Quote:Conceded? Yes, if you read what I wrote that would be clear. That still leaves questions unanswered.


You state it as fact when we don't have answers. It doesn't just look bad, it smells funny. Very rarely are things just a coincidence. I think you would concede that. We still don't know why they kept it a secret. You typically keep things a secret for a reason and no reasons have been given.


1.3 Billion is interest. Have we not sent the 1.3 Billion in interest or is that coming later? Honestly I don't know which is why I'm asking. If 1.3 Billion has already been sent, we don't know how it was done. Based on what I've read they have refused to disclose how any of it was paid. We know how the $400 million was paid now, but that is only after journalist investigation was done.


Question for you. Do we have the right to know those answers? If there is nothing to hide and nothing fishy then why did they not disclose how Iran was paid or the secret mission? I think those are legitimate questions.

First, there is no interest---from what I understand. This deal was to just give back the principle, with no further penalty or interest. That's part of the reason the deal was so favorably rooted for by Obama. Iran was taking this issue to the international tribunals where the cost would have been 10 billion, from what I understand. Again, this was money that they paid us for military equipment that we rebuffed them on because of the Islamic revolution.


We obviously have a right to know. But, my point is that the information you're asking answers for have been addressed... at least, from my understanding that have been.


We've had no real diplomatic relationship with Iran since their revolution. All of a sudden an opening arose--- this caused multiple negotiations to occur between the two parties to address multiple issues.


It would be naive to think that Obama and the negotiators were not on communication with each other, and I would also not doubt that the timing of all the negotiations were orchestrated.


But this was not a ransom delivered for the freeing of hostages. It was clearly much more complicated than that.


To think this is fishy, is lazy thinking and something a fool would say---which is why I respect your questions that you are asking.


The timing, the amounts paid, and the questions you have are valid. But I think when it comes to negotiating multiple issues with an adversary that you have 3 decades of beef with, things are probably gonna be interwoven. But that does not mean anything nefarious occurred, just by definition of how things transpired.


Is there something illegal that you specifically think occurred?

---