Hillary Clinton may have been an unsuspecting asset for American intelligence

Consider this possibility about Hillary's unsecured server and why the FBI decided not to prosecute.  In 2009 (see article), the State Department asked the NSA to provide a secure BlackBerry for Hillary Clinton, which the NSA declined.  That request, I believe, put Hillary's State Department communications on the NSA's radar.  Whether they shared this knowledge with the CIA and the FBI, we won't know, but I think all three quickly determined that Hillary’s email system was operating with no real security.

Knowing that her electronic communications were so vulnerable, it may be that the NSA intentionally declined the State Department’s request so that her communications could be more easily intercepted.  Knowing that other intelligence agencies would also be reading her mail, it is possible that U.S. intelligence agencies made the decision to use her as an unsuspecting double agent, feeding her classified messages that they would want leaked, including just enough true information to make it plausible.

At the same time, the real State Department operations would be conducted in a much more secure manner, with friendly governments being told to essentially disregard what Hillary said or did.  At no time did Hillary know of her role as an intelligence asset.

A good example of this type of deception (although the main person knew of his role) was "Operation Fortitude," the plan in 1944 to make the Germans think the main D-Day invasion would occur at the port of Pas de Calais instead of Normandy.  The ruse was so effective that the Germans thought the actual Normandy landings were a feint to draw forces away from Calais.

Given this possibility, I believe that, had Hillary been indicted, the carefully hidden ruse would have been uncovered.  So don't be surprised if you read in a history book, say, fifty years hence, that Hillary's carelessness was used to America's advantage.

Consider this possibility about Hillary's unsecured server and why the FBI decided not to prosecute.  In 2009 (see article), the State Department asked the NSA to provide a secure BlackBerry for Hillary Clinton, which the NSA declined.  That request, I believe, put Hillary's State Department communications on the NSA's radar.  Whether they shared this knowledge with the CIA and the FBI, we won't know, but I think all three quickly determined that Hillary’s email system was operating with no real security.

Knowing that her electronic communications were so vulnerable, it may be that the NSA intentionally declined the State Department’s request so that her communications could be more easily intercepted.  Knowing that other intelligence agencies would also be reading her mail, it is possible that U.S. intelligence agencies made the decision to use her as an unsuspecting double agent, feeding her classified messages that they would want leaked, including just enough true information to make it plausible.

At the same time, the real State Department operations would be conducted in a much more secure manner, with friendly governments being told to essentially disregard what Hillary said or did.  At no time did Hillary know of her role as an intelligence asset.

A good example of this type of deception (although the main person knew of his role) was "Operation Fortitude," the plan in 1944 to make the Germans think the main D-Day invasion would occur at the port of Pas de Calais instead of Normandy.  The ruse was so effective that the Germans thought the actual Normandy landings were a feint to draw forces away from Calais.

Given this possibility, I believe that, had Hillary been indicted, the carefully hidden ruse would have been uncovered.  So don't be surprised if you read in a history book, say, fifty years hence, that Hillary's carelessness was used to America's advantage.