AN ANGRY WHITE HOUSE SNAPS OVER SECRET IRAN
SOURCE: ZERO HEDGE
Having been exposed for giving $1.7 billion of US taxpayer money to Iran – coincidental (we are told to believe) with the release of 4 Americans and the signing of the US-Iran nuclear accord – The White House is coming out swinging.
Trump didn’t waste any time:
“Our incompetent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the one who started talks to give 400 million, in cash, to Iran. Scandal!” he tweeted.
And then, as RealClearPolitics reports, White House spokesman Josh Earnest today accused critics of the Iran nuclear deal of “lying to the American public” for questioning whether a $400 million cash payment to Iran could have been used to fund terrorism.
Read that again! But Earnest then went on to say that while admitting the cash was handed over, it was also possible it was used for nefarious activities…
“The U.S. continues to have concerns with some of Iran’s nefarious activities,” Earnest said at a Wednesday press briefing, but analyses proved that Iran used the money to strengthen its currency, pay off debts, and improve infrastructure.
“The president was quite forward leaning in advance of the deal being acknowledged that we know that Iran supports terrorism, we know that Iran supports Hezbollah and the Assad regime, and it certainly is possible that some of the money that Iran has is being used for those purposes too,” he noted.
“But the bulk of the money has been going to shoring up their economic weakness, exactly how we predicted.”
One quick question – how do you know that?
* * *
But Earnest wasn’t done – after a 20-minute grilling – snapping at CBS reporter Margaret Brennan, asking: “Why is that relevant?” when questioned about the $400 million cash payment (in Euros and Swiss Francs) to Iran, seemingly not giving a shit about the fact that it’s taxpayer money being puked up for nothing..
Clearly adopting the Hillary Clinton “what difference does it make” defense by exclaiming in shrill tone upon being pressed by media:
“But why is that relevant? Why is that relevant? Particularly when we all know there is no banking relationship between the U.S. and Iran, so again”
The Full Transcript is entertaining in the level of denial:
MARGARET BRENNAN, CBS NEWS: It would be easy for you to kill the argument [that there is anything suspicious about the payment] by saying this is exactly how it happened and why — not just: Trust us there is nothing shady about a plane arriving in the middle of the night loaded with cash. Which is, you’re saying it is innuendo. Right? You’re saying nothing was done that was not above board. So why not?
JOSH EARNEST, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: I guess the point that I’m trying to make is, we could not possibly have been more transparent about this arrangement than to have the president of the U.S. announce it to all of you on live national television on the day it took place.
BRENNAN: The date the agreement was reached and the intent to pay to $1.7 billion, yes. But the details, you’re saying this is a new detail on an old story. I guess, clarifying the detail is what would help-
EARNEST: But why is that relevant? Why is that relevant? Particularly when we all know there is no banking relationship between the U.S. and Iran, so again…
BRENNAN: But the details. The transfer was from the trust fund, to this bank, to this bank. Or it had to be in Euros and Francs because we don’t have a banking relationship because it is complicated. That would be a really simple thing that people would be able to follow.
EARNEST: None of what you have walked through changes the basic facts here. We acknowledged back on January 17 that there would be all kinds of innuendo hurled by people who oppose engagement with Iran… I recognize the details that you are trying to illicit might make for a colorful news story, but they don’t change the facts!
EARNEST: I understand the political attacks that are being made by people who are trying to justify their opposition to the deal–
BRENNAN: At a minimum the $1.3 billion is taxpayer money? Don’t people have a right to have an answer to that question?
Still we are sure Trump “intervention” is what will really matter.