In a surprising poll by ABC and the Washington Post, a majority of Americans disapprove of the FBI’s recommendation not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime over her mishandling of emails as secretary of state. Moreover, a majority say that the scandal has left them uncertain and worried about her ability to be president.
The poll still shows Democrats more likely to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, but Independents show the same hardened view as Republicans. That is a matter of concern for the Clinton camp. Clinton has relied on the hardest core Democrats (and the DNC leadership) to guarantee her nomination. However, she now needs to secure the Independent vote, particularly given the alienation from her showed in polls for groups like white males.
Overall, 56 percent disapprove of FBI Director James Comey’s recommendation not to charge Clinton, while just 35 percent approve. Similarly, 57 percent say the incident makes them worried about how Clinton might act as president if she is elected, with most very worried about it. Just 39 percent feel the issue isn’t related to how she would perform as president. Those are truly horrible numbers for a presidential candidate going into a political convention.
Notably, the 35 and 39 percent seems to reflect Clinton’s hardcore base numbers. Once again, she is fortunate thus far to be running against Donald Trump who equals her in negative polling numbers. The two candidates now stand as the least popular in U.S. history to run for the presidency. The latest poll shows a statistical dead heat with Clinton’s lead shrinking to just three points over Trump.
@Darren There is always a reason and usually it is money. At present, Wall St. writes the rules (and the legislation) and they are backing $hillary. This cuts through party, justice, even pretense of justice, Democracy and fairness as the foul play during the primary process made clear.
So it makes no difference how corrupt she is, how untrustworthy, how quick she opts for war as the solution to everything, not even how few people can hold their nose and stuff a gag rag in their mouths and vote for her.. What counts is that she is more than willing to carry Wall St. water and has proven that what she promises today is vapor tomorrow if it doesn’t bring home the bacon for banks and finance.. Trump isn’t so far away from that as one might imagine, but he can’t make up his mind about anything (except that he is against the TTP and it’s evil siblings – his one consistent and highly popular, for good reason, position) so he is considered a risk.
Squeak, Are you saying that only democrats are sophisticated and tolerant? And that only republicans are christian and patriotic? If we use your model, then I am most definitely a democrat [AAARRRGGGHHH!] and I really don’t want to be a democrat.
@Darren
Because their support has nothing whatsoever to do with her positions, or her policies. They vote for Democrats because their own self-esteem is tied up with being identified with the party of sophistication and tolerance, in opposition to those mean old Republicans who believe in Christianity and patriotism. It is an identity thing.
You will drive yourself crazy trying to find any rationality in any of this. There isn’t any.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I fail to understand how the same people who voice their outrage over the “1%”, elitism, double-standards, the corporate-political complex, and war hawks continue to support Hillary Clinton who is precisely the manifestation of their definition of nemesis.
On another note, Hillary Clinton, if she was an average person without celebrity, would never pass a background investigation or even the most basic security clearance given her past behavior if she was applying for an entry-level job at the State Department. Yet, the Democratic Party wants to make her president? It’s completely absurd from a logical point of view.
Although I haven’t voted for a republican or democrat for president in a long time, I desperately wish there was a decent republican candidate this time around. It would be my first time voting for a republican, but I absolutely would consider it. Michael Bloomberg would have had my vote in a slam dunk.
I can’t stand Hillary Clinton. But who is the alternative? An occasionally incoherent, often unhinged, thin-skinned malignant narcissist?? I’d have to have a lobotomy to vote for Trump.
I am probably going to sit this one out.
So a majority of Americans (at least a majority of those polled) believe that Clinton should have been charged following the FBI investigation. That’s nice; it makes me believe that, perhaps, not all Americans have lost their minds. Yet Clinton will go on to win the Presidency in the November election. And she’ll unlikely do so with the votes of many of those polled who believe she should have been criminally charged. In effect, what these people who vote for Clinton will say is that she’s the lesser of two evils. They may be correct. Donald Trump is, after all, nobody’s idea of what a President should be (although neither is Hillary). This is how low this country has sunk over the past couple of decades. Our political “masters”, the Republican and Democrat parties, have foisted Trump and Clinton off on us as the presidential contenders in the 2016 election. And we’ve let them do it. We’ve even aided and abetted the process, returning the same senators and congressmen to Washington (and to our state capitols) over-and-over again. Nixon’s “crimes” pale in comparison with Obama’s. Nixon, though, looks almost saintly when compared with Hillary. What a mess.
Re the main subject of this article: So what? Criminal prosecutions are not decided by polls. They are decided by facts, and the probability of gaining a conviction. If the Republicans sweep the election, they could try to prosecute Hillary out of spite (“We finally got her!”) but it is not clear that they could get a conviction, unless they can pack the jury with sympathetic people. But under those circumstances, they might not bother, having removed her from a potential Presidency.
It’s enough to make one cynical.
Hillary has had a core group that have supported her, but now she has lost some of those. Bernie is playing the game and singing Kumbaya with her at the DNC, however it seems she is still losing Bernie supporters over this. Jill Stein has said she should be tried, so there go those votes.
I have seen that several defendants are going to use the Hillary defense now.
I have a question to throw into this somewhat right-leaning discussion:
Who was the ultimate classification authority for the materials in question re Hillary’s emails? Some clerk? Anyone who writes a memo for email? If a lower level clerk decides that something is classified, and the Secretary of State decides it is not, what should the result be? Or, for that matter, if the State Department thinks something is not classified, but some other Government department thinks it is, what should the result be?
It seems to me that if the Secretary of State is the ultimate classification authority for information flow within the Department of State, then Hillary just has to claim that, in her opinion, none was classified. And that would be that.
The rule of law has been supplanted by situational ethics or at best, utilitarianism. Robert Burns wrote that ‘the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.’ This is certainly true in politics. Let’s assume those in public service have the best of intent when they seek to govern, legislate or judge. The purpose of our rule of law is to confine their actions within specific limits as a means to protect society from the unintended consequences their schemes tend to create. If we lose that rule of law and we accept actions outside of those limits then we have lost all pretense of security those limits were to provide. Reason alone should tell all of us that once character, honesty, integrity and fidelity to our rule of law are no longer valued in our public servants then the grand experiment is finished. We will no longer be a civil society because we will no longer have respect for the law.
And, Loretta Lynch just stonewalled the committee she was “testifying” before and the Democrats questions centered around gun violence….
Steve,
I’m not a fan of Gowdy. And he is bizarre looking. But he has a reputation as a superb former US attorney and I agree, he used his 5 minutes like a surgeon w/ a sharp scalpel.
The FBI phoned it in and Lynch is taking what is tantamount to the 5th Amendment in her current grilling. 97% of Congress members of both parties are BUFFOONS. That’s in large part why there is no accountability.
Steve G – I missed his testimony. All I’ve seen are various soundbites. Did he ever explain why he decided intent was necessary to charge? Because there are a lot of people in prison, careers ruined, who should perhaps get compensation since they were not actual spies, either. Heck, what about everyone in prison for negligence that caused harm they didn’t intend?
I heard him say that others would have faced sanction, but that was not what he was recommending. And I heard a sound bite from his appearance before Congress saying that her actions defined negligence. She ticked off all the requirements of the statute. I’ve always heard good things about Comey. Did he ever explain this?
Heck, if all those pesky laws and regulations regarding the handling of classified information are really just suggestions, without consequence if broken, then let’s just do a data dump of all the good stuff. In my entire life, my Dad has never revealed classified information. He would require me to provide proof a subject had become declassified, which I have never been able to do. I just told him that it was all just a mere suggestion, not a real rule, apparently, but he STILL won’t budge. Totally unreasonable. 🙂 Character above politics. I suppose we must be thankful that the law at least applies to everyone except for HC, or else we’d find our launch codes posted on some message board.
If this outcome resulted from a general reform of federal criminal law that incorporated a common law notion of mens rea as an element of guilt, with very few exceptions under stringently limited circumstances, I would applaud the result. As it is, this appears to most people as extreme prosecutorial discretion granted to a powerful, well connected former high office holder. Providing a pass to those favored by the Washington establishment will not advance the cause of federal criminal justice reform.
Bill Clinton’s little tarmac meeting launched the ball squarely into the FBI Director’s court. It was a master stroke by a superb manipulator, who knew the Director to be a cautious man.
Why it’s only 56 and not 99 percent (leaving alone the one percent who own the government) is the real story.
While I think he’s John C. Calhoun reincarnated, I was particularly impressed with Rep. Trey Gowdy’s piercing swordsmanship in reminding Mr. Comey of how to prove intent and his rhetorical backlash at the Director’s lackadaisical efforts as an attorney to bring the next liar-in-chief to justice.
As with her husband……the crime maybe forgivable but the coverup is not.
What the heck are the other 44% thinking?
Those are horrible, especially the 56%. Character doesn’t matter? Reason is dead in society today.
Reblogged this on Memory Hole and commented:
Like Watergate ignored Nixon’s war crimes in Cambodia and SE Asia in general, note that H. Clinton isn’t even being scrutinized for the orchestarted slaughter of Libyans and Syrians from 2011, or the murder of Libya’s head of state, which she instead sees fit to gloat over on national television.