Posted on 01/12/2018 11:58:48 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
President Donald Trump's claim that the US Embassy in London was ‘sold for peanuts’ appears to have been vindicated after documents reveal that it went for just £315m ($431m) - far below the £500 million ($687 million) experts estimated.
When it was sold five years ago property experts said that the market value of the deal was £500m ($680m) and it was thought that this was the sum achieved.
The President claimed just before midnight on Thursday in Washington D..C. on Twitter that the reason he cancelled his trip to London to open the new embassy is because 'the Obama Administration sold perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for "peanuts," only to build a new one in an off location for 1.2 billion dollars. Bad deal.'
The daily Mail had first revealed that he was not going, a few hours earlier.
Now official Land Registry records reviewed by MailOnline reveal that the 999-year lease of the land was actually sold for almost £200m ($274 million) less than expected.
The documents also show that the deal was finalized under Barack Obama's administration, although it was the Bush White House which had started the move and sale. It is unknown if the amount had been settled before Obama came to power.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
It's tough to out-Trump Trump when it comes to real estate.
I bet Hillary was right in the middle of this
Has it been converted to a moslem house of cultism yet ???
.....how much kick back did Odungo get
in this “deal”?
V Jarrett?
Someone in the middle of this (for GSA or the State Department) probably got bribed for two or three million to let this deal go through. It ought to be investigated and explained in some detail.
274 Million is missing.
It sure is and the new American embassy is in the middle of not exactly nowhere, but in a weird place and NOT a handy one, for American tourists.
What is the statute of limitations for bribery and all? Maybe someone can wake up Sessions?
I realize that it was the President that made the statement and no matter what he says, it’s always a lie or fabrication, according to the Left. Now that that is out of the way...
A man who is billionaire due to his real estate business, states that the building was sold for peanuts. If there’s one person in the world that would have a pretty good idea as to what real estate is valued at, love him or hate him, it could and would be Donald J Trump. Just sayin’...
And wouldn’t you know it, he was right.
Obozo and Hillary pissed away hundreds of millions of dollars on the deal, benefitting the royal family of QATAR.
How many millions are the Clintons and Obamas getting as kickbacks???? Check the Qatar donations to Clinton and Obama fundraising.... presidential libraries, foundations, personal bank accounts, speaking engagements, etc.
Also, I remember the old embassy property being described (many years ago) as one of the very best properties in ALL of London. Even if this process was initiated in the Bush admin. (big deal, we know that Bush RINOs can be awful, too), the whole thing stinks. Did we really need to give up one of the best properties in London for hundreds of millions below market value?????
Granted, major security upgrades were probably in order, but was this the best way to achieve them??????
As long as the US owned the land, they could torn the whole thing Dow and built a proper embassy with whatever enhancements they needed.
“...got bribed for two or three million.”
Very well could be. Funny, but when you mention three million I was thinking (”Wait - it was only a difference of a few hundred thousand”). Obviously my mind was on home prices and not embassy prices! It’s crazy that in the government’s mind a few hundred million is nothing more than acceptable accounting errors.
Booooommmm!!!!
What bothers me the most about all of that is, having worked at the embassy in Baghdad, the amount of waste and non-essential positions that are funded via the US taxpayer. When ISIS was rolling toward Baghdad, they evacuated a “substantial” number of “non essential” personnel. If they’re non-essential, why are they there?
When diplomats go overseas, if it’s an accompanied post, many times the spouses are given some, make work job, on top of all the free housing, food, phones, etc.
But, embassies like the one in London are massive. So are many across Europe. So my question is, why does the embassy in London have to employ so many people. In Iraq, embassy staff, along with other government officials, were helping the Iraqi government set up a banking system, where the people wouldn’t have to travel all over the country with pockets full of cash. If they lived in Erbil and went to Basra, and needed money, they could go to the bank and make a withdrawal, the way we would at an any ATM or bank branch.
Is the guy that works in the, Econ Office of the US Embassy, teaching the Brit’s how to set up a countrywide banking system? I think not.
With travel and communication being what it is, the need for massive embassies, all over the world has long worn out it’s usefulness. Before it would take weeks or months for a message from one country’s leadership to make it to the US and for the US to send a response. Now you can pick up and Iphone and do it, from your living room.
In this day and age, does this country need inexperienced, liberal, socialist diplomats negotiating trade deals? People that have probably never run a lemonade stand. Or do we need the sharks of Wall St, doing it, so that the US gets the best deal possible and doesn’t give it all away? As he said on the campaign trail, he’ll have the meanest guys on Wall St negotiating on behalf of the US - guys you wouldn’t invite to your house for dinner, because they’re so nasty, but they’ll make sure we win...or something to that effect.
The State Dept, in its current form, is a dinosaur. It is nothing but a way for liberal, socialist, progressive, college kids to see the world on the taxpayer dime, all while getting drunk and having a good time.
Just my 2cents
Their excuse is the same as the ones that team owners give when they want a new stadium. It’ll cost more for renovations, repairs and enhancements, than it will for a brand new stadium/arena/ball park.
It’d be great to know who got paid for this disaster.
Typically, it would be GSA who would be handling property situations for government organizations. In this case, I’d go look at the guy who approved the sale and if he possibly had any overseas accounts. In this case, with the suggested sales price...he could have asked ten-million to let the price go like it did. You would think there would be competition and the sales would have easily gone to the max limit. It must have been a closed-bid situation, which ought to invoke an IG investigation.
Pretty sharp of President Trump to check on that deal. I know London well from multiple visits and often notice on the map the locations of the various embassies, many of which are around my preferred hotel. Grovesnor Square to Battersea is an unbelievable move, even if the relatively nearby Southwark is getting trendy, I think someone needs to check the deposits to the Clinton Foundation or the Zero presidential library.
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.