http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/400m-iran-cash-payment-leverage-prisoner-release-state/story?id=41482397

$400M Iran Cash Payment Used as 'Leverage' in Prisoner Release, State Department Admits

The Obama administration acknowledged for the first time today that a $400 million payment to Iran was used as "leverage" in the release of several American prisoners.

Earlier this year, when White House announced that Americans had been freed from Iran, it also said that a separate, decades-old financial dispute over the sale of U.S. weapons to Iran had been settled, resulting in a $1.7 billion payment.

The first installment of that payment came in a $400 million cash delivery made up of Euros and Swiss Francs. State Department spokesman John Kirby said today that payment was withheld on Jan. 17 until just after the Iranians released the prisoners, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian.

Undercover Video Gives Insight Into Controversial 'Prisoner Swap' With Iran

“Because we had concerns that Iran may renege on the prisoner release...we of course naturally...sought to retain maximum leverage until after the Americans were released,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said today.

"It would have been foolish, imprudent and irresponsible for us not to try to maintain maximum leverage. So if you’re asking me was there a connection in that regard in the end game? I’m not going to deny that.”

The admission comes after the White House vigorously denied earlier this month that there was any quid pro quo or ransom for the U.S. prisoners. The administration has maintained that paying ransom is against U.S. policy and that this money belonged to the Iranians independently of the situation with the prisoners.

The administration has also previously stated that these negotiations were unrelated to each other and were fully disclosed at the time they occurred.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus isn't buying that.

“It’s time for the Obama White House to drop the charade and admit it paid a $400 million ransom to the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism," Priebus said in a statement to ABC News. "President Obama has foolishly put a price on the head of every American abroad and it should be no surprise that Iran has since detained more U.S. citizens."

yes

yes

.

My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. (c) Ronald Wilson Reagan

http://verysmartbrothas.com/images/obama3.jpg

how is the city of angels?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdizL4on-Rc&app=desktop

when I returned to Chicago after my VISIT, player.

i thought you were bouncing out of Chi with the duece to the sky

It was money that we've owed Iran for decades, and that we agreed to pay in part because an international court would have forced us to pay anyway, in an amount that we couldn't have negotiated down.

The admission here is that while the agreement to repay that debt was separate from the release of the prisoners, they held the money until after the prisoners were released, so that they had a means to respond if Iran reneged on that agreement.

http://jaredawalker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/12mlmz-672x372.jpg

This wasn't money for hostages - this was how diplomacy works.

when he previously scoffed at the suggestion the money was ransom. Bc now he's going to have to walk that back a bit. He has some egg on his face, IMO.

>when he previously scoffed at the suggestion the money was
>ransom. Bc now he's going to have to walk that back a bit. He
>has some egg on his face, IMO.

I'm not saying YOU are - I'm saying people who are calling it a QUID PRO QUO or ransom are.

A ransom is giving something up that you would not have been doing in exchange for something from someone that they would not otherwise do - like release a prisoner.

So here's how that scenario works:
1)They take a prisoner
2)They demand we give them something (money, other things) to return them.
3)We give them the money (or do a thing) first.
4)Then they release the prisoner.

That's not what happened here.

We *have* to give them back over a billion dollars. We kept money that they had paid us for arms in the 1970's so we owe them the money.

We gave *some of it* to them AFTER they honored some agreements with us - but we'd have given it back anyway ,although the date it would have been given back may have been different.

The obtuse and/or stupid AND over political are making hay over this.


I'm sure it will be the biggest scandal in the world -- until 1 day after the November election.

>It was money that we've owed Iran for decades, and that we
>agreed to pay in part because an international court would
>have forced us to pay anyway, in an amount that we couldn't
>have negotiated down.
>
>The admission here is that while the agreement to repay that
>debt was separate from the release of the prisoners, they held
>the money until after the prisoners were released, so that
>they had a means to respond if Iran reneged on that agreement.



-->

>>It was money that we've owed Iran for decades, and that we
>>agreed to pay in part because an international court would
>>have forced us to pay anyway, in an amount that we couldn't
>>have negotiated down.
>>
>>The admission here is that while the agreement to repay that
>>debt was separate from the release of the prisoners, they
>held
>>the money until after the prisoners were released, so that
>>they had a means to respond if Iran reneged on that
>agreement.
>
>
>
>-->

So what you are saying is that , they weren't receiving the money until the hostages were released. What am I missing here.

if I owe you money and you capture my family and wont release them until I pay up..

well, that sounds like some strong arm tactics to get paid.

from 30 years ago.

and you kidnap my fam 2 yrs ago. and we speak on that shit. and agree ... oh wait.

well, yeah.

iran leveraged the fuck outta them. but this ain't new. why we still letting ppl over there, anyway?


peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

>iran leveraged the fuck outta them. but this ain't new. why we
>still letting ppl over there, anyway?

Honestly, is the ONLY option to make the world BOW DOWN AND DO AS WE SAY??

Hasn't worked with Iran.
Hasn't worked in Afghanistan.
Hasn't worked in Cuba.

It wasn't that they wouldn't release them until we paid up. It was that *we* wouldn't have paid up if *they* didn't release them. The financial settlement and the prisoner release were still two different deals, but we timed them in such a way that if Iran reneged on one deal, then they would be endangering the other.

As Kirby noted, it would have been treated as a much bigger scandal if we made the installment on the financial settlement without first ensuring the prisoner release would go through.

>It wasn't that they wouldn't release them until we paid up.
>It was that *we* wouldn't have paid up if *they* didn't
>release them. The financial settlement and the prisoner
>release were still two different deals, but we timed them in
>such a way that if Iran reneged on one deal, then they would
>be endangering the other.
>
>As Kirby noted, it would have been treated as a much bigger
>scandal if we made the installment on the financial settlement
>without first ensuring the prisoner release would go through.
>
>

I have no problem with what they did, but to characterize them as unrelated was incorrect.

Just because you hold on to one agreement "as leverage" so that you have, in principle, a way to respond if the other agreement doesn't work out does not mean that the one agreement is necessarily contingent on the other.

The semantics game is kinda silly.