Rand Paul & Bernie Sanders Argue Over Trump's Helsinki Summit

[tecelote]

[Ohioboy]

1. Hey Rand Paul, open lines of communication are one thing...

secret two hour meetings, throwing America under the bus, and ass kissing are another.

[George II]

2. The only two Senators who voted against the Russia sanctions.

[DRoseDARs]

4. If you're quite finished being disingenuous, he did it to protect Obama's Iran agreement.

That Russian sanctions bill had poison pills in it that threatened the agreement Obama and other Western leaders had hammered out with Iran.

[rainin]

5. Thank you. I'm tired of hearing that argument here. Excellent response.

[George II]

6. Don't forget that Sanders was instrumental in getting the two coupled

Why?

[George II]

9. Hillary Clinton didn't vote against the Russia sanctions, did she?

[DRoseDARs]

10. So, again, you have nothing. nt

[lapucelle]

11. Someone was indeed being disingenuous.

There were no "poison pills" in the legislation that would jeopardize the Iran treaty. From a August 2017 post here at DU.

A lead negotiator of the treaty [Richard Nephew] told CBS news that [Sanders'] fears are unfounded because the sanctions do not violate the terms of the treaty.

"The Senate...overwhelmingly passed legislation that would impose new U.S. sanctions that would target Iran's ballistic missile program, its support for terrorism and human rights violations, and yet it would still comply with the Iranian nuclear deal."

snip-------------------

"Richard Nephew [a lead negotiator of the nuclear deal who previously served as principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the State Department from 2013 to 2015] said he has no problem closing loopholes in existing sanctions law, but he doubts that it would add to the U.S.'s already robust sanctions architecture. He said the measure wouldn't harm the nuclear deal."

snip-------------------

"Richard Nephew, who served as principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the State Department from 2013 to 2015 and who was a lead negotiator of the treaty, told CBS news that 'these secondary sanctions would comply with the nuclear deal because Iran's missile program is excluded from the agreement. Obama administration officials were unable to win that demand in the deal.'"

snip-------------------

"It's unclear if the legislation is even needed -- the Trump administration already has the authority to execute what is already covered under the bill, Nephew said" ...These secondary sanctions would comply with the nuclear deal because Iran's missile program is excluded from the agreement."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-eyes-irans-ballistic-missile-program-with-new-sanctions/

Moreover, it was reported in Al-Monitor/Iran Pulse that

"Nasser Hadian, a prominent professor of international relations at the University of Tehran... does not believe that the new sanctions would explicitly violate the nuclear deal, though they defy the intent of the JCPOA. Hadian believes there is coordination and agreement between the United States and the EU in the escalation of pressure on Iran over its missile program, while avoiding explicit violation of the nuclear deal."

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/07/iran-us-senate-bill-sanctions-reactions-nuclear-deal.html#ixzz4ovssh49P

The impact of the sanctions on Russia (rather than those on Iran) seemed to be the focus of the foreign press.

Because Senator Sanders's messaging video specifically invokes a "warning" from former SOS John Kerry, I was especially interested in reading his testimony. I couldn't find it in the Congressional Record.

Apparently the warning came, not in testimony, but via Twitter and a week later in remarks at a fundraising event.

“After Rouhani’s reelection, there is much up in the air/room for misinterpretation. This is not the moment for a new Iran bill,” Kerry tweeted.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/335004-john-kerry-issues-tweet-storm-over-senate-considering-iran

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/336494-kerry-new-iran-sanctions-may-be-dangerous

[Cha]

13. Thanks, lapucelle, you're so

excellent at doing the actual research.

That blows that talking point right out of the water.

[lapucelle]

15. Facts are facts and the nonsense has to stop.

If I know the facts, shouldn't a sitting US senator?

Mahalo, my friend!!!

[lapucelle]

12. It didn't contain "poison pills", but you are correct about someone being disingenuous.

Here's the statement Sanders released in June 2017:

"I believe that these new sanctions [against Iran] could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015."

However, Richard Nephew, who served as principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the State Department from 2013 to 2015 and who was a lead negotiator of the treaty, told CBS news that "these secondary sanctions would comply with the nuclear deal because Iran's missile program is excluded from the agreement. Obama administration officials were unable to win that demand in the deal."

Nephew also noted that, "It's unclear if the [Iran sanctions] legislation is even needed -- the Trump administration already has the authority to execute what is already covered under the bill".

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-eyes-irans-ballistic-missile-program-with-new-sanctions/

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-iran-and-russia-sanctions

[sheshe2]

16. Excellent.

Thank you lapucelle. With some research, you get facts.

[Cha]

14. If you're quite finished.. read this..

There were no "poison pills" in the legislation that would jeopardize the Iran treaty. From a August 2017 post here at DU.

A lead negotiator of the treaty [Richard Nephew] told CBS news that [Sanders'] fears are unfounded because the sanctions do not violate the terms of the treaty.

"The Senate...overwhelmingly passed legislation that would impose new U.S. sanctions that would target Iran's ballistic missile program, its support for terrorism and human rights violations, and yet it would still comply with the Iranian nuclear deal."

snip-------------------

"Richard Nephew [a lead negotiator of the nuclear deal who previously served as principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the State Department from 2013 to 2015] said he has no problem closing loopholes in existing sanctions law, but he doubts that it would add to the U.S.'s already robust sanctions architecture. He said the measure wouldn't harm the nuclear deal."

snip-------------------

"Richard Nephew, who served as principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the State Department from 2013 to 2015 and who was a lead negotiator of the treaty, told CBS news that 'these secondary sanctions would comply with the nuclear deal because Iran's missile program is excluded from the agreement. Obama administration officials were unable to win that demand in the deal.'"

snip-------------------

"It's unclear if the legislation is even needed -- the Trump administration already has the authority to execute what is already covered under the bill, Nephew said" ...These secondary sanctions would comply with the nuclear deal because Iran's missile program is excluded from the agreement."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-eyes-irans-ballistic-missile-program-with-new-sanctions/

Moreover, it was reported in Al-Monitor/Iran Pulse that

"Nasser Hadian, a prominent professor of international relations at the University of Tehran... does not believe that the new sanctions would explicitly violate the nuclear deal, though they defy the intent of the JCPOA. Hadian believes there is coordination and agreement between the United States and the EU in the escalation of pressure on Iran over its missile program, while avoiding explicit violation of the nuclear deal."

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/07/iran-us-senate-bill-sanctions-reactions-nuclear-deal.html#ixzz4ovssh49P

The impact of the sanctions on Russia (rather than those on Iran) seemed to be the focus of the foreign press.

Because Senator Sanders's messaging video specifically invokes a "warning" from former SOS John Kerry, I was especially interested in reading his testimony. I couldn't find it in the Congressional Record.

Apparently the warning came, not in testimony, but via Twitter and a week later in remarks at a fundraising event.

“After Rouhani’s reelection, there is much up in the air/room for misinterpretation. This is not the moment for a new Iran bill,” Kerry tweeted.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/335004-john-kerry-issues-tweet-storm-over-senate-considering-iran

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/336494-kerry-new-iran-sanctions-may-be-dangerous

lapucelle https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=502881

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread tecelote