Blatant voting fraud: Biden defies the SCOTUS in order to buy votes with US tax dollars

[mark francis]

where is obamas name mentioned by scotus. duh.
you keep whining about obama, show me where scotus ruled he did something wrong.

Obama was not part of the debated distribution of the Shah's former money in 1979.

 

[mark francis]

One can certainly disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to send a jet with cash to Tehran on the same day that American detainees were released, but the action taken did not violate the law passed by Congress

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-cash-deal-with-iran-prohibited-by-u-s-law/


post an expert who agrees with you that obama did something illegal.

I don't neen someone interpreting clear facts to me, especially if that 'expert' is attempting to twist the facts for inexcusable political reasons.

 

[pjmret]

Not when the rightful recipients of the money are cut off so the terrorists can get their money instead.

Prove that happened with experts who agree with you legally

 

[mark francis]

You would have to ask, why was it not collected?


See " HAD NOT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY"
Thanks for coming.

The SCOTUS ruling in 2016 was the culmination of a long-running dispute dating back to 1979 over whether to give the Shah's money to the bomb-making terrorists who overthrew him or to the American victims of Iranian terror. Obama decided on his own to settle the dispute and ignore the American victims by giving the Shah's money to the bomb-making thugs who illegitimately overthrew him in the 1970s. Just weeks later the SCOTUS rulked that the money should be given to the American victims of terror, not to the terrorists.

 

[mark francis]

Tammany Hall has been dead for way over 100 years, schmuck.

And yet democrat corruption and fraud continues.

 

[mark francis]

Prove that happened with experts who agree with you legally

Any high school student can read the facts and draw proper conclusions. If leftist experts try to persuade others that the unavoidable conclusions are wrong then those experts are lying just like the 50 bozo officials lied by stupidly agreeing with liars that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.

 

[pjmret]

S

Obama was not part of the debated distribution of the Shah's former money in 1979.

O you have nothing lol

 

[pjmret]

Any high school student can read the facts and draw proper conclusions. If leftist experts try to persuade others that the unavoidable conclusions are wrong then those experts are lying just like the 50 bozo officials lied by stupidly agreeing with liars that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.

So you have nothing lol

 

[pjmret]

And yet democrat corruption and fraud continues.

Right wing blather lol

 

[Boris Norris]

The SCOTUS ruling in 2016 was the culmination of a long-running dispute dating back to 1979 over whether to give the Shah's money to the bomb-making terrorists who overthrew him or to the American victims of Iranian terror. Obama decided on his own to settle the dispute and ignore the American victims by giving the Shah's money to the bomb-making thugs who illegitimately overthrew him in the 1970s. Just weeks later the SCOTUS rulked that the money should be given to the American victims of terror, not to the terrorists.

It doesn't matter. What you posted proved you were wrong. They never made such a decision. You're a liar. Get over it.

 

[Boris Norris]

Not when the rightful recipients of the money are cut off so the terrorists can get their money instead.

Sorry again. The did not have a right to anything.
If a republican POTUS did they same, you wouldn't be mentioning it.

 

[mark francis]

It doesn't matter. What you posted proved you were wrong. They never made such a decision. You're a liar. Get over it.

You deny the SCOTUS finally settled the Iranian money debate a few weeks after Obama decided to settle it himself after it had been tied up in courts for decades with no resolution before he resolved the debate on his own without the help of courts.

 

[pjmret]

You deny the SCOTUS finally settled the Iranian money debate a few weeks after Obama decided to settle it himself after it had been tied up in courts for decades with no resolution before he resolved the debate on his own without the help of courts.

Quote a legal expert saying scotus ruled against obamas actions

 

[mark francis]

Quote a legal expert saying scotus ruled against obamas actions

SCOTUS did not rule against Obama, it ruled against giving the disputed money to Iranian terrorists. Obama was not rejecting the SCOTUS ruling because he gave the money to the terrorists just weeks before the SCOTUS ruling was handed down.

 

[Boris Norris]

You deny the SCOTUS finally settled the Iranian money debate a few weeks after Obama decided to settle it himself after it had been tied up in courts for decades with no resolution before he resolved the debate on his own without the help of courts.

No. I showed you where it was proven he did nothing wrong and was entitled to do it.
Admit it. You were wrong.
It's just that you're a racist and hate democrats. If a republican did it you would praise. Your so easy to take apart.