Thanks for printing! Don't forget to come back to Herman Cain for fresh articles!
Our lawless president committed several felonies with his cash drop in Tehran
Andrew McCarthy explains in exhaustive detail.
National Review's Andrew McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor who does an excellent job of explaining how and why actions by politicians are in violation of federal law. His work is one of the primary reasons we know Hillary Clinton got away with multiple felonies in the use of her schlock, homebrew e-mail server. So it's no surprise that it's McCarthy who digs down and shows us that the Obama Administration didn't just skirt the edges of federal law by making its now-infamous cash drop to Iran.
It clearly and unmistakably committed multiple feloies in doing so. To really gain an understanding of just how bad this is, you need to click over and read the whole thing, but here are the lowlights:
To summarize, the anti-terrorism sanctions are still in effect, a fact the administration has touted many times. Obama conceded at his press conference both that these sanctions are still in effect and that they applied directly to his $400 million pay-out to our terrorist enemies. But here’s the president’s problem: While he is correct that the sanctions barred him from sending Iran a check or wire transfer, that is not all they forbid — not by a long shot. They also make it illegal to do what he did. As noted above, the sanctions prohibit transactions with Iran that touch the U.S. financial system, whether they are carried out in dollars or foreign currencies. The claim by administration officials, widely repeated in the press, that Iran had to be paid in euros and francs because dollar-transactions are forbidden is nonsense; Americans are also forbidden to engage in foreign currency transactions with Iran.
Obama had our financial system issue U.S. assets that were then converted to foreign currencies for delivery to Iran. Both steps flouted the regulations, which prohibit the clearing of currency of any kind if Iran is even minimally involved in the deal; here, Iran is the beneficiary of the deal.
The regs further prohibit supplying things of value to Iran, regardless of whether it is done “directly or indirectly.” Expressly included in the “indirect” category are transfers of assets to another country with knowledge that the other country will then forward the assets, in some form, to Iran. That’s exactly what happened here, with Obama pressing the Swiss and Dutch into service as intermediaries.
McCarthy cites endless chapter and verse of federal law to show that Obama's actions were clearly in violation, and furthmore that his professed moves to get around federal law accomplished no such thing, because those evasions were also anticipated when the laws were written, and they are prohibited as well.
So this leaves the uncomfortable question that has an easy answer: How can Obama get away with blatantly committing a federal felony, easily provable by taking the actions he's admitted and comparing them to the language in the statute?
The answer? Ha! Because Obama controls the mechanisms that enforce the law, suckers. McCarthy notes that the Obama Department of Justice objected to the deal, surely because they understood just how illegal it was. They were opposed in that stance by the State Department, and Obama sided with State because the solution when you're actions are illegal is to simply do nothing about it when you're the president of the United States.
But if the president committed mulitiple felonies, Congress can impeach him, right? Ha! Sure. Theoretically. But Bill Clinton set the precedent in the Lewinsky perjury/obstruction case that no Republican Congress can impeach a Democrat president for any reason, and Obama has been running wild throughout his presidency because he knows he can disregard the law with impunity and the Congress will back down every time.
It should be a huge news story that the president clearly broke the law with actions he freely admits he took. But it will remain relegated to conservative news sites like National Review and like our site, because the mainstream media do not care that a Democrat president is a power-abusing lawbreaker, nor do they care that we're about to elect a new president who specializes in that very thing.