The Iranian government specifically said –and broadcast on their television network (Feb)– a $400 million cash payment to them from the U.S. was a successfully extorted ransom payment to secure the release of American hostages.

However, on August 4th, the White House immediately claimed the $400 million cash payment made as part of the “Iran Deal” was not a ransom payment to secure the release of the U.S. hostages.  President Obama went on television to state: “no ransom was paid”:

But today, August 18th, the AP is reporting:

The State Department says a $400 million cash payment to Iran was contingent on the release of American prisoners.

Spokesman John Kirby says negotiations over the United States’ returning Iranian money from a decades-old account was conducted separately from the prisoner talks. But he says the U.S. withheld delivery of the cash as leverage until the U.S. citizens had left Iran.

Both events occurred Jan. 17.

Kirby spoke after The Wall Street Journal reported that the departures of the crisscrossing planes were linked. (link)

Apparently now, in addition to reducing the value of congress to debating the difference between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence” (FBI/Comey – one is illegal, one is not), we are going to debate the meaning of the word “ransom“.

How very Clintonian everything is becoming already…. or, well,… perhaps AGAIN.

The Obama’s and Clinton’s could debate the implied meaning of a Stop Sign.