Skip to content

AP report: Hillary Clinton’s emails could have compromised the names of CIA operatives

June 8, 2016

Hillary Clinton I have written three posts in the past about how Hillary Clinton could have exposed the names of CIA operatives who are working in the field: In this story we found out that Sidney Blumenthal sent Hillary Clinton an email which included the name of a top CIA operative working in Libya which she then passed on to others. Of course Sidney Blumenthal did not have the proper clearance to receive this information in the first place because Barack Obama forbade the former Secretary of State from appointing her to he cabinet. We also learned that Hillary Clinton discussed by name an Afghan national who was working with the CIA, and that she also shared “operational intelligence” which could have put lives in danger.

  As bad as that is the AP is reporting that the possibility that Hillary Clinton might have jeopardized field operatives is more extensive than we previously thought. Here is more:

The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton’s private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say.

At least 47 of the emails contain the notation “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. And because both Clinton’s server and the State Department systems were vulnerable to hacking, the perpetrators could have those original emails, and now the publicly released, redacted versions showing exactly which sections refer to CIA personnel.

  Hillary Clinton has maintained the defense that she neither sent nor received information which were marked as classified at the time of transmission but that is not a defense because some emails are “born classifed” even if they are not marked as such and it is up to the people in the State Department to understand and use sound judgement when sending and receiving emails. In fact Hillary Clinton was responsible for determining if her emails were classified.

  Clearly emails marked with “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” would fall into that category and Hillary Clinton should have known this even if they were not marked classified. In my opinion this calls into question her judgement and I have to wonder how she could possibly be trusted to safeguard the nation’s secrets as well as the lives of the people we have working in the field if she becomes President of the United States.

  Scooter Libby went to jail for much less than this…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

17 Comments leave one →
  1. petermc3 permalink
    June 8, 2016 7:30 pm

    Had this crime resulted in these people being outed and neutralized their names would be added to the four Benghazi victims … What does it matter now!!!!

    Liked by 2 people

    • June 8, 2016 7:37 pm

      Good point!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. June 8, 2016 7:57 pm

    She slithers along doesn’t she.

    Liked by 1 person

    • June 8, 2016 8:03 pm

      Yes she does…

      Liked by 1 person

  3. June 8, 2016 7:59 pm

    Bret Baer made quick work of her tonite on Fox. I was surprised she came on Fox. She has her script so well down I guess she thought she could plow through it. She couldn’t answer why she wouldn’t talk to the I.G.

    Liked by 1 person

    • June 8, 2016 8:04 pm

      Interesting! I didn’t see it but I am also surprised she had the guts to go on Fox.


  4. June 8, 2016 8:56 pm

    I am seriously following your blog. They are awesome.

    Liked by 1 person

    • June 9, 2016 5:36 am

      Thank you.


  5. June 8, 2016 9:18 pm

    Here is information from a Rasmussen Reports survey. The survey finds 65% believe Hillary Clinton is a lawbreaker. Here is the kicker 50% of all voters believe a felony indictment shouldn’t stop her campaign for the presidency!!!!

    Of course the results are worse among Democratic voters, 71% believe Clinton should keep running even under indictment and 50% said it would not impact their vote. You sow what you reap.

    The U.S. is a banana republic.

    Liked by 1 person

    • June 9, 2016 5:37 am

      It is a sad state we are in when people are so used to the corruption that people are more than willing to overlook it.


  6. June 8, 2016 9:20 pm

    You reap what you sow. In the Dem I think the opposite is true.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. June 9, 2016 7:46 am

    Why It Matters [ by Peter Van Buren]

    These redactions point directly to violations of specific laws [National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917]. It is not a “mistake” or minor rule breaking.

    These redactions strongly suggest that the Espionage Act’s standard of mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence” may have been met by Clinton.

    There is no ambiguity in this information, no possible claims to faux-retroactive classification, not knowing, information not being labeled, etc. Clinton and her staff know that one cannot mention CIA names in open communications. It is one of the most basic tenets taught and exercised inside the government. One protects one’s colleagues.

    Exposing these names can directly endanger the lives of the officials. It can endanger the lives of the foreigners they interacted with after a foreign government learns one of their citizens was talking with the CIA. It can blow covers and ruin sensitive clandestine operations. It can reveal to anyone listening in on this unclassified communication sources and methods. Here is a specific example of how Clinton likely compromised security.

    These redactions show complete contempt on Clinton’s part for the security process.

    Liked by 1 person

    • June 9, 2016 8:51 pm

      I agree 100%!


  8. June 9, 2016 8:38 pm

    The ones she’s gave up were probably the only ‘good ones’ in the CIA – Pro America!
    Here’s a list of the super delegates:,_2016

    […’At least in name, superdelegates are not involved in the Republican Party nomination process. There are delegates to the Republican National Convention who are seated automatically, but they are limited to three per state, consisting of the state chairsperson and two district-level committee members. Republican Party superdelegates are obliged to vote for their state’s popular vote winner under the rules of the party branch to which they belong.’]

    ‘Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination.
    … Because they are free to support anyone they want, superdelegates could potentially swing the results to nominate a presidential candidate who did not receive the majority of votes during the primaries. …Superdelegates … can change their vote purely of their own volition.’
    I wonder if they were to be paid off by Bernie, instead of Hilly & the under-the-table promised goodies, if they’d change their vote – guaranteed personal protection package, of course.

    Liked by 1 person

    • June 9, 2016 8:52 pm

      Yeah, I am sure she made sure there were certain people whose names she made sure not to mention…

      Liked by 1 person

      • June 9, 2016 10:51 pm

        Plus they’re probably carrying out orders from the evil powers that be. They didn’t get their positions by not being part of the Global Team.

        Liked by 1 person

      • June 10, 2016 5:27 am

        No they do not!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: