Obama's parting gifts to the American people

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Joe Fan, Nov 18, 2016.

  1. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    And the gifts keep coming...


    First, President Barack Obama failed to disclose to Congress the existence of secret side deals on inspections when he transmitted the nuclear accord to Capitol Hill. (They were only uncovered by chance when then-Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) learned about them during a meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency officials in Vienna.) Then, we learned that the Obama administration had secretly sent a plane to Tehran loaded with $400 million in Swiss francs, euros and other currencies on the same day Iran released four American hostages, which was followed by two more secret flightscarrying another $1.3 billion in cash.

    Now, in a bombshell revelation, Republicans on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, led by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), have revealed in a new report that the Obama administration secretly tried to help Iran use U.S. banks to convert $5.7 billion in Iranian assets, after promising Congress that Iran would not get access to the U.S. financial system — and then lied to Congress about what it had done. (Full disclosure: My wife works for Portman).

    In July 2015, Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew assured the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, under the nuclear accord, Iran “will continue to be denied access to the [U.S.] financial and commercial market” and that “Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.” A few weeks later, one of Lew’s top deputies, Adam Szubin, used the exact same words in testimony to the Senate banking committee.

    But Senate investigators found that on Feb. 24, 2016, the Obama Treasury Department “granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system” — exactly what Lew and Szubin said would not happen — including unlimited future Iranian deposits at Bank Muscat in Oman until the license expired.

    Not only that, Senate investigators found that officials from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which regulates U.S. banks’ compliance with U.S. sanctions law, “encouraged two U.S. correspondent banks to convert the funds.” The report says “both banks declined to complete the transaction due to compliance, reputational, and legal risks associated with doing business with Iran.”

    Investigators also found internal State Department emails, in which officials admitted that the Obama administration had “exceeded our JCPOA commitments” by authorizing Iranian access to U.S. banks. Furthermore, the report reveals that the Obama administration put on more than 200 “roadshows” across the world where they encouraged foreign financial institutions to do business with Iran “as long as the rest of the world left the United States out of it.” According to the report, during a roadshow in London, OFAC Director John Smith “downplayed the likelihood of any future penalties or fines,” telling the audience “that 95% of the time OFAC sees an apparent violation it results in a simple warning letter or no enforcement action.”

    In other words, the Obama administration: (1) told Congress it would not allow Iran access to U.S. financial institutions; (2) issued a special license allowing Iran to do exactly that; (3) unsuccessfully pressured U.S. banks to help Iran; (4) lied to Congress and the American people about what it had done; (5) admitted in internal emails that these efforts “exceeded” U.S. obligations under the nuclear deal; (6) sent officials, including bank regulators, around the world to urge foreign financial institutions to do business with Iran; and (7) promised that they would get nothing more than a slap on the wrist for violating U.S. sanctions.
    UTChE96, ShAArk92 and Garmel like this.
  2. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Reminder -- Obama lost the popular vote to Hillary

    Sangre Naranjada likes this.
  3. mb227

    mb227 1,000+ Posts

    I believe that is, to borrow from Al Gore, an Inconvenient Truth.
    Joe Fan and ShAArk92 like this.
  4. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Or a half truth. It ignores the caucuses which have ~50% of the weight of determining the Democrat candidate. Obama did well in the caucus states which is why his delegates were so much higher. Then again, I believe those total vote numbers also include states like Washington which inexplicably have a vote after the caucus. Only the caucus results matter. The vote has no bearing on any State Democrat nomination process for POTUS in WA State. HRC did win that vote so it probably helped her ego.
  5. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    It's true .... some of the States' have "unique" methods of determining their electors ... but the real problem is that they are being selected of a PARTY.

    We really should dispense with these party primary fiascos and run a POTUS election more like a La Senate race ... everyone goes onto a ballot and the voting begins. 2 or 3 runoffs to reach the "final" 2 where by the ECC selects between the two.

    Perhaps it's two "democrats?" Perhaps it's two "independents?"

    Parties have FAR too much influence on the November ballot.

    The dems proved that in 2008 ... and again in 2016.
  6. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts


    This is the type of arrogant Liberal I can't stand (Metcalfe and egomaniac super-delegate):

    his is a real conversation between Younger (the Sanders supporter) and Metcalfe (the superdelegate). What you read here may make you question our democracy:

    Younger (Sanders supporter): “While I understand your personal preferences would naturally come first (you are human after all) and conversations with Bernie supporters (not the man himself) would possibly leave a bad taste in your mouth, I believe that the people’s vote should probably have heavier precedent. Unless you were implying that it’s we are in charge of who you vote for, but rather something/someone else. Sanders will only be our nominee if those we’ve chosen to represent us do exactly that.”

    Metcalfe (superdelegate): “Again, negative conversations about our candidates do nothing to further Sanders’s cause.”

    Younger (Sanders supporter): “I’m not sure how negative it is to question your voting discretion in spite of overwhelming support. If critiquing Hillary or your apprehension to accurately vote for those you represent is negative, then I’m not sure you’re the one I’d like representing me.”

    Metcalfe (superdelegate): “Because I believe Hillary Clinton would be a better president. End of conversation.”

    Younger (Sanders supporter): “And that’s why people get angry. Bernie supporters can be quite vapid. But voting in opposition to what we voted for is only supporting the idea that Hillary and her supporting super delegates are in the pockets of others... Bernie won in Alaska. End of story. Your personal preferences for president are represented in your vote as a citizen. Not as a representative of your state.”

    Metcalfe (superdelegate): “I’m in the pocket of no one. I have no financial connections to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat. I am a retired union representative. I put in my time in the trenches for 40 years, and I really object to someone like you who has probably done nothing except caucus telling me what to do. I am voting for the best interests of my country. And that would be Hillary Clinton.”

    Younger (Sanders supporter): “You’re not making a concerted effort to vote for the public. I am the public. Everyone who ‘did nothing but caucus’ did exactly like we should. We voted. You, ma’m[sic] are the one who is missing the point. You said it yourself, you’re voting for interests. But they’re not mine not the rest of the, what 75% of the state who opposed the Establishment (40 year Democratic veterans content with the status quo) and their choice for us.

    Metcalfe (superdelegate): “You know it all.”

    Younger (Sanders supporter): “Thank you for your time Kim. You’re stealing this for Hillary. And you’re rubbing it in all our faces. If you find these comments ‘negative’ it’s because what you are doing is wrong. As a citizen you get to vote for your choice. As a rep, you vote for us. In the end, we’ll hold you accountable.”

    Metcalfe (superdelegate): “Sure. You’ll be involved after the election?”

    Younger (Sanders supporter): “You better believe it now. Having someone tell you your vote doesn’t matter is enough to insight[sic] a riot.”

    Metcalfe (superdelegate): “Now you’re talking like Donald Trump.”
  7. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    I'm torn on letting voters determine the primary candidates in part because it allows the extremes who are more motivated to dominate the field. In fact, they are the only ones that show up to the primaries. It's what allows that Nazi chap in Illinois to garner the R nomination whereas in a caucus situation I'd have to believe he'd never see the ballot.

    The parties need more transparency for sure but I also think they should get some control over who's representing them.

    I'd give my left nut for a viable 3rd party that was socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
  8. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    It always makes me ill about the sacred one man one vote sanctimony during the general election when it's completely abandoned in the primary.
  9. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Nope. He ran unopposed. Caucuses had nothing to do with it, and GOP voters had nothing to do with it. Republicans had no chance to win that seat and everyone knew it, so there was no motivation to run, and as a result, the only person to even try was this nutjob. It wasn't Republicans voting for a Nazi over another alternative.

  10. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Let me be clear, I don't put any blame on the Republican party for this gentleman. I do think Caucuses might have inhibited this scenario if only because his status would have been discussed. Then again, the fact that he was unopposed was probably the single factor in this guy getting on the ballot.
    bystander likes this.
  11. mb227

    mb227 1,000+ Posts

    You seem to miss the irony that only electoral counts matter...that #HillaryforPrison had more votes doesn't matter for the same reason that her having more votes than Trump doesn't matter. Yet the left refuses to let go of that one...
  12. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    They won't let go of that one for the same reason that JoeFan continually posts the county results map. Both sides have an extreme desire to "trigger" the other side. The fact that HRC won the popular vote clearly upsets DJT.
  13. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    she won the popular vote ONLY because a significant percentage of the conservative vote didn't believe Trump. I'm raising my hand and I know of dozens personally in 5 different states (Incl Ohio and Michigan). If Trump would have presented better in the primaries ... and didn't have so much attachment to the liberal elite (I know, tough job being from Manhattan), I can't prove it, of course, but I'm pretty sure he'd have moped the floor with her on the popular vote too.

    As it was, she won were people are stacked 95 high and virtually no places where lawn mowing services are needed ... and NOWHERE that John Daly couldn't strike another house with his driver. That's telling --- the ECC is more relevant today than it was 50 years ago ... and even 150 years ago.

    wouldn't that make you a right winger??? :p

    everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Being socially liberal is what's created most of our problems as a society. I'm not saying every woman should be in a Victorian dress and all dudes in 3 piece suits 24/7 ... but owning the responsibility we are given with our freedom has been squandered on self. "you can't tell me what to do" when it's not a matter of "telling you" what to do.

    That the reaction is such ... only underscores ... SELF.

    We are all selfish ... but those who are socially liberal integrate it into public policy ... under the guise of being so benevolent. It's worked ... and that's why we're also trillions of dollars in debt ... to include hanging a millstone around our children/grandchildren's' collective necks.

Share This Page