I may not be American but that doesn't mean I don't follow what's going on. Firstly they didn't find her not guilty. The FBI clearly said violations had been made. They recommended to not press charges because there is so call "no criminal intent". Let's be honest with that.
This is from AP News reported
"Although the report identified violations, it said investigators had found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” However, it also made clear that Clinton’s use of the private email had increased the vulnerability of classified information."
"Not Guilty" does not mean innocent, it means just that -- they would not be able to get a Guilty verdict against her because they did not have evidence of all the elements needed to show that she broke the law.
Secondly the FBI re-open the case based on newly discovered emails not old evidence. While contentious, an election cycle shouldn't stop an investigation if new evidence is found. You see that with Trump as well.
But this is exactly why they don't start investigations in the weeks running up to the election and they particularly do not comment on investigations, because of how the rumor of an investigation can affect the election. As a general rule, waiting those two months for the election to be over is not going to cause an issue. Yet both -- the start of an investigation and a public announcement by the FBI that she was being investigated occurred in roughly the last month of the election with Clinton.
It is also worth noting that the original FBI investigation had cause to open the investigation as there were clear ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. For example, you had the Trump campaign director directly sharing Trump polling data with the Russians. You had the meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower. There were other events, as well, with Mueller stating that while these contacts were technically illegal, the government would not prosecute for the same reason they did not prosecute Hillary, because they could not prove they knowingly violated the law (intent and lack of knowledge of the law). I've always found that ironic, even if it is completely glossed over by Trump supporters.
As for the remainder of the investigations, they only started after the election and none were done by Democrats. There was an investigation in the House of Representatives, though "investigation" seems like a stretch when the Republican investigation chairman was working with the White House and giving information to the White House even before sharing it with his committee. There was a Senate investigation run by Republicans -- if you recall, the Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate. Last, because of the amount of evidence of contacts between the Trump campaign and the White House, the Trump DoJ started the Mueller Investigation, under the control of a Republican Deputy Attorney General (because the AG had not been forthright with the Senate about his contacts with the Russians while part of the Trump campaign). It is also worth noting that these investigations weren't actually involving Pres. Trump, they were aimed at his campaign and people who worked on it. Remember Trump always insisting (and trying to get the FBI director to state) that Trump, himself, was not a target of the investigation.
You said it directly caused Hillary dropping 5 points. Which I contend you can't be 100% certain. Because the same argument can be made for the Steele dossier as well. Which let me remind you was play to high heaven's by the leftist MSM. Polling is notoriously notoriously poor in accuracy as with all sampling. But I'll let you have that 5 points drop.
The investigation into ties of the Trump campaign with Russia started months before the election and, to my recollection, was not running during the two months prior to the election. And it being brought up by the "leftist MSM" is no different than Benghazi and the email investigation being brought up constantly by the "rightist MSM." It is also worth noting, on a national level, the polling was very good for the 2016 election; basically all the national polls were within the margin of error. The issue is the lack of state polling that tends to be done and that it isn't as accurate as national polling.
Trump's "Lock her up" comment is no different from Clinton's "Russia collusion". Got everyone investigating ghosts trails.
Which is no different from the Trump campaign (and rightist MSM) from playing up "Hunter Biden" in 2020. Campaigns always use negative campaigning against their rivals -- part of why all Presidential campaigns spend millions on opposition research.
Isn't that the process of the law? He shouldn't appeal? I don't get you.
I'm not saying he shouldn't appeal but, when an idea has been clearly denied by an appeals court with all his own nominees voting against his appeal, it becomes a clear sign that further appeals are also unlikely to work. Yet Trump appeals further anyway in attempts to delay. And it isn't just appeals, it is various motions before the judge to request more time -- his goal with litigation has always been to run it out as long as possible. At least one explanation for that, prior to becoming President, is often he was richer than the people who were in a lawsuit with him and, by delaying so much, it raised the cost to the point that his opposition in the cases were largely forced to settle, giving favorable deals with Trump.
Of course, now he has other reasons to want to delay trials as long as possible.
When I'm basing my assessment of Trump's treatment is not by length of litigation. But what kind of litigations were brought upon him and how he is being handled by the authorities and press. I'm not saying he is innocent or guilty of anything. All I'm saying is the he going through is highly unequal in comparison to others in his position.
But again, what Trump has "suffered" really isn't that much more than previous presidents -- the big difference is that Trump complains about them, other Presidents have largely, quietly, litigated the suits. To give an example, Pres. Obama was sued 18 different times by various people/groups over his eligibility to be President (his birth certificate). There were numerous other lawsuits, as well, on different issues, just that you never heard of them because Pres. Obama didn't make them news. Another difference, most of the suits against Obama tended not to go to trial as they tended to be dismissed, the people suing could not support their claims in court.
Which brings up the other difference, in many cases there has been evidence that Pres. Trump may have broken the law. There is no question in terms of the documents case, Trump did not turn over all records from his Presidency as required by the Presidential Records Act. While there is no criminal penalty for that, it led to finding Classified documents that he kept, as well as evidence that he intentionally attempted to hide the documents from federal investigators and even his own lawyers.
There is strong evidence (in the form of convictions in court of the Electors) that Trump (or at least his campaign) got his Electors in various states to claim they were the Certified Electors from that state, despite they fact that the state claimed that Biden won the election and submitted Biden's Electors to Congress. There are also reports of Pres. Trump trying to get his Vice President to count his electors, not the slate of certified electors from the state, when Congress certified the Electoral Vote count; in an attempt to be unlawfully declared the winner of the 2020 election.
And this doesn't include the various civil lawsuits that others have brought against Trump or organizations under his control (Trump University, Trump Charities, etc) -- that have pretty much all succeeded. And before people complain about Democratic donors helping to pay for some of the lawsuits, like that of E. Jean Carroll, it is worth pointing out that Republican donors helped pay for many of the lawsuits against Obama, including Trump helping to support the "Birther" lawsuits.
From what I've seen, watching politics for decades, is that Trump isn't having more lawsuits brought against him, as a general rule, merely that he actually has lost many of them -- where the lawsuits against most Presidents are dismissed and, if they are responsible in a civil suit, they tend to settle to make it go away (such as Bill Clinton with lawsuits for his affairs) and don't complain about how they are being wrongfully sued (again, such as with E. Jean Carroll or Stormy Daniels).
Funny when people don't align with your view, they are automatically buying into a narrative by the right. Would reading only left leaning news improve my views?
I'm independent. I've stated here that the best thing for America -- though I again want to state that I have no wish for harm or bad luck to come to either -- is for both Trump and Biden to die of natural causes before the election, preferably before the conventions. So it has nothing to do with "my view." Instead, I've watched and been involved in politics for decades -- and most of those decades I was Republican. In 2012 I supported Romney for President and can't help but feel the country would be in a better place had he won over Obama that year.
My intelligence is not worth much I gander. So let me introduce myself.
Hi I'm a Malaysian of Chinese decent. I equally don't like the left and right side of the US political system. I don't like Biden but neither am I a fan of Trump. I read news from all sources from big giant corporations to small independent news sites - left, right and center. I like to make fun of the sitting US president if you don't mind (I have a feeling you might). I have made fun of Trump in quite a number of threads. And I like to rail on extremism I see be it right or left.
Again, from what I've seen over decades, Trump isn't being treated worse than other Presidents -- though things have gotten worse over the last three-ish decades (largely since Clinton). Almost all President's attempt to "bend" the law to get things done; such as using Executive Orders when they don't really have the power to do it, or not responding in a timely manner to record's requests and denying some that should be approved, and skirt the line with election laws.
The difference, that I've seen, is (as pointed out) most President's don't try to make it a "conspiracy" about how "they" are out to get the President. Instead, they fight the cases in court, typically try to keep the stories out of the press (both right and left wing press) with varying degrees of success; and often settle to make things go away. Trump's issue is not that it happens more, it is instead that he constantly harps on it and claims, even when the facts are against him, that he is being "persecuted" by "them" (whether the "deep state" or "Leftists" or whatever). And it is because he publicizes it that makes it appear he is treated worse; particularly when, in several cases, he has "bent" the law to beyond the breaking point.
mediabiasfactcheck.com
