So, this $400 million thing is looking like a thing.

...need to stay informed, in depth, about real news...which the Iran Deal was.

Trying to make sense of 'sound bite news' allows stories to be spun. One can't be fooled by spin...from any side...if they know the full context of what happened.

Then you're right.

and explained it was Iran's money that has been held in trust for 40 years. This isn't s story.

I mean, it's not like we sent them military aircraft parts or something.

Oh, wait, that was OK. Reagan did that one.

what I figured it was about.

Trying their best to bring up another scandal.

what are we discussing?

But does the fact that it is bullshit make it less of a problem? Cause now they are showing Michelle Kosinski saying that Iran called it a ransom payment. She made the very good point that whether the government wants to call it a ransom payment or not, it pretty much was. Because her next question was that if the money had not been released, would the hostages been freed. For which the administration representative had no answer.

Come on. Let's get real, here. It's not a "ransom payment" -- it is THEIR MONEY. In fact, WE were holding their money "ransom" because we took issue with their behavior.


He's in FL today, yammering. Even MSNBC broke away from his bullshit when he started getting abusive in his little speech. The second he started shrieking they just cut away to analysis of "the state of the Trump campaign."

His campaign is in disarray. The "story" today is the INTERNAL DISCORD in his campaign. Newt Gingrich is saying he is a lunatic. Reince Priebus is "apoplectic" over Trump's refusal to endorse Ryan. The word of the day is INTERVENTION--like you do with a drunk or a drug addict--not "400 Million."

No one gives a shit--except maybe a few old pee-dribbling fools watching Fauxsnooze--about Iran's money getting unfrozen. NO ONE - really.

You can fan and fan but that spark will not become a flame.

It's summertime. People are at the beach. But even the few people at home in front of the tube aren't buying that kind of concern. It's not the message that predominates today, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.

you might at least take note.

As for the message that predominates, I just came home for lunch and that's all I heard. I mean, I might just be a moron and no rocket scientist (unlike YOU, who are eminently intelligent and well informed and SO in the know. Not doing any ego padding there, are you??) but I do have a fair grasp of English. And when I hear "ransom to a state sponsor of terrorism" said repeatedly without contest, I start to wonder if it is going to be a problem.

even know the difference between Sunnis and Shia (remember how Lieberman had to prompt him). Don't expect that old fart to know anything.

I was getting really pissed off about being dismissed and ridiculed. But then I realized that the things I have told my children all along are true.

I am sorry. I am sorry for whatever is wrong with you or in your life that it makes you feel better to be mean to somebody you have never met on a message board. I hope this made you feel better about you. I hope you now feel smarter/better than me. Because it seems like maybe you need that.

I'm feeling fine. Just got back from a great vacation with my wife.

Out of curiosity, I turned on the TiVo to record whatever is on CNN. Forty minutes into the Situation Room and there is no mention of this story at all.

You are upset by something you saw on CNN. Okay. Fine. You seem to want others to be upset by something you saw on CNN. They aren't, and this frustrates you.

You are displeased that other people do not feel panicked or upset. I could go into some armchair psych over that, but it speaks for itself.

Quite frankly, the narrative is all that matters to the majority of posters and liberals in general. It doesn't matter if you posed a question out of honest concern or to understand this issue. You presented an uncomfortable subject which means you might as well be a republican. It is tiresome, adolescent and anti-intellectual but the narrative is all and must be adhered to or face the echo chamber gods' collective wrath.

The talking heads are reading THIS on TV.

http://elections.ap.org/content/ap-fact-check-trump-base-clinton-and-iran-payment

I just reread our exchange below, and I'm sure you MUST be kidding here about being dismissive and ridiculing others.

Maybe read your last paragraph here again, and reflect on it a bit, eh?

Still doesn't answer my question.

along with some insane amount of interest it had accrued on the same day that the four Iranian hostages were released. They flew the cash into Iran in an unmarked plane. It was fairly obviously part of the deal to release the hostages and if it wasn't, it was fucking stupid because it sure as hell LOOKS like it was part of that deal. CNN's Michelle Kosinski was at a presser today and asked why we were paying a ransom to a state sponsor of terror. That is the thread that everyone seems to be picking up.

If you type "$400 million" into Google, the first response is "$400 million to Iran". I feel as thought that might become a problem. Many here do not and feel that my mentioning requires that I be duly smacked on the wrist for...I am not sure what.

That you or anyone needs to be "smacked" and have noted some of the responses to your OP to be a bit stronger than necessary in my opinion. I was simply wondering what it was you were discussing. Thank you for the post and clarification.

Link was posted in reply #1.

The fact that we flew the money in on an unmarked plane the same day as the hostages were released is, I am sure, simply a coincidence. But the timing is causing some meanies on the GOP side to say that we paid a ransom to a state sponsor of terror.

Do you suppose it should have said "Lotsa Money Onboard"?

When you see pointless adjectives like that, you should ask yourself what they are doing.

Precisely what markings should a cargo plane carrying a load of money have?

The release of those funds by the US government was part of the Iran nuclear deal. The release of the jailed Americans was not part of the nuke deal. But $400 million is still cheaper than bombing nuclear reactors in Iran, where tons of nuclear material would be blown into the atmosphere.

The $400 million becomes a big deal only if people allow it to. but most of those talking about it are only doing so to deflect away from Trump for a few minutes.

cnn is headlining it as US PAYS Iran, not unfreezes money

that simple

I specifically remember the release of that money being talked about, on MSNBC, after the agreement was signed.

It is no surprise or shock announcement when everyone already knew it.

CNN's ability to influence voters with lying headlines and fluffed up exaggerated stories.

Well now we have the internet and can call them out on it.

You seem to have your wits about you on this issue. I've seen so much back stabbing and name calling ...and to be honest, I don't really trust news outlets of either stripe. Can anyone say definitively WHAT this money was REALLY for? (minus the spin or denial)
If you would rather respond to me thru DU...feel free to do so.

Just because we don't like someone doesn't give us the right to take their money forever.



The only problem I see is believing RW framing of bullshit issues.

It's Iran's OWN money.

It was $400m that Iran put up to buy weapons, and was subsequently frozen here since 1979.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/

"Iran had set up a $400 million trust fund for such purchases, which was frozen along with diplomatic relations in 1979. In settling the claim, which had been tied up at the Hague Tribunal since 1981, the U.S. is returning the money in the fund along with "a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest," the statement said."

The $400M is the principal amount of their money we've held for a long time. Big whoop.

I think this is why it's trending again on the Twitter. Media is being dishonest, acting as if this is breaking news when in fact it is old news.

If you are going to have the vapors every time the media makes something up to try to keep this thing close it is going to be a long 4 months for you

...but perhaps I should have included the gif as I was lamenting at how stupid it was that CNN is re-breaking a story they initially put out almost 8 months ago. You read my post and chose to assume what you thought I meant, then make a rude comment. Well, you are dead wrong.

You said its a thing. Implying it was worth worrying about.

If it was an attempt at humor you failed miserably and clearly from the replies I was not the only one who took you at your word.

Sounds like primary bs to me but you can call it humor if you like

Seriously. You don't know me. I believe it's you since you rudely singled my post out and everyone else who responded seemed to understand what I was saying. I've been on DU since it started, and a member shortly thereafter. You are the rudest person I've ever encountered here.

And that is a problem.

St. Ronnie outright traded arms for hostages and had our embassy in Beirut blown up TWICE.

Most people don't watch the news in the first place, which is why prison shows on MSNBC pay the bills there.

And, as others have pointed out, this doesn't even involve anyone who is currently running for office, even if it wasn't the bullshit that it is.

So, what is the "problem" here?

You think there is a Hillary voter somewhere who is saying, "Oh, shit, I better vote for president shithead" over this?

telling America that we paid a $400 million ransom to a state sponsor of terrorism.

This is not a problem, except to Trumpeteers who are DESPERATE for a pivot from Crazy Donald to Any Old Subject Will Do.

That's obvious to even a casual observer.

the Scylla/Charibdis into which their sorry sad sack of a candidate has plunged their shit bag of a party

LIVE IT!

WEAR it, you rotten liars!

I guess I have to go with that.

I mean, you have managed to rack up 130,000 posts on here, so I guess you get to decide what is an issue and what isn't.

And when we are talking about this in about four more days because it becomes a problem, I will certainly be more generous with you than you have been with me.

Do people seriously think ignoring any possible negative story is a winning strategy? Just shut it out and it goes away? It's infantile.

I can kinda see the "concern" crap. But my nearly 10,000 posts here were not made as part of an elaborate ruse. I am genuinely interested in how people here, whom I try so hard to respect for their insight, think this is going to be addressed by Clinton and Obama. Cause they are going to have to address it. If Hillary can say, "Ain't none of me, that was Kerry." Fine.

I don't think the administration should say it was not a ransom payment. I don't think they should say that the timing was just coincidental. One person I just saw said something about the Obama administration making secret deals. Which is bullshit (or fuck it, maybe not. If they are secret deals, that's kid of the point), but it is something the 'other side' can get their fingernails under. McCain is already releasing statements.

So I don't always get the 'flavor' of the daily news cycle, like a lot of people do. I just tried some news websites...CNN (4th story from top), MSNBC (not on front page), Fox (couldn't find the story), ABC (near bottom of page), CBS (couldn't find it).

Conclusion - not a huge story. Parenthetically, while I understand it was Iran's money, shipping CASH to a known sponsor of terror does raise eyebrows.

Anyway, this will pass.

BTW - I did see quite a few stories on the Olympics...and I believe we are in a news attention wasteland right now. People are about to watch the Olympics, and staying out late watching baseball. Most of August will be shot...and the news of today simply will not matter. The outcome is decided by the people in the squishy middle, and those people probably won't start paying attention until Sep 26th - the first debate. Today's news will be ancient history. Don't believe me? Remember when Trump made fun of McCain for getting captured - as outrageous as that was, its hardly remembered now.

Republican lies need to be countered wherever and whenever they occur. I shared the story to Facebook for whatever good that will do.

and being concerned about it and thinking it might really be a "thing."

It really is trying to get us worried, that's why we make fun of it. And it is clear it is BS to a lot of people already so some googling would have done instead put up something trying to get us to worry.

This happened throughout 2008 and 2012 so I'm sure these posters will keep doing this.

That one still cracks me up.

We were supposed to get all excited that Cindy McCain had an addiction problem.

Yesterday we had the ones trying to bait us into making judgments about Melanoma Trumps career choices.

It is entertaining though, and I guess that's what keeps me coming back.

Nobody cares about the factual explanation.

Republicans will be delighted to seize upon this and use it as a mantra, and stupid people will lap it up. The media will also be delighted - to have some grist for the anti-Hillary mill. The emails are making people yawn.

But I think, when all is said and done, it will be a minor distraction from the media's breathless news of Trump's death spiral.

when Obama said that Trump was UNFIT. It then continued when word leaked out that his campaign staff was in disarray, that it was imploding, and his kids were about to do an INTERVENTION.

Just because he pipes up and screams 400 MILLION doesn't mean it gets any traction--and it's not.

Most GOP operatives appearing on television today are being asked about the SUICIDAL staff, the unwillingness to endorse Ryan, the POV of the RNC chair (ready to murder Trump), the coziness with Putin, the fact that Manafort is throwing up his hands, etc.

No one is covering the release of IRAN's money to Iran. smDh.

And it has nothing to do with POST count, either--it has everything to do with turning on the telly and clicking round the dial.

moderators

that tells you all you need to know.

except for Boxer, all the panels were loaded with fast talking liars, spewing bullshit about all the money going to terrorists, the bad judgment involved by hillobama, with not a word of countering by the hosts. not one word. the one show I watched the most had an overwhelmed woman who wasn't allowed to talk much at all, then was interrupted almost immediately. it did not go well

that's what I saw. and I HATE those mofos with a burning passion. I'm fricking worried about this for now. I hope it passes, and, with trump being himself, he's probably tripping all over his dick as I type this; in which case it'll be fun to watch another of his off the cup rambling, self-destructo maunderings.

http://elections.ap.org/content/ap-fact-check-trump-base-clinton-and-iran-payment

Fox News, maybe not so much. I wouldn't recommend anyone watch them, though.

I just heard Charlie Rose pretty much read chunks of this article verbatim.

You know, if I were in the position of having to be paying a "ransom," I'd have to say the very best possible scenario would be to have to pay that ransom using the KIDNAPPER's money!

revolution in 1979. The payment didn't include the agreed on 1 billion in intrest for holding the money for 37 years.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/03/fact-checking-republican-claims-obamas-secret-iran-payment.html

"In 1979, there was obviously an Iranian revolution that abruptly severed relations between our two countries. And prior to that revolution, the U.S. government had entered into an agreement with the then-Iranian government to transfer about $400 million in military equipment to the Iranian government. Once the revolution took place, obviously that equipment was not transferred, but we also didn’t return Iran’s money either. So that money essentially was held in what could, I think — essentially in an escrow account. And for more than 30 years now, the Iranians have been using this claims process at The Hague to try to recover that $400 million."

This didn't happen when Hillary was SOS.

We're going to blame Hillary for decisions that two men made while she was out of office? That would be blatant sexism, scapegoating an un-involved party because the un-involved party happens to be a woman.

That's exactly what the repukes will do.

for FORTY years!

forty. not thirty. forty!

or do you have to work on it?

Whichever, you have it down perfectly!! Good job!!

So refreshing to see someone who is not afraid to indulge their more base personality aspects.

So Trump like.

Sorry, I don't like being patronized any more than the next guy.

The money team were experts in that field and had been negotiating for months and months.

Or nervous. The truth? I don't honestly know, and haven't decided which way to lean on the matter at this point.

Should we have held on to the money all this time? I can argue both sides, so I'll remain on the fence.

Is the timing a coincidence? I doubt it. If we have people being held as hostages, I want them returned, and if they can be recovered without violence by attaching them to something else, I'm all for it.

I'm sorry that there is so much "concern" bullshit reading down your thread. I don't think there's anything to get so damned defensive about that you cannot even discuss an event or issue openly without immediately and loudly declaring the purity of whatever Democratic politician is involved.

We, and our party, are better when we air differences and problems openly and honestly.

to have something to say about Obama/Clinton and she allowed the Trump surrogate to frame the payment as a ransom payment to a state sponsor of terrorism while the Hillary supporter sat and said nothing. She appeared to have been caught unawares by the story. It didn't look great.

how much would you have liked to have told those to liars to SLOW down, you're giving away the fact that you're LYING your asses off? that's what they need to do in the face of that kind of BS. they have to STOP the conversation in its tracks and accuse them of LYING. it's the ONLY way to deal with it.

I kept wanting her to SAY something!! I think she was caught off guard. She never really addressed the $400 million at all.

Trump has been a bull in a china shop for days, and they need another story for balance. You asked " am curious how it gets to be less of a problem", and the advice to get a grip and find out about the actual event was good, even if bluntly delivered.

Here, let a car websiite that dabbles in military affairs explain it:


This was part of normalizing relations with Iran. The USA had held on to money that clearly belonged to Iran, and used it to bargain with them.

comey, swiftboating, and awol:

they are allowing the pubs to run wild with their version, and that's what it becomes

how well did those other false narratives work out?

I don't think this one will have much in the lego department, but one can never tell. who'd a thunk the Khan thing would have blown up in their feces the way it did? the media a just as desperate as the pugs to keep every bad story about Clinton in the forefront they can. they've been doing it since before whitewater, and have been doing it ever since?

the truth doesn't matter one bit in their hands

everybody here should be well aware of that

the media absolutely is going to let the Rs make hay with it, they normally would, but especially in light of how bad things are with Trump and the need to handicap the Ds ...

Seriously, why is that hard for people to understand? It's not our money, it is theirs and we've never had it on our list of governmental income. It is being returned to them under the agreement, but it was never ours it was just in flux until/if relations were restored between the two nations.

media's allowance of the spread of those lies to go unchecked

just think swiftboat


that's the way it works

It's really not complicated. They're getting zero interest on the money, too. It's a sweet deal for the US, and a condolence prize for Iran if it's anything.

Cause it will be great when you get on there and straighten everybody out.

saying that Iran called it a ransom payment.

You can act like I am an idiot all you want, I am telling you this is being framed as a ransom payment to a state sponsor of terrorism and that's a problem.

I learned about this non issue back when the Iran deal was made. They tried to make hay about it then, too. It didn't take too long before I was armed with facts and rebuffing people spreading lies with ease.

I think the way to deal with such concerns is learn the real facts of the matter, and counter it when you hear a lie being told. I'd also suggest writing a letter to the editor of your local news papers with the actual facts vs. the cable news fictions to set the record straight. Sooner is better than later.

Are you punking me?

Ashton...is that you?

the game is played

I can rebuff nonsense with ease.

You know, one person at a time as opposed to the several million that just got told that Obama/Clinton paid a $400 million ransom to a state sponsor of terrorism.

Hey, I have a lot of rebuffing to do, so I had best get at it!!

Answer voters questions and clear up dumb shit they've heard on cable news.

Another effective way to counter this crap is to write letters to the editor of yr local newspaper explaining the truth and debunking the spin.

There will be a snopes.com or factcheck.org article soon that you can point to or email to folks who ask what your take is.

Please don't attack me, because I am in no way attacking you. I understand what you are saying and why you are upset.

I am just a little frustrated that you seem to believe we are all helpless and can't push back on these garbage media narratives.

Because we can! One on one, with our friends and neighbors if they ask, and when we go knock doors to GOTV. All of that personal contact is very very effective at pushing back.

I agree with everything you just said 100%! I'm the person who was trying to explain (poorly, obviously!) why lighting our hair on fire and running around the internet declaring the sky is falling, isn't the best plan of action in the post above.

I know how much canvassing can, and does, help campaigns clear up bogus smears like this. The problem is we don't have enough active volunteers to do the work in all places. We need everyone who can do the work out there fighting in the trenches.

Thanks for your hard work, it's appreciated!

It's explained in detail on a more recent post.

Not a thing.

People here are more informed than the average person. Some people here are crazy well informed. The average person isn't. The average person has no idea this site exists and even if they did, they don't have the time to wade through the whole place to get to what they want to know. I am maybe better about trying to get information than the average person, but maybe not.

Whether WE think it is a thing or not, CNN does. And they are selling it HARD as a ransom payment to a state sponsor of terrorism. You can shrug it off as bullshit, but how do you think this sounds to the average undecided or independent voter?

And you are going to worry about what they spew?

Less than.1 percent of the population actually closer to a third of one percent watch CNN.. The impact you think they have is not a reality.

And right now, I have sat and listened to a Trump surrogate AND a CNN White House correspondent call it a ransom payment to a state sponsor of terrorism without anybody correcting either one of them. Yes, of course, I will correct people when it starts showing up on my FB feed, but is that REALLY the only strategy we are going to employ??

You do understand that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets an opportunity to put its pants on, yes?

Here, put this on your FB feed:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-fact-check-trump-off-base-clinton-iran-41097324

"AP FACT CHECK: Trump off Base on Clinton and Iran Payment"

Just what the fuck do you think needs to be "done" about a word fart from Trump that is fresh off the pile? The news organizations are catching up on this, and the AP fact check is going out through the normal outlets.

Good golly.

on CNN, MSNBC, and without doubt, fox?

if it's not on TV, it doesn't exist.

that's the reality

everybody here was well aware of the filthy lies that comprised the swiftboat story.

last night I saw that vile prick billionaire who bankrolled that myth BRAGGING about how he won the election for Bush with all the MILLIONS HE SANK into the tv smear campaign

that's where the worry lies

They'll be reading that over the television air waves, word for word, in no time.

There is no worry today--today is a GOOD day for Democrats.

Fact: A minority of US adults watch any news at all.

Fact: Most US adults work during the day.

Fact: You have no idea how this will be reported - ON TV - this evening.

Who ARE these people watching cable news all day long. I really want to know.

I bet they will stop talking about this by tonight.

Good point!!


And just because there are a fair number of people on here in the middle of the day...you know...on their COMPUTERS, that doesn't mean that people have access to information during the day. NO!! Not at all!! And by tonight, CNN will have decided to stop framing this in the most inflammatory way possible, cause they are just great that way!!

Boy, I feel a lot better!!

What is it you want to do other than wring your hands over another of Trump's distortions, that will be unraveled in due course?

Just what is it you want out of this?

If you look up through the replies here, you will find many people expressing a profound lack of concern.

So this one bothers you. Okay. Noted. Is there something of substance you have to add other than this bothers you?

Just wanted to get my concern out there. Glad I am just an idiot. Cause for a minute there, I thought it being talked about for an entire segment on CNN and John McCain releasing a statement and Michelle Kosinski asking in a presser about the $400 million ransom for hostages to a state sponsor of terrorism might mean this could build into something.

But I guess not.

Today was a good day to be a democrat...

We here at DU can't control a CNN panel. Can't stop a statement from McCain.

I think Clinton's team of more reasonable spox will get booked on shows and unpack the truth to the story only if it lives a few more days. The Clinton messaging team is really good. They're not running her campaign in a bubble. I feel confident they are well aware of a story that happened back in January, probably predicted it would be rolled out as an October surprise...

The actual truth is a real easy story to tell and to understand. It fits nicely in a sound bite if need be.

I'd venture the thinking is don't throw a whole lot of attention onto the story unless it keeps going.

My money's on Trump doing something so outlandish in the next few days that the narrative and focus will be back on him.

I stopped worrying about the story when I heard it was Iran's money we've held on to for 40 years. And the people who will hear that fact but still call it ransom are already committed to Trump.

But it is a bit nerve wracking~this season isn't for the fainthearted

Wtf already?

People have explained the reality of the situation to you multiple times in this thread already and you keep reposting the same nonsense... I saw it on the news it's a thing..

If you buy everything you hear on the news even when it is explained quite thoroughly how false the narrative that is trying to be spun is,then you should stay far far away from the ratings race we call news in this country.

You are posting, again and again, that you're concerned. And that it doesn't matter what happened, you're concerned how it's portrayed in the media. But DU is not the media. We do not control it. So posting here that you're worried about how the media screws up the facts is not helpful, to you or us.

What we can do is point out the facts in the story whenever discussing it. That, of course, is not easy when the first person we discuss it with literally shouts "PEOPLE, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IT IS. IT MATTERS WHAT IT IS BEING PORTRAYED AS" at us, but we must persevere. First, will will convince you. Then you can convince other people. And that's how you learn to stop worrying and love the election.

Here's a suggestion: email CNN pointing out how badly they covered this. Point out they'll lose viewer trust, and numbers, if they continue to do a bad job, which all your friends agree they're doing at the moment.

They only copy off 'em like Melania did Michelle!

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/ap_fact_check_trump_off_base_on_clinton_and_iran_payment/

And the media are pivoting to the "Trump's losing it" narrative--what goes up...

Nobody will be talking about this in September.

It will be olympics 24/7 for 17 days.

I'm sorry you're being so jumped on for bringing the subject up. The explanation being offered in this thread will sound like bureaucratic gobbledeegook to most people, and I'm not altogether convinced that it isn't.

I've often been reminded on this board that 'DU is not the country', and this is one of those times when it's particularly true.

forget the fact that the vast majority of Americans have never heard of this place. Hell, the majority of my Dem friends in 'real life' have never heard of it.

And if you have the time to get tens of thousands of posts on here, you probably have the time to become really well informed. Kudos. But a lot of 'regular' people think they are really doing their informative due diligence if they watch 20 minutes of CNN a day. And if they just watched the 20 minutes I watched, they are walking away thinking the US paid a $400 million ransom to a state sponsor of terrorism.

But on your first point, it actually seems to me that using a site like this one to such an intense and exclusive degree will only make you really well informed on the party's narrative.

Which reminds me of why I stopped living on here. Because it is really easy to forget what the real world sees.

Don't let anyone try to shame you for your posts renie.

Anytime Gore lost because he "invented the internet"

And Kerry lost because of one, ONE, statement he made where he "flip flopped," you can not ever
expect the media to be an honest broker with Democrats. The very nature of trying to first use
Benghazi, in 2012.. against Obama, then Susan Rice, then Hillary and having it still in the news
is a testament to that.

And when Bernie said "enough of the damn emails," I was stupid to think that'd be a wakeup call to media
and that would stop as well.

Fox news will keep a story going for as long as they can until they can call it a "scandal" then try to link it to other "scandals"
to create the illusion of a nonstop series of "scandals."

She is not a DU member. She has never heard of it.

And people who have "tens of thousands of posts on here" did so over many many years.

Meanwhile ... from what you are saying ... people like my sister ... will hear about what now???? Iran got money, or something??? She'd have changed the channel after 5 minutes.

The only people who will immediately accept that story are the people who are already lost.

My sister won't fall for it ... she's going to hear it ... and not understand the details ... and you don't get 20 minutes ... and she will not care ...

But she will QUICKLY grasp every nonsensical thing TRump says ... because his nonsencial rantings are all short, they take about one minute to digest, and they have no nuance ... no depth.

CNN will report nonsense in the hopes of keeping this close. So will Fox and MSNBC.

That all makes sense to me. I heard it on my lunch break and it hit me as a problem because every CNN person kept saying 'ransom to state sponsor of terror' and they were trying to find a way to hook it to Clinton, which it doesn't, really.

Thanks. Seriously. This does make me feel better. You are right. Trump being an asshat to a Gold Star family is readily understandable quickly. The details of this deal are not.

... the media is always looking for a hook, that's not new.

In this case, the CNN claim ... "ransom to state sponsor of terror" ... is questionable on its face. So, most people, like my sister, will realize that it sounds silly, and then never do anything else.

I visited my sister 2 weeks ago. She's smart, college educated, and she's busy. She also knows I follow politics. So, on a number of topics she told me things she's heard, and then asked me what I knew. And in most cases she already new that what she heard was BS. All I did was explain why.

I should mention she is not a die hard liberal. She's rather moderate. Left on social issues, very moderate otherwise.

I find the way to deal with folks like her, who only have a "sense" of what is going on for some political topic, is to let them tell you what they've heard, and then show them the pieces they don't have yet.

And as you note ... she is usually very aware of things like Trump attacking Gold Star families. That is incredibly obvious.

why do you think they did that? Some have tried to inform you, while some have mocked you for panicking over an old story that came out months ago & fizzled. Not sure why you thought it necessary to share your personal panic, but it's been explained to you several times now. SSDD for CNN. Get over it.

HOLY FUCK THIS IS HUGE

Cause you are just NEVER wrong about anything, are you??

I don't know if it is huge or not, that is why I came to ask. All I know is that John McCain is releasing statements about it and Michelle Kosinski is asking in a presser why the US paid a $400 million ransom to a state sponsor of terrorism and Brook Baldwin sat and kept her mouth shut when a Trump surrogate framed it as a payment for hostages.

But since you are ridiculing me for asking, I am going to assume that you are completely correct and this will not be a problem at all.

I'm not ridiculing you, unless you are overly identified in a personal sense with the issue you put up in your OP.

...but my point is, the "issue" can be put to rest relatively easily.

But I don't watch cable news. It's bullshit. I don't know what the cable news viewership crowd is spun up about, or not.

else on CNN, and two that I saw on msnbc, what do you think those that have no idea what the truth is are going to think?

I hope you're right, but did you say the same thing about Bob Perry? remember him? remember what he did to one of our candidates?

remember what the media allowed them to get away with then, indeed ACTIVELY participated in?

jesus

Anything else is just stupid, right??

You know what? If I was a Republican, I would be wetting my underoos about now. I'd be beside myself, because I'd have a glimmering inkling that my party was in the process of self-destructing on a scale perhaps unseen in my lifetime.

I'd be questioning whether this November was going to be such a disaster that I might be witnessing my long-held hopes for inane Republican policy positions- shit like the ending of the capital gains tax, or rolling back gay marriage equality, or teaching creationism in public schools-- going down the drain not just for the foreseeable future, but maybe for good.

Fortunately, I'm not a Republican. Isn't that great?!

were you similarly confident then?

I hope I'm wrong, but I saw them lie their asses off, both moderator and surrogates

they did a great job from 4PM til 430, categorizing all the pubs' problems, but you can be sure that there will be plenty of talk about the ransom tonight. I hope the other stuff overrides it

No, I was not similarly confident about Dukakis. But it was a completely different world.

The only parallel I see between now and 1988 is, if we win it will be the first time since then that a party takes the White House for 3 consecutive terms.

Yep pretty stupid

"Pence splits with Trump, endorses Ryan"

"GOP reels after problematic day with Trump"

oops



cnn and msnbc, from what I watched after a furious hour of switching back and forth while typing

seemed to do their entire shows going after the nightmare that has become the trump campaign!

my schadenfreude thread was well deserved!

apologies for now about the ransom payments

we'll see about those

trump is really screwing the pooch big league, it would seem

the narrative in that direction is strong, it is

still looks good....both leading with the bad news

"It was agreed that the Obama administration would pay Tehran $1.7bn to recompense Iran for an aborted arms deal drawn up before the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The deal was agreed between Washington and the government of the late shah, but the military equipment was never delivered to Iran.

The court settlement had more of a symbolic significance to Iran and $400m paid in cash was insignificant compared with tens of billions that were about to be released from unfrozen assets. The payment was made in cash because at the time, Iran’s financial institutions were still completely cut off from the global electronic banking system.

“As we’ve made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim at the Hague tribunal were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” said John Kirby, a state department spokesperson.

“Not only were two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side, including, in the case of the Hague claims, by technical experts involved in these negotiations for many years. The funds that were transferred to Iran were related solely to the settlement of a longstanding claim at the US-Iran Claims Tribunal at The Hague.” .......

“The article never makes a direct link between that and the prisoner swap. The only potentially new thing it reveals is that part of the payment was made in cash. That’s probably only newsworthy because it’s an election year in the US.” "

[link:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/03/trump-attacks-clinton-scandal-us-400-million-iran-nuclear-deal|

The ones taken in 1980

You could research it and let us know what you find.

It's not really a thing.

That money is Iranian money, part of the monies the US froze over 40 years ago because the Iranians were going to use that money to buy arms from USA: Hence, the Iran Contra Scandal which happened under RONNIE RAYGUN.

That Iran Contra Scandal was NO secret, and this is NO scandal for the Dems 40 years LATER.

IRAN CONTRA AFFAIR:

The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجراي ایران-کنترا‎‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped thereby to secure the release of several U.S. hostages and to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.

The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages.[4][5] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[4]

While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[6] the evidence is disputed as to whether he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras.[4][5][7] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on December 7, 1985, indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostage transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country.[8] Weinberger wrote that Reagan said "he could answer to charges of illegality but couldn't answer to the charge that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free the hostages'".[8] After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[9] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[10] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages".[11]

Several investigations ensued, including those by the U.S. Congress and the three-person, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[4][5][7] Ultimately the sale of weapons to Iran was not deemed a criminal offense but charges were brought against five individuals for their support of the Contras. Those charges, however, were later dropped because the administration refused to declassify certain documents. The indicted conspirators faced various lesser charges instead. In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[12] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been vice-president at the time of the affair.[13]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'm just HOPING the Dems don't allow a non-story to BECOME a big story.

Only ONE has mentioned this story. It sounds bad, but is easily explained away.

by doing something trumpian.

that goes back to 1979 and the resolution of the Iranian hostage crisis of that era and has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. Zilch. I actually worked in the Department of State Office of International Claims and Investment Disputes for four years and dealt with Iran-US Claims Tribunal matters during that time.

It is also hardly breaking news since news of the settlement came out in Dec 2015 and was actually published in the WSJ in Jan 2016 as well. But for Trump, nothing exists until he notices it.

The AP has also found Trump's version to be - as usual - 100% false.

It only looks like a "thing" to the clueless - and that includes most in the M$M - although some are catching on. https://mediamatters.org/research/2016/08/03/right-wing-media-distort-wsj-article-claim-obama-administration-made-secret-payment-iran/212156

So far anyways it looks plainly like a non-story.

...nobody's paying attention to Iran.

I was in the US Navy in 1978 undergoing training for a new weapons system on Spruance class destroyers. There were several Iranians in the class. The US had "sold" 4 Spruance class destroyers to Iran and the Iranians were in training for those ships.

The ships were never delivered and became Kidd class destroyers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidd-class_destroyer

I would bet that the $400 million was payment for those 4 destroyers that were never delivered.

If only the media would do a tiny bit of research, they couldn't blow this up into some bullshit "ransom" story.