The Democrats and their media minions are hoping Americans will forget about the revelation that the Obama White House sent Iran $400 million, a payment that just happened to coincide with the release of American hostages.
The White House insists the timing is coincidental, but that beggars belief.
So questions remain: Was this payment legal? Ethical? How can a layperson possibly get to the bottom of this apparent “deal”?
Now Phil Houston, a former CIA employee, has gone public with his analysis. As a veteran interrogator, Houston bases his conclusions on his observations of the president’s behavior and choice of words:
First and foremost was the evasion behavior exhibited by the President, in the form of denial problems associated with the ransom question. We never heard the President explicitly state, “We did not pay ransom to secure the release of these four Americans.” Instead, the President relied on the non-specific denial, “We do not pay ransom for hostages.” At one point the President did say, “We do not pay ransom, we didn’t here, and we don’t, we won’t in the future.” But the denial issue here is its isolated delivery, buried in the long narrative of his argument. These denial problems are classic deceptive indicators. (…)
And then there’s the intense persuasion behavior in the form of convincing statements aimed at influencing our perception. Such statements, which were woven in throughout President Obama’s remarks, are often relied upon by a person when the facts are not his ally.
Houston warns that Obama’s payoff may “encourage other terrorist regimes and interests to step up their hostage-taking activities.” Perhaps the White House knows this very well, and is cynically hoping to dump that problem in the lap of the next administration.