Trump approved payment of $2 million bill for North Korea care of Warmbier: report

  
Via:  john-russell  •  3 months ago  •  68 comments

Trump approved payment of $2 million bill for North Korea care of Warmbier: report

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


WASHINGTON, April 25 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump approved the payment of a $2 million bill presented by North Korea to cover its care of comatose American Otto Warmbier, a college student who died shortly after being returned home from 17 months in a North Korean prison, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.

The Post said an invoice was handed to State Department envoy Joseph Yun hours before Warmbier, 22, was flown out of Pyongyang in a coma on June 13, 2017. Warmbier died six days later.

Yun, when asked for comment, said in an email "I cannot comment/confirm on diplomatic exchanges."

The U.S. envoy, who was sent to retrieve Warmbier, signed an agreement to pay the medical bill on instructions passed down from Trump, the Post reported, citing two unidentified people familiar with the situation.

“We do not comment on hostage negotiations, which is why they have been so successful during this administration," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told Reuters.

The bill was sent to the Treasury Department and remained unpaid through 2017, the Post reported. It was not known if the administration later paid the bill.

Warmbier, a University of Virginia student visiting North Korea as a tourist, was imprisoned there for 17 months starting in January 2016. North Korea state media said he was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for trying to steal an item bearing a propaganda slogan from his hotel. (Reporting by Jeff Mason, Doina Chiacu and David Brunnstrom; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and James Dalgleish)

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 months ago

According to this story, Trump approved of payment, to a US adversary, for the "care" of an American citizen who had been mistreated in that "care" to the point that he died from his injuries a few days later.

I suppose one could argue that it needed to be done to get Warmbier freed, but imagine the conservative uproar if Obama or a Clinton administration had done it.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

"It was not known if the administration later paid the bill."

This is one of the grander WTF moments in the TDS program.

 
 
 
freepress
2  freepress    3 months ago

So basically Trump paid them for what they did to an American. The family is appalled now that this has come to light. You don't see the right wing outrage here, anything Trump does no matter how horrific is fine with them.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  freepress @2    3 months ago

What's horrific about it? Is NK holding anymore hostages?

It's called an attempt at diplomacy, greases the skids for later deals.

Little Kimmy will likely come to terms while Trump is still president.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.1  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    3 months ago

Didn't the right complain about Obama paying for war remains being brought home?

The right was screaming that Obama couldn't get anything done without paying them.

Now it is called diplomacy? I call it hypocrisy. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @2.1.1    3 months ago

Has Trump paid North Korea?  Will he ever?

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2  Tacos!  replied to  freepress @2    3 months ago
So basically Trump paid them for what they did to an American.

It doesn't even say that.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3  Jasper2529    3 months ago

Trump approved payment of $2 million bill for North Korea care of Warmbier: report

Yun, when asked for comment, said in an email "I cannot comment/confirm on diplomatic exchanges."

The U.S. envoy, who was sent to retrieve Warmbier, signed an agreement to pay the medical bill on instructions passed down from Trump, the Post reported, citing two unidentified people familiar with the situation.

We do not comment on hostage negotiations, which is why they have been so successful during this administration," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told Reuters.

The bill was sent to the Treasury Department and remained unpaid through 2017, the Post reported. It was not known if the administration later paid the bill.

So, we have another unconfirmed article that uses unidentified sources. Thanks for the morning laugh!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jasper2529 @3    3 months ago

For the left, any scandal in a storm they can create is okay with them...

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1    3 months ago

One would think that out of the 4 "journalists"/reporters and 2 editors, at least 1 of them would have had some integrity and held off until they had hard facts.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.1    3 months ago

Newspapers and other news outlets publish stories based on "unidentified" sources every single day.  It is a staple of news reporting. Many people with valuable information would not give it to reporters if they thought their name was going to be revealed in the story. 

The Washington Post knows who the "unidentified" person is, why dont you sue them and try and get them to reveal it? 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    3 months ago

You completely missed the point of my comment, John, but that's OK. I have no reason to sue anyone - what a ridiculous comment.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.3    3 months ago

The Washington Post has a "hard fact", they have individuals in a position to know that told them what happened. That is the fact. If you dont want to believe it fine, but your allegations are that newspapers make this stuff up, and that is ridiculous. These types of sources are used in news reporting 365 days a year. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    3 months ago
they have individuals in a position to know that told them what happened.

What are their names again ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    3 months ago

You mean like all those fake and phony left wing news stories that get seeded here on a daily bases from "unnamed sources" or some such, that have zero credibility, let alone being hard facts.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.7  Ender  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.3    3 months ago

What I got out of the comment is that you think it shouldn't be reported on.

At the same time, the administration will not give any facts at all. All the while not denying anything.

The most open administration in history? More like shrouded in secrecy.

Some use to praise leakers. Saying that they are needed to keep government in check. Now they either seem to be called liars or traitors.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    3 months ago
Newspapers and other news outlets publish stories based on "unidentified" sources every single day

Sure, but they don't claim that these sources were participants or even witnesses. They're just "familiar with the situation." Well Hell! Anyone who watches the news is "familiar" with that situation.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.1    3 months ago
would have had some integrity and held off until they had hard facts.

What exactly would a defender and apologist for Trump, do with facts, and how would they know one.... 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @3    3 months ago
we have another unconfirmed article that uses unidentified sources. Thanks for the morning laugh!

Well the constant pathological liar Donald Trump has denied the payment, so therefore we could conclude it is likely true.  This is what happens when you have zero credibility. For example, Trump once denied paying Stormy Daniels and then it was discovered on audio tape. 

Trump is a version of the little boy who cried wolf.  He lies so much that nothing he says can be believed. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.3  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Jasper2529 @3    3 months ago

The seeder spent two years seeding fake new and your surprised?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.3    3 months ago

Give up your trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass. No one believes you. 

The vast vast majority of my seeds come from mainstream media, such as this one , AOL. 

You are the one who has seeded from Infowars, Sorcha Faal, Gateway Pundit, Before It's News, and other crackpot websites. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
3.3.2  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.1    3 months ago

It's nothing but Jeff Bezos fake news.  they even admit that they could not verify it

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.3.3  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.1    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.3.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.3.3    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.4    3 months ago

Ha!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.3.6  Jasper2529  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.3    3 months ago

I haven't been here for two years, but in general my answer to you is no surprise.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4  1stwarrior    3 months ago

Obama - $1.7B to Iran - for four U.S. hostages and to stop their nuclear program???

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @4    3 months ago

The money returned to Iran was their money. An international court had determined that the US was no longer going to be allowed to detain it. 

The two million, if it is true, is not a lot of money, but Jong Un was undoubtedly happy with the principle of getting paid for releasing an American prisoner. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 months ago
The money returned to Iran was their money. An international court had determined that the US was no longer going to be allowed to detain it. 

What court was that? As I remember it, Obummer did that to curry favor with the mullahs, to whom he sold us out. Don't believe some court ordered the US to do that

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.1    3 months ago
[delete]
 
 
 
katrix
4.2  katrix  replied to  1stwarrior @4    3 months ago

That was debunked long ago.

 
 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.2.2  1stwarrior  replied to  katrix @4.2    3 months ago

Show me with some FACTS that it was debunked.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @4    3 months ago

Let's also not forget Obama's five terrorist trade for one deserter either....

 
 
 
epistte
4.4  epistte  replied to  1stwarrior @4    3 months ago
Obama - $1.7B to Iran - for four U.S. hostages and to stop their nuclear program???

 How many times do I have to correct this claim? That money was Iran's but it had been frozen in US banks since the 1979 hostgate crisis and from a military deal that never happened. It wasn't a gift or a bribe.  Reapating a lie doesnt nmake it true.

TRUMP: “The Iran deal is a terrible deal. We paid $150 billion. We gave $1.8 billion in cash. That’s actual cash, barrels of cash. It’s insane. It’s ridiculous. It should have never been made. But we will be talking about it.” — remarks before a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. At a news conference Tuesday, he spoke about “giving them, Iran, $150 billion at one point.”

THE FACTS: There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. treasury. The money he refers to represents Iranian assets held abroad that were frozen until the deal was reached and Tehran was allowed to access its funds.

The payout of about $1.8 billion is a separate matter. That dates to the 1970s, when Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured.

That left people, businesses and governments in each country indebted to partners in the other, and these complex claims took decades to sort out in tribunals and arbitration. For its part, Iran paid settlements of more than $2.5 billion to U.S. citizens and businesses.
 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.4.1  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @4.4    3 months ago

That money should never have been given to Iran

1. It should have been forfeit for seizing Americans and holding them hostage

2  Iran is using that money to further Islam terrorism.  Funding Hezbollah, Hamas and their war efforts in Yemen and Syria

Obama provided aid and comfort to the enemy and should be tried and convicted for treason

 
 
 
epistte
4.4.2  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @4.4.1    3 months ago
That money should never have been given to Iran

1. It should have been forfeit for seizing Americans and holding them hostage

2  Iran is using that money to further Islam terrorism.  Funding Hezbollah, Hamas and their war efforts in Yemen and Syria

It was not given to them. It was part of the negotiations. International law isn't as simple as you wish it to be.  Iran feels the same way about the money we give to Isreal.

Obama provided aid and comfort to the enemy and should be tried and convicted for treason

Maybe he will share a cell with sHillary in your dreams. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.4.3  Greg Jones  replied to  epistte @4.4    3 months ago

The "deal" that was NOT in our best interests would not have occurred with the money being returned.

Any way you want to look at it, it was a ransom

 
 
 
epistte
4.4.4  epistte  replied to  Greg Jones @4.4.3    3 months ago
The "deal" that was NOT in our best interests would not have occurred with the money being returned. Any way you want to look at it, it was a ransom

It was in our best interests for Iran to put a hold on their nuclear program.  Trump pulling out of that deal makes it easier for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-dangerous-consequences-of-us-withdrawal-from-the-iran-nuclear-deal

 
 
 
Ender
4.4.5  Ender  replied to  epistte @4.4.4    3 months ago

Funny how the right just pulled out of the deal, then we have nothing. Only the occasional lip service to say how horrible they are and what a bad deal Obama had.

Meanwhile, they are now left to their own devices. 

IMO better to have a foot in the door than standing across the street yelling about previous plans.

Accomplishing nothing.

 
 
 
epistte
4.4.6  epistte  replied to  Ender @4.4.5    3 months ago
Funny how the right just pulled out of the deal, then we have nothing. Only the occasional lip service to say how horrible they are and what a bad deal Obama had.

Meanwhile, they are now left to their own devices. 

IMO better to have a foot in the door than standing across the street yelling about previous plans.

Accomplishing nothing.

Israel opposed the deal, so conservatives were fed that talking point.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/israel-opposition-iran-deal/401129/

I wonder when Israel will sign the NNPT and allow IAEA inspections of Dimona and other nuclear facilities?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.4.7  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @4.4.4    3 months ago

No rational person who has studied history and that of the Muslim goal of world conquest would accept the lie that Iran has put their nuclear program on hold.

The Iran nuclear deal was a farce.  No one who understands how Islam views the US and Israel or it's view on treaties believes they have stopped nuclear development.  They have steadfastly refused any outside inspection of key military facilities where they continue their nuclear arms development.

Central to all of this is the Islamic doctrines of using Treaties to bid time until they believe they have the upper hand

You cannot understand these negotiations unless you understand Islamic terms. Understanding them is why many of us know that Iran has no honorable intentions in this deal.

Treaty of Hudaybiyya and Hudna

Hudna (هدنة) is an Arabic term meaning a temporary "truce" or "armistice" as well as "calm" or "quiet", coming from a verbal root meaning "calm". It is sometimes translated as "cease-fire". In the Lisan al-Arab (Ibn al-Manzur's definitive dictionary of classical Arabic, dating to the 14th century) it is defined as follows:

"hadana: he grew quiet. hadina: he quieted (transitive or intransitive). haadana: he made peace with. The noun from each of these is hudna."

A particularly famous early hudna was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah between Muhammad and the Quraysh tribe.

According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

Taqiyya

Within the Shia theological framework,[1] the concept of Taqiyya (تقية - 'fear, guard against', also taghiyeh)[2] refers to a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.[3]

The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury."

Taqiyya is basically the Shia version of Hudna in it's practice and effect.

Kitman-

close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.”

During a debate at the University of Aarhus, Ahmad Akkari, one of the Muslim participants, stated: “Islam has waged war where this was necessary and dialogue where this was possible. A dialogue can thus only be viewed as part of a missionary objective.”

In The Force of Reason, Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci recalls how, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”

Fallaci thought he was referring simply to terrorism. Only later did she realize that he “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens — In short, the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism.”

Today, radical groups and conventional Muslims alike often use the term hudna when they divide areas not controlled by Islamists into a realm of Islam (dar al-Islam) and a realm of war (dar al-harb), or pagan ignorance (jahiliyya). The leading exponent of this latter concept was Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) who, in his 1964 treatise, Ma'alim fi 'l-tariq (Milestones), wrote:

Lastly, all the existing so-called "Muslim" societies are also jahili societies. We classify them among jahili societies not because they believe in other deities besides God or because they worship anyone other than God, but because their way of life is not based on submission to God alone. Although they believe in the unity of God, still they have relegated the legislative attribute of God to others and submit to this authority, and from this authority they derive their systems, their traditions and customs, their laws, their values and standards, and almost every practice of life.

For Qutb's fellow travelers and intellectual successors, Muslim countries that are not theocracies—any state except Iran, Saudi Arabia to a limited degree, or Sudan—are treated as though they had reverted to paganism.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.4.8  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @4.4.6    3 months ago

They should not agree to any such thing.  Israel would be utterly destroyed if you leftists had your way.  Their ability to defend themselves is all that stands between them and the complete destruction of Israel and the Jews as commanded by Islam

 
 
 
epistte
4.4.9  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @4.4.8    3 months ago
They should not agree to any such thing.  Israel would be utterly destroyed if you leftists had your way.  Their ability to defend themselves is all that stands between them and the complete destruction of Israel and the Jews as commanded by Islam

How does agreeing to the NNPT and allowing inspections by the IAEA disarm Israel?  

Was the US disarmed by signed the NNPT in 1968? Did the SALT I and SALT II treaties disarm the US?   Is the US disarmed when we allow IAEA inspections into out nuclear weapons and other nuclear facilities?

https://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/intl-safeguards/addtl-protocol-us-iaea-safeguards-agrmnt.html

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.4.10  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @4.4.9    3 months ago

We should never have agreed to it.

 
 
 
epistte
4.4.11  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @4.4.10    3 months ago
We should never have agreed to it.

Why do you believe that to be true? What is the harm in IAEA inspections and signing the NNPT?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.4.12  Tessylo  replied to  epistte @4.4.2    3 months ago

In his   [delete   dreams]

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.4.13  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @4.4.5    3 months ago
Funny how the right just pulled out of the deal, then we have nothing.

What did we actually have in the first place ?

Did You firgits ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Mr. "I can wind surf at my age" Kerry told us ALL....Nothing was "LEGALLY BINDING"  in any of the negotiated deals !

 
 
 
lib50
4.4.14  lib50  replied to  Tessylo @4.4.12    3 months ago

Lol

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.5  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @4    3 months ago
What was universally known as the Iran hostage crisis went on for more than a year, and finally ended with a bargain: In exchange for the release of 52 American diplomats and citizens, both sides agreed to resolve the question of money through international arbitration. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal has trudged along for almost four decades now, and the money has flowed both ways. By 1983, Iran had returned $896 million to U.S. banks, which in turn had returned hundreds of millions in frozen funds to Iran. Today, private claims from the U.S. side have been resolved to the tune of $2.1 billion.
But still at issue as Obama began his second term was $400 million that Iran in the late 1970s had paid for U.S. fighter jets, while Tehran was still a U.S. ally. After it turned into an enemy in 1979, Washington was not about to deliver the jets. But, all these years later, Iran wanted its money back—and with interest. All told, Tehran was asking The Hague arbitrators (comprising equal numbers of U.S., Iranian and neutral judges) for $10 billion. Fearing they might actually be awarded that much, or something like it, the Obama administration negotiated privately with Tehran, which agreed to settle for $1.7 billion. The $400 million stacked on pallets was the first installment. http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/

The timing of  the first payment was delayed to pressure Iran into releasing the hostages.  The nuclear program was not part of the negotiations.

Obama administration officials had initially denied the two transactions were linked. But later, officials acknowledged the U.S. had withheld the cash to pressure Iran to move forward with the releases and guarantee the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-third-presidential-donald-trump-is-right-the-u-s-did-pay-1476931849-htmlstory.html

 
 
 
luther28
5  luther28    3 months ago

As it has not yet been confirmed we may just suppose for the time being.

But if true it should come to no ones surprise that the North Koreans remain unpaid, if Mr. Trump continually stiffed his suppliers, contractors and employees why not the North Koreans as well.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  luther28 @5    3 months ago

It would be no surprise if it was never paid. The agreement to pay is what Kim Jong Un now has to brag about. 

 
 
 
luther28
5.1.1  luther28  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    3 months ago

I would place no more credence in what Un states than I would in anything Mr. Trump says.

They were made for each other.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    3 months ago
It would be no surprise if it was never paid. The agreement to pay is what Kim Jong Un now has to brag about.

Who is he going to brag to?

Leftist Trump haters?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  luther28 @5    3 months ago

Here's my problem with the whole thing....the North Koreans put that young man in that state. To bill the US for his health care is just downright....arrogant!

 
 
 
luther28
5.2.1  luther28  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2    3 months ago

I was leaning to absurd. How about both?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  luther28 @5.2.1    3 months ago

Absurd works. I was searching for the right word

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.3  Ronin2  replied to  luther28 @5    3 months ago

Are you saying the North Koreans don't deserve to be stiffed? They are the ones that tortured him into a coma to begin with!

 
 
 
luther28
5.3.1  luther28  replied to  Ronin2 @5.3    3 months ago

Absolutely not!

My point was that they should not be surprised based on Mr. Trumps past payment history. If this bargain was truly made, there will be a public outcry.

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.3.2  Ronin2  replied to  luther28 @5.3.1    3 months ago

There already is a faux outcry with no payment being made. If Trump shafts North Korea and gets the hostage back that is all good in my book. Let the left rage all they want about "negotiating with terrorists"- we can't start WWIII with North Korea; but sticking it to them in negotiations is something we can do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6  Texan1211    3 months ago

So not a soul has a clue (including the unnamed "sources") that the bill was ever paid, but because of Trump, we should get all worked up over this?

This???????

LMFAO!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @6    3 months ago

Jong Un has his propaganda point (the US obeyed him) whether the money was ever paid or not. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 months ago

Propaganda directed at WHO???

Who gives a shit what Un thinks besides some left-wing snowflakes?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.1    3 months ago

Donald Trump. He is in love with Kim Jung Un, or is he lying about that too? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    3 months ago

Trump only loves Kim Jung Un so long as he can use him. 

He treats anyone not directly related to him that way in case you didn't notice. He would make the perfect politician; but he lacks subtly, political correctness, and that all important D behind his name.

After the shit Obama pulled for getting hostages released you have the balls to go after Trump for stiffing Kim Jung Un on 2 million? Fuck them. Kim can have him BS talking point; so long as he gets nothing more. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.4  KDMichigan  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 months ago
Jong Un has his propaganda point

And now you do to, you both can be happy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    3 months ago
Donald Trump. He is in love with Kim Jung Un, or is he lying about that too?

So you actually believe that Un is directing "propaganda" at Trump?

Really want to stick with that?

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    3 months ago
the Post reported, citing two unidentified people familiar with the situation

And that's where I pretend the online WaPo is a physical paper just so I can crumple it up and throw it in the garbage where it belongs.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



nightwalker
Snuffy
lady in black


68 visitors