Supplemental: Maddow still seems to be shocked, just shocked!

SATURDAY, MAY 2, 2015

The things you won’t hear on her program:
In our view, it has been one of the biggest media events of the past decade.

We refer to the way the stars of our emerging “liberal/progressive” media have ended up behaving like Rush and Sean. We got several doses of this phenomenon on last night’s Maddow show.

Eventually, the transcript of the program will turn up here.

Midway through the program, Maddow’s treatment of yesterday’s “Bridgegate” indictments was the usual clown show. For today, consider what she had to say about the indictments in Baltimore.

Maddow opened her program with that topic. She compared the rapid indictments in Baltimore to the lack of indictments in Ferguson last year.

Early on, she offered a highly novelized recap of what happened in Ferguson. This included a silly, full-blown demonization of one of The Others.

We were especially struck by the statement we highlight below. It inspired us to conduct a search of Maddow’s past reporting:
MADDOW (5/1/15): The current national outrage over police use of force began in earnest late last summer with the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael Brown, 18 years old and unarmed when he died on the street in Ferguson in August 2014, last August.

After Michael Brown’s death, Ferguson saw weeks of protests, some of them very intense. But local officials asked people to let the process play out, the justice process, wait for a grand jury to decide whether the officer who shot Michael Brown should be charged for Michael Brown’s killing.

That police dragged on for weeks and for months, until finally in November, three months after Michael Brown was dead and buried, with the city of Ferguson and the St. Louis region on edge about what that grand jury would decide, people hoping and believing at that time that at least the release of information about that decision would be handled in such a way that would give people fair warning and time to prepare, and time to brace themselves.

In the end, the way it happened in that case was that the St. Louis County prosecutor made his announcement at night with no warning. That prosecutor ambled up to the microphone, long after nightfall, with a couple hundred protesters already gathered outside. He gave a rambling, abrasive, at times bizarre stem-winder of a long, meandering press conference, in which he suggested some of the witnesses had simply lied to the grand jury.

He had been talking for ten minutes already that night before he finally came to the point about what he was there to announce and what the grand jury had decided.
At that point, Maddow played tape of Robert McCulloch announcing that there would be no charges against Officer Darren Wilson. In the course of her demonization of McCulloch, we were especially struck by the statement we highlight above.

According to Maddow, McCulloch ambled to the microphone long after nightfall. He gave a rambling, abrasive stem-winder which was at times bizarre.

How bizarre was the abrasive stem-winder? In the course of his long, meandering conference, McCulloch even “suggested some of the witnesses had simply lied to the grand jury.”

That struck us as a very strange statement on Maddow’s part.

Plainly, Maddow was constructing one of her demonized portraits of someone of whom she disapproves. When liberals are willing to swallow such porridge, we’d say it bodes ill for the world.

That said, Maddow likes to feed us rubes these heavily Hannitized portraits. But even by her own standards, her statement about what McCulloch “suggested” struck us as very odd.

McCulloch suggested that some witnesses lied? By now, everyone except Maddow’s viewers knows that some witnesses lied.

How do we know that some witnesses lied? We were told that in early March, in the report from the Justice Department in which Eric Holder’s department agreed with the grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Wilson—in which the Justice Department explicitly said that every shot Wilson fired was justified.

Was Justice right in that assessment? We can’t tell you that! But along with its exoneration of Wilson, the Justice Department went into substantial detail about the way various witnesses and supposed witnesses had misstated and even lied to various investigative bodies, even to Michael Brown’s parents.

Last night, Maddow acted like McCulloch’s “suggestion” to that effect was one of his many horrible acts. An obvious question came to mind:

Were Maddow’s viewers ever told about that Justice Department report—about the Justice Department report which exonerated Wilson?

Were they ever told what Justice said about Officer Wilson? Were they ever told what Justice said about a wide array of witnesses and supposed witnesses?

Using Nexis, we reviewed the relevant transcripts. Sadly, no—they were not.

Maddow’s viewers were never told about what the Justice Department said. Last night, Maddow beat their ignorance like a drum, a not uncommon occurrence.

Rachel Maddow often behaves like our own Sean Hannity. It has often seemed to us that she isn’t an obsessively honest star. But in fairness, she also routinely seems like a full-blown true believer.

When she seems to loathe The Others, we often get the impression that her loathing is real. Last night, her loathing was aimed at the vile McCulloch, who had made a vile suggestion.

As she gave way to this tribal loathing, her viewers got treated like fools. Later, her treatment of New Jersey events wasn’t a whole lot better.

Maddow often behaves like Sean. Quite routinely, she betrays tribal impulses which seem like a mirror of his.

In fairness, it often seems that she truly believes the things she says, even when her statements seem strange. True believers truly believe the foolish things they emit.

Did the Justice Department exonerate Wilson? Because she values our eternal souls, Rachel tends to keep us liberals from hearing such terrible things.

In the process, she makes us immeasurably dumber. She makes us dumber and worse, and a great deal less wise.

59 comments:

  1. 3 black cops and 3 white cops were charged. We must encourage diversity in the police. We need more mixed cops or Bangladeshi cops. Except for George Zimmerman. mixed people are not white or mean. Therefore mixed cops will be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bridgegate

    Ultrasound

    On these two stories, Rachel made the correct call.

    It would be nice if you'd acknowledge that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's also admit that Somerby couldn't have possibly been more wrong about those two cases, as he continued to double down, triple down, quadruple down and quintuple down for weeks on stories that eventually blew up in his face.

      Of course, there is the wise old saying about the first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole.

      But then Somerby hasn't been much a fan of common sense.

      Delete
    2. "Common sense" isn't the basis for reporting the news. It is facts. Somerby has complained that reports have ignored facts or reported speculation as fact in the absence of proof. His proposed alternative scenarios are not necessarily what he believes happened. They are possibilities consistent with known facts being ignored by reporters. Somerby isn't proposing anything -- he says repeatedly that he doesn't know what happened in some of these cases. He says -- neither do the reporters know yet they are pretending certainty. Because Somerby has said repeatedly that he doesn't know, how can he be wrong or have anything blow up in his face?

      Somerby is not about the facts of such cases -- he is about journalistic practice and he has been right about that repeatedly.

      Delete
    3. You can always tell when he knows he's on thin ice: he starts pounding the table instead of laying out the facts.

      He accuses Maddow of being Sean Hannity, but he never shows where she's factually wrong. Yet he's quite willing to do what he condemns in others, which is to heavily imply (if not flatly state) that she's a) fibbing and b) got a motive for fibbing.

      Delete
    4. Er, Sparky?

      Maddow didn't make the right call on Bridgegate. One of her longer pieces was on how the traffic delays could be retaliation against the state senator who represents the district that contains Fort Lee and who got into a fight with Christie over appointments to the state supreme court.

      As for Governor Ultrasound, whether she made "the right call" depends on how much you like gloating about people going to prison. I happen to like it when bad things happen to bad people, but that's just a personal preference that Somerby doesn't share.

      Delete
  3. "Midway through the program, Maddow’s treatment of yesterday’s “Bridgegate” indictment was the usual clown show".

    She was right from day one and blogger's baseness from day one (including obsessing over Maddow's body fluids) is out there in the "incomparable archives".

    Somebody give blogger a cushy right-wing bloviation post - his "we liberals" shtick is worn out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And then you look at the bigger picture, Maddow gave the story a ton of play in late summer during 2014 "campaign season". It didn't sway a single vote, didn't motivate a single voter and the liberal side got their asses handed to them several months later.

      Dude, she's a cypher who can't inspire.

      Delete
    2. Anybody who looks for inspiration from any cable news talk show is a blithering idiot.

      But hey, any reed in a storm, right? Let's blame Maddow for failing to inspire the nation so we can avoid the utter faceplant Somerby did in his coverage of both Christie and Ultrasound, when he put all his petty jealousies on full and ugly display.


      Delete
    3. Maddow is being blamed for doing her job poorly. Her job isn't to inspire the nation. It is to report facts accurately and inform her audiences.

      Delete
    4. Maddow's job is to inform her audience, yet she pretends a final Justice Dept report regarding a story she misreported doesn't exist. She's merely an "entertainer" and a poor one at that.

      Delete
    5. The choicest of time slots on the nation's premier one-and-only all-liberal news network and she doesn't even register a blip when it comes to influencing the public. Sadly, she's a waste.

      Delete
    6. You know, when it comes right down to it, none of these "cable news talk shows" combined registers a blip when it comes to influencing anyone with their minds not already made up.

      Kinda like blogs, that low-budget format of one "star" doing most of the talking around panels of the same guests every night has really run its course.

      Delete
  4. Euphemism watch: After Michael Brown’s death, Ferguson saw weeks of protests, some of them very intense.

    "intense protests" sounds so much nicer than looting, arson, and attacks on journalists and police.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And nicer than "thuggery."

      Delete
    2. And no mention of the occupying Army.

      Delete
  5. Kelly pled not guilty. Several others made a deal. No new information was revealed. Nothing that happened excuses Maddow's storytelling or undermines the valid criticisms Somerby made at the time.

    If you make stuff up and your fantasy turns out to be true, you were still telling lies because you had no support for your statements at the time. That is Maddow's situation -- except we don't know any more about what happened today than we did months ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Wildenstein plead guilty. Implicated Christie in planning the traffic diversion, and admitted that this wasn't a "Traffic Study."

      So, yes, there is news.

      Delete
    2. Well, the admission by Wildstein that it was never a "traffic study" will sure come as news to Bob and his fans.

      And it also seems that Gov. Ultrasound's crimes were that "heinous" after all.

      Delete
    3. He made a plea deal. That has nothing to do with new information. It has to do with who promised to say what in exchange for what kind of treatment.

      Delete
    4. News reports are saying Christie was not implicated.

      Delete
    5. Not yet, but if you want to hold onto the Bob narrative that Christie's chief of staff and two top appointees to the Port Authority conspired in an act of political revenge without Christie knowing a thing about it for months, then be my guest.

      You'll continue to look as stupid as he does.

      Delete
    6. You don't seem to be able to separate what is known from what you suspect to be true. News reports are about facts, what is known. They are not supposed to speculate and then report their speculations as facts. There is still nothing that shows that Christie knew. Whether you or I believe he must have known is an entirely different matter.

      Somerby cannot look stupid over this because he is only saying that reporters need to report facts, not speculation. That will remain true no matter what is subsequently discovered about Christie's role in things.

      In the meantime, your inability to understand that reporters cannot make stuff up to fit their beliefs about guilt or innocence of key players is making you look very stupid.

      Delete
    7. "If you make stuff up and your fantasy turns out to be true, you were still telling lies because you had no support for your statements at the time. That is Maddow's situation"

      OK. List what she made up. List her fantasies that came true. In my view, your fantasy is about the accuracy of TDH.

      Delete
    8. Works like this. You smell a rat, you follow the trail, you find a rat, you're still wrong.

      And the guy who said there was never any rat in the first place and you're a fool for following the trail is still right.

      Delete
    9. The problem is, Maddow never stated that it was proven that Chris Christie knew.

      She was careful to await the results of the investigation. And as you know, Chris Christie investigated himself and to everyone's relief and satisfaction the results of the investigation by Chris Christie proved that Chris Christie has nothing whatsoever to do with the crimes committed by the Chris Christie administration.

      Delete
    10. She presented theories about why the bridge lanes were closed as if they were fact.

      Delete
    11. She presented theories about why the bridge lanes were closed that were being speculated on by others involved in the investigation such as local reporters and Democratic investigators in the state house as well as the elected city officials. She never once stated as proven fact. She was presenting theories of others.

      Delete
    12. She used language expressing certainty not probability, much less uncertainty. Not everyone is there at the beginning of a segment to hear her disclaimer. She speaks like a partisan not a reporter or journalist. It doesn't matter where the theories came from. She should be helping people differentiate between fact and speculation, not advancing her preferred narratives.

      Delete
    13. Yes, and well into January, four months later, after a mountain of evidence to the contrary, Somerby was still playing his "anything is still possible" game and stating it still could be a "legitimate traffic study."

      Want to know why? Bob had at that point become so obsessed with Rachel Maddow that he would prefer to make a fool out of himself in attempt to prove her "wrong" than to consider the evidence before his face.

      And he was the one who wound up with egg all over that face.

      Delete
    14. I particularly liked that post in early December where Bob accused Maddow of being a paid operative of unnamed elements in both the Democratic and Republican parties intent on bringing Christie down.

      Surely, none of that was "speculation" from a guy who always insists that facts, and only facts, must always and only be reported.

      Delete
    15. "...Somerby was still playing his "anything is still possible" game and stating it still could be a "legitimate traffic study.""

      I think this gets to the main criticism of Maddow from TDH, and that was that stopped mentioning the traffic study alibi after a while. I don't think that was a fair criticism and on that point I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

      Delete
  6. There is discussion on various sites around the radio about whether when black men resist police they are fighting oppression and asserting their rights, making a statement about the state of race relations. Some are also suggesting that the rioting and looting are revolutionary acts aimed at challenging the economic disparities in our society. Along the same lines, some are suggesting that the word "thug" has become a pejorative label for African Americans akin to the n-word. Some of this strikes me as similar to the anarchist justification for violence and social disruption.

    As a society, we have defined crime as antisocial acts that harm either individuals, property or social order. When society is dysfunctional, is crime justified as a mechanism of change? Will it accomplish any meaningful change for anyone who is on the receiving end of that dysfunction?

    I think there is a profound miscommunication going on when activists or professors conceptualize crime this way. It does explain why so many black men resist arrest, but it also suggests that black people can engage in lifestyle crime without concern for the wider society because they have had it hard on a personal level, simply by characterizing their actions as promoting social change. I cannot see this ending well for anyone involved because society has greater power and it can and will clamp down.

    There is talk about relaxing drug laws and sentencing, but if this is seen as part of an armed resistance, that trend will lose sympathy. In the meantime, I think young people don't really understand that they are being used as pawns when they engage in looting with the tacit encouragement of older or politically cynical activists.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The prosecutor in the Brown shooting orchestrated a clown show of known devious claims to overwhelm those witnesses who did their best to accurately report what happened. That gave a cover for Wilson to make exculpatory claims which if true, he would have written in the report he never did write. He essentially took the fifth after the shooting, and all the other lying was a perfect cover for Wilson to make up whatever he wanted, and then have "investigators" certify as "reliable" those liars who agreed with Wilson. The DOJ for some reason did not try to deal with that fact, probably because they could see that a prosecution of Wilson would go down in flames.

    Brown was a bad hombre, OK. But the 3 most reliable witnesses told the true story of a bad hombre trying to give up, hands up, and executed by an enraged cop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a nice little story but it is contradicted by physical evidence. The lies told by certain witnesses were found to be lies not only due to internal inconsistencies and changes with retelling but also contradiction with physical evidence.

      Delete
    2. um, the DOJ found the officer innocent, you don't get to pretend that didn't happen

      Delete
    3. um, the DOJ found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge him with the specific federal crime of violation of civil rights.

      But you go ahead and pretend otherwise.

      Delete
    4. No, the DOJ did more than that. It exonerated Wilson. It found that the shooting was justified. Go back and read what the report states.

      Delete
    5. No, once again it didn't exonerate Wilson. It concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against him for a very specific federal crime, and went out of its way to explain that the bar for that evidence is very high.

      Delete
    6. @Unknown, seems to me in Baltimore we had a prosecutor who said, "This ain't right, and the guys who did this are going to be held accountable."

      In St. Louis County we had a prosecutor, who said, "How do I get the cop to skate on this one?"

      And both prosecutors got exactly the outcome they were after.

      Delete
    7. Is this "exoneration" enough for ya?

      <quote>
      When the shootings are viewed, as they must be, in light of all the surrounding circumstances and what Wilson knew at the time, as established by the credible physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, it was not unreasonable for Wilson to fire on Brown until he stopped moving forward and was clearly subdued,” the report said. Despite the hindsight knowledge that Brown was unarmed, “sufficient credible evidence supports Wilson’s claim that he reasonably perceived Brown to be posing a deadly threat.
      </quote>

      Delete
    8. [LINK]

      [p. 84]

      ..Moreover, Wilson could present evidence that a jury likely would credit that he reasonably perceived a deadly threat from Brown even if Brown’s hands were empty and he had never reached into his waistband because of Brown’s actions in refusing to halt his forward movement toward Wilson.

      The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Loch v. City of Litchfield is dispositive on this point. There, an officer shot a suspect eight times as he advanced toward the officer. Although the suspect’s “arms were raised above his head or extended at his sides,” the Court of Appeals held that a reasonable officer could have perceived the suspect’s forward advance in the face of the officer’s commands to stop as resistance and a threat....

      [p. 85]

      Were the government to prosecute Wilson, the court would instruct the jury using Loch as a foundation. Given the evidence in this matter, jurors would likely conclude that Wilson had reason to be concerned that Brown was a threat to him as he continued to advance, just as did the officer in Loch.

      ...For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.

      [p. 86]

      ...As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive.

      Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat.

      Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV.

      These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution).

      Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown.

      VI. Conclusion

      For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.

      Delete
    9. And you know what Mike? You will never fully understand what happened in Ferguson -- and Baltimore for that matter -- without reading that second DOJ report as carefully as you read the first to learn why Michael Brown's death became such a flashpoiint.

      But then again, learning something is such hard work. It's a lot more fun to do the Darren Wilson Victory Dance.

      Delete
    10. We should all read both reports! Brown was a bad actor and Wilson exonerated!! Ferguson Police unfair to minorities! **BOTH** are possible!

      Delete
    11. As it happens @ 9:42 AM,

      I did read "that second DOJ report as carefully as [I] read the first" but I did not need to do so "to learn why Michael Brown's death became such a [flash point]." I'm surprised to find out a dyed in the wool progressive like yourself needed to read that second report to discover that there had been a hostile relationship all along between the police department and the "minority" community there.

      You, no doubt then, will be further amazed to hear it is well known that a similar dynamic has prevailed in cities like Los Angeles and Philadelphia for decades now, if not back before the Great Migration and with what then passed for the policing of blacks in that earlier era.

      The only question since the shooting of Brown I've had about any of this has been whether Officer Wilson acted illegally in that particular instance. That said, I did add a few anecdotes from the second report to the pile I've accumulated over the years about these matters. (Extra for experts, I even know the origin of the term "border ruffian," do you?)

      Delete
  9. Question from Bob Somerby

    "Were Maddow’s viewers ever told about that Justice Department report—about the Justice Department report which exonerated Wilson?

    Question for Bob Somerby:

    Were Howler readers ever told about the Justice Department report lambasting the Ferguson Police Department?

    Actually yes. Sort of. From the Howler March 5, 2015:

    "Two stories have emerged from the Justice Department’s report on Ferguson, Missouri.

    The stories sit side-by-side on the front page of today’s New York Times. Last night, you were more likely to hear one story discussed on Fox, the other on MSNBC.
    -------

    For today, let’s consider the story about Officer Wilson, since it more directly speaks to the caliber of our own liberal discourse."

    Bob Somerby would in fact revisit that same report again and again in a Five Part Series. He never revisited the other report on the horrible conduct of the police in Ferguson.

    Two reports, but Bob chose only one. In this post he mentions two items of coverage by Maddow:

    "Midway through the program, Maddow’s treatment of yesterday’s “Bridgegate” indictments was the usual clown show. For today, consider what she had to say about the indictments in Baltimore.

    In the language of Somerby "for today" usually means Bob is diverting attention from something he doesn't want to discuss to attack someone for not discussing what he would rather they talk about. And "for today" means, as far as the other story is concerned, there will be no tomorrow.

    In this way, Bob Somerby performs very much like Hannity and Maddow. While attacking them for doing exactly what he is doing in the same post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You just don't get it. It's OK If You Are Somerby to pick and choose through the parts that support the pleasing story he's trying to sell to his gullible and willing sheep.

      But he stands innocent because he has labored long and hard against those scoundrels who pick and choose the parts that support the pleasing story they are selling to their gullible and willing sheep.

      Thus Bob gets to pimp the first DOJ report, and even distort it to fit that pleasing tale, while briefly mentioning the other before throwing it down the memory hole.

      And his gullible and willing sheep continue to cheer, none the wiser that they are being played for the fools..


      Delete
    2. Please. Do not call Mr. Somerby's many readers, most of who are not reflected in this troll infested comment box, sheep.

      They prefer to be known as life forms.

      Delete
    3. All writing involves selection. That was the point of The Wonder Boys, where the author's novel became so long he could never finish it because he refused to make any choices about what to include and what to leave out.

      The point is WHAT is included or left out, for WHAT PURPOSE, not whether there is picking and choosing being done. Critical thinking involves paying attention to omissions and thinking about the motives of an author.

      You are welcome to think critically, but if you accuse Somerby of paying more attention to one report than the other, you need to also NOTE that he did mention both reports and he explained why he was focusing on one more than the other. You don't have the right to get angry because he chooses to write a post about a topic different than you might have chosen. That is his right, as blog owner. Picking and choosing (or cherry-picking) facts to present a distorted argument is not the same as choosing to write about one report while only briefly mentioning the other one, because the point of one's post is that the first report is being ignored.

      Any of us can, and many of us have, read both reports. Certainly no one here is unaware there were two reports. In what way then is Somerby misleading us?

      Calling people names is no way to persuade them to your point of view.

      Delete
    4. Oh, you misunderstand. I am not angry at all. I am merely applying the critical thinking skills to Somerby you say that everyone should apply to all authors.

      Did you really mean all authors except Somerby? Or should we also consider WHAT he includes or leaves out, and for WHAT PURPOSE.

      Interesting, however, that when you do it, it's critical thinking. When I do it, I'm angry. Project much?

      Delete
    5. Where do I ever call you angry?

      Delete
    6. "You don't have the right to get angry because he chooses to write a post about a topic different than you might have chosen. That is his right, as blog owner."

      Delete
    7. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you that Bob has a perfect right as a "blog owner" to write about whatever he wants and to make a complete jackass out of himself in the process.

      Delete
  10. Guess Bob has once again fallen off the Rachel wagon. This will at least give his readers some respite from his new Kristof addiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is quite inventive with Kristof. He's compared him to Dimmesdale, Gantry, Sunday, Collins, and just plain Mr. Creepers.

      With Rachle all he's got is "she...she...she... She's just like Hannity."

      Delete

  11. Am here to testify what this great spell caster done for me. i never believe in spell casting, until when i was was tempted to try it. i and my husband have been having a lot of problem living together, he will always not make me happy because he have fallen in love with another lady outside our relationship, i tried my best to make sure that my husband leave this woman but the more i talk to him the more he makes me fell sad, so my marriage is now leading to divorce because he no longer gives me attention. so with all this pain and agony, i decided to contact this spell caster to see if things can work out between me and my husband again. this spell caster who was a woman told me that my husband is really under a great spell that he have been charm by some magic, so she told me that she was going to make all things normal back. she did the spell on my husband and after 5 days my husband changed completely he even apologize with the way he treated me that he was not him self, i really thank this woman her name is Dr Aluta she have bring back my husband back to me i want you all to contact her who are having any problem related to marriage issue and relationship problem she will solve it for you. her email is traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com she is a woman and she is great. wish you good time.
    He cast spells for different purposes like
    (1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dream
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want to be rich.
    (7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (9) HIV/AIDS CURE
    (10) is the only answer to that your problem of winning the lottery

    Contact him today on: traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete