U.S. officials conclude Iran deal violates federal law

Obiwan

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2015
12,137
10,021
2,295
Indiana
Well, well...

Guess Obozo needs to make up a new law....
EXCLUSIVE: U.S. officials conclude Iran deal violates federal law

Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.

Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.

What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.

Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as theIran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.
 
Well, well...

Guess Obozo needs to make up a new law....
EXCLUSIVE: U.S. officials conclude Iran deal violates federal law

Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.

Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.

What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.

Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as theIran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.

Of course it's illegal. It's immoral and illegal.

But hey... such is the nature of that which is otherwise irrational.
 
If it keeps us out of war and chewing thousands of our young sons up fighting for worthless people in iran...Well, it is worth it.
So you think Obozo signing a deal that involves companies breaking a US law (that Obozo SIGNED) is OK???

Damn, boy... That's a new low for you, but I'm glad to see your criminal tendencies come out!!!!
 
The Manchurian muslim will walk all over those findings and proceed doing anything he wants contrary to ANY LAW...This prick should be impeached as a traitor to America!

Agreed. It is puzzling to think that some don't yet realize that Democrats don't give a flying fuck about the law except to use it to purge Republicans and patriots if they get in the Democrats way. Politics Shitcago style!
 
If it keeps us out of war and chewing thousands of our young sons up fighting for worthless people in iran...Well, it is worth it.
So you think Obozo signing a deal that involves companies breaking a US law (that Obozo SIGNED) is OK???

Damn, boy... That's a new low for you, but I'm glad to see your criminal tendencies come out!!!!

Yeah, Matthew has pulled in the scope of what he thinks is important to basically a range of two feet.
 
If it keeps us out of war and chewing thousands of our young sons up fighting for worthless people in iran...Well, it is worth it.
So you think Obozo signing a deal that involves companies breaking a US law (that Obozo SIGNED) is OK???

Damn, boy... That's a new low for you, but I'm glad to see your criminal tendencies come out!!!!

What "THAT" is... is Relativism ON PARADE!
 
US law should be pretty clear on this...

If you sign an agreement that requires you to commit illegal acts, the agreement is VOID!!!

I can't wait for this to get before the SCOTUS!!!!
 
That is not what the paper work says at all.

Flat misinterpretation. The President has the right in the 2012 to suspend provisions of the the act if necessary.
 
That is not what the paper work says at all.

Flat misinterpretation. The President has the right in the 2012 to suspend provisions of the the act if necessary.
Really???

How about a link showing where he can ignore a law PASSED BY CONGRESS whenever he decides to???
 
How about a link showing where he can ignore a law PASSED BY CONGRESS whenever he decides to???
Only when you post clear links to evidentiary matter that supports your claim. You have not done that, other than say "go look at that web site." Yes, when the law gives the President the power to ignore it, as this one does, he can do it, and he has done it.
 
That is not what the paper work says at all.

Flat misinterpretation. The President has the right in the 2012 to suspend provisions of the the act if necessary.
Really???

How about a link showing where he can ignore a law PASSED BY CONGRESS whenever he decides to???
Jake the Fake Delegate doesn't do links. That is only for us plebes.
You have not given good evidence for your point. And since you have posted the OP, you have to show BHO does not have the power to suspend the law. In fact, he does. You know it, and that is why you are being quarrelsom.
 

Forum List

Back
Top