Was Hillary Clinton "extremely careless?"

MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2016

Post bungles the basics again:
When she was secretary of state, was Hillary Clinton "extremely careless" in her email practices?

More specifically, did she send or receive 110 emails which contained classified information, as James B. Comey said in a July 5 statement, then again in congressional testimony on July 7? Should she and her associates have known that the material in question, by its very nature, was classified information?

(Additional question: Did Clinton send or receive three additional emails which were marked "classified?" In our view, this additonal question seems to have been settled in a way which is unflattering to Comey. The question about the 110 emails is the stronger remaining question.)

Silly us! We're still curious about the answers to these questions! But as we've often noted, serious discussion no longer exists within our journalistic culture. Beyond that, information and facts play little role in our national discourse.

Last Friday, the Washington Post helped demonstrate these points. (So did NBC Nightly News and the PBS NewsHour.) Here's how the bungling went down at the Post:

At midday Friday, Clinton spoke to a national association of journalists. She answered several questions about what Comey has said.
At 2:57 that afternoon, the Washington Post published its first news report concerning Clinton's new statements. And uh-oh! In just her fourth paragraph, the Post's Abby Phillip composed a statement which was, at best, grossly misleading.

Here's the way Phillip's report began. No link is available. Original headline included:
PHILLIP (8/5/16): Clinton acknowledges misspeaking about FBI director’s testimony

Hillary Clinton on Friday acknowledged that she had misspoken in two recent media interviews
when she claimed that FBI Director James Comey had characterized as "truthful" all of her public statements about her controversial use of a private email server as secretary of state.

Clinton explained that Comey was referring only to her interviews with the FBI—but she also insisted that all of her other public statements on the matter have been consistent with those interviews.

“I may have short-circuited and I will try to clarify,” Clinton told reporters at a convention of black and Hispanic journalists in Washington Friday.

Clinton also made a reference to Comey's testimony on the existence of about 100 emails that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received—but she continued to suggest, contrary to Comey's description, that they were not marked classified at the time and were retroactively classified.
Phillip noted that Clinton had acknowledged recent mistakes. But in just her fourth paragraph, she seemed to make a glaring error about the emails in question.

Phillip referred to "Comey's testimony on the existence of about 100 emails that [allegedly] contained classified information at the time they were sent or received." According to Phillip, Clinton had "continued to suggest, contrary to Comey's description, that they were not marked classified at the time and were retroactively classified" (our emphasis).

Lodged in that statement by Phillip was a major bungle.

Good lord! In fact, Comey never said or suggested that the 110 emails in question were "marked classified at the time." In fact, he has specifically said that these 110 emails didn't contain any such "markings."

Comey has only alleged that an additional three of Clinton's 30,000 emails contained any "markings." This basic fact was completely obscured by Phillip's presentation.

Everybody makes mistakes—but Phillips' original presentation was grossly misleading. It's hard to believe that the Post could have published such an obvious bungle, but publish the bungle they did.

At some point, someone apparently noticed! At 5:02 that same afternoon, the Post replaced Phillip's original report with a new, revised version. This new version of Phillips' report also appeared in Saturday's hard-copy Post.

In this revised version of the report, the Post eliminated the most misleading part of Phillip's original presentation. But the highlighted passage shown below is still grossly misleading. This is the text which appeared in Saturday's hard-copy Post:
PHILLIP (8/6/16): In an effort to clarify her most recent statements about her use of a private email server as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton on Friday only further muddled a controversy that has dogged her presidential candidacy from the start.

Clinton acknowledged that she had misspoken in two recent media interviews when she claimed that FBI Director James B. Comey had characterized as "truthful" all of her public statements about her use of a private email server.

She explained that Comey was referring only to her interviews with the FBI—but she also insisted that all of her other public statements on the matter have been consistent with those interviews.

“I may have short-circuited, and I will try to clarify,” Clinton told reporters Friday at a convention of black and Hispanic journalists in Washington.

Clinton also made a reference to Comey's testimony on the existence of about 100 emails containing classified information at the time they were sent or received—but she continued to suggest they were not marked classified at the time and were retroactively classified.
Even as the Post eliminated Phillip's most misleading presentation, her lede became snarkier and more critical of Clinton. And uh-oh:
Even in this amended version of Phillip's report, the highlighted passage is at best grossly misleading.

According to Phillip, Clinton "continued to suggest" in her Friday remarks that "[about 100 emails containing classified information] were not marked classified at the time and were retroactively classified" Rather plainly, this implies that some sort of dispute exists about that "suggestion."

But no such dispute has ever existed, and no such dispute exists now. More specifically, Comey has only said that three of Clinton's emails were "marked" as being classified. Even Phillip's revised report conveys a quite different impression—an impression which is much more damaging to Clinton.

Everybody makes mistakes, but not all mistakes are born equal. A full month after Comey's public statements, it's amazing to think that the Washington Post still can't produce clear reports about what the god has said.

The irony here is obvious. Last Friday, Clinton was acknowledging that she had misrepresented something Comey said in early July. Even as Phillip snarked at Clinton, she herself produced a grossly misleading account of what Comey said.

We return to our original question:

When she was secretary of state, was Hillary Clinton "extremely careless" concerning 110 emails? Incomparably, inquiring minds at this site would still like to know.

(In our view, the question seems to be settled about three "marked" emails—settled in a way which reflects poorly on Comey rather than on Clinton.)

We'd like to know if Hillary Clinton really was "extremely careless" with those 110 emails! That said, the Washington Post still seems unable to produce a clear account of the basic things Comey has said. Could a newspaper which seems so unclear on the basic facts help resolve that question?

Last Friday, Phillip penned two grossly misleading accounts. Her editor or editors didn't notice, and the second misleading account went into the hard-copy Post.

Meanwhile, does anyone here know how to play this game? Tomorrow, we'll show you the pair of questions to which Clinton was responding last Friday.

The questions came from Kristin Welker. How clear is she on the basic facts about what Comey has said?

Who is Abby Phillip: She's Harvard class of 2010. We'd assume she's a very nice person.

We can't describe her unnamed editor or editors, assuming such people exist.

50 comments:

  1. I would say a Secretary of State who conducted government business on a home server was "extremely careless".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Life is all about good and bad experience
      Life is all about good and bad experience. It was all good and lovely when i met joelly, she was a good business woman until things become rough for her and her business empire started liquidating. I was a very courageous and hardworking man so i decided to sell my inheritance to assist . We both struggle together and built the business world again. This time around the business was growing from strength to strength. I was surprise one Sunday evening when she came home with her secretary and told me that we cannot continue with this pretense called love. I was shocked and heart broken, i was in a friend, house for three weeks frustrated until i met Fernando my old friend at the supermarket, he directed to me to Dr saka. I contacted saka and he told me that Joelly was been manipulated by some spiritual power and he told me to provide some items which he is going to use to destroy the evil spirit. I never believe in voodoo but i had to give him a trial. To my greatest surprise, Joelly called and started apologizing 2 days after i sent Dr. Saka the email. I am very happy and will continue to be happy for the good work the Saka has done in my life. Problems are been solved when good people like Saka are on this planet, please contact him through ultimatespearcast@gmail.com if you need any support in any problems in life. I love Dr Saka ... :)


      Delete
  2. I would Secretary of state used private server because it was more secure than the government issue is extremely careful. She should be commended for that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say a politician who went through what Clinton did as First Lady, watched the Bush controversy over private e-mails in the US Attorney firing fiasco, and still harbored Presidential ambitions was pretty foolish to use a private e-mail server for a government business in a public position as important and sensitive as Secretary of State.

      Delete
    2. This, despite the fact that everyone else was already doing it?

      Delete
  3. I would say it's time to unite around Hillary. Never Trump!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Harvard gave us mass killer Kissinger too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For Hillary and her staff to discuss Shahram Amiri on their personal e-mails was extremely careless. Not only was an ally of the US executed, but Hillary's irresponsible action will discourage others in positions of danger from coming forward to help the US

    The release of Clinton’s emails last year by the State Department appeared to have been damning for Amiri. A number of emails sent to the then secretary of state appeared to support claims that he was a defector.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/07/iran-executes-nuclear-scientist-shahram-amiri-returned-country-from-us

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey asshole, Clinton didn't make them public, the State Department did in answer to FOIA requests, and only after being thoroughly painstakingly reviewed by all intelligence agencies.

      Why do you continue to pollute this site with your bullshit?

      Even your own source proves how full of shit you are:

      **********
      But ABC News reported in March 2010 that he had defected to the US as part of an intelligence coup aimed at undermining Iran’s nuclear programme. That report said he had been extensively debriefed by the US authorities.
      ***********

      So, if ABC News reported his defection in 2010, it must not have been a secret when her email was released in 2016.

      Delete
    2. The FOIA requests were made by a right-wing astroturf organization in an attempt to support bogus claims that future-President's Clinton botched Benghazi and then orchestrated a coverup post-Benghazi.

      Of course, that lying liar of a troll David in Cal conveniently ignores all this when accusing future-President Clinton of being a murderer.

      Delete
    3. Soapy and mm -- Clinton put on her personal, unprotected e-mail account a name that needed to be kept secret. That was extremely careless.

      Now, the State Dept. was also extremely careless in making this person's name public. But, the State Department's carelessness doesn't erase Hillary's carelessness.

      Delete
    4. State Dept. server = hacked; no evidence that HLC's server was hacked. But you keep pretending that facts don't matter.

      Delete
    5. No, David, you're still wrong.

      Did you even read your own linked article?

      1) The man's name was never used in the emails.

      2) The emails were all sent *to* the Secretary of State by career State Department professionals from their UNSECURED state department email addresses which have been hacked numerous times already.

      3) The emails were released because your right wing traitorous bastard friends demanded to see them, do you fucking remember. Those emails never would have seen the light of day but for you fucking foaming dogs demanding to see them.

      4)The story about this scientist being referred to in those emails was put out by CNN almost a year ago.

      Cryptic Clinton emails may refer to Iranian scientist
      By Courtney Fennell, CNN
      Updated 1512 GMT (2312 HKT) September 2, 2015


      This is transparently a desperate effort by you and your sick right wing sources to keep the email story going on some manufactured pretext with no basis in fact or logic.

      It may work on your weak willing mind, but not those with critical thinking skills.

      Delete
    6. And furthermore asshole, the State Department did not make the man's name public. The man's name has been public since he claimed to defect in 2010, was given $5000000 by the CIA and then went back to his country on his own volition, where he was later imprisoned for approximately the last 4 years.

      Secretary Clinton's emails were released by the State Department after going through a thorough examination by the NSA, CIA, DOD and all other intelligence agencies.

      They didn't stop the release. I blame you, asshole.

      Delete
    7. Hillary's defenders appear to hold two contradictory opinons:

      Hillary Clinton had no sensitive material in her e-mails.

      Hillary Clinton did have sensitive material in her e-mails, but it's the Republicans' fault that it got released.

      Delete
    8. You really are a dumb ass.
      Who said it was sensitive?
      The intelligence agencies obviously did not think so because the documents were released to the public last year unredacted.

      This poor scientist that was just executed had been in Iranian prison for years before the emails were released.
      I think you could safely say the Iranians knew about him.

      World wide news organizations had published stories about him for going on 6 years.

      Really pathetic David to desperately try to force this illogical tendentious link to her daily work communications with State Department pros.

      Why don't you read what the former CIA Director Michael Morell had to say about Secretary Clinton based on his personal experience:

      ***************
      MORELL: But I think there's a bigger issue here. I think there's a bigger issue here, right? I worked with her for four years very closely when she was secretary of state and I was at the CIA. I provided her—personally provided her some of the most sensitive information that the Central Intelligence Agency has. She never misused it. She always protected it. I would trust her with the crown jewels of the United States government. And, more importantly, I would trust her with the future security of the country and the future security of my kids.
      ******

      You and your band of treasonous ratfuckers aren't going to win this argument.

      Delete
    9. mm, David deserves all the obscenities you hurl at him, but they don't add anything to your already strong arguments.

      Delete
    10. Disagree, Caesar! They add spice to the already strong arguments. Obscenity appears to be a subjective phenomenon, I see none in mm's postings. =)

      Delete
    11. mm -- I concede that you're smarter and more knowledgable than I, and you're a better debater. However, nothing can change the fact that Hillary ignored the Obama White House instruction to use the official government e-mail. She did so for her own selfish benefit. She thereby increased the risk that sensitive information would be hacked by our enemies. Whether or not her decision damaged the country may be impossible for you and me to determine. (See P.S. below for one expert who thinks she did damage the country.) But, if her behavior didn't damage the country, that was merely luck.

      P.S. Former Navy SEAL and former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince thnks Hillary bears some responsibility for Amiri's execution. He faults the e-mails but he also faults the State Department's overall handling of Amiri.
      “The physicist that came out, he defected, he was a treasure trove of information, but the CIA and the Clinton State Department botched it while he was in the States, left him pretty much unsupported,” Prince replied, calling it a major mistake to leave Amiri’s family in Iran.

      “The second time he calls home, the Iranian intelligence service answers the phone. Undoubtedly, they leveraged him. When the guy talks about psychological trauma here in the United States, I’m sure it’s because the Iranians were telling him all the things they were going to do to his family if he didn’t come home,” said Prince.

      “Once again, the administration screwed it up. He goes home; of course, he’s arrested. And then Hillary’s emails, which were in the open, certainly readable by foreign powers, were talking about Hillary’s so-called friend, who was a defection, and not an abduction, as the guy was claiming,” he added.

      http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/08/08/erik-prince-hillary-clinton-playing-fast-and-loose-with-national-security-very-likely-caused-iranian-nuclear-scientists-death/

      Delete
    12. Breitbart?!!

      BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

      Delete
    13. Erik Prince? The mercenary? No, I don't think we can count on him as a reliable source for anything.

      Delete
    14. As if the CEO of Blackwater doesn't have blood on his hands (from Wikipedia):

      On September 16, 2007, employees of Blackwater Security Consulting (since renamed Academi), a private military company, shot at Iraqi civilians killing 17 and injuring 20 in Nisour Square, Baghdad while escorting a US embassy convoy. The killings outraged Iraqis and strained relations between Iraq and the United States. In 2014, four Blackwater employees were tried and convicted in U.S. federal court; one of murder, and the other three of manslaughter and firearms charges.

      Blackwater guards claimed that the convoy was ambushed and that they fired at the attackers in defense of the convoy. The Iraqi government and Iraqi police investigator Faris Saadi Abdul stated that the killings were unprovoked. The next day, Blackwater Worldwide's license to operate in Iraq was temporarily revoked. The US State Department has said that "innocent life was lost" and according to the Washington Post, a military report appeared to corroborate "the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault." The Iraqi government vowed to punish Blackwater. The incident sparked at least five investigations, including one from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI investigation found that, of the 17 Iraqis killed by the guards, at least 14 were shot without cause.

      Leave it to D in C to use this scumbag's opinion for authority that Hillary Clinton "likely caused" Amiri's death.

      Delete
    15. What's your point, 8:06? Some Blackwater people were responsible for that tragedy. How does that fact impinge on Eric Prince's credibility?

      The fact is, there was a screw-up. The US had the good luck to have an Iranian scientist give us useful information. Our State Dept. should have found a way to keep him and his family safe. They failed to do so.

      Delete
    16. I think 8:06's point is that you have no credibility.

      Delete
    17. "The fact is, there was a screw-up" DinC sez.


      Only in the impenetrable bubble world created just for you by professional propagandists is that a "fact".


      Delete
  6. John Oliver provided a partial explanation for journalist mistakes on his show last night. They are being asked to do far too much, especially in support of digital operations (blogging, commenting, tweeting) and don't have sufficient time to chase down details and eliminate errors, including typos.

    He urged us to support print journalism because it is the foundation of all media. It isn't clear whether we can best do that by correcting their mistakes or by ignoring them (giving them a pass because their job is too difficult to do well any more).

    Somerby hints that there may not be editors any more -- gone in one of the rounds of layoffs ad budget cuts as print journalism struggles to find a sound way of making itself financially viable. Maybe this is something government needs to help fund, since it is clearly in the public good to have an active press but consumers don't seem to want to pay for it individually. Like orphan drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Hill is suggesting that Julian Assange outed Bill Maher in a contribution of $1 million to a Hillary PAC ("Clinton-related entity" which could also be the Clinton Foundation for all we know). Maher didn't deny it but deflected to his Obama contribution. The Hill thinks such a donation and his unwillingness to admit it would undermine Maher's credibility.

    I think Assange is showing animosity toward Maher and Clinton and has been using WikiLeaks to pursue a personal agenda, not for the public good. When WikiLeaks serves partisan purposes, how can they claim that revealing personal info is justified by the public good? Campaigns must reveal donor info, but not PACs.

    Perhaps Maher feels it would be unhip to endorse Clinton but he has definitely attacked Trump and stated that voting for Hillary is necessary to defeat Trump. What "credibility" is involved in outing a contribution that would achieve that end?

    How free are media figures when someone like Assange can root through their underwear drawers and publicize or blackmail using whatever they find?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Hill is wrong.
      Watch the Bill Maher interview again. After Maher says that he gave a million to Obama in 2012, Assange asks, "Is there another million dollars going to Hillary?"
      Maher replies, "Fuck no. I can't give a million dollars every time somebody runs for president."
      Now, perhaps Maher is lying, but his definitive reply cannot be classified as deflection by any stretch of the imagination.

      Delete
    2. Assange under pressure, said he was working on hacking Trump's Tax Returns. Later, he said he was kidding on a comedy show. Pussy move from a weasel.

      Delete
    3. Please, Greg. Not on World Cat Day.

      Delete
    4. As far as I know, Assange/Wikileaks doesn't hack, they publish hacked material. May seem like splitting hairs, since they obviously collude with hackers, but there is a distinction.

      Delete
  8. It is astounding how the WP and Glenn Kessler in particular bungled or intentionally misrepresent what Secretary Clinton said on Fox.

    This was really very simple, I think most 6th graders would comprehend.

    1. Secretary Clinton justifiably responded to Chris Wallace's completely misleading presentation by pointing out that when asked directly Comey stated that Clinton was truthful to the FBI.

    2. She then added, parenthetically, that what she told the FBI was consistent with what she had been telling the public all along.

    3. Back to the hearing: At the hearing, Comey responded to a question about whether Clinton was truthful with her statements to the public by saying that he could not comment on that question. Trey Gowdy, a lawyer, and the one who had asked the question knew Comey could not comment on that but asked it anyway.

    4. Immediately after Clinton responded to Chris Wallace, alarm bells rang all over the Beltway. Clinton was called a liar, again, for defending herself. What she was trying to say, which was clear to anyone was that Clinton was simply saying that what she told the FBI was consistent with what she told the public.

    What the sick deranged media heard was Clinton saying that Comey said what she told the public was truthful, which is not what Clinton meant as any fair and honest person would recognize.

    For that sin, Clinton was given 4 pinocchios by Kessler and we were off to the races again, obsessing over her daily mundane emails.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hooray! Who's up for another 8 years of minions explaining why what seems like a lie really isn't?! The 90s were the best!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave the Guitar PlayerAugust 8, 2016 at 2:13 PM

      What "seems" like a lie to your friends is not necessarily a lie and claiming that it is a lie does not make it a lie. I am willing to put up with another 8 years of the whining by your friends about lies in order to get a better President.

      Delete
    2. "minions" = troll tell

      Delete
    3. "troll tell" = tribalist label

      Delete
    4. "The 90s were the best!"

      The eight years of peace and prosperity look pretty damn good compared to the eight years that followed.

      Delete
    5. "'tribalist label" = troll non-denial

      Delete
    6. Yeah, if you call Bosnia "peace" and the Dot.com bubble "prosperity" they look perfect.

      Delete
    7. Yeah, cherry-pick 2 events and ignore the rest, the 1990s suck.

      derp

      Delete
    8. No not perfect. A case of U.S. military action securing a still lasting peace... without the loss of a single U.S. soldier, and "over exuberance" aside, record breaking job creation and actual rising incomes for a time.

      Delete
    9. At anon 5:26

      Here's another two "cherry-picked" events that instantly came to mind:

      Repeal of Glass Steagall.

      NAFTA.

      But I will say - the 20 aughts make the 90's look quite nice.

      Delete
    10. Tell it to the HDS whiner (starting at 1:44).

      Delete
    11. Repeal of Glass Steagall was passed by Republicans with a veto-proof majority. Bill Clinton said he was not in favor of it, although lots of Dems did vote for it.

      I think the jury is still out on NAFTA. Depends who and where you are whether it was a bad idea or not.

      Delete
    12. Anom 7:40, if you have a source for the following, please share -- could come in handy: "passed by Republicans with a veto-proof majority. Bill Clinton said he was not in favor of it"

      Delete
  10. Clinton did not say she 'short-circuited' — Washington Post, August 7 “So I may have short-circuited it and for that I, you know, will try to clarify because I think — you know, Chris Wallace and I, we’re probably talking past each other be — because, of course, he could only talk to what I had told the FBI and I appreciated that.”
    — Hillary Clinton, remarks to joint convention of black and Hispanic journalists, Aug. 5, 2016.... Now, Trump has seized on an odd turn of phrase for another line of attack. He claims that Clinton said she “short-circuited” when talking about the FBI investigation of her emails...But this another case of creating a false narrative. Clinton did not say she herself “short-circuited.”...Clinton explained that she was trying to say that her answers to the FBI were consistent with what she has said in public but had conflated the two thoughts to wrongly suggest that Comey had vouched for her public statements."

    In this case, you don’t need a computer program to hear the word “it.”

    ReplyDelete
  11. Re HRC and the "emails": From the transcript:
    Rep. Matt Cartwright: were these properly documented, were they properly marked according to the manual with the little “cs”?
    FBI Director James Comey: no…There were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body, in the text but there was no header on the e-mail or the text.
    Rep. Matt Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified, and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
    FBI Director James Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hillary served as SOS for 48 months. Among the 30,000 emails provided to the FBI, Comey said 110 of the emails contained classified information. So this means that once every other week, Hillary Clinton may have forwarded one email from her inbox to her outbox without making sure there was nothing inappropriate in the body of the email.

    The SOS would have received at least 200 emails a day, probably a great deal more.

    What we know is that once every ten days or so, out of 2,000+ emails received (more than 10,000 emails if including all the emails just acknowledging receipt and transmission), Hillary Clinton may have forwarded 1 out 2000+ inappropriately.

    Aren't we fortunate to have a Republican candidate as diligent as Mr. Trump running against her who would never make such a mistake? Hmmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Life is all about good and bad experience
    Life is all about good and bad experience. It was all good and lovely when i met joelly, she was a good business woman until things become rough for her and her business empire started liquidating. I was a very courageous and hardworking man so i decided to sell my inheritance to assist . We both struggle together and built the business world again. This time around the business was growing from strength to strength. I was surprise one Sunday evening when she came home with her secretary and told me that we cannot continue with this pretense called love. I was shocked and heart broken, i was in a friend, house for three weeks frustrated until i met Fernando my old friend at the supermarket, he directed to me to Dr saka. I contacted saka and he told me that Joelly was been manipulated by some spiritual power and he told me to provide some items which he is going to use to destroy the evil spirit. I never believe in voodoo but i had to give him a trial. To my greatest surprise, Joelly called and started apologizing 2 days after i sent Dr. Saka the email. I am very happy and will continue to be happy for the good work the Saka has done in my life. Problems are been solved when good people like Saka are on this planet, please contact him through ultimatespearcast@gmail.com if you need any support in any problems in life. I love Dr Saka ... :)


    ReplyDelete
  14. How I Got My Ex Husband Back...........

    I am Shannon by name. Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my husband after three(3) years of marriage just because another woman had a spell on him and he left me and the kid to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how this spell caster on this address Makospelltemple@yahoo.com , have help a woman to get back her husband and i gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a woman had a spell on my husband and he told me that he will help me and after 2 days that i will have my husband back. i believed him and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back. because i am now happy with my husband. Thanks for Dr.Mako. His email: Makospelltemple@yahoo.com OR. his phone number: +2348108737816.

    ReplyDelete