...
I only wish that we had this active and fighting blogosphere about 15 years ago, because we have certainly suffered over the last years from a real imbalance in the political world in our country. But we are righting that balance — or lefting that balance — not sure which, and we are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments and making them effective and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support, like Media Matters and Center for American Progress. You know, we're beginning to match what I had said for years was the advantage of the other side, uh ... you know, when I made that comment about the vast right wing conspiracy, I wasn't kidding, uh ... what I never could have predicted is that it was not a conspiracy, it was just wide open, and out there for everybody to see, and, unfortunately, they elected a president and a vice president with whom we've had to contend for the last 6 1/2 years.
...
I only wish that we had this active and fighting blogosphere about 15 years ago, because we have certainly suffered over the last years from a real imbalance in the political world in our country. But we are righting that balance — or lefting that balance — not sure which, and we are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments and making them effective and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support, like Media Matters and Center for American Progress. You know, we're beginning to match what I had said for years was the advantage of the other side, uh ... you know, when I made that comment about the vast right wing conspiracy, I wasn't kidding, uh ... what I never could have predicted is that it was not a conspiracy, it was just wide open, and out there for everybody to see, and, unfortunately, they elected a president and a vice president with whom we've had to contend for the last 6 1/2 years.
...
Oh brother. As if a corrupt politician like Hillary Clinton was ever the voice of reason. And as if pandering Democratic politicians, with their incessant message of entitlement, dependency, and victimhood, were ever the underdog in their treatment by the mainstream media.
And, of course, you will not find any writings from 'Media Matters for America' criticizing any media organization for bias in supporting Hillary Clinton. In short, there is nothing about the content on 'Media Matters for America' that even gives the organization the vague appearance of a non-profit media watch dog, despite its tax-exempt status.
Instead, you will find an endless stream of pieces promoting Democratic causes, and especially Hillary Clinton, like these —
How is a piece about improving Hillary Clinton's press coverage legitimate for a supposed media watch-dog? —
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/10/would-a-primary-challenger-improve-hillary-clin/203241
How are pieces defending Hillary Clinton's handling of e-mail legitimate for a supposed media watch-dog? —
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-times-deceptive-suggestion-that-hi/202726
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/14/state-dept-shuts-down-foxs-anonymous-speculatio/204941
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/28/media-debunk-misinformation-surrounding-clinton/205240
This is obviously a part of the campaign strategy of Democrats like Hillary Clinton. 'Media Matters for America' need do nothing to disguise this well recognized fact — given the corruption in government, they know they are safe, and will be free to operate without any tax liability.
It is a clever political tactic — start a non-profit organization pretending to be a media watch-dog, but that does nothing but spread propaganda defending a particular political party and its corrupt politicians, while dull ignorant members of the electorate post comments to that propaganda, as if they are privy to some special knowledge, and are in the know —
https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/media-matters-for-america/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/media_matters_we_should_coronate_hillary_.html
http://archive.is/nQrAs
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2007/11/15/4429164-calling-out-media-matters-bias
http://archive.is/N2k4A
http://mediamatters.org/about
The shameless bias of 'Media Matters for America' is perversely fascinating — it is so extreme, I am not sure who they think they are kidding. Does anyone really believe that 'Media Matters for America' is swaying honest, objective voters to side with Democrats? It is a silly question, isn't it? Politicians in general do not care how honest you are — and certainly not Democrats, with their endless promises to steal from one group to give to another, under a pretense of fairness — they just want your vote, and the power that gives them. They are counting on your dishonesty.
Even that bastion of aggressive progressive stupidity, the 'Daily Kos', has a piece pointing out the obvious fact that Hillary Clinton's handling of her State Department e-mails was a felony (the 'Daily Kos' should apply for tax-exempt status too). The reader comments to this piece are a fascinating display of mendacity — the writer at one point complained about the lack of useful response from supposed readers posting comments (I'm not sure what he expected, given the nature of the site) —
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/28/1416309/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Felony-The-federal-laws-violated-by-the-private-server
http://archive.is/hTcAE
Yes, the law is clear on this, and, of course, it maximizes the government's ability to prosecute — only gross negligence is required to be in violation of this statute — there is no need to prove intent to do harm —
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2009-title18/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-sec793
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-sec793.htm
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
. . .
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
And, of course, a government bureaucrat from the FBI — James Comey — described Hillary Clinton as 'extremely careless' in handling classified information, leaving everyone to tap dance around the obvious similarity between that phrase and the phrase 'gross negligence' as stated in the law. Of course, the dictionary definition of negligence is 'failure to use reasonable care' — i.e. negligent is a synonym for careless (for those in government, that means they mean the same thing).
And notice how James Comey publicly announced the government's lack of integrity, when he stated that no one else should expect to escape penalty for doing what Hillary Clinton has done, even though Clinton will not be penalized. So much for the rule of law —
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-sec...
Washington, D.C.
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
July 5, 2016
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
. . .
After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.
This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.
I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.
So, first, what we have done:
The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.
I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
. . .
FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
. . .
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
. . .
So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.
After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.
This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.
I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.
So, first, what we have done:
The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.
I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
. . .
FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
. . .
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
. . .
So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.
Of course, this begs the painfully obvious question, why would a government bureaucrat, who heads the top law enforcement agency in the country, be proud of that organization for proving that a senior U.S. politician committed a felony, while at the same time recommend that nothing be done about it? What is there to be proud of in that?
If the FBI was not going to recommend prosecution even after having shown that a crime was committed, why on earth did they waste taxpayer money conducting the investigation to begin with?
And, of course, in the midst of all this nonsense, Marine Major Jason Brezler is being investigated and possibly discharged from the corp, for, you guessed it, sending a classified e-mail. This case is even more tragically comical, because Major Brezler was trying to save lives. Was there, as James Comey put it, 'an inference of intentional misconduct' in this case? —
https://www.google.com/search?q=Major+Jason+Brezler
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-06/attorneys-intend-to-ask-for-the-clinton-deal
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/hero-marine-nailed-for-sending-classified-report-from-personal-email.html
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/.../2016/03/09/embattled-marine-wins-temporary-reprieve-fight-save-his-career
Well, James Comey, the FBI director, warned everyone — with regard to being prosecuted for mishandling classified information, you are not Hillary Clinton —
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."Get used to it. If you are not a well connected politician like Hillary Clinton, you will pay.
To those who do not care about any of this — Hillary's supporters obviously do not — please do not complain when the government engages in an unjust prosecution against you or a loved one. If you will not stand-up for the principle of rule of law in all cases, then do not expect laws to be selectively enforced only in your favor. That would be more than just a little ridiculous, wouldn't it?
In closing, here is a simple little test of your own honesty. Do you think that those at 'Media Matters for America' and the 'Daily Kos' are more concerned about Donald Trump's honesty than Hillary Clinton's, because Trump has done more damage with his lies than Hillary has with hers, or because those at both 'Media Matters for America' and the 'Daily Kos' are obviously biased in favor of Hillary?
If you pretend that the concern with Donald Trump's honesty at either 'Media Matters for America' or the 'Daily Kos' is purely objective, then your own dishonest bias is showing.
Given the recent events involving Hillary Clinton (and much of her career), the two pieces shown below from 'Media Matters for America', for example, are beyond parody —
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/22/wash-post-editorial-board-excoriates-trump-s-ignorance-and-contempt-...
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/19/trump-campaign-dares-press-call-them-liars/211685
When those at 'Media Matters for America' and the 'Daily Kos' put up a page matching the one shown below, to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her lies, then I'll believe that some at those organizations are at least making some attempt to be objective (however much that attempt is an obvious failure). But until then, I will continue to view both 'Media Matters for America' and the Daily Kos' as dishonest —
https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/petitions/sign-the-petition-hold-donald-trump-accountable-for-his-lies
If that silly Trump petition is not damning enough, consider this description from the 'Daily Kos' masthead —
https://www.dailykos.com/masthead
http://archive.is/7R1SB
Founded on May 26, 2002, Daily Kos is the premier online political community with 2.5 million unique visitors per month and a quarter of a million registered users. It is at once a news organization, community, and activist hub. Among luminaries posting diaries on the site are President Jimmy Carter, Senator Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and dozens of other senators, congressmen, and governors. Even more exciting than that, however, are the hundreds of thousands of regular Americans that have used Daily Kos to shape a political world once the exclusive domain of the rich, connected, and powerful.
The list of supposed luminaries in the quote above is telling. If you believe that someone like Nancy Pelosi, for example, is a luminary, then you do not know what the word luminary means. For a demonstration of what the 'Daily Kos' calls a luminary, see Pelosi's lack of character on display here —
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2014/12/trying-to-put-slippery-worm-on-hook.html
Such is the nature of a luminary, according to those at the 'Daily Kos'.
Well, how corrupt and dishonest does a Democrat have to be, before 'Media Matters for America' and the 'Daily Kos' would stop defending them?
Good luck trying to estimate that.
