Iran Executes Nuclear Scientist For Giving Information To “the Great Satan”
Hillary’s private server contained “conversations among her senior advisors about this gentleman”
The Iranian government hanged Shahram Amiri, a nuclear scientist, for giving “vital information to the enemy.” The enemy being, despite Obama’s desperate groveling, the United States: “This person who had access to the country’s secret and classified information had been linked to our hostile and No. 1 enemy, America, the Great Satan” a spokesman for the Iranian judiciary said.
Iran has executed a nuclear scientist who allegedly provided U.S. officials with information about the country’s nuclear program.
In 2010, Shahram Amiri returned from the US. to Iran, where he was eventually arrested, as NPR’s Peter Kenyon told our Newscast unit. “The spokesman for Iran’s judiciary tells the official IRNA news agency that Shahram Amiri was executed following his conviction on treason charges,” Peter reported.
That spokesman, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei, said in a news conference that Amiri “had access to top secret information about the Islamic Republic of Iran,” which he provided to the United States, according to IRNA.
Amiri’s mother told the BBC that “the body had been handed over with rope marks around his neck.” This is the first time the Iranian government has acknowledged that “they secretly detained, tried and convicted a man authorities once heralded as a hero,” according to The Associated Press.
It is not clear why Iran chose to execute Amiri so long after his purported acts of treason, but it aligns with Iran’s post-nuclear deal policy of eliminating dual nationals.
State media in Iran, which has been silent about Amiri’s case for years, did not report his death until Sunday. The Associated Press could not immediately reach his family. Iran’s mission to the United Nations did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
It is unclear what would have prompted Iranian authorities to execute Amiri, years after his first disappearance. However, since the nuclear deal, hard-liners within Iran’s government have been increasingly targeting dual nationals for arrest in the country and cracking down on journalists, artists, human rights activists and others.
U.S. officials told the AP in 2010 that Amiri was paid $5 million to offer the CIA information about Iran’s nuclear program, though he left the country without the money. They said Amiri, who ran a radiation detection program in Iran, stayed in the U.S. for months under his own free will. Analysts abroad suggested Iranian authorities may have threatened Amiri’s family back in Iran, forcing him to return.
But when he returned to Iran, Amiri said Saudi and American officials had kidnapped him while he visited the Saudi holy city of Medina. He also said Israeli agents were present at his interrogations and that that CIA officers offered him $50 million to remain in America.
Amiri was apparently mentioned in emails circulated amongst top Clinton aids.
Fox News continues:
Amiri’s case indirectly found its way back into the spotlight in the U.S. last year with the release of emails sent by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state. The release of those emails came amid criticism of Clinton’s use of a private account and server that has persisted into her campaign against Republican candidate Donald Trump.
An email forwarded to Clinton by senior adviser Jake Sullivan on July 5, 2010, appears to reference Amiri.
“We have a diplomatic, `psychological’ issue, not a legal one. Our friend has to be given a way out,” the email by Richard Morningstar, a former State Department special envoy for Eurasian energy, read. “We should recognize his concerns and frame it in terms of a misunderstanding with no malevolent intent and that we will make sure there is no recurrence.
“Our person won’t be able to do anything anyway. If he has to leave so be it.”
Another email, sent July 12, 2010 by Sullivan, appears to obliquely refer to the scientist just before his story became widely known.
“The gentleman … has apparently gone to his country’s interests section because he is unhappy with how much time it has taken to facilitate his departure,” Sullivan wrote. “This could lead to problematic news stories in the next 24 hours.”
The fact that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was, or at least her top aides were, discussing such information on a server that was stored in some guy’s bathroom is more than alarming. A fact brought up today by Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) on Face the Nation.
The Washington Examiner reports:
Hillary Clinton recklessly discussed, in emails hosted on her private server, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was executed by Iran for treason, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Sunday.
“I’m not going to comment on what he may or may not have done for the United States government, but in the emails that were on Hillary Clinton’s private server, there were conversations among her senior advisors about this gentleman,” he said on “Face the Nation.” Cotton was speaking about Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran’s nuclear program.
The senator said this lapse proves she is not capable of keeping the country safe.
“That goes to show just how reckless and careless her decision was to put that kind of highly classified information on a private server. And I think her judgment is not suited to keep this country safe,” he said.
Watch:
https://youtu.be/cWjSGALjv0Y?t=3m2s
[Featured image via The Guardian]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Hillary should be ashamed of her conduct. She doesn’t have the temperament nor the class to be president.
Four in Benghazi and now one in Iran. Who’s next? U.S.?
“Four in Benghazi and one in Iran.” That we know of. I expect the body count is much higher. Everyone everywhere that ever cooperated with the US has been at risk since that greedy politician took the reins at State. Ashamed of her conduct? If that b*tch was capable of shame she wouldn’t have done what she did in the first place.
Hillary is a shameless b*tch. Always has been, always will be. Her number one concern in the universe is herself. National security? Who cares about THAT compared to her personal convenience.
Ashamed of her conduct? We’re dealing with a sociopath: she is capable of no shame, just embarrassment and murder.
Imagine what else Iran, Russia, China, Isis, etc know from that louse’s private server in her tech guy’s bathroom.
There isn’t a prison cell dark enough or deep enough for this psycho. In another time, she’d have been at the end of a rope by now.
Four in Benghazi and now one in Iran. Who’s next?
If you could conjure the ghost of Vince Foster he’d tell you the number is higher than five, or even six. The number of suspicious deaths in Clitler’s wake is so high Lloyd’s of London would call it an actuarial impossibility. It is a number that strains the bounds of coincidental credibility to near bursting.
Just what do you know that nobody outside of the loony right knows that makes Clinton directly responsible for any deaths in Benghazi. The Ambassador knew of the risks and knew that security was weak. He choose to go, anyway. Did Hillary direct him to go? Did she deliberately hinder or withhold security? Was security worse in Benghazzi than at 100 other embassies and consulates? Were there worries and limitations; as well as incidents at other locations on that date as a result of budget cuts imposed by a – wait for it – republican congress?
You don’t like Clinton. You knew that she was likely going to be the democratic nominee. You and your ilk took out your knives and sharpened them. You have been trying to stick it into her for years. Then you blew it by nominating Trump. Almost anyone you chose would have had a better chance of beating her. But you chose someone who makes her look extremely competent and knowledgeable.
You can beat this dead horse until November and then for the next 4 years. Good luck.
“Did Hillary direct him to go?”
Of course. Who do you think directs the ambassadors?
“Did she deliberately hinder or withhold security?”
Of course. Simple fact, they asked and were denied additional security.
“Was security worse in Benghazzi than at 100 other embassies and consulates?”
Of course. There was, quite simply, no security, given the nature of the environment.
“Were there worries and limitations; as well as incidents at other locations on that date as a result of budget cuts imposed by a – wait for it – republican congress?”
Budget cuts to security were not made by the republican congress. Nice try.
“But you chose someone who makes her look extremely competent and knowledgeable.”
No, that would be impossible. My dog would be a better choice. She is nothing more than what she has always been; the corrupt semi-wife of a crooked rapist that conned his way into the WH.
I asked if Clinton directed him; not whether Clinton was his boss.
All you did was deny, deny, deny. Some actual evidence would be nice. Trey Gowdy could present any.
“But you chose someone who makes her look extremely competent and knowledgeable.”
Don’t know about that:
Trump narrows to less than three points
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN10G2BQ
The ‘extremely competent and knowledgeable one’ just might drop dead before the election:
Multiple staffers help unstable Hillary up stairs
http://theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-grandma-hillary-helped-stairs/
Good luck with that. It is one poll and not state by state.
I guess Clinton should release her health report and Trump should release his tax returns. Want to take a bet on which gets released?
Goto http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ Read it and weep. Georgia and Arizona are toss-ups! LOL
ORDA, Barry addressed most of these questions/points, so I will not repeat him in my response.
“Just what do you know that nobody outside of the loony right knows that makes Clinton directly responsible for any deaths in Benghazi. The Ambassador knew of the risks and knew that security was weak. He choose to go, anyway. Did Hillary direct him to go?”
It matters very much that Hillary was his boss; as Secretary of State, she was responsible for American embassies around the world. As such, it is her responsibility to ensure that her staff does their job and that she is made of aware of any and all security issues. If they don’t, they answer to her. See how that works?
“Did she deliberately hinder or withhold security?”
Depends on who you ask, but yes, I believe so. As Secretary of State she must have been aware that the UK had closed their own embassy in Benghazi and evacuated all of its personnel in the summer of that year due to the dangers there. Dangers it was Hillary’s job to not only know about but to address and guard against. Did Hillary consider security and safety concerns when the Brits left? If not, why not? You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that if it’s too dangerous for the UK to keep an embassy open and staffed, it’s probably too dangerous for America to do so. And if she did think about this, why didn’t she follow through?
And what about the numerous other warning signs of the impending attack? Why were these ignored by Hillary’s State Department? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9539148/US-consulate-attack-in-Libya-the-warning-signs-were-there-in-Benghazi.html
https://sharylattkisson.com/8-major-warnings-before-benghazi-terrorist-attacks/
Here’s your links on the other points: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/19/ambassador-sought-security-staffing-before-benghazi-attack-email-shows.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24738700.html
“Was security worse in Benghazzi than at 100 other embassies and consulates? Were there worries and limitations; as well as incidents at other locations on that date as a result of budget cuts imposed by a – wait for it – republican congress?”
Security was woefully inadequate (again, this is under the Secretary of State’s purview), and as noted above, there was enough concern about security that the Brits closed their own embassy in Benghazi and evacuated their entire staff.
There was a Republican House at the time, not a Republican Congress (the Republicans didn’t win the Senate until 2014). They did vote in the House to cut State Department funding; however, the allocation of those decreased funds was left to State.
Hillary’s State Department spent huge amounts of money installing charging stations in Vienna for Chevy Volts and over a quarter million dollars on alcohol. Prioritizing security in a known terrorist hotspot in which an improvised bomb had been detonated in June just outside the American compound was clearly not a concern.
Further, State specifically testified that budget cuts had nothing to do with the lack of security in Benghazi.
See above link, and here’s another two for good measure: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/19/benghazi-memos-recovered-from-compound-detail-staf/
https://gop.com/clinton-falsely-blames-budget-woes-for-benghazi-security-failure/
All things considered, I agree that Barry’s dog would be a better choice for president than Hillary. Too bad his dog wasn’t at State in 2011 and 2012.
We should have hanged the traitor Jonny Boy Pollard. But since we have traitors controlling our government he got a pass. America First and America Only, let the rest of the world burn.
To think, that a conciliatory and repentant Gaddafi was rewarded with a sodomy and abortion session by the social justice adventurers. The incentive structure for positive progress is all wrong, but negative progress is awarded in liberal doses.
You have been utterly warped by your cause. I doubt anyone gives a rats fuke what happened to Gaddafi. Gaddafi was repentant? You know that personally? Did he turn himself in when he still had the chance or did he run and hide?
How does it worked in your crazed mind? Anything bad that goes on in the world is caused by liberals? Are they in league with the devil? How do you recognize them? Is there some secret mark that only you can see?
There are no Muslim leaders that are honest, respect human rights or care about democracy. Gaddafi was no worse than any other Muslim ruler and he was an ally of the USA. Tyrant Obama the Liar and Crooked Hillary killed him to help Al Qaeda and ISIS take over Libya.
Do you receive radio signals in your head?
Assuming what you claim is even remotely true, it is a losing game to support brutal dictators. Do you know how Iran (the actual subject of this article) became our fierce and implacable enemy? Hint: Look up a guy named Mohammad Mosaddegh.
He accepted responsibility for backing the terrorists. He paid compensation to their victims. He focused on rehabilitation of people in Libya. He did not engage in further subversion outside of his nation a la Iraq or Iran. For that, the social justice adventurers sodomized and aborted him (along with our ambassador and several forgotten Americans), and the refugee crises were created and progressed to a global humanitarian disaster.
Yet when his own people had enough and protested, he ruthlessly aborted them.
Anyone see this today: Clinton could not climb a staircase without help from staffers:
http://theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-grandma-hillary-helped-stairs/
Other Mrs. Scum news (also oddly not on Fox News:)
Communist Party unites behind Hillary Clinton
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/communist-party-unites-behind-hillary/
“desperate groveling” That seems a rather loaded way to put it. How exactly does one plead for commutation or clemency without it being depicted as “groveling” by a disloyal opposition? I would guess that it would be impossible.
As for the emails: Does anybody think that the Iranians didn’t notice when the guy went missing? Did they need Clinton’s emails? Is there evidence that the emails were the cause of his execution? Did the Iranians hack her server or did they get the emails when the ‘scandal’ forced them into public domain? If the emails could potentially compromise security, why were they released?
This very article speculates that he was lured back to Iran by threats against his family and makes no connection to the emails.
BTW, I hate to break it to all you geniuses, but there is no nuclear secret. That genie is long out of the bottle. The secret was whether a chain reaction could be contained long enough to cause an explosion. Once it was demonstrated, any country with enough money and the will, can do it. All you can do is delay it or discourage it – something that Obama has done. No, he did not stop them. Nothing short of going to war could stop them. You think Iraq was fun, then lets move on to Iran. Bush & Cheney did intimate that Iran was next.
Israel wanted to bomb Iran, but realized that the Iranians had learned a thing or two from the bombing of Osirak.
I guess Trump will solve this with the same magical thinking he will apply to all our problems. Maybe he can build a dome around Iran and get them to pay for it. Nobody can build a dome like Trump. He will build the greatest, I mean the greats, folks, dome you have ever seen.
Few people can use so many words to say so little.
Not to mention the complete absence of any truth.
Sorry if you need things simplified. Pick just one and enlighten me. That should be easy.
Trying to interact with OnlyRightDissentAllowed is a useless waste of time.
Like doublesucks, he’ll introduce all kinds of extraneous and even bizarre bullshit, and gets all pissy if you don’t deal with his points.
Just down-thumb him, make a dismissive but valid rebuttal to his general thesis, and ignore the rest of his bullshit to follow.
Because Ragspierre is always right.
“BTW, I hate to break it to all you geniuses, but there is no nuclear secret. That genie is long out of the bottle. The secret was whether a chain reaction could be contained long enough to cause an explosion. Once it was demonstrated, any country with enough money and the will, can do it. All you can do is delay it or discourage it – something that Obama has done.”
Obama discouraged Iran from making a nuclear weapon? WTF are you talking about?
Tyrant Obama the Liar, Crooked Hillary and McConnel are helping Iran build nuclear weapons, ICBMs and gain control of the Middle Eastern oil. They are desperate to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and the world wide depression give Iran control of this oil would do that along with manufacturing more desperate impoverished democratic voters.
They don’t just have a different vision of reality, they are traitors?
When Clinton wins and implements her nefarious plan to destroy the world, are you going to continue writing comments?
Even if a clear link is established between Hillary’s emails and the death of this guy it will matter not to the left. If they can murder and harvest baby organs for profit, why should they care about the execution of an Iranian scientist particularly if the story threatens their hold on power? The left runs the plantation and a few unfortunate deaths are simply the cost of doing business.
I love it when covert Israelis place a magnetized bomb on the Iranian nuclear scientist’s cars, but it’s actually much easier when they do it themselves.