Supplemental: Jaime Fuller wins Snapchat endorsement!

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2015

Makes Clinton’s words disappear:
Did Hillary Clinton do something wrong in her behavior with emails?

We can’t really tell you that. But yesterday afternoon, Candidate Clinton made a glaring misstatement.

She took some questions from the press. At one point, she even said this:
CLINTON (8/18/15): Look, I just told Jeff. In retrospect, this didn’t turn out to be convenient at all. And I regret that this has become a cause célèbre. But that does not change the facts. And no matter what anybody tries to say, the facts are stubborn. What I did was legally permitted—number one, first and foremost, OK?
For tape of Clinton’s statement, click here.

Clinton made a blatant misstatement in that highlighted passage. Surely, you can spot it.

Americans, please! The facts aren’t stubborn in our culture; the facts are not stubborn things. That has been true in matters like this for a very long time.

Candidate Clinton’s basic statements don’t seem to be “stubborn” either. Just consider the way New York magazine’s Jaime Fuller reported what Clinton said.

As anyone can see, Clinton flatly denied legal wrongdoing during yesterday’s presser. “What I did was legally permitted,” she boldly said.

She even tried to highlight the statement. She described that statement as “number one, first and foremost.”

“What I did was legally permitted!” We can’t say if that is true, but it seems to dovetail with what the New York Times reported two Sundays ago, in a front-page news report. Fuller may have read it:

“When she took office in 2009, with ever more people doing government business through email, the State Department allowed the use of home computers as long as they were secure...There appears to have been no prohibition on the exclusive use of a private server.”

The New York Times is frequently wrong. But that’s what the famous newspaper wrote. Yesterday, Clinton agreed:

“What I did was legally permitted,” she said.

Clinton said that particular statement was “number one, first and foremost.” But the statement disappeared like a Snapchat post when Fuller got busy at New York magazine.

Fuller quoted the start of the seminal statement we’ve posted. But look where the talented scribe decided to work a deletion:
FULLER (8/19/15): She said earlier of the server that “this didn't turn out to be convenient at all and I regret that this has become such a cause célèbre...I know there's a certain level of, you know, sort of anxiety or interest in this, but the facts are the facts.” She insisted that she never sent or received any materials marked as classified; the government is currently going through her emails looking for materials that may have been classified when sent, and 305 emails have been flagged for further review.
Fuller did let Clinton say this: “the facts are the facts.” But she wasn’t willing to quote her claiming this as a fact:

“What I did was legally permitted!”

Not in Fuller’s house! That particular statement disappeared, not unlike a Snapchat post.

Fuller is four years out of Middlebury. That seems to make her rather young—but she seems to have learned the ways of the guild with impressive speed.

In scandal matters of this type, the facts have never been stubborn. Today, brilliant young scholars of Fuller’s type know to hide basic statements too, even those which are “number one, first and foremost.”

Earth to hustlers like Fuller:

Those who want to clarify this matter must start with that disappeared statement. Did Clinton actually do something which wasn’t “legally permitted?”

Call your former TAs—they’ll tell you! That’s where reporting and analysis of this whole fandango must start.

Fuller cut several corners in her post. At that one point, she seems to have gone for the Snapchat endorsement.

The kids just learn so fast these days! For ourselves, we’ve watched their elders make plays like that for more than twenty-five years!

Another basic question: Fairly deep in Fuller’s comments, a long-standing question is raised once again:

“How is sending emails with a plain-as-day private email address that she gave out to people at State, the CIA, the Pentagon, and Congress hiding something?”

Had everyone seen Clinton’s email address? We don’t know the answer to that. But if everyone had seen her email address, what does it mean that no one told her to dump it, said it wasn’t permitted?

We don’t know the answer to that. That said, we’re seeking clarity here, not the latest in slickness and snark.

53 comments:

  1. Bob, who muses on mainstream "press corps" wins the Snapchat" cherry picker award by focusing his attention on what disappeared from the on-line blog post of "New York" magazine and leaving then WaPo unattended while they wage jihad.

    Of course, despite saying "the heated discussion of “emailgate” begs for clarification" in a post just this morning, Bob Somerby has ignored what the mainstream media has been covering.

    Headlines from the Washington Post today:

    Hillary Clinton won’t say if her server was wiped

    5 mistakes Hillary Clinton made in her latest e-mail press conference

    Headline from August 14

    Clinton’s team went from nonchalant to nervous over e-mail controversy

    But that OK with Tribe Bob. They want to dance around their leader as he tears a new one in the ascots of Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill
    over a "pretend" news story over something he deems "nonsense" to begin with.

    Meanwhile national poll numbers (which don't matter unless they fit what happened in the War on Gore) show Clinton trending poorly.

    Hey, but I am glad to find out some blogger for "New York" graduated only four years ago from Middlebury. Had she gone on to Baltimore public schools she could be a tenured veteran fifth grade teacher by now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see great similarity between the unrelenting attacks on Clinton and your obsession with Somerby.

      Delete
    2. "I see dead people."

      Delete
    3. The average veteran fifth grade teacher probably has a better understanding of the world than the eager to please, born and bred 1%ers currently jockeying for position within the Village.

      Delete
  2. Bob asks,
    Did Hillary Clinton do something wrong in her behavior with emails?
    Then, he quotes Hillary: What I did was legally permitted.

    These are not the same thing.

    Set aside that fact that many experts think Hillary likely did violate various laws. But, of course, she did several things wrong:

    1. Using her personal server violated State Dept. policy.
    2. Stonewalling Congressional committees.
    3. Deleting e-mails while investigations were going on. There's a law, that she voted for, which makes it a crime to delete any record in contemplation of an investigation. In her case, investigations were already going on when she deleted e-mails.
    4. She appears to have violated the Conflict of Interest law as Secretary of State by giving favorable treatment to entities who made big donations to the Clinton Foundation.
    5. She set a terrible example for other employees of the State Dept and the government.
    6. She may have harmed national security by having sensitive material available on an unsecured server.
    7. She apparently allowed others without security clearance to review her e-mails, some of which contained Secret information.
    8. It's possible that foreign nations hacked her server. If they found embarrassing items or worse, these foreign nations might be in a position to blackmail President Hillary Clinton.

    As Sam Spade said to Brigid O'Shaughnessy:

    All those are on one side. Maybe some of them are unimportant - I won't argue about that - but look at the number of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, David, you are mistaken. Most of your points are factually incorrect and have been refuted here several times. You keep posting this crap repeatedly for partisan reasons. You are an annoying troll.

      Delete
    2. Dave the Republican is a tribal shill and not altogether honest.

      Delete
  3. Joe Arpaio's conscienceAugust 19, 2015 at 6:33 PM

    "Set aside that [sic] fact that many experts think Hillary likely did violate various laws."

    Fails to cite or list any.

    "The gaudier the patter, the cheaper the crook." - Sam Spade

    ReplyDelete
  4. Joe -- on Bob's prior post, I linked to an interview with former Justice Dept. Prosecutor Rudy Giuliani. He pointed out quite a few laws that Hillary probably violated.

    Sam said to Bridget, "I won't play the sap for you." Will Democrats play the sap for Hillary?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you read any of the responses to the crap you write? No liberal is going to accept Giuliani as an expert because he is a partisan hack.

      Delete
    2. That's how Dinky rolls - "many" becomes Rudy Guiliani.

      Delete
    3. Until former Justice Dept. Prosecutor Chris Christie says that Hillary Clinton did something wrong I'm not buying any of it.

      Delete
    4. From Polifact -

      Christie said, "I was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state."

      Christie said he received a phone call on Sept. 10, 2001, that began the process of his appointment as the U.S. attorney for New Jersey. However, he wasn’t nominated until months later, and he was sworn into the position until the following year.

      The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate the statement Mostly False.

      Delete
    5. Anon 6:58 -- Here's more stuff you can ignore. A group of special operations veterans and intelligence community officials have formally asked Secretary of State John Kerry to strip former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of her security clearance along with three of her top aides,

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/275194265/OPSEC-Letter-To-Secretary-of-State-John-Kerry

      Let's face it. You aren't going to believe anything or anyone who indicates Hillary did something wrong.

      BTW what is your evidence that Giuliani is a partisan hack? Can you point to a bunch of untruths he told?

      Delete
    6. How about the lies he told his ex wife?

      Delete
    7. @ 8:41

      Wiener is still married to Huma.

      Delete
    8. @ 8:41

      Which ex-wife?

      I think there is more than one. If you won't take my word for it, ask high Catholic official Msgr. Alan Place (Ret.).

      Placa was best man at Giuliani's wedding to second-cousin Regina Peruggi and then assisted Giuliani in getting that marriage annulled over the objections of his wife so that he could marry girlfriend Donna Hannover. Placa served as the priest at the second wedding.

      Delete
    9. David in Cal has indeed posted twice the wise words of wisdom of Rudy Giuliani in this matter. Let us review what this experienced politically appointed prosecutor and moral role model was quoted as saying.

      "Giuliani said that Clinton should have been under investigation two months ago if the Justice Department was acting honorably and apolitically.

      He said that the moment she admitted to destroying or deleting any personal or government records, she should have immediately been subpoenaed.

      "She got a political break nobody else would get," Giuliani stated.

      He added that Clinton should get a criminal lawyer, as she has violated multiple statutes, including those relating to conflict of interest and obstruction of justice.

      "This woman should be the subject of a criminal investigation. She should be in front of a grand jury."

      Let's review how familiar Giuliani is with this process. Here is how it worked for his childhood chum Alan Placa. Placa was the best man at his first wedding who helped arranged its church annulment after it ended in divorce so he could, as priest, preside over Giuliani's second wedding.

      Placa rose from Priest to Monsignor, added a law degree to his resume and was legal counsellor to a Long Island Bishop and in the 1990's part of a three man team who reviewed allegations of sexual abuse against priests.

      In 2002 he was named as one of the abusers and was suspended. A Suffolk County Grand Jury was convened and in 2003 reported a cover up had occurred in Placa's diocese and a number of priests were involved in sexual abuse, including an unnamed Priest F. None could be indicted due to the statute of limitations.

      One of the victims who testified came forward and named Placa as Priest F.

      Giuliani stood by his man. He got his suspension lifted so he could preside as priest at his mother's funeral, as he had done for his dad and at the baptism of his two children (Rudy's second marriage did not cause his excommunication since his first was church annulled).

      But Rudy G. did more than just stand by the suspended priest. He hired him to work for his firm, Giuliani Partners.
      This is what he had to say:

      "We give some of the worst people in our society the presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt," Giuliani said. "And, of course, I'm going to give that to one of my closest friends."

      In 2009 the Catholic Church, after a seven year secret process, found the Msgr. who presided over what a grand jury in Long Island called a cover up of criminal sexual abuse for the church and engaged in criminal acts himself, "not guilty."

      Yes, David in Cal, you picked an experienced man to speak about such matters.

      Next time you want to pick a child molester's pal as your expert, let us know.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385

      http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/20/nyregion/li-monsignor-scorns-jury-insisting-he-is-no-monster.html

      http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/112007_rudy_placa_what_you_should_know.html

      http://www.salon.com/2007/06/22/placa/

      Delete
  5. "Legally permitted" - gee, I miss the 90s

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We here, on this sprawling campus, bet you do.

      Delete
  6. Dave in Cal's claim's of Clinton's law-breaking:
    "It's possible that" and "She apparently" and "She appears to have violated" and "She may have" are ridiculous.

    It's possible that you typed these allegations while rubbing on your thighs and dreaming of a stained-blue dress. One can put anything their imagination allows after such useless clauses. We've learned that people do have wild imaginations when it comes to anything Clinton. Get back to us when you have something that exists outside of your dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is it passé to think the President should follow the rules and speak honestly? One Democrat doesn't think so.

    “I think if she intentionally misled or lied to the American people and did something that was clearly against the rules, and knowingly did it against the rules, if that is the ultimate conclusion, then I think she has disqualified herself,” Representative John Yarmuth (D., Ky.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two pretty big "ifs" there David in Cal.

      He isn't as definitive as you previous expert, the pervert's pal, Rudy Giuliani.

      Delete
    2. From Insider Louisville (6/22/15):

      [In deciding to seek re-election] Yarmuth said that with the current conservative makeup of Congress, his key issues of campaign finance reform, universal background checks for gun purchases, and comprehensive immigration reform appear unlikely to pass in the next two years. Despite the political landscape, he said he wants to make sure those progressive positions have advocates, and he expressed hope such policies could advance in 2017 if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency and Democrats make gains in the next congressional elections.

      Delete
  8. David,

    Why do you keep spreading bullshit?


    ******************
    In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it).

    Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.

    Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.

    "Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation," said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation. "There may be a stronger argument about violating the spirit of the law, but that is a very vague area."
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rhetorical question, right?

      Delete
    2. Not necessarily.

      In the next thread mm may whine that David in Cal didn't answer his question. It has happened before.

      Even if David weighs in in response to this query with more pearls of prosecutorial punditry from the pervert's pal, Rudy "Three Weddings" Giuliani, mm may pronounce himself unanswered.

      Delete
    3. The proverbial itch that can't be scratched.

      Delete
  9. mm - Judge Napolitano -- a Democrat -- explains some of Hillary's legal problems

    Part 1
    While the scandal surrounding the emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton during her time as U.S. secretary of state continues to grow, Clinton has resorted to laughing it off. This past weekend she told an audience of Iowa Democrats that she loves her Snapchat account because the messages automatically disappear. Not everyone is laughing.

    Clinton admits deleting 30,000 government emails from her time in office. She claims they were personal, and that because they were also on a personal server, she was free to destroy them. Yet, federal law defines emails used during the course of one’s work for the federal government as the property of the federal government.

    She could have designated which of the government’s emails were personal and then asked the government to send them to her and delete them from government servers. Instead she did the reverse. She decided which of her emails were governmental and sent them on to the State Department. Under federal law, that is not a determination she may lawfully make.

    Yet, the 55,000 emails she sent to the feds were printed emails. By doing so, she stole from the government the metadata it owns, which accompanies all digital emails but is missing on the paper copies, and she denied the government the opportunity to trace those emails.

    When asked why she chose to divert government emails through her own server, Clinton stated she believed it would enable her to carry just one mobile device for both personal and governmental emails. She later admitted she carried four such devices.

    Then the scandal got more serious, as Clinton’s lawyers revealed that after she deleted the 30,000 emails, and printed the 55,000 she surrendered to the feds, she had the server that carried and stored them professionally wiped clean.

    She had already denied routing classified materials through her server: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. … [I] did not send classified material.”

    Then, the inspector general of the State Department and the inspector general of the intelligence community, each independent of the other, found four classified emails from among a random sample of 40.

    Then the State Department inspector general concluded that one of the four was in fact top secret. Since it discussed satellite imagery of a foreign country and since it revealed intercepts of communications among foreign agents, it received additional legal protections that were intended to assure that it was only discussed in a secure location and never shared with a foreign government, not even an ally.

    When Clinton was confronted with these facts, she changed her explanation from “I did not send classified material” to “I never sent or never received any email marked classified.” Not only is she continually changing her story, but she is being deceptive again. Emails are not “marked classified.” They are marked “top secret” or “secret” or “confidential.” Her explanations remind one of her husband’s word-splitting playbook.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Part 2



    Last weekend the State Department located 305 of her undeleted emails that likely are in the top secret or secret or classified categories.

    What should be the consequence of her behavior with the nation’s most sensitive secrets?

    If Clinton is indicted for failure to secure classified information, she will no doubt argue that if one of the above markings was not on the email, she did not know it was top secret. If she does make that incredible argument -- how could satellite photos of a foreign country together with communications intercepts of foreign agents possibly not be top secret? -- she will be confronted with a judicial instruction to the jury trying her.

    The judge will tell the jury that the secretary of state is presumed to know what is top secret and what is not. The only way she could rebut that presumption is to take the witness stand in her own defense and attempt to persuade the jury that she was so busy, she didn’t notice the nature of the secrets with which she was dealing.

    Not only would such an argument be incredible coming from a person of her intellect and government experience, but it begs the question. That’s because by using only her own server, she knowingly diverted all classified emails sent to her away from the government’s secure venue. That’s the crime.

    Will she be indicted?

    Consider this. In the past month, the Department of Justice indicted a young sailor who took a selfie in front of a sonar screen on a nuclear submarine and emailed the selfie to his girlfriend. It also indicted a Marine who sent an urgent warning to his superiors on his Gmail account about a dangerous Afghani spy who eventually killed three fellow Marines inside an American encampment. The emailing Marine was indicted for failure to secure classified materials. Gen. David Petraeus stored top-secret materials in an unlocked desk drawer in the study of his secured and guarded Virginia home and was indicted for the same crimes. And a former CIA agent was just sentenced to three years in prison for destroying one top-secret email.

    What will happen if the FBI recommends that Clinton be indicted and the White House stonewalls? Will FBI Director Jim Comey threaten to resign as he threatened to do when President George W. Bush wanted him to deviate from accepted professional standards? Will Clinton get a pass? Will the public accept that?


    Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're funny, David. First Rudy, now Judge Napolitano. FOX Nooze Anthony Napolitano?

      Let me ask you a question, David.

      Right now, today. Let's say Secretary Kerry using his state.gov email account sends an email to one of his daughters. Who do you think decides if and when to delete that email?

      The same question applied to any other employee at the state department. What do you think?

      Delete
  11. Andrew Napolitano is a Christofascist libertarian you dolt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From Wikipedia:

      Napolitano splits his time living in Manhattan and Newton, New Jersey where he owns a farm that produces maple syrup.[16] He has been associated with many popular and political figures, such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ralph Nader, Mike Lee, Geraldo Rivera, George Will, Nat Hentoff, Bill O’Reilly, Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, and Nick Gillespie.

      Delete
    2. You have a point, Sparky. I thought he had been identified as a Democrat on TV, but perhaps I was wrong.

      What do you think of his legal analysis?

      Delete
    3. @ 1:32 Please identify each item in the quote David in Cal used which demonstrates elements of Chistofascist libertarianism.

      If you don't, you are the dolt.

      Delete
    4. @ 2:46

      Gibberish

      Delete
    5. DinC...here is my analysis of Judge Andy

      "that likely are...If...if...If...will she...what will happen if....Will...Will....Will ?"

      That said, he has no perverted priests on the payroll that I know of. But perhaps I was wrong.

      Delete
    6. @ 2:49 happily enters the smallest brain competititon with cicero. Use of the complex epithet Christofascist libertarian may be something he/she cannot overcome.

      Delete
    7. Perhaps Sparky's judgment of Judge Napolitano is based on the people with whom he has (reportedly) been associated. As I recall Guilt by Association was a deplorable tactic used by red-baiters 65 years ago.

      Delete
    8. Dinky the mind reader.

      Delete
    9. @ 3:02

      You got your numbers mixed up. Obviously you meant 2:46.

      Delete
    10. No. I meant the small brainer who used the term Christofascist Libertarian then, when challenged, could not identify anything in Napolitano's nonsense that fit that description and thus fell back on the intellectual response of "gibberish" to cover the emptiness in his or her noggin.

      Perhaps, @ 5:28, you could help poor @1:32/2:49 out.

      Delete
    11. It's too late to apologize 5:52.

      Delete
    12. Sparky, Wikipedia left out Glenn Beck. I watched that show once and the "judge" was his guest, as he and Glenn gave the audience a "lesson" in constitutional law, tea party style. Napolitano is a total right wing clown.

      Delete
  12. Another judge weighs in:

    A federal judge said Thursday that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unique email arrangement broke “government policy”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/20/court-clinton-emails-broke-government-policy/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And as we all know, violating a policy is not violating a law. What a pathetic troll.

      Delete
  13. The 'Clinton Rules' mandate that unless there's an indictment, they are to be considered cleared and guiltless. Certainly, discussions of whether this president-to-be used good judgment in the choices she made while SOS are beyond the pale.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fascinating:
    IOKIYAR

    ************
    In fact, the department refers to a past fight over former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's notes, as Josh Gerstein points out. Notes and tapes of Kissinger's conversations were sent to the Library of Congress — rather than leaving them to the State Department — restricting their public access. FOIA requests were denied by the State Department because they were under the aegis of the Library of Congress. Kissinger declined to turn the documents over to archivists' requests.

    What's more, the Supreme Court held that the Kissinger documents did not have to be turned over under FOIA — even though they were notes taken while Kissinger was at State — because State did not have possession of them.

    Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in 1980:



    "We hold today that, even if a document requested under the FOIA is wrongfully in the possession of a party not an 'agency,' the agency which received the request does not 'improperly withhold' those materials by its refusal to institute a retrieval action. When an agency has demonstrated that it has not 'withheld'requested records in violation of the standards established by Congress, the federal courts have no authority to order the production of such records under the FOIA."
    *****************

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That will certainly counter a 30 second spot with Clinton in her shades looking at her cell phone saying "I opted for convenience."

      Delete
  15. Since George W Bush was appointed by the Lord working through the hearts and minds of 5 of the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court in 2000, we must assume and presume that GWB and all who worked for him were the instruments of our God here on Earth. That's how we know that when the GWB White House destroyed more than 5,000,000+ emails, ALL work produced in the White House and the Executive Office Building between 2005 and 2008 by all persons using information technology, and when they cleared all hard drives upon hundreds of PC's and servers, that was God's will.

    Unlike George W Bush who was appointed by God, it is accepted Republican doctrine that the Clintons, Hillary and Bill both, are the agents of Satan here on earth. Let us assume and presume that any time Hillary does anything she does so for a nefarious purpose. Let her be investigated forever and ever, amen. Let her be prosecuted for everything and anything that might possibly be discovered. How do we possibly know that her soul is NOT as pure as that of Karl Rove or Dick Cheney? We know her to be stained with the sins of Bill Clinton. He was and is hardly a paragon of virtue like Dick Cheney. What more do we need to know to justify going after Hillary Clinton's emails and going after her?

    ReplyDelete
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Unimaginable and unbelievable. I am Mary Ken from the United States and i have a good news to share to the entire world. Do you need your ex husband or lover urgently? I wanna tell you that you need not to worry because i have a good news for those out there that are faced or similar to such situation because there is always a hope and a solution to all problem. There is a great spell caster called Dr Miracle who can really solve all your problems. Getting my lover back is what i can't imagine but when I was losing Mike, I needed help and somewhere to turn badly but my Cousin told me about this spell caster who also helped her on the internet. I thought it won't work but i just tried to give this man a chance and i ordered a LOVE SPELL. Two days later, my phone rang. Mike was his old self again and wanted to come back to me! Not only come back, This is truly miraculous and the spell caster opened him up to know how much I love and needs him. This Spell Casting isn’t brainwashing, but he opened up his eyes to know how much love we have to share together. I recommend anyone who is in my old situation to try him because he will help you and make things be the way it ought to be. If you have such problem or similar to this, please contact him on his email: homeoflightandsolution@yahoo.com thank you Dr Miracle in fact you are miraculous and may your gods ever reward you for your good deeds..

    ReplyDelete