As it was not taxpayer money that is out..

As President Obama once taught the subject of constitutional law, I am sure he knew what he was doing.


According to the Congressional Research Service, different definitions for 'treaty' are used in international law and in domestic U.S. law. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties "The term “treaty” has a broader meaning under international law than under domestic law. Under international law, “treaty” refers to any binding international agreement. Vienna Convention, art. 1(a). Under domestic law, “treaty” signifies only those binding international agreements that have received the advice and consent of the Senate.

My gosh dave, you seem so lost..

The American policy was decided when the nation in 1978 (?) agreed to have this body arbitrate the amount of money we owed Iran..

and as was clear in my post, we got a good deal in the amount of money...

You seem to think the INtl court was start up and then demanded the US obey...

No, that was not how it worked,, back in the 70s the US and Iran, maybe some others also, agreed to form the court/arbitration to settle the matter between the two nations..

If you do the math, President Obama was not in office when that was worked out..

so the outcome was very good for the US and only acceptable for Iran.. we won in the court/arbitration..

I know it is hard to work it out,, but think for a while, you will see the working mechanism..

Corporate profits rose to a record high of $1.78 trillion in 2017 — and are running even higher so far this year.

Those after-tax profits were 5.5 percent higher than the full-year figure for 2016, as estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (see line 45), and they topped the previous record of $1.74 trillion set in 2014.

The BEA’s most recent estimate, covering the first three months of 2018, shows after-tax profits running at an annual rate of $1.86 trillion — an increase of 10.1 percent over the full-year 2016 figure.

After-tax profits are getting a boost this year from the tax cut Trump signed into law Dec. 22, dropping the top federal tax rate on corporate income to 21 percent, from 35 percent.


The trade deficit that Trump promised to reduce grew larger instead.

The most recent government figures show that the total U.S. trade deficit in goods and services during the most recent 12 months on record, ending in May, was just over $570 billion. That’s nearly 13.6 percent larger than in 2016.

That increase came despite a 6.6 percent one-month drop in May, to the lowest monthly deficit since October 2016, before Trump was elected. But this drop may well prove to be temporary, as it was driven by a surge in exports led by soybeans and commercial aircraft. Exporters may have been rushing to beat the punitive tariffs (import taxes) that China had promised to impose (and later did) in retaliation for Trump’s proposed taxes on what the U.S. buys from China.

Court of Appeals — But Trump has won confirmation for 22 U.S. Court of Appeals judges, including the most recent one cleared by the Senate July 10. That total compares with only nine for Obama at the same point in his first term.

USA Today called his early success “perhaps Trump’s most significant achievement” to date. However, responsibility must be shared with the Republican leadership of the Senate, which not only refused to consider Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy eventually filled by Trump’s appointee Gorsuch, but also blocked confirmation of dozens of Obama’s nominees to lower courts as well. Trump inherited 17 Court of Appeals vacancies, for example, including seven that had Obama nominees pending and that expired at the time Trump took office.

District Court — On the other hand, only 20 of Trump’s nominees to be federal District Court judges have been confirmed, which is seven fewer than the 27 for whom Obama had won confirmation at the same point in his presidency.

he federal debt held by the public stood at nearly $15.5 trillion at the last count on July 9 — more than $1 trillion more than when he took office. That’s a 7.5 percent increase under Trump. And that figure will go up even faster in coming years unless Trump and Congress impose massive spending cuts, or reverse course and increase taxes.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had expected that deficit to drop a bit in the current year before resuming an indefinite upward path. But Trump’s cuts in corporate and individual income tax rates — as well as the bipartisan spending deal he signed Feb. 9 — stand to cause the red ink to gush even faster.

CBO now estimates that the deficit for the current fiscal year (ending Sept. 30) will rise to $804 billion, and continue rising for the foreseeable future, exceeding $1 trillion annually starting in FY2020. (Deficit projections are in Summary Table 2, page 4.) Further, CBO said June 29 that under current law, federal deficits will continue growing for the next 30 years, “reaching the highest level of debt relative to GDP in the nation’s history by far.” CBO projected debt would reach 152 percent of the nation’s total annual economic output by 2048 — up from 78 percent currently.

CBO’s projections take into account an increase in economic growth expected from Trump’s tax cuts. But the cuts fall well short of paying for themselves.

Later that year, after Iran’s seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the detention of the American diplomats, the Carter administration froze all Iranian assets in the United States. The standoff was resolved nearly 15 months later, with an agreement that freed the hostages and established the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal to resolve the labyrinth of financial and commercial disputes that had emerged.

In 1982, Iran filed a claim with the Tribunal pertaining to the FMS Trust Fund, which Lisa Grosh, Assistant Legal Advisor at the Department of State, has described as “a multi-billion dollar breach-of-contract dispute covering 1,126 huge military sales contracts.”

Grosh stated that the two sides engaged in some 40 rounds of negotiations “at this level” over several decades. Iran ramped up efforts to adjudicate the claim in 2015, asking the Tribunal to schedule comprehensive hearings on the outstanding FMS claims and requesting a preliminary ruling. The FMS Trust Fund amounted to $600 million until the George H. W. Bush administration returned $200 million to Iran in a partial settlement in 1990.

WHO PAID WHO? AND HOW?
The settlement announced in January involved two parts: return of the $400 million principal and payment of $1.3 billion in interest.

To return the principal, the Treasury, working with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, made a $400 million wire transfer from DFAS to the Swiss National Bank. The $400 million was then converted into Swiss francs and withdrawn in franc banknotes, which were transferred to Geneva. On January 17, the banknotes were disbursed to an official from the Central Bank of Iran.

The interest was paid from the Judgment Fund, which pays “court judgments and Justice Department compromise settlements of actual or imminent lawsuits against the government.” For a payment to be made by the Judgment Fund, Treasury must receive confirmation from the Attorney General that the settlement is in the United States’ best interests. According to Mary McCord, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division at the Department of Justice, “[a]ssessment of a settlement payment from the Judgment Fund includes consideration of the exposure that the United States faces from the claim proposed for settlement, … likelihood of an adverse ruling against the United States, the likely size of such an award, the background of the litigation, the tribunal, relevant legal arguments, relevant facts and governing legal doctrines.”

Related
A checkpoint held by Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad is pictured in Aleppo, Syria February 10, 2018. REUTERS/Omar Sanadiki TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY - RC14E1387B70
After 7 years of war, Assad has won in Syria. What’s next for Washington?
Gas flares from an oil production platform at the Soroush oil fields in the Persian Gulf, south of the capital Tehran, July 25, 2005. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi/File Photo - S1AETIFZOIAA
Trump tightens the screws on Iran’s oil
Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian (R) is greeted by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at the grand opening of the Washington Post newsroom in Washington January 28, 2016. Rezaian was recently released from 18 months of captivity in Iran. REUTERS/Gary Cameron - RTX24FQ1
The terror financing risks of America’s $400 million cash payment to Iran
Since the Judgment Fund does not allow the processing of individual claims of amounts over ten digits, the agreed upon interest—$1.3 billion—was split into 13 claims of $99,999,999.99 and one claim of the remaining $10,390,236.28. These amounts were transferred from the Judgment Fund to the Dutch National Bank, where they were converted into euros and withdrawn in euro banknotes. The Dutch bank then disbursed the notes to a representative from the Central Bank of Iran.

WHY WAS INTEREST PAID?
The 1979 MoU stipulated that the unexpended funds would be placed in an interest-bearing account. As it turns out, these funds were not based in such an account—no U.S. administration implemented that requirement. The reasons for this are not clear. Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, who testified on this issue before the Senate, noted that the United States “does not let [FMS accounts] accrue interest.”

Still, most if not all other claims before the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal have incorporated compensation for accrued interest. This is consistent with the position adopted by the Treasury Department at the outset of the 1979 assets freeze, although in nearly every case the amount of the interest to be paid has been subject to some haggling between Washington and Tehran.

Obama administration officials maintain that a Tribunal decision may have resulted in a much larger judgment on the issue of accrued interest.

WHY CASH?
This remains the most contested aspect of the episode. In their testimonies, administration officials stated that they were not aware of specific Iranian requests for cash. Instead, they suggested post-deal difficulties in accessing the international banking system influenced their decision. Treasury Department Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement and Intelligence Paul Ahern testified that “cash was the most reliable way to ensure [Iran] received the funds in a timely manner, and it was the method preferred by the relevant central banks.”

U.S. officials have also noted that the terms of the settlement stipulated immediate payment. As Backemeyer stated, “we have seen difficulties with global banks being willing to engage in these particular transactions, and this was the way, this was the mechanism that we felt we could guarantee immediate payment. And that immediate payment was critical to getting the favorable settlement that we did.”

Related Books

The Democracy Promotion Paradox
By Lincoln A. Mitchell 2016

The Power of the Past
Edited by Hal Brands and Jeremi Suri 2015

Still Ours to Lead
By Bruce D. Jones 2014
However, several experts and former senior officials have challenged this explanation, noting that wire transfers were utilized before the January payment in a July 2015 settlement of Tribunal claims for architectural drawings and fossils, and that they have been used since for compensating Tehran for nuclear materials in April 2016.

WAS THE RELEASE OF AMERICANS UNJUSTLY IMPRISONED IN IRAN MADE CONDITIONAL ON THE SETTLEMENT OR ITS PAYMENT IN CASH?
One of the released prisoners, a Christian pastor named Saeed Abedini, has stated that Iranian police told him that he would not be released until another plane landed.

U.S. officials have stated that Abedini’s account is incorrect, insisting that the release of the prisoners was conditioned only on a reciprocal arrangement in which seven Iranians held in the United States on sanctions-related charges were also released, and Washington agreed to drop Interpol arrest warrants for 14 other Iranian fugitives. State Department officials testified that the payment was briefly halted over concerns about the whereabouts of relatives of one of the released prisoners. The administration maintains that the pause was not linked to the cash transaction but was the “prudent” thing to do.

WHAT ABOUT JUDGMENTS DUE TO AMERICAN PLAINTIFFS IN SUCCESSFUL LAWSUITS AGAINST IRAN?
Several members of Congress have questioned whether the $400 million in the FMS Trust Fund was in fact available to return to Tehran, noting that the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton, required these funds be used to pay judgments against Iran. However, Congress actually paid these victims using an appropriated $400 million. As State Department official Grosh explained, “[the Act] provides that the United States shall be fully subrogated to the extent of the payment… What that means is those claims then become the U.S. government claims.” However, as described in a 2008 Congressional Research Service Report, the Act also “provided that the United States ‘shall pursue’ these subrogated rights as claims or offsets to any claims or awards that Iran may have against the United States.”

Instead of reading a top secret media release, how bout read the actual law! https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3364/text

Trump was against the weakly worded first drafts which punished America more than Russia, and usurped executive authority. He asked for it to be rewritten with those issues in mind. When he signed it, he stated he still felt it could have been better. But that it was an improvement. NOTE: Trump did NOT bypass Congress to impose what he wanted as Obama did in 2014. Unlike the 2014 Obama sanctions, these have the teeth of constitutionally valid law!!!!

As for Trump refusing to implement the sanctions; check the dates. His refusal to implement came BEFORE the sanctions were law. They were for the previous sanctions which Trump rightly claimed were unconstitutional. The bill, H.R.3364, wasn't signed until 08/02/2017.

If the only way you can discredit Trump is to make up or pass on lies; you will never win us deplorable over.

You do not back up your timeline with any documentation. Yet you condemn me for only providing documentation on portions of my post. The first of these links I provided earlier, but will do so again here. The second is regarding the $500 million loan by Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank. Whether Chase was in the right or wrong, why should American taxpayers have to pay? It wasn't a loan from our government, but was by a private entity. The same could be said for many more millions involving other banks and companies such as oil companies.

1) https://www.iranwatch.org/sites/default/files/gao-irancancelledarmssales-072579.pdf

2) https://books.google.com/books?id=34WwCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=chase+loan+to+Iran+$500+million&source=bl&ots=vzhC8zlmPq&sig=nZrcsAHpPcYZxT8Iv6Of_wv0PJM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1p9HMyp_dAhUMHjQIHRkfCAUQ6AEwCHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=chase%20loan%20to%20Iran%20%24500%20million&f=false

"The American policy was decided when the nation in 1978 (?) agreed to have this body arbitrate the amount of money we owed Iran.. "

The part about arbitration is true. But it was not to decide how much money we owed Iran. It was about arbitrating both the joint claims of banks and businesses against Iran, and Iran's counter claims; and the breach of contract of the arms deal made then cancelled by the previous government. (I.E. they were in breach of contract) Our government became involved when we froze the accounts as Iran also owed us for the arms deal. We agreed to outside arbitration. The questions were, Did Iran owe the banks, oil companies, and others for loans taken out by the previous government? Did Chase owe Iran because they froze the accounts they oversaw in England? Did Iran owe the US because of breach of contract, or was the contract from the previous government not binding? Or did the US owe Iran because they did not fill the entire previous government's contract after that government cancelled it?

As for the private entities, I won't comment. As for the government contract, either it was binding or it wasn't. You can't say it isn't binding on Iran's part but IS binding on the US. If binding, Iran not only owed for what was received, but for what was made for or paid for by the US. The remainder of the funds could them be returned or the order filled. If not binding, then the US owed the new government of Iran nothing. The complication of the arbitration was due to the vast amounts of private business deals NOT through our government. When arbitration was completed, it was the money from those business deals which were charged to the US, as well as the arms deal. About half the arms had already been delivered and were yet to be paid for. Our government planned to pay for them, and all the other fees and expenses out of the frozen assets. But the international court decided to consider all assets as money we owed Iran, including all private deals to go in Iran's favor and be charged to us.

"The American policy was decided when the nation in 1978 (?) agreed to have this body arbitrate the amount of money we owed Iran.. "

The part about arbitration is true. But it was not to decide how much money we owed Iran. It was about arbitrating both the joint claims of banks and businesses against Iran, and Iran's counter claims; and the breach of contract of the arms deal made then cancelled by the previous government. (I.E. they were in breach of contract) Our government became involved when we froze the accounts as Iran also owed us for the arms deal. We agreed to outside arbitration. The questions were, Did Iran owe the banks, oil companies, and others for loans taken out by the previous government? Did Chase owe Iran because they froze the accounts they oversaw in England? Did Iran owe the US because of breach of contract, or was the contract from the previous government not binding? Or did the US owe Iran because they did not fill the entire previous government's contract after that government cancelled it?

As for the private entities, I won't comment. As for the government contract, either it was binding or it wasn't. You can't say it isn't binding on Iran's part but IS binding on the US. If binding, Iran not only owed for what was received, but for what was made for or paid for by the US. The remainder of the funds could them be returned or the order filled. If not binding, then the US owed the new government of Iran nothing. The complication of the arbitration was due to the vast amounts of private business deals NOT through our government. When arbitration was completed, it was the money from those business deals which were charged to the US, as well as the arms deal. About half the arms had already been delivered and were yet to be paid for. Our government planned to pay for them, and all the other fees and expenses out of the frozen assets. But the international court decided to consider all assets as money we owed Iran, including all private deals to go in Iran's favor and be charged to us.