State Dept. says $400 million cash payment to Iran was contingent on American prisoners' release

Now that we know for certain it was a ransom payment, I guess the next question is.. what happens now, if anything?

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: JacKatMtn

So despite Obama's claim otherwise, it was ransome. Was there any doubt?

You mean besides the fact that there no proof to back up anything in the op's article?

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: JacKatMtn

So despite Obama's claim otherwise, it was ransome. Was there any doubt?

You mean besides the fact that there no proof to back up anything in the op's article?

Except the confirmation it was a cash for hostages deal - direct from the State Dept.
Yeah apart from that there is no proof.

Reporter: “In basic English, you’re saying that you would’t give them the $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?”
John Kirby: “That’s correct.”

So what do you think should happen to Obama now we know it was a ransom?

originally posted by: UKTruth
It's amazing.. Obama could be caught with an eye mask, a striped shirt and a bag of loot crossing the Iranian border and all he'd have to do as the helicopter spotlighted him from above would be to shout up... "it's not really me, this is not real" and he'd be in the clear to some people.

No, you just don't get it, this is the way things are, and have been for so long. Governments talk shiite about things they do know most often, Plebs talk shiite about things they don't know...most often, yet every time they vote, they vote for the status quo.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: UKTruth
It's amazing.. Obama could be caught with an eye mask, a striped shirt and a bag of loot crossing the Iranian border and all he'd have to do as the helicopter spotlighted him from above would be to shout up... "it's not really me, this is not real" and he'd be in the clear to some people.

No, you just don't get it, this is the way things are, and have been for so long. Governments talk shiite about things they do know most often, Plebs talk shiite about things they don't know...most often, yet every time they vote, they vote for the status quo.

I am sure there will be more heads in sand and another status quo vote regardless of Obama's deceit and corruption. I don't disagree with that point.

a reply to: buster2010



Ah, that clears it up. It was just a 'leveraged opportunity'.

Welcome to the era where one can convert substantive criminality or any wrong doing by simply defining it as something else.

And then people wonder why the unscripted DT gains the traction he does.

a reply to: loam

I wonder how the parents of the hostages taken AFTER this 'leveraged opportunity' took place are feeling tonight?
Maybe they could ask Obama if he'll do another one of these leveraged opportunities for their sons?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: JacKatMtn

Time to collect more hostages.

You don't actually believe "we don't negotiate with terrorists" BS do you? That's a very old debunked truism. In the 90s a document was floating around showing the payments of close to 1Billion/Year, which had been paid out on the regular.

The official line is one thing, it's meant to discourage the dumbest of the would be captors/ransom-holders. In real life they make pay outs all the time. That's how a lot of political orgs (even some NGOs) funded their start up costs. I wouldn't be surprised if some were even linked back to American intelligence groups.

a reply to: UKTruth
He also shouldnt be prosecuted by the msm. I mean oliver north went down some flunky could go down here if its truly a crime.

Here's some interesting reading:

Section 560.203 states:

Evasions; attempts; causing violations; conspiracies: . . . Any transaction . . . that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited. . . . Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited.

By his own account, President Obama engaged in the complex cash transfer in order to end-run sanctions that prohibit the U.S. from having “a banking relationship with Iran.”

The point of the sanctions is not to prevent banking with Iran; it is to prevent Iran from getting value from or through our financial system — the banking prohibition is a corollary. And the point of sanctions, if you happen to be the president of the United States sworn to execute the laws faithfully, is to follow them — not pat yourself on the back for keeping them in place while you willfully evade them.

The president’s press conference is better understood as a confession than an explanation. Oh, and there is also Section 560.701, which makes clear that willful violations of the regulations constitute serious felony offenses under federal criminal law — punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment.

President Obama Violated the Law with His Ransom Payment to Iran

But of course, laws are only for the little guy.

originally posted by: loam
Here's some interesting reading:

Section 560.203 states: Evasions; attempts; causing violations; conspiracies: . . . Any transaction . . . that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited. . . . Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited. By his own account, President Obama engaged in the complex cash transfer in order to end-run sanctions that prohibit the U.S. from having “a banking relationship with Iran.” The point of the sanctions is not to prevent banking with Iran; it is to prevent Iran from getting value from or through our financial system — the banking prohibition is a corollary. And the point of sanctions, if you happen to be the president of the United States sworn to execute the laws faithfully, is to follow them — not pat yourself on the back for keeping them in place while you willfully evade them. The president’s press conference is better understood as a confession than an explanation. Oh, and there is also Section 560.701, which makes clear that willful violations of the regulations constitute serious felony offenses under federal criminal law — punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment.

President Obama Violated the Law with His Ransom Payment to Iran

But of course, laws are only for the little guy.

Come now, I don't think he intended to bypass the sanctions or pay ransom.. he was surely unaware... so he's ok and in the clear. No prosecutor would ever take the case, so move along. There is nothing to see here.

a reply to: UKTruth

They did with Oliver North. Reagan got off but same situation. (If it turns out not just political bs)

Two separate negotiations happened. Then after deals were made the US says "to ensure the release of hostages, we will just hold on to this cash until you release them." Sounds like sound negotiation to me.

*sigh*

So the narrative is; the state department was telling the truth when they were lying, but now they are lying when they are telling the truth.

And the only thing on the news is 4 Olympians who caused 50 dollars worth of damage when they trashed a bathroom and lied about it.


Giant Meteor 2016

originally posted by: Pyle
Two separate negotiations happened. Then after deals were made the US says "to ensure the release of hostages, we will just hold on to this cash until you release them." Sounds like sound negotiation to me.

Yes it was good negotiation - negotiation with terrorists, which apparently Obama doesn't do.
It's a shame he was not honest about his negotiations with terrorists a couple of weeks ago, but then he didn't know some new evidence would come to light to embarrass and shame him I guess, so he thought he could get away with his lies as he mocked everyone else who actually had it right.

What I don't get is, why didn't the US grab the plane and the guys sent to pick up the money.

The US must have known where the hostages were being dropped off. lol.

So not only did obama pay ransom, he let the captors go.

What could they do about it?

Liars.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
*sigh*

So the narrative is; the state department was telling the truth when they were lying, but now they are lying when they are telling the truth.

And the only thing on the news is 4 Olympians who caused 50 dollars worth of damage when they trashed a bathroom and lied about it.
Giant Meteor 2016

Let's put it this way, best online media response I have seen. Ultimately I can't agree with the end premise, because it may not address other underlying problems, least of which may have nothing at all to do with 'hostages' but it's up to you to come to some decent conclusion since a deed has been done.

Iran Payment Wasn’t Ransom, but it Was Ransom,
www.worldaffairsjournal.org...’t-ransom-it-was-ransom

a reply to: UKTruth

The US as far as I know does not have a Law that forbids negotiation with terrorists or anyone for that matter. We have a unofficial policy of no negotiation as a deterrent, but nothing official that I know of existing.

a reply to: Pyle

But the frozen money was for victims, not perpetrators.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Pyle

But the frozen money was for victims, not perpetrators.

Frozen money is already being given to victims. 2.5 billion with another 20 or so in the works.

There is a lot of frozen money.

Dont forget Ronnie's weopons and the overthrow of the shah. This whole thing has been quite a policy mistake since the 50's.