Supplemental: Walsh gets it right!

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2015

Alter and Hayes see no evil:
Will Biden announce that he’s running this weekend? The pundit corps has been wishin’ and hopin’.

Those pundits! Presumably, they want an exciting race, filled with as many personalities as possible. This allows them to write about personalities, rather than about the issues which they find so boring.

That said, there’s another obvious motive. They want the chance to extend their favorite theme, in which Candidate Biden has authenticity and Candidate Clinton doesn’t.

Those pundits! They initiated this low-IQ theme early in Campaign 2000. By the fall of 1999, Candidates Bradley, McCain and Bush were all said to have high authenticity, while Candidate Gore was a fake.

This year, they’ve re-engineered this favorite them, using the possible Candidate Biden as the vehicle for denouncing Clinton. This theme was threatened by last week’s Maureen Dowd flap, which helps explain why the topic disappeared so fast.

As far as we know, Joe Biden is a perfectly decent person. There’s no reason why he shouldn’t run for president if he wishes—but he does provide the pundit corps with the perfect way to extend their decades-old attacks on the obvious bad character of both Clintons and Gore.

Did Uncle Joe go skulking off to tell his mournful story to Dowd—off the record, with a somewhat nasty Clinton hook thrown in? If so, that might have put their favorite theme in peril. They weren’t eager to discuss the possibility, and they stopped discussing it fast.

Along the way, we got to see our mainstream pundits in action. And how about this? On Tuesday evening’s Chris Hayes program, Joan Walsh got something very right!

Say what? Did a major mainstream pundit actually tell the truth about Maureen Dowd that night? Did she do so in prime time? On national cable TV?

Dearest darlings, it just isn’t done! Potentially, it’s bad for careers! The pundit corps has always deferred to the poisonous, broken-souled Dowd. But on Tuesday evening, right there on our screen, we saw Walsh tell the truth.

Walsh told the truth about Dowd and the Times. This is never done!

As the interview started, Hayes was playing it very safe, as he always does at such times. The corporate star with the massive income potential said he didn't know what to think about the report which had appeared that day in Politico.

Had Joe Biden been the source for Dowd's latest anti-Clinton poison? More strikingly, had he been the source off the record, not for attribution?

Chris Hayes didn't know what to say about this unconfirmed report. But uh-oh! After briefly covering for Biden and Hayes, Joan Walsh made it clear. She did have some things to say about the new report.

Walsh proceeded to tell the truth about Maureen Dowd. At the financial level of Maddow and Hayes, this is never done. For the full transcript, click here:
HAYES (10/6/15): What is going on? I mean, what do you make of this? Honestly, I read that story today and I was like, “That’s a doozy. I don’t know what to do with this.”

WALSH: Well, I don’t know what to do with it either. I have no idea, although when I read the original Dowd column, I thought it sounded like he could be the source for it. Or, you know, he was telling a lot of people this story in a lot of detail and she had—

You know, I think— My heart goes out to Joe Biden. I love the man. He’s entitled to run. He would be a wonderful candidate. It’s a little late, but the reason it’s late is because his son was sick and died.

So I have a hard time holding that against him. What Democrats will hold against him, if he was the source for that story, is taking it to Maureen Dowd, who then turned around and portrayed it, in the most debilitating way to Hillary Clinton, the notion of Biden values being better than Clinton values.

A woman who has attacked not just the Clintons, but his friend Barack Obama, for years and years and years, in the most personal and vicious terms. Why choose her? Why open your test run that way, that’s going to be depicted not as you would be a great candidate, but that this woman would lower the office? That's wrong.
Hayes was too big a coward to do it. But Walsh managed to notice the problem with what Biden was said to have done.

If the Politico report was right, Biden had taken his story to Maureen Dowd, “who has attacked not just the Clintons, but his friend Barack Obama, for years and years and years, in the most personal and vicious terms,” Walsh correctly said.

Walsh even managed to notice the way Dowd’s column had slimed the Clintons. According to the story Dowd told, Joe Biden's dying son had used his last few nouns to slime the Clintons one last time! Why would Biden take his story to this person, Walsh was willing to ask.

Walsh was willing to stand by her guns when Jonathan Alter ran for the bushes. Speaking next, Alter cowered and hid, deferring to Biden and Dowd.

Alter was able to see no evil. Once again, Joan Walsh could:
HAYES (continuing directly): What do you think?

ALTER: I just don’t think that’s what happened. I mean, I know both of them. And he was grieving. I highly doubt that he held a meeting with his staff. “Who should we plant this with? Should it be Maureen Dowd?”

No, they’ve known each other for 25 years, well. I think that they both—they were just having a conversation. I imagine that later, Maureen went back to him or his staff and said, “Can I use this if it’s not attributed?” And they probably were thinking about other things and said, “Sure.”

It doesn’t have the feel to me, I know it looks this way to Politico, but based on my own experience, it doesn't have the feel of a calculated move by Joe Biden to run up a trial balloon with Maureen Dowd shortly after his son died.
Alter said he knows both Biden and Dowd; almost surely, this is the start of the problem. He then began imagining what must have occurred. As always in such circumstances, he imagined it in a way in which no one could be criticized in any way at all—neither Biden nor Dowd.

According to this consummate insider, Biden’s staff was “thinking about other things” when they told Dowd that she could use the story “if it’s not attributed.” They were just completely distracted! So they gave their OK!

Alter was seeing no evil this night. That said, here’s an obvious question which never got asked or answered: Why couldn’t the story have been used for attribution, on the record, with Biden both quoted and named?

Alter didn’t explain that part, and Hayes didn’t ask him. Eventually, it came to this. Walsh stuck by her guns:
WALSH: I actually think that Jonathan and I could both be right about this, in the sense they may well have had a conversation that started out as a private conversation, but then she decided to use it and somebody gave her permission to use it, if indeed that's how it happened. And this is a person who is really responsible for some of the worst narratives about both the Clintons and President Obama in journalism right now.

ALTER: But I don’t think Biden should be held responsible for the fact that Maureen Dowd turned it into an anti-Hillary column.

WALSH: I guess I do.
Alter was seeing no evil this night; throughout the segment, Hayes avoided such conflicts altogether. It was left to Walsh to note the decades-old problem—a problem which always has no name with insiders like Alter around.

Maureen Dowd has been a cancer on the discourse for decades! That said, the New York Times just keeps printing her disordered dreck. And career liberals just keep enabling it.

It’s very, very, very rare to hear true statements about Maureen Dowd. She’s a power at the New York Times, and the New York Times is a major power within the world of overpaid national "journalists."

Dowd has spread poisonous themes for years about both Clintons, about Candidate Gore, and about Biden's pal Obama. Unfortunately, many people are influenced by these themes, even including many liberals. With people like Alter and Hayes around, they never hear the problems with these themes explored.

In early 1999, the many people Alter knows began to say that Candidate Bradley was comfortable in his own skin while Candidate Gore lacked authenticity. Alter kept his trap shut then; so did E.J. and all the others. Now, the popular theme is active again, with Candidate Biden provisionally cast in the Saint Bradley role.

Dowd has sold poisonous, dim-bulb tales for decades—about both Clintons, about Gore and Obama. But people, please grow up!

Biden has known her, well, for decades. Alter knows her too. Beyond that, Biden and Dowd are both Irish.

Chris Matthews says that helps too!

73 comments:

  1. Hoodie and the Polo ShirtsOctober 10, 2015 at 1:15 PM

    Biden and Dowd are both Irish. Beyond that Mexicans are rapists and liberals are lazy, dumb. and of dubious morals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You think being Irish is like being a rapist or dumb or immoral?

      Delete
    2. I think stereotyping is being like the Donald and the Bob.

      Delete
    3. The important thing is to miss the point of the column.

      Blaming Somerby for noting Matthew's take on things is part and parcel of that for any troll worth his salt.

      Delete
    4. Well. @ 12:16, let us see exactly what Bob Somerby, peacock proud, had to say himself before he noted Matthews take on things:

      "Here at THE HOWLER, we’ve long discussed the disproportionate role We Irish have played in the press corps’ endless wars against the Clintons and Gore.
      -------
      But make no mistake—the most disordered Clinton/Gore-haters have tended to come from the disproportionate numbers of We Irish within the mainstream press.

      Joe Klein once noted this same phenomenon. For the most part, you’ll never see this cultural phenomenon discussed within the press corps.

      Last night, Chris Matthews almost went there!"

      http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/10/supplemental-key-points-concerning.html

      Delete
  2. I love it when Chris Hayes plays dumb. He can barely disguise a shit eating grin the whole time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, the shit eating grin is only in mm's memory now.

      "I have now BLOCKED MSNBC on my cable boxes entirely."

      mm 9/10/15 @ 3:26 pm

      http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/09/supplemental-can-candidate-clinton.html?showComment=1441913184033#c5343548394524376800

      Delete
    2. Chris, always struggling to find the right note.

      Delete
    3. @1:51,
      It must bother you terribly that TDH is always right. He smelled this rotten fish long before anybody else did when he first wrote about that Dowd column with the simultaneous Amy Chozick front page story in the same days' paper using Dowd as a source to further catapult the propaganda.

      Delete
    4. It was obvious Bob would smell rotten fish when he observed Dowd was diddling herself on her shag.

      Delete
    5. @ 1:51 here mm.

      Bob, your hero, is always right?

      We take you back to July 28, 2014:

      "Joan Walsh could rather jump off a bridge than criticize or challenge Dowd."

      Forgiving Bob the typo, a number of commenters quickly linked to Walsh pieces which had criticized Dowd.

      The classic comment however was a long blast of Dowd for her attacks on Clinton and Obama. The commenter fessed up he was KZ. But the comment was a 2007 quote from Joan Walsh writing in Salon.

      And, reviewing that classic piece of Somerby's "always right work", sure enough a number of Bob's defenders tried to refute every direct quote that showed your and their favorite blogger was simply spreading both horse manure and gorilla dust.

      http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2014/07/supplemental-sounds-of-silence.html

      Delete
    6. It's amazing how many people agree with TDH that Dowd is a lunatic with a regular column in the paper of record. I wonder why that is.

      Bob was right about that Dowd column. He was right to smell a rat. He was right about the Irish connection. And Bob gave due credit to Joan Walsh for finally speaking out. What's the problem?

      Delete
    7. I saw more people in a grocery store earlier tonight than those who know who Bob Somerby is, much less what his opinion is of Maureen Dowd. And I don't have any doubt why that is.

      Nor do I doubt why Somerby calls liberal lazy and dumb. He reads his fan mail in this comment box. And you are whom he is referring to when he says "We liberals are the problem."

      Bob "gave due credit to Walsh for finally speaking out" you say? Heavens you nincompoop, it was just demonstrated to you that eight years ago this header and byline appeared in Salon:

      "Maureen Dowd slurs the Clintons and the Obamas

      Hillary is Carmela Soprano, even when she's the boss. But Michelle wears the pants in the family while Barack is "Obambi."

      by
      JOAN WALSH"

      And yet your "hero" slimed Walsh seven years later writing:

      "Joan Walsh could rather jump off a bridge than criticize or challenge Dowd."

      Bob was right to smell a rat in the Dowd column?

      If you can pry your head far enough out of your hero's posterior go back and read what Bob was smelling in the first posts he did about Dowd's column. I am sorry but he made more real and veiled references to Dowd masturbating than he did to who the source of the column might be. In fact I can document he made more references to Dowd masturbating (3) than Brian Williams did to Gore's Polo shirts (2) back in that week of "ranting and raving" back in 1999 Somerby has dragged up for sixteen years.

      Sorry mm, Bob's clear belief was that Dowd was inventing all or most of her story about Beau and Joe. He even called it a novel.

      And the Irish connection. Give me a break. The only person who used the word Irish when Bob first wrote about this column was the final commenter in the comment box, who compared the deathbed speech to the George Gip "Win One for the Gipper" speech.

      As late as his post one week ago, when Bob, prompted by a New York Times piece by Brendan Nyhan, suggested there might be phoniness in the continued grieving of Biden, he never suggested there was a "rat" involved in Dowd's work.

      Again it took a commenter to bring up the Catholic connection and the War on Clinton/Gore. This time the commenter was challenged by none other than you, mm. You wrote: "Are you able support that claim, or do you just prefer to change the subject with misdirection and bullshit pulled out of your ass?"

      When the commenter trotted out Bob attacks on the Irish cabal you came around. You spotted the Irish connection in this instance days before Somerby.

      Bob didn't "smell a rat" until Politico ran with the story. Then he simply reran turds he has posted all these years and his fans held them high as if they were pearls of fresh wisdom.

      I suppose when their heads are close to the point at which those turds spring to recycled life that is really no surprise.

      Delete
    8. And despite all this, Dowd is still a piece of work and Biden is off to a poor start if he is actually running.

      You trolls think sliming Somerby somehow changes reality. It doesn't change a thing.

      Delete
    9. I think the "authenticity" narrative may have just blown a gasket.

      Delete
    10. "You trolls think sliming Somerby somehow changes reality"

      You think someone slimed Somerby in this little thread?

      Sliming has been one of Somerby's favorite words in this series about Dowd's Biden column.

      How has Somerby been slimed? By using terms he regularly applies to the work of others to work of his own?

      Delete
    11. I think stereotyping is being like the Donald and the Bob.

      Delete
    12. Dowd is still a piece of work and Biden will not win the nomination. Nothing you say about Somerby changes that.

      Delete
    13. I think you misunderstand both Somerby and me.
      That's partly my fault for being lazy yesterday and not explaining clearly my point. When I said Somerby "smelled a rat" I didn't mean to imply that TDH knew the source was Biden. Even now Somerby won't say that because he is scrupulously honest and can't say he knows for sure. Bob's criticism focused on the NY Times for even printing both Dowd's insanity and then in the same edition printing Amy Chozick's report which used Dowd's column as the source.

      The novel he talks about is the same thing he writes about all the time, how the press creates an approved story line and then they all follow it like lemmings. "Biden is authentic, Clinton is a political calculating phony." That is the current storyline, and they play that up in virtually everything they write about the campaign.

      I'm not quite sure what has you so worked up about Joan Walsh. The examples of her prior criticism of Dowd which were written in her columns are rather weak tea, but I think TDH was more focused on her work on the cable shows where it was clear she held her tongue and never challenged the favored media narrative. TDH apparently gets results, because at least now we saw Walsh speak out on one of the main cable programs even as Jonathan Alter embarrassingly tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube for Biden.

      In any case, I apologize for intruding on your sincere outreach to Mr. Somerby.

      Delete
    14. Nobody was engaging in outreach to Somerby mm. This started with your characterization of the facial expression of someone who appears on a TV channel you claim to have blocked a month ago.

      Delete
    15. "Even now Somerby won't say that because he is scrupulously honest . . ."

      BWAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!

      How old are you anyway? 10? Because I sure haven't seen this degree of fawning, unquestioning hero worship in anyone above the age of 10.

      Have your parents broken the news to you that there really is no Santa? Or the Easter Bunny?

      Delete
    16. Here's a clue for 10:28.

      I think Dowd "is a piece of work" just like you.

      I'm pretty certain that Biden, if he runs, won't win the nomination, but unlike absolutely-certain you, I will still hold out that anything is possible I guess.

      But completely unlike you, my brain still has room for the notion that Bob Somerby is a bitter, old nincompoop who ran out of things to say years ago which explains why his blog now ranks in traffic with Grandma MacGillicuddy's Recipes Blog,

      Delete
    17. http://rediscovermom.blogspot.com/2012/07/grand-pee-paws-oatmeal-cookies.html

      Delete
    18. My Peepaw never talked about ladies "pleasuring themselves." At least not in polite company.

      Delete
    19. My mistake.

      I did not say I say Hayes on the show TDH is reporting on. I was just making a general observation from my prior experience watching him.

      @1:57, I'm probably older than you. It is my experience that the older I get the more I recognize and appreciate those who display intellectual honesty and integrity, such as Bob Somerby, as it is so rare.

      Delete
    20. You are a smug, self-satisfied prick that seems to ossiy with age.

      Delete
    21. Do you mean "ossify"?

      Delete
    22. Ok. I agree with you then.

      Delete
    23. anon 2:10 - I can't help wondering. You say that your "brain" (I'm sure you have one, but it doesn't seem to function particularly well) has "room for the notion that Bob Somerby is a bitter, old nincompoop who ran out of things to say years ago" this explaining, according to you, the diminshed amount of traffic his blog gets (you having gone to the trouble to ascertain that).. Explain again, why do you read the blog if that's your opinion? The world would be, at least to a minuscule extent, a better place if spared yourself the agony.

      Delete
    24. Simple, I get a guilty pleasure out of watching an old nincompoop continue to poop himself on a daily basis.

      And you continue to spend a lot of your life worrying about the reading habits of other people. You ever consider taking your own advice, and stepping away from your computer to get some fresh air? Maybe even meet some real people?

      Delete
    25. Yes, you are guilty - of being a nitwit. Unlike you, apparently, I work for a living.

      Delete
    26. Who doubts FLOTUS wears the pants while POTUS wears the mom jeans? DId you see her look when Obama was flirting with the Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

      http://nypost.com/2013/12/12/obamas-flirt-with-danish-prime-minister-is-a-disgrace/

      Delete
  3. Thanks for the link to the transcript. I wonder why you didn't mention that Hayes called the Politico report a "bombshell" like you did several times in describing his use of that label for a previous New York Times article you didn't like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob agreed with Hayes. So Bob could not let you know. When Bob disagreed with Hayes he wouldn't let you forget it.

      Delete
    2. It would be piling on.

      Delete
  4. Kudos to Walsh for that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You make a good point in this column. But when you include a statement like this "At the financial level of Maddow and Hayes" it sounds like you're jealous that they are on TV making a big salary and you're not. It undermines your credibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh come on. If we were all labeled jealous any time we mentioned that some people are very, very, very rich, and we ourselves are perhaps not, these facts about how rich some people are would never get mentioned. You know who's jealous of someone making $7 million a year? Someone making $5 million a year. Everyone else who makes under $100k/year ain't jealous.

      Would it be preferable for us never to know the wealth and income levels of prominent people in society? Cracker, please.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, but that was not my take/interpretation. It has been a theme of Bob's for a very long time: these millionaire pundits are overpaid hacks and apologists who toe the corporate line.

      Delete
    3. Well, in my experience, Horace, anybody who obsesses so much about what other people make is living a pretty pathetic life of their own.

      Delete
    4. Pointing out that an extremely highly-paid person is not earning their salary, which is all Somerby is doing by citing Maddow's and others' salaries, is not jealous and not being pathetic. They're performing a public service. More people should do it.

      Delete
  6. "Did Uncle Joe go skulking off to tell his mournful story to Dowd"

    Bob, "Don't Call Him 'the Donald'" Somerby

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby is not a journalist. He is a blogger. He can call Biden whatever he wants -- because he is not a reporter.

      Delete
    2. By your authority I can call Somerby a hypocrite. And just did. You are merely a fool.

      Delete
    3. In unmoderated comments, any mouse can squeak. It doesn't make him Shakespeare. He's still just a mouse. So have at it.

      Delete
    4. In an unmoderated blogosphere, any old frog can croak. And he will always draw at least a handful of sycophant fans who think he's Pavarotti.

      Delete
    5. Rats. Frogs. Mice. Rotten fish. No wonder those Asian Tigers are kicking ass.

      Delete
  7. It isn't just this recent Dowd column that is awful. There are so many others. What does it say about Biden that he is a close personal of this person?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot less than it says about you that I helped you stop drinking.

      Delete
    2. So, what does it say about Biden that he let Dowd do this?

      Delete
    3. You have as much idea about what Biden "let Dowd do" as @ 10:44 has about the degree of friendship, if any, between Dowd and Biden.

      Using a Somerby rule of thumb, I would say that is about zero.

      Delete
    4. Biden let Dowd use his son for political gain when he made no statement after Dowd's column appeared. We all winessed her column and his failure to comment. We all have certain knowledge of what he let Dowd say without response.

      Delete
    5. What if it is all true? Maybe Joe's son believed in him like you believe in Hillary and Bob?

      Delete
    6. It doesn't matter whether it is true or not. What kind of person uses a family tragedy for political purposes?

      This is about what Dowd and Joe Biden did, not what Beau Biden believed.

      Delete
    7. What if Bob was right and the source was Hunter Biden? You would have Biden, while mourning one son, renounce another?

      What kind of father does that?

      Delete
    8. What kind of father? That's exactly the point.

      Hunter doesn't have to be mentioned. Biden needed to comment. If Hunter was a loose cannon that reflects as badly on Biden as if he had planted the story.

      Delete
    9. You just want a father to lie about a truth spoken by his son. You just want the dad to leave out that the son was the one lying.

      You obviously were never a parent. Like Somerby. Or a damn lousy one.

      Delete
  8. Yesterday's Huffington Post has a mean-looking picture of Hillary, with the headline: "Hillary Gets Two Key Chances To Quiet Her Skeptics"

    Then article talks about the upcoming debate where she will presumably be able to answer criticisms and set the record straight. Notice the framing -- she is going to silence her opposition, not convince them or convert them or address their concerns or supply information to correct mistaken beliefs. She is going to silence them. They will presumably be sleeping with the fishes, in the way of all silenced opposition. Words evoke images and HuffPo is subtle about this but relentless in presenting an image of Clinton as a nefarious person. Every day, in small ways that have a cumulative effect.

    Cue the trolls to tell us all that the rotating headline is better, or that they cannot find the article. Or to quote Somerby saying that Clinton's supporters are her worst problem -- I'm sure she wishes that were true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Words evoke images. What does paranoid look like? That is what is evoked by you constant reporting on your view of what is in HuffPo.

      Our guess? Well, you know what the great Bob Somerby thinks of some of Hillary's supporters. They are as big a problem as "we liberals." In fact, bigger. No "biggest."

      Delete
    2. I think Hillary Clinton has put out a series of progressive policy proposals in recent days that will likely be highlighted at the debate Tuesday.

      Delete
    3. I think the article talks about more than the debate. The second chance comes the following week, when Clinton will testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. The appearance has long been viewed as an opportunity for her to lay out her side of the story and counter Republican lawmakers who risk the very real chance of overplaying their hand and appearing as if they're on a partisan hunt.

      Delete
    4. "Appearing" they are on a witch hunt? Sorry, but McCarthy already let that cat out of the bag.

      And realize that Secretary Clinton has testified about Benghazi before, and pretty much made mincemeat out of her Grand Inquisitors.

      You think that stopped them?

      Delete
    5. I guess HuffPo was being overly optimistic about Hillary's upcoming chances.

      Delete
    6. I really don't know what to say about the HuffPo article. It was written by Amanda Terkel and Sam Stein. Somerby has never covered them. Are they youngish? Did they go to prep school? Did either intern for Cokie at NPR?

      Delete
    7. "Quieting skeptics" makes her sound defensive, reactive when she has been largely ignoring her critics and focusing on her policy goals in a positive way. It does seem unfair to frame the debate that way. Benghazi is over. The debate will be about Biden and Sanders trying to sound as well prepared as Clinton.

      Delete
    8. The little voices in your head make you think THEY have it in for Hillary. Maybe it is you THEY are after.

      Get help. Your comments make you sound stark raving nuts.

      Delete
    9. Trolls don't do nuance. I get that. Subtle is over your head.

      Just because you've never seen a zebra doesn't mean someone talking about a striped horse is nuts.

      Delete
    10. Someone talking about a zebra in a blog that regularly features imaginary analysts does way too much nuance.

      Delete
  9. Speaking of HuffPo, I hope Bob covers their latest bombshell. It is kind of the reverse of the Biden to Dowd story on sourcing.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ann-coulter-mexican-rapists_561a825be4b0dbb8000eeac8

    ReplyDelete

  10. A broken marriage can be one of the most painful things to heal from and can take a very long time to heal. During these times it can feel like the whole world could light up in flames and it still couldn't compare to the pain inside. My name is Nicole Cottrell form UK, I have been in great bondage for almost 2 years suffering in the hands of a cheating husband, we were happy and leaving well until he meant his old time girl friend and he started dating her outside our marriage before you knew it he stopped caring and taking care of his own family to the extent that he was planning to get married to her and divorce me, i cried and reported him to his family but he never listened to any one but to cut my story short i came in search for a real spell caster who could destroy their relationship and make him come back to me and our 2 kids on my search i saw people making testimony on how their marriage where restored by Chief Nwaluta Mallam Zack i pick his email and i narrated my story to him and he agreed to help me and after performing a spell on the second day both of them had a quarrel and he beat his girlfriend up and he came home begging for me and our little kids to forgive him that his eyes are clear now that he will never do any thing that will hurt his family again and promise to be a caring father and never cheat again. I am so happy that i did not loose him to the girl. all appreciation goes to Chief Nwaluta Mallam Zack for he is a Great spell caster and to whom this may concern if you have a cheating husband or wife or you need your ex lover back again. you can as well email him on { Nwalutaspelltemple@gmail.com } and this man made me to understand that there are only 8 real spell caster in Africa.

    ReplyDelete