Brzezinski: Trump may have pulled out of Iran deal to 'deflect' from scandals

[DonViejo]

BY JULIA MANCHESTER - 05/09/18 09:18 AM EDT

MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski suggested on Wednesday that President Trump could have pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal in an effort to deflect from scandals he faces in the U.S.

"It was a campaign promise. It does appeal, possibly, to his base, but the totality of this president's behavior and his decisions does lead me to question why he does anything and whether it's to deflect from something else," Brzezinski, who is a frequent critic of Trump, said on "Morning Joe."

"I don't think he has the moral compass to make a decision based on our own national security," she continued. Brzezinski's remarks come less than a day after the president announced the U.S. would be leaving the multination deal, which provided Tehran with sanctions relief in return for accepting limits on its nuclear program.

“Today’s action sends a critical message: the United States no longer makes empty threats,” Trump said during a televised address Tuesday from the White House.

more + video:
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/386870-brzezinski-trump-may-have-pulled-out-of-iran-deal-to-deflect-from-scandals

[Shanti Mama]

1. She needs to correct her language. We violated the deal.

[dalton99a]

3. +1

[beachbum bob]

2. lol, if deflecting means running gas prices up to over $3/gal on average nationwide so

most of america hates tump and his admin even more, then its gonna be successful

[BumRushDaShow]

4. In this case the opportunity presented itself

Trump's decision on Iran is not as black and white as it seems

<...>

But the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is a subtle document that allows for all kinds of fudge if Trump’s advisers choose to take that course. The 2016 US guidance accompanying the original agreement was 42 pages.

The specific decision Trump is required to take by 12 May is whether to renew a waiver on a set of oil sanctions first implemented in January 2012. Removing the waiver will not immediately lead to the imposition of sanctions, but it would mean companies, including banks, having to show over the next 180 days that they are reducing their trade in Iranian oil by significant amounts.

In 2012, the US Department of State was charged with defining “significant amounts” in terms of barrels of oil a day, and the Obama administration chose a 20% reduction over an 80-day period.

Companies or countries that do not comply will then face sanctions. In addition, all oil payments and any other transactions with the Iranian central bank would be required to go into escrow accounts.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/08/trump-iran-decision-sanctions-waiver-nuclear-deal-continue

So although the scandals have gone non-stop since election day, the waiver deadline timing of the original agreement offered the way that Bolton (and Bibi) could assert power and provide a two-fer for the week's news cycle (overtaking a prevailing story).

The issue however is whether this could have waited a couple more days to capture the weekend/Sunday shows more substantially vs what is going to happen with the Cohen story as the pay-to-play/slush fund story gets further delved into and media outlets look for more pay-to-play opportunities and determine where >$4 million eventually went out of the slush fund.

[Me.]

5. What Does She Know

After all she and her future husband helped elect Comrade Trump all the while telling HRC to get off her high horse and I was told she was really rude to Avanti this morning...true?

[meadowlark5]

6. She seems hyperfocused on the women

I saw her talking with Avenatti and all she was interested in is if there were more women, what was on the dvd and seemed very upset Avenatti wouldn't tell her what's on the dvd.

There is so much going on with this Cohen/Trump/Russia investigation and she was most interested in the sex and hush money