AG Lynch ‘Pleads Fifth’ on Secret Iran ‘Ransom’ Payments

The pallets of cash in international currencies is an even worse offense.
The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (or BSA, or otherwise known as the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act) requires financial institutions in the United States to assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering. Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, and file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.

 

I sincerely doubt that, but whatever.

THIS is your reasoning? That if the president had done something illegal he would have suffered the wrath of Congress? Seriously?

Well LOL until the cows come home!! That's about the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The president would have been impeached fifty times over (conservatively) if every time he broke or ignored a law he was taken to task by the golems in congress.

Here is Alex Jones (not that I'm a fan) with a list of 75 examples of Obama breaking the law. http://www.infowars.com/75-times-obama-broke-law-during-presidency/
By the way, if don't agree with any or all of them, keep it to yourself. I'm not looking for an argument here from you.

The point is Obama has regularly broken our laws and suffered zero consequences from it all (off the top of my head bailing out GM with TARP money was a violation of the law and that money was not appropriated so Obama could help his UAW pals out but he did it anyway and then bragged and made a campaign meme out of it...so much for righteous retribution from congress).

So if you think the president was right to secretly fly a planeload of money to Iran to get a few people returned to the U.S. and make his
idiotic nuclear agreement with Iran go more smoothly, undoubtedly, in spite of all the laws prohibiting ANY such transaction with Iran specifically, as a terrorist state, and your proof is the sleeping dogs in congress didn't raise a fuss.....then I couldn't disagree more.
And I couldn't respect your powers of reasoning less.

 

Apparently you need to learn how to read better. That is not my whole premise.

My premise is clear. The President did not violate any laws in the money transfer. That is absolutely clear.

It is also clear that people making the claim that he did are doing so for political reasons. How do I know that? If they had actual legal cause for what they are saying they would have pressed the legal case. Instead of doing that they get on the T.V. and whine about. They do that because they know people like you who are already pre-disposed to not like the President will fall for it hook line and sinker.

 

Thats a statement by John Kerry on the State Department Website.

Dont you find it ood that Kerry would put out a press release and try to make it look like it came from the Hague? Maybe Kerry knows the law too because the DOJ told him. He cant move the funds without a license from the Hague. So he made this statement and tried to make it look like something official from the Hague.

 

Not so absolutely clear at all.

How can anyone see a list, one of many, of instances where Obama repeatedly broke or ignored the law and state that IF he broke the law again, in sending that money to Iran, he would have been prosecuted
and impeached for it, and therefore ipso facto, that proves that what he did was on the up and up since he was not impeached.

This argument is at an end now with such absurd, disingenuous rationalization.

 

No, it really isnt difficult.
He lied. They were able to, and did indeed wire payments.

So again, why would anyone need to lie about somehting that is on the up and up?


If I kept digging myself in deeper trying to deflect the obvious lies here, I'd get tired too. Maybe you should simply ask yourself why you ffeel the need to do so in the first place? Therein lies your problem.

 

No I don't find it odd. That is how those thing are reported. Are you really going with the State Department and Iran lied about a court settlement conspiracy theory???? Really?

 

Nice strawman. Im not saying they lied Im saying they never had Hague approval. Kerry tried to make this statement look like an official document from the Hague. And hey it fooled you didnt it.

 

I quoted you the passage that clearly states that the 1996 law does NOT apply to these funds. It cannot get any clearer than that. To maintain that is does is just again sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to ignore the facts.

First, I don't debate or argue generalizations. If you make a claim about the President breaking or ignoring the law please be specific so that can be debated/discussed. To my knowledge the President has never ignored nor broken the law as President. What you have here is a bunch of politicians who know a lot of their constituents don't know the law nor how to interpret it and pre-disposed again the President. They then use the media the to say how he is breaking or ignoring the law because they know you will believe them and not check. You are being played by them.

Case and point - Harry Reid gets on the floor of the Senate and says that Comey may have broken the Hatch Act. I would like to believe that but I don't know so I check and unless Reid has evidence that Comey intended to affect the election he did not violate the Hatch Act. So what do Republican's do? Do they make that argument? No. Why because it is too nuanced and requires someone to know the law. So what do they get on the media say? They say that the President and Vice President would then be breaking the law and in violation of the Hatch Act for campaigning for HRC. They make this argument knowing full well it is an absolutely false argument. They know, as elected officials, that they are exempt from that portion of the Hatch Act. But they make that argument anyway because it a. it sounds reasonable on its face b. it is a simple message c. it feeds into the anti-Obama narrative already established and d. they know most of their constituents will buy it lock, stock and barrel without question. Again many of the Republican politicians and pundits are playing you guys for fools.

 

He didn't lie because there was no need deceive. The wire transfers were legal. The cash payment was legal. Nothing nefarious, all within the law. Again there was no lie. They were able to wire the money in other situations because those funds were not covered by the executive order freezing the assets like the funds that they made the cash payment were. They couldn't wire the money in this situation because it would have been violating the executive order's signed by all the President's since Carter including Obama and still in effect. How hard is that to understand?

Where was the lie?

 

Again, I posted the executive orders to show you that there is no need to seek Hague approval for the transfer even though they did have it by the court ordered settlement. You very specifically called into question the State Department's memo about the settlement. Either there is an approved International court settlement and your argument is refuted or Secretary Kerry, The U.S. Department and the Iranian foreign minister and Iranian foreign affairs department are lying. There is no strawman there. Either they had an approved court order or they lied. If you are calling into question the court order then you are saying they are lying.

 

There was no court order no matter how many times you say there was. If there was a court order rhey could have simply wired the money.

That is the square peg you are trying to pound into a round hole. You are agruing two points in contradiction. The sanctions cannot bothe be on snd off at the sane time.

 

Now Iran wants more money.

What a shocker there.

Obama is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retard......

The best part was that it wasn't all US money - Iran got currency from several different nations in the ransom deal.

I bet stupid Obama was like: "yeah, lets just fool those Iranians and print that ransom".

Obama is easily one of the dumbest presidents in US history.....

 

Do you even have a clue what youre talking about? Pages ago I gave you a Link where Obama said they couldnt transfer the money. (even though it was shown after that they did..this proved he was lying) Thats what we've been discussing. now you want to say where was the lie?

Here you go AGAIN.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/us-iran-payments-wire-transfer-228324#ixzz4OgNPJnQo
Follow us: [MENTION=8433]politico[/MENTION] on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


Now not only has Obama been lying...but so have you. No wonder you dont hold his feet to the fire on it.

 

Again that is completely false. There are no exceptions in the executive orders. Either for court orders or any other exceptions. They were still barred by the executive orders from wiring the money.

To suggest that both the Foriegn Affairs Department of Iran, the Iranian Foreign Minister, the U.S. State Department and the Secretary of State are lying is tin foil hat nonsense.

 

And I clearly showed how, because of the nature of the transfers, they were able to use the exemptions available to them in the 2010 updated version of the ISA to wire the money. That law is NOT applicable to the funds in question for this transfer so they were still unable to wire the money because they could NOT exempt this payment. How hard is that to understand?

 

FreeBacon...aka..Beacon is a right wing rag and is not credible

 

Youre going in Cirlces of confusion. None of what you stated above removes Obama clearly lying about it...which I've linked twice now. You dont have to lie when somethings on the level.

Just stop already, you arent fooling anyone.

 

You cant find out what financial transaction means in the law. Why should anyone believe that thr PDFs you posted are the sum of the existing. >>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

 

The only confusion is in your own head.

Let me try one more time.

Both the executive orders and the ISA and/or ILSA provide for sanctions against Iran. The ISA has an exemption clause which I have quoted in this thread that allows the President to transfer funds to and from Iran if he signs off on the exemption. The two wire transfers that you linked to fall under that law which the President has, exercised and signed off on exempting those payments to Iran. Since they had and exemption they could wire the money. That 1996 law clearly does not apply to any contracts or financial dealings PRIOR to 1996. The funds in question for the cash payment were funds that frozen by executive order after the Iranian revolution and were a payment for military spare parts. The spare parts were not delivered but the funds remained frozen. Those funds could not be exempted by the President. The President updated the executive order but again that order signed by Obama did not cover any assets frozen on or before November 14, 1979 when Carter signed the first executive order freezing Iranian assets. So because the funds were still covered by the executive order they could not wire or transfer the money to Iran. As part of the JPCOA the repayment of the funds were negotiated to take place on implementation to fulfill the court ordered settlement between the U.S. and Iran for transfer of the funds. The funds still could not be wired because they were still covered by the executive so they gave them a cash payment not involving U.S. Banks. No lie, no obfuscation just the President carefully following the law as laid out.

 

Everything is there for you to research on your own. I am hiding nothing.

You have gone from not believing any transfer of funds to Iran was legal. To it requires international approval. To the State Department is lying about the settlement to now there is some super secret law that bars the said transfer that I am purposefully keeping from everyone.

Retune your tin foil hat.

 

try what? Laying down another wall of fluff which doesnt address this lie?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/us-iran-payments-wire-transfer-228324#ixzz4OgYQWf8O


Why did he lie about it then? Just stop trying already, you cant erase or talk around the fact he lied which betrays everything else you're trying to fling.

 

As clearly shown there was no lie. You ignoring the facts notwithstanding.

 

And yet there was...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/us-iran-payments-wire-transfer-228324#ixzz4Ogc0qfGJ

Maybe it will help if you see him saying it?

[video=youtube;rzYgCJC7pK8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzYgCJC7pK8[/video]

 

As explained ad-nauseum and shown, The President had the ability to exempt other payments, but not the one in question, from the sanctions. So he could wire money to Iran in those situations BUT NOT IN THE SITUATION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. The law and record are clear on that it is a fact no matter how many times ignore the facts.