Well, one, Schumer was wrong. Is there some Unicorn deal that would have been better? Of course. I’m sure Trump will now renegotiate and bring about the end of the current regime and turn it in to a pro-Western democracy.

Iran was pretty close to being able to develop nuclear weapons. Did the deal make sure they would never be able to? No. But experts all agree they are further away now, and most importantly if they did start up again, we and the rest of the world would know and have more lead time to react. Containing a flashpoint is not as good as eliminating it but it is a lot better than leaving it there to ignite a bunch of other flashpoints.

But for current policy it doesn’t really matter if you think it should have been adopted or not. It was. Trump had to decide whether we and the world would be better off staying in the agreement or pulling out. I have not seen a single reasonable argument that we are better off and the world is safer. The best case scenario is Iran and the rest of the parties keep the agreement. Even in that scenario Trump has succeeded in making the Iranian regime seem like the sane and reasonable party to much of the world. MAGA!

The other scenario is Iran drops out of the agreement and moves toward developing nukes ASAP. Which means we are now living in a world with Iranian nukes, or we go to war with Iran, both of which are much worse outcomes than the status quo Trump blew up yesterday.

Also, we’ve alienated our allies and hurt our credibility. Next time we need to work with the UK, EU, China, and Russia on something, why the hell should they trust us to keep our word? WE are the ones breaking the agreement unilaterally, not Iran. How does this help in negotiations with NK, or really any other country. They see that we had an agreement with Iran, Iran kept their side and we didn’t.

The only people who are happy about this are Bolton, Pompeo, and Netanyahu, all of whom dream of war with Iran.

(05-08-2018 10:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Evidently Obama has weighed in (“Obama was great”, says Obama), and now social media is full of ninnies repeating his self-serving drivel. How can people be so brainless?

I just read Obama's statement. He did not say "Obama was great" anywhere in there. In a shocking development, however, it does appear that Obama supports Obama administration policies.

I saw a lot factual information and rational argument. People are free to disagree with his conclusions, that doesn't make it 'drivel'.

Now granted, he didn't fit it all in a tweet or two. He also failed to use any Completely Random capitalization (or unnecessary parentheticals!) and if I didn't know better I'd say he may have proofread it for grammar and spelling errors. And where were the clever middle school nicknames? He didn't even call Trump "Cheeto-face!" SAD! So un-presidential.

(05-09-2018 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Well, one, Schumer was wrong.

He was not the only Democrat or Republican who opposed this deal. I presume you think them all wrong. But there is a reason Obama did not make this a treaty, as he should have.

Quote:Is there some Unicorn deal that would have been better? Of course.

I agree, I think - almost any other deal would have been better.

Quote: I’m sure Trump will now renegotiate and bring about the end of the current regime and turn it in to a pro-Western democracy.

Blather, nonsense, fake news - pick all that apply.

Quote:Iran was pretty close to being able to develop nuclear weapons. Did the deal make sure they would never be able to? No. But experts all agree they are further away now, and most importantly if they did start up again, we and the rest of the world would know and have more lead time to react. Containing a flashpoint is not as good as eliminating it but it is a lot better than leaving it there to ignite a bunch of other flashpoints.

How would we know?

Quote:But for current policy it doesn’t really matter if you think it should have been adopted or not. It was.

Damn. I agree. Just like Obamacare or the Paris thingie , much different extricating ourselves from a bad deal than simply avoiding it. Kind of like bailing your teeneager out of jail is much more complicated than if he had never been arrested in the first place.

Quote:Trump had to decide whether we and the world would be better off staying in the agreement or pulling out.

yes, he did, and yes, he did.

Quote:I have not seen a single reasonable argument that we are better off and the world is safer.

so turn off CNN. The same arguement could have been made, in fact was made six months ago with respect to North Korea. Maybe this will work out in a similar way.

Quote:The other scenario is Iran drops out of the agreement and moves toward developing nukes ASAP. Which means we are now living in a world with Iranian nukes, or we go to war with Iran, both of which are much worse outcomes than the status quo Trump blew up yesterday.

You see those as the only two possible outcomes? No wonder you are upset.

Quote:Also, we’ve alienated our allies and hurt our credibility.

Some allies. others like it. Saudi Arabia, UAR, in fact the entire Middle East.

Quote: Next time we need to work with the UK, EU, China, and Russia on something, why the hell should they trust us to keep our word? WE are the ones breaking the agreement unilaterally, not Iran. How does this help in negotiations with NK, or really any other country. They see that we had an agreement with Iran, Iran kept their side and we didn’t.

Maybe next time, they will insist we do the "agreement" as a treaty, ratified by Congress.

Quote:The only people who are happy about this are Bolton, Pompeo, and Netanyahu, all of whom dream of war with Iran.

Hysterical hyperbole. Does hyperbole still count as a lie if it is not Trump doing it?

(05-09-2018 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Well, one, Schumer was wrong. Is there some Unicorn deal that would have been better? Of course. I’m sure Trump will now renegotiate and bring about the end of the current regime and turn it in to a pro-Western democracy.

Iran was pretty close to being able to develop nuclear weapons. Did the deal make sure they would never be able to? No. But experts all agree they are further away now, and most importantly if they did start up again, we and the rest of the world would know and have more lead time to react. Containing a flashpoint is not as good as eliminating it but it is a lot better than leaving it there to ignite a bunch of other flashpoints.

But for current policy it doesn’t really matter if you think it should have been adopted or not. It was. Trump had to decide whether we and the world would be better off staying in the agreement or pulling out. I have not seen a single reasonable argument that we are better off and the world is safer. The best case scenario is Iran and the rest of the parties keep the agreement. Even in that scenario Trump has succeeded in making the Iranian regime seem like the sane and reasonable party to much of the world. MAGA!

The other scenario is Iran drops out of the agreement and moves toward developing nukes ASAP. Which means we are now living in a world with Iranian nukes, or we go to war with Iran, both of which are much worse outcomes than the status quo Trump blew up yesterday.

Also, we’ve alienated our allies and hurt our credibility. Next time we need to work with the UK, EU, China, and Russia on something, why the hell should they trust us to keep our word? WE are the ones breaking the agreement unilaterally, not Iran. How does this help in negotiations with NK, or really any other country. They see that we had an agreement with Iran, Iran kept their side and we didn’t.

Who's "we"? You mean Obama, right? "We" never agreed to anything.

Quote:The only people who are happy about this are Bolton, Pompeo, and Netanyahu, all of whom dream of war with Iran.

When Trump actually starts a war, Trump's opponents will be happy to finally be proven right.

(05-09-2018 09:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 10:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Evidently Obama has weighed in (“Obama was great”, says Obama), and now social media is full of ninnies repeating his self-serving drivel. How can people be so brainless?

I just read Obama's statement. He did not say "Obama was great" anywhere in there. In a shocking development, however, it does appear that Obama supports Obama administration policies.

I saw a lot factual information and rational argument. People are free to disagree with his conclusions, that doesn't make it 'drivel'.

Now granted, he didn't fit it all in a tweet or two. He also failed to use any Completely Random capitalization (or unnecessary parentheticals!) and if I didn't know better I'd say he may have proofread it for grammar and spelling errors. And where were the clever middle school nicknames? He didn't even call Trump "Cheeto-face!" SAD! So un-presidential.

In all the polemic of your last two posts it is interesting that you dont bother to comment on the contents of the trove of documents sourced from Iran via Israeli intillegence. Not an iota. Eye opening stuff.

I double checked Capitilization and speling so I wont get dinged there.

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

(05-09-2018 09:42 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I'll ding you for quadruple posting.

Yeah, on the phone it never indicated that it had posted so I kept hitting the button like Rain Man would have. Lucky for me I can cover it up with the red 'X', and make you look a little BSC....

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  e]

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Not random at all. It all depends on which side you are on in the War against Trump.

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 10:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Evidently Obama has weighed in (“Obama was great”, says Obama), and now social media is full of ninnies repeating his self-serving drivel. How can people be so brainless?

I just read Obama's statement. He did not say "Obama was great" anywhere in there. In a shocking development, however, it does appear that Obama supports Obama administration policies.

I saw a lot factual information and rational argument. People are free to disagree with his conclusions, that doesn't make it 'drivel'.

Now granted, he didn't fit it all in a tweet or two. He also failed to use any Completely Random capitalization (or unnecessary parentheticals!) and if I didn't know better I'd say he may have proofread it for grammar and spelling errors. And where were the clever middle school nicknames? He didn't even call Trump "Cheeto-face!" SAD! So un-presidential.

In all the polemic of your last two posts it is interesting that you dont bother to comment on the contents of the trove of documents sourced from Iran via Israeli intillegence. Not an iota. Eye opening stuff.

I double checked Capitilization and speling so I wont get dinged there.

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Have any of those documents been shown to be from the time period after the deal was signed?

If not, how can one justify using those documents to indict on the actions of Iran post-signing? Is there evidence similar to those documents that exist post-signing?

(05-09-2018 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  e]

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Not random at all. It all depends on which side you are on in the War against Trump.

I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.

I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

(05-09-2018 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  e]

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Not random at all. It all depends on which side you are on in the War against Trump.

I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.

I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

Don't you think another difference is that one of them was going to be representing the US in the near future, and the other is a has-been?

The Logan Act was a pretext to get Flynn so they could use him to get Trump.

(05-09-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  e]

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Not random at all. It all depends on which side you are on in the War against Trump.

I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.

I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

Don't you think another difference is that one of them was going to be representing the US in the near future, and the other is a has-been?

The Logan Act was a pretext to get Flynn so they could use him to get Trump.

That is the difference, as I basically spelled it out, and I think it's a worse situation for the incoming person to be working behind that scenes.

That's because the person who is incoming can more actively undermine the current admin, because those they are negotiating with know that the incoming person will have power and the ability to affect change.

The person who is no longer in power doesn't really have any sway - the person they're negotiating with knows that and understands that the person won't be able to affect change. So at that point, it's less negotiating and more lobbying.

Neither are really good, though.

(05-09-2018 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  e]

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Not random at all. It all depends on which side you are on in the War against Trump.

I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.

I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

Don't you think another difference is that one of them was going to be representing the US in the near future, and the other is a has-been?

The Logan Act was a pretext to get Flynn so they could use him to get Trump.

That is the difference, as I basically spelled it out, and I think it's a worse situation for the incoming person to be working behind that scenes.

That's because the person who is incoming can more actively undermine the current admin, because those they are negotiating with know that the incoming person will have power and the ability to affect change.

The person who is no longer in power doesn't really have any sway - the person they're negotiating with knows that and understands that the person won't be able to affect change. So at that point, it's less negotiating and more lobbying.

Neither are really good, though.

If the Dems win in 2020,, I wonder if they will abstain from any communication with foreign powers until after the Inauguration. That is what is being advocated here, right?

(05-09-2018 10:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 10:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Evidently Obama has weighed in (“Obama was great”, says Obama), and now social media is full of ninnies repeating his self-serving drivel. How can people be so brainless?

I just read Obama's statement. He did not say "Obama was great" anywhere in there. In a shocking development, however, it does appear that Obama supports Obama administration policies.

I saw a lot factual information and rational argument. People are free to disagree with his conclusions, that doesn't make it 'drivel'.

Now granted, he didn't fit it all in a tweet or two. He also failed to use any Completely Random capitalization (or unnecessary parentheticals!) and if I didn't know better I'd say he may have proofread it for grammar and spelling errors. And where were the clever middle school nicknames? He didn't even call Trump "Cheeto-face!" SAD! So un-presidential.

In all the polemic of your last two posts it is interesting that you dont bother to comment on the contents of the trove of documents sourced from Iran via Israeli intillegence. Not an iota. Eye opening stuff.

I double checked Capitilization and speling so I wont get dinged there.

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Have any of those documents been shown to be from the time period after the deal was signed?

If not, how can one justify using those documents to indict on the actions of Iran post-signing? Is there evidence similar to those documents that exist post-signing?

Your first question is immaterial. Part of the consideration for the deal was that Iran had to be absolutely forthright in disclosing all of the previous and ongoing programs and locations dealing with their nuclear weapons efforts.

The papers indicate that Iran was fundamentally less than forthcoming in their 'consideration' for the deal. I suggest you look at the actual quid pro quo of the 'not treaty' instead of focusing solely on the dates of the documents.

(05-09-2018 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  e]

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Not random at all. It all depends on which side you are on in the War against Trump.

I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.

I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

The Logan act allegation was one of the the bases for the FISA warrant directed at Flynn. So no, you are not correct when you allege the 'Logan Act is never actually used.'

(05-09-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  e]

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Not random at all. It all depends on which side you are on in the War against Trump.

I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.

I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

Don't you think another difference is that one of them was going to be representing the US in the near future, and the other is a has-been?

The Logan Act was a pretext to get Flynn so they could use him to get Trump.

So the act of communicating with another nation as part of a incoming Administration is far worse than trying to politic and undermine a current Administration. Got it.

Seems to me that the incoming Administration should have the ability to have free and clear access to foreign leaders, in order to tell them what to expect. Seems utterly stupid to argue the contrary. Seems even more utterly stupid to tell the incoming Administration that they cannot say or utter anything, and should just be forced to sandbag other foreign regimes *only* on their first day in office. That end effect makes *perfect* sense.....

(05-09-2018 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not random at all. It all depends on which side you are on in the War against Trump.

I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.

I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

Don't you think another difference is that one of them was going to be representing the US in the near future, and the other is a has-been?

The Logan Act was a pretext to get Flynn so they could use him to get Trump.

That is the difference, as I basically spelled it out, and I think it's a worse situation for the incoming person to be working behind that scenes.

That's because the person who is incoming can more actively undermine the current admin, because those they are negotiating with know that the incoming person will have power and the ability to affect change.

The person who is no longer in power doesn't really have any sway - the person they're negotiating with knows that and understands that the person won't be able to affect change. So at that point, it's less negotiating and more lobbying.

Neither are really good, though.

If the Dems win in 2020,, I wonder if they will abstain from any communication with foreign powers until after the Inauguration. That is what is being advocated here, right?

It is, because it is *much* more terrible and horrific if you are an incoming Administration, from what is being advocated here.

(05-09-2018 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  e]

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Not random at all. It all depends on which side you are on in the War against Trump.

I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.

I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

The Logan act allegation was one of the the bases for the FISA warrant directed at Flynn. So no, you are not correct when you allege the 'Logan Act is never actually used.'

Source?

I never remembering hearing anything about the Logan Act outside of liberal talking heads saying Flynn should be punished under it, and conservatives saying it didn't matter.

(05-09-2018 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not random at all. It all depends on which side you are on in the War against Trump.

I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.

I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

Don't you think another difference is that one of them was going to be representing the US in the near future, and the other is a has-been?

The Logan Act was a pretext to get Flynn so they could use him to get Trump.

That is the difference, as I basically spelled it out, and I think it's a worse situation for the incoming person to be working behind that scenes.

That's because the person who is incoming can more actively undermine the current admin, because those they are negotiating with know that the incoming person will have power and the ability to affect change.

The person who is no longer in power doesn't really have any sway - the person they're negotiating with knows that and understands that the person won't be able to affect change. So at that point, it's less negotiating and more lobbying.

Neither are really good, though.

If the Dems win in 2020,, I wonder if they will abstain from any communication with foreign powers until after the Inauguration. That is what is being advocated here, right?

They should not be contacting foreign officials to discuss policy. They should be getting their foreign intelligence through our already established channels within the country. They should be ready to hit the ground running, but to avoid meddling in the affairs of the outgoing admin, they should not be directly contacting foreign officials to discuss policy.

If they need to handle logistics, they should go through the outgoing admin.

(05-09-2018 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  But for current policy it doesn’t really matter if you think it should have been adopted or not.

Alas, the great Obama non-treaty of 2015 was succinctly summarized in October 1938 (all you have do to is change a couple of proper nouns):

"The terms which the Prime Minister brought back with him could easily have been agreed, I believe, through the ordinary diplomatic channels at any time during the summer. And I will say this, that I believe the Czechs, left to themselves and told they were going to get no help from the Western Powers, would have been able to make better terms than they have got after all this tremendous perturbation; they could hardly have had worse."

(05-09-2018 11:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 10:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Evidently Obama has weighed in (“Obama was great”, says Obama), and now social media is full of ninnies repeating his self-serving drivel. How can people be so brainless?

I just read Obama's statement. He did not say "Obama was great" anywhere in there. In a shocking development, however, it does appear that Obama supports Obama administration policies.

I saw a lot factual information and rational argument. People are free to disagree with his conclusions, that doesn't make it 'drivel'.

Now granted, he didn't fit it all in a tweet or two. He also failed to use any Completely Random capitalization (or unnecessary parentheticals!) and if I didn't know better I'd say he may have proofread it for grammar and spelling errors. And where were the clever middle school nicknames? He didn't even call Trump "Cheeto-face!" SAD! So un-presidential.

In all the polemic of your last two posts it is interesting that you dont bother to comment on the contents of the trove of documents sourced from Iran via Israeli intillegence. Not an iota. Eye opening stuff.

I double checked Capitilization and speling so I wont get dinged there.

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Have any of those documents been shown to be from the time period after the deal was signed?

If not, how can one justify using those documents to indict on the actions of Iran post-signing? Is there evidence similar to those documents that exist post-signing?

Your first question is immaterial. Part of the consideration for the deal was that Iran had to be absolutely forthright in disclosing all of the previous and ongoing programs and locations dealing with their nuclear weapons efforts.

The papers indicate that Iran was fundamentally less than forthcoming in their 'consideration' for the deal. I suggest you look at the actual quid pro quo of the 'not treaty' instead of focusing solely on the dates of the documents.

I don't think that question is immaterial at all. Those documents do not indicate that Iran has violated the document that was signed. They indicate that Iran was not forthcoming, prior to the signing of the document.

I think the date of the documents is immensely important because they shouldn't be used to indict Iran's current actions. If they are currently abiding by the agreement, can you provide your rationale as to why it matters what they were doing before the agreement, from a practical perspective?

This seems more like a situation where a technicality was breached, and that breach is being used to toss out the agreement, than there being grave concerns that Iran is not complying with the current agreement.

The BBC has a good run down of this issue: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43958205