We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
DONALD TRUMP LAST night made a cryptic remark about the present time possibly representing the ‘calm before the storm’, but declined to specify what specific crisis – if any – he was referring to.
Trump made the remark during a photo opportunity at the White House as he and First Lady Melania prepared to have dinner with military leaders and their spouses, following a meeting with the officers.
“You guys know what this represents? Maybe it’s the calm before the storm,” Trump said, according to CNN.
Reporters asked what he meant and Trump said: “It could be, the calm, the calm before the storm.”
The reporters pressed again, asking whether he was referring to Iran or the Islamic State group, CNN reported.
Trump replied:
We have the world’s great military people in this room, I will tell you that. And uh, we’re gonna have a great evening, thank you all for coming.
Once again, Trump was asked what he meant. He said: “You’ll find out.”
Reporters were then ushered out of the room.
While the exact focus of Trump’s remarks are unknown, US media is speculating that the president is planning to decertify the Iran nuclear accord agreed during the Obama administration, a situation he must decide upon in the coming days.
‘Have not lived up to the spirit’
Yesterday, Trump insisted that Iran has not acted in keeping with the deal to curb its nuclear programme.
“They have not lived up to the spirit of the agreement,” said Trump, as he huddled with military leaders ahead of perhaps the most consequential foreign policy decision of his young presidency.
“The Iranian regime supports terrorism and exports violence and chaos across the Middle East,” Trump said in the Cabinet Room.
“That is why we must put an end to Iran’s continued aggression and nuclear ambitions” he said.
You will be hearing about Iran very shortly.
He then went on to make his ‘calm before the storm’ remarks, but declined to elaborate.
Trump must tell Congress by 15 October whether he believes Iran is in compliance with the agreement.
He may well fly in the face of advice from some of his closest advisors, declaring Iran is not in compliance and leaving the pact’s fate in the hands of the Republican-controlled Congress.
Ahead of that deadline, several officials familiar with White House deliberations told AFP Trump has made it clear he does not want to certify Iran’s compliance. But a formal decision has yet to be made.
“The president is going to make an announcement about the decision that he’s made on a comprehensive strategy that his team supports, and we’ll do that in the coming days,” said Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
White House officials cautioned against reports that Trump would make a speech revealing his decision next Thursday. But the decision must come by an October 15 deadline.
Intense debate
Trump has often railed against the Obama-era deal, which offered Iran massive sanctions relief in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.
He has repeatedly promised to rip it up, but has passed up an opportunity to end sanctions relief.
Every 90 days Trump must tell Congress whether Iran is living up to its end of the bargain, something that has already caused him political pain on two occasions.
The administration has made it clear that it wants Iran to stop ballistic missile tests and stop “nefarious” behaviour across the Middle East, two issues that were not part of the agreement.
The build up to Trump’s decision has been dominated by intense debate inside the White House and fierce lobbying in Congress.
Top military advisers Defense Secretary James Mattis and General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, have spoken out publicly in favour of the agreement.
European ambassadors and diplomats have been camped out on Capitol Hill, trying to argue against any punitive actions that invite Iran to decide the United States is in non-compliance.
Meanwhile, the deal’s opponents, such as senator Tom Cotton, have argued that Iran is not in compliance and sanctions and even military action should be considered.
Cotton met Trump at the White House on Thursday to make his case.
The Arkansas senator has argued that Iran is operating more advanced nuclear centrifuges than it is permitted, exceeding limits on heavy water stocks, continuing to illicitly procure nuclear and missile technology outside of approved channels and refusing to grant international inspectors access to nuclear-research and military facilities.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Some neck on these two.
The arrogance of these people is hard for me to take. It’s obvious there guilty
@Paul O Riordan: They didn’t offer any real defence in court as they knew it would be ripped apart by the prosecution.
I have to say I was shocked to see the jury members say what they were saying on the TV. I thought there would be some sort of instruction not to speak to the media about their jury duty.
@Paul Mc Nulty: it’s certainly not the way things are done here. But apparently the judge would have needed to issue the jurors with a gag order, which he didn’t.
@Donnachaín Ní Uallacháin: or issue the media with an order not to harass jurors in any trial. The media is at fault here not the jury. Media are supposed to be professional the jurors are lay people not used to dealing with the law or madia outlets.
I just hope the conviction is upheld but if a new trial is called i hope they are convicted of murder 1
I had several issues with the claims of the two. The number of blows, time elapsed before calling for aid, and her rubbing at her neck during police custody. Additionally, if my father were in the position of hers, he would come to my defence with fists, not a bat. He would be up and running, not stopping for a weapon.
@Rathminder: also telling is the fact that he told police that he woke to hear them arguing and stomping around upstairs and he went up with the intention of telling them to ‘knock it off’. Why would he bring a baseball bat to do that? And he was still wearing his watch which is unusual as most people would take their watch off before going to bed. Unless he stopped to put it back on again before going for the baseball bat.
As he is a former member of the FBI, i would have thought he would have been able to commit, cover up and justify the murder in a more professional manner
@Anne Marie Devlin: He may not have been very good at his job. The police said the crime scene was altered.
It was obvious that Molly Martens was told to wear loose-fitting dresses, flat shoes and a ponytail to portray the small, innocent schoolgirl look. They tried to portray Jason Corbett as a big, violent Irish lout. They banked too heavily on the typical Irish stereotype. I think it would have been prudent for the judge to issue a gag order in this case because this pair will stop at nothing. They just can’t accept the fact that they are not above the law.
So two murderers are putting their faith in a technicality to get off.
@Niallers: Unfortunately it is often more thsn enough to get away with murder.
US attorneys go out of their way to tell their clients how to look and act, and pick jurors based on their estimates of their prejudices based on age, gender and background.
When their sociopath clients show no remorse in the courtroom they then complain that the same jurors judged their clients based on prejudice against sociopaths.
As much as I like hearing jurors talk about their cases after the fact, they should have some advice from judges about how to phrase any statements so as not to leave open doors to appeal from public statements.
I don’t think the jurors were swayed by outside influences.
More like the the fact that they were bloody guilty!
have your say