Can a third party candidate win?

[Eric the Green]

(07-06-2016, 01:12 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-06-2016, 12:59 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(07-06-2016, 12:50 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-06-2016, 10:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I doubt the FBI report changed anything. Hillary did not pass along secrets. Emails called "classified" by others later were not marked when she received them on her server. Using private servers was routine practice when she became Secretary. So, what's new? Nothing, really.

You are correct that the FBI report will not matter and I expect that Clinton will be elected. However, your description of the classified emails is not what was reported by the FBI.

Quote:https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-...ail-system

… "For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).”…

Which is more secure, .gov or private? It's a good question. We know the Russians broke into .gov. A Secretary of State is not going to blurt out "I'm going private because the Ruskis are on .gov." Therefore we quietly go dark. This whole thing should have been classified. Way too much info being shared with our enemies regarding our vulnerabilities.

Which is more secure is not relevant to current US policies on the handling of classified information. My concern is that Clinton was not treated as anyone else in the government would have been treated. Looks like special treatment to me. 
There may be other cases, but I have never heard of any involving Top Secret/Special Access Program information where no action was taken.

It's correct that the FBI upped the accusation against Hillary beyond what she claimed. She didn't "pass on" secrets like Patraeus did. She put info in emails that she should have known was dangerous to put there, even if not marked classified. And those she sent them to or received them from did the same thing. So Congressman Becerra was probably right that as hackers have gotten better, in recent years, it's better to be more careful than the Secretary was in 2009. Technically, Hillary was probably right that they were not individually marked classified; Comey said that they "concerned matters" that were top secret.

The subject of the thread though, is whether Johnson has a better chance now that Hillary was accused of being "extremely careless" with her emails. The thing to remember about HRC is that all the accusations against her have been exaggerated by the opposition, which itself gets a much freer ride. That's quite the opposite of the contention that the Clintons aren't treated like others (they are not, but in the other way; accused of far more than anyone else would be accused of who do the same things). That has been true all along with all the scandals, and with regard to her husband's scandals too. Knowing this, Hillary has been less transparent with the press than they would like, which is one reason she used the private server in the first place. The Republicans continue to exaggerate and use whatever they can to slander Hillary. I think at least 50% of the public is used to it and won't punish her.