CNN Fact Checking needs some new fact checking.

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
I always go to CNN and MSNBC after the state of the Union to see the reaction to the speech and it was hard to watch CNN try to tear down a speech that 70+% of America approved of (CBS poll).

The funniest thing is the CNN fact check (linked below) Instead of fact checking (they could not come up with falsehoods) so they went with opinion and the always popular "you need to look at it from this perspective."

One of my favorite fact checks is Rx drug prices. They actually quote Big Pharma and conservatives to try and paint a picture that he lied. You know it's bad when they go that route.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/fact-check-trump-state-of-the-union/index.html
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,860
282
83
Better yet, people who actually have an informed opinion approved is at 76%. Why would anyone who did not watch the speech have an opinion on it?
Do you think that anyone other than Repubs watched it?
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
Do you think that anyone other than Repubs watched it?

I would hope. I have watched every SOTU address since I graduated college regardless of political party. Are you saying the Dems listened to M. Waters and tuned out, but they are outraged at the content? Maybe that's why liberals get it wrong so much, they wait to get their talking points from the socialist's without ever forming their own informed opinion. I guess the NPC meme really do tell the whole story...
,
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,860
282
83
I would hope. I have watched every SOTU address since I graduated college regardless of political party. Are you saying the Dems listened to M. Waters and tuned out, but they are outraged at the content? Maybe that's why liberals get it wrong so much, they wait to get their talking points from the socialist's without ever forming their own informed opinion. I guess the NPC meme really do tell the whole story...
,
Maxine Waters gave an address last night? I guess I missed that. Trump has no credibility. He thinks there's no penalty for lying but of course there is, you lose your credibility. Why would I listen to someone that you can't believe one word that they say? The rest of your post is gibberish.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
Maxine Waters gave an address last night? I guess I missed that. Trump has no credibility. He thinks there's no penalty for lying but of course there is, you lose your credibility. Why would I listen to someone that you can't believe one word that they say? The rest of your post is gibberish.

M. Waters gave a sound bite yesterday and said that she was not attending the SOTU and stated that everyone should tune out and not watch the address.

Every politician has lied, every one of them from every party. Are you telling me that Clinton always told the truth? He was impeached for lying! Obama was no different. The only difference is you live in a silo and only see/hear what your handlers tell you.
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,860
282
83
M. Waters gave a sound bite yesterday and said that she was not attending the SOTU and stated that everyone should tune out and not watch the address.

Every politician has lied, every one of them from every party. Are you telling me that Clinton always told the truth? He was impeached for lying! Obama was no different. The only difference is you live in a silo and only see/hear what your handlers tell you.
Regarding lying, Trump is in a league of his own and no one is even close to him. It's the shear volume of his lies that is truly staggering. He lies all day every day. That's all he does. Trump hates the truth and wants everyone to listen to only him and believe only him. It would be funny if he weren't the POTUS. No leader of any other country can trust him. No one trusts the U.S. now. Thanks Trump.
 

boomerwv

Freshman
Jan 16, 2008
9,988
79
48
People who eatch the SOTU are by and large people who like hearing Trump talk. Obama and Bush had SOTU approvals in the 80s at times. Its meaningless and forgotten quickly.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
People who eatch the SOTU are by and large people who like hearing Trump talk. Obama and Bush had SOTU approvals in the 80s at times. Its meaningless and forgotten quickly.

OK, new rules for Trump I guess.
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,556
40
31
Didn't we just have a few stories about online polls in the last few news cycles? They seem legit.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
Regarding lying, Trump is in a league of his own and no one is even close to him. It's the shear volume of his lies that is truly staggering. He lies all day every day. That's all he does. Trump hates the truth and wants everyone to listen to only him and believe only him. It would be funny if he weren't the POTUS. No leader of any other country can trust him. No one trusts the U.S. now. Thanks Trump.

Wow, for someone who does not pay attention to him, you sure do a lot fact checking. Do you catch all of his lies, or do you use SNOPE's or another left leaning organization to do that?

A little fun history lesson. The Clinton's created the first fact check website to counter claims of the right. It was actually run by their campaign and from the beginning used only narratives that either tore down the opposition or propped up their baseless claims. It has only gotten more political since then.
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
M. Waters gave a sound bite yesterday and said that she was not attending the SOTU and stated that everyone should tune out and not watch the address.

Every politician has lied, every one of them from every party. Are you telling me that Clinton always told the truth? He was impeached for lying! Obama was no different. The only difference is you live in a silo and only see/hear what your handlers tell you.

I agree that every politician lies. But most don't lie about trivial stuff like "greatest job growth ever, best economy ever, largest crowd ever, smarter than my generals....."

He doesn't even try to tell the truth. That is why I can't stand him
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
I agree that every politician lies. But most don't lie about trivial stuff like "greatest job growth ever, best economy ever, largest crowd ever, smarter than my generals....."

He doesn't even try to tell the truth. That is why I can't stand him

My wife is known is to embellish a story to make it more entertaining, but like Trump, is that a true definition of lying...Here is a fact check for BHO- looks similar to me:

FactChecking the State of the Union

Obama stretched the facts in his final SOTU on jobs, deficits, health care, military spending and carbon emissions.

By FactCheck.org

Posted on January 13, 2016

Jan. 12 State of the Union address with a promise: “Tonight marks the eighth year that I’ve come here to report on the state of the union. And for this final one, I’m going to try to make it a little shorter.” And he sort of succeeded — if we only count the seven, not eight, official SOTU addresses. According to data from The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the latest speech clocked in at 58 minutes and 44 seconds, more than a minute shorter than 2013’s 59-minute-51-second address. (And several minutes below Obama’s average of one hour, two minutes and 45 seconds.)

But Obama’s 2009 speech, which the project notes was technically not a State of the Union, was only 51 minutes and 44 seconds.

Now we’ll look at what the president actually said in his 58-plus minutes.

Jobs & the Deficit
As he has done in the past, Obama embellished the statistical record of his presidency by selective omissions.

Jobs — He crowed about “more than 14 million new jobs,” when the net gain in total employment since he first took office is actually just under 9.3 million. What he didn’t spell out is that he was omitting the more than 4 million jobs lost during the first 13 months of his presidency, and ignoring losses of state and local government jobs as well.

Though he did not make it clear, he was actually referring to the change only in private sector jobs, and only since the job losses hit bottom in February 2010. And as of December that gain indeed stood at 14.1 million.

Unemployment rate — The president also referred to “an unemployment rate cut in half.” Actually, the jobless rate when he took office was 7.8 percent, and it has dropped to 5 percent as of December. It’s only “cut in half” if measured from the worst point of his presidency, which was the 10 percent rate recorded in October 2009.

Manufacturing — Obama also cherry-picked when he spoke of manufacturing jobs. The president said, “That’s just part of a manufacturing surge that’s created nearly 900,000 new jobs in the past six years.” The gain was 878,000 to be exact, measured from the low point in his presidency.

But of course, he has been president for seven years, not just six. And over his entire time in office, the U.S. has lost 230,000 manufacturing jobs, dropping from 12,561,000 jobs in January 2009 to 12,331,000 in December 2015, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Deficit — He also boasted that “we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters.” That’s close to true if measured from the $1.4 trillion deficit run up in fiscal 2009. The final figure for FY 2015 — which ended Sept. 30 — was $438.9 billion.

So that’s still 31 percent of the 2009 figure, which is closer to a two-thirds reduction than a three-quarters reduction.

More important, it ignores Obama’s own contribution to that record 2009 deficit. As we’ve shown before, Obama’s early initiatives increased FY 2009 spending — and thus the deficit — by as much as $203 billion. So his claim to have reduced the deficit by three-quarters is akin to a merchant who raises his price one day and declares “75 percent off” the next.

Health Care Inflation
Obama again credited the Affordable Care Act for slow growth in health care inflation that economists have pinned largely on the economy, and that started before the ACA was even passed.

“Nearly 18 million people have gained coverage so far,” Obama said of his health care overhaul. “And in the process, health care inflation has slowed.”

As we have written several times now, health care spending has grown at historically low rates in recent years. From 2009 to 2012, total national health care expenditures rose at rates around 4 percent per year, and dipped as low as 2.9 percent in 2013. For 2014, the latest figure available, health care spending growth jumped up to 5.3 percent (see Table 1 of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ health care expenditures data).

The journal Health Affairs noted in 2012 that the growth rates were the lowest since CMS started compiling the National Health Expenditure Accounts data in 1960.

But what impact would the ACA have had on spending growth rates? Note that the slowdown began in 2009, a year before the health care law was enacted. And the latest figure for 2014 — a year in which the major coverage provisions of the law went into effect, including the establishment of the health care exchanges and expansion of Medicaid — actually went up.

In fact, experts have said the lower rates of growth have been largely a reflection of the sluggish economy. A 2013 analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation said that “much of the decline in health spending growth in recent years was fully expected given what was happening more broadly in the economy.” CMS’ experts said in 2014 that the ACA had had a “minimal impact.”

The health care law could have had some effect on the slower growth: Drew Altman, CEO of KFF, wrote in 2013 that the law could be having an indirect effect, and the White House Council of Economic Advisers’ November 2013 report said that the ACA’s reductions in Medicare spending would have a “spillover effect” on spending overall.

Obama ties an increase in the number of insured to a slowdown in health spending, but back in 2014 CMS’ experts projected the opposite: a bump up in the growth rate in the future, due to expanded insurance coverage under the ACA. CMS estimated an average growth of 6 percent per year for 2015 through 2023, “largely as a result of the continued implementation of the ACA coverage expansions, faster projected economic growth, and the aging of the population.”

And 2014’s growth rate of 5.3 percent moves health care spending toward that very projection.

As for Obama’s claim that “nearly 18 million have gained coverage so far,” that’s an administration estimate based largely on the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index Survey through September 2015. The administration says 15.3 million gained insurance coverage through the individual marketplace, including the state and federal exchanges, and Medicaid, and another 2.3 million young adults have gained coverage due to the ACA’s September 2010 provision requiring insurers to keep them on their parents’ plans until age 26.

These are estimates, and the more robust and official numbers from the CDC’s National Health Interview Survey only go through June 2015. But they show a drop in the uninsured of 17.8 million from 2009, a year before the ACA was enacted (46.3 million), to the first six months of 2015 (28.5 million).

Cutting Carbon Emissions
As he did in his 2014 address, Obama claimed that the U.S. has “cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.” That’s true, at least in terms of the total tonnage of emissions reduced. However, other countries have reduced their emissions by a larger percentage than the U.S.

We most recently checked this claim in December when Secretary of State John Kerry said “the United States of America has already reduced its emissions more than any other country in the world.”

As we pointed out then, the U.S., the second largest emitter of carbon pollution, reduced its emissions by 583 million metric tons between 2003 and 2012. That’s more than any other country, according to Energy Information Administration data. But that’s also a 10 percent reduction, and other nations including France (10.7 percent) and the United Kingdom (12.9 percent), to name a few, saw larger percentage reductions during that time period.

Military Spending
The president said that the U.S. spends “more on our military than the next eight nations combined.” That’s not quite accurate but close enough in terms of raw dollars, based an April 2015 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute on military expenditures of the top 15 spenders.

That report shows that the U.S. spent $610 billion on defense in 2014, while the next eight nations spent a combined total of $646.4 billion. (The spending amounts for three of the eight countries — China, Russia and Germany — are estimates.)

Also, the report makes a couple of points worth noting, including that military spending in the U.S. has been on the decline while “China, Russia and Saudi Arabia continued to make substantial increases in military expenditures” in 2014.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, April 2015: While the USA remains clearly the world’s largest military spender, at nearly three times the level of second-placed China, its expenditure dropped by 6.5 percent in 2014, largely as a result of budget deficit control measures put in place by the US legislature under the 2011 Budget Control Act. US military spending is expected to fall again in 2015 but at a slower rate. … In 2014 China, Russia and Saudi Arabia were the second, third and fourth highest military spenders, respectively. China’s expenditure rose by 9.7 percent, Russia’s spending was up 8.1 percent and Saudi Arabia’s by 17 percent.

Also, as a share of the nation’s economy, the U.S. spends 3.5 percent of its gross domestic product — which is only the fourth highest of the top 15 countries. Saudi Arabia (10.4 percent), United Arab Emirates (5.4 percent) and Russia (4.5 percent) spend more on the military as a share of GDP than the United States.

— by Eugene Kiely, Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley and D’Angelo Gore

Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Total Nonfarm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 12 Jan 2016.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Total Private Employment, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 12 Jan 2016.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Total Manufacturing Employment, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 12 Jan 2016.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey; Unemployment Rate, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 12 Jan 2016.

Office of Management and Budget. “Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2020.” Mar 2015.

U.S. Treasury. “Final Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2015.” Oct 2015.

Jackson, Brooks. “Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?” FactCheck.org. 4 Jun 2012.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group. Table 1: National Health Expenditures, Aggregate and Per Capita Amounts, Annual Percentage Change and Percent Distribution, Selected Calendar Years, 1960-2014. Accessed 13 Jan 2016.

Martin, Anne et. al. “Growth In US Health Spending Remained Slow In 2010; Health Share Of Gross Domestic Product Was Unchanged From 2009.” Health Affairs. Jan 2012.

Kaiser Family Foundation. “Assessing the Effects of the Economy on the Recent Slowdown in Health Spending.” 22 Apr 2013.

Martin, Anne et. al. “National Health Spending In 2012: Rate Of Health Spending Growth Remained Low For The Fourth Consecutive Year.” Health Affairs. Jan 2014.

Department of Health and Human Services. Secretary Burwell previews third Open Enrollment. press release. 22 Sep 2015.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data From the National Health Interview Survey, January–June 2015.” Nov 2015.

Altman, Drew. “How ACA may be holding down costs.” Politico.com. 26 Sep 2013.

FactCheck.org. “Facts of the Union.” 29 Jan 2014.

FactCheck.org. “Climate Change Review.” 14 Dec 2015.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2014.” 13 Apr 2015.
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
Wow, for someone who does not pay attention to him, you sure do a lot fact checking. Do you catch all of his lies, or do you use SNOPE's or another left leaning organization to do that?

A little fun history lesson. The Clinton's created the first fact check website to counter claims of the right. It was actually run by their campaign and from the beginning used only narratives that either tore down the opposition or propped up their baseless claims. It has only gotten more political since then.

I do my own research....last night I found that the US has the 11th best economy in per capita GDP. Not the best economy by far, as trump claimed, using that measure. He surely hasn't had the best job growth ever. His quarterly GDPs have never exceeded Obama's best quarters even with a massive tax cut.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
I do my own research....last night I found that the US has the 11th best economy in per capita GDP. Not the best economy by far, as trump claimed, using that measure. He surely hasn't had the best job growth ever. His quarterly GDPs have never exceeded Obama's best quarters even with a massive tax cut.

see my post above...

Politician's always make things seem better/worse than they are.

You measure the economy by one measure, GDP. I remember Macro a little and the term Economy is more than just GDP, it's multiple factors. Do you really think that the economy is a low point right now?
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
My wife is known is to embellish a story to make it more entertaining, but like Trump, is that a true definition of lying...Here is a fact check for BHO- looks similar to me:

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, April 2015: While the USA remains clearly the world’s largest military spender, at nearly .

First of all, I was not a fan of Obama's. In fact I thought he was pretty bad until Trump took the role. Hey we all embellish to so degree. I drained a 50 ft putt when it was a straight uphill 35 footer. Yes politicians lie and exaggerate.

But to my point, I don't recall Obama claiming best economy ever....knowing more than his generals....his national security leaders mischaracterized (when testimony was recored).....biggest crowd ever....... Roger Stone wasn't part of my campaign.....
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
First of all, I was not a fan of Obama's. In fact I thought he was pretty bad until Trump took the role. Hey we all embellish to so degree. I drained a 50 ft putt when it was a straight uphill 35 footer. Yes politicians lie and exaggerate.

But to my point, I don't recall Obama claiming best economy ever....knowing more than his generals....his national security leaders mischaracterized (when testimony was recored).....biggest crowd ever....... Roger Stone wasn't part of my campaign.....

The whole ACA was a lie from the very beginning. The main architect even stated that in a video. He lied about impacting 20% of our economy. I cringe in even using this but "you can keep you Dr. if you want to keep your Dr." That one lie had more impact than 100 of Trumps, best ever, largest ever, huge and whatever he likes to use.
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,860
282
83
The whole ACA was a lie from the very beginning. The main architect even stated that in a video. He lied about impacting 20% of our economy. I cringe in even using this but "you can keep you Dr. if you want to keep your Dr." That one lie had more impact than 100 of Trumps, best ever, largest ever, huge and whatever he likes to use.
What impact did the "doctor" quote have? Actually none. The ACA legislation may have had an affect on you or others but BO speaking those words wouldn't have affected anyone. I've got the same doctors I've always had fwiw.
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
The whole ACA was a lie from the very beginning. The main architect even stated that in a video. He lied about impacting 20% of our economy. I cringe in even using this but "you can keep you Dr. if you want to keep your Dr." That one lie had more impact than 100 of Trumps, best ever, largest ever, huge and whatever he likes to use.

Obama's worst lie had zero impact on national security. Think of it that way
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,230
3,298
113
Obama's worst lie had zero impact on national security. Think of it that way
Did it? It laid the groundwork for the passage of that piece of ****. Which, that piece of **** is laying the groundwork for the Dem healthcare plan now which is likely to spiral our debt out of control. Seems like a pretty big impact to National Security to me.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
Obama's worst lie had zero impact on national security. Think of it that way

But his 2nd did. The whole Iran deal was also proven to have falsehoods. Obama transferred actual money to Iran because the law forbid him to transfer funds via a bank. This is a county that has funded terrorism against the US and our allies and we gave them billions of untraceable money that could be used to fund new terrorist operations against us.
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,860
282
83
But his 2nd did. The whole Iran deal was also proven to have falsehoods. Obama transferred actual money to Iran because the law forbid him to transfer funds via a bank. This is a county that has funded terrorism against the US and our allies and we gave them billions of untraceable money that could be used to fund new terrorist operations against us.
It was their money. Keep flailing, you might get one right before the sun sets. Also all that happened with the U.S./Iran nuclear deal is that the U.S. dropped out of it. It's still alive and well with the other countries and Iran still in it. With the pullout, Trump just continues to prove that anything that America signs isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Hail the Great Deal Breaker!
 
Last edited:
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
Did it? It laid the groundwork for the passage of that piece of ****. Which, that piece of **** is laying the groundwork for the Dem healthcare plan now which is likely to spiral our debt out of control. Seems like a pretty big impact to National Security to me.

LMAO!

 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
It was their money. Keep flailing, you might get one right before the sun sets. Also all that happened with the U.S./Iran nuclear deal is that the U.S. dropped out of it. It's still alive and well with the other countries and Iran still in it. With the pullout, Trump just continues to prove that anything that America signs isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Hail the Great Deal Breaker!

I purposely chose the word "transferred" as this is exactly what happened, and it was illegal at the time to transfer money to them using world banks...

Obama transferred actual money to Iran because the law forbid him to transfer funds via a bank.

This is a recent article in the NYT (you should love that). The other countries are only concerned about a nuclear weapons, but will allow Iran to sponsor terrorism and build rockets that could reach Israel and we are standing against it. Even after all of this, the article states that it doubts that any company would move forward in working with Iran if that means that they cannot do business with a US company. I agree 100% that we need to stand up against this terrorist regime.

3 European Nations Create Firm to Trade With Iran, but Will Anyone Use It?

The Grand Bazaar in Tehran. Britain, France and Germany have set up a financing mechanism to skirt American sanctions and keep the 2015 Iran nuclear deal alive.CreditArash Khamooshi for The New York Times

Image

The Grand Bazaar in Tehran. Britain, France and Germany have set up a financing mechanism to skirt American sanctions and keep the 2015 Iran nuclear deal alive.CreditCreditArash Khamooshi for The New York Times


By Steven Erlanger

  • Jan. 31, 2019
BRUSSELS — Furious after President Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed punitive banking sanctions last year, European leaders vowed to find a way to enable Tehran to keep doing business with the rest of the world.

After months of delay, and after enduring mockery from the Trump administration, three major European allies on Thursday finally introduced a financial mechanism to do just that.

The question now is whether anyone will actually use it.

The new company, called Instex, for Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges, would essentially allow goods to be bartered between Iranian companies and foreign ones without direct financial transactions or using the dollar. By avoiding the American banking system and currency, the hope is that European companies and others will feel confident that they can do business with Iran without being subject to the sanctions.

The European countries — Britain, France and Germany — were all signatories to the Iran deal in 2015, as was the United States under President Barack Obama. The Europeans, along with Russia and China, who were also signatories, have all vowed to keep to the terms of the agreement, which was intended to ensure that Iran could not build a nuclear weapon.

told Congress that Iran was in compliance with the deal, which only covers nuclear activities and not other issues like missile development or support for terrorist groups. That judgment apparently outraged President Trump, who said in a Twitter message that “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!”

The European nations are not acting just to spite the Trump administration or as a favor to Tehran. They want to encourage Iran to keep in compliance with the deal primarily because they fear that the rapid pursuit of a nuclear weapon by an unrestrained Tehran could lead to a war between Iran on one side and Israel and the United States on the other. European officials say they are also troubled by the ready use by Washington of extraterritorial sanctions that affect European countries.


Their answer is Instex, which was registered in France on Thursday and is known technically as a special-purpose vehicle. It will be financed jointly by the three countries and run by a German banker.


Can a Church Founded in 1677 Survive the 21st Century?


Every Building on Every Block: A Time Capsule of 1930s New York


They Created a Muslim Enclave in Upstate N.Y. Then Came the Online Conspiracies.



Leaders of the American intelligence agencies told Congress on Tuesday that Iran was in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal.CreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times

Image

Leaders of the American intelligence agencies told Congress on Tuesday that Iran was in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal.CreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times
A formal announcement was made on Thursday in Bucharest, Romania, where European Union foreign ministers are meeting. It is unclear exactly when the company will become operational or whether other countries will join.

Jeremy Hunt, the British foreign secretary, said in Bucharest that the registration “is a clear, practical demonstration that we remain firmly committed” to the Iran deal, “for as long as Iran keeps implementing it fully.”


Mr. Hunt said that work was continuing “to address all the technical and legal aspects required to make this vehicle operational,” including working with Iran to set up a parallel structure.

In Iran, the deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, welcomed the announcement as “the first step within the set of commitments the Europeans have made to Iran which I hope will be fully implemented and not be incomplete,” the official news agency IRNA reported.

American officials have tried to dissuade the Europeans from setting up the company and at the same time have mocked the idea, arguing that it would produce little trade.

On Thursday, the State Department issued a statement saying that it was following reports about Instex but that it did not expect the mechanism to have any impact on Washington’s “pressure campaign” against Iran.

“As the president has made clear,” the statement said, “entities that continue to engage in sanctionable activity involving Iran risk severe consequences that could include losing access to the U.S. financial system and the ability to do business with the United States or U.S. companies.”

The Trump administration says that by squeezing Iran they are not aiming to overthrow the government but are simply trying to force it into fresh negotiations on a broader range of issues. Those include ballistic missiles, Iranian forces fighting for the Syrian government, and support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which Washington and the European Union accuse of sponsoring terrorism.

Sign up for The Interpreter
Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.



A gas refinery in Iran. Instex was originally conceived as a way for Tehran to barter gas and oil exports in return for European goods.CreditEbrahim Noroozi/Associated Press

Image

A gas refinery in Iran. Instex was originally conceived as a way for Tehran to barter gas and oil exports in return for European goods.CreditEbrahim Noroozi/Associated Press
The Europeans also share many of Washington’s concerns about Iran’s actions and human rights record, but they say that those issues fall outside the scope of the nuclear deal. Still, the Europeans have been particularly angry about recent attacks or attempted attacks by Iran against groups in Europe that oppose the government in Tehran, and they have been talking to Iran about modifying its behavior.


This month, the European Union imposed its first sanctions on Iran since the nuclear deal in reaction to the plots and to missile testing. The bloc also added two Iranian individuals and an Iranian intelligence unit to its terrorist list.

In Bucharest on Thursday, Belgium’s foreign minister, Didier Reynders, said that it was “essential we show our American colleagues that we are going in the same direction as them on a series of issues such as ballistic missiles and Iran’s regional activities.”

Asked about the new barter company, Mr. Reynders said that “at the end of the day, it will be companies that decide whether or not they want to work in Iran, bearing in mind the risk of American sanctions.”

Instex was originally conceived as a way for Iran to barter gas and oil exports in return for European goods. But given that most large companies have significant business in the United States, very few — if any — are likely to use the trading mechanism for fear of incurring Washington’s wrath.

But the financial mechanism could make it easier for smaller companies with no exposure in the United States to trade with Iran and could promote trade in medicine and food, which are not subject to sanctions. European diplomats say that, in the beginning, the concentration will be on goods that are permitted by Washington, to avoid an early confrontation.

In an emailed response, Doug Davison, a sanctions expert at the law firm Linklaters, said there remained “two important open and interdependent questions: whether such a process will draw any users, and thus have the potential to be effective, and whether the U.S. will take steps in response.”

Washington’s reaction will be critical, Mr. Davison said. So far, “this administration has shown clearly that it takes the economic sanctions it placed on Iran very seriously, and is willing to back its policy up with action, including sanctioning noncompliant non-U.S. parties.”

He added, “U.S. government officials have said that parties either choose to do business with Iran or the U.S., but not both.”
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
Did it? It laid the groundwork for the passage of that piece of ****. Which, that piece of **** is laying the groundwork for the Dem healthcare plan now which is likely to spiral our debt out of control. Seems like a pretty big impact to National Security to me.

that is a stretch even for the furthest of the right...... Trump running up a trillion a year in deficits.....
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,860
282
83
I purposely chose the word "transferred" as this is exactly what happened, and it was illegal at the time to transfer money to them using world banks...

Obama transferred actual money to Iran because the law forbid him to transfer funds via a bank.

This is a recent article in the NYT (you should love that). The other countries are only concerned about a nuclear weapons, but will allow Iran to sponsor terrorism and build rockets that could reach Israel and we are standing against it. Even after all of this, the article states that it doubts that any company would move forward in working with Iran if that means that they cannot do business with a US company. I agree 100% that we need to stand up against this terrorist regime.

3 European Nations Create Firm to Trade With Iran, but Will Anyone Use It?

The Grand Bazaar in Tehran. Britain, France and Germany have set up a financing mechanism to skirt American sanctions and keep the 2015 Iran nuclear deal alive.CreditArash Khamooshi for The New York Times

Image

The Grand Bazaar in Tehran. Britain, France and Germany have set up a financing mechanism to skirt American sanctions and keep the 2015 Iran nuclear deal alive.CreditCreditArash Khamooshi for The New York Times


By Steven Erlanger

  • Jan. 31, 2019
BRUSSELS — Furious after President Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed punitive banking sanctions last year, European leaders vowed to find a way to enable Tehran to keep doing business with the rest of the world.

After months of delay, and after enduring mockery from the Trump administration, three major European allies on Thursday finally introduced a financial mechanism to do just that.

The question now is whether anyone will actually use it.

The new company, called Instex, for Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges, would essentially allow goods to be bartered between Iranian companies and foreign ones without direct financial transactions or using the dollar. By avoiding the American banking system and currency, the hope is that European companies and others will feel confident that they can do business with Iran without being subject to the sanctions.

The European countries — Britain, France and Germany — were all signatories to the Iran deal in 2015, as was the United States under President Barack Obama. The Europeans, along with Russia and China, who were also signatories, have all vowed to keep to the terms of the agreement, which was intended to ensure that Iran could not build a nuclear weapon.

told Congress that Iran was in compliance with the deal, which only covers nuclear activities and not other issues like missile development or support for terrorist groups. That judgment apparently outraged President Trump, who said in a Twitter message that “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!”

The European nations are not acting just to spite the Trump administration or as a favor to Tehran. They want to encourage Iran to keep in compliance with the deal primarily because they fear that the rapid pursuit of a nuclear weapon by an unrestrained Tehran could lead to a war between Iran on one side and Israel and the United States on the other. European officials say they are also troubled by the ready use by Washington of extraterritorial sanctions that affect European countries.


Their answer is Instex, which was registered in France on Thursday and is known technically as a special-purpose vehicle. It will be financed jointly by the three countries and run by a German banker.


Can a Church Founded in 1677 Survive the 21st Century?


Every Building on Every Block: A Time Capsule of 1930s New York


They Created a Muslim Enclave in Upstate N.Y. Then Came the Online Conspiracies.



Leaders of the American intelligence agencies told Congress on Tuesday that Iran was in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal.CreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times

Image

Leaders of the American intelligence agencies told Congress on Tuesday that Iran was in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal.CreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times
A formal announcement was made on Thursday in Bucharest, Romania, where European Union foreign ministers are meeting. It is unclear exactly when the company will become operational or whether other countries will join.

Jeremy Hunt, the British foreign secretary, said in Bucharest that the registration “is a clear, practical demonstration that we remain firmly committed” to the Iran deal, “for as long as Iran keeps implementing it fully.”


Mr. Hunt said that work was continuing “to address all the technical and legal aspects required to make this vehicle operational,” including working with Iran to set up a parallel structure.

In Iran, the deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, welcomed the announcement as “the first step within the set of commitments the Europeans have made to Iran which I hope will be fully implemented and not be incomplete,” the official news agency IRNA reported.

American officials have tried to dissuade the Europeans from setting up the company and at the same time have mocked the idea, arguing that it would produce little trade.

On Thursday, the State Department issued a statement saying that it was following reports about Instex but that it did not expect the mechanism to have any impact on Washington’s “pressure campaign” against Iran.

“As the president has made clear,” the statement said, “entities that continue to engage in sanctionable activity involving Iran risk severe consequences that could include losing access to the U.S. financial system and the ability to do business with the United States or U.S. companies.”

The Trump administration says that by squeezing Iran they are not aiming to overthrow the government but are simply trying to force it into fresh negotiations on a broader range of issues. Those include ballistic missiles, Iranian forces fighting for the Syrian government, and support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which Washington and the European Union accuse of sponsoring terrorism.

Sign up for The Interpreter
Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.



A gas refinery in Iran. Instex was originally conceived as a way for Tehran to barter gas and oil exports in return for European goods.CreditEbrahim Noroozi/Associated Press

Image

A gas refinery in Iran. Instex was originally conceived as a way for Tehran to barter gas and oil exports in return for European goods.CreditEbrahim Noroozi/Associated Press
The Europeans also share many of Washington’s concerns about Iran’s actions and human rights record, but they say that those issues fall outside the scope of the nuclear deal. Still, the Europeans have been particularly angry about recent attacks or attempted attacks by Iran against groups in Europe that oppose the government in Tehran, and they have been talking to Iran about modifying its behavior.


This month, the European Union imposed its first sanctions on Iran since the nuclear deal in reaction to the plots and to missile testing. The bloc also added two Iranian individuals and an Iranian intelligence unit to its terrorist list.

In Bucharest on Thursday, Belgium’s foreign minister, Didier Reynders, said that it was “essential we show our American colleagues that we are going in the same direction as them on a series of issues such as ballistic missiles and Iran’s regional activities.”

Asked about the new barter company, Mr. Reynders said that “at the end of the day, it will be companies that decide whether or not they want to work in Iran, bearing in mind the risk of American sanctions.”

Instex was originally conceived as a way for Iran to barter gas and oil exports in return for European goods. But given that most large companies have significant business in the United States, very few — if any — are likely to use the trading mechanism for fear of incurring Washington’s wrath.

But the financial mechanism could make it easier for smaller companies with no exposure in the United States to trade with Iran and could promote trade in medicine and food, which are not subject to sanctions. European diplomats say that, in the beginning, the concentration will be on goods that are permitted by Washington, to avoid an early confrontation.

In an emailed response, Doug Davison, a sanctions expert at the law firm Linklaters, said there remained “two important open and interdependent questions: whether such a process will draw any users, and thus have the potential to be effective, and whether the U.S. will take steps in response.”

Washington’s reaction will be critical, Mr. Davison said. So far, “this administration has shown clearly that it takes the economic sanctions it placed on Iran very seriously, and is willing to back its policy up with action, including sanctioning noncompliant non-U.S. parties.”

He added, “U.S. government officials have said that parties either choose to do business with Iran or the U.S., but not both.”
Sounds good, thanks.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,230
3,298
113
It was their money. Keep flailing, you might get one right before the sun sets. Also all that happened with the U.S./Iran nuclear deal is that the U.S. dropped out of it. It's still alive and well with the other countries and Iran still in it. With the pullout, Trump just continues to prove that anything that America signs isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Hail the Great Deal Breaker!
Hahahaha