$400 million in cash?????

please tell me the counter measure to a Stinger missile you fucking moron? Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

flares, reflective chaff, laser, jammers ...

See "Air Force One"!

Italians!

Every poster meant it as an illegal act. And I will admit your legal expertise is equal to your expertise on most other subjects. Zero.
You say it's illegal to do business with Iran? Scope? Field? Link?

You go from "It probably was." to Obama sponsoring terrorism against our allies to sliding up America's ass with a version or Iran-Contra so laundered any American would have been proud to be a part of it.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Here is your link to the Office of Foreign Assets Control General Licensing as pertains to transactions with Iran which forbids the transfer of funds. This is on page 2 Para (2) and is pretty clear.

Scope: any and all U.S. Based/domiciled entities

My Field: Anti-Money Laundering

Link: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...s/iran_glh.pdf

This guidance was released as a clarifying document and general license after the "deal"

Also:
https://www.moneylaundering.ca/publi..._stages_ML.php

While it is a bit more complex, this article here breaks down the crux of money laundering pretty simply.

It is certainly reasonable for quite a few to deduce that a crime has been committed given these two guidelines.

I could get really technical and drone on, but I am not in the business of killing people with boredom.

Hope this helps...

Here is your link to the Office of Foreign Assets Control General Licensing as pertains to transactions with Iran which forbids the transfer of funds. This is on page 2 Para (2) and is pretty clear.

Scope: any and all U.S. Based/domiciled entities

My Field: Anti-Money Laundering

Link: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...s/iran_glh.pdf

This guidance was released as a clarifying document and general license after the "deal"

Hope this helps... Originally Posted by Chalupagrande

The reg appears to cover "entities" ... without wading through the referenced regs it appears that the U.S. government is not an "entity" as generally discussed in the reg you referenced.

Is that correct? Or is there another reg that provides a definition of "entity" that encompasses the U.S. government specifically for doing "business" with Iran? Using the statutory interpretation principle for "authorizations" for a governmental body, if the governmental body is not specifically mentioned it lacks the authority to engage in the activity (based on the underlying correct philosophy that government has ONLY THOSE RIGHTS authorized by THE PEOPLE ... and none are implied rights).

The reg appears to cover "entities" ... without wading through the referenced regs it appears that the U.S. government is not an "entity" as generally discussed in the reg you referenced.

Is that correct? Or is there another reg that provides a definition of "entity" that encompasses the U.S. government specifically for doing "business" with Iran? Using the statutory interpretation principle for "authorizations" for a governmental body, if the governmental body is not specifically mentioned it lacks the authority to engage in the activity (based on the underlying correct philosophy that government has ONLY THOSE RIGHTS authorized by THE PEOPLE ... and none are implied rights). Originally Posted by LexusLover

I am not quite sure on how the Treasury is supposed to act in a case like this. However, I simplify it I pay attention to the Words "Any U.S. Person" this classifies any individual that may or may not authorize something on behalf of the government all the way down to a guy with a green card. It essentially in my mind removes the veil that the government may provide and assigns individual responsibility.

In my previous profession, those three words in some cases could put someone in jail even if acting on behalf of the government with written orders in hand.

Here are some things I do not like about it all:

1. The payment of an old "debt" really? I call Bullshit, we can revoke the terms of an Arms deal at any time and since when did we give a shit about a 37 year old debt? I call Bullshit. How many people on this board alone are owed a tax return? Or even better yet, how many have been audited over a couple hundred dollars? and we are going to say "oh by the way we owe you some money"? That is why I hate deals like this, because the details are not put out specifically so this kind of crap can happen and the American people get screwed. This is a crap excuse at best.

2. I am pretty sure there are a number of Iranian government officials on the SDN list, so that presents a challenge. Because we are not allowed to transact with them. Hell those individuals would not even be allowed to be transported on U.S. flagged aircraft in some cases and OFAC would levy a fine against the carrier for doing so even unwittingly.

3. The traditional value transfer systems used between nations was completely circumvented.

I don't think the deal to return Iran it's seized assets was ever a secret, guys.

"31 § 560.314 United States person; U.S. person.
The term United States person or U.S. person means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States."

That would include the POTUS and any person acting to complete the tranaction.

I don't think the deal to return Iran it's seized assets was ever a secret, guys. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Secret or not, it was done in a manner that is by the governments own definitions, illegal. The laws governing that definition, do not allow for exclusions of ANY U.S. Citizen regardless of their position.

Further, it is no secret that El Chapo pays off cops. Doesn't make it legal.


The fact is, if I had done this as a private citizen, I would be in jail. Further, the frozen funds had already been order distributed to victims of state sponsored terror attacks. So how is it that our government just told our federal courts to fuck off? They didn't because frozen funds exist in legitimate accounts and unfreezing them is a matter of paperwork, not an act of flying them to them in currency form.

Something people on both sides have suddenly forgotten during this bullshit administration is that regardless of your position you are still a U.S. Citizen and subject to our laws. Your position gives you neither right, nor permission to break laws at your convenience regardless of what your intentions are.

But the political elite keep getting away with shit while private citizens get fucked for the slightest oversights.

My question to the left and right all day will be simple:
When are you going to hold people accountable instead of giving them a platform from which to twist things?

There are plenty of Republicans and Democrats alike that belong in jail for the shit they have pulled but we give them a get out of jail free card and a couple hundred grand a year in pensions as a "thank you for fucking us in our ass for X number of years".

Secret or not, it was done in a manner that is by the governments own definitions, illegal. The laws governing that definition, do not allow for exclusions of ANY U.S. Citizen regardless of their position.

Further, it is no secret that El Chapo pays off cops. Doesn't make it legal.


The fact is, if I had done this as a private citizen, I would be in jail. Further, the frozen funds had already been order distributed to victims of state sponsored terror attacks. So how is it that our government just told our federal courts to fuck off? They didn't because frozen funds exist in legitimate accounts and unfreezing them is a matter of paperwork, not an act of flying them to them in currency form.

Something people on both sides have suddenly forgotten during this bullshit administration is that regardless of your position you are still a U.S. Citizen and subject to our laws. Your position gives you neither right, nor permission to break laws at your convenience regardless of what your intentions are.

But the political elite keep getting away with shit while private citizens get fucked for the slightest oversights.

My question to the left and right all day will be simple:
When are you going to hold people accountable instead of giving them a platform from which to twist things?

There are plenty of Republicans and Democrats alike that belong in jail for the shit they have pulled but we give them a get out of jail free card and a couple hundred grand a year in pensions as a "thank you for fucking us in our ass for X number of years". Originally Posted by Chalupagrande

This guy gets it! Thank you!

Why didn't we just tell Iran to get fucked and give each man, woman, and child in the US $1,000,000.

Do you know that the hostages and the victims (and their families) of Iranian sponsored terrorism are still waiting for their payments?

Secret or not, it was done in a manner that is by the governments own definitions, illegal. The laws governing that definition, do not allow for exclusions of ANY U.S. Citizen regardless of their position...

The fact is, if I had done this as a private citizen, I would be in jail. Originally Posted by Chalupagrande

Hey Chalupa,

You pose excellent questions. Here's what a former AG has to say about the furtive midnight airlift of stacked pallets of unmarked banknotes to the terrorist mullahs in Tehran, courtesy of Odumbo and Kerry....

Hmmm.... could this be another one of those wonderfully enlightening Odumbo "teachable moments"??? Today's lesson is entitled "How to skirt the law and promote international terrorism and not be prosecuted for it."



The $400 Million: Legal but Not Right

Obama’s money drop to Iran raises questions: Why cash, and why in an unmarked plane? The explanation isn’t pretty.

By Michael B. Mukasey
Aug. 4, 2016 7:23 p.m. ET

If you want a piece of evidence that not everything that is lawful is also right, look no further than the Obama administration’s January shipment of $400 million in euros and Swiss francs to Iran—in cash in an unmarked cargo plane.

Some have suggested that sending the money to Iran might have run afoul of the Constitution. Spending by the executive, after all, must be authorized in an appropriation by Congress. However, the funds in question apparently came from a deposit in the 1970s on the purchase of weapons by the government of the Shah—a deposit that was the subject of a lawsuit by Iran against the U.S. No taxpayer funds were involved, and thus there was no offense to Congress’s spending authority.

To be sure, there were at the time, and still are, sanctions in place that bar anyone from engaging in dollar transactions with the regime in Tehran. Thus if the U.S. had simply made a conventional bank transfer to Iran in dollars, the regime would have been unable to readily use the funds, because banks and others would be barred from participating in those transactions. Hence the need for a transfer in other currencies—to avoid the potential for a sanctions violation.

But why cash, and why in an unmarked cargo plane? How come the U.S. did not simply transfer the $400 million we are told actually belonged to Iran to a foreign entity, to be converted into foreign funds for conventional banking transmission to Tehran? That would have permitted the U.S. to keep track of how Iran spent the money, at least to some extent. Here, recall the assurances given by CIA Director John Brennan that the sanctions relief Iran has received thus far has been used for infrastructure projects and shoring up the Iranian currency, to help undo some of the damage that sanctions inflicted on the country’s economy. Again, why cash?

The apparent explanation isn’t pretty. There is principally one entity within the Iranian government that has need of untraceable funds. That entity is the Quds Force—the branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps focused particularly on furthering the regime’s goals world-wide by supporting and conducting terrorism. This is the entity, for example, that was tied to the foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., in 2011, as well as to the successful plot to blow up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994.

Notably, there is a federal statute that bars the transfer of “monetary instruments”—cash or its equivalent in bearer instruments—with the intent to promote “specified unlawful activity.” That term is defined to include a crime of violence or use of an explosive against a foreign country, a category that would include terrorism.

Proving intent is always difficult, but federal law recognizes that conscious avoidance of knowledge can be enough. So, for example, the person who transfers a firearm to a known bank robber need not be told directly that the weapon will be used in a bank robbery in order to be held responsible when it is—particularly if he took steps to conceal the transfer.

As it happens, though, there is more than one reason why no one in the administration will be prosecuted for consciously avoiding knowledge of how this cash likely will be used, and thereby violating the anti-money-laundering statute—even with proof that the cash was transported in an unmarked plane. For one thing, the law applies only to transfers to or from the territory of the U.S. This transfer occurred entirely abroad.

In addition, there is a legal doctrine that bars the application of criminal statutes to government activity in furtherance of legitimate government business, unless those statutes are clearly meant to apply to such activity. So, for example, the driver of a firetruck cannot be held liable for speeding on his way to a fire.

The cash transfer here was said to have been arranged in furtherance of conducting the foreign relations of the U.S. The conduct of foreign relations is entirely an executive function. Those involved in this transfer would have the benefit of that doctrine.

Still, if this transfer had been made by a private person or entity—say, in payment of a debt to Iran—and the “monetary instruments” passed through the U.S., is there much doubt that a reasonable prosecutor would at least consider bringing the case?

So we have here the spectacle of the state engaging in conduct that would expose a private citizen to the risk of jail. Considering that the government exists both to serve and to teach us, perhaps it would not be asking too much to demand an explanation: Precisely what legitimate interest of the U.S. was furthered by loading $400 million in cash in an unmarked cargo plane and delivering it to a state sponsor of terrorism?

Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general (2007-09) and as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York (1988-2006).

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-400-...ght-1470353025

its sad that no one will be prosecuted for it and obama won't be immpeached.

its sad that no one will be prosecuted for it and obama won't be immpeached. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

He'll be gone in about 6 months. He's not worth the effort.

Let history prosecute and impeach him.

He'll be gone in about 6 months. He's not worth the effort.

Let history prosecute and impeach him. Originally Posted by LexusLover

perhaps, but there has to be some statue somebody could hang him with after he leaves office.

He would of course be a test case on ex-presidents after they leave office.

He would of course be a test case on ex-presidents after they leave office. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

An endurance test ... to have to see him daily on the news.

He won't vanish from view, but we can always hope he'll quit trying to stick his nose in the daily lives of just anyone who pops up on the radar. I'm embarrassed for him.