I'm trying to be objective. I think the explainations seem valid. They are not "fishy" as JIB would have you believe... We did not pay a ransom to free those hostages... I urge you to do a little more research. The money that was originally Irans to begin with was frozen back in 1979...


Perhaps you should check your objectivity?

Well, it wasn't a coincidence after all:


Per Earnest Himself:


"Not a coincidence" and “created a series of diplomatic opportunities for the United States that we’ve capitalized on.”


“And we used that opening and we used that deeper diplomatic engagement to secure the release of five American citizens who are being unjustly held inside of Iran,” he said. “And we used that diplomatic opening to resolve a longstanding financial claim that the Iranians had against the United States.”


So basically what he is saying is they used the $400 million as an excuse to convulute the fact it was a ransom, but the Americans were free and a bonus on top of this large debt. Like give 1.7 billion and get 4 Americans (5th one later) free kind of deal. Obviouvlsy it isn't a coincidence. Things rarely are. Not to mention Iran wanted something tangible politically for the prisoners which is why money flown in secretly.


I am curious as to how the other 1.3 billion was paid. Anyone know because I can't find any information on it anywhere online?


Yep, we are just a bunch of loons. I swear you guys will take eat up whatever the Government feeds you.

---

I guess there are two options here.  Option #1 is that this was a settlement of a long-standing, well documented dispute that has been tied up in the Hague International court for decades over $400 million of Iran's money that the US has been holding for over 35 years.  Or you can believe Option #2 that the President of the United States took it upon himself to send $400 million to Iran for no other reason except to assure the destruction of America. 

---

I guess there are two options here. Option #1 is that this was a settlement of a long-standing, well documented dispute that has been tied up in the Hague International court for decades over $400 million of Iran's money that the US has been holding for over 35 years. Or you can believe Option #2 that the President of the United States took it upon himself to send $400 million to Iran for no other reason except to assure the destruction of America.

Or #3 did what I said above. Turned it into a sandwich with the condiments on the side. "Are the condiments free?" "Of course!" "Well I'll take 4 ketchups and one mustard." "Oh, I meant free with your sandwich order." "So they're not free?" "Depends on how you look at it. We just add the cost into your sandwich..."

---

Or #3 did what I said above. Turned it into a sandwich with the customs on the side. "Are the condiments free?" "Of course!" "Well I'll take 4 ketchups and one mustard." "Oh, I meant free with your sandwich order." "So they're not free?" "Depends on how you look at it. We just add the cost into your sandwich..."

 

So, option #3 is that the US Government went ahead and gave Iran their money back, money that we legally owed them anyway and in the process was also able to secure the release of 4 hostages.  Ok, that's reasonable, but you are saying it like it's a bad thing.

---

One of those hostages is on record as being told by Iranian officials that they could not board the plane and leave until "The other plane " gets there. Giant coincidence? I think not.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

So, option #3 is that the US Government went ahead and gave Iran their money back, money that we legally owed them anyway and in the process was also able to secure the release of 4 hostages. Ok, that's reasonable, but you are saying it like it's a bad thing.

I'm saying they used that as the reason, but it was not the reason IMO. It was their justification. Iran knows it and that is why it is bad. We just paid a ransom to a known terrorist supporting country. We are open for business.

---

One of those hostages is on record as being told by Iranian officials that they could not board the plane and leave until "The other plane " gets there. Giant coincidence? I think not.

This is where Anchorman says uh ugh, the Government told me different or back tracks and say, well it doesn't really matter because we paid off a debt and got hostages.


You have a link to that quote?

---

I'm saying they used that as the reason, but it was not the reason IMO. It was their justification. Iran knows it and that is why it is bad. We just paid a ransom to a known terrorist supporting country. We are open for business.

 

 

But the big fact remains that Iran was going to get that money anyway, as a matter of fact, if the US didn't settle the case we were going to have to fork over considerably more money to them.

 

" the Associated Press’s Matt Lee reports, the US government apparently concluded that it was going to lose the case — and lose big: Iran was seeking $10 billion in today’s dollars.

 
"US officials had expected a ruling on the Iranian claim from the tribunal any time, and feared a ruling that would have made the interest payments much higher," Lee writes.
 
So the Obama administration decided to settle out of court, opening up negotiations with Iran on the terms of the settlement. It did this at the same time it was negotiating the nuclear deal and the return of four US citizens who had been detained by Iran more recently. However, the people working on the nuclear deal and the prisoner release were different from the team working on the court case — some of whom had been involved with the claims tribunal for years.

<div> 
 
</div>

---

One of those hostages is on record as being told by Iranian officials that they could not board the plane and leave until "The other plane " gets there. Giant coincidence? I think not.

 

Yes, this is how Iran is spinning it but that doesn't necessarily make it so, unless you are in the habit of believing every word that Iranian officials say.

 

" Evidence for the payment being a ransom is that the Iranians spun it that way. "Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment," write Solomon and Lee.

 
But of course Iranian officials would spin it as a hostage payment. This makes them look strong to their domestic audience and America look weak. We don’t take political spin from American officials at face value, so we shouldn’t take Iranian spin at face value either — especially when it’s contradicted by independent evidence.
 
One could make the argument, I suppose, that the timing was a form of ransom. By delivering the payment on the same day as the prisoner release, Iranian officials could claim that they got the money as part of a ransom deal.
 
But the truth is that the Iranians could have claimed that no matter when the cash was delivered. If the Obama administration had forked over $400 million six months later, those same Iranian defense officials could have lied and said it was part of the prisoner release deal rather than the weapons settlement.
 
The lie isn’t significantly more credible just because the cash was delivered on the same day. Nor should American media and politicians help validate the Iranian lie by treating Iranian propaganda as actual evidence.
 
The bottom line, then, is that the new Wall Street Journal piece uncovers no real evidence suggesting that the US agreed to give Iran money that it wouldn’t have gotten otherwise as part of the hostage release deal. There’s smoke here, but no fire.

---

Pretty bad when Trump eating KFC with utensils gets more media exposure than the topic of this thread....

---

One of those hostages is on record as being told by Iranian officials that they could not board the plane and leave until "The other plane " gets there. Giant coincidence? I think not.

Is there objective evidence of this? If not it didn't happen

Pretty bad when Trump eating KFC with utensils gets more media exposure than the topic of this thread....

Since it was news in Jan, I see little reason it's news today.

---

Something with this whole story just doesn't pass the smell test with me.

 

A.  The timing.  I heard part of an interview today with one of the released hostages, and he described having to wait "for another airplane to arrive" before they were freed.

 

B.  This was CASH paid by our government to another "government" in physical currency.

 

C.  This CASH was paid in foreign currency, not U.S. dollars.  If our country is paying another country for anything, why does it have to be in foreign currency?

 

D.  There was a congressional inquiry regarding this, and the Obama Administration Regime refused to answer questions regarding it.

 

E.  Iran is on the list of States that Sponsor Terrorism, and therefore by law we should not be doing any commerce with them.

 

F.  This transaction happened in a way that governments never do.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

But the big fact remains that Iran was going to get that money anyway, as a matter of fact, if the US didn't settle the case we were going to have to fork over considerably more money to them.


" the Associated Press’s Matt Lee reports, the US government apparently concluded that it was going to lose the case — and lose big: Iran was seeking $10 billion in today’s dollars.

"US officials had expected a ruling on the Iranian claim from the tribunal any time, and feared a ruling that would have made the interest payments much higher," Lee writes.

So the Obama administration decided to settle out of court, opening up negotiations with Iran on the terms of the settlement. It did this at the same time it was negotiating the nuclear deal and the return of four US citizens who had been detained by Iran more recently. However, the people working on the nuclear deal and the prisoner release were different from the team working on the court case — some of whom had been involved with the claims tribunal for years.

This is what we are being told, but still, none of that changes what I said.


The AP got that directly from the Press Secretary.

---

Is there objective evidence of this? If not it didn't happen




Since it was news in Jan, I see little reason it's news today.

The secret plane flying in cash money was not in the news.


Why does one keep secrets?

---

Jagwired and/or jagibelieve, where is that quote coming from? I haven't seen it.

---

The secret plane flying in cash money was not in the news.


Why does one keep secrets?

So we were told in Jan they were sending money and your issue is how they delivered it?

---

I have a question and am not even close to being well versed in terrorist governments, past debt, etc...


My question is, can US pay money to Iranian Government with wire transfer? Is there any other safer means? Also, irregardless if Iran didn't want US dollars (like to see the evidence on that) hypothetically, could we have paid Iran from Government wire directly to them if it is for money owed even if they are a terrorist Government? And isn't anyone else interested to know how they paid the other 1.3 billion? Even you Dems? That could tell us a lot about the $400 million. Why won't they tell us the answer? Doesn't that at the very least make you question what went down? Do the American people really not have a right to know where and how are money is being spent?

---

Something with this whole story just doesn't pass the smell test with me.

 

A.  The timing.  I heard part of an interview today with one of the released hostages, and he described having to wait "for another airplane to arrive" before they were freed.

 

B.  This was CASH paid by our government to another "government" in physical currency.

 

C.  This CASH was paid in foreign currency, not U.S. dollars.  If our country is paying another country for anything, why does it have to be in foreign currency?

 

D.  There was a congressional inquiry regarding this, and the Obama Administration Regime refused to answer questions regarding it.

 

E.  Iran is on the list of States that Sponsor Terrorism, and therefore by law we should not be doing any commerce with them.

 

F.  This transaction happened in a way that governments never do.

 

It is not very difficult to find the answers to most of these.  You just have to use your eyes and brains instead of your "smell test"

 

"The settlement was announced the same day in January as Iran received its first round of sanctions relief from the Iran deal.
 
The $400 million payment, delivered in foreign cash because US law prevents the government from giving Iran dollars, was the first installment toward the $1.7 billion total. Getting together large amounts of foreign cash is hard, apparently — hence the installment plan.
 
So there you have it. The payment, which sounds really shady out of context, was actually the end of a boring, decades-old international legal case totally unrelated to the hot-button nuclear and prisoner issues."
 

<p style="font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">E.  Iran is on the list of States that Sponsor Terrorism, and therefore by law we should not be doing any commerce with them.

<p style="font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);"> 


 

What commerce? this was a legal settlement. There was no recent buying or selling of anything.

 

F.  This transaction happened in a way that governments never do.

 

Do you have a cite for that?  No country has ever paid another country in cash...ever?

---

This is where Anchorman says uh ugh, the Government told me different or back tracks and say, well it doesn't really matter because we paid off a debt and got hostages.


You have a link to that quote?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGycvX61NZg

 

For some reason youtube links are not showing up. search this

 


Fox News interviews one of the Iranian hostages about the night the hostages were released

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

It is not very difficult to find the answers to most of these. You just have to use your eyes and brains instead of your "smell test"


"The settlement was announced the same day in January as Iran received its first round of sanctions relief from the Iran deal.

The $400 million payment, delivered in foreign cash because US law prevents the government from giving Iran dollars, was the first installment toward the $1.7 billion total. Getting together large amounts of foreign cash is hard, apparently — hence the installment plan.

So there you have it. The payment, which sounds really shady out of context, was actually the end of a boring, decades-old international legal case totally unrelated to the hot-button nuclear and prisoner issues."



E. Iran is on the list of States that Sponsor Terrorism, and therefore by law we should not be doing any commerce with them.



What commerce? this was a legal settlement. There was no recent buying or selling of anything.

F. This transaction happened in a way that governments never do.


Do you have a cite for that? No country has ever paid another country in cash...ever?

There ya go, cuz they said so... Geez.


But the question is why? Wouldn't a wire transfer be more secure? Why money on a secret mission? I understand why it may be a secret upfront (don't exactly want the world to know you're flying in $400 million), but why not tell the American people once the deal is done? And why waste all the time, money to do such an expensive operation? Why was it a secret? Did you get any of those answers that were fed by the white house?

---