Hillary Clinton Emailed Names of US Intelligence Officials, Unclassified

These are facts.

You can look at the source documents yourself. This is not opinion, conjecture, or rumor. Hillary Clinton transmitted the names of American intelligence officials via her unclassified email.

From a series of Clinton emails, numerous names were redacted in the State Department releases with the classification code “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 by exposing the names of CIA officials.

How FOIA Works

The Freedom of information Act (FOIA) requires the government to release all, or all parts of a document, that do not fall under a specific set of allowed exemptions. If information cannot be excluded, it must be released. If some part of a document can be redacted to allow the rest of the document to be released, then that is what must be done. Each redaction must be justified by citing a specific reason for exclusion.

But don’t believe me. Instead, look at page two of this State Department document which lists the exemptions.

Note specifically the different types of “(b)(3)” redactions, including “CIA PERS/ORG.” As common sense would dictate, the government will not release the names of CIA employees via the FOIA process. It would — literally — be against the law. What law? Depending on the nature of the individual’s job at CIA, 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.

Names of CIA, NSA Officials Mentioned, Now Redacted

Yet Hillary’s emails contain at least three separate, specific instances where she mentioned in an unclassified email transmitted across the open Internet and wirelessly to her Blackberry the names of CIA personnel. Here they are. Look for the term “(b)(3) CIA PERS/ORG” Click on the links and see for yourself:

There are also numerous instances of exposure of the names and/or email addresses of NSA employees (“B3 NSA”); see page 23 inside this longer PDF document.

Why It Matters

  • These redactions point directly to violations of specific laws. 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.

BONUS: There is clear precedent for others going to jail for exposing CIA names. Read the story of John Kiriakou.

A Personal Aside: I just remain incredulous about these revelations seeming to mean nothing to the world. They’re treated in the media as almost gossip.

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent. Reprinted from the his blog with permission.

  • An external IT audit is necessary in this case, if it hasn’t already been ordered. Who gave the approval to set this thing up? Where is the documentation requesting access to the State’s servers? Who signed off on that? Who verified that approval? Who processed the request and what verification did the approvals undergo?

    An IT auditor would rip State several new orifices with which to excrete solid waste matter.

  • Tired_of_poor_healthcare

    The media has been bought and paid for. There is no longer news reporting, only propaganda recitation. Statistically, most people are followers. Let’s hope there are a few principled public servants at the FBI to help save our country.

    • Don

      Baloney! The media in the US owns itself and it would cost too much to buy any source. And why would any Repub want to buy Fox news or any Dem. want to buy MSNBC?

      Were you somehow thinking that Ailes isn’t serving the cause and needs to be bought?

  • Tonyandoc

    It seems that HRC may become POTUS, thanks to the actions of DNC, DWS and the MSM and the inaction of the FBI and DOJ – much to the relief of the MIC, CIA and NSA and the satisfaction of the TBTF banks and the RDA*.
    The rest of us are FUCD.
    * I made this one up; it stands for “Revolving Door Apparatchiks”.

  • tom

    So if Hillary is elected and she takes the USA into WW3 by continuing to harass Russia and supporting terrorists, and the USA is finally attacked like the USA attacks other nations, are not the people who supported Clinton, and the Clintons themselves, fair game for some sort of retribution? When are these obvious war crimes going to be met with some sort of justice? There is a story well-known by now of how a group f German soldiers tried to assassinate Hitler and failed. Well, the FBI and DOJ have every opportunity to stop another Hitler before she acquires more leverage to reign down death and destruction on America’s “enemies”. Will they do their job or will we in 10 tens be wondering what could have been?

    • BrotherJonah

      While and at the same time doing much business with Russia, and China, and all of the newly conquered (but not very conquered) puppet dictatorships like Iraq and Libya. The first real indication we’ll get is if the Halliburton operatives get pulled out. I haven’t seen a mass exodus of pipeline workers coming back to the states. My lowly position as an ex-Halliburton worker (they literally broke me and then abandoned me. I can’t walk two blocks without extreme pain for an uncompensated on-the-job injury 23 years ago) gives me a unique vantage no CIA spook can ever get. Unless you were to talk some Harvard Princesses to get up on a damned ladder or roughneck on an oil rig or pipeline. On our level we get a larger view of what’s going on. Like for instance, Sudan was invaded by Halliburton years before the Libyan coup. How does that matter? The nation is landlocked and the only direction they can point a pipe to the Med is through Libya. Shell and Exxon want to export the extorted oil so they had to take down Libya. Roll the dice. Also by publishing the names of the agents who were previously outed, we’d be doing the exact same thing. Prove that those agents were endangered and wham bam thank you ma’am they’ll be even more endangered. The alternative would be a secret trial. Which happens.