New Poll: Most voters disagree with FBI's decision not to indict except deomcrats

[jeffblue101]

Most Disagree with Decision Not to Indict Clinton
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._disagree_with_decision_not_to_indict_clinton

Most voters disagree with FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to seek a criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton.

The FBI concluded that Clinton potentially exposed top secret information to hostile countries when she used a private e-mail server as secretary of State, but Comey announced yesterday that the FBI has decided not to pursue a criminal indictment in this matter. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey – taken last night - finds that 37% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the FBI’s decision. But 54% disagree and believe the FBI should have sought a criminal indictment of Clinton. Ten percent (10%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats agree with Comey’s decision not to seek an indictment of their party’s presumptive presidential nominee. seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans, 63% of voters not affiliated with either major political party and 25% of Democrats disagree with the decision

Many critics of the FBI’s decision claim that lower-level individuals caught mishandling classified information have been subject to prosecution and severe penalties. But 81% of all voters believe powerful people get preferential treatment when they break the law. Just 10% disagree.

Among those who think powerful people get preferential treatment, 63% disagree with the FBI’s decision not to seek a criminal indictment of Clinton. Ninety percent (90%) of those who do not believe the powerful are treated differently agree with the FBI’s action.

If Clinton had been indicted, however, only 46% of all voters think it would have been possible for her to get a fair trial. Thirty-three percent (33%) say a fair trial would not have been possible, but 21% are not sure.

why are Democrats so blind to the inherent corruption to their own party.

 

[theophilus]

Most Disagree with Decision Not to Indict Clinton
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._disagree_with_decision_not_to_indict_clinton


why are Democrats so blind to the inherent corruption to their own party.

Because it's hard for the kettle to see it's black (pot/kettle/black).

I, too, do not see my own faults as "clearly" as other's see them.

Then there's the "don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up" mindset.

:think:

 

[TomO]

Most Disagree with Decision Not to Indict Clinton
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._disagree_with_decision_not_to_indict_clinton


why are Democrats so blind to the inherent corruption to their own party.

hu·bris
h)yo͞obrəs/
noun
excessive pride or self-confidence.
synonyms: arrogance, conceit, haughtiness, hauteur, pride, self-importance, egotism, pomposity, superciliousness, superiority; More
(in Greek tragedy) excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

 

[CherubRam]

Hillary's political gossip is classified as government secrets. Perhaps, but hardy a big deal.

 

[Town Heretic]

Most voters don't understand standards of proof and the sorts of cases prosecutors bring and don't related to this particular. Most of the people I've spoken with about it who do were calling this one early, with the caveat being an admission in some form, a-la Petraeus. It didn't materialize and neither did the case.

"All the cases prosecuted involve some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice." Comey

That's the real distinction here. Clinton's conduct didn't fill that bill. Petraeus, who was the parallel in waiting by those to the right fearing this outcome, intentionally gave his biographer notes containing classified materials. The FBI literally had a tape of him acknowledging that the books he handed over contained classified material BEFORE he handed them over. Then he lied to the FBI about it. That's a black and white case.

No one is saying that Clinton intentionally gave classified information to anyone.

As to Clinton lying. I think it's pretty self-evident that she did, to us. There's no indication that she gave false testimony of any sort to the FBI. Well, it's not illegal to lie unless you're under oath. Politicians lie to us every day, one way or the other. And even then we don't know if she was saying what she thought was true but wasn't or if she was making knowingly false statements hoping no one could prove her wrong. Worst case, she's damaging her credibility with a base that's likely more scared of Trump than they are concerned about her lapse in judgment.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Why does someone hide and lie about their actions if they did not deliberately do something?

 

[6days]

I, too, do not see my own faults as "clearly" as other's see them.

What are you talking about?..You have no faults Theo.

 

[Ktoyou]

with a base that's likely more scared of Trump than they are concerned about her lapse in judgment.

Why are insiders scared of Trump?

 

[jimiduzit]

Hey Heretic, like that screen name! I was in the Army and my MOS was in Military Intelligence. Any material we handled, looked at, intercepted, whether reports, communications, whatever, we had to account for it. We had to sign into and out of vaults where information was stored. This was back in the early 80's and we had a lot of paper. We dealt with equipment that also had a classified component attached to it's use. I can tell you for a fact that if I so much as walked out of the vault or left a secure area and accidentally had something on my person or was unable to account for as little as one document, I would have probably lost rank and definitely would be deemed unfit to handle sensitive information. That would have resulted in my losing my access to classified information. I would not be able to continue doing my job. Also at that time, when going through a back ground check, homosexuals, recreational drug users, credit risks were just a couple of things that would absolutely disqualify people from getting a clearance. How things have changed. Hillary Clinton is unfit and her party or leaning has nothing to do with it. She has shown to the entire country that she has no core.

 

[Town Heretic]

Why does someone hide and lie about their actions if they did not deliberately do something?

Because by the time it gets to that point she knows she likely screwed up at some point and is covering herself as best she can.

Why are insiders scared of Trump?

He's a loose cannon. And he goes off from time to time in a way that's troubling (read: galvanizing) to the left and a lot of the center.

 

[theophilus]

What are you talking about?..You have no faults Theo.

:rotfl:

My faults are spiritual AND geologic wonders.

 

[Town Heretic]

Hey Heretic, like that screen name!

:cheers:

I was in the Army and my MOS was in Military Intelligence. Any material we handled, looked at, intercepted, whether reports, communications, whatever, we had to account for it. We had to sign into and out of vaults where information was stored. This was back in the early 80's and we had a lot of paper. We dealt with equipment that also had a classified component attached to it's use. I can tell you for a fact that if I so much as walked out of the vault or left a secure area and accidentally had something on my person or was unable to account for as little as one document, I would have probably lost rank and definitely would be deemed unfit to handle sensitive information.

I'm sure that's right. I'm also sure you likely wouldn't have left your area with a classified document absent a willful intent to.

That would have resulted in my losing my access to classified information. I would not be able to continue doing my job. Also at that time, when going through a back ground check, homosexuals, recreational drug users, credit risks were just a couple of things that would absolutely disqualify people from getting a clearance. How things have changed. Hillary Clinton is unfit and her party or leaning has nothing to do with it. She has shown to the entire country that she has no core.

I think all you saw with her on the point is arrogance. She made a unilateral decision to take more direct control of her correspondence. She did so knowing that it had been done before, by those within and outside of her party, but she institutionalized a bad idea without having a particularly compelling reason to do it. Collin Powell used private email while he was Secretary of State, by way of...it's the server that really started the trouble.

One argument for the server, if you're going to use private email at all, is that you can secure the data in a way that isn't the case using, say, Google, where internal mining of data remains a potential threat to its security. And when Clinton used private email she wasn't actually barred from doing so. That according to Daniel Metcalfe, former Director of the DOJ's Office of Information Policy. What got her into trouble was doing so exclusively. She failed to archive properly with the NARA.

Clinton's response was, boiled down, if she sent a work document out it would be going to .gov addresses and be archived on the other end. But it wouldn't outside of her department. Whether she knew that and didn't care or didn't know about it and thought she was right, who knows? I suspect she had the shallow skinny and went with it because it suited her.

I don't know what you mean by "no core". I think she did something careless and stupid. I think Petraeus did something far worse and I think he's a better man on the whole. But he was as arrogant and in love. If someone steeped in the traditions that he was, as astride SOP as he was can make a willful lapse of judgement and be widely defended by people who note his service and intent, then it seems to me a largely political hay is being made here...it's just not rising to the level many vested in that hay would like to see. They went fishing with fingers crossed and now they're angry with a man who is by no real stretch of the imagination a fan or supporter of Clinton. It happens.

 

[jeffblue101]

Most voters don't understand standards of proof and the sorts of cases prosecutors bring and don't related to this particular. Most of the people I've spoken with about it who do were calling this one early, with the caveat being an admission in some form, a-la Petraeus. It didn't materialize and neither did the case.

It's clear that the FBI is ignoring the clear wording of the law for a much narrower standard which makes it pretty hard to convict anyone of a crime short of an admission. I still don't understand how the FBI can completely ignore the gross negligence clause and even declare it unconstitutional. And to your last point, Hillary did lie under oath before congress but it is unlikely this will effect Hillary with democrats swearing allegiance to Hillary no matter how evil her character is.

 

[Ktoyou]

He's a loose cannon.

Yes. That makes him a big risk for international trade, particularly after Brexit

 

[Town Heretic]

It's clear that the FBI is ignoring the clear wording of the law for a much narrower standard which makes it pretty hard to convict anyone of a crime short of an admission.

I'd say, rather, that it's clear the FBI understands the burdens involved and that given that and the spirit of the law, they've decided to advise against wasting a great deal of taxpayer time and money on a circus that wouldn't amount to much more than the wrist slap she'll likely get outside of criminal proceedings.

I still don't understand how the FBI can completely ignore the gross negligence clause and even declare it unconstitutional.

I don't think the FBI is ignoring anything. I think they're taking more into consideration. It's just not the sort of case that gets prosecuted and for the reasons given by the Comey before Congress.

And to your last point, Hillary did lie under oath before congress

That would have to be proven. Your willingness to suspend due process, I suspect, goes to your closing here:

but it is unlikely this will effect Hillary with democrats swearing allegiance to Hillary no matter how evil her character is.

Rather, people who support a political philosophy extolled by someone in power or seeking power will often put up with behavior they would otherwise find objectionable.

Case in point: the entire Republican Party.

 

[ok doser]

... 81% of all voters believe powerful people get preferential treatment when they break the law.

well, :duh:

 

[CherubRam]

Hillary's political gossip is classified as government secrets. Perhaps, but hardy a big deal.

Why does someone hide and lie about their actions if they did not deliberately do something?

A person normally does not think of private political conversations they have as a government secret.

 

[ClimateSanity]

A person normally does not think of private political conversations they have as a government secret.

Even when they say CLASSIFIED?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Most voters don't understand standards of proof and the sorts of cases prosecutors bring and don't related to this particular. Most of the people I've spoken with about it who do were calling this one early, with the caveat being an admission in some form, a-la Petraeus. It didn't materialize and neither did the case.

When raking FBI Director Comey over the coals questioning FBI Director Comey, South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy made reference to U.S.C. Title 18-793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-sec793.htm

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-trey-gowdy-destroys-james-comey-over-intent/

How does this statute not apply to former First Lady/US Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

 

[rocketman]

When raking FBI Director Comey over the coals questioning FBI Director Comey, South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy made reference to U.S.C. Title 18-793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-sec793.htm

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-trey-gowdy-destroys-james-comey-over-intent/

How does this statute not apply to former First Lady/US Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

Oh, I am sure TH will tell you the same as I, that you are a legal rube without the proper training to read the english language or even attempt to be able to understand such complex things like the difference between intent & gross neglegence. Furthermore you will be berated for even having the audacity to comment on such things you are not properly trained to understand so, be a good gnome, stand in the garden, & look pretty.