3 ms·

It's obvious a sitting US admin has ways to talk to other countries. There's a long distance from that to "they must have had dealings with Iran before they got

by yyyk 5y ago

It's obvious a sitting US admin has ways to talk to other countries. There's a long distance from that to "they must have had dealings with Iran before they got elected", a long distance which required some evidence - which as you say doesn't exist.

mixmastamyk 5y ago
Many important people are on the record maintaining it happened and there is a decent amount of circumstantial evidence. Meetings in foreign countries, etc. There's also lots of documentation about the Reagan campaign's "counter october-surprise" activities. They were very active and making ties all over. It was a big deal in 1980 on the news every single night. Could and did make/break the election. The administration had the highest number of people put behind bars or on their way before being pardoned. They played dirty and everyone knows it. These parts aren't under dispute either. A few years later the same people are all caught in a number of treasonous dealings, with... the other same exact people. (Not to mention: Name any mainstream Americans who'd think to sell arms to Iran in the 80s? It borders on the ridiculous. Very few folks would even contemplate the idea, much less execute. Narrowed suspects with high motivation.) Where there's smoke, there's fire, unless you refuse to smell it.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  ^even if you refuse, of course.
- yyyk 5y ago
  The issue has been investigated over and over, and nobody found any actual evidence thereof. Iran would have had all motivation to threaten to expose Reagan - yet US policy remained mostly pro-Iraq. When push comes to shove, you have a few unimportant Americans which consider any publication to be evidence, and Banisadr, which was an loony exile by that time (actually he was more than a bit loony beforehand). I also recall the hearings were far more incensed with the idea of funding the Contras (ignoring the Congressional ban) than with Iran arms which was considered merely a cynical play to serve US interests. e.g. the Chase Bank memoir, despite the publication being if anything an argument against, since the Reagan campaign wouldn't have to spread rumors if they had a deal.

by yyyk 5y ago

mixmastamyk 5y ago

Many important people are on the record maintaining it happened and there is a decent amount of circumstantial evidence. Meetings in foreign countries, etc. There's also lots of documentation about the Reagan campaign's "counter october-surprise" activities. They were very active and making ties all over. It was a big deal in 1980 on the news every single night. Could and did make/break the election. The administration had the highest number of people put behind bars or on their way before being pardoned. They played dirty and everyone knows it. These parts aren't under dispute either. A few years later the same people are all caught in a number of treasonous dealings, with... the other same exact people. (Not to mention: Name any mainstream Americans who'd think to sell arms to Iran in the 80s? It borders on the ridiculous. Very few folks would even contemplate the idea, much less execute. Narrowed suspects with high motivation.) Where there's smoke, there's fire, unless you refuse to smell it.

mixmastamyk 5y ago
^even if you refuse, of course.
yyyk 5y ago
The issue has been investigated over and over, and nobody found any actual evidence thereof. Iran would have had all motivation to threaten to expose Reagan - yet US policy remained mostly pro-Iraq. When push comes to shove, you have a few unimportant Americans which consider any publication to be evidence, and Banisadr, which was an loony exile by that time (actually he was more than a bit loony beforehand). I also recall the hearings were far more incensed with the idea of funding the Contras (ignoring the Congressional ban) than with Iran arms which was considered merely a cynical play to serve US interests. e.g. the Chase Bank memoir, despite the publication being if anything an argument against, since the Reagan campaign wouldn't have to spread rumors if they had a deal.