Here is the wording of the poll.
"The FBI has concluded that Hillary Clinton potentially exposed top secret information to hostile countries when she used a private e-mail server as secretary of State, but the agency has decided not to seek a criminal indictment of her. Do you agree or disagree with the FBI’s decision not to seek a criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton in this matter?"
What would have been a better way to ask the question?
That is asking if a reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Not particularly interesting to know the opinion of the public on that point.Like this-
"Although the FBI said there is is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, their judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. " Do you agree or disagree?
Here is the wording of the poll.
"The FBI has concluded that Hillary Clinton potentially exposed top secret information to hostile countries when she used a private e-mail server as secretary of State, but the agency has decided not to seek a criminal indictment of her. Do you agree or disagree with the FBIs decision not to seek a criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton in this matter?"
What would have been a better way to ask the question?
That is asking if a reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Not particularly interesting to know the opinion of the public on that point.
I'm very interested to see you attempt to analyze polls again this season after being horribly embarrassed four years ago. You appear to have learned nothing.
Many people probably hadn't even heard about the decision yet.Do you agree or disagree with the FBI's decision not to seek a criminal indictment? Very simple. The first sentence is a priming statement, which is a big no-no.
Can you quit being a petulant turd for a few minutes? I have nothing to do with this being a push poll and I didn't say it wasn't. You always have to make things personal.I'm very interested to see you attempt to analyze polls again this season after being horribly embarrassed four years ago. You appear to have learned nothing.
Mark Zaid, a defense attorney for national security whistleblowers and people accused of mishandling secrets, says he plans to ask for the Clinton deal in the future.
And Zaid says he probably can get it.
So in summary, Comey used language that you yourself admitted was subjective, yet I am invoking Communist Russian justice if I point out that it is not the function of the FBI to make subjective determinations on the rule of law. Apparently the vast right wing conspiracy (VRWC) is out to get Clinton, unless of course a Republican vindicates Clinton as was the case with Comey, in which case a member of the VRWC failed to get the memo, or perhaps "some" Republicans are ok so long as they further your personal political agenda. Of course I am equally partisan in the sense that I don't particularly care for the Clintons, so I will admittedly question the outcome with that bias in mind.That's your subjective view of what he said.
Do you want him to indict Hillary if he doesn't in his final analysis believe she committed a crime? Or not? Would you like to yourself be indicted "just in case" if there is an allegation made against you, or is it just for your political opponents?
Many people probably hadn't even heard about the decision yet.
We'll see what the opinion of this case is with subsequent polling, I'll take this with a grain of salt.
64% of Dems agreed with the FBI for not bringing charges, probably some Bernie bots making that number so low. And you'd have to be a bit insane to think people haven't already made their minds up on what the proper call would be. We'll see with further polling if this is as bad as you claim.
Can you quit being a petulant turd for a few minutes? I have nothing to do with this being a push poll and I didn't say it wasn't. You always have to make things personal.
Vast right winged conspiracy? Apparently James Comer didn't get the memo.
Personally I don't trust Hillary on any level and find her track record in government to be acutely abysmal. That fact that many have a less than favorable opinion of her is not some kind of organized 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. It's effectively a grass roots consensus among the right that's evolved over years and years of witnessing her lies and multifarious train wrecks.
Her established track record of gross incompetence along with a highly volatile temperament is a recipe for disaster. Everything this woman touches turns to shit...everything. That's what I make of that.
So in summary, Comey used language that you yourself admitted was subjective, yet I am invoking Communist Russian justice if I point out that it is not the function of the FBI to make subjective determinations on the rule of law. Apparently the vast right wing conspiracy (VRWC) is out to get Clinton, unless of course a Republican vindicates Clinton as was the case with Comey, in which case a member of the VRWC failed to get the memo, or perhaps "some" Republicans are ok so long as they further your personal political agenda. Of course I am equally partisan in the sense that I don't particularly care for the Clintons, so I will admittedly question the outcome with that bias in mind.
Criticism of Clinton is apparently a vote for Trump, and something something Benghazi, nothing burger, Bush. Questioning a contradiction in language is similarly subjective, but expecting clarity in language is whitewashing. Also I should clutch my pearls and sniff vapors.
Would I care to be indicted under similar allegations? I only ask that the political elite face the same repercussions as the little people. What do you think would happen to a defense contractor engineer or enlisted soldier or someone not of the 1% under similar circumstances?
Where in my post was I showing undue pride? Did I say it was a straight poll? No, I didn't.This isn't personal. You've just proven yourself to be incompetent. Some humility is in order.
They didn't say that! There is evidence of potential violation of statutes is what he said.I am still not sure what you are proposing.
FBI looked at the evidence, decided that inappropriate stuff happened, but a crime has not been committed, and recommended against an indictment.
Given that, are you saying that prosecutors should indict anyways?
FBI looks at evidence. FBI decides inappropriate stuff happened. FBI decided no crime committed. FBI takes parting shot at suspect, using language that seemingly contradicts their decision not to indict. I subjectively see a contradiction. Talking head legal experts come out of the woodwork claiming that the threshold to indict is gross negligence. FBI identified extreme carelessness. I am curious as to what is the distinction between the two.I am still not sure what you are proposing.
FBI looked at the evidence, decided that inappropriate stuff happened, but a crime has not been committed, and recommended against an indictment.
Given that, are you saying that prosecutors should indict anyways?
FBI looks at evidence. FBI decides inappropriate stuff happened. FBI decided no crime committed. FBI takes parting shot at suspect, using language that seemingly contradicts their decision not to indict. I subjectively see a contradiction. Talking head legal experts come out of the woodwork claiming that the threshold to indict is gross negligence. FBI identified extreme carelessness. I am curious as to what is the distinction between the two.
It's like listing all the impurities in a jug of water for 15 minutes then recommending that you drink it anyway.OK, you see a contradiction. But the final FBI decision is that an indictment is not warranted. Under such circumstances, you believe that someone should be indicted based on what was said at the press conference, as opposed to what the FBI actually recommended?
I don't see a distinction between the two. The intent of the press conference was to communicate the FBIs decision. Was Comey's parting shot at Clinton his own personal coloring to their findings or part of their findings?OK, you see a contradiction. But the final FBI decision is that an indictment is not warranted. Under such circumstances, you believe that someone should be indicted based on what was said at the press conference, as opposed to what the FBI actually recommended?
I don't see a distinction between the two. The intent of th press conference was to communicate the FBIs decision. Was Comey's parting shot at Clinton his own personal coloring to their findings or part of their findings?
I also don't think it is unreasonable to subjectively assert that when faced with what was almost a coin toss scenario for a highly politically charged decision, the FBI erred to a more conservative interpretation of the law.
I must be on his list. Comey said that there was evidence of potential crimes.You will be sad to learn that in this country we don't indict people just in case the investigators got it wrong when deciding that no crime has been committed, or based on interpretations of what is said in a press conference.
Maybe not the right country for you, but it is what it is.
FBI looks at evidence. FBI decides inappropriate stuff happened. FBI decided no crime committed. FBI takes parting shot at suspect, using language that seemingly contradicts their decision not to indict. I subjectively see a contradiction. Talking head legal experts come out of the woodwork claiming that the threshold to indict is gross negligence. FBI identified extreme carelessness. I am curious as to what is the distinction between the two.
If the distinction between gross negligence and extreme carelessness is subjective, the minimum criteria for indictment are met and this now becomes a function of the judiciary.
Ok now I understand. Your argument is that because Comey arguably contradicted the FBI decision in his statement, that should not be taken into consideration. Off the record if you will. Maybe he was just throwing a sympathetic bone to the vast right wing conspiracy.You will be sad to learn that in this country we don't indict people just in case the investigators got it wrong when deciding that no crime has been committed, or based on interpretations of what is said in a press conference.
Maybe not the right country for you, but it is what it is.
They should probably avoid contradicting themselves when announcing the rationale for their judgement.No. Prosecutors make judgement calls all the time. When they choose not to prosecute the judiciary is out of the picture.
I must be on his list. Comey said that there was evidence of potential crimes.