President Obama Violated the Law with His Ransom Payment to Iran

Opopanax · Aug 9, 2016

My guess is that the law the OP quotes has in purpose and operation become defunct due to the new agreement between the U.S. and Iran. Maybe a good analogy is to Prohibition. When it was repealed, no one waited until the laws in each city, county, and state were revised. Instead, people just started drinking in public again. I'm sure there were isolated incidences of pedants arresting drinkers, but by and large once repeal occurred, the rules changed instantly. And this goes to Congressional intent. What did Congress intend for that law to do? It seems that the purpose of the law was to make clear that under certain conditions, certain things could not occur. But those conditions have changed.

Then there are executive powers. Here, the U.S. has entered into a new agreement with Iran, an agreement that the President is fully empowered to enter into, which means that the old policy is superseded and defunct, and therefore there's nothing illegal about the transaction. I think it's quite safe to say that if it were otherwise, the GOP would have brought suit. And they may yet bring a lawsuit, so we'll have to wait and see if they do and then what happens with that.

Another more minor issue is that when the law doesn't speak to a given thing, then that thing is not illegal. For example, if the law said that even under a policy change, until the policy change is approved by Congress, then absolutely no trade or transfers of cash can occur with Iran, then the argument for the transaction's illegality would have more meat on its bones. But the law does not appear to address such a situation. And that may be because it would violate the Separation of Powers (see above in paragraph 2).

Keep in mind that Obama was not only an attorney, but a teacher of Constitutional law. He knows what he's doing. And while I won't go digging into SCOTUS precedent just yet, I'm confident that there was nothing illegal about either the trade deal with Iran or the transaction in question.

TheDemSocialist · Aug 9, 2016

ttwtt78640 said:
The justification used was that this was simply a refund of an Iranian advance accepted (in the 1970s?) for a prohibited sale. What, exactly, was exported or sold to Iran?

Maybe you should ask good ol Ollie North

jmotivator · Aug 9, 2016

Tanngrisnir said:
That wasn't ad hom. Please learn what what words mean before attempting to use them.

Oh irony. IT is you who seem to be ignorant of the meaning of ad hominem.

It was most definitely ad hominem. He specifically attacked the source rather than the argument.

Harshaw · Aug 9, 2016

Opopanax said:
My guess is that the law the OP quotes has in purpose and operation become defunct due to the new agreement between the U.S. and Iran.

Not possible.

Maybe a good analogy is to Prohibition. When it was repealed, no one waited until the laws in each city, county, and state were revised.

It's not a good analogy. Prohibition did not require any state or local participation; no state or local laws needed to be passed for it to be enforced, and few were. As a federal matter, the repeal of Prohibition did instantly legalize alcohol consumption.

Instead, people just started drinking in public again. I'm sure there were isolated incidences of pedants arresting drinkers, but by and large once repeal occurred, the rules changed instantly.

You seem to be claiming that people ignoring the rules means the rules actually changed.

And this goes to Congressional intent. What did Congress intend for that law to do? It seems that the purpose of the law was to make clear that under certain conditions, certain things could not occur. But those conditions have changed.

No conditions relevant to the statute changed, and even if they did, conditions changing doesn't nullify a statute. A statute must be amended or repealed by legislative action.

Then there are executive powers. Here, the U.S. has entered into a new agreement with Iran, an agreement that the President is fully empowered to enter into, which means that the old policy is superseded and defunct, and therefore there's nothing illegal about the transaction. I think it's quite safe to say that if it were otherwise, the GOP would have brought suit. And they may yet bring a lawsuit, so we'll have to wait and see if they do and then what happens with that.

This is completely wrong. You're arguing that the President has the power to unilaterally nullify (make "defunct") statutory law. That's absurd. It's not just absurd, it's profoundly ignorant, and smacks of a great deal of wishful thinking.

Another more minor issue is that when the law doesn't speak to a given thing, then that thing is not illegal. For example, if the law said that even under a policy change, until the policy change is approved by Congress, then absolutely no trade or transfers of cash can occur with Iran, then the argument for the transaction's illegality would have more meat on its bones. But the law does not appear to address such a situation. And that may be because it would violate the Separation of Powers (see above in paragraph 2).

Even if what you said is correct, and it's not, how would it possibly violate "separation of powers"?

What actually violates separation of powers is your contention that the President can unilaterally nullify statutory law.

Keep in mind that Obama was not only an attorney, but a teacher of Constitutional law.

He was an adjunct lecturer.

He knows what he's doing.

If you've ever taken a Constitutional Law class from an actual, bona-fide professor of law, you'd know how silly this conclusion -- "he's a lawyer and he taught Constitutional law, therefore he knows what he's talking about" -- really is.

And while I won't go digging into SCOTUS precedent just yet, I'm confident that there was nothing illegal about either the trade deal with Iran or the transaction in question.

So . . .

1) You assume things you don't know.

2) You're not going to go looking to see if what you assume is correct, and

3) You think there's a "SCOTUS" precendent for just about any legal question, and that they actually declare things legal and illegal. (See "separation of powers," supra.)

jmotivator · Aug 9, 2016

Visbek said:
Egads.

There was no "transaction." No goods or services were supplied. It was the reversal of a transaction, legally agreed to between the US and the Shah before the Revolution.

The Shah bought a bunch of planes; after the Revolution, the US refused to deliver. The case has been tied up in court for decades, and it was likely the US was going to lose. Rather than pay massive amounts of interest, we settled.

This is nothing more than typical scaremongering about Iran, and hatred of Obama wrapped into one. Must be Tuesday.

The source and purpose of the transaction is irrelevant when it comes to the law being violated. The President himself admitted that the reason the $400 million was funneled through foreign currency was because US banking is prohibited from such direct money movement to the Government of Iran. The law that he used to justify this bizarre method of transaction also makes it illegal to bypass the sanction in the manner that Obama did.

There is very good reason why the DOJ objected to this money transfer.

jmotivator · Aug 9, 2016

Opopanax said:
My guess is that the law the OP quotes has in purpose and operation become defunct due to the new agreement between the U.S. and Iran.

No. As a matter of fact, part of the deal struck with Congress to get the new agreement was that these laws would still be enforced, and Obama re-upped these laws in January of 2016.

TheDemSocialist · Aug 9, 2016

jmotivator said:
Iran Ransom Payment: President Obama Broke the Law by Sending Cash to Iran | National Review

If you step past the back-and-forth argument of whether the money given to Iran was or was not a ransom, there is a very good argument for why this money exchange was illegal (paying ransom isn't illegal).

It was delivered in foreign cash.... Therefore not breaking the law:

"The fact that the money was physically sent to Iran in various currencies rather than simply transferred by wire may seem odd in the context of the United States' increasingly cashless society, but that was done in order to avoid existing Treasury Department sanctions that banned the use of American currency in transactions with Iran, and international sanctions which at that time kept Iran from accessing the global financial markets (and which were lifted in January 2016)." Obama Bribed Iran $400 Million to Release U.S. Prisoners : snopes.com

"The $400 million payment, delivered in foreign cash because US law prevents the government from giving Iran dollars, was the first installment toward the $1.7 billion total. Getting together large amounts of foreign cash is hard, apparently — hence the installment plan." The US did not pay a $400 million â€œransomâ€� to Iran. Hereâ€™s what actually happened. - Vox

"Normally you’d use a bank transfer,” says Sick. “But Congress banned dollar transfers to Iran, so the government had to find another way. So they bought foreign currency, and transferred it in cash.”.. According to Sick: “It was all taken care of at the same time, through separate channels. It was a good deal for U.S. taxpayers, the U.S. obeyed the law, and the payment was always going to happen anyway.” 5 Things You Need to Know About the $400 Million America Sent to Iran - Fortune

"US officials said cash had to be flown in because existing US sanctions ban American dollars from being used in a transaction with Iran and because Iran could not access the global financial system due to international sanctions it was under at the time" US sent plane with $400 million in cash to Iran - CNNPolitics.com

Also wasnt a ransom payment and makes zero sense to call it a ransom payment:

" The speculation about timing was just that — speculation... Moreover, the basic logic of it didn’t make any sense. Iran was going to get that money back no matter what through the arbitration process — probably more, if the Obama administration was right. Why would it release potentially valuable hostages in exchange for money it would have gotten otherwise? Iran would have to be the world’s dumbest hostage taker." The US did not pay a $400 million â€œransomâ€� to Iran. Hereâ€™s what actually happened. - Vox

And it also wasnt secret... It was announced back in January:

""The third piece of this work that we got done this weekend involved the United States and Iran resolving a financial dispute that dated back more than three decades. Since 1981, after our nations severed diplomatic relations, we’ve worked through a international tribunal to resolve various claims between our countries. The United States and Iran are now settling a longstanding Iranian government claim against the United States government. Iran will be returned its own funds, including appropriate interest, but much less than the amount Iran sought. For the United States, this settlement could save us billions of dollars that could have been pursued by Iran. So there was no benefit to the United States in dragging this out." https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/17/statement-president-iran

Visbek · Aug 9, 2016

Opopanax said:
My guess is that the law the OP quotes has in purpose and operation become defunct due to the new agreement between the U.S. and Iran.

AFAIK, the sanctions are still in effect.

The real issue is that the US isn't providing goods or services, it's settling a lawsuit. It's a matter of international law, so chances are pretty good that the sanctions law does not (cannot) apply.

Maybe a good analogy is to Prohibition. When it was repealed, no one waited until the laws in each city, county, and state were revised. Instead, people just started drinking in public again.

I'm pretty sure they waited for the laws to be repealed. That's what people do now with marijuana, they way until the laws are in effect before pursuing commercial businesses.

Keep in mind that Obama was not only an attorney, but a teacher of Constitutional law.

True, but he also doesn't have time to research all the legal facets of something like this. Usually the DoJ and/or the President's own legal staff will review the matter, and provide the office of the President with a memo.

FYI, the DoJ did not object to the payment on legal terms. They were only concerned about the timing, which they thought (for obvious reasons) might look like a ransom payment.

Legally, it's virtually certain the Administration is in the clear. Politically, it's not so clear.

Tanngrisnir · Aug 9, 2016

jmotivator said:
Oh irony. IT is you who seem to be ignorant of the meaning of ad hominem.

It was most definitely ad hominem. He specifically attacked the source rather than the argument.

Double down on that irony, sport.

"Well, I'll look forward to their prosecution of the Obama administration. " is simply not an ad hom, no matter how hard you stomp your feet and huff in indignation.

Sorry.

jmotivator · Aug 9, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
It was delivered in foreign cash.... Therefore not breaking the law:

......

"US officials said cash had to be flown in because existing US sanctions ban American dollars from being used in a transaction with Iran and because Iran could not access the global financial system due to international sanctions it was under at the time" US sent plane with $400 million in cash to Iran - CNNPolitics.com

That right there violates the law in question! Geeze, it's right there in the article if you'd bothered to read it. You are not allowed to convert assets to foreign currency in an effort to bypass the sanction in question.

"Although these regulations leave no room for doubt that their point is to prevent and criminalize things like sending $400 million in cash to the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, the ITSR adds another reg for good measure. Section 560.203 states: Evasions; attempts; causing violations; conspiracies: . . . Any transaction . . . that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited. . . . Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited."

This is precisely what the US official in the above quote is admitting to doing.

jmotivator · Aug 9, 2016

Tanngrisnir said:
Double down on that irony, sport.

"Well, I'll look forward to their prosecution of the Obama administration. " is simply not an ad hom, no matter how hard you stomp your feet and huff in indignation.

Sorry.

Oh good grief... how on Earth did you miss the sentence that immediately preceded that one? :roll:

Harshaw · Aug 9, 2016

Tanngrisnir said:
Double down on that irony, sport.

"Well, I'll look forward to their prosecution of the Obama administration. " is simply not an ad hom, no matter how hard you stomp your feet and huff in indignation.

Sorry.

That wasn't the ad hominem, dude. This was:

Jetboogieman said:
Oh the national review says so.

Did you leave that out to be dishonest, or because you didn't know better? It's one or the other.

Visbek · Aug 9, 2016

jmotivator said:
The source and purpose of the transaction is irrelevant when it comes to the law being violated.

The text of the law, and thus its scope, is entirely relevant to determining if the law was violated. I know this will come as a shock, but.... That's how the law actually works.

Again: This was not a payoff, the government did not give Iran $400 million as part of a prisoner exchange. They settled a lawsuit. They gave back Iran its own money. Thus, the sanctions do not apply.

The President himself admitted that the reason the $400 million was funneled through foreign currency was because US banking is prohibited from such direct money movement to the Government of Iran. The law that he used to justify this bizarre method of transaction also makes it illegal to bypass the sanction in the manner that Obama did.

Or: Obama was following the law, and working around the fact that we don't have any other options for handling this type of settlement.

There is very good reason why the DOJ objected to this money transfer.

lol

Sorry dude, they didn't object to the settlement. What they objected to was the timing, and not on legal grounds, but political ones. Even Fox got that one right.

“The Department of Justice fully supported the ultimate outcome of the Administration’s resolution of several issues with Iran, including Hague settlement efforts, as well as the return of U.S. citizens detained in Iran. We will not comment further on internal interagency deliberations.”

Justice Department officials reportedly objected to timing of Iran cash payment | Fox News

Harshaw · Aug 9, 2016

Visbek said:
Or: Obama was following the law, and working around the fact that we don't have any other options for handling this type of settlement.

No, actually, by their own account, they were going around the law. They said they were. This was already mentioned in this thread.

TheDemSocialist · Aug 9, 2016

jmotivator said:
That right there violates the law in question! Geeze, it's right there in the article if you'd bothered to read it. You are not allowed to convert assets to foreign currency in an effort to bypass the sanction in question.

"Although these regulations leave no room for doubt that their point is to prevent and criminalize things like sending $400 million in cash to the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, the ITSR adds another reg for good measure. Section 560.203 states: Evasions; attempts; causing violations; conspiracies: . . . Any transaction . . . that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited. . . . Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited."

This is precisely what the US official in the above quote is admitting to doing.

Funny how the National Review cherry picks a section of law while ignoring the rest of the law... Hmmm, I wonder why they would do that? Maybe cuz its partisan rag?

"Leaving aside this characterization of the law, the central claim – i.e., that the Obama administration acted in violation of the ITSR – is just plain and simple dead wrong. Indeed, in their rush to defame the Obama administration, critics have lost sight of the fact that certain transactions involving Iran can be either exempt or excepted from the ITSR’s prohibitions and thus permissible as a matter of law. This is the case with the transaction at issue, which was clearly authorized under existing license exceptions to the ITSR.
Specifically, the ITSR contains general license authorization located at 31 C.F.R. § 560.510(d)(2), which authorizes, in relevant part, “all transactions necessary to…payments pursuant to settlement agreements entered into by the United States Government in [] a legal proceeding [involving Iran].” Because the U.S.’s payment to Iran was in settlement of claims pending before the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal in The Hague – which, judging by its interminable length, is a legal proceeding if there ever was one – the U.S. government could use this express license authorization to engage in all transactions necessary to make payment pursuant to an agreement entered into with Iran to settle the claims. This includes the transfer of U.S. dollars for foreign currencies and the airlifting into Iran of these foreign currencies (totaling $400 million) in cash. The U.S. government thus did not even require specific license authorization – as was a question posed during last week’s State Department press briefing – as there existed a general license authorizing the payment at issue.
While this license authorization is directly on point, there is a ‘fall-back’ position for the administration as well: 31 C.F.R. § 560.510(a) constitutes a statement of licensing policy, which states that “specific licenses may be issued…to authorize transactions in connection with awards, decisions or orders of the Iran-United States Claim Tribunal in The Hague…; [or] agreements settling claims brought before tribunals…” In other words, the U.S. government has an established policy to grant license requests for payments to Iran to effectuate agreements settling claims before tribunals like the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal in The Hague. All that would need to be done is for the U.S. government to license itself to make the payment."
No, the $400 Million Cash Payment to Iran Didn’t Violate US Sanctions | Sanction Law

Harshaw · Aug 9, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
Funny how the National Review cherry picks a section of law while ignoring the rest of the law

Reading and understanding the actual article would keep you from claiming McCarthy did any such thing, because that isn't what he did.

Visbek · Aug 9, 2016

Harshaw said:
No, actually, by their own account, they were going around the law. They said they were. This was already mentioned in this thread.

They were complying with the law. They were working around the fact that because of the sanctions, we don't have any banking ties to Iran; and that Iran doesn't want USD.

Again, the law blocks: "The exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran is prohibited."

Nothing was exported; nothing was imported; nothing was sold; nothing was supplied; no goods were involved; no technology was transferred; no services were provided. What we did was refund Iran the purchase of a sale of military equipment (e.g. fighter jets) that the Shah ordered, and that we froze during the Hostage Crisis. It was a legal settlement, and we are obligated via US law to transfer the funds to them.

Harshaw · Aug 9, 2016

Visbek said:
They were complying with the law. They were working around the fact that because of the sanctions, we don't have any banking ties to Iran; and that Iran doesn't want USD.

Again, the law blocks: "The exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran is prohibited."

Nothing was exported; nothing was imported; nothing was sold; nothing was supplied; no goods were involved; no technology was transferred; no services were provided. What we did was refund Iran the purchase of a sale of military equipment (e.g. fighter jets) that the Shah ordered, and that we froze during the Hostage Crisis. It was a legal settlement, and we are obligated via US law to transfer the funds to them.

Read the article.

According to Treasury, within its own document concerning this very transaction (to which McCarthy linked), they conclude:

“the clearing of U.S. dollar- or other currency-denominated transactions through the U.S. financial system or involving a U.S. person remain prohibited[.]”

TheDemSocialist · Aug 9, 2016

Harshaw said:
Reading and understanding the actual article would keep you from claiming McCarthy did any such thing, because that isn't what he did.

Except thats exactly what he did because he failed to present parts of the law that clearly authorize the transactions under existing license exceptions to the ITSR......

jmotivator · Aug 9, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
Funny how the National Review cherry picks a section of law while ignoring the rest of the law... Hmmm, I wonder why they would do that? Maybe cuz its partisan rag?

"Leaving aside this characterization of the law, the central claim – i.e., that the Obama administration acted in violation of the ITSR – is just plain and simple dead wrong. Indeed, in their rush to defame the Obama administration, critics have lost sight of the fact that certain transactions involving Iran can be either exempt or excepted from the ITSR’s prohibitions and thus permissible as a matter of law. This is the case with the transaction at issue, which was clearly authorized under existing license exceptions to the ITSR.
Specifically, the ITSR contains general license authorization located at 31 C.F.R. § 560.510(d)(2), which authorizes, in relevant part, “all transactions necessary to…payments pursuant to settlement agreements entered into by the United States Government in [] a legal proceeding [involving Iran].” Because the U.S.’s payment to Iran was in settlement of claims pending before the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal in The Hague – which, judging by its interminable length, is a legal proceeding if there ever was one – the U.S. government could use this express license authorization to engage in all transactions necessary to make payment pursuant to an agreement entered into with Iran to settle the claims. This includes the transfer of U.S. dollars for foreign currencies and the airlifting into Iran of these foreign currencies (totaling $400 million) in cash. The U.S. government thus did not even require specific license authorization – as was a question posed during last week’s State Department press briefing – as there existed a general license authorizing the payment at issue.
While this license authorization is directly on point, there is a ‘fall-back’ position for the administration as well: 31 C.F.R. § 560.510(a) constitutes a statement of licensing policy, which states that “specific licenses may be issued…to authorize transactions in connection with awards, decisions or orders of the Iran-United States Claim Tribunal in The Hague…; [or] agreements settling claims brought before tribunals…” In other words, the U.S. government has an established policy to grant license requests for payments to Iran to effectuate agreements settling claims before tribunals like the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal in The Hague. All that would need to be done is for the U.S. government to license itself to make the payment."
No, the $400 Million Cash Payment to Iran Didn’t Violate US Sanctions | Sanction Law

Again, your argument ignores the justification for transfer to foreign currency to avoid the sanction.

If the section of ITSR actually applied to this transaction then there would have been no need to convert the currency as the administration did.

But then that is because this license that you mention is not as open as it seems:

§ 560.510(c)(2) Specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis to authorize the exportation to Iran or the Government of Iran of goods, and of services not otherwise authorized by § 560.525, necessary to the initiation and conduct of legal proceedings, in the United States or abroad, including administrative, judicial, and arbitral proceedings and proceedings before tribunals, except to the extent that the exportation is also subject to export licensing application requirements of another agency of the United States Government and the granting of such a license by that agency would be prohibited by law.

So you can't use this licensing to bypass legal prohibitions... such as the anti-Terrorism laws that Obama violated.

This is the language that was added to ITSR to ensure that the ITSR does not invalidate the existing sanctions on monetary transactions to State sponsors of terrorism. ITSR was written to not override those previous laws, full stop.

Opopanax · Aug 9, 2016

Harshaw said:
Not possible.

Obviously possible. It's happened.

It's not a good analogy. Prohibition did not require any state or local participation; no state or local laws needed to be passed for it to be enforced, and few were. As a federal matter, the repeal of Prohibition did instantly legalize alcohol consumption.

Apparently you don't understand analogies. It is not within my power to bestow that understanding upon you.

No conditions relevant to the statute changed, and even if they did, conditions changing doesn't nullify a statute. A statute must be amended or repealed by legislative action.

Conditions have changed. Why would you even assert something like that? Obviously they have changed. It's like you're pointing at a circle and demanding that someone explain to you how it's round. And yes, when a law is rendered obsolete by an action that supersedes it, the rest is formality. When same sex marriage was legalized, it was legalized instantly (and you have agreed that this is how it works), no one had to wait until Congress or any State legislatures got to work changing the laws.

This is completely wrong. You're arguing that the President has the power to unilaterally nullify (make "defunct") statutory law. That's absurd. It's not just absurd, it's profoundly ignorant, and smacks of a great deal of wishful thinking.

The President has the power to enter into agreements with foreign nations. How do you not know this? You're trying to do this black letter, by the book interpretation without making any inferences about how A effects B when C happens.

Even if what you said is correct, and it's not, how would it possibly violate "separation of powers"?

See above.

He was an adjunct lecturer.

And that means what? How does that warrant your assumption that he doesn't know as much about the Constitution as say----you? How do you make the assumption that he just decided to do this Iran deal without understanding the limitations of his office? Or that his advisors didn't thoroughly brief and let him know the potential pitfalls before acting? This deal was years in the making, but you assume that during that time, no one bothered to see if it was permissible?

If you've ever taken a Constitutional Law class from an actual, bona-fide professor of law, you'd know how silly this conclusion -- "he's a lawyer and he taught Constitutional law, therefore he knows what he's talking about" -- really is.

So that year I took in law school, with another year in criminal procedure doesn't count? I'm sure glad I met you so that now I can start learning about how the Constitution functions. And to not give one credit (in this case Obama) for what he is highly educated in is... I don't know what to call it. For example, I give credit to Trump for knowing all about bankruptcy law due to his extensive experience in it. If he wants to tell me how it works, I'll listen to him. I don't work in bankruptcy, nor do I plan to, so I'll listen to someone who does.

So . . .

1) You assume things you don't know.

2) You're not going to go looking to see if what you assume is correct, and

3) You think there's a "SCOTUS" precendent for just about any legal question, and that they actually declare things legal and illegal. (See "separation of powers," supra.

1. Wrong

2. Here's the deal. Real legal research takes time. And I've done it for people on forums just like this one. What I learned from that is that it's a waste of time. People read a statute, come to a seriously erroneous conclusion about it, and then start drawing conclusion that have no basis in anything. Then I look it up, find on-point case history, and post it with explanations. To do that usually seems to take an hour or two. Then what happens? Either no response or a response that is utterly bereft of any willingness to understand. Or they just don't read it and keep on with their initial and wrong idea. So I don't bother. And you seem to be just the type of person I'm talking about. If you were familiar with the concepts that I talked about, your responses to it would be very different. But they're not.

3. Precedent is what lower courts are generally obligated to use in making their decisions. There isn't a law saying it must be used in every instance, because things come up that challenge certain laws. But it is one of the most important concepts in deciding cases. So what you need to do, if you want your argument to carry any legal weight, is present proof that an unlawful act by the President has taken place. And that proof must consist of a statute with an authoritative interpretation of it that is on point with this transaction.

ETA: Go read American Ins. v Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003). It took me 5 minutes to find.

Tanngrisnir · Aug 9, 2016

Harshaw said:
That wasn't the ad hominem, dude. This was:

Did you leave that out to be dishonest, or because you didn't know better? It's one or the other.

So why leave it in why leave it in the post, if that's the case?

This isn't rocket science.

Harshaw · Aug 9, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
Except thats exactly what he did because he failed to present parts of the law that clearly authorize the transactions under existing license exceptions to the ITSR......

Your article cited the CFR, not the US Code, which was what McCarthy was arguing from.

Harshaw · Aug 9, 2016

Tanngrisnir said:
So why leave it in why leave it in the post, if that's the case?

This isn't rocket science.

Apparently it is to YOU; this post makes no sense.

Why leave the actual relevant part of the quote "in"? You'd probably want to in order to argue honestly. Of course, if that's not a concern of yours, then understood.

apdst · Aug 9, 2016

Harshaw said:
McCarthy is a respected former federal prosecutor. If you have issues with his analysis, post them.

This doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. The libbos know that Obama is above the law.

President Obama Violated the Law with His Ransom Payment to Iran

Well-known member

Gradualist

Computer Gaming Nerd

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Gradualist

Stuck In The Circle

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Stuck In The Circle

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Gradualist

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Stuck In The Circle

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Gradualist

Computer Gaming Nerd

Well-known member

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot