Obama's Treason: Worse Than We Thought

Obama's Treason: Worse Than We Thought

The Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday that “the Obama administration skirted key U.S. sanctions to grant Iran access to billions in hard currency despite public assurances the administration was engaged in no such action, according to a new congressional investigation.”

And it gets even worse: “The investigation, published Wednesday by the House Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, further discloses secret efforts by top Obama administration officials to assure European countries they would receive a pass from U.S. sanctions if they engaged in business with Iran.”

This revelation comes after the news that came to light in February, that, according to Bill Gertz in the Washington Times, “the U.S. government has traced some of the $1.7 billion released to Iran by the Obama administration to Iranian-backed terrorists in the two years since the cash was transferred.”

There is a law that applies to this situation. U.S. Code 2381 says: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

In a sane political environment, Barack Obama would be tried for treason...

He showered hundreds of billions of dollars on the Islamic Republic of Iran. There are those who say, “It was their money. It belonged to the Iranian government but was frozen and not paid since 1979.” Indeed, and there was a reason for that: not even Jimmy Carter, who made the Islamic Republic of Iran possible, thought that money, which had been paid by the Shah’s government in a canceled arms deal, belonged to the mullahs who overthrew the Shah. Likewise Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush all thought that the Islamic Republic was not due money that was owed to the Shah.

Only Barack Obama did.

The definition of treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran order their people to chant “Death to America” in mosques every Friday, and repeatedly vow that they will ultimately destroy the United States of America and the state of Israel. How was giving them billions and helping them skirt sanctions applied by the U.S. government not treason?

Other Presidents have been incompetent, corrupt, dishonest, but which has committed treason on a scale to rival the treason of Barack Obama?

The Iranians also operate a global network of jihad terror organizations, one of which, Hizballah, is quite active in Mexico now, with the obvious ultimate intention of crossing the border and committing jihad massacres of Americans. Obama has given a tremendous boost to these initiatives, as well as to Iran’s nuclear program, with his nuclear deal that has given the Iranians hundreds of billions of dollars and essentially a green light to manufacture nuclear weapons, in exchange for absolutely nothing.

There is no telling when the worst consequences of Obama’s aid and comfort to the Islamic Republic of Iran will be felt. But they likely will be felt in one way or another. Even as President Trump moves swiftly to restore sanctions and put Iran on notice that its nuclear activity and global adventurism will not be tolerated, those billions cannot be recovered, and the Iranians have already spent a great deal for their jihad cause.

However this catastrophe plays out, there is one man who will suffer no consequences whatsoever: Barack Obama. That’s Leftist Privilege. It’s good to be a powerful Leftist in Washington nowadays. Laws? Pah! Laws are for conservatives.

https://freedomoutpost.com/obamas-treason-worse-than-we-thought/

And a publisher is paying him in the tens of millions to write his memoir. The wife too.

http://www.iran911case.com/

Sept. 14, 2011 Iran Helped Plan 9/11
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/8648.7.0.0/world/terrorism/iran-helped-plan-9-11


The U.S. 9/11 Commission assembled to investigate the attacks concluded
that Iran played a role in facilitating the al Qaeda terrorists.


June 8, 2018 Iran Admits To Facilitating 9/11 Terror Attacks
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-admits-facilitating-9-11-terror-attacks/

Like we didn't see this coming in '08?

Most did not. Some did.

Let's hope they are written behind bars.

In a democratic society, one is considered quilty after it has been proven in the court. Not after somebody made a conviction.

Thats why "me too", for example, is so stupid.

that is how it is supposed to work. but, in modern America, the media decides who is guilty or not.

Truly sad and according to the liberal media, "it doesn't seem to matter what's done, all that seems to matters is WHO did it."

Seems the democratic party would beg to differ concerning their slander against our president.
As for the disparaging remark concerning the Me Too movement, you should be ashamed to be so ill informed and judgmental. Do some research.

We who did not vote for him did. His so called pastor that he claimed he saw as an uncle was a plant so as to inform the voter public Obama was a Christian. Even when there is no religious test to assume office. When that uncle was proven to be an unapologetic seditionist and racist, Obama tried to lie and claim in those fake 20 years he'd sat in the pews listening to the man preach he never saw that.

One representative said to the media well into Obama's second term that the only reason he hadn't been impeached is due to the charge of racism that would follow.
That's pathetic! Obama's race made him untouchable to the laws that would prosecute his treason and stop him acting on his pure ice cold hatred for America. And rarely does media mention that all of Hillary's evils, her federal law breaking, her flagrant felonies while his choice as Secretary of State, were performed under his orders.

May we learn from that mistake. No doubt his memoir will sell out to those who are still blind to the felon he is.

Well said. Absolutely no one had the courage to call a spade a spade.

If someone had the courage to call a spade a spade they would be labeled a racist.

Iranian deal disaster from start

June 12, 2018 The Bad Iranian Deal Was Always Going to Get Worse
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/iran-nuclear-deal-disaster-from-the-start/

“
The more we learn about it — as Iranian and Obama-administration deceptions are uncovered — the more we know it was a disaster from the start…

There is no wonder, then, why almost every news story about the Iran deal has confirmed
the wisdom of getting out of it.

1) On the eve of Trump’s decision to withdraw from the deal, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dramatic televised disclosures of captured Iranian documents more or less confirmed the obvious: Iran never had any intention of forgoing its nuclear-bomb-making efforts, as implied by prior politicized national-intelligence estimates. The only mystery was why Iran had carefully recorded evidence of its own deception. In eerie fashion, it was almost as if at some future date Iran had planned to add insult to injury by reminding its mugged partners just how gullible they had been. Or perhaps some Iranian diplomatic grandees feared that in revolutionary Tehran, any purported appeasers would have been tried for treason, so they needed documentary evidence that they had been patriotic cheaters all along.

2) To swing the deal, the Obama administration sent advisers around the banking world to facilitate Iranian efforts to convert their released embargoed funds into Great Satan currency — a warping of the American financial system that was ostensibly illegal at the time. In other words, the Obama administration for some strange reason more or less went beyond the requirements of the Iran deal and used the U.S. government to help undermine its own restrictions on facilitating Iranian commerce and banking — while keeping the entire sordid mess quiet as they hectored skeptics of the deal as naïve or conspiratorial. Such habitual Obama-administration deception and conniving may explain why former secretary of state John Kerry this May so publicly and nonchalantly met Iranian representatives overseas, apparently seeing nothing wrong in the attempt to undermine the very policies of his own president. Old habits die hard.

3) Recently, we’ve seen more of the same Iranian self-congratulation for their own powers of deception — this time relating to the September 11 attacks. After the cancellation of the Iran deal, Iran’s state-controlled television mysteriously released the Farsi-language confessionals of one Mohammad-Javad Larijani. He is a supposed “international-affairs assistant” who conceded that Iranian intelligence officers had intentionally given the 9/11 al-Qaeda murderers safe transit through the Islamic Republic before 9/11. The natural logic is that only thanks to Iran’s complicity did the World Trade Center implode. One wonders to what degree Larijani’s bizarre boast is true or the sick and spiteful baiting of a sore loser — or whether the Obama administration knew of such rumored Iranian 9/11 involvement in 9/11 at the time of the Iran deal. In any case, Iran made official what most knew from 1979 onward: It has been in a perpetual war with the United States, whom it fears and hates.

4) Given the Iranian sense of inferiority and its tic of goading its hated Great Satan rival, expect more such disclosures in the future, as Iran now tries to humiliate the U.S. for its prior stupidity as recompense for its inability to leverage our imbecility any further.

5) With a wink and nod, Iran also announced that its supposedly mothballed nuclear facility at Natanz will restart uranium enrichment with new centrifuges, but for now theoretically in accordance with the Iran deal. We are supposed to think that the trustworthy Iranians would not have done that, or would not have been capable of doing that, had Trump just kept up the nonproliferation charade. Or is it worse than that? Are they again hinting that they the deal was so bad and their proliferation efforts so easily jump-started, that they have always had only contempt for those so stupid to take them at their word?

JUNE 14 The silencing of the inspectors general
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/obama-administration-stonewalled-inspectors-general/

“
Department of Justice inspector general Michael Horowitz, an Obama administration appointee, is scheduled to deliver a report this week on DOJ and FBI abuses during the 2016 campaign cycle. Remember: His last investigation of FBI misconduct advised a criminal referral for fired former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who allegedly lied to federal investigators.

McCabe and at least a half-dozen other FBI employees quit, retired, were fired, or were reassigned as a result of fallout from the politicization of the FBI. Yet, as Barack Obama left office, his chief of staff, Denis McDonough, strangely boasted that the Obama administration “has been historically free of scandal.” Obama himself recently concluded of his eight-year tenure, “I didn’t have scandals.”

Those were puzzling assertions, given nearly nonstop scandals during Obama’s eight years in office involving the IRS; General Services Administration; Peace Corps; Secret Service; Veterans Administration; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, not to mention the Clinton email-server scandal, the Benghazi scandal, and the 2016 Democratic National Committee email scandal.

For nearly eight years, the Obama administration sought to cover up serial wrongdoing by waging a veritable war against the watchdog inspectors general of various federal agencies.

In 2014, 47 of the nation’s 73 inspectors general signed a letter alleging that Obama had stonewalled their “ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.”

The frustrated nonpartisan auditors cited systematic Obama-administration refusals to turn over incriminating documents that were central to their investigations............
”

JUNE 14, 2018 Insubordination and bias at FBI
https://www.wsj.com/articles/insubordination-and-bias-at-fbi-1529018176

“
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 500-page report covers plenty,
but it can be distilled to two words he uses to describe the Federal Bureau of Investigation
during the 2016 election: insubordination and bias. Two terms that are chilling in connection
with such a powerful agency.

That won’t be the message from Democrats and most of the press, who will focus on a few
episodes they will claim cost Hillary Clinton an election. Watch for them to blame former FBI
Director James Comey, whom the report faults for “a serious error of judgment,” for having
“concealed information” from superiors, and for “violation of or disregard for” departmental
and bureau policies.

True, the report is damning about the man who lectures Americans on “higher loyalty.” It
describes how an “insubordinate” Mr. Comey was, as early as April 2016, considering how
to cut his Justice Department bosses from a public statement exonerating Hillary Clinton.
He hid this scheme for fear “they would instruct him not to do it”—and therefore was able to
“avoid supervision.” He then “violated long-standing Department practice and protocol” by
using his July 5 press conference for “criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct.” In October,
he made public that the FBI had reopened the investigation, even though the Justice Depart-
ment recommended he not do so. Mr. Comey went rogue, and President Trump had plenty of
justification in firing him in May 2017.

Yet it is the report’s findings on the wider culture of the FBI and Justice Department that are
most alarming. The report depicts agencies that operate outside the rules to which they hold
everybody else, and that showed extraordinary bias while investigating two presidential candidates.
”

from the report itself:

“We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations”

the facts are that Comey was insubordinate and careless in his public discussions and disclosures regarding the Clinton investigation during the campaign and that ((at least)) two agents were out of line talking about ((then candidate)) Trump, but that neither the conclusion of the Clinton investigation nor the investigation into the Trump campaign was affected by or was a product of bias or improper/illegal activities undertaken by the bureau, according to the evidence.

the line i quoted, 'agencies operating outside the rules' and 'extraordinary bias while investigating' are not supported by the report. they are hyperbolic, partisan insinuation which directly contradict the findings of the report itself IMO.

if you want to point at Comey's actions as 'extraordinary bias' they are bias towards Trump and against Clinton, in matter of fact, considering what was made public during the campaign and what was not made public during the campaign.