Sassenach wrote:There's no way 40% of voters are really 'independent'. They may not be registered supporters of either party, but you can bet that most of them typically only vote one way.

freeman3 wrote:Let me know when there is a criminal indictment, Brad. The stakes are too high to be worried about some technical issues with handling email unless it is determined by a prosecutorial agency to be a crime given the kind of damage Trump or Cruz could do to the country...

The only one I think there's any doubt about is RJ, and then only if he's faced with the prospect of a Trump candidacy

Would choose over Hillary or Bernie:

Christie
Bush
Kasich

Would choose over Bernie:

Rubio
Fiorina
Paul

Wouldn't vote for:

Cruz
Huckabee
Santorum
Carson
Trump

freeman3 wrote:Well if Trump is a jerk what about Cruz? Former Senator Bob Dole said no one likes him in Congress and that if Cruz were the Republican nominee on Election Day he might "oversleep".

Bob Dole is an American hero who is long past understanding the political scene[/quote

But he knows an ahole when he meets one.


Rayjay

I would probably choose the far left since presumably the Republicans will control Congress and there is a limit to what Sanders can do.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

She has an IG report that shows MAJOR security violations

Did you actually read the letter ?
This isn't actually clear. Apparently the classified information may have been classified some time after the email was originally sent. Or the email was of a news paper report about the classified information.

At any rate, its unlikely to change any minds about Hillary unless something a good deal more substantive is released. And thats not likely.

“This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received” said Clinton Campaign Spokesman Brian Fallon. “It is alarming that the intelligence community IG, working with Republicans in Congress, continues to selectively leak materials in order to resurface the same allegations and try to hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The Justice Department’s inquiry should be allowed to proceed without any further interference.”

freeman3 wrote:Let me know when there is a criminal indictment, Brad. The stakes are too high to be worried about some technical issues with handling email unless it is determined by a prosecutorial agency to be a crime given the kind of damage Trump or Cruz could do to the country...

Emails from Hillary Clinton's home server contained information classified at levels higher than previously known, including a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence, according to a document obtained by NBC News.

In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community's internal watchdog says some of Clinton's emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.

Two American intelligence officials tell NBC News these are not the same two emails from Clinton's server that have long been reported as containing information deemed Top Secret.

The letter, first reported by Fox News, doesn't make clear whether Clinton sent or received the emails in question, but in the past, emails containing classified information have tended to have been sent to Clinton, not written by her.

The new revelation underscores the extent to which the email classification issue could continue to dog Clinton, as State Department and intelligence officials review sensitive information within messages that were blacked out before being released to the public.

An intelligence official familiar with the matter told NBC News that the special access program in question was so sensitive that McCullough and some of his aides had to receive clearance to be read in on it before viewing the sworn declaration about the Clinton emails.

Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Clinton conducted government business over private email. The arrangement was particularly unusual because the email system relied not on Yahoo or Google but her own server, which she kept in her home in Westchester County, N.Y.

bbauska wrote:If it is Mrs. Clinton v Mr. Trump, I would vote 3rd party.

Special Access Programs (SAP) is a game changer. It is now undeniably clear that the results of the FBI investigation will be the end of one of two things: Hillary’s bid for the White House or the legitimacy of the FBI—at least when it comes to prosecuting cases on the mishandling of classified material.

In 2006, a Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) from my company was deployed to Afghanistan. Theirs was a particular mission that differed from the combat missions the typical ODAs were conducting at that time. Everyone on that team maintained a Top Secret Sensitive and Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearance and was “read-on” to their special program. A few months into their deployment, their Intelligence Sergeant lost a thumb-drive that possessed classified information. A week later the thumb drive was found for sale at a local bazaar.

In response to the events, Col. Ken Allard (ret.) stated, “You've got a situation in which the U.S. is going to be forced to change an awful lot of its operational techniques."
Beyond the compromise of classified information, a lot did change. New protocols for the handling of classified material were established, and the transportation of classified material on thumb drives was strictly forbidden. The knee jerk reaction even went as far as to disable USB ports on our work computers—in case we forgot.

Since then I’ve deployed to several locations where, at times, we operated in small teams with only non-secure cellphones with which to communicate. We often found ourselves with a lot of information that needed to be sent up in reports, but due to the nature of our mission we were forced to sit on it for a few days until we were able to type it up and send it through a secure medium. I’d be lying if I said we didn’t concoct elaborate plans with “foolproof” ways to communicate the information over non-secure channels, but in the end, no one was willing to take the risk of our “fail-safes” failing.

As more information from Hillary Clinton’s server has been made available, it is clear that the contents of the server contained Imagery Intelligence (IMINT), Human Intelligence (HUMINT), and Signal Intelligence (SIGINT). Understanding that much of the information has been retroactively classified, there are a few facts that are tough to grasp—at least from the perspective of an intelligence practitioner.

First, when imagery that is classified SECRET//NOFORN (no foreign national) is viewed, regardless of the absence of classification markings, it is distinctly evident. Second, any documents that contain or reference HUMINT is always classified SECRET, and if specific names of sources or handlers are mentioned, they are at a minimum SECRET//NOFORN. Third, SIGINT is always classified at the TS level. It’s not uncommon for some SI to be downgraded and shared over SECRET mediums, however, it is highly unlikely that a Secretary of State would receive downgraded intelligence. Finally, SAP intelligence has been discovered on Clinton’s private server, and many are now calling this the smoking gun. SAP is a specialized management system of additional security controls designed to protect SAR or Special Access Required. SAR has to do with extremely perishable operational methods and capabilities, and only selected individuals who are “read on” or “indoctrinated” are permitted access to these programs. The mishandling of SAP can cause catastrophic damage to current collection methods, techniques and personnel.

In other words, if you have worked with classified material for more than a day, it seems highly implausible that someone could receive any of the aforementioned over an un-secure medium without alarm bells sounding. However, reading about a Special Access Program on an unclassified device would make anyone even remotely familiar with intelligence mess their pantsuit.

With more damning information being released almost weekly now, it’s interesting that during last Sunday’s Democratic debate, Clinton resoundingly stated: “No one is too big for jail.” Although the context was referencing bank CEOs and Hedge fund managers, the obvious correlation left many scratching their heads and wondering—did Hillary Clinton just say, “I dare you” to the FBI?”

DeChristopher is a 9-year veteran of the United States Army Special Forces. He holds an M.A. in Strategic Security Studies from National Defense University’s College of International Security Affairs with a concentration in Irregular Warfare. He currently works as an Independent Intelligence Consultant

Sassenach wrote:There's no way 40% of voters are really 'independent'. They may not be registered supporters of either party, but you can bet that most of them typically only vote one way.

In New Hampshire, the dynamics of each race impacts the other. For example, since Bernie and Hillary are neck and neck, independents are more likely to vote in the Democratic primary. As a result, more moderate Republicans may do worse in the Republican primary.