90 Miles From Tyranny

Monday, May 14, 2018

Bolton: Iran's Economy 'Quite Shaky,' So Effect of Sanctions 'Could Be Dramatic'

Regime change in Iran is "not the policy of the administration," National Security Adviser John Bolton told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "The policy of the administration is to make sure that Iran never gets close to deliverable nuclear weapons," he said.

But on CNN's "State of the Union," Bolton noted that getting out of the Iran nuclear deal will result in the reimposition of American sanctions on Iran: "And I think what we've seen is that Iran's economic condition is really quite shaky, so that the effect here could be dramatic," Bolton told CNN's Jake Tapper.

Tapper noted that Bolton repeatedly pushed for regime change in Iran before he became national security adviser. "I know that is not the current position of the United States government. But are you behind the scenes pushing for it to become the position of the United States government, regime change?" Tapper asked Bolton.

Bolton replied that he has "written and said a lot of things over the years when I was a complete free agent. I certainly stand by what I said at the time. But -- but those were my opinions then.

"The circumstance I'm in now is that I'm the national security adviser to the president. I'm not the national security decision-maker. He makes the decisions, and the advice I give him is between us."

Meanwhile, CBS's "Face the Nation" started on Sunday with a report from foreign correspondent Elizabeth Palmer in Tehran. Host Margaret Brennan asked Palmer how Iranian citizens are reacting to the U.S. pulling out of the nuclear deal:

"Well, the hard-liners hit the streets after President Trump's decision, with the old cries of 'Death to America,'" Palmer responded. "But they and everybody else are actually much more angry with their own government. They're fed up, because they haven't had salary increases. There are no jobs. There's corruption. And, most of all, they say the Iranian government can offer nothing but a bleak future.

"I have never heard people so angry here. At the moment, the government is keeping a lid on little protests that have been springing up everywhere, but it's anyone's guess how long they...

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called President Trump an asset in the upcoming 2018 midterm elections, saying he has resonated with voters in key states.

"The president is strong in these states," Ryan said on Saturday at the Wisconsin Republican convention, according to The Associated Press.

"He's an asset...Whether I'm running around southern Wisconsin or America, nobody is talking about Stormy Daniels. Nobody is talking about Russia. They're talking about their lives and their problems. They're talking about their communities, they're talking about jobs, they're talking about the economy, they're talking about national security," he continued.

However, Ryan reportedly cautioned Republicans about a potential Democratic "blue wave" in November.

"The 'blue wave," as they say it, they want to take it all away," he said, the AP reported.

Republicans are gearing up to defend their majorities in the House and Senate in November.

The GOP has touted an improved economy and the new tax plan ahead of the November races.

A CNN poll out earlier this month showed that 57 percent of those surveyed believe the country is doing well, an uptick from 49 percent in February. At the same time, a CBS poll also out this month showed that 66 percent of those polled believe the economy is good.

Trump has expressed an eagerness to campaign for Republicans ahead of the elections, which are widely expected to be a referendum on his first two years in office.

The president last week touted Republican wins in primary elections across the country and predicted victory for...

You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?

It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,

from the beautiful to the repugnant,

from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,

you could be inspired, you could be appalled.

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.

You have been warned.

IRAN: Deal or No Deal?

Girls With Guns

How easy we forget. On November 19, 2015, the State Department sent a letter to then-Representative Mike Pompeo that severely undercuts the notion that the Iran deal represents any form of binding American commitment. It turns out that the Obama administration not only acknowledged that the deal wasn’t a treaty (obvious enough), but it also admitted that it wasn’t “an executive agreement” or even a “signed document.” Here are the key paragraphs:

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China), and the European Union. As you know, the United States has a long-standing practice of addressing sensitive problems in negotiations that culminate in political commitments.

The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose — and ramp up — our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments.

You can read the entire letter here.

“President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal.”

The Iran deal was no sacred American commitment. This was the action of one administration, working with allies and other nations who were fully aware of American domestic skepticism and fully aware of the nature of the “political commitment” they were making.

As our Joel Gehrke reported in 2015, “President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal.” In short, there was nothing truly binding about this deal. From its inception it existed only so long it was politically or strategically expedient for the relevant parties. The only thing truly concrete that came out of the JCPOA was the substantial financial benefit to the world’s most dangerous jihadist state.
COMMENTS

Finally, let’s not forget that one of the justifications for the deal was the entirely faith-based belief that it could represent a turning point in American-Iranian relations, one that would ultimately lead to Iran “fully rejoin[ing] the community of nations.” That didn’t happen. Instead, Iran doubled down on jihad and doubled-down on its efforts to directly threaten Israel from bases in Syria. A foundational premise of the agreement went up in the choking smoke Middle Eastern war.

The Iran deal wasn’t binding then, and it’s not binding now. It wasn’t a true “agreement” then, and it isn’t now. America can’t break its word when it....

High-level Obama officials, including John Brennan and John Kerry, appear to have attempted to entrap Trump campaign officials and candidate Trump himself. This very likely scenario is being closely looked at after Wall Street Journal editor Kimberly Strassel reported there was a mole placed in or close to the Trump campaign.

This isn’t how things are supposed to work in the United States. “This is not who we are,” to quote Obama.
Tying in what we know about spying, unmasking, and leaked texts, it appears the Obama administration was actually attempting to entrap them, in other words, frame them. They might have believed they were doing it to protect the nation, but it appears to be a set up.
Former Business Insider Bureau Chief Paul Sperry believes it was a frame-up, entrapment

Reporter Paul Sperry tweeted on May 11: DEVELOPING: A major new front is opening in the political espionage scandal. In summer 2016, Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok, along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel assets

Kimberly Strassel elaborates on her report of a mole in the campaign:

WHO IS THE MOLE?

Kimberly Strassel reported in an op-ed on May 10 titled, ‘About that FBI Source’, that there was a mole planted in or close to the Trump campaign.

Several people have been mentioned as candidates, including....

Happy Mother's Day

For all the love, sacrifice, thoughtfulness, affection, and all the other wonderful things mother's give us, Enjoy tour Day!

Mueller Indicted A Russian Company That Didn't Even Exist, Court Transcripts Say

This week, one of the Russian companies accused by Special Counsel Robert Mueller of funding a conspiracy to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was revealed in court to not have existed during the time period alleged by Mueller's team of prosecutors, according to a lawyer representing the defendant.

U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey asked Eric Dubelier, one of two lawyers representing the accused Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, if he was representing a third company listed in Mueller's indictment.

"What about Concord Catering?" Harvey asked Dubelier. "The government makes an allegation that there's some association. I don't mean for you to – do you represent them, or not, today? And are we arraigning them as well?"

"We're not," Dubelier responded. "And the reason for that, Your Honor, is I think we're dealing with a situation of the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich."

"That company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government," Dubelier continued. "If at some later time they show me that it did exist, we would probably represent them. But for purposes of today, no, we do not."

The term "indict a ham sandwich" is believed to have originated from a 1985 report in the New York Daily News when New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler told the news publication that government prosecutors have so much influence over grand juries that they could get them to...