Robert Mueller was appointed as the special counsel to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election - how confident are you that he is treating the Trump administration fairly?
- 54% of Democrats were extremely or very confident in his fairness
- 29% of Independents were extremely or very confident in his fairness
- 26% of Independents have no confidence in Mueller's fairness
- 14% of Republicans were extremely or very confident in his fairness
- 45% of Republicans have no confidence in Mueller's fairness
How likely do you think it is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation will find that Donald Trump committed criminal or impeachable offenses?
- 59% of Democrats think it is extremely or very likely Mueller finds offenses
- 23% of Independents think it is extremely or very likely Mueller finds offenses
- 10% of Republicans think it is extremely or very likely Mueller finds offenses
How important is it that investigations continue into alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government?
- 8% of Democrats believe it's not at all important to continue
- 26% of Independents believe it's not at all important to continue
- 57% of Republicans believe it's not at all important to continue
Bottom line here folks is that this sort of "Independent Counsel" is designed specifically to allow the American public to have confidence that the process is fair, impartial, and trustworthy. What is the point of actually having such a thing (much less call it Independent) if there is no perception that it is either fair or trusted.
A quarter of Americans have "no trust" in the fairness of Special Counsel. Nearly another third provide the luke warm "somewhat" when describing their degree of trust. Was this what the authors of this law had in mind?
58 comments:
KOREAN WAR TO END
Nobel Peace Prizes to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in. To the man who made it all possible Donald Trump? Nada.
Oh come on CH. Fox News Poll: Mueller likely to find Trump offenses
"About two-thirds, 67 percent in the latest Fox News poll, say it is at least somewhat important the investigation continues, and 56 percent think it’s likely that Mueller’s probe will find Donald Trump committed criminal or impeachable offenses."
In political terms that's overwhelming support for the probe.
WP...
Have you become James? Citing the same poll that I cited in the post?
Read the post. It moves beyond the "top line" and into the details.
When your professed bottom line is at such odds with the poll itself, why go into the details, your failure to account for every tranche for example? It's pointless to go into details when your conclusion is immediately wrong, from the poll itself.
"what is the point of actually having such a thing (much less call it Independent) if there is no perception that it is either fair or trusted."
Refuted completely by the poll, where 2/3 want it to continue, and almost as many expect a criminal finding. THAT is the point of having it, and obviously those 2/3 expect it to solve a criminal problem in the White House, or else exonerate Trump.
here was much made about a recent FOX News poll
You said you gave up on TV news.....where it was cable outfits like CNN and MSNBC did cover it......sad, another trumpite who can't tell the simple truth of his TV habits....sad...You really are a walking dichotomy CH...just like trump!!!
KOREAN WAR TO END
Wonder when?????
"what is the point of actually having such a thing (much less call it Independent) if there is no perception that it is either fair or trusted."
45% of Republicans have "no confidence" in Mueller's fairness
26% of Independents have "no confidence" in Mueller's fairness
78% pf Republicans see it as only somewhat or not at all important to continue
52% of Independents see it as only somewhat or not at all important to continue
Again, WP. You are smarter than you are acting.
This is important to Democrats.
What is important is what is important to Democrats and Independents.
Also minorities and women.
Trump Wants Regular Appearances on ‘Fox & Friends’
Kellyanne Conway told the hosts of Fox & Friends that President Trump wants to come on the show regularly, The Hill reports.
Said Conway: “The president has said he would like to perhaps come once a month and as news breaks. He’ll keep us guessing.”
_____________
His lawyers are pulling out their hair.
This is important to a significant percentage of all American. Your perseverance in defense of the President is apparent in every case. You believe that the FBI/DOJ practice partisan investigations against the free. You're a good tool for him. But as a disitredted analyst your credibility is in the ashes.
Then why do you think I'd be impressed with your cherry-picking incomplete answers, which moreover doesn't even support your contorted conclusion?
"78% of Republicans see it as only somewhat or not at all important to continue" You contend that this means that it's not important even to Republicans? Good grief. Your claim is too trivially wrong to waste time addressing.
If you truly wanted to discuss the poll, in detail, you wouldn't even try this kind of thing. You know better, or you used to.
When the poll says that it's important to two thirds of the American public, and you want to argue that it's really not important to anyone but a demographic that you want to dismiss, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?
45% of Republicans have "no confidence" in Mueller's fairness. This is a significant step downward from previous polling results.
26% of Independents have "no confidence" in Mueller's fairness. They are split but a majority have mixed but they are still in favor of the continuation of the investigations as noted
78% of Republicans see it as only somewhat or not at all important to continue. It is not important to a percentage in a percentage you don't include here to support your didn't include.
52% of Independents see it as only somewhat or not at all important to continue You excluded the percentage break down. Most see it is so somewhat important
It is important to continue as according to most Americans. Not just Democrats
When the poll says that it's important to two thirds of the American public, and you want to argue that it's really not important to anyone but a demographic that you want to dismiss, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?
You should take it seriously because it's statistically true (that used to matter to you).
Of the three political demographics (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents).
Only a majority of Democrats find it extremely or very important
77% of Democrats find it extremely or very important.
19% of Republicans find it extremely or very important.
36% of Independents find it extremely or very important.
More Independents (37%) either provide it as having "no importance" or were not interested enough to answer the question.
The reason that it is relevant is that in order to claim that a Special Counsel has credibility, you need buy in from more than just one of the three political affiliations.
But hey, WP... if being statistically and factually true isn't important to you anymore (seems that the use of political rhetoric is more important)... then I guess that tells us why we are having so much trouble seeing eye to eye these days.
"Again, WP. You are smarter than you are acting."
I. Don't. Think. So.
Correction.
2018 GDP = 2.3 %
Lost Years = 1.9%
Harry Ried and NannystateNancy drop Trump Impeachment Drive.
Why?
8:52PM GMT 03 Mar 2013
Kim Jong-un is waiting for a phone call from Barack Obama to chat about basketball, according to Dennis Rodman, the ex-NBA star who visited the reclusive country.
Speaking on his return from North Korea, the unlikely diplomat said: "He loves basketball. ... I said Obama loves basketball. Let's start there" as a way to warm up relations between the US and North Korea.
"He asked me to give Obama something to say and do one thing. He wants Obama to do one thing, call him," Rodman told ABC's This Week.
The State Department criticised North Korea last week for "wining and dining" Rodman while its own people go hungry.
One of the 5 liberal stooges of CHT is posting under KD."
It's Roger.
Pathetic, isn't he?" Ette
Yep.
He denied post that picture of that young girl on HIS side of this Blog.
One of the 5 liberal stooges of CHT is posting under KD."
It's Roger.
Pathetic, isn't he?" Ette
Yep.
He denied post that picture of that young girl on HIS side of this Blog.
"He denied post that picture of that young girl on HIS side of this Blog."
He's using the trash blog to hide pictures of teenage girls.
Just another liberal sicko.
JACKSON: “The allegations against me are completely false and fabricated," he said. "If they had any merit, I would not have been selected, promoted and entrusted to serve in such a sensitive and important role as physician to three presidents over the past 12 years.”
If they had no merit, why withdraw? Stand and fight them.
I will meet anyone in court about any allegations they make about me.
He's using the trash blog to hide pictures of teenage girls.
Just another liberal sicko."
Yep.
Bert Baird destroyed Coward Comey.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
Liberal logic, If Ronnie Jackson withdraws the accusations must be true.
If he says and fights them, the accusations must be true.
Let's see what the liberals say when he still the White House physician.
And why they remain silent when he was Obama's physician.
You should take it seriously because it's statistically true (that used to matter to you)
It's insulting to even argue about, as if we're too dumb to know the difference in statistical validity and what you're saying. Sorry, but that's the bottom line.
"78% of Republicans see it as only somewhat or not at all important to continue. "
Somewhat important is "not" important, according to you. It's ridiculous.
"More Independents (37%) either provide it as having "no importance" or were not interested enough to answer the question. "
What percentage "not important"? You can't say 37% didn't feel it was not important, not from this basis. There is no "statistical validity" in this kind of crap. It's what you tell people when you think they're too dumb to understand the obvious flaws.
Just stop - you're embarrassing yourself and making the cheerleader section look stupid by agreeing with you.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
And why they remain silent when he was Obama's physician.".
Yep
Comey called his FBI Memo's "his Diary".
cheerleader section "
WP, never calls names, he said he doesn't.
Ch and Liar-etta constantly embarrass themselves.
See the ending of the "California to outlaw..." thread.
45 minutes ago:
Judge tosses Manafort civil suit challenging special counsel
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.
Maybe he's doing a parody of "fake news" that egregiously misinterprets poll results and then insults anyone who points out the glaring flaws. If so then we fell for a troll, but I think he's serious.
CHT created this forum.
Anonymous James said...Judge tosses Manafort civil suit challenging special counsel
It's amusing that she had to explain this:
“A civil case is not the appropriate vehicle for taking issue with what a prosecutor has done and where he might be headed in the future,”
Which is why Mueller and his team were getting a big chuckle out of Manafort's filing his civil suit. I hope that Manafort's criminal defense is better than "he shouldn't have been investigating me".
I'd like to see the full 24 page decision.
"78% of Republicans see it as only somewhat or not at all important to continue. "
Somewhat important is "not" important, according to you. It's ridiculous.
Actually the first statement is mine.
the second statement is a strawman argument of what I actually stated.
But of course, you continue to repeat the Statement that 67% believe that it is at least somewhat important (lumping three of the four possible answers together)... but take issue when I separate them into the top two responses and bottom two responses (which is the generally accepted way these things are done).
The reality is that both statements are factually true, and only relevant to which way you want to describe it. The fact that you believe it's good for the goose, but not good for the gander is typical.
The reality is that you have still not addressed (and likely will not) the fact that this is a very partisan issue that has a lot more support with Democrats (enthusiastic) than it does with Independents (luke warm) and Republicans (almost none).
Why does that fact seem to offend you so much?
Comey does NOT KNOW THE DNC AND HILLARY Funded the STEELE DOSIER.
No fucking way.
Comey, memo's are just his diary.
Ok Jane .
blogspot.com created this forum, and CHT opened an account for a handful of people to get their daily quota of insults. You shouldn't begrudge him a troll now and again, if he wanted to see just how stupid a claim people would still argue about?
by AWR HAWKINS
26 Apr 2018
2,875
Alyssa Milano is calling fellow activists to join her in Dallas, Texas, May 5 to protest Vice President Mike Pence and the NRA Annual Meetings.
The protest itself is one of the first orders of business for the newly launched #NoRA, the “No Rifle Association initiative.” #NoRA tweeted.
She calls for a recall of all her movies that include guns.
the second statement is a strawman argument of what I actually stated.
"78% of Republicans see it as only somewhat or not at all important to continue. "
Oh so you're NOT saying this to imply "The reason that it is relevant is that in order to claim that a Special Counsel has credibility, you need buy in from more than just one of the three political affiliations. "
It was just a random line that you added, and a "strawman" to suppose that you're trying to say that it's not important to Republicans, not a "buy-in" from one of "three political affiliations"
Funny.
Almost as funny as your saying that it's "a partisan issue" because Republicans aren't as enthusiastic about investigating charges to impeach a Republican President.
Ried and Polosi, drop the "Impeachment Talk".
As House wraps up Russia inquiry, top Dem on Senate probe says there's no end in sight -- and that Democrats have a contingency plan should Trump fire Mueller
The top Democrat on Senate Intelligence Committee says the panel has no timetable for wrapping up its ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and the Trump campaign’s contacts with the Kremlin.
“I would love to give you a timeline,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said during a special live video taping of Yahoo News’ Skullduggery podcast at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., on Friday. “But more important is we get it right.”
Warner, who serves as vice chairman of the committee alongside chairman Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said that there are “literally more lines of inquiry today than there were eight or nine months ago.” The Senate probe, which began in 2017, is now in its 13th month.
“I would rather do it thoroughly than do a half-baked report that leaves a lot of questions hanging,” Warner said.
His comments came on the same day the House Intelligence Committee announced the conclusion of its investigation into Russian election interference. The committee’s final report found there was no collusion with the Trump campaign to throw the election, although Russian operatives did use social media and hacking to disrupt and discredit the electoral process. Democrats on the committee said the findings — which had been announced in general terms earlier — were premature, and more witnesses should have been called.
The House panel, led by chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was widely criticized in February for releasing a controversial partisan memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI and the Department of Justice. President Trump declassified the four-page memo, prepared by Nunes, and authorized its release, despite warnings from current and former FBI and DOJ officials that making it public would be reckless and dangerous.
Warner declined to say what conclusions — bipartisan or otherwise — the Senate committee might reach.
“It’s too early to tell,” Warner said. “We’ve still got a series of witnesses to see. We got thousands of additional documents just within the last two weeks.”
Warner also revealed that lawmakers have a contingency plan in place should Trump move to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the federal Russia probe, or Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing Mueller’s investigation. But he refused to speculate on the possibility of impeaching Trump.
“We have a strategy that will take place if he takes these actions,” Warner said. “But to get lured into kind of where the president’s allies want to go — to turn this election into what would happen if the Democrats take over and impeachment — that’s not where I’m headed.”
Still, Warner said that he is “constantly concerned” that Trump is going to interfere in the ongoing federal probe.
Trump’s “ad hominem attacks” on Mueller, the FBI and the Department of Justice, he said, can “lead to a destruction of a society.”
“My fear is you have at least some of the Trump allies implying that you can question the Department of Justice and others’ basic integrity,” Warner said. “That is a scary spot.”
He continued: “I think history will judge all of us in the aftermath of this president’s interference in an investigation into he and his associates’ activities potentially with a foreign power. If people are not willing to stand up and protect that investigation, and to protect trying to get the truth when our nation was attacked by another nation, then we are in a very, very frightening position.”
78% of Republicans see it as only somewhat or not at all important to continue. "
Oh so you're NOT saying this to imply
I am implying that:
"78% of Republicans see it as only somewhat or not at all important to continue. "
CH huffs: "I am implying that: 78% of Republicans see it as only somewhat or not at all important to continue."
That's a statement from the poll CH, that you felt was significant to "you need buy in from more than just one of the three political affiliations". Your implication, CH, is that it means you don't have "buy in" from Republicans.
So literally, a vast majority of Republicans say that it's important to continue the investigation. How does that support your thesis that Republicans don't have "a buy-in" or that "there is no perception that it is either fair or trusted"?
Clearly it doesn't, and it's tedious to point these very simple, very basic problems. Do you see why I am reluctant to get into those "details"?
Isn't it a lot easier (and less embarrassing for you) to just say that the poll shows that 2/3 of the public want the investigation to continue, and due to that fact your overall conclusion "there is no perception that it is either fair or trusted" fails?
So literally, a vast majority of Republicans say that it's important to continue the investigation.
Even if you add up Extremely (8%), Very (11%), and Somewhat (21%), it only adds up to 40%
vs 57% that answered "not at all"
James quoted: Trump’s “ad hominem attacks” on Mueller, the FBI and the Department of Justice, he said, can “lead to a destruction of a society.”
Well not really, guilty politicians are frequently doing that and it never leads to any destruction. It does tend to shore up morale among their staunch supporters, but that's about all.
LOL finally you answered, what percentage said "somewhat important" and what percentage "not" instead of lumping them together as if that made any sense. All that it took was to imply that the combined category was at opposite end from what you posited.
So 40% of Republicans think it's important. 67% of everybody think it's important. Looks like a "buy in" to me, even when including the President's staunchest supporters.
Swear to God, I think CH is trolling WP.
Lol,
Ried and Polosi, drop the "Impeachment Talk".
Blogger Commonsense said...
Swear to God, I think CH is trolling WP.
Finally someone who agrees with me.
"You shouldn't begrudge him a troll now and again, if he wanted to see just how stupid a claim people would still argue about?
April 27, 2018 at 12:56 PM"
I figured after saying that, I'm obligated to indulge him.
WP, you can troll and be right all at the same time.
Well, maybe not you. ☺
True, I'm right 99% of the time and don't troll.
CH, well he's got some things to work on in that regard. This one is too lame for him to even pretend that he believes that he's right.
WP...
We both know that when a poll shows four possible answers, that two of them are generally considered positive, and two of them are generally considered negative. Usually with an extreme positive, a moderate positive, a moderate negative, and an extreme negative.
Many polls will literally lump the top to and bottom two together. That's how people are used to answering and reading polls.
Now if the overall argument is that this particular poll question provided four answers, with three of them positive, while the only negative being a complete lack of confidence (not at all)... then I would offer that this was a pretty dumb set of questions that was going to show more support than the results warranted.
There would be no way (under this logic) to have offered a moderately negative viewpoint about a question (if you had very little confidence, only some confidence, etc). So anyone who believed they were offering a moderately negative answer (which by default would be "somewhat" since that was all that was available) would find themselves lumped in with those who provided a positive answer.
Seems like an odd way to either create poll or read the results.
I can't believe I need to explain this, but it's your troll so ...
"Somewhat important" is not a moderately negative answer. It is a moderately positive answer. "Somewhat" is moderate. "Important" is positive. Most people answering understand those words, and therefore will understand that they're giving a moderately positive answer.
Those who don't want to give any sort of positive answer will choose "not at all important". These are not tricky questions CH. The only skew would be if people answer them randomly. And even then, only if you think that random answers should be more distributed into the "not important" category ... which may be, considering that uneducated people are more likely to have that opinion, and randomly selected opinions IS characteristic of dumb people.
Those who don't want to give any sort of positive answer will choose "not at all important".
I see...
So the only way to answer negatively is to answer with the absolute 100% negative response, even if your negative feelings about the question was not absolute.
But the poll offered you three distinct ways to reflect your positive answer.
Can you provide a good reason why any poll would do that?
"Can you provide a good reason why any poll would do that?"
Because it's answering a different question than the one you want to wedge into it? (ie, it asks how important is the investigation to people).
Because it's not trying to push the result you want it to?
I see...
So the polls that use the standard high positive, moderate positive, moderate negative, and high negative as their four answers...
are all push polls in your opinion?
Post a Comment