White House Spokesman Josh Earnest is confident that the money Barack Obama sent to Iran in the middle of the night, was used as the White House wished it to be used.

Speaking to journalists’ concerns, Earnest said,

“The bulk of the money has been going to shoring up their economic weakness, exactly how we predicted.”

Earnest then went on to accuse 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.

CBS News’ Margaret Brennan begins to grill Earnest asking if…

“- there is nothing shady about a plane arriving in the middle of the night loaded with cash.”

The exact amount loaded up in the middle of the night was $400 million in cash (Euros and Swiss Francs). Earnest squirms to answer. The best he comes up with…

“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”

Maybe it’s relevant because US taxpayer money was used in a way that sure looks shady.

Trump was quick to chime in on the entire Obama debacle, via Twitter…

“Our incompetent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the one who started talks to give 400 million, in cash, to Iran. Scandal!”

The entire exchange between Earnest and Brennan below (courtesy of Zerohedge):

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?

0 0 vote Article Rating

Help us grow. Support The Duran on Patreon!

Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report