WhatFinger

Should be plenty of evidence for Congress to convict John Kerry for his treasonous activities

Kerry gives no proof of ransom payment source

By Rolf Yungclas ——--August 22, 2016

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

As Democratic Party members march lockstep to try to elect corrupt former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the White House, it becomes clearer that her successor, John Forbes Kerry, is not only corrupt but guilty of treason for his so-called diplomatic efforts that serve as a conduit for the U.S. funding of Iran's terrorism-sponsoring regime. Treason, according to Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution is an impeachable offense: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanours."
Impeachment of a Cabinet Secretary has been done before. In 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached by the House of Representatives, with the Senate voting not to convict him of the impeachment charge. So there is precedent for a Cabinet Secretary to be impeached according to the Constitution as a civil officer of the United States. While the research done in preparing for an impeachment trial in the House of Representatives would be bound to come up with evidence for a number of treasonous acts by Kerry, particularly in regard to the extended negotiations with Iran over their nuclear bomb program, let's take a closer look at Kerry's efforts in January to send billions of dollars to help prop up the Iranian regime and get hostages released in return. As I mentioned last week (CFP - Democrat insanity), a State Department document shows that on July 17, 2009, the Iran--United States Claims Tribunal "largely rejected a $2.5 billion claim filed by Iran, known as Case B/61, in which Iran alleged that the United States violated the Algiers Accords by failing to arrange the transfer of certain properties (mostly military properties) that Iran purchased from private U.S. companies before the Iranian Revolution." Then, I showed in the same article that on November 1, 2011, an August 3, 2009 appeal of the claim was also denied by the Tribunal. Yet somehow, under the jurisdiction of Kerry's Department of State, this denied claim was overturned and $1.7 billion was set up to be sent to Iran. $400 million of this claim was then delivered to them on January 17 of this year "coincidentally" at the same time that four hostages were being released by Iran.
Or else the money was from a different source than the clearly dismissed claim for a settlement with Iran. While proof of the source of the $400 million payment to Iran is yet to be provided by the State Department, we see in an August 16, 2016 article at weeklystandard.com by Jeryl Bier that the remaining $1.3 billion has already been paid to the Iranian regime as well:
"On February 4, California congressman Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding a detailed explanation of the entire $1.7 billion agreement including the timing of payments. "On March 17, Julia Frifield, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, replied to Royce's letter...'Iran received the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund as well as roughly $1.3 billion representing a compromise on the interest.' "A State Department official responded to TWS via email on Monday, saying 'I can confirm that the payment was made before Assistant Secretary Frifield's letter on March 17, 2016, in which she said the payment had been made.' Although the official would not confirm the 'mechanics' of the payment, the August 4 statement from President Obama suggests no other alternative than that the $1.3 billion was also paid in cash."
While the Obama administration repeatedly denies that the $400 million was a ransom for the hostages, the government of Iran says otherwise on their Ministry of Foreign Affairs website:
"In a statement released on Monday [January 18, 2016], the foreign ministry noted that the US administration was forced to succumb to the will of the Iranian nation and admit Iran's drive for economic progress and better political interaction with the world by agreeing to lifting of nuclear sanctions, removal of illegal bars on trade and economic cooperation with Iran and releasing Iran's blocked assets which were worth tens of billions of dollars, all in the course of just one day. "More importantly, the fact that it agreed to settle part of a 37-year old problem about Iran's military purchases by paying a sum of 1,700 million dollars - which was the original amount - as well as compensations, release or lift restrictions on 28 Iranians who were living in the US in return for freedom of 4 people in Iranian prisons and also instant removal of sanctions on Iran's Sepah Bank indicate that the US has in practice admitted the failure of its policy of pressures and sanctions."

Support Canada Free Press

Donate

Americans being "forced to succumb to the will of the Iranian nation"

So what the Iranians say was the Americans being "forced to succumb to the will of the Iranian nation" is described by Secretary Kerry this way:
"In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States."
Also, on the same day, "Kerry told CNN's Wolf Blitzer the claim payout was 'completely separate from what we were doing with respect to the nuclear agreement,' and that the nuclear deal and prisoner release were 'not linked distinctly.' " And while President Obama talks like he explained fully on January 17 all about the agreement to give the Iranians $1.7 billion of which $400 million was delivered in the manner of a drug deal, he conveniently left out a few details that day:
"So, nuclear deal implemented. American families reunited. The third piece of this work that we got done this weekend involved the United States and Iran resolving a financial dispute that dated back more than three decades. Since 1981, after our nations severed diplomatic relations, we've worked through an international tribunal to resolve various claims between our countries. The United States and Iran are now settling a longstanding Iranian government claim against the United States government. Iran will be returned its own funds, including appropriate interest, but much less than the amount Iran sought."
The Democrats now say, "What's the deal? This was all explained in January." As we see above, from the transcript of President Obama's January 17 statement, obviously it wasn't. U.S. Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas "who appeared on Blitzer's show after Kerry, noted that the Secretary of State had said the $1.7 billion payout was a 'stand-alone agreement' and not part of the nuclear deal.
" 'Unless,' Cotton said, 'it's just part of the ransom that we had to pay to get innocent Americans back from Iranian captivity.' "
Since the penalty for a conviction of impeachment is simply the removal from office, Hillary Clinton cannot be prosecuted by the House of Representatives for her crimes of All of the Above. But if our derelict Congress actually goes ahead and commences impeachment proceedings on John Kerry, there should be plenty of evidence for Congress to convict him for his treasonous activities.
Subscribe

View Comments
Rolf Yungclas——

Rolf Yungclas is a recently retired newspaper editor from southwest Kansas who has been speaking out on the issues of the day in newspapers and online for over 15 years

VIEW Comments

Sponsored