persons investing in iran and from iran accessing us markets and banks.we have not promised, nor do we have intent, together on access to the united states financial system. additionally, we have maintained sanctions to counter maligned activities outside of the nuclear profile. iran continues to be the world's leading supporter of terrorism. under our current sanctions regime we have designated nearly 200 firms and individuals on nonnuclear grounds, irg see, subsidiaries, senior officials, front companies all of whom we are continuing to target and expose including major iranian defense and missile entities which are behind iran's current blissful -- ballistic missile work. since implementation of the jcpoa, we have continued to target new iranian actors including key supporters of the ballistic missile programs and central money laundering individuals. i can tell you that after many years of targeting hezbollah, today the group is in its worst financial shape in decades. we having clear eyed and will continue to combat using the range of tools at our di

iran did not honor -- mr. rohrabacher: in one wording, it absolutely prohibited them from getting iraq if they could deliver a nuclear weapon. after the wording it now permits them to have it because with the strict definition of what the wording was, they now have an opening to possess a nuclear weapons delivery system. that's not dramatic? that's huge. except it's being hidden with weasel words. ok. mr. countryman: permission of iran of obtaining intercontinental or nuclear capable ballistic missiles. there remains and absolute prohibition in that resolution of anyone providing it. mr. rohrabacher: missiles that were designed to deliver nuclear weapons not technology that can achieve that goal. the fact is if it can carry a nuclear weapon, even if it's not designed to do so, maybe it's designed to put up satellites. we don't want them to have that, if that, indeed, will permit them to drop a nuclear weapon in washington, d.c., with a missile using as a deliverycies tefment if you don't call that dramatic, th

and iran itself. and it's for this reason that we emphasize the full implementation of the jcpoa, creation of the strong sense of deterrence, the establishment of security assurances, especially through mechanisms necessary for them to be seen as both existing and operational, not just simply words on a piece of paper, but something that actually is living and breathing and works on a day-to-day basis. and work to promote a more stable regional environment, especially by seeking resolution of simmering conflicts. but these two latter factors also point to another resident theme in our research -- the need for the united states to be a player in the region. in my view, after decades of involvement in the region, we have yet really to settle upon an equilibrium for how the united states ought to operate in the region. in establishing this equilibr m equilibrium, the choice between involvement and remoteness is essential. states in the region need to have some sense of predictability when they are dealin

that's not unique to iran. i can tell you and practice, i don't know of a single subsidiary of a u.s. financial institution that is considering doing this business, given their global platforms. -- platforms, i think it's possible. rep. sherman: new legislation would be helpful. you referred to the airline. congressman henry and i have sent a letter to the eu shoulddor saying eu designate the airline under u.n. anti-terrorism sanctions. the airline cannot fly to europe or asia without ground service. it is now getting ground service from two companies, airport handling, based in italy, and ahs group, based in germany. these same service companies also service u.s. airlines, put aside the terrorist risk of having the same handlers do would the treasury department consider listing these two airport handling companies before doing business with the airline? don't comment on who we might designate in the future. mahan tinued ability of is to fly around the world something i have raised in every i visited. i don't t

persons investing in iran and prohibitions on iran accessing u.s. markets and banks. we have not promised, nor do we have any intent to give iran access to the u.s. financial system or reinstate the u-turn authorization. we have maintained all of our sanctions designed to counter iran's maligned activities outside of the nuclear file. iran continues to be the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and to play a negative role in destabilizing the region. under our current sanctions regime, we have designated more than 200 and rainy and linked firms and individuals on nonnuclear grounds. that also includes major iranian defense and missile entities, as noted by assistant secretary countryman, which are behind iran's current new prayer work. since implementation of the jcpoa, we have continued to target new irani and actors, including key supporters of their ballistic missile program. indeed, i can tell you that after many years of targeting hezbollah, today the group is in its worst financial shape in decades. ultimately we will remain clear eyed about the nature of the t

if iran is moderating. if we have -- if we're supporting a process of moderation in iran, allowing it to have these capabilities is really no danger. the second -- the second they were initiated by the united states the third deception is erasing concessions from the united states along the lines of what dr. ruben just discussed. the president has recognized syria. one of the goals of the deception mr. rose is to prevent people from connecting the dots between the syria policy and the ie rainian nuclear policy. the fifth part of the deception is blaming ie lies. the white house on background and in public is very willing to criticize creating secretary and extremism in the region. it's willing to criticize -- in very derogatory terms prime minister of israel in pursuit of the support -- in support murder machine. i'll sum up now what i think we need to do about this. that we do not know what is in the iran deal. we still to this day don't note. i completely agree with your assessment about the. he was in eu

it brought iran to the table. in this decision thaw are focusing on, this servant because of the newspaper sarl snag then disregards the fact that we fwlu in iraq and we are blowing it and they got in agreement and had the full support of those allies. the p 5 plus one. if there were issues, let's get on it. that's essentially what the alternative was. that's what the alternative was. i don't buy it and i don't believe the american people buy it and we are picking and choosing coming up with a little detail to suggest that we ought to unravel whole thing. i yield back. >> now recognize the gentlemen from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on september 11th, 2015, cnn stated the effort was one of the most aggressive lobbying drives to take shape between congressional democrat leaders and the obama white house on this bill. hr 3461. among the people who voted no were 25 democrats. they acknowledged that and she was the only one on the committee. there were others. my question is, what did t

. >> the iran agreement lifts restrictions on arms sales to iran after five years. and after eight removes the ban on iran developing ballistic missiles potentially capable of reaching the united states. question, mr. rubin, can you elaborate on the threat that ballistic missile capability poses to the united states? >> one of the problems i have with the reporting in the united states is people tend to pat themselves on the back every time there's a failed missile test. the fact of the matter is, you learn a lot from a failed missile test, and iran has made clear in its public statements that it intends to continue with its ballistic missiles until such a time as they can strike anywhere anytime. i should also say, a major flaw in the agreement is it bans the arms sales for five years for offensive weapons but never defines what offensive is, which is why iran is on a shopping spree in russia and china right now. >> thank you, mr. rubin. mr. doran? >> one of the things that the agreement did, basically, was remove ballistic missiles -- effectively remove the ballis

two iran. mr. rubin, how and how early did they start talking about administering oversight to the iran deal? >> i am not privy to the talks within the administration but it appears almost from the beginning. >> i have passed the iran terror financier act, the only real effort to oppose the nuclear deal, which now sits in the 'snate and with mr. rhodes exposure, the need for congressional oversight, there are key provisions and it sits in the senate. that language even today could be acted upon by the senate and provide a ski oversight. the president acted unconstitutionally. while he is free to make negotiations, he is not free to bind us with treaty-like obligations. do you think if we passed the key provisions out of the measure that currently sits in the senate it would increase the oversight as was noted last week by politico. do you think it would be helpful in deterring and making what we do have better? >> yes. the strongest and most effective actions taken by iran during the come in is to

a wave of moderation and iran. it is i to fundamentally change relations between iran and the west. this is been the gift that keeps on giving to president obama's diplomacy. story ofs a pleasing breaking down the barriers. it creates a moral equivalence and political terms between those who are critical of the deal in the united states and hardliners, the suppose it enemies -- suppose it enemies in iraq. it blows us into a false sense of security about all the concessions made to iran. the sunset component of the nuclear deal which is iran a completely legitimate program and the ability to move quickly towards a weapon. we are supporting a process of moderation in iran, then allowing it to have these capabilities is really no danger. second deception is falsifying the chronology of the negotiations, which began much earlier than the election. iranck to july 2012, initiated by the united states. the third reception is a racing concessions from the united states along the lines of what mr. rubin just discussed. befo

and to drum up business for iran. so there's a mismatch here between what we're saying and what we're doing. but what we're doing actually does match quite closely with what the iranians are saying. and that's been a characteristic of the deal from day one. the deal has been shaped by the red lines of the supreme leader and not by the red lines of the president of the united states. our red lines have dropped all along the way and the iranians have stayed consistent with theirs. jason chaffetz: mr. rubin. michael rubin: very quickly, the jcpoa is almost like a timeshare agreement. where you sign the deal and then you only find out then what the true costs are. one of the subjects for oversight would be with regard to changing the language restricting iran's ballistic missile work. was it a deliberate concession or was it the result of incompetence? michael rubin: what troubles me mostly is how we seem to be having become iran's lawyer. for example, the iranians will now complain that we are not enabling enough opening

what governors the verification of the iran nuclear deal. >> no, iran iran and the iaea have a confidentialards agreement that just like every member of the iaea. >> have you read that? >> no sir i have not. >> i would just offer up for you for secretary carry who is here a few months ago, it is difficult to vouch for a historic verification and monitoring regime when you do not know what the historic verification monitoring regime is. all you know is what contained in the jcpoa but you don't know what's included in the agreement between the i aea and iran especially since we reassociate press reports of how iran might be collecting some of their own soil samples, responsible for collecting some of their own nuclear sites. as we read what the associated press reports as the verification of the jcpoa, if you have not yet read it it is impossible to say that it is a historic verification and monitoring regime because you don't know what it is. the administration says it's not built on trust is built on verification. why hasn't the obama administration, why didn't the sign the asked the irania

security council explicitly calling for iran to halt its ballistic missile activity, iran's leaders have consistently rebuffed anything that's coming from the international community that it says is out of bound of the resolution and apparently everything is out of bounds of the resolution. in august of 2014, the deputy foreign minister of iran and chief nuclear negotiator told the "tehran times" -- quote -- "the restrictions on weapons posed through resolution 2231 are not mandatory and we can disregard them." that statement directly contradicts secretary of state kerry's statement when he talked about the resolution when he testified about the senate foreign relations committee last july, on july 23, secretary kerry said they are restrained from any sharing of mitchell technology -- of missile technology, purchase of missile technology, exchange of missile technology, missile technology work on missiles. they cannot do that under article 41, which is chapter 7 and mandatory, end of quote from our secretary of state. obviously, the administration has a much different interpretation of t

iran and the west. this narrative of the moderates coming to power and the need to support the moderates have been the gift that keeps on giving to the -- to president obama's diplomacy. it creates -- it creates a pleasing story of breaking down of barriers. it creates a moral equivalence in political terms between those who are critical of the deal in the united states and hardliners, the supposed enemies of rouhani in iraq. and, importantly, it makes -- it lulls us into a false sense of security about all of the concessions that we have made to iran and in particular the sunset component of the nuclear deal which gives iran effectively in ten years a completely legitimate program and the ability to move -- nuclear program and the ability to move quickly toward a weapon. if iran is moderating, if we are supporting a process of moderation in iran, then allowing it to have these capabilities is really no danger. the second -- the second deception is falsifying the chronology of the negotiations, which be

in iran?s texas have them and why did it have them in light of all the sanctions and leading up to this? >> right. at the time that the sanctions were placed, there were some investments in iran and there was the allowance of time to go through the divesture process. now that the sanctions have been lifted, what the united states is requesting is opening the investment door back up and we are saying no, we are not going to open the investment door back up. in fact we are going to close it even tighter and put a lock on it. >> how much is this going to pinch snrawn how much is texas worth to iran? >> texas is the 12th largest economy in the world. our state domestic product is more than a trillion dollars. assets could be in the billions of dollars. we hope, for one, this will pinch iran but, hopefully for others, this will send a signal to other states across the country, hopefully all 50 states will join with texas and sending a message to iran that we do not agree with your policies. we do n

rhodes has said about the iran deal, what the president of the united states has said about the iran deal has come true. our critics said that iran would never go along with an agreement. they did. they signed on the dotted line. our critics said that there would never be a way to verify that iran would live up to the terms of the agreement. we know they did. international impartial inspectors did exactly that and they were given the access they needed to confirm that iran has lived up to their end of the bargain. and our critics said, and just recited many of them, that iran would get, as steve scalise, who could also testify, said, that iran would get hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief. that's false. that's not true. even iran says that that's not true. in fact, they're saying that they are hoping that they can et access to more money. so, again, i don't know whether our critics were just wildly misinformed, mistaken or lying, but if republicans are interested in getting to the bottom of this, they should swear in some member of their own conference and figure it o

so far to being opposed to ayatollahs in iran they are doing everything they can to pretend that iran is a normal nation, including having the american secretary of state urge european banks to do business with iran and disregard the possible risk of american economic sanctions. it's just unbelievable how far the obama white house is tilted towards iran. >> the administration says their efforts are all aimed at preventing iran from building a nuclear bomb, and they say that is a success, but time will tell. ambassador john bolton, as always, thank you for your analysis and insight? >> thank you. >> arthel? >> also in the middle east, there's breaking news in iraq this sunday. isis terrorists launched a deadly attack on a natural gas plant near baghdad killing at least 12 people. smoke and fire gilg the air in a chaotic scene. officials say a suicide bomber used a car to ram the main gate allowing several more fighters to break inside the plant. conor powell has more now from our middle east bureau. conor, what's behind this increased aggression by isis in iraq? >> reporter: today's at

and that includes iran. we knew -- we know that iran uses assets of the state to support terrorism around the world including terrorism that claimed the lives of american citizens. we do treat iran differently from every other country. iran and other countries that are confirmed state sponsors of terrorism are treated differently than any other country including saudi arabia. >> [indiscernible] and a position opposing this bill because it could compromise sovereign entity. ernest: iran is one of the confirmed state sponsors of terror. [indiscernible] it is being suggested that power is being too consecrated -- concentrated. do you have any comment? mr. ernest: the first observation is that the current national security advisor has try to streamline and reform certain functions of the national security council that reduce thed her to size of the council by 10%. the first thing. the second thing is there is no denying the wide array of significant national security challenges that any president in the united s

why doing business in iran will be anything but simple. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for mond >> good anni ievening and welco. a triple-digit gain to start the week and the month of may. we begin with warren buffett. thousands of investors made the annual pilgrimage to omaha this weekend for berkshire's annual meeting known as woodstock for capitalists. it's the place where the world's most influential and well-known investor turns business into a party. at one point teaming up with microsoft founder bill gates in a doubles ping-pong match. he also gets down to business and answers questions from shareholders about his portfolio, about the markets, and he offers advice for investors. this morning he sat down with becky quick for a wide-ranging interview on cnbc and she began by asking him about the economy's sluggish growth. >> we're not living in a world where i think you expect the u.s. economy to grow at average%. the gdp figures are inherently a little more suspect in terms of being precise than year over year

that's what brought iran to the table. and i think that should be the goal of a sanctions regime with respect to north korea, that they see it as regime threatening. the second is the congress to support the administration to continue to put in place the appropriate missile defense systems in korea. both to protect us and our allies in the region. we're moving to do that. we've opened up discussions with the south koreans on putting a system in south korea. third, support president park and her vision. she's taken concrete steps, too, including pulling back the south koreans from the joint industrial facility in north korea. support president park's vision of a unified, peaceful korea. fourth, from the executive branch side, to really undertake an effort to deepen our conversation with the chinese about the future of the peninsula. it's an uncomfortable conversation for them but when you're presented with the fact that the united states is going to have to do a number of things to protect itself, they're not going to be ai

republicans had many chances to fight the iran deal.members of congress who were against the iran deal, both republicans and democrats. the prime minister of israel came to the u.s. and directly addressed congress and told them why they shouldn't support the iran deal. and there were many pundits and commentators who wrote op-eds against the deal. all of the information was out there. it was hotly debated with both sides and when president obama and his avid and effective adviser pushing forward on his behalf his agenda, which was to pass the deal and they were successful. >> ric, you have a different take. you're saying this simply highlights the power and ego of somebody who's obviously very influential. i also just am curious about the timing of this. why would he say this to the "new york times" now? in the last year of president obama's term in office? >> yeah, look, he's gloating. he's taking a victory lap. i think david is right in that every press office does this type of spin, right? except what happened with ben rhodes is he s

she supports the iran agreement. i oppose it. this is not a vote to me about the iran agreement. this is a question about what do you do about iran's heavy water. and i will oppose the cotton amendment, one, because it creates the possibility if it were adopted that iran's heavy water might be purchased not by the united states for peaceful purposes but for countries like north korea who might use it to make nuclear weapons. two, i think it would be more appropriate for it to be considered first by foreign relations, armed services, or intelligence. so for those reasons i intend to vote against the cotton amendment. mrs. feinstein: i thank the chair and i thank the senator. and i think that's a very wise response. i think it's a correct response. i think it does belong in the foreign relations committee. we have worked so hard to get a bill that could set a standard for this body and that we could go back to regular order and begin to get appropriation bills passed in this house. and i don't want to lose that opportunity candidly. and i think we still have it. so, you know, hope

iran continues to foment instability and support terrorism. in iraq, iran continues to fund shia militias and exacerbate tensions between the populations. iranian-backed shia militias have pushed some out of some areas but rather than allowing people to return, they've engaged in human rights violations against the very sunni communities they've just liberated from isis. according to human rights watch inresponse to isis bombings in january of 2016, shia militias designation demolished sunni homes and stores and mosques and killed dozens of sunni civilians." this is just one of many examples of atrocities committed by iranian-backed shia militias. these killings only further raise tensions and drive more recruits to extremist groups. in syria, iran has joininged russia in providing the that i had has kept the assad regime in power, despite hundreds of thousands willing to fight against assad and despite the coordinated effort of many countries. although iran's government denies the presence of its military forces in syria, it is clear that in

and opponents of this deal had suggested that iran would never go along with iran would never implement the terms of the agreement. they were wrong about that. our critics often suggested tore would never be a way verify iran's claims they had gone along with the agreement. too.were wrong about that, the international inspectors at accessa have gotten the they've needed to verify iran's compliance with the agreement. have also suggested is that the agreement would open door to hundreds of billions dollars in cash for the iranian economy. occurred, either. infact, we actually see some iran suggesting that they that they haven't gotten as much funding out of the deal as they expected. so the truth is, it's hard to or a singlecenario fact that our -- that critics of this agreement predicted that actually came to pass. in fact, time and time and time again, almost regardless of factor you consider, the critics of the deal have been wrong and i think this is an that our efforts to protect the agreement were firmly in fact. benthat's the point that wanted to reiterate in the of his online pos

had an accord with iran. a deal a top administrator said it was manipulation with the public and news media. they report, that claim is being walked back. >> reporter: in a lengthy new york times sunday magazine profile, a writer portrayed the deputy security adviser as uniquely powerful in shaping president obama's foreign policy. and down right deceptive in selling the iran nuclear deal. >> there is no evidence that ever occurred. what i encourage you and other critics to do is look at the facts. >> reporter: samuels accused rhodes -- writing on medium.com, rhodes said the fact there were discreet channels in 2012 is something we confirmed publicly. that's not true. the talks were under way for eight months at the time of this exchange. >> there have been reportshat intermitt taantly, the obama administration or members of it, conducted direct, secret bilateral talks with iran. is that true or false? >> with regard to the kind of thing you are talking about on a government to government level, no. >> report

bill: a major hearing on the iran nuclear deal.ite house stretch the truth to get the public on board? a key advisor will not be there. we are covering all of it as lawmakers look for answers. >> this background this creative writing. . . . . if you're taking multiple medications, does your mouth often feel dry? a dry mouth can be a side effect of many medications. but it can also lead to tooth decay and bad breath. that's why there's biotene, available as an oral rinse, toothpaste, spray or gel. biotene can provide soothing relief and it helps keep your mouth healthy too. remember, while your medication is doing you good, a dry mouth isn't. biotene, for people who suffer from a dry mouth. martha: well, we do expect this could be somewhat explosive hearing this morning on the controversial iran nuclear deal and all about to get underway on capitol hill, but the key witness lawmakers wanted to hear one is being kept under wraps by the white house. welcome, everybody as we watch the scene. everybody moving into the room this morning

we know iran's activities. all of that has contributed to the lack of governance in these countries. this past week, we had a hearing on sub-saharan africa and the terrorist members operating there. it is spreading. the risk of failed states in africa is pretty dramatic. my point is that, what should the united states be doing? in an effort to try to deal with the governing structure -- we have moved from autocratic countries that have not been able to transition into democratic countries under -- in this for a while -- the autocratic systems were working but long-term they will not work. is there something in our toolbox -- i mean, i look at what we have available to us, our diplomacy budgets and our development assistant budgets that certainly are much smaller than our defense budgets. we have enough resources? are we using them properly? is there a better way to focus on having a more consequential impact on the transition of countries, particularly in that region to a more inclusive government that can prev

and iran doing right thing.uys. >> i'm speechless. i wish we would get the details right now. i don't think we should wait a year. i think the american public deserve to know what happens to our sailors over there. how did iran -- sandra: forbes goes beyond. i see clearly there were violations international maritime law here. he goes beyond that to say, listen we wanted our white house, president, secretary of state to stand up to say this is wrong. this is wrong treatment. somebody should be held accountable and to even discuss laws that were broken here, judge. >> sure. sandra: first let's acknowledge how bad this wall. >> international conventions that were broken. iran doesn't care or frankly world court or any other body than the american court sim. i'm curious, i didn't hear the, was senator? harris: congressman forbes? >> i didn't hear congressman forbes say he felt it shouldn't have been classified. he has been briefed on material. i didn't hear him say, this should be released. this information. i'm try

had an accord with iran. a deal a top administrator said it was manipulation with the public and news media. they report, that claim is being walked back. >> reporter: in a lengthy new york times sunday magazine profile, a writer portrayed the deputy security adviser as uniquely powerful in shaping president obama's foreign policy. and down right deceptive in selling the iran nuclear deal. >> there is no evidence that ever occurred. what i encourage you and other critics to do is look at the

had an accord with iran.eal a top administrator said it was manipulation with the public and news media. they report, that claim is being walked back. >> reporter: in a lengthy new york times sunday magazine profile, a writer portrayed the deputy security adviser as uniquely powerful in shaping president obama's foreign policy. and down right deceptive in selling the iran nuclear deal. >> there is no evidence that ever occurred. what i encourage you and other critics to do is look at the facts. >> reporter: samuels accused rhodes -- writing on medium.com, rhodes said the fact there were discreet channels in 2012 is something we confirmed publicly. that's not true. the talks were under way for eight months at the time of this exchange. >> there have been reports that intermitt taantly, the obama administration or members of it, conducted direct, secret bilateral talks with iran. is that true or false? >> with regard to the kind of thing you are talking about on a government to government level, no. >> reporter

iran is more familiar than anybody. successful y sanctions effort with respect to iran coming to the table and agreement with respect to their nuclear capable. that's coalition building, hard time, what they -- what was an important have f it and would not happened without u.s. leadership. without u.s. leadership we would proliferation e agendas, would not provide the balance we need in asia, there would not be global trade agreements. it's the burden that we bear as the most important country in the world and as both secretary baker and i said, a fair assessment of our balance sheet, f strategic assets and liabilities, would lead you to believe with the right policies, leadership, that we'll continue to be the most important powerful nation in the come. or a long time to >> thank you. senator rubio. >> to continue to build on this you could just -- obviously, people in and around the country are log at ur own economic struggles at home, see our commitments abroad in treasure and lives and in blood and people coming bac

. >> the story from middle east sources is that iran has helped the united states free a hostage from lebanon. >> they called it the reagan revolution. but for me it always seemed more like a rediscovery of our values. once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >>> thank you. >> we're faced with an unprecedented situation in this country today. jimmy carter's demonstrated inability to govern our nation. but i have faith in the greatness of the people of this country. this country has everything that it always had before, except the leadership in washington that this country requires. >> reagan put a lot of energy and effort into 1980. the economy had been through a recession, and in addition to that, the united states had been embarrassed by the iran hostage crisis. the country wanted to turn the corner and ronald reagan held the promise of all of that. >> america is turning to a new political direction for at least the next four years. to the right. >> republican ronald reagan rode an electoral vote landslide to the white house and republicans also

the fact the success they had in spinning the iran deal. it's a moderately informed student of the area and of the nuclear negotiations would know was a disaster from day one. they had success in public opinion in the newspapers portraying it in the news as a good thing that these die hards, hard liners and the congress were trying to stop. it was a fantastic success. and it is exactly because the reporters don't know anything about the area. particularly on the middle east. they are young, they might have heard of oslo. they might have heard of the six day war. but they don't know the history. and if you don't, there's no way you can orient yourself. >> we're going to now begin the lightning round here. amy? i guess my question is, why on earth would he brag about this? >> that was what i was going to brag up. this is the kind of story you do once you've left office or in december, november after the campaign is over. but that to me was the most curious part of this, which is taking a victory lap and snubbing your nose. and also, for someb

and iran could be on a path to a nuclear weapon. and here's something else that we really haven't discussed that i think we need to be talking about, too, is that according to ben rhodes, that this deal also is part of a plan to abandon our friends and allies in the middle east. does that give you some concern, mr. rubin? >> yes, it does. >> how about you, mr. doran? >> absolutely. >> how about, mr. hanna? >> yes, very much so. >> do you believe that the obama administration withheld information from congress about the deal intentionally? >> yes, i do. >> do you believe that was in violation of the corker/cardin agreement, the law that he signed into law himself? >> it absolutely was and on top of which the corker/cardin amendment was written in such a way to prevent this from happening and unfortunately the administration simply broke the law. >> i couldn't agree more. peter roskom a gentleman from illinois introduced a house resolution and argued that very point. the house passed that resolution that this deal was illegal. from th

i want to share with you after the deal was implemented there was a report published on iran. i think it came out in february. the report contained less information than the iaea had regularly provided about iran before the deal was in place. in fact, when asked about these gaps, iaea director said that the deal restricted the ability to report publicly about iran's nuclear program. mr. rueben given that how much confidence do you have in this deal? >> i have very little confidence in this deal for reasons that i've outlined in my written testimony. it falls far short of the most rigorous inspection and the danger isn't just in iran, the danger is that it permanently dilutes the standard by which others are held. >> would you agree that the general's statement validates the concerns that you expressed about the deal from the very beginning? >> yes, i would. >> would you also say that given this statement from the general that the exaggerated concessions that this administration claims that they obtained might be called into question as well? >> yes, i would. >> we've been talk

iran is meeting opec partners in vienna next week.sending a submarine to search for the egyptair black box flight recorders. they have warned against jumping to conclusions about what happened. the egyptian president says all scenarios are still open. the flight crashed on thursday .n route from paris to cairo investigators said the plane sent messages that smoke in the cabin before losing contact. the energy minister spoke after meeting the saudi prince over the weekend. is interested in upgrading facilities. search the markets, here is heidi. someter: we are seeing issues, fourth straight weekly loss and seemingly starting to break out of that streak. this is as markets are waiting for more indications from janet yellen for greater signals as to when june is the month that they will go with the rate hike. already seeing good games. the nikkei 225 is way off its session those. take a look at taiwan and stocks in taipei surging the most in eight months close to 3% in gains they are. we had a report in taiwanese media suggesting that a

that election in iran back in 2012.s defending himself today in a short piece in essence saying we believed everything we said it may have been spin but it wasn't lies but very to tell you having read all of this very closely even ben's defense of himself contained untruth statements. >> in the article in "the new york times" magazine that they lied to the public and they did it for a good reason and that they used what he clearly views as a stupid compliant, lazy press core to get the job done. >> he said most of the reporters were 27 year olds and knew nothing about world affairs and to some extent there is some legitimacy in ben's indictment of the washington press core. i and certain other reporters all along have been questioning some of the untruths told by the obama administration both about the original sets of negotiations with iran and also some of the lies that were told about the actual substance of the deal. ben was on cnn last april of 2015 saying that this deal means that there will be in he time anywhere

even iran says that's thougnot . in fact, they're saying they're hoping they can get access to more money. so again, i don't know whether our critics were just wildly misinformed, mistaken or lying, but if republicans are interested in getting to the bottom of this, they should swear in members of their own congress and figure it out. >> i take that as a no. >> i think there are people who have some explaining to do when it comes to the wildly false accusations they made about the irron deal. it's not just the administration. it's republicans who were demonstrably wrong when it comes to the iran deal. we'll look at the letter, but i assume -- if congressman chaffetz is interested in getting to the bottom of this teal, then i assume similar letters were received through the interoffice mail in the house of representatives. >> one district follow-up on that. you have taken issue with the predictions of more than $100 billion in sanctions relief. do you know how much has actually resulted? >> well, we know it's a whole

congressman randy forbes revealing new details on iran's humiliating capture of u.s.his year. in addition to repeating claims that the classified details of the sailors treatment will, shock the american people, the republican member of the house armed services committee, they tell fox that the u.s. navy and administration messed this up from the get-go. listen. >> shocking in terms of one that iranians broke internation maritime law. shocking how they paraded our sailors out which you've seen some that already. shocking how, the united states navy i guess handled this from start to finish in the whole process. but i think what is also going to shock everyone how we responded to that whole situation and that at the end of it, what adds even, in more fuel to the fire, is you have secretary kerry coming out and instead of saying this was wrong, he basically thanks the iranians for what they did. and it is on the backdrop of what they had already been doing and ignoring in incidents like this happening around the globe. >> a big controversy then as soon as we saw those p

khloe kardashian because iran didn't accuse her of (bleep). now she's doing, hey, iran, what about me, khloe? i could be a spy, too. and iran is, like, sorry, we don't know who you are. i'm kim's equally famous sister. yeah, never heard of you. but tell us about your brother and his black market in china. (laughter) you know, the worst part of the situation is the u.s. government can't defend kim from iran's accusations. what are they going to say? hey, she's not a spy. she's a celebrity. oh, yeah? why is she famous? well, she's very, uh, talented at, um -- she -- maybe she's a spy! (laughter) but today's a great day for us to talk about something else. the supreme court. this week, they have been dealing with a major decision, and it wasn't who gets to keep scalia's minifridge because that was buried with him, obviously. no, the decision this week was for the ladies. >> the battle over birth control at the supreme court, a highly anticipated decision. >> one of the biggest cases of the term, whether obamacare can require religious groups to o

nonexistent because iran was heavily under sanction. one of the actions that iran needs to take is to go over and try to push forward with that drive once again and introduce market oriented reforms. yvonne: most of the sanctions were listed in january. investment -- investor sentiment is pretty said do. why is that? a goodiran has been on course. most of the sanctions that were net clear word lifted in january. we have seen a lot of interest from the business community. every other week we're seeing for officials going to iran with trade delegations so that has been happening. we had the prime minister last month, we will see the south korean president was there earlier. we are seeing a lot of activity but the major issue is that for this company they need to have the backing or have a bank and banks are very reluctant entering into business with iran. some of the major top-tier european banks were burned trying to engage with iran and that includes names like [indiscernible] that had to pay a fine. theree of this background is a hesit

. >> iran has rolled back its nuclear program and the world has avoided another war. >> but is that true? ahead, a shocking "new york times" report casts doubt on the president's statement. we'll tell you all about that. >>> caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone. "factor" begins right now. >>> i'm bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. >>> presidential campaign already crazy. yesterday was cinco de mayo. donald trump tweeted out a picture of himself eating tacos. above the picture he said he loves hispanics. almost immediately the president of the militant organization la raza tweeted out wearing ing ii sombrero or eating a toeco does not cut it with your community. he is clueless, offensive and self promoting. >> eating a taco on sinkco mayo is now offensive? it's like eating corned beef and saying you love the irish on st. patrick's is offensive. hillary clinton had to be shocked when some hispanics in southern california protested against her. >> translator: other organizations skrojoined togeth for the protest. they say she's not supported a $15 minimum wage and ha