RUSH: Ted Cruz — a lot just broke here. I mean, during the break a lot of stuff just broke, so I’m just now getting it organized. Ted Cruz has put out a letter proposing the plan that we mentioned two days ago on this program to stop the Iran deal based on Obama’s failure to comply with a Corker Bill condition that he disclose the entirety of the agreement.
Again, two ways to go about this Iran deal. There’s intellectual heft on all sides and there’s valid reasons to do both ways. One side says go after it on the basis of a treaty because it is one. The Constitution’s very clear. Don’t let Obama get away with doing something that’s not a treaty when it is. And then there’s the other way which basically requires the Republicans and the Congress to illustrate, to point out that the deal is invalid because Obama’s not followed the law. And the law is the precious Corker-Cardin Bill, which, on one hand, made opposing it practically impossible because of the convoluted way it reversed the voting procedure and the objective of the voting procedure.
In a treaty you need 67 votes of support in the Senate to ratify it. The Corker Bill, “No, no, no, no, we’re gonna make it so that we only need 33 votes to stop it,” essentially. So it never had a chance of failing if they wanted to deal with it the treaty way because the Corker Bill convoluted everything. But there was another element to the Corker Bill that required the president to fully disclose everything in the Iran deal, including the two side deals on a certain date, which was July 19th. That was not complied with.
As such, the Corker Bill is law. It was passed, then signed, and Obama is in violation of it. And the Republicans in the Senate and the House are perfectly within their rights under the separation of powers and the whole concept that the law’s the law and we have a rule of law, they’re perfectly within their rights to assert that the Iran deal is invalid because Obama has violated the statute that he signed regarding its passage and approval, the Corker-Cardin Bill. It’s no more complicated than that. I spent a lot of time on this two days ago.
Now Ted Cruz has put out a letter proposing a plan that is right along the lines of that which we’ve been discussing. There are four points. This is not the whole letter. These are just the four point highlights. Number one, Republicans should find that Obama did not provide the agreement, so the 60-day congressional review period never started. In other words, Obama did not give them the details. He was required by law to provide Congress with the details, which is something he hasn’t done. Look at the pan-Pacific trade deal. You had to go to a super-secret room to read it. You couldn’t take any notes outside the super-secret room, and you couldn’t tell anybody what you had read.
Obamacare. It’s become pretty clear that the vast majority of people that voted for it had not read it, and you remember Nancy Pelosi saying, “Well, we gotta pass it, we have to sign it before we find out what’s in it.” So this is par for the course. Obama’s been thumbing his nose at Congress as much as they’ll let him get away with it, which is quite a bit. But in this case they could find, they should find that Obama did not provide the terms of the agreement. So the 60-day congressional review, which is part — that’s another thing. Treaties, months and months and months are allowed. The Law of the Sea treaty, how long was that debated, for years. So should this have been.
But Corker, they thought they were being cute, they put a 60-day limit in it. This 60-day congressional review limit supersedes treaty clause in this case, but it never started because Obama didn’t comply. That’s the period that Corker and McConnell are trying to rush us through by September 17th, which lets Obama win with 34 votes in the Senate. That’s what the Corker Bill basically does. It lets Obama win with 34 votes instead of 67.
Now, it’s clear that just with that first point in Cruz’s letter, this whole thing could be defeated, but McConnell and Boehner and Corker are trying to rush this thing through by September 17th so that they will get past the 60-day congressional review and make it look like it’s all legal. The second point that Cruz makes in this letter is that McConnell should find that if Obama had submitted the deal as a treaty, it would have been soundly rejected, which it would have. They never have 67 votes for anything in the Senate, not even this. And a treaty requires two-thirds at 67. Remember the Corker Bill did everything upside down and ended up saying that all Obama needed was 34 votes to get this dangerously stupid deal authorized.
The sanctions are a key. The sanctions are statutory, which means they don’t have to come under the rubric of the treaty clause anyway, and since Obama has not complied with the law, the sanctions do not have to be lifted. And if they aren’t, then the Ayatollah Khamenei is gonna be left muttering about Israel, which is nothing new, and angry and condemning the US, which is nothing new.
Anyway, since Obama will ignore, try to waive the sanctions anyway and lift them, Cruz says that Congress should make clear that this would be lawless and that as far as US law is concerned, the sanctions are still in effect and remain on the books to be enforced after Obama is out of office, and this would make banks and big companies leery of dealing with Iran. Their lawyers would advise them, they might eventually face big fines, even if Obama won’t enforce the law.
It’s another bit of advice, if you will, a suggestion to the powers that be in the Republican leadership, “Hey, you say you want to stop this. You say you want to stop this deal. We’re giving you the road map here.” And one of the ideas, just continue to pound the fact that the president of the United States is behaving in a lawless manner. I don’t care what Obama thinks of himself in terms of his narcissism and his legacy and so forth. Nobody wants the term “lawless” attached to ’em, and that term happens to resonate.
You know, everybody is looking for communicating ways to reach low-information voters and pop culture people who are bored by this. Lawless, accusing Obama of it, his actions would be lawless as far as US statutory law is concerned. That would be another way to go.
And point number four in Cruz’s letter, the idea here is the one that was outlined yesterday by Andy McCarthy at National Review. Under Corker-Cardin, Obama cannot lift the sanctions from the time he was supposed to give the whole agreement to Congress until 10 days after he finally vetoes the resolution of disapproval. That process could take well over two months, 60 days, for Congress to review plus vote on the resolution and then for Obama to veto, and then vote on the override of veto. That’s a lot of stuff to happen in 60 days. It probably couldn’t all happen in 60 days.
The point is Obama has violated the law. He has not fulfilled the terms of the agreement in the Corker-Cardin Bill. He did not fully apprise everybody of all the details, including the side deals. Therefore, he cannot lift the sanctions from the time he was supposed to give the whole agreement to Congress until 10 days after he finally vetoes the resolution of disapproval. So if Congress takes the position that the 60-day review clock has not started yet because Obama didn’t trigger the clock because he didn’t present the full details to Congress, and that 60-day period will not start until Obama fully finally discloses the whole agreement, we could keep the sanctions in place for a few more months. And all they would have to do is do this.
The law is on McConnell’s side. The law is on Republican leadership’s side. Obama did not comply. He did not provide full details as the law requires. You might say, “Well, what’s the big deal about that?” How can they vote on it if they don’t know everything that’s in it? I know, that hasn’t stopped them yet. But this stuff has to stop, folks. This kind of cavalier, haphazard way of governance has to stop. And it’s serious. This is serious. You know how many people there are running around, it’s just easier to remain ignorant about things like this. The day is easier if you’re not bogged down by the weight of what this represents.
We’re talking about nuclear weapons in the hands of genocidal madmen. Despite all of our history, all the lives that have been lost defeating previous tyrants — Adolf Hitler is a name that comes to mind — the fact that we’re even having to debate doing it again, that we’re back at square one. We got Neville Chamberlain and a bunch of other people, “No, no, no, the Iranians are not a problem. They just want nuclear power.” We can’t even take the chance. They haven’t earned the benefit of the doubt, the Iranians. They never will.
So here’s a road map. There are ways the Republicans can stop this with the law fully on their side, without even having to resort to politics, the law is on their side, that’s important because the Republicans are afraid to do politics because they think it’s partisanship. The Republicans don’t cooperate and they don’t work with people. This is using the law. If the Republican establishment presses ahead with the vote that Corker rigs the Corker Bill so that Obama must win, then the sanctions will be gone. And once the sanctions are gone, the Iranians have essentially what they want, because the deal really doesn’t provide any verification, not serious. So that’s where we are on this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, there’s another interesting point here about, in Ted Cruz’s letter, an important point that he raises is the one about US banks being held legally liable for unfreezing Iranian assets if Obama unfreezes them by bypassing Congress. This is another point of pressure. If Obama is engaging in lawless behavior — violation of US statutes — then anybody who aids and assists him in this could also be held legally liable. Now, the president, in many ways, is above the law and is not gonna be held accountable. But a bank or two? A much easier target.
And here’s another thing that might work, in terms of the Republicans and trying to buck them up. And who in turn would try to apply pressure elsewhere. Stop and think of it from this perspective. ‘Cause Cruz made this point yesterday at the rally. By unfreezing the $150 billion in Iranian cash assets — that’s part of the sanctions — the sanctions are lifted, then that $150 billion would be once again accessible to the Iranians.
By unfreezing that money, the United States would then become a contributing funder of terrorism in the world. And who wants that around their neck? Who wants that on their record? That’s exactly what would happen if you unfreeze $150 billion of assets that we certainly hold. I know some, what right do we have anyway, Rush, what right do we have, it’s their money, it’s not ours, we don’t have the right. See, that’s the kind of thinking that we’ve elected to lead the country. That’s the kind of thinking that derives from the concept that there is no good guys and that there are no bad guys.
And in fact if there are bad guys, it’s us who are the bad guys. What right do we have freezing the assets, none of our Wisconsin, it should be there, we should it, should give it to them with no strings attached. It’s what we would want if it were our money. Right, Mr. New Castrati. And that’s who we’ve elected. And that’s the kind of thinking we have at the State Department, the kind of thinking we have in too many places in the Pentagon.
It is the thinking that defines the Democrat Party. But the reality is if we go ahead and do this and lift these sanctions and that places $150 billion in the lap of the Ayatollah Khamenei, he uses it to go out and fund further terrorism activities, we in fact are the investor. Something seriously to consider.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here is John in Denver. John, I’m really glad you waited. I appreciate it. Welcome to the show. Hi.
CALLER: Thanks, Rush. Maha Rushie, my hero. I count myself as a 26 year student at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much. That’s what it’s like to be me, folks.
CALLER: Well, I’m getting a taste of it. So my problem, you touched on it at the end of the first hour with McConnell, and you said that he has the law on his side. And that supposes that he’s on our side, and I’m not supposing that anymore. Not just McConnell, but, you know, pretty much the entire Republican leadership nationally. It feels to me like they’re just simply playing for the other side and we shouldn’t really be surprised that they don’t pass anything we want. They don’t stand for anything we want. We get nothing when we win elections, and I think it’s all on purpose.
RUSH: Well, they are obviously responding to the donor class. That’s the new name bandied about to explain who it is that’s pulling the strings in the Republican Party. They always have pulled the same strings in the Democrat Party, the donor class, and your frustration is felt by many. This is just the latest example. The Iranian nuclear deal is a bad deal. It’s a bad deal for the future of the world. It’s a bad deal for America, and it would be easy, relatively easy to stop with some political gonads because they have the law on their side.
Obama has not complied with a phase of the Corker Bill that requires him to reveal every detail of this deal to Congress before they vote on it. He had to do that by July 19th. He has not done it. Not just the two side deals. He has not revealed everything. There’s still questions people have. Cannot vote on it. This is relating now to lifting sanctions, which are statutory, they’re not part of any — wanted to play with this as a treaty, which would be another way to go. But the point is Obama is in violation of the Corker Bill, which is the law of the land.
We hear that phrase a lot lately. “Can’t do anything about Planned Parenthood. Ah, abortion is the law of the land, Mr. Limbaugh.” Well, so is the Corker Bill. It’s the law of the land. Obama is in violation of it. The Republican leadership doesn’t seem to want to take Obama on because, I don’t know, you tell me what big money’s interest is in Iranian nukes. I can’t figure it out but that’s what it is. That’s what we’re up against.
Related Links