Released Clinton email may have led to execution

In sum, unclassified, released Clinton emails seem to refer to Iranian defector who tried to go back to Iran. He received a 10 year sentence. CNN and others sussed out the references. (They should have been classified, and Clinton aides shouldn't have been using veiled references to secret information.)

He was executed earlier this week, and we found out today.

See http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/clinton-email-shahram-amiri/

No stories yet spelling out the case, but many tweets https://twitter.com/search?q=Shahram%20Amiri&src=typd . Stories coming, no doubt.

Bizarre story. The only thing that comes out clear is Clinton's use of phone email.

I'm still not sure how much the whole email thing matters as it seems Blackberrys (sic) have been used for, what? 15 years? by government officials. As for the classified non-classified business, some of it seem too ludicrous to fathom. Could Clinton really have shot herself in the same foot for years for no particularly evident or good reason.

I am open to lectures on the topic because I am entirely at sea...the technology, the issue of classifieds, the oddity of someone at her level having to bother with such details as equipment...If she was breaking laws or rules where were the advisers that are paid to keep her from falling on her face?

OT, but Julian Assange is about to do a livestream to the Green Party Convention... NOW.

https://www.youtube.com/user/GreenPartyVideos/live

Rumored to be announcing something related to Clinton.

ETA: Well, nothing new in this speech (and awful audio issues...)
There's been a massive uptick in chatter recently, however. Some cryptic Snowden tweets, in particular, have raised eyebrows. Worth keeping an eye on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-e...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-f...

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/05/25/hillary-clinton-ignored-state-depa...

http://time.com/4348021/hillary-clinton-emails-ig-report/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/05/hillary-clinton-still-...

Conversation beginning with:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/friday_squid_bl_518.html#c6719689
and replies (scattered through the thread) are relevant, specifically with regard to the Blackberry.
(I might have a chance to summarize and/or gloss later on.)

Clinton has a low bar for public credibility needed to win the election. Like the person who with his friend is running from a bear. He does not have to outrun the bear, he only needs to outrun his friend.

Trump is a very bad candidate. One who seems to me to be trying to lose this election, as if he just wants to enjoy a short running high profile reality show.

#6---the bear analogy is very apt. Actually I think Clinton is an awful nominee but Trump is even more awful. Both parties found as bad a candidate as they could--it's just that the republicans are better at being bad than the democrats. Nonetheless at least some think I should vote for one of them because no one else has a chance of winning....and there are those who will go to lengths to demean and denigrate the third party candidate I'm going to vote for as being inexperienced and unqualified because of such.

Sometimes a politicians experience by the way doesn't speak all that well for them.

lriley,

I have followed some of the comments encouraging your Democratic vote. Interesting arguments.

I think I am going to write in. Not sure who yet.

I believe Trump has, in general, better judgement than Clinton, can size up friends and adversaries better than she can, has overall better political instincts than she does, is better as a negotiator and bargainer and is actually more sincerely interested in using public office to help others than is Hillary Clinton.

This does not mean he is lacking in egotism. He's almost as egotistical as Clinton. But I believe that, compared to Clinton's, there's more generosity in Trump's self-promoting calculations (as a political candidate and prospective office-holder, rather than as a private businessman).

I also think Clinton's bad judgement is--and undoubtedly has already proven to have been--a much more serious danger to the people and government of the United States than Trump should be in his exercise of judgement.

If Clinton were not the beneficiary of mass news-media that are slobberingly biased in her favor, we'd be much more acquainted with just what a mess of a human being she really is.

Conversely, if people had a much more accurate view of Donald Trump, they'd be surprised at how much they've been taken in by the bad-press he gets and it's hardly possible that they'd view him less favorably as a result.

>10 RickHarsch: Excellent satirical piece. Thanks.

>3 davidgn:

Speaking of the Greens, I saw a couple of "Jill Stein for President" TV commercials yesterday.

I'm not what you'd call an avid television watcher, but those are the first TV ads I recall seeing for a Green presidential candidate since Nader was their candidate back in 2000.

More info:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/green-party-candidate-outspends-trump-on-ads/a...

#8--often they are interesting arguments but not always. The guy you could write in is Sanders. In most states both Stein and Johnson will be on the ballot. Johnson looks like he's going to do pretty well--I'm just not a libertarian kind of voter. There are things to be said for them. I do like the non-interventionist stuff--they're strong on that.

>1 timspalding: The CIA and NSA will always tell you that they need to keep everything private because who knows what you can suss out of unclassified materials. It certainly seems of questionable wisdom to dump an entire collection of State Department emails like this and make them broadly available.

The CNN article says

Following his return to Iran, a U.S. official stressed Amiri was not kidnapped or coerced and claimed Amiri received about $5 million from the United States in return for his information.
A second official referred to the payment as a "long-term benefits package" that enabled Amiri to defect and comfortably resettle in the United States for many years.
The first official went on to say Amiri left because he "wanted to see his family and -- unfortunately -- he chose a dumb way to do it, lying about what happened to him here to try to build up his credibility back home."

So what exactly in those emails would have been classified?

The Washington Post believes the email was irrelevant.

>13 prosfilaes: Trust your local spies.

There are still charges abounding that there are 30,000 emails (on HRC private servers) that are not only missing but have been erased by HRC operatives.

These charges are vociferously denied by various HRC promoters and apologists, by both Democratic apparatchiks and in the "liberal" media.

So is there - or isn't there?

Anyone here think the case is overwhelming - either for or against?

>16 JGL53: So how many e-mails do you delete every day? Junk mail, mail from facebook, twitter, etc, newsletters, there's lots of e-mails we all receive that aren't worth saving. How do you know the 30k missing e-mails aren't something like that?

17: In fact, in the FBI statement, Comey said they believed that the "missing" e-mails were purged in just that manner - as a routine matter of maintenance of the system.

>16 JGL53:-18 The problem, obviously, is that if wrongdoing was done, the jjwilson explanation would be proffered. And if wrongdoing was not done, the jjwilson explanation would be proffered.

So I propose this standard--given the bastards that want to get Clinton, wouldn't you think they would have got her by now? Or, do you really think the Clinton plus____axis is stronger than the Koch brothers, right wing side of the oligarchy Republican machine axis?

> 19

So, like with god, leprechauns and the Evil Eye, non-falsifiability rules in this controversy?

Yeah, well, to coin a phrase, shit happens.

However, the anti-HRC forces allege that there was a giant purge only AFTER it became apparent to HRC that the FBI wanted to look at ALL her emails. If that is is true then that is bad. If that is made up then it all instantly becomes another Fox Noise lie to ignore.

So which is it?

As to the relative power of The Clinton Machine vs. any number of republican conspiracies/Star Chambers - over the years I have gained great respect for the nefarious amoral political skills and abilities of the Clintons. They are good - VERY good - at what they do. Also, they are very lucky. I doubt they have ever had anyone whacked but, then again, I don't know that they haven't. Hillary especially seems the type.

The Koch Brothers? - those assholes who spent 800 million dollars trying to fool people into voting for a moron - excuse me, mormon - for POTUS - those geniuses? lol. Comparing those stumble-bums to the Clintons is like comparing our world's Mussolini to Super Hitler -the one who won WWII in the next multi-universe over.

LOL.

>20 JGL53: Well Mussolini damn near took Albania trying to get Greece. I mean, there was a moment there, just a little window, where glory was glimpsed...

>21 RickHarsch: Which explains this. (That, and the fact that Hoxha was out of his goddamn mind).

>22 davidgn: I was going to try to sleep and made the mistake of accepting your post. Great stuff. And I happen to have half of a marble bunker ashtray a friend bought in Albania about thirteen years ago. Skanderbeg didn't need no goddamn bunker!

>14 prosfilaes:

Well, Josh Rogan believes it. I have no commitment here--a number of non-Trump, non-crazy people think it may have been involved. Thanks for the piece.

>19 RickHarsch:

Right. I'm perfectly willing to believe they were intentionally destroyed. But we have not evidence, and the FBI--who hardly seem to be carrying her water--didn't conclude that they were.

>24 timspalding: But then the emphasis should be on the releasing, not the production or the email server. What was said in the email seems to have been the standard PR line, that we did not abduct him, that he defected to us, and thus had no reason to be classified. Again, the CIA and friends would rather it all be classified instead of foreign states like Iran getting to dig through unclassified material like that, but we decided it was better to release information like that.

Re The Koch brothers and assorted other multibillionaires --

Die Superreichen (the Über-rich) aren't all of a single mind. They disagree over priorities, objectives, tactics, strategies--and their egos clash just like those of ordinary people --only at higher voltages.

Yes, indeed, the Kochs are but part of one of the various factions within the ranks of the Über-rich.

This election is a spat between factions of the wealthy and the Clintons aren't even in the same league with the wealth we're talking about.

The Clintons weren't always body-and-soul part of the corrupt wealthy politically-active. But they certainly are today. At the same time, they're in a faction which is at odds with the Kochs--who themselves certainly don't necessarily call every tune.