But let's call it "leverage" so it won't sound so bad.
We've already covered Obama's illegal $400 million payment to Iran in January, complete with an extensive discussion of why the payment was a violation of multiple federal laws. But throughout the evolution of this story, the Obama White House insisted the payment was absolutely not a ransom payment for hostages. It was merely the settling of a dispute over an old arms deal from the 1970s, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the release of hostages.
State Department spokesman John Kirby confirmed that the U.S. refused to allow Iran to take possession of the cash until a plane carrying the freed Americans had taken off from Tehran.
“If you’re asking me was there a connection in that regard, at the endgame, I’m not going to deny that,” Mr. Kirby said at a State Department news briefing.
“We took advantage of leverage that we felt we could have to make sure that they got out safely and efficiently,” he added.
President Obama defended a $400 million cash shipment made to Iran at the same time that Tehran released four Americans, saying it wasn't a ransom payment and that the money had been long owed.
Mr. Kirby was responding to questions about a report in The Wall Street Journal disclosing that an Iranian cargo plane was not permitted by the U.S. to leave Geneva with $400 million in euros, Swiss francs and other currencies stacked on shipping pallets until the Americans had left Tehran. The exchange took place on Jan. 17.
Now I'm sure Obama defenders will try to somehow defend the distinction between the settling of the arms dispute and any sort of money-for-hostages deal. But all you have to do is look at John Kirby's words to know that distinction is rot. For one thing, why did the U.S. suddenly agree now to pay Iran this money. It's a dispute that goes back to before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and the U.S. has felt no particular urgency to pay the money back for the past 37 years. Suddenly now, when we wanted hostages out of there, it was time to pay them off?
But it had nothing to do with the hostages?
Even if you're pliable enough to believe that, you can't possibly believe it once you hear John Kirby admit that we withheld the delivery of the cash - and yes, we paid them off in literal cash - until we had confirmation the hostages were released.
That's a ransom payment, pure and simple. To admit all these details but then still deny we paid them ransom is beyond absurd. You could actually respect them a little more if they just admitted they paid the ransom. By approaching it the way they are, it simply strains credulity to every believe anything these people say.
Support Canada Free Press
By the way, it's certainly good news that the hostages are free. Everyone can agree on that. But there's a reason it's U.S. policy not to pay ransom for hostages - because it signals to would-be hostage takers that they can make a profit by grabbing our people and making demands. The North Koreans do this with regularity, and we all know about Iran's history with the taking of American hostages. And why would these rogue nations stop, when America rewards their malevolence every time?
So Obama lied about not paying ransom, which means you can add that to the illegality of having made the payment in the first place. The president lied and broke the law, all while the media were busy telling you about a naked statue of Donald Trump. You should find new places to get your news.
But let's call it "leverage" so it won't sound so bad.
We've already covered Obama's illegal $400 million payment to Iran in January, complete with an extensive discussion of why the payment was a violation of multiple federal laws. But throughout the evolution of this story, the Obama White House insisted the payment was absolutely not a ransom payment for hostages. It was merely the settling of a dispute over an old arms deal from the 1970s, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the release of hostages.
