Even with 1,500 protestors killed by the IRGC.
And (despite neocon Democrats and Republicans, and globalist elite advisors pushing Trump to war, as they did Bush Sr., Clinton, W. Bush and Obama) Trump is effectively using economic leverage on Iran, instead of going to into another costly war. And the cracks are beginning to show, both within Iran, and in their international support.
I've noticed this with several who have resigned, or even been fired (Sean Spicer, for example), from the Trump administration. They retain a fierce loyalty to the president.
In the National Security Council, among White House staffers, in the State Department, the Pentagon, DOJ, FBI... the deep state lives on, and even four years in, Trump is still slowly weeding it out. Particularly the NSC was a rat's nest of leakers left behind by Obama to sabotage the Trump administration from within. The rat's nest that gave us Alexaander Vindman and CIA analyst and liberal zealot "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella.
To a certain extent, Trump has to work with people in the old order, even as he struggles to reform it and sweep it clean of deep state corruption.
