Is the FBI Closing in on Hillary? Her Role in Iranian Nukes

crew-22312I reviewed both of Amil Imani’s books before the suits took down my web site, “The Dangers of Allah,”

 

In the one below I recall writing, “If only I could have been a fly on the wall,” as that’s the way he wrote it with amazingly gifted wit.

 

In Operation Persian Gulf I was left with a much more clear understanding what would mean if the Iranian’s had the ability to deliver nuclear weapons to the U.S. mainland.  51x3M9EFhnL._UY250_


There is little doubt that will not happen unless with a change of administration we try a completely new approach

 

The American Thinker

By Amil Imani and James Hyde

November 9, 2015

106371_1Tt9rY5I
In an administration known for its disdain for accountability and appalling disregard for justice, FBI Director James Comey sets himself apart as a straight shooter and strong adherent of the equal application of the law.

To those who know and/or have worked with him, Comey’s character is unimpeachable, his integrity unique, and his pursuit of justice determined, focused, and incorruptible in a capital where such traits are routinely eschewed.

According to Dr. Monica Crowley, quoted below, Comey is closely overseeing his crack cyber-forensic team, which has masterfully managed to do what many claimed couldn’t be done: they accessed the files on Hillary Clinton’s “wiped” email server. If they find ample evidence to indict her, as Crowley intimates below, and the Justice Department decides not to pursue charges, many political pundits foresee Comey resigning, or looking the other way when whatever illegal activity they found starts to leak.

Most observers agree that going after General David Petraeus, a true national treasure, for having some “Confidential” — not “Top Secret” — documents stored in a desk drawer, but not pressing charges on Clinton if she sent and received “Top Secret” documents would be seen as, at best, a blatant double standard, and at worst the same kind of collusive corruption we’ve seen for far too long in Washington.

But has the FBI found criminal offenses in their quest for justice? Apparently so. During an appearance on the “O’Reilly Factor”, Dr. Monica Crowley was granted an extremely rare waiver: she was allowed to cite “anonymous sources” on the progress of the investigation. She had managed to find two unnamed investigation insiders, who gave her solid information that should result in an indictment of Mrs. Clinton for violations stemming from the use of her private email server.

According to Crowley:

“As of now, at least 671 emails that Mrs. Clinton sent or received through her private server contained classified material. Of those, at least four emails are extremely problematic in this investigation. Of those, two reached the highest classified designation which is Top Secret. One of those, which has been publicly disclosed, contained satellite data about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. I am told that that particular document is an open and shut violation. I am also told that FBI Director James Comey is personally overseeing and directing this investigation, and as of now they do have enough to build a case against her if they so choose on two grounds: One, gross negligence of the mishandling of classified data, and two, obstruction [of justice] — multiple counts.”

“…you are talking about classified material that may or may not have been stamped classified at the time, but that material, in intelligence circles, is known as ‘born classified’ at the time [it was sent or received], meaning that the information contained therein was so sensitive that it was assumed to be classified, and as secretary of state, she must have known that.”

xxLBfXUp_4iz78iaGApSWlpJJFOLfItDF1GYF4Skp0avLNiY-2eV6iS7E7vmbFU8qe2EY-iZJVA9NKKZMyQ_-xS4uOsRq2RnMdIcfj4lZdASfTWhhciifSPRZHNOaV-pVmgcxHJJ62XrLbsfAsD0ouYCcIHae2QHEWECD4zMBD0uROUHi_g1_Fxd9DToxsBymbH0gSd7PQLA6eYVOKEWiHGktfacCaW7Z45

Her stare is as frightening as multiple nuclear war heads.

It should be remembered that on March 10, 2015, when Hillary Clinton gave her first explanation about her server during a presser at the U.N., she clearly stated, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material, so, I am certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send any classified material.”

Later realizing her error, as is the custom with Mrs. Clinton, she’s now amending her words to claim that she did not send any email that was “marked classified.” But, that’s not the case either.

On Friday, the State Department released a security agreement Clinton signed on January 23, 2009. The agreement states:

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.”

WTFlarger

Clinton never told or asked the State Department about whether or not she could use her own, home-based email server, especially one not set up by the State Department. By storing those emails at home, she violated the “unauthorized retention” clause. General David Petraeus pled guilty to having “confidential” material (which comprised his own personal documents) in a desk drawer in his home. If having those files at home were an indictable offense, Clinton’s emails kept at her home is also an indictable offense. Then, there’s negligent handling.

According to the AP,

“The private email server running in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s home basement when she was secretary of state was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers while using software that could have been exploited, according to data and documents reviewed by The Associated Press.”

The story continues:

“Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn’t intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.” Thus the less-than-secure server constitutes “negligent handling.”

It seems pretty clear that violations far beyond those committed by David Petraeus have been perpetrated in this case. But is Clinton “too big to jail,” as one attorney claims? Perhaps — but if the FBI’s cyber-forensics team has found “multiple counts” of violations — indictable violations — one can be certain that FBI Director Comey will recommend that the Justice Department file charges. If an action is not pursued, it will be even worse for Clinton than if she had been indicted. Attempts to cover up are always worse than a crime(s) itself.

Whether or not she’s charged, if that FBI report finds evidence of multiple counts of violations, as well as numerous federal statutes enumerated by ex-NYC Mayor Rudi Giuliani, who counts as many as 15 violations, Hillary Clinton may well fall off the merry-go-round just before she is about to grab the brass ring for which she’s been long reaching.

About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. This site covers politics with a fiscally conservative, deplores Sharia driven Islam, and uses lots of humor to spiceup your day. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it's up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else. Please subscribe at the top right and pass this along to your friends, Thank's I'm J.C. and I run the circus
This entry was posted in Is the FBI Closing in on Hillary? : Her Role in Iranian Nukes and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Is the FBI Closing in on Hillary? Her Role in Iranian Nukes

  1. Pingback: Is the FBI Closing in on Hillary? : Her Role in Iranian Nukes | | BLOGGING BAD: Gunny G

  2. Dave the Differentiator says:

    Hillary Clinton has a long history of “Criminal Arrogance” and needs to be prosecuted.

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/bill-whittle-criminal-arrogance-hillary-clinton

    Like

  3. JAFC says:

    The Attorney General isn’t interested in prosecuting anything Hillary Clinton has done. Neither is her boss.

    Like

  4. Pamela says:

    No one should be “too big for jail” if they have broken the law. The feds had no problem convicting the infamous “Queen of Mean”Leona Helmsley on charges of federal income tax invasion, or television personality Martha Stewart on insider trading-so why not Hillary Clinton?
    The only problem I see with Clinton is the time element. The Democrats and their cronies in the news media have downplayed Hillary’s crimes and misdemeanors until now, when she is running for the White House, making any investigations of her look like a political witch hunt.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.