Josh seems a little testy, too, pushing back against the idea that the pallets of unmarked bills delivered to the Iranians was a ransom, and coming close to asking “what difference does it make?”
Not that Josh is telling us anything that John “Lurch” Kerry hasn’t already told us.
Here’s where Josh gets snippy with CBS’ Margaret Brennan asking “Why is that relevant?” when asked about that YUGE pile of cash.
From The Daily Mail:
The administration is aggressively pushing back on reports that the $400 million was in exchange for US hostages in spite of local reports that quoted Iranian defense officials describing the money as a ransom payment.
It is also refusing to say how the $1.7 billion was paid. Earnest said Wednesday that details like what was included in the Wall Street Journal report are make for ‘colorful’ reporting but do not change the baseline facts.
He contended that its irrelevant as to whether the money was wired or delivered as paper currency.
Officials say the $400 million was paid in foreign currency, because transactions with Iran in US dollars is illegal in the United States.
It was such a large amount of cash that the US was forced to transfer the money into the central banks of the Switzerland and the Netherlands.
Irrelevant whether the money was wired or delivered as cash? Which is easier to handout to terrorist fighters? Isn’t there a reason people up to no good like to “spread the cash around?”