Sharam Amiri, an Iranian nuclear scientist, was executed by the regime on August 3 after being convicted of providing secret information to the Americans. Sharam Amiri was also discussed in emails that were found on Hillary Clinton’s unsecured server.
Did Clinton’s negligence lead to Amiri’s execution? Possibly not: the regime was suspicious of him for other reasons, and we don’t know for certain that the Clintonmail bathroom server was hacked by the Iranians. But discussing a foreign intelligence contact on a system that is not certified for classified information can easily lead to the deaths of American agents and other individuals, whether or not it happened in this specific case..
There is no excuse for Vox’s flippant attitude in referring to this matter as “Trump’s fake controversy.” If you take several passengers for a high-speed drive in your car while knowing that the brakes are bad, then you are doing a terrible thing, even if that particular ride does not end in disaster. If you feed someone a regular diet of poisons, and he is killed by someone else before the poisons have a chance to act, that does not let you off the hook. Clinton’s extreme irresponsibility may have led to Amiri’s execution or it may not; it may have led to the execution or murder of others of whom we were unaware. This case provides one more piece of evidence about Hillary’s utter lack of concern about the lives and well-being of actual, particular human beings.
7 thoughts on “Is Hillary Clinton Directly Responsible for the Execution of Sharam Amiri?”
Some politicians and ‘celebrities’ are attempting to position everything related to the Clinton emails as unimportant. Indeed, the vast majority of the emails sent and received by any individual are unimportant, so this is probably an easy sell with those who don’t think too deeply about it.
But some of the Clinton emails are things that, in the pre-email era, would have been transported by an armed courier, or transmitted as secure cablegrams. In the pre-Hillary Clinton era, they would have been transmitted over electronic systems secured by the best cryptographic and software minds available.
But in the time of Hillary Clinton’s accession to Cabinet-level power, they were unsafely stored and transmitted, at the behest of a woman whose actions are dominated by her greed, power-lust, bitterness, and sense of entitlement…as to the victims, “What difference does it make?”
I think the Clinton Foundation stuff is worse but she certainly risked national security.
Compare the Left’s hysterical insistence last decade that the inadvertent “outing” of supposedly top-secret agent Valerie Plame (the wife of a former ambassador, so nobody could possibly have suspected her of being a US operative) put our agents in foreign countries “at risk.” Back then, they were frothing at the mouth over the Bush administration (per one of its own internal enemies, Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s chief flunky, quoted in the column of an anti-war journalist, Bob Novak) failing to keep a “secret.” Now, when truly sensitive information is scattered to the four winds by Hillary’s willful disregard of security procedures, they ask, “what difference does it make?”
And, of course, Hillary stood by and did nothing when four Americans in Libya on government business were actually killed. If you bring this up, they’ll call you a crazy wingnut.
“Hillary stood by and did nothing when four Americans in Libya on government business were actually killed”: it’s conceivable that that interpretation is too generous to Hellary.
“when truly sensitive information is scattered to the four winds by Hillary’s willful disregard ”
Oh, I agree but that is not as corrupt as the Foundation stuff. She is stupid and paranoid. The USSS said the Clintons were the most paranoid people ever to occupy the White House.
On the security issue, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen are worse but were never at the level the Clintons were.
The stupidity was setting up the server and using it without taking precautions. Paranoid is why she did it.
My friends, whose sense was that the Clintons were essentially psychopaths and responsible (indirectly probably, but a kind of who will rid me of these worrisome type of indirect)for deaths appear right. Her priorities are so screwed that the safety of our assets in dangerous lands doesn’t lead to a flicker of hesitation nor does what we owe the translators and others who have aided our troops. Indeed, she doesn’t seem to ever consider that we owe anybody anything – and most of all that she doesn’t. Are psychopaths capable of gratitude, of duty? Anyway, bad times ahead – even if some miracle keeps her from the oval office. Her paranoia seems directed at Republicans and anyone domestically that might hold her accountable. A certain paranoia about the Russians and the Iranians and North Koreans might be sensible.
No doubt Ames and Hanssen did more damage to national security than Hillary did through her email indiscretions, but no major party nominated Ames or Hanssen for president after their wrongdoing came to light. The question for Hillary should be, whether or not she should go to jail or suffer some lesser sanction, not whether or not she should go to the White House.
Of course, selling the Russians control of a large fraction of US uranium deposits seems pretty damaging to national security by itself.
Comments are closed.