Hillary Clinton Posted Names of Hidden Intelligence Officials On Her Email

[FATCAT 60,970]

 

"Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system.

Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts. These new revelations — reminiscent of the Valerie Plame scandal during George W. Bush’s tenure — could give FBI investigators the evidence they need to make a case that Clinton violated the Espionage Act by mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence.”

Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email 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."

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-clinton-exchanged-cia-officers-names-private-server/

=======

Ironic that she wants Snowden to face trial, but she "did nothing wrong". Well, folks, violating the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 is a crime. FBI indictment here we come.

 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

4 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

 

"Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system.

Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts. These new revelations — reminiscent of the Valerie Plame scandal during George W. Bush’s tenure — could give FBI investigators the evidence they need to make a case that Clinton violated the Espionage Act by mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence.”

Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email 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."

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-clinton-exchanged-cia-officers-names-private-server/

=======

Ironic that she wants Snowden to face trial, but she "did nothing wrong". Well, folks, violating the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 is a crime. FBI indictment here we come.

 

And yet most of the people involved with the Valerie Plame leak got off!  Bob Novak, Karl Rove - Only Scooter Libby faced any charges, and his charges were only for committing perjury!  

 

[Rebel Heart 5,142]

29 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

FBI indictment here we come.

 

God I hope so

[Solitaire 902]

I pray that all of the potential Clinton sh*t is exposed before the convention and not after she potentially becomes the nominee... If she's the nominee and a bunch of nasty stuff comes out of these investigations we can all say hola to Prezzy Trump. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

40 minutes ago, Solitaire said:

I pray that all of the potential Clinton sh*t is exposed before the convention and not after she potentially becomes the nominee... If she's the nominee and a bunch of nasty stuff comes out of these investigations we can all say hola to Prezzy Trump. 

The Trump University Scandal says Hi...  

 

[Solitaire 902]

4 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

The Trump University Scandal says Hi...  

 

I don't think a business "scandal" is really comparable to the things some people are accusing Clinton of. Yeah, Trump U seems a little shady, but it was a business and shady things happen in business (not sticking up for him, just saying it's pretty common and I thing the American people accept that).

What Clinton did put the United States' intelligence community at risk.. that's a big big no no in the eyes of the general populace and will definitely not be a boost to her.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

2 minutes ago, Solitaire said:

I don't think a business "scandal" is really comparable to the things some people are accusing Clinton of. Yeah, Trump U seems a little shady, but it was a business and shady things happen in business (not sticking up for him, just saying it's pretty common and I thing the American people accept that).

What Clinton did put the United States' intelligence community at risk.. that's a big big no no in the eyes of the general populace and will definitely not be a boost to her.

Yes but everyone can relate to being scammed or potentially being scammed, way more than they can to working in/for the government & e-mails...  And then the eventually question will be for Trump is he scamming all of us right now with his Presidential Bid!???

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

@FATCAT

Please tell me we haven't sunk to such levels of depravity that we'd quote articles from Breitbart now

I'm looking for alternative sources and none have reported on this. 

Her server was never breached either. Why are they implying otherwise? There is no information on that anywhere.  

Clinton shared? She has never shared anything. This article implies she has malevolent intent. The Espionage Act was designed for national enemies like spies and leakers. Are you seriously trying to compare her to Snowden now?  

Dude this article is fake.

I can't even. Please don't ever quote Breitbart. It's like the National Enquirer for Republicans  

For God's sake this is the same source that uses terms like "Renegade Jew", hosts homo conservatives who say Trump is better than Sanders, and wants to impeach Obama for his Japan speech  

Refer to my response to Didymus below for an actual reason why since apparently I have to do the work for everyone.

I'm going to report this post. Nothing personal  

[Helxig 45,695]

4 hours ago, FATCAT said:

 

"Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system.

Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts.

My jaw literally dropped. Someone this irresponsible cannot be president!

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 hours ago, Solitaire said:

I pray that all of the potential Clinton sh*t is exposed before the convention and not after she potentially becomes the nominee... If she's the nominee and a bunch of nasty stuff comes out of these investigations we can all say hola to Prezzy Trump. 

When Bernie supporters start believing in Breitbart  

It's as believable as the Onion  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Helxig said:

My jaw literally dropped. Someone this irresponsible cannot be president!

This has not happened. There is one hacker who claims to have breached her server but not only is there no proof of that, it is also unlikely because it is not the sort of system he normally breaches nor is he equipped to do so. 

Please verify your sources before believing anything you read on the Internet.

My head hurts. Not directing this at you necessarily, but how can people be so gullible  

[Didymus 34,380]

8 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

@FATCAT

Please tell me we haven't sunk to such levels of depravity that we'd quote articles from Breitbart now

I'm looking for alternative sources and none have reported on this. 

Her server was never breached either. Why are they implying otherwise?

Clinton shared? She has never shared anything. This article implies she has malevolent intent. The Espionage Act was designed for national enemies like spies and leakers.

Dude this article is most likely fake.

I can't even. Please don't ever quote Breitbart. It's like the National Enquirer for Republicans  

I'm going to report this post. Nothing personal  

I don't really get this, because they actually use direct references to Hillary's e-mails as leaked by WikiLeaks. And they use links to back up their other claims. So even if this is eventually misleading, people like me can easily click further to check out if the info is reliable or not.

If people don't do that 'cause they're gullible well then that's their problem. They'll end up believing an article you're posting the same way. So it's a bit ironic to only complain about articles that run against your political fav  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

28 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I don't really get this, because they actually use direct references to Hillary's e-mails as leaked by WikiLeaks. And they use links to back up their other claims. So even if this is eventually misleading, people like me can easily click further to check out if the info is reliable or not.

If people don't do that 'cause they're gullible well then that's their problem. They'll end up believing an article you're posting the same way. So it's a bit ironic to only complain about articles that run against your political fav  

I'm sorry why are you trying to shade me again? 

Breitbart is a uber-conservative site which appeals to the lowest denominator that use terms like "Renegade Jew", post articles about the gay agenda, and hate Democrats so much they'd go so far as to want to impeach Obama over his Japan speech

Understanding the source of articles you link is important. Given the source's bias, lies can be employed and context twisted in order to serve their agenda.

For example, all of the e-mails that the Judicial Watch currently has access to are the non-classified e-mails. Look at the documents they link. They are all "unclassified". They literally say "UNCLASSIFIED" in the header.

This means that there is no legal consequence to consider. The names were redacted for security purposes but only because they are being distributed. There is no violation of any law because these are not classified documents. There isn't even gross negligence to speak of.

Furthermore, this article outright lies regarding the hacking attempts and provides no credible proof of such. One hacker has claimed to have breached Clinton's server when not only is that unlikely, it's also not typical of his normal hacking operations. He usually employs password thefts not man in the middle attacks. Stating that her server was breached regularly is false.

Also, this article makes the FALSE claim that Clinton was SHARING the names of HIDDEN intelligence officials. That is not true. She was not sharing them to anyone who wasn't cleared. She did not send those names to anyone outside of the office. She did not list them for all to see. She was partaking in e-mails with other people in the office. There was no sharing with outside sources, like Snowden, and they were not hidden. They were hidden after the fact.

Lastly, this article attempts to invoke the Espionage Act which was designed to prosecute leakers and spies, aka national enemies. Hillary is not a national enemy, and that is very much taken into consideration.

A lot of missing or twisted context and a lot of lies. Look at the source before posting or commenting on it, and frankly it's exhausting having to do the work for people every single time. I probably don't have to, but as I have repeatedly said, I despise willful ignorance.

[Didymus 34,380]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

A lot of missing or twisted context and a lot of lies. Look at the source before posting or commenting on it, and frankly it's exhausting having to do the work for you every single time.

I did though which should've been obvious from my reply.

I didn't ask you to explain everything that's misleading in the article either. You already did that. I'm just saying that people who are not gullible find enough in the actual article to be able to check if it's valuable information or not, since they provide links to back up their claims (which doesn't mean I agree with the article, but just that the article provides opportunities to check its veracity, which is indeed close to nihil).

I just don't like when people complain about others being gullible when they're only complaining about things that don't match their own political agenda. And yes, this article is pretty much bs, but so have a lot of your Bernie threads been bs.

[MJHolland 12,725]

43 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

@FATCAT

Please tell me we haven't sunk to such levels of depravity that we'd quote articles from Breitbart now

I'm looking for alternative sources and none have reported on this. 

Her server was never breached either. Why are they implying otherwise? There is no information on that anywhere.  

Clinton shared? She has never shared anything. This article implies she has malevolent intent. The Espionage Act was designed for national enemies like spies and leakers. Are you seriously trying to compare her to Snowden now?  

Dude this article is fake.

I can't even. Please don't ever quote Breitbart. It's like the National Enquirer for Republicans  

For God's sake this is the same source that uses terms like "Renegade Jew", hosts homo conservatives who say Trump is better than Sanders, and wants to impeach Obama for his Japan speech  

Refer to my response to Didymus below for an actual reason why since apparently I have to do the work for everyone.

I'm going to report this post. Nothing personal  

Russia, China, South Korea, and Germany all hacked her server, including that lone wolf basement hacker that's currently in jail.

Breitbart is pretty extreme. That doesn't mean this article is false. If she shared the classified names on an unsecure server, those people could have f*cking died. That's criminally negligent. That's not retroactive classification. Not to mention that we have NO IDEA what HALF(!!!!!) of those emails even contained! She could've deleted sooo many more classified emails.

Also, someone can be gay and also conservative. You'll be reported for that slanderous rhetoric, free of charge  

3 hours ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

The Trump University Scandal says Hi...  

 

If you think that'll take him down 

Especially against a woman standing federal trial  

2 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I did though which should've been obvious from my reply.

I didn't ask you to explain everything that's misleading in the article either. You already did that. I'm just saying that people who are not gullible find enough in the actual article to be able to check if it's valuable information or not, since they provide links to back up their claims (which doesn't mean I agree with the article, but just that the article provides opportunities to check its veracity, which is indeed close to nihil).

I just don't like when people complain about others being gullible when they're only complaining about things that don't match their own political agenda. And yes, this article is pretty much bs, but so have a lot of your Bernie threads been bs.

Gullible people are the worst. Just like people who are gullible enough to believe that HALF of Hillary's server was private messages between her and her husband... even though her husband said he's only ever sent ONE email in his entire life... 

I cringe tbh.