Not gonna be a popular opinion here, but the KEY in this study seems to be:
"investigated political opponents’ email accounts"
I mean a huge thing going on then was the Benghazi scandal, and I'm interested in their results based on "ok just this one statistic" opposed to ALL the other stuff they seem to throw in with their results.
You can't take that one question (which would overwhelmingly be "yes") and rope it in with all the other questions when there is a singular bias on one question. To put it simply, if 100% of his campaign supports thing "yes, go after Clinton for her emails" but 0% support "used the military to stop anti-government demonstrations" you are still going to have a positive result.
News story without detailed statistics is just fodder for orangeman bad.
Does nobody read and see how gross this "study" is without details?