Immigration

Trump's Hostage-Taking Strategy on Border Enforcement Backfired

The great negotiator acts like a mafia boss

|

President Donald Trump prides himself on being a great negotiator. And his basic modus operandi is to squeeze the other side as

Border families
DavidMcNew Reuters via Newscom

hard as he can in an effort to soften it before he even comes to the table. He thinks he can extract the maximal concessions through maximal pressure while yielding little himself. Hence he threatened to tear up NAFTA—not when the discussions had reached an impasse—but right off the bat before a single meeting had occurred. Likewise, he threatened Kim Jong Un with war before calling his grand summit. This strategy isn't yielding any discernible results. NAFTA talks are degenerating into a proto trade war. And on North Korea, he ended up rehabilitating a man on the international stage who is for all practical purposes a prison warden while getting less in return than what even President Obama got from Iran.

But he took this strategy to a whole new level in the service of his zero tolerance border policy when, mafia like, he took migrant kids hostage and put them in government pens. However, instead of succeeding it failed spectacularly as his reversal yesterday suggests, I point out in a column at The Week.

Go here to read the column.

Advertisement

NEXT: Justice Kennedy Questions Chevron Deference

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Another article on the same topic. Seriously?

    1. To be fair, this will make the other unhinged articles look somewhat sane by comparison

    2. Your tears… HOLD STILL……

    3. No shit. I love when “free minds” work in such lockstep.

      1. Didn’t someone say that Reason writers write what they want and are not being told by editors what the narrative is of the day is?

        Sure are a lot of Reason staff that hate Trump ending Obama’s ICE policy.

    4. Lay with the Kochs, and wake up with…articles about immigration?

    5. Trump’s hostage taking has backfired spectacularly.

      Trump’s family internment policy is popular, according to this Economist/YouGov poll

      Quote:
      Trump’s family internment policy is popular, according to this Economist/YouGov poll which shows that only 19% of those polled (and only 30% of Democrats) favor a catch-and-release policy. By contrast, 44% ? and 49% of Democrats ? favor holding families together in family detention centers until a hearing at a later date. No other alternative draws anything like that much support.

  2. Was “hostage taking” used in 2014 to describe Obama’s actions? Did Reason vomit out 5 articles a day on the topic in 2014?

    Where does Shihka stand on mothers getting custody post divorce and having the father stripped away?

    1. OH MY GOD REASONNNNNNNNNN

    2. Yes, Obama separated families at the border, too

      Quote:
      President Barack Obama separated parents from their children at the border.

      Obama prosecuted mothers for coming to the United States illegally. He fast tracked deportations. And yes, he housed unaccompanied children in tent cities.

      …Obama’s policy helped create the road map of enforcement that Trump has been following ? and building on.

      1. I was informed that it is “whataboutism” to point out the obvious hypocrisy of people who were asleep during the last administration

        1. Or they just want to ‘move on’.

        2. whataboutism (n.) def: a word employed by people when their hypocrisy is exposed.

          1. Or a great way to show the hypocrisy of people who scream only when the guy they don’t like is in power.

            We call that TDS these days.

          2. It was a propaganda technique employed with great effect by the Soviet Union

      2. The only reference that I could find was a small number of children separated from fathers found to be carrying drugs?
        No separation for families solely for misdemeanor illegal entry.

        1. http://www.apnews.com/afc80e51b562462c89907b49ae624e79

          Oh man, you’re going to have a hard time explaining away this one. But, I know you can do it

          1. “Most children held in the Shenandoah facility who were the focus of the abuse lawsuit were caught crossing the border illegally alone. They were not the children who have been separated from their families under the Trump administration’s recent policy and are now in the government’s care.”

            Right. Got it. Not children separated from their families, as I said.

            Obama was moving away from private detention centers for this and other reasons. Too little too late. But, they have returned with a vengeance under Trump.

            1. “Separating children is way worse than physical abuse against those children, because principals not principles”

              Totally not just a progressive

              1. Nope. Government makes mistakes. This facility started holding immigration detainees in 2007. Obama had a lot of challenges — he was unable to fix everything, and ran out of time to close all private federal detention centers.

                Trump is proposing a building boom and needlessly steering children into these systems, when there were effective and much cheaper programs that did not involve putting children in jails:

                http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/F…..udget-cuts

            2. Yea, Obama only had 8 years to do it.

              Obama is a failure and one of the worse presidents.

          2. How come AP articles don’t have dates? Unless I’m missing it?

            And it’s amazing how it was all ‘a-otay’ before Trump. Now it’s not all ‘a-otayl’ because differences.

            /confused Buckwheat grin.

    3. Because Obama was not splitting up families with zero tolerance nonsense. The only time they were split was in extreme circumstances. It is Sessions/Trump’s policy to immediately split up families that weren’t going reporting in to a port of entry and then keeping them apart and apparently for weeks to months as a standard policy. In Obama’s case the split kid’s and parents were back together within a few hours after some paperwork was filed. Apples and Oranges bro. Don’t swallow all that codswallop from the conservative media.

      1. You people just get caught lying and lying.

        Under a 1997 consent decree known as the Flores settlement, unaccompanied children could be held in immigration detention for only a short period of time; in 2016, a federal judge ruled that the settlement applied to families as well, effectively requiring that they be released within 20 days. Many were released ? some with GPS ankle bracelets to track their movements ? and asked to return for a court date sometime in the future.

        It was Mr. Bush, who had firsthand experience with the border as governor of Texas and ran for president as a “compassionate conservative,” who initiated the “zero tolerance” approach for illegal immigration on which Mr. Trump’s policy is modeled.

        In 2005, he launched Operation Streamline, a program along a stretch of the border in Texas that referred all unlawful entrants for criminal prosecution, imprisoning them and expediting assembly-line-style trials geared toward quickly deporting them. The initiative yielded results and was soon expanded to more border sectors. Back then, however, exceptions were generally made for adults who were traveling with minor children, as well as juveniles and people who were ill.
        NYT lefty rag even saying it

        1. (contd)
          Mr. Obama’s administration employed the program at the height of the migration crisis as well, although it generally did not treat first-time border crossers as priorities for prosecution, and it detained families together in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody ? administrative, rather than criminal, detention.

          1. Your point being that families were kept together?

    4. “”Was “hostage taking” used in 2014 to describe Obama’s actions?””

      Of course not. People are not going to use such hyperbole on a president they like, only the ones they hate.

      1. Exactly. Its the media cannot even look up the definition of kidnapping before using it incorrectly.

        1. They know what it means. They expect everyone knows what it means. That’s why they use such hyperbole.

  3. The wokeltarians are having an especially bad TDS day today. They must have had nightmare all night long.

    1. It’s *woketarians*

      Now say it right or pay the price…

  4. I think it’s great for libertarians to distance themselves from the republicans on this issue. I wonder how much support we’d get among Central American immigrants. Do they have any interest in free speech or antipathy towards public benefits?

    1. “I wonder how much support we’d get among Central American immigrants.”

      Do you really want to know the answer to this? Stick with the principle if you want to oppose this.

    2. Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

      Quote:
      Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

      1. Wow, that explains why the bolshies are all over this.

        1. If immigrants voted Trump then the Rio Grande would have been filled with starving piranha.

          1. With lasers?

        2. Hahaha.

      2. Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

        The only way to save small government is to spend a ton of money on #TheWall and expand ICE and DHS.

      3. But zero tolerance for illegals and a huuuge beautiful wall is not big government at all.

  5. Yesterday: “Separating them is evil!!”

    Today: “Keeping them together is evil!!”

    Wonder why nobody believes you.

    1. I used to camp out here in the commitariate all day. then the writing staff changed … this place writes articles that are far too tony friendly nowadays

    2. Of course Johnny, They care more about hating Trump than immigrant children.

    3. This reminds me of the Confederate statue issue (do not care if they are torn down personally). We were told left and right it was just for Confederate statutes, evil slave owners legacies and monuments like Washington and Jefferson were not targets.

      Then I saw this article on the BBC about two days later:

      Should Washington and Jefferson monuments come down?

      There is an obvious inevitability to all of this.

      1. Someone wrote an article where they, at most, suggested adding a plaque to the Jefferson Memorial to give a full picture of the man.

        Nowhere in the article does it suggest that the statues be removed.

        The article quotes a civil rights leader explaining the difference between the founding fathers and those who took up arms against our nation.

        Someone wrote an article to explain why it is not necessary to remove statues of the founding fathers. That’s bad?

      2. Well I expect the Brits would like them to come down. Not too many statues of King George III over here either.

    1. Bidet? That doesn’t sound American.

  6. People do realize that the us has 1 U.S. EMBASSY in Mexico AND 9 U.S. CONSULATES in Mexico and you can claim asylum at any of them without fear of separation.

    1. Holy shit. It turns out there’s embassies in all these countries!

      1. Then why are we doing ANY asylum hearings for people at the border? Go through the right channels or go the fuck right back home.

        1. Go through the right channels or go the fuck right back home.

          Go through the right channels *and* go the fuck right back home!

        2. They are going through the right channels.

          1. No they’re not and you know that. You can claim asylum at ports of entry without any consequences

            1. Cathy L is a liar. I cited the USCIS info for asylum after she was lying about that too.

              1. Yeah, I proved it too, but she won’t stop. Very buttpluggian.

            2. The ACLU claims this is not true. That there are families presenting at the Ports of Entry who are being separated.

              I don’t know if it’s true or not, or if there’s some other factor involved. But there are claims to the contrary.

              https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights
              /immigrants-rights-and-detention
              /fact-checking-family-separation

    2. You can’t claim asylum at an embassy. Thanks for spreading lies.

      1. You can claim asylum at ports of entry and not be arrested

        1. Correct.

        2. Asylum requests are not being processed nearly fast enough at ports of entry. There are families camped out in dangerous border towns.

          It is legal to apply for asylum after crossing.
          http://www.uscis.gov/humanitar…..plications

          Yes. You may apply for asylum with USCIS regardless of your immigration status if:

          You are not currently in removal proceedings
          You file an asylum application within one year of arriving to the United States or demonstrate that you are within an exception to that rule.

          1. So what if they are not ‘processed fast enough’. I think they are processed too fast.

            You are one of those people that assume non-Americans have some right to be in the USA and that we Americans have to bend over backwards for them.

            We don’t.

            1. If you have a valid asylum claim, then by law, you have the right to be in the United States.

              That’s kind of what asylum means.

              It’s also a treaty obligation.

              1. I think it’s more like if you have a valid claim, you have a right to have that claim heard.

              2. Read the treaty. Mexico is supposed to process all the South American and Central American asylum claims. The USA is supposed to process Canadian and Mexican asylum claims.

                Also that is NOT what asylum means.
                a?sy?lum
                ??s?l?m/
                1. the protection granted by a nation to someone who has left their native country as a political refugee.

                Protection can mean a lot of things. It does not mean they have a right to be in the USA. It means the country protects you while it processes your claim for help as a political refugee.

                Furthermore, the claims can be processed in a matter of minutes. Most claimants are NOT political refugees. They are poor. Asylum claim denied.

                1. 1) The contracting states (ie the US) shall not impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves (Article 31)
                  2) shall not expel refugees (Article 32)
                  3) shall not forcibly return or “refoul” refugees to the country they’ve fled from (Article 33).

                  There is nothing requiring asylum seekers to be political refugees.
                  The treaty applies to all on your soil. If they are in the US, they are entitled to a hearing in the US.
                  If someone claims asylum, they are entitled to a hearing about it. It is part of the legal process that they may make that claim even if they crossed the border illegally.

            2. How is someone’s presence in the US mean you’re bending over backwards for them?

          2. It is legal to apply for asylum after crossing, but it is a misdemeanor for any non-citizen to cross the border without inspection.

            Note that the US ports of entry at the southern border are far away from the hometowns of the people claiming asylum because of dangerous conditions there. They can wait to be processed correctly. Most of these asylum claims are unfounded.

            1. It is also a huge red flag on a bogus asylum claim if you are in the illegally and wait to get caught before you apply for asylum.

              If it was that important, apply immediately after entering the USA.

              These people thought they could fuck Americans overs and Trump is putting the kibosh on that.

              1. How us anyone’s mere presence in the YS fucking you over?

      2. You can absolutely got to any US territory government location and claim asylum. You can also send in an application to the US Gov for asylum.

        USCIS Asylum information

        You are such a fucking liar Cathy L.

        1. you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

          My emphasis. Not government location, physically present in the US. You can legally apply regardless of how you enter or your immigration status.

          Who’s fucking lying now?

          1. Read the words on the government website, dumb dumb.

            It does not say that you need to be physically present in the USA during the entire application process.

            In other words, you can rush an embassy, get arrested by Marines, and then use the incident report in your application for asylum while in your home country.

            Or you can wait in line at a US point of entry and then be physically present in the USA to apply. They might even give you a visa to remain in the USA while your application is processed.

            Many people choose the other way, which is Defensive Asylum Process, which involves being in the USA illegally and wait to get caught. Once they are caught as illegals they then apply for asylum.

            1. An embassy is not in the United States. You cannot apply for asylum at an embassy. You cannot apply for asylum in your home country.

              You must be inside the US to apply. Border agents are not letting asylum seekers at the point of entry present themselves.

              It is legal and party of treaty obligations that people who enter illegally are entitled to make an asylum claim.

              1. http://it.usembassy.gov/embass…..eesasylum/

                Asylum

                The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States grants asylum only to aliens who are physically present in the United States.

                Read the website, dum dum.

    3. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency…..ulate.html

      “You Cannot Apply for Asylum at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.”

      Stupid facts.

      1. Correct. You CAN claim asylum at a US embassy, they just cannot process your application.

  7. At least he didn’t pull a Keanu and shoot the hostage.

  8. A wall would solve this issue. Just say’n.

    1. I was indifferent to the whole build a wall thing. I figured it was yet another waste of money for nuttin other than show, plus it didn’t do anything to address visa overstays, clever wall climbers, tunnelers blah blah blah.

      After this latest media frenzy I am now squarely in favor of pissing away 25+ billion on the wall. Just build the thing to at least push the debate on to new talking/screeching points. Well played, Donald. Support for your wall is growing.

      1. Correct.

        A border wall or fence doesn’t have to stop 100% of border crossers to be effective. Israel implemented an effective border fence that has diminished its suicide bomber infiltration to almost zero. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..ectiveness

        It is difficult to smuggle human beings compared to drugs, guns or contraband. They require food, water, air to breathe, have to relieve themselves periodically, can’t be kept in hidden compartments for days on end, weigh 130 lbs or more and take up a lot of space.

        There are many ways in which illegals get taxpayer support. As just one example, every illegal alien’s child is entitled to a public school education (even if the child is also illegal) and the average cost of this education is $11,000 per year (2014 figures). An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $132,000 to graduate from high school. This $132,000 of course becomes unavailable to educate the children of citizens and legal immigrants.

        So a $25 billion wall will pay for itself if it deters just 190,000 illegal aliens of child-bearing age from crossing the border illegally.

        1. Minus the monetary gains related to the work that the immigrants do, and the work that their children will do. Things always look expensive when you only include the costs!

  9. Continuing down this path really doesn’t make sense anymore given yesterday’s actions. You guys have to realize that this article is you jumping the shark.

    1. +1 Eyyyyyyy

    2. Are you sure? Because Trump just capitulated again. They will no longer be criminally prosecuting all illegal enterers who come as family units.

      1. I love that it is more important to you to demean your enemies than celebrate a move toward freedom.

        Also, I proved you were lying about the google searches in another thread. Are you going to apologize, like you insisted others do?

        1. I’m pretty sure not criminally prosecuting people for illegal entry is a move toward freedom.

          Also, I proved you were wrong.

          1. We are still prosecuting people for violating our immigration law.

            MAGA!

          2. “Also, I proved you were wrong.”

            My link to google disagrees, feel free to post yours.

  10. Look, I was not a fan of the policy because it was inhumane and cruel. I’m glad that they changed it.

    That said, using words like ‘kidnapping” and “hostage” and comparing it to the treatment of Jews at Auschwitz and the internment of American citizens during WWII is just irrational shrieking. Words have meaning.

    Which is why, although I detest Donald Trump, I’ve got no use for people like Shikha or the folks that run the NYT. Irrational shrieking from one direction is no more appealing than irrational shrieking from a different direction. Both insult the intelligence of any rational person.

    Not that Shikha gives a shit of course. She’s a one-note emoting pony. I’m not sure she has the capability to be rational.

    1. And oh geez, I neglected to include “mafia like”.

      Cause, yeah, that’s for sure what the mafia was known for. Taking people and crowding them into big facilities. And then sending them back to where they came from. Sure enough, everybody knows that’s what the mafia did. Fortunately, just like the mafia, no one was apparently injured during the time this policy was in effect.

      Holy shit, Shikha. Did you ever take a fucking history class?

    2. “”Irrational shrieking from one direction is no more appealing than irrational shrieking from a different direction. Both insult the intelligence of any rational person.”‘

      Exactly.

      Not just insulting to the intelligence of rational people, but insulting to those who have experienced the horrors of kidnapping, being a hostage, survived or died in a concentration camp.

  11. President Donald Trump prides himself on being a great negotiator.

    Trump prides himself on being the greatest negotiator in the history of the universe. Also being the healthiest president in history, winning the greatest landslide in electoral history, having the largest inaugural crowd in history, being the most successful president in history, the most knowledgeable president in history on the subjects of international trade and diplomacy, finance, the military, the Constitution and the law, and who knows what all, the greatest at picking Top Men for leadership positions, and on and on. Trump prides himself at being the greatest at absolutely everything, no doubt he’d be the first to tell you he’s the most humble person on the planet as well.

    I will grant you he’s top-shelf in the lying, boasting and bragging and bull-shitting categories, kinda have to wonder if the guy has any negotiating skills at all given how much he lies about everything else he’s great at.

    1. kinda have to wonder if the guy has any negotiating skills at all given how much he lies about everything else he’s great at.

      Might also wonder about the people who, satirically or not, continually peddle his bullshit on down the line.

  12. “Trump’s Hostage-Taking Strategy on Border Enforcement Backfired
    The great negotiator acts like a mafia boss”

    Dalmia’s articles on Trump after he stopped the policy of breaking up families reads much the same as it would if he hadn’t stopped the policy of breaking up families.

    . . . which might suggest that her objections to Trump’s policies may have little if anything to do with the policies themselves. Isnt’t that what we’re talking about when we’re talking about TDS?

  13. Shakia should just go work for ABC and share shrill stupidity with Cecilia Vega.

    Seriously Reason. It’s ridiculous you keep posting her articles.

    This is not reasoned or libertarian.

    1. Neither are you.

      1. Come on, now, Cathy. Shikha is the same writer who called for violence over a speaker who had wrong thoughts. In what world is that libertarian?

        1. In what world did I say that it was?

          1. Maybe I misunderstood. My apologies

      2. And you are?

        1. More so than you, that’s for sure.

          1. You’re not Cathy L. You lie all the time.

          2. Whatever you say.

            Whoever you are.

    2. Is that a call to order for another meeting of the reason.com chapter of Libertarians For Bigoted, Authoritarian, Cruel, Big-Government Immigration Policies And Practices?

      Did you guys land Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon as a guest speaker yet? You could improve your chances with those guys if you dangled a “Libertarian Of The Century” award presentation.

      1. Yes it is.

        I’m also gonna marry a carrot.

      2. Flashback: Both Hillary And Obama Advocated Separating Migrant Families, Strict Border Control [with videos]

        Quote:
        While the left rages against “separated migrant children” which they blame on President Trump’s “zero tolerance” enforcement policy of Bush-era rules, several “inconvenient” video clips have cropped up revealing both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama advocating virtually the same border policy they are currently attacking Trump over.

        For example, Hillary Clinton said during a 2014 CNN Town Hall;

        “We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border – doesn’t mean your child gets to stay”

        1. You keep posting that. It’s about unaccompanied minors. Nobody is fooled. You can take it off your clipboard.

            1. Not removing children from their families. The report doesn’t have any instances of children being removed, in the way Trump was.
              Men were traveling separately from their families.
              Not my favorite policy, but not remotely comparable to purposefully having a policy of family separation.

              1. “”But immigrants’ rights activists had long cautioned that Lateral Repatriation breaks up families. The reason is fairly simple: many male Mexican nationals who are detained trying to cross the border often come with their families in tow. When ATEP is used, the men are captured and taken thousands of miles away, while their wives, partners and children are placed in immigrant detention centers.”

                1. So the children weren’t alone? Got it.

                  1. We’ve seen pictures of children seemingly left alone from 2014.

                    1. But not separated by the government.
                      *Sigh*
                      Circles and circles with you.

                      There has not before been a policy intended to separate children from their parents under US custody for the misdemeanor of illegal entry. There may have been isolated cases, but it seems that the cases typically involved either smugglers or fathers caught with drugs or other contraband. Not just misdemeanor entry. Or, detaining of unaccompanied minors.

                    2. They were separated in government custody.

                      There may have not been as much. But were talking about it happening, not the number of episodes.

                      I’m not talking any specific policy. I’m talking about that it did happen under Obama’s watch. By saying there may have been isolated cases, you are admitting to it.

                    3. But not for misdemeanor illegal entry.

                      It was avoided as much as legally possible.

          1. Accompanied or unaccompanied, if the kid is placed in a cage you should be outraged. Right?

            A lot of the focus was about the conditions where the children were being held. The where, not just the how. Some people want to give Obama some grace by focusing on the differences of the how. They shouldn’t.

            1. So Trump and that dirtbag Sessions hands were tied because of Obama’s policies.

              I’m never voting for Obama ever ever again.

  14. Nothing about today’s ridiculous SCOTUS sales tax decision? But of course there is always room for Trump bashing.

    1. MEXICANS, BUTTSEX, and POT are all Reason can handle screaming about.

    2. The staff is exhausted screaming about Obama’s policy being used by Trump.

    3. The Kochs don’t have internet stores. Outside of the Reason mandate.

  15. It backfired so spectacularly that he will now hold families indefinitely instead of for 20 days

    1. Until the court blocks his illegal action. Again.

      1. And then another court unblocks the illegal blocking court action.

  16. A mafia boss that ended the kids being removed from their parents if arrested together at the border.

    Obama was a mafia boss that never did that.

  17. This drivel is why many left Reason in the first place. I come back now and then out of shear, morbid curiosity. Dalmia never disappoints.

    Also, if you want to keep making Trump look reasonable by comparison, keep up this shtick.

    getting less in return than what even President Obama got from Iran.

    This is so laughable that it does not even warrant a comment, but here it goes: Barry sent pallets of cash to Iran that is now likely being used to fund terrorism and got literally nothing in return. Trump got concessions of denuclearization with multiple good faith measures from DPRK in what will be an ongoing process while conceding the execution of military exercises that can be re-instated at the stroke of a pen. Jeez.

    1. Trump just got 200 MIA remains of US servicemen from North Korea too.

      US press is mostly silent on the issue. Reason is absolutely silent on the issue.

      1. Oh look, I found an article:
        http://www.military.com/daily-…..mains.html

        1. Military.com is commonly distributed in NY City like the NY Times, don’t cha know.

          When people think of ‘US Press’, they think of Military.com

          1. Read the article. It doesn’t match up to the Trump claims.

    2. 1) You know the cash was theirs.
      2) http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018…..-deal.html
      Without explicitly giving his opinion about whether the United States should stick with the agreement, Mattis said that after reading the full text of the deal three times, he was struck by provisions that allow for international verification of Iran’s compliance. He said that since becoming defense secretary in January 2017, he also has read what he called a classified protocol in the agreement.

      “I will say it is written almost with an assumption that Iran would try to cheat,” he said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “So the verification, what is in there, is actually pretty robust as far as our intrusive ability to get in” with representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency to check on compliance.

      1. “”1) You know the cash was theirs.””

        How was the cash theirs? I mean specifically the cash. Not an amount. Ever wonder why it was cash instead of a bank transfer?

        1. Because the restrictions on Iran’s access to the US banking system remained.

          It’s not wondering. It’s knowledge.

          1. Exactly it was illegal to give money. So Obama used cash to skirt the law.

            1. Nope. The repatriation of Iran’s money was entirely legal.

              1. Did it get a legal review?

              2. By sending a pallet of money Obama was skirting the law. The purpose of forbidding US banks from doing business was so they could not get money to fund terror activities. That pallet of cash would allow that.

            2. Feel free to read the Treasury IG Report..

              These zombie lies never die!

              1. Interesting. The sanctions do allow an exception if Congress is notified. I would think that the notification would have to happen before you do it. Not after the fact.

                1. There was no exception to any sanctions. Not sure what notification you’re talking about.

    3. http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..tis-admits

      In contrast, no action to slow NK’s nukes.

      1. Also, not mentioned was the removal of 25,000 pounds of 20% enriched uranium out of Iran.

  18. No response that all of Iran’s 20% enriched uranium is no longer in the country? And NK has made no steps at all?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.