Posted on 10/07/2016 1:57:48 PM PDT by Pinkbell
RELEASE: The Podesta Emails #HillaryClinton #Podesta #imWithHer https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/
(Excerpt) Read more at wikileaks.org ...
==
Iran Nuclear Deal
From:seizenstat@cov.com
To: Jake.Sullivan@gmail.com
Date: 2015-06-22 04:23
Subject: Iran Nuclear Deal
Dear Jake,
I have sent several detailed notes on the Iran nuclear deal, and will avoid repetition. But with the June 30 deadline fast approaching (although it may be extended), and with Hillary certain to be pressed on whether she supports the deal and will urge Congress not to disapprove it, I wanted to share a few thoughts.
1. This could well be a voting issue for many moderates in the Jewish community. The mainstream organized leadership will almost certainly oppose the deal, along with Israel and all the Republican candidates, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and perhaps Egypt.
2. While we cannot be sure until there is a final agreement, it appears that many of the open issues since the preliminary accord, may be resolved in Iran's favor:
(1) Enriched uranium will stay in Iran for dilution, rather than be sent to Russia or France for reprocessing.
(2) Sanctions will not be phased-out commensurate with compliance, as the US Fact Sheet indicated after the last "agreement", but may come off more quickly. This will transfer billions to Iran and enhance its funding for terrorism and its efforts to gain hegemony in the region.
(3) It is not clear what Iran will be required to do on PMD, if anything. This was required of Iraq by the UNSC in September 2002. Iran should be held to the same standard. They have yet to answer 11 of the 12 IAEA questions, yet UN sanctions will be lifted.
(4) Russia, China and Iran itself may be able to block "snapback" sanctions if there is a violation of the agreement. US companies will be disadvantaged compared to European companies, since many US non-nuclear sanctions will remain, while all EU sanctions are nuclear-related.
(5) Military sites (Parchin) are likely to be off the table for inspections.
(6) Iran will likely be able to do research on advanced centrifuges, which enrich more uranium more rapidly than the current generation. This would markedly reduce the breakout time in the last years of the accord. Presidenr Obama has conceded this point (e.g. David Sanger article in NYT, April 8, 2015)
(7) Iran will have an industrial size nuclear program, and will be left as a "nuclear capable state".
(8) Iran will be able to keep 1000 centrifuges at Fordo.
(9) Nothing in the agreement will limit its support for terrorism.
There is a spell check button folks. Please use it.
It won’t compete with what Trump said to Billy Bush In the Hollywood bus. Back of the day. First apology out of trumps mouth it’s so bad
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1986
“...no time to hit the news cycles...”
This might work to Trump’s advantage if his campaign can find anything of significance in them (significantly bad for Hillary) and use it Monday before the enemedia can spin it.
Yeah... and we can drive our own cars and don’t have an entourage of 50 people cleaning up after us, and catching us when we freeze up in public.
My quote was not perfectly accurate— sorry — but here is the source!! A good one!!
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22
..no time to hit the news cycles...”
This might work to Trump’s advantage if his campaign can find anything of significance in them (significantly bad for Hillary) and use it Monday before the enemedia can spin it.
....
Sunday shows...debate
Trump and his team can body slam them.
Hillary will have to bring it up herself at the debates
*Clinton: “But If Everybody’s Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”*
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927
Thank you.
- - - -
"As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Hillary will have to bring it up herself at the debates
...Velcro may not be strong enough to hold her on next debate...her eyes may spin.
Lenin and Mao also used to say that, because it was understood that it meant “to rise in arms”. The use of the language faculty is so irrepleaceable that Cuban have placed great importance to it in their education system.
from that email.
What??? That has got to be fake! There’s no way they would’ve said that.
Read the initial posts, whiner do nuthin lazy posters
That's actually quite a good point. Thanks for posting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.