23 YEARS LATER: Does the New York Times have that Clinton problem?

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2015

Conclusion—A refusal to fight, perhaps worse:
Does the New York Times have some sort of problem covering Candidate Clinton? More globally, has the paper had a problem covering the Clintons over the past twenty-three years?

On Sunday, August 2, the New York Times public editor seemed to say that the answer might be yes. Public editor Margaret Sullivan said she agreed with a reader who had written her saying this:

“Hillary deserves tough questions when they are warranted. But it is undeniable that she is already facing significantly tougher coverage than any other potential candidate.”

Beyond that, Sullivan posted these further remarks,
none of which she challenged. She was discussing reaction to her previous post about the Times’ latest front-page debacle concerning Candidate Clinton:
SULLIVAN (8/2/15): Afterward, Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University, wrote to The Times: “There is far more at stake than a newspaper’s reputation. How about the future of our country and the countless lives that are affected by the outcome of a presidential election?”

My post quickly generated more than a thousand reader comments (a record), many of which had the same complaint: The reporting on Mrs. Clinton from such a dominant news source has an unfairly critical edge.

Arlene Williams, a longtime subscriber, wrote and objected to “what I see as jaded coverage concerning Hillary Clinton.” News articles and opinion columns are “just consistently negative,” she said. And Ben Lieberman of Acton, Mass., said The Times seemed to be “on a mission to cut her down to size.”

These readers aren’t alone. The press critic and New York University professor Jay Rosen wrote on Twitter: “I have resisted this conclusion over the years, but after today’s events it’s fair to say the Times has a problem covering Hillary Clinton.” Rachel Maddow said last week on MSNBC that the attitude of the national press corps, including The Times, is, “Everything Hillary Clinton does is a scandal.” And James Fallows of The Atlantic called what he sees as a Times “Clinton vendetta” a “serious lapse,” linking to a letter the Clinton campaign wrote in response to the Times story.
Fallows, a major journalist, accused the Times of a “Clinton vendetta.” Sullivan didn’t even dispute that claim.

Is Professor Rosen right in his own assessment, which is softer than that? Is it “fair to say the Times has a problem covering Hillary Clinton?”

There’s no perfect way to answer such questions. That said, the questions extend back twenty-three years, all the way to the newspaper’s Whitewater coverage, a fact which Sullivan glancingly mentioned in her column.

Does the Times have a problem covering Clinton? In some way, is the Times, or is someone within the Times, conducting some sort of vendetta?

We aren’t going to answer those questions, although they deserve examination. In closing our report, we thought we’d mention the remarkably compliant way the liberal world has failed to ask or pursue those questions down through these many long years.

Those questions were raised in the venerable publication, Harper’s, as early as 1994. The essay in question, by Gene Lyons, was then turned into the 1995 book, Fools for Scandal.

Lyons challenged the New York Times’ bungled front-page reporting about the Whitewater “scandal.” When he did, the liberal world averted its gaze. Star liberals have continued to avert their gaze from related episodes right to this very day.

The litany of Whitewater-era “scandals?” The remarkable twenty-month War Against Candidate Gore? The ugly, ludicrous Clinton-hating purveyed by Maureen Dowd, the Times’ most influential columnist?

None of these episodes inspired the liberal world to complain. Just consider:

Back in June 2008, an earlier public editor, Clark Hoyt, savaged Dowd for her misogynistic Hillary Clinton-hating. But Hoyt’s example didn’t inspire other scribes to speak.

Major journalists love to copy-and-paste. But no one copied what Hoyt said about Dowd’s ugly work. Simply put, it isn’t done! Presumably, the New York Times is too important within the world of the guild—and Maureen Dowd is too important within the world of the Times.

Whatever the reason, ranking liberal and mainstream journalists make little effort to challenge or critique the work of the Times. Consider three of the major figures Sullivan cited in her column.

Jay Rosen: Sullivan quoted Professor Rosen saying this: “I have resisted this conclusion over the years, but after today’s events it’s fair to say the Times has a problem covering Hillary Clinton.”

Perhaps it’s just a turn of phrase. But does anyone know why a major press critic would have “resisted” that thought down through these many long years?

Forget about adopting that conclusion! Does anyone know why a major press critic wouldn’t have devoted attention to examining this possible problem?

Maybe Professor Rosen has done so. With that comment, it sounds like he has arrived at the scene of a fire 23 years later.

Rachel Maddow: In response to the recent front-page debacle, Maddow did something she never does. On July 28, she devoted a segment of her program to open criticism of the New York Times.

Maddow didn’t cop one of her slippery pleas about what “the Beltway press” is wrongly saying. In a 1040-word segment which lasted 5:35, she directly criticized the Times.

To watch that segment, click here.


This was extremely unusual conduct on Maddow’s part. We couldn’t help noticing: 1) that she spent a greater amount of time that week telling her “Dog pee can’t stop Santorum” story; and 2) that she will, in all likelihood, never do such a thing again.

James Fallows: In some ways, we were most struck by the quotation from Fallows. He referred to a “Clinton vendetta” at the Times. That is strong language indeed.

Fallows used very strong language. But the comments Sullivan quoted came from a single 13-word tweet. If the Times is running a “vendetta,” might the problem possibly call for a longer discussion? In this case, the alleged vendetta didn’t even occasion a post at Fallows’ Atlantic blog.

For our money, Fallows was responsible for one of the major texts in the twenty-month War Against Gore. For Part 1 of our five-part series, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/11/00.

Fourteen years later, Fallows devotes thirteen words to his claim about this vendetta. We’ll suggest he came up a bit short.

At least those three spoke up. Others did not. As we noted last week, Chris Hayes argued against the idea that the Times has a problem in this area, as it seems he typically does in matters of this type.

Elsewhere on The One True Liberal Channel, silence invaded the suburbs. As best we can tell, Chris Matthews and Lawrence O’Donnell didn’t discuss the front-page debacle at all. Al Sharpton managed only the briefest of mentions.

The Whitewater “scandals?” The War Against Gore? The ugly, endless Clinton-hating of Maureen Dowd?

The liberal world has rolled over for these behaviors every step of the way. Twenty-three years later, a certain pattern seems clear:

The conservative world fights the Times tooth and nail, all the way. The leaders of the liberal world seem to prefer good jobs at good pay, or perhaps just high social standing.

“How about the countless lives that are affected by the outcome of a presidential election?” We’d have to say that Professor Tannen has the right idea!

44 comments:

  1. Rachel Maddow: After a five (or six) part series on Maddow and at the very end of a six part series on the New York Times Bob Somerby gets around to mentioning the criticism made of the Times by Rachel Maddow on July 28, five days before this series began.

    Somerby didn’t cop to one of his slippery attacks about her shaky mental condition. In a 68 word segment he simply did what he had to do, but he stretched it into 112 in order to get in a couple of parting licks.

    This was extremely unusual conduct on Somerby's part. We couldn’t help noticing: 1) that it was very much the way he treated the fact that D'Leisha Dent had been accepted to a four year college before he began writing a multi-part series in which he repeatedly said she had not, might not, or could not do so; and 2) that he will, in all likelihood, contemplate jumping off a bridge into the Chesapeake if forced to do this again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is the nature of criticism that you mention what is wrong, not what is good or right.

      It is obviously good that Maddow said something. It is not good that she said it once and then went mum. She hardly deserves a medal for that.

      I would sincerely like to know why there is such a vendetta against Somerby that the majority of comments never discuss any relevant topic but only trash Somerby.

      Everyone likes to blame Clinton for causing the vendetta against her. I don't think she is responsible any more than Somerby is responsible for the way trolls respond here.

      Delete
    2. @6:02

      Don't worry. Wall Street is still puling for HRC.

      Delete
    3. Wall Street contributes to all the candidates. Hillary got less than Obama in 2008. I wouldn't call her their candidate when she is proposing reforms they won't like. Wall Street loves all the Republicans.

      Delete
    4. "Don't worry. cicero is still trolling for MRC."

      FTFY - chump change

      Delete
    5. @ 7:17

      Hey, in 2008, candidate Obama, the Occupy Wall Street savior, received $9 million more from Wall Street than Senator McCain. As far as HRC reforms for Wall Street, her actions speak louder than her words.

      "As important as the money trail is, there are other indications behind the scenes that Clinton does not envisage any radical changes — or even any significant restrictions — on Wall Street.

      Her top advisers include two former investment bankers who have a history of being soft on financial regulation. Both held high positions in Clinton's State Department and would be obvious candidates for cabinet posts in a new Clinton administration.

      Tom Nides, a veteran of Morgan Stanley and a former chairman of the main financial services lobbying group Sifma (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association), was deputy secretary of state under Clinton.

      Robert Hormats, a longtime vice chairman at Goldman Sachs and currently vice chair of Kissinger Associates, was an under secretary during Clinton's tenure at State."


      http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/28/delmaide-wall-street-support-hillary-clinton/30781705/

      Delete
    6. "It is the nature of criticism that you mention what is wrong, not what is good or right."

      @ 6:02

      Why might a majority of the comments bash Somerby?

      There is little good in his posts that is new and has not been repeated more times than you can say Minnie Modo Maddowsketteer?

      Mr. Somerby specializes in denouncing patterns and practices of the press corps while at the same time engaging in them?

      Delete
    7. Fulfill your deepest heart desires!!! (eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com)

      Hello, i just want to share my experience and testimony here.. i was married for 4 years to my husband and all of a sudden another woman came into the picture, he started hailing me and he was abusive but i still loved him with all my heart and wanted him at all cost… then he filed for divorce, my whole life was turning apart and i didn't know what to do; he moved out of the house and abandoned the kids.. So a friend of mine told me about trying spiritual means to get my husband back and introduced me to a spell caster… i decided to try it reluctantly although i didn't believe in all those things… then when this great man Dr Eboehi did the special prayers and spell, after 2days, my husband came back and was pleading he had realized his mistakes.. i just couldn't believe it.. anyways we are back together now and we are happy.. In-case anyone of you is passing through any relationship problem i would advise you to email this Great Man via: eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com or call (208) 627-4749 and live a better life. thanks Sylvia Martin from Texas

      Delete
  2. "Environmental Agency Uncorks Its Own Toxic Water Spill at Colorado Mine"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/us/durango-colorado-mine-spill-environmental-protection-agency.html?_r=0

    No mention of POTUS Obama. Imagine if this occurred during the Bush 43 Administration. The NYT headline would be

    "President Bush Unleashes Yellow Stain On Mother Nature"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This sort of thing did happen under Bush.

      Delete
    2. @ 6:23

      Bush's EPA poisoned the environment it is supposed to protect? Do tell. POTUS Obama is busy spreading sky is falling alarms about global warming being the greatest threat to America while his own EPA has poised the potable water in three states.

      Delete
    3. @ 6:40

      Explain how Bush or his EPA were responsible for a hurricane that hit New Orleans?

      Delete
    4. He was responsible for the corps if engineers who didn't maintain the levees, for ignoring warnings about what would happen if a hurricane did hit, and for the many Fema screw-ups. Then there was his failure of leadership during the crisis itself, flying over and celebrating while people were suffering.

      Delete
    5. cicero's blowup dollAugust 12, 2015 at 7:25 PM

      You can blame Bush and Congress for gutting EPA while you're at it, paid wingnut, if you weren't workin for a livin.

      Delete
    6. @ 7:12

      Thank you. No where in your recounting of how the media did indeed blame Bush 43 for the natural disaster is there any evidence that Bush 43 sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans.

      Yet the Durango-Colorado mine spill was actually initiated by the EPA under POTUS Obama's watch and not caused by a natural disaster. How is it Obama escapes blame?

      BTW: Celebrating while people are suffering, as you characterize Bush 43 during Katrina, POTUS Obama went directly to the golf course on the same day that he addressed the beheading of American journalist James Foley and spoke with his family.

      And In the aftermath of four U.S. Marines being killed by a local Kuwait-born Muslim in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Obama flew to New York City that evening to see Hamilton on Broadway.

      Delete
    7. You think any of those individual tragedies were equivalent to Katrina?

      Delete
    8. @ 7:48

      Perhaps you should inform us what you imagine the death toll to be for a POTUS to not "celebrate" on the day of that tragedy? Could you also explain how flying over the flooded areas is equivalent to playing golf or attending a Broadway play?

      Delete
    9. It is traditional for the president to visit major disaster areas and to suspend recreation to coordinate response. Bush didn't do that. Because so many of the victims were poor and black that seemed especially callous.

      Delete
    10. @ 12:58

      Bush 43 agrees.

      "Former President George W. Bush said it was a "huge mistake" for him to have been photographed during a flyover trip over New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

      Bush acknowledged the famous photograph showing him looking out the window of Air Force One at the damage in New Orleans made him seem detached from the disaster on the ground that was caused by the massive Hurricane.

      Bush said the photo, which became a symbol of his administration's response to Katrina, made him look "detached and uncaring, no question about it."

      "It's always my fault. I mean, I was the one who should have said: 'A) Don't take my picture, B) Let's land in Baton Rouge, La., C) Let's don't even come close to the area.' The next place to be seen is in Washington at a command center. I mean it was my fault," Bush told NBC's Matt Lauer in a special to air Monday evening marking the release of the former president's new book, "Decision Points."

      Bush faced heavy criticism for his administration's response to the hurricane's devastation in New Orleans. Critics said the president was slow to recognize and respond to the massive disaster on the Gulf Coast.

      Bush said he wished, in retrospect, that he had landed in New Orleans. He didn't at the time for fear that first responders would have been forced to handle his arrival instead of disaster relief.

      "In retrospect, however, I should have touched down in Baton Rouge, met with the governor and walked out and said, 'I hear you. We understand. And we're going to help the state and help the local governments with as much resources as needed,'" Bush said. "And then got back on a flight up to Washington. I did not do that. And paid a price for it."

      http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/127865-bush-katrina-flyover-photo-a-huge-mistake

      Delete
    11. Speaking from Alice's Restaurant, an EPA official declared, "I cannot tell a lie. We buried that toxic yellow stuff in the bottom of that old mine!"

      Delete
  3. Today's news that Hillary Clinton had top secret information on her server would seem quite important. It indicates a poor example for other government employees. It might mean that she lied when she said there was no secret info on her server. It might even indicate that a crime was committed. And, she might have harmed the country's security.

    If the Times really was anti-Hillary, they would have put this news in a front page headline. Instead, it was on page A13.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's see. The Times story was generated by a statement from the Clinton campaign, not a source or sources unknown and unaccountable. Sorry, DinC, that is not front page material.

      Delete
    2. David,

      You do understand that there is some dispute between the State Department and the ICIG over whether the material was top secret?

      ***********
      In a statement Tuesday, State Department spokesperson John Kirby noted that the two e-mails determined to have contained top secret material were "not marked as classified" when they were sent between State Department employees and ultimately forwarded to Clinton.

      The two e-mails, from 2009 and 2011, were identified before they were made public as part of the department's monthly releases of Clinton e-mails. "While we work with the Director of National Intelligence to resolve whether, in fact, this material is actually classified, we are taking steps to ensure the information is protected and stored appropriately, Kirby said.
      **************

      Delete
    3. According to The Daily Beast, Hillary's secret material was the highest degree of top secret. Having such material on her personal server is surely serious enough that a truly anti-Hillary news organ would have displayed it prominently.

      These weren’t just ordinary secrets found in Clinton’s private server, but some of the most classified material the U.S. government has....

      Information at the “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN” level is considered exceptionally highly classified and must be handled with great care under penalty of serious consequences for mishandling. Every person who is cleared and “read on” for access to such information signs reams of paperwork and receives detailed training about how it is to be handled, no exceptions—and what the consequences will be if the rules are not followed.

      People found to have willfully mishandled such highly classified information often face severe punishment. Termination of employment, hefty fines, even imprisonment can result.
      In the real world, people with high-level clearances are severely punished for willfully violating such rules. At a minimum, those suspected of mishandling things like NSA “signals intelligence”—intercepts calls, emails, and the like—have their clearances suspended pending the outcome of the investigation into their misconduct. Any personal items—computers, electronics—where federal investigators suspect the classified wound up, wrongly, will be impounded and searched. If it has TOP SECRET//SI information on it, “your” computer now belongs to the government, since it is considered classified.

      People found to have willfully mishandled such highly classified information often face severe punishment. Termination of employment, hefty fines, even imprisonment can result. Yes, people really do go to jail for mishandling classified materials. Matthew Aid, a writer on intelligence matters, served over a year in prison for mishandling TOPSECRET//SI information from NSA, for example.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

      Delete
    4. Damn you, David, you completely ignore the State Department statement I posted and the question I asked you. The you copy some over the top bullshit from the Daily Beast. You don't just have any fucking intellectual honesty and don't give a damn about the facts. You have your wingnut sources and are content to live in your wingnut bubble.

      Delete
    5. He's always been a fake, mm.

      Delete
    6. mm -- as you know I'm no expert in the field of secret clearance. However, one source suggested that these e-mails hadn't been classified Top Secret because the Hillary team hadn't submitted them for such evaluation. If that's the case, then it could be correct that they weren't classified Top Secret, and also correct that they actually contained information of the highest degree of sensitivity.

      Hillary's bizarre decision to handle all these e-mails on her personal server is the root of the problem. We have never had a good explanation of why she did that, since it violated various rules and procedures. The best explanation I recall is the allegation that Colin Powell had previously followed such a practice, which turned out to be false.

      BTW my original point is that a truly anti-Hillary news organ would have given this story more prominence. For an example of how one anti-Hillary organ handled this story, see the Drudge Report. http://www.drudgereport.com/

      Delete
    7. mm -- I found the source of the above explanation of why the e-mails weren't classified.

      Clinton’s spokesperson argued that Clinton couldn’t have been aware that the material was classified because it wasn’t specifically marked.

      But that statement ignores how the process works. The reason government officials with security clearances are required to keep their correspondence on the appropriate government server is so the material can be vetted and classified prior to hitting “send” to an uncleared recipient.
      The CIA goes to such great lengths to protect classified information that it even requires opposing counsel in legal cases to submit their briefs and exhibits for clearance before they can be filed.

      Clinton’s argument is a sham. The reason the documents weren’t marked is because she never submitted them for clearance.

      Moreover, Clinton should have been sufficiently aware of what was “classifiable.”

      Senior government officials frequently discuss highly classified subjects in both formal and informal ways — sometimes without papers or notes containing markings. Think oral briefings, a common occurrence for government officials.

      Nevertheless, they’re obligated to understand the nature of the information entrusted to them and to protect it appropriately.


      http://nypost.com/2015/08/11/hillary-clintons-empty-excuses-on-e-mailing-classified-info/

      P.S. If the New York Times were truly anti-Hillary, I think they would have printed this refutation of Hillary's excuse.

      Delete
    8. This is total B.S. because Clinton was Sec of State not some random staff person.

      Delete
    9. Indeed. Clinton was Secretary of State, not some random staff person. Let's go over a few things which happened before she reached that office.

      Hillary Clinton was a former first lady who went through an investigation in that capacity which required production of substantial records. Her handling of that stirred quite a controversy. She served as a US Senator when the issue of disclosure of classified material (including the name of an intelligence operative) was investigated, and missing e-mails among key government officials created quite a controversy. She ran for President, an office in which the occupant, which she surely learned during her earliest days as a lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon, is not above the law.

      When she became Secretary of State she had ample personal and professional experience to know how she handled her communications was a matter involving legal and political issues of greater significance than "her convenience."

      Delete
    10. David,

      There is so much bullshit in your last two posts.

      Think this through logically please. Read again what the State Department spokesman said,

      "While we work with the Director of National Intelligence to resolve whether, in fact, this material is actually classified, we are taking steps to ensure the information is protected and stored appropriately, Kirby said.

      That means, even now, the State Department does not agree with the ICIG that the material IS classified. So how, pray tell, could this non-existent mythical creature who sits all day "vetting" all emails before the "send" button is hit would have changed anything?

      Second, you ignore the obvious fact that these emails had already been circulated between other State Department employees USING the .gov account, before they were forwarded to the Secretary of State. Therefore, can you not see logically that there is no such thing as this invented mythical creature who sits all day "vetting" emails being sent on the .gov system before allowing the "send" button to be hit?

      Do you not see how preposterous this "news" source of yours is?

      *****
      Clinton Campaign: Emails Originated From "Unclassified .Gov Email System." A fact sheet released by the presidential campaign for the former secretary of state explains that the emails at issue originated on "the unclassified .gov email system":


      Would this issue not have arisen if she used a state.gov email address?

      Even if Clinton's emails had been on a government email address and government device, these questions would be raised prior to public release.

      While State Department's review of her 55,000 emails brought the issue to the Inspectors Generals' attentions, the four emails were on the unclassified .gov email system. They were not on the separate, closed system used by State Department for handling classified communications. [hillaryclinton.com, "Updated: The Facts About Hillary Clinton's Emails," accessed 8/12/15]
      ******
      http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913



      Delete
    11. @mm

      You do realize that Media Matters is HRC's personal propaganda machine as is David Brock Super PAC Correct The Record.

      Now the IG says HRC may have had her minions strip email classification markings.

      Delete
    12. Typical. People answer your questions and you ignore their response because it doesn't cite approved conservative sources.

      Media Matters collects and distributes info. The info comes from other sources that can be independently evaluated. It is true or not regardless of the political beliefs of Brock.

      Conservatives do make stuff up, so perhaps they think everyone else does too.

      Delete
    13. Having followed this site for many years, the current Clinton scandal resembles the pattern from Whitewater. Allegations of wrongdoing are made and an investigation is started. For Hillary it is Benghazi. The result of this investigation has shown no wrongdoing. It was a faux scandal. Who cares? The investigation does find possible wrongdoing on another matter, using her private e-mail. Investigating her now need to continue. Maybe there is something to the story, but it puts her in another scandal. This is the goal. Regardless of the finding, the scandal still lives out in the media and another example of the Clintons bad acts.

      Like her husband, there will be an ongoing investigation of Hillary for years to come. It will go from one scandal to the next and the next and the next. If she does win the presidency, a special commission will be named soon after. Having an ongoing investigation that keeps the allegations of wrongdoing in the headlines is one of the ways the war on the Clintons is played.

      Delete
    14. The scandal is how much taxpayer money is wasted on these politically motivated investigations.

      Delete
    15. @12:25

      Explain how the head of Foggy Bottom keeping TOP SECRET documents on her Chappaqua server is merely partisan politics and not of concern to national security?

      Delete
    16. @ 12:25

      As opposed to POTUS & FLOTUS using two planes to fly to the same destination on the same day.

      Cost of Benghazi investigation to be under $3.3 million.
      Cost to taxpayers of POTUS & FLOTUS separate air travel to L.A. $2.2 million and the FLOTUS trip was for personal reasons.

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/13/politics/barack-michelle-obama-los-angeles-flights/

      Delete
  4. Poor Bob.

    Clinton is corrupt, sleazy, deceitful and, as recently revealed, criminal.

    You can whine, stamp your little feet and work the refs like mad, but none of it will alter these basic facts, nor the reporting which follows from them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome to your new bed, Bob. You made it.

      Delete
    2. Wow, a wingnut @ 2:51.

      And a fool @ 8:58.

      Welcome to internet comments.

      Delete
  5. Fulfill your deepest heart desires!!! (eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com)

    Hello, i just want to share my experience and testimony here.. i was married for 4 years to my husband and all of a sudden another woman came into the picture, he started hailing me and he was abusive but i still loved him with all my heart and wanted him at all cost… then he filed for divorce, my whole life was turning apart and i didn't know what to do; he moved out of the house and abandoned the kids.. So a friend of mine told me about trying spiritual means to get my husband back and introduced me to a spell caster… i decided to try it reluctantly although i didn't believe in all those things… then when this great man Dr Eboehi did the special prayers and spell, after 2days, my husband came back and was pleading he had realized his mistakes.. i just couldn't believe it.. anyways we are back together now and we are happy.. In-case anyone of you is passing through any relationship problem i would advise you to email this Great Man via: eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com or call (208) 627-4749 and live a better life. thanks Sylvia Martin from Texas

    ReplyDelete
  6. Getting my husband back with the help of professional love spell .Dr Brave ??

    I'm very excited sharing this amazing testimony about how i save my marriage and get my husband back today, My name is Becky Miller , I live in Los Angeles, California, I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work.

    ReplyDelete