Mitofsky's response letter to the Judiciary

[VTGold]

This is UNREAL - sorry if someone has already posted this:

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/mitofskyelecinforesp12704.pdf

[RaulVB]

1. Outrageous!

Well, so in other words the criminal is blaming the media for the fraud...

OK then, why don't we start dealing with them for what they are?

Fraud enablers!

[ooglymoogly]

23. this is somebody we have to keep needling, calling a fraud and kicking in

teeth till he has no choice but to reveal the obviously explosive info he is hiding to protect the big news conglomerates who are so deep in shit they stink to high heaven.

[skids]

34. Here's a needle. Go stick this in his eye.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x125913#126143

[ooglymoogly]

56. people use the links above and kick this jerk in the butt

[zapp]

2. These people believe....

That they are above the law. How the FFFF can exit polling alert to the possibility of election fraud when it's proprietary?

Because, dear friends, there is SOMETHING TO HIDE!

This needs to be circulated widely!!

[Nederland]

61. Here's the problem

Mitofsky's organization conducted the polls. If you trust him, then you have to explain why you disagree with his admission that the samples in the 1pm and 4pm exit polls were skewed. If you don't trust him, you have to explain why you believe his 1pm and 4pm polls.

It seems that people around here trust Mitofsky, but only before 4pm.

[Broken Acorn]

3. I love this

"exit poll data is proprietary and I am not able to release it".

Sounds just like the source code bs excuse from Diebold/ES&S

[TexasChick]

4. Oh, good grief! These people absolutely have no shame!! n/t

[Straight Shooter]

5. Someone has made Mitofsky an offer he can't refuse

I'm just sayin'

[whalerider55]

7. a typical bush offer

our money or your life....

whalerider55

[RaulVB]

8. I think that's the answer

I am thinking in a monetary reward. But a personal threat falls well within Bush's regime MO too.

[tandem5]

21. Actually it all fits for me...

I mean if you are going to commit fraud that's not overly alarming to the mass public then you have to know the actual results before you can manipulate the vote. So the exit polls needed to be accurate.

I always saw the exits as their flaw, but now I see it as something they absolutely needed. They just had to make sure they had an inside track to keeping the full exit data secret. This is not to say they will keep it hidden forever... just long enough so that when it is finally released the public won't remember the context.

[budkin]

65. Exactly!

Threats to him and probably his family are the real reasons he will not turn the raw data over.

[IndyPriest]

6. I wonder what he'll say when he gets the subpoena?! n/t

[Junkdrawer]

9. As a Democrat-Only forum, no subpoena power...

:(

[Razorback_Democrat]

10. Unfortunately there is no subpoena power

only the majority has subpoena power

sucks

[mwdavis02]

17. How to subpoena?

This raw data is crucial.  Definitely in the public interest. 
Is there a legal forum?  It's potentially evidence of fraud.

[IndyPriest]

36. Yes, no subpoena power, YET...

But my bet is that a week from tomorrow, after Conyers is finished, there certainly WILL be subpoenas. Don't know from whom. But I imagine there's a few federal prosecutors who are licking their chops to get at something like this.

[Twist_U_Up]

12. who has the power to subpoena?

* owns the FBI,CIA,Judges

[eomer]

31. Arnebeck has said that he will seek the exit poll data

through the discovery process in his lawsuit.

He said this in the interview on C-SPAN Washington Journal.

[hootinholler]

32. Grand Jury?

But where is the prosecutor with the stones to convene one investigating this mess? It would allow the data to remain confidential and be examined by experts appointed by the jury.

Prosecutors without stones and jurisdiction is why they have special prosecutors in Congress, but that would require, well, an act of congress and we'd be out of time.

Make no mistake about it! The actions of the republican party have been treasonous at the highest degree. The sophistication used in these acts is of the finest the world has ever seen. The attackers must have been organized in a cellular fashion and wielded with surgical precision. We only have the slight overzealousness (incompetence?) of a few cells to thank for enabling us in uncovering it, by breaking a few laws here and there.

The Red party has behaved like an organized crime family instilling a culture of win at all costs. It didn't need to issue direct orders for things to happen. A winking comment that confirms that people should make sure that people in high Dem populations aren't 'discouraged' from voting, and the culture will allow the smart aspiring Red to formulate their own plan. I seem to remember examples of these people being rewarded. It's too late for me to look them up right now.

Under RICO, we should have a fairly large area to select the venue provided that the Rep party committed a crime in that jurisdiction. All we need is a prosecutor.

I want to see those sons of bushes in leg irons before the mast!

The patriot act might also be able to be leveraged to get the data or other information once the investigation is committed too. Wouldn't that be a lovely irony ;)

I'm still amazed that Conyers, et al, letter to Blackwell isn't front page news.

-Hoot

Sorry for rambling a little.

[me b zola]

46. interesting....treasonous

probably sedition, which is still a high crime against the State??? Any thoughts??

[KatieB]

11. Mitofsky refused to turn over raw exit data - amazing-"guilty as charged"

[Shalom]

13. SUPPOSE NEWS ORGS WAIVE THIS ?

I believe it should be a simple matter to find out which news organizations contracted with Mitfucksy, and put pressure on them to waive this. If they won't, boycott the shit out of them.

[mattclearing]

54. I have a feeling they won't bite.

Did you ever hear how Ted Turner got laughed at when he inquired about buying back CNN? Our media is cozy as it is right now. They won't do anything that rocks the boat unless they have to.

Those exit polls will have to be gotten through subpoena.

[Twist_U_Up]

14. now I believe Madsen about Japans treasures n/t

[bunny planet]

15. Anybody got email addy for Mitofsky.

Me thinks the man needs to be bombarded with emails politely asking him to contribute to SAVING OUR DEMOCRACY for f**k's sake.

[Twist_U_Up]

16. Just Like Kerry said

Its got to be us guys ,he cant win this

[Fly by night]

28. Mitofsky's email address (and Edison's too)

as well as the email addresses of most of the major news organizations who funded the exit polling process. I have also included the text of the message I sent Mitofsky and Edison two days after the election, with four questions that they have still never answered for any of us. (I re-sent this message to them several times, and still no answer.)

I will email all of them again tomorrow and call them the gutless traitors that they all are. And I'll keep checking under my bed at home every night to make sure there's not a big pod growing a "new" me down there. We are really through the looking glass now, aren't we?


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Saving the election process in this country
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:19:11 -0600
From: (me)
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
CC:
[e-mail] Meet The Press
[e-mail], NBC Nightly News
[e-mail], NBC Today Show
[e-mail], ABC Evening News
[e-mail], 60 Minutes
[e-mail], CBS Evening News
[e-mail], CBS 48 Hours
[e-mail] A Washington Post reporter (referred to below)


For the past two days, I have been hearing commentators in all media (including those networks which funded your activity) criticize your two companies, saying that the exit polling that you conducted was seriously flawed because it did not more accurately reflect the final outcome. Some have even called for ending the exit polling process entirely because of its apparent inaccuracy. I count myself among the many people who went to bed early Wednesday morning confident that John Kerry would win -- based on your exit polling information provided on a state-by-state basis by CNN online in the states whose results were still in question -- only to wake up to find that Bush had won again. I imagine that your companies are unhappy and uncomfortable with this negative media attention and attacks on your competence and credibility.

However, there are a number of us out here today who are wondering whether the problem was with your exit polling efforts or with the ways in which votes were "counted" in this election. For several years, many of us have worried about the electronic voting machine (EVM) phenomenon and its potential for fraud and abuse. It seems to many of us today that the results of your exit polling process provides us an opportunity to determine whether the exit polling results in states using EVM (particularly in Republican-controlled states) were less accurate in predicting the actual vote than states without EVM or with EVM that include a paper trail.

A number of commentators online over the past two days have suggested that these differences exist and are apparent in their own comparisons of your exit polling results and the final "reported" votes in several critical states. Some online commentators have pointed out that your exit polling results were highly accurate in states without EVM or with EVM and a paper trail compared with states with EVM and no paper trail. You -- and you alone -- are in a unique position to address these questions and to inform the American people about the answers to those questions.

Specifically, I think that you need to answer the following questions for the integrity of the exit polling process, for the future of your companies and for the sake of the American people:

1) What were the differences (if any) in the predictability of your exit polling process (i.e., how close your exit polling predictions were to the final vote) between states without electronic voting machines (EVM), states with EVM and a "paper trail" and states with EVM and no "paper trail"?

2) What were the differences (if any) in the predictability of your exit polling process for the above three categories between battleground and non-battleground states?

3) What were the differences (if any) in the predictability of your exit polling process between states whose election process was controlled by Republicans and those controlled by Democrats?

4) Much has been made about the differences in voter preferences based on the time of day that voters went to the polls. Did you find any evidence that Democrats/Kerry supporters were more likely to vote earlier than Republicans/Bush supporters? If there were differences, how did they shake out between battleground and non-battleground states?

I sincerely hope that you will seek a fully formed analysis of the above questions and that you will share that analysis with the American people. Most importantly, if you find anything in your analysis which suggests that your exit polling process was less predictive in states with EVM but no "paper trail" and/or that there were differences in predictability in those states based on which political party controlled the election process, it is incumbent on you to make this information public in order to allow the American people to decide if our election process has been highjacked -- as too many of us fear.

To remain silent on these issues will foment even more mistrust within the American people about the sanctity and security of our voting process. It will also further embolden the anti-democratic forces that are afoot in our current body politic to continue to highjack the election process, because they may have gotten away with it yet again.

I sincerely appreciate the work that you do and (as a social scientist myself) am concerned that the credibility of the exit polling methodology is being challenged when the problem may be deeper (and much more serious) than simply one of flawed methodology. In closing, however, I must tell you that the most distressing thing I have read since the election is this concluding paragraph in Richard Morin's article in today's Washington Post, "New Woes Surface in Use of Estimates": "After the (exit polling) survey is completed and the votes are counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to reflect the actual vote, which in theory improves the accuracy of all the exit poll results, including the breakdown of the vote by age, gender and other characteristics."

Nothing would distress me more than for evidence of illegal manipulation of the election process to be covered up by adjustments in the exit polling results based on the "reported" vote. Please allow us to see and compare the differences between your final exit polling predictions (unadjusted by the final vote counts) and the actual "reported" votes in every state.

Allow us to learn -- and to discuss and (as a country) to act on -- the answers to the four questions I have listed above. Please do this to salvage the reputations of your companies, to dampen criticism of the exit polling methodology and to restore faith in the integrity of our election process. Please do so for the sake of this country and for the future of democracy worldwide. Thank you.

[idealista]

18. file under left-field theories

I'm thinking of Karl Rove hovering over his laptop on election night, and the suggestion someone made involving switching back disloyal Republicans from the Kerry column into the Bush column, in, among other places, southern Ohio. But how many of these traitorous Republicans would there be? Hard to guess before hand.

Wouldn't it have been convenient to have actual precinct exit poll raw data in order to sculpt the process dynamically? The networks paid for these exit polls, right, and that's why no one else can get a free peek? Maybe someone else paid for them too.

[tandem5]

24. yeah exactly...

see my post (#21)

[ooglymoogly]

57. but why should the networks care if they are released its

over. unless...............

[Junkdrawer]

19. I'll bet the raw data is MUCH more damning than what we've seen...

why else would they hide it?

And let's see that 2002 VNS data while we're at it.

[CupaJoe]

20. This is not necessarily a refusal.

He writes:

"In your letter, you also request that I release the raw data from the exit polls that Mitofsky International and Edison Media Research conducted for our client news organizations. The data are proprietary information gathered and held for the benefit of those news organizations, and I am not at liberty to release them."

I would read this as putting the ball into the court of the client news organizations. They can call for it to be released, or not.

[xiamiam]

22. refusal to release the polls by anyone is obstructing justice..imo

*so they better figure out how to release the polls and anything else the committee asks for...do you think he actually signed this letter?...he cant attend because why? he doesnt have any time? gimme a break....

[lthuedk]

43. There must be a case filed in order for there to be obstruction.

[StephanieMarie]

25. So we have to pressure the owners.

Who bought this "proprietary data" ? That's who we have to wage a campaign against to get them to release the raw data.

[CupaJoe]

27. Yes, pressure on the client news organizations

would be the effective step, I think.

[ooglymoogly]

58. to pressure the news stations you have to pressure the

congloms that pull their strings. www.choosetheblue.com

[Generator]

26. Ah it's all for the benefit of the "news organizations"

And you wonder why some of us think CNN and the like aren't in on pushing Bush to be the only choice. Propaganda.

Guilty as charged. So is there a contract that forbides Mitofsky from releasing them...between him and CNN or NBC? That is almost what he is saying.

[minvis]

44. Perhaps a reason why he won't give up the data

Here is a portion of a Wired article on the Exit Polling contract with Mitofsky and Edison.

National Elections Pool says the exit polling and vote counts functioned without problems during the 2004 Democratic primaries and in recent dry runs. About the only glitch came when raw exit-poll data appeared on the Drudge Report and was posted on some blogs even though polls were still open across the country.

Mitofsky blamed the networks for the leaks and claimed the data was "inaccurate." But the numbers that Drudge and company reported for Arizona, Missouri, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Delaware were within the standard margin of error for exit polls, and accurately predicted the eventual winners in each state.

Neither Mitofsky nor Joe Lenski, executive vice president for Edison, would comment on how much the companies are being paid for providing exit polling for the presidential election, but CBS' Frankovic characterized it as a "very big contract."

Look at the first paragraph. "About the only glitch came when raw exit-poll data appeared on the Drudge Report ..." He's already been burned once by the Blogosphere. If not openly hostile to the net blogs, he's at least not their "best friends". Also note that he claims the data was "inaccurate" but the leaked numbers in the 2004 primary "accurately predicted the winners in each state".

Now I got to thinking. Why would a pollster be that upset that some essentially "accurate" data was leaked? in a primary no less? Then it clicked when I saw the last paragraph. "Neither would comment on how much they are being paid to provide exit polling, but ... it is a very big contract".

Maybe I'm wrong here, but if I am trying to persuade a potential client(s) to hand over a lot of money to me, do I want anyone else to see the information I gathered? Probably not, unless my client, in this case the news organizations, said it was ok to do so. He doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him, so to speak.

Now, let's go one step further. Mitofsky obviously knows what the raw data is and he also knows what the "results" were of the election. Let's just say, for the sake of the argument, that the raw data and the "certified results" aren't exactly meshing. Does he fully back his raw data and possibly risk losing their business or does he push it off on the news organizations to give the ok? What would you do?

Let me be clear, however. There is still a question of serving the public interest instead of private gain. I hope, if I were in that position, I would say the hell with it and lose potential money for sake of democracy. I'm just saying that I can see a potential reason he is being an ***hole.


Here's the full link to the Wired article.

http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,65557,00.html

[VTGold]

29. NBC is covering the hearing - maybe they'll release poll data? Dreaming?

[Scout1071]

30. Utter and complete

Bullshit. Let's see, Monica Lewinsky has to turn over a blue dress but this guy doesn't have to release the raw data of the exit polls for the alleged freest democracy in the world when the results are in question?

What's the recommended course of action here folks? They need to be held accountable.

[pgh_dem]

33. not to be petty...

but aside from being an arrogant jackass fraud...doesn't Mitofsky kinda sign his name like a 5th grader? Maybe he had his kid sign it for him, for extra snub effect to Conyers.

[Blue_In_AK]

35. Signature

It looked to me like maybe his secretary signed and initialed it in his absence.

[reality_bites]

37. Um... Folks. If someone hires me to do a job...

...I am bound by the contract. Do you know what the contract states ? I don't.

He says he isn't at liberty to release the data. If this is true, then he could be subject to action if he releases the data.

[txindy]

50. No problem. We'll subpoena him very soon.

With lawsuits being filed in Ohio, it's only a matter of time before Mitofsky is compelled by law to release the data. That will relieve him of any and all ethical concerns about releasing a client's data. It's not as if he's protecting a source, right? Not unless the raw data is substantially different than the final version released and he was fed that final version by his handler. Couldn't be that, right? There's a word for that... What is it? Starts with an 'F'.... Oh, yeah!

FRAUD.

Golly, I'll bet his media clients will be ever so shocked that they were duped. Mitofsky's handler will be exposed, too, because there's no way a little man like Mitofsky is going to allow himself to go down alone for something that wasn't even his own plan. Tick, tock, tick, tock... Time to start collecting the garbage.

[Shalom]

38. HERE THEY ARE: ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC

If all these media agree to release the results, Mitfucksky doesn't have a leg to stand on.

We should first contact each of these organizations to at least get a statement from them.

Anyone of these media that refuses will be treated to a progaganda onslaught that they will neve forget.

If this fails, take them to court.

[truckin]

48. "HERE THEY ARE: ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC"

Shalom is right. It is probably not Mitkowsky who is holding back but the six major news organizations that created this exit poll group. These organizations should be outed for withholding information and this could turn out to be a huge story.

[librechik]

62. YES!!!!! (I'm surprised this suggestion is so late in the thread!)

GO, MY PRETTIES!!!

Use the media blaster at the top of the forum.

[ClintCooper2003]

39. He's a lying piece of s**t n/t

[buzzard]

40. H'm what would happen if a break-in occurred and the raw data was stolen?

Not that I'm suggesting this.

[dargondogon]

41. Suggested letter to Mitofsky

December 7, 2004

Mr. Warren Mitofsky
Mitofsky International
1776 Broadway
Suite 1708
New York, NY 10019

Dear Mr. Mitofsky:

As a highly respected, innovative and conscientious pollster, you’ve led the world in developing exit polling techniques and enhancing democracy by seeking the voice of the public.

You, more than I, certainly, and more than most anyone else on earth, understand the value of accountability in polling. You understand the fragility of public trust in polling, the temptations of apathy and the cynicism of critics who dismiss the value of polling.

That’s why I appeal to you to release the raw data from the Nov. 2 exit polling: to encourage you to trust the science you’ve developed.

Polling is more than collecting data: It's a science that requires its practitioners to allow others to attempt to replicate their work.

Of course we cannot replicate an election and its exit polls. But your calibrations of your data should be made available for replication. Without that crucial final step of releasing data for replication, your work is not relevant, not scientific and not reputable.

I urge you to abide by the polling standards promulgated by the American Association for Public Opinion Research by publicly:

-- Discussing possible sources of error.
-- Describing any special scoring, editing, data adjustment or indexing procedures (or calibration) used.
-- Describing your sample design.
-- Describing your sample selection procedure.
-- Delivering a full accounting of the final outcome of all "sample cases."
-- Describing how non respondents differ from respondents.

The data no longer have proprietary value to your subscribers. Election Night is long over, they hired you to help them promptly report results. Now it's time to make a transition to public service, Mr. Mitofsky.

[e-mail]

[VTGold]

42. Mitofsky may want to be forced....

.... I know I would

[rumpel]

45. But are the Networks not leasing the "people's" airwaves?

[moesse]

49. Rumpel, good point

and I'd wonder if there might be an FOIA way of compelling the release of this exit polling data. Any FOIA lawyers out here?

[Junkdrawer]

47. Kick

:kick:

[Hamoth]

51. To the "wheres the leakers" crowd...

If fraud required such a large network as to make a leak inevitiable, then why can't we get a leak of the full raw data from an insider in this? Clearly a lot of people probably have access to the material. Many are probably journalists!

[Fortunato]

52. Data belongs to the contractors

To get the data, we can't be leaning on Mitofsky and Edison.

From what I understand, this is work for hire. Under contract, these guys do not own the data but merely the methodology by which they collected it; on this assignment, they worked for the big media. "Work for hire" means that the finish product belongs to the guy who paid the salary -- ask any writer/artist for hire, or any computer programmer, or any other sort of contract worker.

The big media owns the data. No matter one's personal opinion of the value of "work for hire" ethics in this situation, Mitosfky could justifiably be sued for breach of contract by sharing data without express permission of his contractors. (Similar case: Doctors and lawyers sharing information about their patients/clients without permission; even if it's done for a good reason, they could lose their practice.)

So I'd say lay off him. If we're going to get the data early at all, then the big media has to release it. They own it. It's their fault that the data has not yet been released. And if they're going to bother to give Mitofsky "permission to release," then they might as well release it themselves and save a step in the middle.

Mitosfky's not really part of the loop here. Leaning on him isn't going to change anything. Talk to the people who paid him for his time.

[truckin]

53. Fortunato is absolutely right

[neversaynever]

55. Ya know....

I was talking to Steve Freeman yesterday, about the most recent version of his paper (not yet released), and we both agreed: for one thing, his screen-saved versions of the CNN uncorrected data ought to suffice.

The other point: everyone keeps looking for some magical "smoking gun" here, but even the tons and tons of evidence pointing to voting irregularities and voter suppression is ENOUGH to make the case for an INVALID election.

Forcing people to focus on the minutest details and spin their wheels in a pointless circle of chasing down "evidence" is a typical Bushitler diversionary tactic. Also designed to wear people out, exhaust them.

This most recent oped from the Iconoclast really sums it up:
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial48.htm

The point is: the election was a complete and total sham, from start to finish; that is apparent even without the friggin' "raw data" from the exit polls.

I think our energies are better spent making that point than seeking to force Mitofsky and Co to produce the goods.

just my 2 cents.

[grumpy old fart]

59. "News Organizations" are the ones who should get the heat....

Mitofsky would have nowhere to hide if the news organizations that hired him told him to release it. What good excuse could the "news organizations" have for not allowing it's release? That's where the pressure needs to be brought to bear.

[Mandate My Ass]

69. God forbid news organizations release real news to the public

What a heavy burden for them to bear. :nopity:

[merh]

60. We need to media blast this - bombard the media that

owns this data to authorize that Mitofsky release it to Conyers and arenback

[grumpy old fart]

63. Yep, Need mass emails to media, NOW

All the media emails right here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x816939

[progressoid]

64. C'mon People, get a grip

1. This is just a public hearing - there is no legal reason for him to turn over anything...yet.

2. This exit data is proprietary info, and was gathered for the media and paid by the media. This isn't gathered for us or paid for with tax dollars.

3. Do you really think that the media is going to just tell him to hand over the info? Really? Fox??? Even the other media groups are have no reason to comply with this request. This is the same MSM that we all hate for being *'s lap dogs for the last four years. Now, suddenly you think they are going to grow a conscience - especially at the upper management levels?

We're going move on without this info for a while

[grumpy old fart]

66. What will be the explanation from the networks?

It's really hard to see a plausible spin for them on this. No?

[progressoid]

71. It's completely inexcusable.

But right now there isn't any pressure for them to even acknowledge us. Maybe I'm a little pessimistic today but...If this all comes out, they will divert our attention with the bigger story of fraud Later they will point fingers at the data collection and kind of apologize for doing a Dan Rather. But ultimately they are going milk it for all it's worth. It would be a ratings bonanza.

[Carolab]

67. I had an idea

I e-mailed KO and suggested he get MSNBC (as a media subscriber) to request the data. Don't know if it'll work but what the hell.

[trudyco]

68. Didn't somebody in a thread yesterday

say they could get it for $10,000. Or was that a joke???

trudyco

[Fly by night]

70. My letter to Mitofsky, Edison and the MSM (mostly shit media)

I sent this letter to Mitofsky et al this morning. You can find his email address, and those of Edison and most of the media "clients" whose skirts Mitofsky is hiding behind, in my earlier post on this thread (# 28). (BTW, the hearings this morning were great and are just the start -- the first shots in our second American revolution. John Conyers -- you da Man!!)

My letter to Mitofsky et al:

After more than a month of waiting for an answer to my earlier questions regarding the "odd" exit poll/"reported" vote disconnect and hearing nothing from any of you, I have a brief follow-up note.

In less than one hour, the House Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on the theft of the 2004 election. The millions of us who are keeping track of this coup, and the growing efforts to overturn it, are aware that Mitofsky was invited to attend the hearing and to turn over the raw (untampered-with) exit poll results. We are also aware that he refused, saying that such information is "proprietary".

I have three questions for all of you:

1) Is money more important than our country? (That's probably a rhetorical question for all of you.)

2) What is it that all of you (you formerly respected researchers and you news (sic) organizations) have to hide?

3) If Mitofsky can release the raw exit poll data if and when one of his "clients" (that's you, MSM*) gives him permission to, what are you waiting for? Whichever one of the major news organizations that steps forward and approves the release of the raw exit poll data to the House Judiciary Committee will vault to the head of the line of the MSM* and might even regain some credibility and respect from the American people, who wonder at the continued silence (and continuous Fox-like spin) that you have made us suffer through since Bush stole his second election. (For me, I'm in favor of "two strikes and you're out".)

So get to the House Judiciary Committee hearing -- you have less than a half hour to be present for the first shots of the second American revolution. And release the goddamn raw exit poll results. Or go buy a one-way ticket to Argentina -- the ghosts of your fellow Nazis await you.

We're watching, and waiting, for one of you to do the next right thing. And that's not continuing to protect those faux leaders, smeared in moldy "moral values" lard, who want to hasten the Rapture. Living in America is already heaven on earth, and it's worth protecting.

Is there anyone home who cares?

PS. I am told that "MSM" stands for mainstream media. For me, it looks like "mostly shit media".