Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Confirmed: Democrat Senator Chris Murphy held secret meeting with Iranian foreign minister

Confirmed: Democrat Senator Chris Murphy held secret meeting with Iranian foreign minister

If Murphy and possibly other Democrat Senators weren’t undermining U.S. foreign policy, why was it kept secret until The Federalist reported on the meeting?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEyOa2i83sQ

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has slammed a reportedly ‘secret’ meeting between Democrat Senators and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, Katie Pavlich at Town Hall reported.

The comments were made in response to a report published in The Federalist claiming that Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and other Democrat senators met with Iranian foreign minister on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference held last week.

“This is the foreign minister of a country that killed an American on December 27. And it’s the foreign minister of a country who is the largest world sponsor of terror and the world’s largest sponsor of anti-Semitism,” Pompeo said referring to Iranian Foreign Minister. “If they met, I don’t know what they said. I hope they were reinforcing America’s foreign policy and not their own.”

Senator Chris Murphy confirmed the meeting earlier today. “I met w[ith] the Iranian Foriegn Minister in Munich.” he wrote on Twitter. “It’s dangerous not to talk to adversaries, esp[ecially] amidst a cycle of escalation.”

Town Hall reported Secretary Pompeo’s response to the meeting:

Speaking to reporters during a joint press conference with Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedu Andargachew Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded to reporting that a number of Democrat Senators secretly met with Iranian Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference.

“I have seen that piece about some senators meeting with Foreign Minister Zarif. This guy is designated by the United States of America. He’s the foreign minister for a country that shot down a commercial airliner and has yet to turn over the black boxes. This is the foreign minister of a country that killed an American on December 27. And it’s the foreign minister of a country who is the largest world sponsor of terror and the world’s largest sponsor of anti-Semitism,” Pompeo said. “If they met, I don’t know what they said. I hope they were reinforcing America’s foreign policy and not their own.”

The news of the alleged secret Zarif meeting was first reported by Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist.

“Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and other Democratic senators had a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference last week, according to a source briefed by the French delegation to the conference. Murphy’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment by press time,” the outlet reported.

Zarif was designated for sanctions by the Treasury Department last summer for sponsoring terrorism around the world.

The meeting took place at a time when Tehran has declared a ‘jihad’ against the United States. “The jihad of resistance will continue with a doubled motivation, and a definite victory awaits the fighters in the holy war,” Iran’s ‘Sureme Leader’ Ayatollah Khamenei said early January after a U.S. drone strike killed Qassem Soleimani, the chief of Iran’s elite Quds Force and a designated terrorist group. Soleimani, directly responsable for the killing of hundreds of U.S. servicemen in Iraq, was plotting attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions at the time of the strike, the Pentagon revealed.

The judgment displayed by Senator Chris Murphy and his colleagues is not unique for leading Democrats. Former Secretary of State John Kerry also admitted meeting Iran’s Zarif several times since leaving office, and apparently advised Iranians to wait out the current President until a Democrat successor takes over the White House. “I think everybody in the world is talking about waiting out President Trump,” Kerry told the media in 2018 when asked about his talks with Iranians.

Pompeo: Iran Never Intended to Follow Nuclear Deal

[Cover image via YouTube]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
,

Comments

These Meetings may not have been approved by the President but they were Swamp Authorized

JusticeDelivered | February 18, 2020 at 1:43 pm

Impeach those involved in undermining America’s interests.

An alternative would be to drop them into Iran.

Fuck impeachment! Drag these traitors through the mill as the traitors they are!!!

Shall I assume that they will release a transcript of the conversation to demonstrate there was no quid quo pro or collusion with Iran?

I am just wondering who the other Senators were.

Yes where’s the transcript???

Oh, I’m sure they were just talking about grand kids and golf, and not about how to undermine the President’s foreign policy.

Compared to our domestic fifth columnists, Iran is almost no threat to the United States. Deal with the embedded traitors first, then do whatever is needed in relations with Iran.

When, oh WHEN, will the Logan Act be enforced?

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    I’m sure there’s lots of nuances and penumbras you’re neglecting in that quote. Because it seems way too clear to me.

      CorkyAgain in reply to GWB. | February 18, 2020 at 3:52 pm

      For example, what constitutes the “authority of the United States”? I’m not a lawyer, but my layman’s take is that this is probably the key phrase in the act. Is it defined somewhere else in the law?

        Milhouse in reply to CorkyAgain. | February 18, 2020 at 4:27 pm

        “The authority of the United States” is pretty clear — the USA, i.e. the president, has to have given the person permission. But it will never be enforced because it’s almost certainly unconstitutional.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | February 18, 2020 at 7:16 pm

          Well. then maybe the SOB needs to have an unconstitutional accident? Undermining America on behalf of a self professed enemy, well if that is not treason, then it should be.

        The President of the United States is the Chief Executive and is the only branch government designated to conduct foreign relations and diplomatic exchanges.

        Anyone conduct foreign relations with another country can only do with express permission of, and acting as an emissary of, the President of the United States.

        Seeking to conduct foreign policy by any other official of government can be a violation of the Logan Act.

    Just remember who the Attorney General is and you can answer your own question

      txvet2 in reply to MarkS. | February 18, 2020 at 9:48 pm

      Trump still claims to have absolute confidence in Barr and Barr appears to have absolute confidence in Durham. We’ll see.

    Milhouse in reply to snopercod. | February 18, 2020 at 4:30 pm

    The Logan Act will never be enforced, just as it has never been enforced in the 220 years since it was passed, because almost everyone for the last 220 years has believed it’s probably unconstitutional, and will not survive its first encounter with a judge. In order to prevent its being struck down, the policy of every AG has been never to bring it before a judge.

      Tom Servo in reply to Milhouse. | February 18, 2020 at 5:07 pm

      Exactly – the “Logan Act” only has one purpose, and that is when a corrupt DOJ want’s to use it as a fig leaf to launch an illegal surveillance operation on an American Citizen. That’s all it does.

      Paul In Sweden in reply to Milhouse. | February 18, 2020 at 7:37 pm

      Millhouse, If the house and senate were of the majority of the POTUS party a recourse it seems to me would be impeachment. Is that true?

      Can you elaborate as to what possible avenues are available in the previous Kerry undermining of US foreign policy and the possible undermining of US foreign policy by Sen. Murphy and his motley crew.

        Senators can’t be impeached. 2/3 of the senate could expel him, but it would take a lot more than a Logan Act violation to justify that.

        Kerry can’t even be expelled, since he’s not in the senate any more. So there really is no recourse.

          I think there would be recourse. Kerry can’t conduct foreign policy as a private citizen. That he is attempting to do do is a violation of some law, somewhere, that says private citizens cannot conduct foreign policy for the US. Kerry’s been doing this kind of stuff for years. I think it’s time he was slapped down for it. Filing suit in court would be the first step.

          Paul In Sweden in reply to Milhouse. | February 19, 2020 at 6:32 am

          How would pulling passports, no-fly lists, prohibitionist from federal building lists on Kerry and the other usurpers work and hold up. Would any of that be legal?

          rabidfox in reply to Milhouse. | February 19, 2020 at 9:12 am

          I think we first need an investigation into whether what they were doing was a threat to the US. Under the FISA law. Two hop rule. Ooooh! Let’s have some fun!

          paracelsus in reply to Milhouse. | February 19, 2020 at 9:59 am

          there’s still tar and feathers

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 19, 2020 at 10:43 am

          I think there would be recourse. Kerry can’t conduct foreign policy as a private citizen. That he is attempting to do do is a violation of some law, somewhere, that says private citizens cannot conduct foreign policy for the US.

          That would be the Logan Act, which we are discussing. The problem is that it is very probably unconstitutional, and the only reason it hasn’t been struck down is that for 220 years no attorney general has ever been willing to risk bringing it before a judge.

          Kerry’s been doing this kind of stuff for years.

          Lots of people have been doing it, for centuries. But bringing it to court will almost guarantee it’s struck down, which would give everyone an official license to keep doing it. Whatever limited utility the act has had for 220 years would be lost.

          How would pulling passports, no-fly lists, prohibitionist from federal building lists on Kerry and the other usurpers work and hold up. Would any of that be legal?

          Almost certainly not. And might very well form the basis of a real impeachment, one that could get 20 R senators’ support and probably should. Had 0bama tried a stunt like that we’d all have been howling for his impeachment; if Trump did it he would deserve the same.

          I think we first need an investigation into whether what they were doing was a threat to the US. Under the FISA law.

          “A threat to the US” wouldn’t justify that. You’d have to show a FISA judge convincing evidence that Kerry is actually working for Iran. And after the Page disaster those judges are going to examine that evidence carefully before signing the warrant. As far as any of us know, no such evidence exists.

          there’s still tar and feathers

          There is, but then he gets to shower it off and you go to prison.

          Paul In Sweden in reply to Milhouse. | February 19, 2020 at 12:29 pm

          “there’s still tar and feathers”

          Now you are talking, Milhouse.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 19, 2020 at 1:45 pm

          Now you are talking, Milhouse.

          That was paracelsus. I pointed out that while tarring and feathering him would feel good, the damage to him would be fleeting and not worth the prison sentence.

      A way around the Logan Act is not necessary in my opinion. All that is necessary is for the person acting on foreign policy is to be registered with the United States Dept of State as an agent of a foreign government.
      If this were required and if it’s constitutional, it would stop these clowns from meddling in foreign affairs.

Subotai Bahadur | February 18, 2020 at 2:19 pm

“If Murphy and possibly other Democrat Senators weren’t undermining U.S. foreign policy, why was it kept secret until The Federalist reported on the meeting?”

Outside of foreign bribes, the sole foreign policy goals of the Democrat Party is to undermine the US in all things.

Subotai Bahadur

This type of thing has been SOP for the left since the days of Teddy Kennedy. Seems you can’t get a more direct foreign influence on an election that violating Title 18 USC 953.

    In the way back Democrats used to refer to such meetings as “fact finding” and never passed up an opportunity to preen before the cameras immediately afterward. These Democrat clowns were undoubtably reminding the Iranians that their PACs, family foundations, and charitable entities were still open for business and that the need for funds has never been greater in the fight against their common enemy.

    The Iranians probably laughed all the way home. Democrats have “failure to launch” written all over them and are an incredibly poor foreign political investment for the near-to-mid future.

There those Democrats go, being “flexible” with hostile foreigners again.

Three reasons… get rid of Trump, get money, screw Israel.

I honestly wonder sometimes how much more of this seditious crap the good citizens of this country will tolerate. The list of misdeeds committed in the raw pursuit of power by the left – most to the detriment of America and Americans – grows daily.

Hey, don’t you all realize that occasional meeting are necessary to coordinate the kickbacks from the $150 billion Obama gave the Mullahs.
And to slip some of those pallets of cash into brown paper bags?

I smell a quid pro quo! What did the treasonous senator receive in return for his meeting? Did he not ask anything of the islamic terrorists? Where is the transcript of his meeting? Where are the witnesses who sat in on it? Where is Lt.Col. Vindman?

Recall Senator Murphy’s tweets about Iran. Senator Murphy tweeted that the attacks on the embassy in Baghdad showed that Trumps policies “rendered America impotent in the Middle East.” Several days later, in response to Soleimani’s death, Senator Murphy tweeted that Trump was being too aggressive. IOW, “nuance” to a Democrat means that no matter what Trump does, he is wrong.

Democrat Chris Murphy Complains About Soleimani Attack 2 Days After Calling Trump ‘Impotent’ on Iran

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) is complaining about President Donald Trump’s attack Thursday on Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Iraq — just two days after complaining that Trump was “impotent” to respond to Iranian attacks.
Murphy, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, tweeted on Tuesday: “The attack on our embassy in Baghdad is horrifying but predictable. Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East. No one fears us, no one listens to us. America has been reduced to huddling in safe rooms, hoping the bad guys will go away. What a disgrace.”
On Thursday evening, after Trump’s successful attack, Murphy tweeted that the problem was actually that Trump was being too aggressive: “Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question. The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?”
Not even 3 days apart. Political hackery at lightspeed

I agree that the Logan Act is probably Un-Constitutional.

BUT, the Democrats use it against Republicans all the time. Most recently, it was used as part of the justification for the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign, transition team, and administration.

They brought it up again during the impeachment farce.

The way to get rid of it, for good, is for the DOJ to actually charge someone like, say, John Kerry (who was part of this same meeting with the three D Senators and the Iranians), and get the Democrats arguing that it is Un-Constitutional.

Also, given the fact that Iran has been officially at war against the United States since 1979, what these Senators and John Kerry just did can, and really should, be prosecuted as Treason. No need to even mention the Logan Act.

    Milhouse in reply to Aarradin. | February 19, 2020 at 11:02 am

    BUT, the Democrats use it against Republicans all the time. Most recently, it was used as part of the justification for the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign, transition team, and administration.

    Not all the time. As far as I recall that was the first time, and people gasped at the arrogance of it.

    Also, given the fact that Iran has been officially at war against the United States since 1979, what these Senators and John Kerry just did can, and really should, be prosecuted as Treason. No need to even mention the Logan Act.

    Nope. Treason requires adherence to the enemy, and there’s no way they can prove that. Even overt acts with two witnesses that definitely help the enemy are not treason if they’re not done because it will help the enemy. Whether it’s true or not (and it may even be true) Kerry et all will claim that their sole motive was a true belief that their actions were in the USA’s interest. That’s clearly not treason. But even if it were done solely to gain a domestic political advantage, knowing that it would harm the USA, it would still not be treason.

Best way for Trump to deal with this is heavy campaign commercials pointing out Democrat Senators colluding with a nation that is openly hostile to the United States, has killed United States armed forces members (Iraq), and is a state supporter of terrorism.

    rabidfox in reply to TheOldZombie. | February 19, 2020 at 9:16 am

    The President lobbed the first grenade over the fence about this at the press briefing he held before taking off in Marine 1. I wonder what he has planned….

Did Murphy have John Kerry with him? James Taylor?

What is the definition of treason

    Milhouse in reply to paracelsus. | February 19, 2020 at 1:53 pm

    There are two definitions of treason in the United States:

    1. Waging war against the United States. That means actually shooting at our troops, or serving in an army that is doing so. Clearly none of the Dems have done that.

    2. Adhering to the United States’ enemies, plus an overt act that gives them aid and comfort and is witnessed by two people (or is confessed to). But the key factor is the adherence; the overt act must not only give the enemies aid and comfort, but must be done because it does that, and not for some other reason. If you do something that you know helps the enemy, but you’re not doing it out of adherence to their cause, that’s not treason.

Just further evidence that the Democrats are once again the party of treason. Along this line, I wish every American would read John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, VENONA: DECODING SOVIET ESPIONAGE INAMERICA. The book is a devastating rebuttal to the liberal b.s. about a baseless “red scare.”
The extent of the infiltration of the federal government bySoviet agents and their American Communist Party helpers exceeds what even the most vocal anti-Communist of the time
charged. What makes it even more frightening is that the Venona intercepts operated for only a brief time before one of the infiltrators warned Moscow and the record. includes lots of alias that could not be identified. And what about how the fact about Obama in his Hawaiian days
having as a mentor a Communist party activist has been effectively buried?

Please, AG Barr, prosecute any Democrat that knowingly violated our laws. And don’t forget about Hillary who jeopardized our country’s security.

    Milhouse in reply to texasron. | February 19, 2020 at 2:10 pm

    Trump promised many times during his campaign that he would “Lock her up”. I took this to mean, not as the Dem propagandists claimed, that he would dictatorially order her arrest and imprisonment in some gulag, but that he would order the justice department to investigate her carefully, try to find evidence of crimes she had committed within the statute of limitations (most of her known crimes are no longer prosecutable), and prosecute her. If possible outside DC. Hopefully such a process would result in her being locked up.

    But I never thought he intended to do any of that, and unfortunately that turned out to be true. While he hasn’t reconciled with her (not his choice but hers) he did nothing to lead to such an investigation, and the more time passes the more of her crimes become too old to ever be prosecuted.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend