Posted on 08/27/2016 3:40:20 PM PDT by MtnClimber
Confidentiality”? Yes, that’s the State Department’s story on why the Obama administration is stonewalling the American people regarding the president’s illegal and increasingly suspicious Iransom payoff. The administration refuses to divulge any further information about the $1.7 billion the president acknowledges paying the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
Grilled on Wednesday about how Obama managed to pay the final $1.3 billion installment — particularly given the president’s claim that it is not possible to send Tehran a check or wire-transfer — State Department spokesman Mark Toner decreed that the administration would continue “withholding this information” in order “to protect confidentiality.”
Whose confidentiality? The mullahs’? That of the intermediaries the president used? Whose privacy takes precedence over our right to know how Obama funneled our money to our enemies?
The closest thing to an answer we have to the latest round of questions comes courtesy of the perseverance of the investigative journalist Claudia Rosett. (You weren’t expecting the Republican Congress to be minding the purse, were you?)
Recall that we have been asking about the $1.3 billion payment since the first revelations about this sordid affair. After all, if, as Obama and his toadies maintain, the payment is totally on the up and up — just a routine legal settlement involving Iran’s own money — then why won’t they answer basic questions about it?
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Where is loud mouth Paul Ryan?
The $4oo million was stolen and then the $1.3 trillion wasstolen. And then giving it to the Iranians was treason.
Honestly, Congress is up to its eyebrows on this. Just look at the overt act of treason that they commuted w/ the Iran Deal
— I highly suspect, but cannot prove [yet], that the Clinton Foundation and it's power-/influence-selling is involved in the Iran Deal and, to a lesser degree, this ransom crap.
Oh, it is; this PDF shows how the so called Iran Deal was, despite being an Act of Congress, definitionally Treason — the 'ransom' has even less legitimacy and more questionablity than even that does.
I thought “Structuring” was ILLEGAL?? Has anyone called the IRS??
DECREED? Sort of like what a KING can do?
> Two words come to mind: Criminal and Traitor
He and his whole administration need to be audited and investigated. Include all shell companies and banking records, accountants, business partners, family members, etc...to discover any suspicious activities that could be used as a method to divert taxpayer funds into faux shell companies that are paid by the U.S. government but upon further investigation produced no products or services that were actually ever provided even though fake invoices may have been generated. I believe this will be one of the methods that was used. The fake shell company will have its own FEIN and not come up if you do a search to locate accounts under someone’s SSN. Wouldn’t be surprised if a proxy signor is listed on the accounts and is holding the funds for him upon exiting the WH. It takes a lot of effort on these cases but it would be well worth the effort if the goods were found...
> I thought “Structuring” was ILLEGAL?? Has anyone called the IRS??
The IRS doesn’t investigate their overlords; only the peasants. Besides it would go far beyond their capabilities and cranial capacity to investigate fraud and corruption of this magnitude. They’d rather stick it to peasants. That way the cases are easy to investigate, close and collect on. The overlords also have the money to hire good attorneys and contacts to make the agents life difficult or even possibly fired. That’s the reason the IRS will never investigate government corruption. Know many former CID guys and that the gist of what some have told me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.