59% want FBI agents charged

rjs330 said:

No there is a deep state. It was on display during the Trump presidency.

Was Trump corrupt? Maybe. I don't like the guy. While he did good things he also did some shady things as well. I would really prefer someone who could get things done without the shady aspect. He's a wild talker, Mexico will build the wall he says. He'll have the best this or that. He will drain the swamp he says. Yeah he's a big talker and sure didn't drain the swamp or get mexico to build the wall. But he did do other good things. I would like someone who will get things done without all the wild boasting and shady dealing.

Click to expand...

You say there is a deep state and there's no explanation other than displayed during the Trump Presidency? According to that description, I would think the deep state are the honest Americans in government that upheld the Constitution. Trumps corruption was what was on display his entire Presidency from creating the Russian hoax to trying to steal the election and everything in between.

Hans Blaster said:

For all practical purposes, the poll quoted in the OP might as well be one. I do not see how that number could possibly be reached.

59% of all Republicans or Republican voters or Trump voters, sure, I could buy that number, but *all voters* no way, no how.

Charging investigators is a pretty severe sanction for bad behavior. Public demand almost never rises to that level.

I could see Trump fans having been subjected to years of his complaints about "corrupt agents" in a "witch hunt" against him would take such a position, but that gets us no where near 59% of the population. The poll numbers would require a large portion of those who are indifferent or somewhat dislike him to *also* think he was investigated so unfairly as for the investigation to be criminal. It just doesn't add up.

I'm beginning to think Rassmussen just doesn't know how to do polls properly.

Click to expand...

They did the, "do you think it's okay to be white" poll also. It's like they're actually engaged in campaign propaganda with poll questions designed to introduce a certain narrative, or maybe testing what messaging will work.

childeye 2 said:

They did the do you think it's okay to be white poll also. It's like they're campaign propaganda designed to introduce a narrative.

Click to expand...

I forgot about that one.

I had suspicions about Rasmussen back when I would watch the 'Presidential approval' trackers and though the movement up and down was less in recent years for most polls (more partisanship), the Rasmussen poll would barely move (a point or two) for things that triggered a 10%-point change (either way) in other polls like AP, or Fox News. It was really odd.

I'd be interested to know if there was any sampling bias in this.

It was a relatively small sample size
The poll surveyed 1,013 likely voters between May 21 and May 23


Depending on where and when you do the polling (and how you phrase the question), it can be easy to get some skewed results aren't necessarily all that substantive

Given what I've read about the situation, there's definitely some merit to wanting to see certain people fired, but I don't see any evidence to support criminally charging them.

ThatRobGuy said:

I'd be interested to know if there was any sampling bias in this.

It was a relatively small sample size
The poll surveyed 1,013 likely voters between May 21 and May 23


Depending on where and when you do the polling (and how you phrase the question), it can be easy to get some skewed results aren't necessarily all that substantive

Given what I've read about the situation, there's definitely some merit to wanting to see certain people fired, but I don't see any evidence to support criminally charging them.

Click to expand...

It's not that small a sample. Most political surveys of this type (candidate preference, etc.) aren't much bigger and many are smaller.

The phrasing of the question is important. With a little "tilt" I could see 3/5ths saying that discipline was needed for such agents. Did they as "should the agents who investigated false claims against President Trump be fired/charged?" and getting a 3/5ths response as that would be a poorly worded question with certain aspects embedded into the question.

Hans Blaster said:

It's not that small a sample. Most political surveys of this type (candidate preference, etc.) aren't much bigger and many are smaller.

The phrasing of the question is important. With a little "tilt" I could see 3/5ths saying that discipline was needed for such agents. Did they as "should the agents who investigated false claims against President Trump be fired/charged?" and getting a 3/5ths response as that would be a poorly worded question with certain aspects embedded into the question.

Click to expand...

That's kind of concerning...

A thousand people (if not selected from regionally diverse groups) could be heavily slanted in one direction...even when picking people who claim to be from opposing political parties.


You pick 500 "democrats" and 500 "republicans" from West Virginia vs. picking he same make up from, say, Massachusetts, would yield very different results depending on the question.

KCfromNC said:

He did ask Russia to hack his opponent's email in a campaign press conference. I guess there might be some wiggle room on the details of what makes that illegal, but seems pretty wrong to me.

Click to expand...

Trump was promoting links between Trump and Russia.

childeye 2 said:

You say there is a deep state and there's no explanation other than displayed during the Trump Presidency? According to that description, I would think the deep state are the honest Americans in government that upheld the Constitution. Trumps corruption was what was on display his entire Presidency from creating the Russian hoax to trying to steal the election and everything in between.

Click to expand...

Yawn, tired old trope again. Trump corruption yadda yadda yadda. Not really interested anymore. You guys wouldn't know corruption if it stuck you in the eye.

It's the left that created the Russia hoax. And all the in-between lies and misinformation. A bit tired of it all now.

Yup Trump did some shady stuff but he was pretty tame despite all your claims. No I'm not going to rehash it all. I'm tired of all the deep state garbage that was pulled and I he lies and misinformation.

If you are going to keep pushing it, consider us done.

rjs330 said:

It's the left that created the Russia hoax. And all the in-between lies and misinformation. A bit tired of it all now.

Click to expand...

I'm sick of it too. As you might consider what it's like to have to upset people with the truth; it's no fun telling people they have bad breath (spiritually speaking). Some will despise you for it, and some will love you for it. If you don't want to see it for the umpteenth time, that's fine don't look some more. But for the sake of others who still believe the Russian Hoax was started by "The left", rather than by Trump, it needs to be seen so that perhaps they will free themselves from the chains of deception according to their honesty and humility.

The hoax starts by an arrogant flat-out denial that Russia hacked the DNC, and the wickedness of slandering others based on one's own self-serving bias. Here's Trump in continuous denial for over 3 years feeding the conspiracy that Russia never hacked the DNC server:

June 17 2016 Fox news reports:

Trump, for his part, isn’t buying the DNC explanation that this is the work of some nefarious outside hacker. “Much of it is false and/or entirely inaccurate,” he says in a statement. “We believe it was the DNC that did the ‘hacking’ as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader. Too bad the DNC doesn’t hack Crooked Hillary’s 33,000 missing emails.”

----------------------------------------

Feb. 16, 2017 Trump tweet:
The Democrats had to come up with a story as to why they lost the election, and so badly (306), so they made up a story - RUSSIA. Fake news!


---------------------------------------
July 16, 2018, Trump at Helsinki:

Trump:
So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven’t they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the democratic national committee? I’ve been wondering that. I’ve been asking that for months and months and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others and said they think it’s Russia.

I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server.

-------------------------------------

September 4, 2019, Trump asks Zelensky to find the server examined by Crowdstrike.

I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

rjs330 said:

It's the left that created the Russia hoax.

Click to expand...

Mueller is a Republican, as was the guy who kicked of his investigation.

childeye 2 said:

Trump was promoting links between Trump and Russia.

Click to expand...

Sure. Nothing suspicious about a private meeting with Russian officials the day after firing the guy leading investigations into links between Russia and his campaign : https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-with-russias-lavrov-at-the-white-house-today

Hans Blaster said:

It's not that small a sample. Most political surveys of this type (candidate preference, etc.) aren't much bigger and many are smaller.

The phrasing of the question is important. With a little "tilt" I could see 3/5ths saying that discipline was needed for such agents. Did they as "should the agents who investigated false claims against President Trump be fired/charged?" and getting a 3/5ths response as that would be a poorly worded question with certain aspects embedded into the question.

Click to expand...

it's worse than I'd imagined.


Here are three questioned asked:


1* How likely is it that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russian agents during the 2016 election?

[don't know result]


2* Special Counsel John Durham recently completed an investigation that found the FBI was aware Hillary Clinton’s campaign was the source for claims about Trump and Russian collusion, which had no basis in evidence. Should FBI officials involved in promoting the false Russia-Trump claims be criminally prosecuted?

[59% should be prosecuted]


3* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: The Russian collusion charge against Trump “was a well-orchestrated hit job by the Clinton campaign and government officials”?

[63% agree]

Hans Blaster said:

1* How likely is it that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russian agents during the 2016 election?

[don't know result]

Click to expand...

Thanks for these questions. I can't resist taking the semantics apart. This is how propaganda works, by changing negatives into positives and positives into negatives, or making them appear neutral so that people can't tell the difference between true or false; obscuring facts from opinion/fiction. The objective is to get the mind to subconsciously accept a false premise without being consciously aware of it. Once a false premise is established, one can then build other disinformation upon it to manipulate people's emotions.

To me this question above presents as a neutral connotation because it's causing the mind to ponder a possibility either way which decreases a predisposition. It appears harmless but it preps the mind to be open to suggestion by creating uncertainty. My guess is that they don't post the results because it would be evidence of mind manipulation.

Hans Blaster said:

2* Special Counsel John Durham recently completed an investigation that found the FBI was aware Hillary Clinton’s campaign was the source for claims about Trump and Russian collusion, which had no basis in evidence.

Click to expand...

I would call this statement a misdirection meant to establish a negative impression of Hillary Clinton. It's alluding to the Steele dossier. By Conflating the dossier with the campaign, it makes the neutral fact that the dossier contained hearsay look like it's a negative fact about Hillary Clinton as being the source of allegations of collusion. This would then direct the mind to believe the FBI knew this but were politically biased.

The reference to the Durham investigation assigns credit to Durham for uncovering what was already previously well known (the dossier). It presents however, as something nobody was aware of prior to this investigation. They could have added that some claims in the dossier were actually proven false, and some proved to be true, such as Putin wanted Trump over Hillary and was actively interfering to that end, or that Michael Cohen was never in Prague. But for the purpose of mind manipulation that would be counter-productive because that would make it a factual positive statement for the FBI as being unbiased.

Hans Blaster said:

Should FBI officials involved in promoting the false Russia-Trump claims be criminally prosecuted?

Click to expand...

This question makes me laugh. It blatantly asks, are you going to stop beating your wife?

There is no proof in the Durham report that FBI officials were ever involved in promoting false Russia-Trump claims (promoting the dossier as fact). For the question to be plausible by any stretch, the words as posed must be referring to the surveillance of Carter Page. I suspect this nuance would be lost on the public. But even if it isn't lost in that respect, the FISA court was informed of the Dossier origins as campaign opposition research and that it was hearsay, so it's still propaganda.

Hans Blaster said:

3* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: The Russian collusion charge against Trump “was a well-orchestrated hit job by the Clinton campaign and government officials”?

Click to expand...

There was no Russian collusion charge against Trump by any government officials. But whether I agree or disagree with the question I feel that I am admitting that there was a Russian collusion charge against Trump. It's another loaded question like the last one but a bit more enhanced.

When they say "collusion charge", they actually mean the accusations in the dossier, which according to the Durham report, was not created by government officials nor the Hillary Clinton campaign but by sources and sub sources of Mr. Steele. This fact is obscured by conjoining the government officials with the Clinton campaign with the dossier, when it's really just the dossier alone being called a well-orchestrated hit job. They are suggesting to the mind collusion between the government officials and Hillary Clinton.

The only official charges that pertain to collusion were against Roger Stone for not revealing his contact with WikiLeaks. The meeting at Trump tower with the Russians would not qualify as a collusion charge by the Clinton campaign or any government officials or the dossier since Don jr. himself released that information knowing it was going to come out in the free press anyway.

What's remarkable is that the Durham report was supposed to find the evidence that could charge Hillary with orchestrating a well-orchestrated hit job that even fooled the FBI. But after four years he found zip.

Hans Blaster said:

[63% agree]

Click to expand...

What can we say? People are gullible. A very informative and enjoyable read by the way.