ed. – Although John Kiriakou and others have been sent up the river for far less egregious behavior, Hillary, like Dick Cheney and other members of the political elite before him, has enjoyed a free pass for her brazen disregard of the law.
Peter Van Buren
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.
This post originally appeared on Peter’s We Meant Well blog. Peter Van Buren is a former US State Department employee who wrote the fascinating and humorous book We Meant Well about his experience as a senior diplomat heading a State Department effort in an Iraq Forward Operating Base (FOB), spending million of dollars to change the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. For writing this book he was fired and almost lost his pension for his 24 years of service. He now devotes his time to using his knowledge of how things really work to write and speak about current events. His second book, Ghost of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent, a novel examines the devastating effect effect of shipping American jobs overseas on on Ohio family. We highly recommend Peters books.
The Contrary Perspective 
Justice does not occur automatically. It requires people who are ethical, apply the law equally to all and finally are not beholden to anyone. Politically appointed prosecutors and judges from two wayward political parties use the law selectively. Public knowledge of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server became known in March 2015. Congress ought to asking why the FBI is taking so long. Congress over and over appears to represent special interests, wealthy and powerful corporations and each political party tends to protect its prominent members over the interests of the United States. The two party system may now be operating under what the media is loathe to identify and describe: kleptocracy.
There is a troubling trend on the internet. When searching for “when did FBI begin its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server” you get all kinds of articles defending her or stating outright that she did nothing illegal on and on, but no answer to the question. Is the internet being sabotaged by search engines and many major media publications slanted to the democrat party ledger? A democracy cannot function without accurate and factual information transmitted regularly to the citizenry by the mainstream press and TV news networks.
She’s obviously incompetent and should never be allowed near the White House. Four years of Donald Trump acting on the advice of Alex Jones will be no problem.
tcinla.. Are you joking? being satiric? Or implying that Clinton’s faults are lessor than
Trumps? Curious minds want to know.
The absurdities of living in an Orwellian National Security State just keep piling up. I actually believe Madam Clinton when she says she was merely following the practices of predecessors. Has anyone pondered the irony that, in this day and age of increasingly sophisticated hackers, sending emails revealing names of CIA personnel via the government’s own most “secure” channels does not guarantee they won’t be intercepted? (Understand that my own perspective is that I firmly oppose the activities of these gov’t spook agencies because they’re not defending me or other ordinary citizens, they’re only defending the interests of “the 1%.” They kind of fell down on the job on Sep. 11, 2001 in defending the lives of the tens of thousands of citizens employed in the Twin Towers, didn’t they?) Long may Ed Snowden remain at liberty, and let’s get Julian Assange out of that London basement and to a safe refuge!!