Monday Morning Meme Madness
Democrats' Push for State-Run Media Would Make Even Pravda Blush
Where Are the Rest of Them? FL Democrats Get Dragged for PATHETIC Pic...
It's Just So BAD: Mary Katharine Ham Reads Latest 'Hilarious' Headlines From the...
Trans Insanity: Six Trustees Suspended From Charity for Objecting to Inclusion of 'Breastf...
UC Santa Cruz 'Students for Justice in Palestine' Basically Demand Jews Be Removed...
'Doesn't Make Sense': Elon Musk Asks Why Taxpayers Fund Anti-American Activities on Colleg...
@CatoInstitute Is Right: 'The US Can't Keep Spending So Much Without Consequences'
WE WARNED YOU! Jacobin Mag Shocked Canada's MAID Program Replacing Social Welfare With...
He's FINE: NBC Slobbers All Over Biden's 'Less Is More' Strategy but X...
Hear Us Roar: Biden Reminded HE Messed With Women After Tone-Deaf Post About...
Michael Tracey WRECKED for Safe-Space Dig at the Right for Defending Jewish Students...
James Woods Puts Shrieking, Yelling, Republican-Hating Climate Change LOON IN HIS PLACE an...
BOMBARDA! J.K. Rowling Straight-FIRE in FAFO Thread Flaming Man Whining About 'Segregating...
HA! WATCH Gretchen Whitmer SQUIRM When Confronted by Hamas Supporters at Daughter's Gradua...

Does president's own 2012 legislation make Iran deal a violation of federal law? Does it matter?

Matt Drudge has broken out the siren for this one, although we’re careful now not to associate “violation of federal law” with any sort of punishment or consequences.

Advertisement

Fox News’ James Rosen reports tonight that “some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal” have determined that the deal violates federal law, in part because of legislation that President Obama himself signed into law in 2012.

Rosen writes:

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.

Advertisement

Legal analysts say the Iran deal could be in trouble in court, as it is not a treaty but an “executive agreement” that received no vote of ratification from Congress.

RedState’s Joe Cunningham isn’t expecting much to transpire either. He writes that the White House “know what they are doing is not at all legal, and they don’t care …. The White House won’t alter its course, and things will be able to go ahead without prosecution because this administration believes more in itself than it does actual law.”

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/gojangirl/status/652254791930900480

Yes. Further negotiations with the United States are banned. And why not? Iran got everything it wanted and more.

* * *

Related:

The White House now admits there are ‘side deals’ with Iran and the IAEA, but Congress still can’t see them

Clintonian: It all depends on what the definition of ‘secret’ or ‘side’ deal is?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement