This man McCullough is still investigating as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. If he encounters one of those coin toss judgments (or less), he might as well nail Hillary as she's impugned his reputation and if she's elected, he won't have a job. She hasn't made a bad situation any better because she's drawing attention to the above letter - which doesn't look good on Hillary no matter what is said or why. Apparently one of the SAP classified emails is about drones - and the public will largely find that the rules are the rules when it comes to top secret documents about drone strikes (as much as many don't like them).

I thought Hillary was supposed to be smarter than that.

If she's worried about the timing of this coming out, well, I have a feeling we haven't seen anything yet compared with what is to come and the timing. For example, they could announce Bryan Pagliano immunity deal just before Super Tuesday. Awful timing for her for sure and politically motivated for sure but there's nothing she can do about it. She put herself in this position.

It's why I continue to think she's going to have a very tough time getting elected if she wins the primary. They have volumes of stuff like this they can use to taint her candidacy.

link to Selma to Montgomery March google images

http://www.politico.com/magazine/gallery/2015/07/bernie-sanders-the-early-years/002279-032662.html?ml=po_g#.VqA4eZowhiw

(Bernie) also traveled to Washington—his first time in D.C.—to hear Martin Luther King speak at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

link to march on washington for jobs and freedom 1963 google images

no flags prominent ...

Can't find anything on Bernie marching from Selma

Some might find this two year old video interesting - on how Bernie is working to make some of MLK's dream happen:

She has very flawed ethics and loyalty. Of late, the lies seem to be coming at us daily.

But she's been deceiving her entire career. She didn't score high in the untrustworthy polls for nothing!!

This one is particularly ugly because she kicked Bernie in the nuts for helping her husband keep the government open. That's stooping pretty low to score political points.

I put the "allegation" in front of the title because I do not regard the article as "proof".

Having said that, maybe the article or parts of it have merit. I don't know for sure. It didn't strike me as totally bonkers but I'm not a constitutional law expert nor up on the laws on both sides of the border. I'm tossing it out there for interest/discussion - not to smear Cruz as a Canadian like a birther. It raises some points I was unaware of and I'm curious to what others might have to say about it. Ignoring that I don't care for Cruz as a candidate, it might be a really interesting or complicated legal case if and when this stuff gets mixed in.

http://www.examiner.com/article/proof-that-ted-cruz-did-not-become-a-us-citizen-at-birth

According to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the "Act of 1947" because of its effective date, Canada did not allow dual citizenship.
...
In order for Ted Cruz to have "become" a US citizen at birth in 1970, his mother would have had to retain exclusive citizenship to the US and filed a CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad) to "obtain" exclusive US citizenship at the time for her son Ted and renounced his automatic "naturally acquired" Canadian citizenship. The process in itself is considered a very abbreviated form of "naturalization", thereby making such persons born outside of the OFFICIAL territories of the United States absolutely ineligible to become President of these United States in at least this one circumstance alone. Given that Canadian law did not allow dual citizenship at the time, then IF his mother filed a CRBA in 1970, his Canadian citizenship would likely have needed to be renounced before a new US citizenship could be granted.

Ted's Father has publicly admitted he became a Canadian citizen in 1968. If his mother's first husband with surname of "Wilson" was also a Canadian citizen (unconfirmed), she would have become a citizen before his father. Even if her first husband was not Canadian, according to Canadian law, she would still have automatically become a Canadian citizen in 1969 after having a Canadian spouse (Ted's Father) and residing in Canada for 1 year. This information substantiates the reports claiming that both of his parents appeared on the Canadian voter's rolls. There is now an unconfirmed claim that someone has supposedly verified that they indeed both voted in the October of 1972 federal Canadian election.

If both of Ted's parents became exclusive citizens of Canada by 1969, then even if his mother tried to file a CRBA, she would not have been able to confer US citizenship to her son as she was no longer a US citizen herself. Even if she somehow retained US citizenship, Ted could not have been granted dual citizenship as it was against Canadian law. The only thing that is certain is that Ted Cruz automatically became a Canadian citizen the instant he was born on Canadian soil and that fact is absolutely irrefutable. Likewise, the release of his mother's birth certificate certainly settles absolutely nothing.

there's more - I can't quote more without breaking the site rules.

I do not agree with everything in the article.

An important point the article doesn't address is jurisdiction. Canada has it's laws on citizenship. And the US has it's laws on citizenship. Canada's laws on citizenship are not going to have jurisdiction in the US and vice-versa. So Canada might think Ted was a Canadian at birth and maybe the US thinks Ted was natural born for all I know. On that basis, ignoring that important point maybe some of the article is quite suspect.

Maybe someone will nuke this thing out of hand. Please - no shooting the messenger themselves - shoot the messenger's facts or ideas.

Source: Politico

...
In a copy of the Jan. 14 correspondence obtained by POLITICO, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III told both the Senate Intelligence and Senate Foreign Relations committees that intelligence agencies found messages relating to what are known as “special access programs,” or SAP. That’s an even more restricted subcategory of sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, top secret national security information derived from sensitive intelligence sources.

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community agency],” the letter reads. “These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the [intelligence community agency] to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified [intelligence community agency]sources.”
...
The letter suggests that the universe of highly sensitive documents that passed through Clinton’s unsecured server goes beyond what was previously known. During the Clinton email release process, State has designated more than 1,300 of Clinton's emails at the “confidential” level or beyond, though Clinton and State say none were marked classified at the time. Six of those have been flagged as “secret,” a step below “top secret.”
...
The FBI, meanwhile, is still investigating whether Clinton’s server put national security at risk and whether top State staffers sent around classified information via unclassified means, which is in many cases illegal.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

---

I do not think this is going away any time soon folks.

NBC and Mediaite have also picked up the story along with the right wing media.

Holy sh*t!! That's flirting with unreal.

It climbs from June 66% favorable 11% unfavorable to the above.

Likewise, in June 35% Sanders, 43% Clinton flips to 60% Sanders 33% Clinton

"Which candidate is the least honest?" In June, Clinton leads handily with 28%. Today Clinton leads handily with 55%. Only 2% think Bernie is the least honest steadily over that time.

No wonder the Clinton campaign is scared. They'd already be seeing that in their internal polling.

I'm so happy for Bernie and his supporters. Win or lose, they should be proud of results like that given where they started and given what they've been up against (a DNC Clinton basically owns)

How many Canadians (or citizens of universal healthcare countries) die because they do not have health insurance coverage? 0 - it's universal, single payer in Canada

How many Americans die because they do not have health insurance coverage? currently, about 30,000 per year (over 664,000 since 2001- to put some perspective on that 419,000 Americans died because of World War II - this 664,000 is a seismic number of American people dead because of this needless BS policy)

Life expectancy? Canada top 10. US about 35th or so (US pays the most but gets ripped off for it when it comes to living a long time happily ever after).

And yes, there's no deductible with single payer in Canada. They pay the whole tab. Small ambulance fees ($50?) or doctors letter ($100) are a few of the extras but there are not many.

But the US pays close to twice as much as everyone else. And the GOP claim they're smart at business. When you're paying roughly $5,000 more per person ($20,000 more per family of four) than any other country, then jobs get more scarce because the US worker is that much more expensive, aren't they.

The US health insurance companies have f**ked the US and it's citizens in so many ways for decades including having a hand in contributing big campaign donations to politicians so that Americans can keep dying needlessly while they line their pockets with American money. They need to go away forever.

The United States goes to extraordinary measures and financial commitment to protect their people against terrorists

Meanwhile, since 9/11, the United States lets 664,700 die due to a lack of medical care because most of those people could not afford it and the United States could afford it for them or find another way to deliver it (like most developed nations).

That Hillary chooses to carry that on and Bernie does not is a point but not the biggest point. Yet it is a point I note no Hillary supporter credibly refuting because it does expose Hillary's uncaring, shortsightedness in her policy.

The key or much bigger point is to work towards stopping these people from dying. If you ask the American people "could you give a handout to these poor people?", the GOP in particular and others will not support that or do so enthusiastically. But if you frame the pitch for assistance in the way I've tried (or maybe some have a better idea), asking Americans to help other Americans who will otherwise die should help gain more support for the policy because that's really what is at stake. And I believe most Americans would park their political bias to save another American's life. It's a better way to sell the idea.

Hillary thinks single payer is too hard. If you want to be small minded and wrap your mind around the notion that this is all about Hillary, that's your prerogative. Arguing as has been typically done is a key part of the reason the argument hasn't been won. Arguing for it as I did above or maybe some have a better idea, helps get more folks on side to make it easier because it brings home the point that it's a life or death situation for too many Americans. I could care less about Hillary. She's a pimple on the arse of progress. Since 2007 and before, I'm much more concerned with and sick of these people dying needlessly.

As I alluded to above, but more specifically: another way folks can help is by going down the ticket and helping get people elected to help take back the House and Senate so that it can support real universal/single payer. Or maybe at the state level for 2020 census and elimination of some gerrymandering. Maybe they help by educating fellow Americans (which is the primary reason for the thread to pass on that idea or way of thinking about it). It's not all about Hillary. She's only one American life. It's much much bigger than that. It's trying to solve a problem.

That puts a good dent into their spin about electability. How electable is Hillary if she can't beat Bernie having started out with a very big advantage?

It's a very damaging thing to discuss for Clinton because a number of folks polled are supporting Hillary because they didn't think Bernie could win. Andrea's chatter is going to make more folks sit up and notice Bernie.

And Hillary does not poll as well against the GOP as Bernie so that may be part of what they're weighing.

Hillary had a good lead in Nevada but I strongly suspect that will have tightened up - and some have suggested that including Andrea today.

Andrea also said in an interview on Morning Joe that folks are really surprised at how developed Sanders team is in South Carolina. She was kind of suggesting he's preparing to make that a much tighter race. Hillary was miles ahead in that one.

If she loses the first four (which I doubt), trying to parachute a candidate in is going to be tough. Don't the states have deadlines for getting on the ballot?

As well, two weeks after South Carolina, 53% of the delegates up for grabs in this primary will be gone. To jump in after South Carolina is too late. It's really too late to jump in now as Joe Biden said a couple of months ago.

It's politics. Anything can happen. But my guess is things are starting to unravel faster for Hillary.