Obama paid Iran $400 million ransom for American hostages: report

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: xuenchen

I was not saying congress approved it. How did the president get $400million dollars from foreign banks, a personal loan? Get it.

No he wired tax payers money to European banks and they converted it to foreign currency for him and then the plane was organised to bring it on pallets to a pick up point and handed over to who knows who. Now it's untraceable and any future efforts to hold Iran accountable for providing that money to a terrorist organisation is futile. He gave them a free pass to funnel money to groups who will kill Americans as well as others.

This is probably what Iran demanded and like the weak streak of piss that he is, Obama did what his Iranian masters told him to do.

a reply to: UKTruth

Congress controls the taxpayers money.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

Congress controls the taxpayers money.

Keep up - they already agreed the money would be paid. I am sure you don't think they agreed specific actions of Obama though. Perhaps you are just trying to deflect, but it's not going to work.

a reply to: UKTruth

No. I have a philosophy that if you find the source of the money or power, you found your answer.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

No. I have a philosophy that if you find the source of the money or power, you found your answer.

So it's the tax payers fault then according to you... you win the award for the craziest defence yet of Obama's disastrous presidency.
Seriously though, stop deflecting away from the issue. This is Obama's gig and no one else's. He's accountable.

This article nicely lays out the issues and properly dispels and debunks any deflection that we all knew about the details of this payment.

pjmedia.com...

Snippets, but the article is worth a read:

Obama's justification for sending the $400 million installment in cash is that the U.S., due to its strict sanctions on Iran, has no banking relationship with the country -- thus the air-freighted pallets of banknotes. Except that doesn't add up. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey asks: "How come the U.S. did not simply transfer the $400 million we are told actually belonged to Iran to a foreign entity, to be converted into foreign funds for conventional banking transmission to Tehran?"
It's also disturbing that Obama's administration still seems unable or unwilling to officially disgorge such basic information -- relevant to the accusation of ransom -- as precisely what time, on what date, the $400 million worth of cash arrived in Tehran. Nor has Obama's administration disclosed how or when it conveyed to Iran a further $1.3 billion payout, which was part of the same deal. Was it sent by check? By wire? Or were there yet more pallets of money delivered door-to-door to Tehran?
One might almost suppose Obama knows quite well that cash shipments to Tehran are actually a very big story. A story that quite reasonably raises glaring questions about his dealings with Iran, and the integrity of the narrative he offers the public

Where does that leave us?

1. For all Obama's denials and derision of his critics, the $400 million payment in January sure looks like a ransom, a cash-for-captives deal that can only encourage Iran to imprison more Americans -- which it has already done.
2. If indeed there was a quid pro quo, and if the Iranians have any evidence of that, then Obama's denial that he paid any ransom opens the door to Iranian blackmail of the administration over this payola.
3. The U.S. airlift of cash to Tehran quite likely sends a signal to the world that those strict U.S. sanctions need not deter others from airlifting into Iran crates, or pallets, of cash, which can then be used for Iran's terrorist and military ventures. The U.S. government itself has set the example.
4. If there was nothing wrong with Obama's $1.7 billion settlement with Iran, and his administration's handling of the payments, then why won't his office provide full information about the logistics, for both the $400 million and the additional $1.3 billion, and answer in good faith the questions of Congress and the press?
5. Finally, there's the ugly matter of Obama belittling anyone who might question or criticize his cash payola for Iran. That shows an utter disregard for his own promises of transparency, and gross disrespect for the American public. It's terrible policy for an American president to secretly ship $400 million -- or is it by now $1.7 billion? -- worth of cash to the terror-sponsoring ballistic-missile-testing Islamic Republic of Iran. It's even worse when the president, caught out by the press, chooses to defend himself by denigrating the reporters, and his fellow citizens generally, as sensation-seeking fools. The best retort by now, no matter what the presidential mockery, is don't stop following the money.

Of particular note is that Obama and his administration are now stonewalling on exactly when how and where the other $1.3bn was paid. One suspects it was wired and if so it will surely lead to Obama's impeachment.

importing potential terrorist refugees, paying Ransom money to terrorists, releasing over two hundred prisoners. This president wants to go out like a lion doesn't he?

originally posted by: carewemust
importing potential terrorist refugees, paying Ransom money to terrorists, releasing over two hundred prisoners. This president wants to go out like a lion doesn't he?

At what point will the suspicions move to treason and collusion with the enemy? He's either one weak stupid fool or he's part of something far more sinister.

And, as it turns out news confirms today that Hillary was
indeed involved with the Iran Deal.. and her
aide Sullivan....

Clinton left the Obama administration before the nuclear talks with Iran began in full force in 2013. But during her final year as secretary of state, she greenlighted secret bilateral talks with the Iranians — sending Sullivan as an envoy — that eventually led to the ultimate deal.
www.politico.com...

All the hallmarks of of a typical Hillary Obama deal, a dead asset tops it off.

originally posted by: burntheships
And, as it turns out news confirms today that Hillary was
indeed involved with the Iran Deal.. and her
aide Sullivan....

Clinton left the Obama administration before the nuclear talks with Iran began in full force in 2013. But during her final year as secretary of state, she greenlighted secret bilateral talks with the Iranians — sending Sullivan as an envoy — that eventually led to the ultimate deal.
www.politico.com...

All the hallmarks of of a typical Hillary Obama deal, a dead asset tops it off.

Yes this was also after the now dead intelligence asset had gone back to Iran, initially as a hero because they thought he had been abducted by the US. The Iranians found out the whole story and executed him. Hillary had been openly talking about this man in her emails on her private server. (but apparently didn't think it was classified).

If it's a royal **** up, you just know Hillary is involved somewhere.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...but...Obama paid Iran in "cash". Actual, physical money on palettes and bundled up, in the middle of the night, on an unmarked plane, etc., etc.

But Iran's money that we "froze" wasn't physical but electronic. What are you implying Obama did? How did he get physical money from electronic funds? The only way I know of is that we took OUR cash and gave it to Iran and we will keep or transfer the "frozen" funds back to ourselves.

Point being...if we gave them cash as we did...that was OUR money.

What he did was wire $400m to foreign banks and got them to change it to foreign currency and then had an unmarked plane fly the foreign cash to the pick up point.
Around the same time the hostages were actually released.
It's a major story and rightly so, with frantic deflections by those that want to pretend all this was reported in January, which it was not.

Understood and agreed. But he wired WHOSE money? I'm saying it was ours...not theirs. Therefore, it was taxpayer money and a ransom.

a reply to: UKTruth

I will say what I want within the thread, not what you want. Yes, it is the taxpayer's fault for ever putting a republican, any republican in the presidency the last 40 years. We reap what we sow. And because of all the failures of the policies the GOP have pushed the last 40 years, can you say "Madam President Hillary Rodham Clinton."

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...but...Obama paid Iran in "cash". Actual, physical money on palettes and bundled up, in the middle of the night, on an unmarked plane, etc., etc.

But Iran's money that we "froze" wasn't physical but electronic. What are you implying Obama did? How did he get physical money from electronic funds? The only way I know of is that we took OUR cash and gave it to Iran and we will keep or transfer the "frozen" funds back to ourselves.

Point being...if we gave them cash as we did...that was OUR money.

What he did was wire $400m to foreign banks and got them to change it to foreign currency and then had an unmarked plane fly the foreign cash to the pick up point.
Around the same time the hostages were actually released.
It's a major story and rightly so, with frantic deflections by those that want to pretend all this was reported in January, which it was not.

Understood and agreed. But he wired WHOSE money? I'm saying it was ours...not theirs. Therefore, it was taxpayer money and a ransom.

Yes exactly.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

I will say what I want within the thread, not what you want. Yes, it is the taxpayer's fault for ever putting a republican, any republican in the presidency the last 40 years. We reap what we sow. And because of all the failures of the policies the GOP have pushed the last 40 years, can you say "Madam President Hillary Rodham Clinton."

I see, so blame all Republicans in the last 40 years for Obama funding terrorism

a reply to: UKTruth

You can come here on ATS and spread your propaganda, so can I. My grandchildren's future is at stake and the policies of Obama, Clintons, and the democrats are better for their lives. What do you have to lose?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

You can come here on ATS and spread your propaganda, so can I. My grandchildren's future is at stake and the policies of Obama, Clintons, and the democrats are better for their lives. What do you have to lose?

Actually I am discussing the facts of the thread topic.
You on the other hand are deflecting and blaming Republicans for Obama's actions.
As for your grand children, I am sure they and god will forgive you for the country and world you have helped create. I am not sure the family of the dead, killed by Obama's terrorist funding, will forgive you though.

a reply to: UKTruth

My children and grandchildren have jobs and homes because of me and my husband. We spent 60K on education so they could be good taxpayers and keep the GOP's wars going. I will NEVER forgive the GOP for getting us into Afghan and Iraq. Trillions have been spent to keep a pedophile religions going, and you are all butt hurt over 400million? Obama is doing what he has been doing from the beginning. Trying to clean up the GOP's mess and we need Hillary to continue.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

My children and grandchildren have jobs and homes because of me and my husband. We spent 60K on education so they could be good taxpayers and keep the GOP's wars going. I will NEVER forgive the GOP for getting us into Afghan and Iraq. Trillions have been spent to keep a pedophile religions going, and you are all butt hurt over 400million? Obama is doing what he has been doing from the beginning. Trying to clean up the GOP's mess and we need Hillary to continue.

I wouldn't call funding terrorists and paving the way for ISIS cleaning up the mess. The dangers have become worse under Obama. The middle east is in the worst mess it has been in for decades. That's not to say the Bush's are not just as culpable. They are all the same. Making this about Republicans and Democrats is simply not tackling the real issues.

You know many families around the world have spent a lot of money on their kids education. They are now dead or their kids are now dead. Killed by terrorists. Giving money to the murderers is an abomination and that is what Obama has done.

a reply to: UKTruth

Yeah, well kids get shot and killed here too, a land with laws.

So, if there were no america, there would be no terrorists? No one else would be funding them, seems to be the gist of your out of place anger.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

I will say what I want within the thread, not what you want. Yes, it is the taxpayer's fault for ever putting a republican, any republican in the presidency the last 40 years. We reap what we sow. And because of all the failures of the policies the GOP have pushed the last 40 years, can you say "Madam President Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Carter or Mondale better than Reagan ?

Dukakis better than Bush 1 ?

Gore or Kerry better than Bush ?



You need to think about who really is killing off social programs.