Judge Lamberth ruled ...

Once Again IM YOU ARE WROUNG

Yo don't know why you are talking about. This from the article you cited. Payments were made, IB was again busted for fake new, I buy you cable news id you cant accord it, I was going to send the $ 80.. to Trumps wall- ( forgive I'm laughing so hard I'm spitting blood it harts so hard. Lolo lol wahhhhhhh. What di he so the thousand of Muslims he saw celebration. Where was he at the "hundreds of friends he lost. Not a single funeral attended. cant figure out which of you publishes more fake new, Trump. you Sarah "Im a Fat Hoe Friendly Friend was talking about"Sanders, Miller, Pompussio, Dick in her Mouth Kellyanne Con job. Or that Cum drinking Melania,This administration is run like the Penn State football plan with Joe Patero Originally Posted by themystic

CBS, BBC, Judge Lamberth and the Supreme Court on record with the truth, which explicitly means you are not.

Check the dates. The rulings were in effect BEFORE Odumbo gave the money away. Odumbo dictatorially overruled federal judges -- including the Supreme Court -- with his phone and his pen. And, "no", he's not on topic. The topic is about monetary awards via the American judicial system for people victimized by Iran in Beirut in 1983, not a Snopes' lie about some ransom payment for hostages. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

2007 and 2016


problem is Obama moved that money prior to the supreme court decision in January 2016.



You know that Iran is not going to pay those families due compensation.

You're trying to deflect from the fact that the court records of Judge Lamberth and the Supreme Court awarding that money to U.S. citizens victimized by Iranian sponsored terrorism establish that you'd be the only one making up shit. Clear your conscience and admit that you're not telling the truth as even recognized by a lib-retard outlet like CBS. It was the dictatorial Odumbo and his corrupt DOJ that violated the ruling of the courts; not Trump, but honest people can still point out lies and liars regarding these matters when they reveal themselves. Honest people cite Judge Lamberth's and the Supreme Court's decisions to support their factual position. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Once Again IM YOU ARE WROUNG

Yo don't know why you are talking about. This from the article you cited. Payments were made, IB was again busted for fake new, I buy you cable news id you cant accord it, I was going to send the $ 80.. to Trumps wall- ( forgive I'm laughing so hard I'm spitting blood it harts so hard. Lolo lol wahhhhhhh. What di he so the thousand of Muslims he saw celebration. Where was he at the "hundreds of friends he lost. Not a single funeral attended. cant figure out which of you publishes more fake new, Trump. you Sarah "Im a Fat Hoe Friendly Friend was talking about"Sanders, Miller, Pompussio, Dick in her Mouth Kellyanne Con job. Or that Cum drinking Melania,This administration is run like the Penn State football plan with Joe Patero Originally Posted by themystic

no payments were made.


P.S. Mystic, fix your quotes next time. you butchered it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.124b8e8b61d0


this deals with the question on the question of the Iran money transfers.

2007 and 2016


problem is Obama moved that money prior to the supreme court decision in January 2016.



You know that Iran is not going to pay those families due compensation. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

IB doesn't care about facts. Maybe 10% of his posts are factually based. " Truth isn't truth" is the motto of the Trump admin and its followers

2007 and 2016

problem is Obama moved that money prior to the supreme court decision in January 2016.

You know that Iran is not going to pay those families due compensation. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Judge Lamberth's ruling was in 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090702494.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.124b8e8b61d0

this deals with the question on the question of the Iran money transfers. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Read your article again. It reports that by way of a surreptitious judgement made by Odumbo's Justice Department the transfer was approved by presenting the fiction that "the U.S. was satisfied subrogated claims had been dealt with." That claim was false as the Supreme Court ruling makes clear, and the fact that there were court orders freezing those assets until the Supreme Court made its ruling.

IB doesn't care about facts. Maybe 10% of his posts are factually based. " Truth isn't truth" is the motto of the Trump admin and its followers Originally Posted by themystic

Quite unlike your fallacious posts, 100% of my posts are factually based.

Judge Lamberth's ruling was in 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090702494.html



Read your article again. It reports that by way of a surreptitious judgement made by Odumbo's Justice Department the transfer was approved by presenting the fiction that "the U.S. was satisfied subrogated claims had been dealt with." That claim was false as the Supreme Court ruling makes clear, and the fact that there were court orders freezing those assets until the Supreme Court made its ruling.



Quite unlike your fallacious posts, 100% of my posts are factually based.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Lol!! One of my favorites of your was that Flynn was changing his plea to not guilty

Judge Lamberth's ruling was in 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090702494.html


Read your article again. It reports that by way of a surreptitious judgement made by Odumbo's Justice Department the transfer was approved by presenting the fiction that "the U.S. was satisfied subrogated claims had been dealt with." That claim was false as the Supreme Court ruling makes clear, and the fact that there were court orders freezing those assets until the Supreme Court made its ruling.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

yet it was both the Bush and Obama administration opposed giving the victims money. Obama was just dirtier than Bush on that matter.


yes, the ruling was in 2007 under the bush Administration which was then appealed to the supreme court in april 2016. I gather the Obama lawyers figured that they were going to lose and use the arbitration claim to give Irans money back with interest.



Obama admin were being facetious that they weren't aware of the "hostage" transfer taking place at the same time the money was being transferred... this is the case where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand was doing argument.


I do think that they were lying about the whole purpose of the money transfers which was to negate a possible court victory by the plaintiffs.

yet it was both the Bush and Obama administration opposed giving the victims money. Obama was just dirtier than Bush on that matter.

yes, the ruling was in 2007 under the bush Administration which was then appealed to the supreme court in april 2016. I gather the Obama lawyers figured that they were going to lose and use the arbitration claim to give Irans money back with interest.

Obama admin were being facetious that they weren't aware of the "hostage" transfer taking place at the same time the money was being transferred... this is the case where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand was doing argument.

I do think that they were lying about the whole purpose of the money transfers which was to negate a possible court victory by the plaintiffs. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Odumbo was all about selling this country down the river with that money transfer in order to secure his BS legacy nuclear "deal" with Iran.

!! One of my favorites of your was that Flynn was changing his plea to not guilty Originally Posted by themystic

Yet another of your 0% factual statements.

https://www.newsweek.com/iran-nuclea...k-obama-418770

https://www.newsweek.com/iran-nuclea...k-obama-418770 Originally Posted by bamscram

That article is on topic and proves the point made in the OP. Odumbo violated court rulings by giving Iran financial assets awarded to American citizens victimized by Iranian sponsored terrorism.

A little-noticed side agreement to the Iran nuclear deal has unexpectedly reopened painful wounds for the families of more than a dozen Americans attacked or held hostage by Iranian proxies in recent decades. U.S. officials ... insisted that Tehran would pay for financing or directing the attacks, but American taxpayers wound up paying instead.

The agreement ... involved the return of $400 million in Iranian funds that the U.S. seized after the 1979 Islamic revolution, plus another $1.3 billion in interest. Announced on January 17—the same day the two countries implemented the nuclear deal and carried out a prisoner swap—Odumbo presented the side agreement as a bargain for the United States...

But for the victims, the side deal is a betrayal, not a bargain. In 2000, the Slick Willie administration agreed to pay the $400 million to more than a dozen Americans who had won judgments against Iran in U.S. courts ... American officials assured the victims that the Treasury would be reimbursed from the seized Iranian funds ...“We all believed that Iran would pay our damages, not U.S. taxpayers,” says Stephen Flatow, a New Jersey real estate lawyer who received $24 million for the death of his 19-year-old daughter in a 1995 bus bombing in the Gaza Strip. “And now, 15 years later, we find out that they never deducted the money from the account. It makes me nauseous. The Iranians aren’t paying a cent” ...

Eizenstat, the former deputy Treasury secretary, says it was a mistake to pay the judgments against Iran using U.S. funds with no financial consequences for Tehran ...

For Flatow and others like him, that’s little consolation. In the agreement, he notes, “there wasn’t a single sentence, not a single word that would ameliorate the pain of people who lost their loved ones. That’s very hurtful.”

(Newsweek)