ADVANTAGE HARARI: Nineteen to 24 years in the clink!


Plus, targeting two more lawyers:
You're right! After a weekend in re-education camp, we may be changing our focus at the start of next week.

We're sick of pursuing our current line; we're sick of hearing our own current voice. That said, we'll finish our current topic today, with a look at last Friday's Rachel Maddow Show.

First, though, a look at today's New York Times:

Good for today's New York Times! Right there on the op-ed page, the paper presents this column by Columbia's Jamie Daw. The column discusses a serious matter. It runs beneath these headlines:
A Better Path to Universal Health Care
The United States should look to Germany, not Canada, for the best model.
Never mind whether Daw is right or wrong in his assessments. He's discussing a serious topic!

Serious topics don't get much play on our "cable news" channels. Last night, for example, the Maddow Show executed its tenth straight program without a mention of the Green New Deal, which was released on Thursday, February 7.

Simply put, the Maddow Show doesn't care about climate change. Also, it doesn't care about, and won't tell you about, the looting of the American public captured in these startling OECD data:
Health care spending, per person, 2017
United States: $10,209
Germany: $5728
France: $4902
Canada: $4826
Japan: $4717
Australia: $4543
United Kingdom: $4246
Where's all that extra money going? You won't find out on "cable news." As a matter of fact, you won't be allowed to know that the missing money exists!

Nor are you told about public schools. You aren't asked to think about the way our communities, families and schools could possibly close our "achievement gaps," whose size won't be disclosed.

Cable news doesn't traffic in matters like that! In this, the age of Donald J. Trump, cable news traffics in true crime drama.

Cable news loves to offer hours of repetitive speculation concerning the state of The Chase. Some stars take it to an extreme. Last Friday night, to cite one example, cable news trafficked in this:
MADDOW (2/15/19): Well, tonight we've just received the recommendation from Mueller's office as to how much time they think Manafort should spend in prison based just on the eight felony counts for which he was convicted in Virginia. So separate and apart from whatever he might get in D.C., Mueller's prosecutors are recommending that the president`s campaign chairman spend between 19 1/2 years and 24 1/2 years in prison. Again, just for the felonies for which he was convicted in Virginia, separate and apart from what he's going to get in D.C.

Now for a man who is about to turn 70, that means prosecutors are recommending what is in effect a natural life sentence for Paul Manafort. You will recall that there is no parole in the federal prison system. So, 19 to 24 years.


As I mentioned, the really big kahuna tonight is what just happened to the president's campaign chair, to Paul Manafort, with prosecutors telling one of the two federal judges who is due to sentence him soon that they want a 19 to 24-year prison term for him plus potentially tens of millions of dollars in fines and restitution.


As an initial matter, the government agrees with the guidelines analysis in the pre-sentence investigation report, and its calculation of the defendant's total offense level as 38 with a corresponding range of imprisonment of 235 to 293 months. That's 19 1/2 years to 24 1/2 years in prison, a fine range of $50,000 to $24.4 million, restitution in the amount of $24.8 million and forfeiture in the amount of $4.4 million.


"The sentence in this case must taken to account the gravity of his conduct and serve to specifically deter Manafort and deter those who would commit a similar series of crimes."

That's signed on behalf of the special counsel's office. They are recommending 19 1/2 years to 24 1/2 years in prison and fines and restitution of up to tens of millions of dollars.


That means at great personal expense, at the cost of potentially dying in prison, Paul Manafort, the president's campaign chairman lied to cover up the channel of communication or at least a channel of communication between the Trump campaign when he was chairman and Russian intelligence during the time that Russia was interfering in the U.S. presidential election to help his candidate, to help president Trump. He was deliberately lying to prosecutors about that. That is the lie that is going to cost Paul Manafort his last free breath.

To cover up that channel of communication between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the campaign, Paul Manafort is willing to die in prison.


William Barr is the one who recommended those pardons in Iran-Contra. The day he started as attorney general, this president's campaign chairman received a sentence recommendation from prosecutors of 19 to 24 years in prison, plus tens of millions of dollars to pay. Like I said, it's all happening at once now.


MADDOW: Barb, when you see the prosecutors ask for 19 1/2 to 24 1/2 years for Manafort, just in Virginia, that judge that ruled he deliberately lied about the communications with Kilimnik, that judge is yet to start the sentencing process with him. That sentencing won't happen until next month, but this recommendation from prosecutors that, in the Virginia case alone, he should be looking at 19 to 24 years, does that mean we should expect he will get 19 to 24 years?

MCQUADE: Well, you know, that's the sentencing guidelines. It's sort of a starting point where judges are supposed to look to calculate a sentence. It's a very numerical score. You mentioned some of the things that go into that, sophisticated means and leadership role, all these kinds of things. You come up with kind of a math score and you go to a table and that's where you get that range of 19 to 24.
Prosecutors recommended 19 to 24 years! Cable viewers were pleasured with this again and again and again and again, with Maddow killing time reading the text of entire footnotes and filling us in on such arcana as the way the so-called "leadership enhancement" calculation affects the length of a recommended sentence.
Maddow's viewers heard those numbers—19 to 24 years—again and again and again. But they still haven't heard the words "Green New Deal" on this top-rated cable platform. They've never seen the data on health care spending, the data which rather plainly suggest that we're all being looted.

We don't like to pick on Maddow. We're sure that she's a very nice person in her personal dealings.

She only bought the TV set because she and Susan got blackout drunk and ordered it on line! When we liberals were willing to purchase that tale, she came up with several more.

On cable, in her professional dealings, Maddow has spent a great many years trying to lock them up. She's tried to lock up a wide range of Republican governors. She's frequently toyed with basic facts as she's tried to lock up regular people, such as the state policemen who drove Governor Christie around when she was trying to get him locked up.

She's rummaged through the medicine cabinets of governors she wants to lock up. She's tried to drag the children of targeted officials into the stews she creates. If she gets hold of a telephone sex tape, she plays it again and again. She covers her ears and pretends to be embarrassed as she plays it night after night.

This strikes us as something resembling a moral/intellectual sickness. But of one thing you can be sure:

Rachel Maddow has never yet mentioned the simple words "Green New Deal!" Nor has she ever shown you those health care data, which account for an array of groaning problems within our "rigged" economic system, including stagnant wages and federal deficits and debt.

Public schools, and the children within them, are of course never mentioned. On cable, they don't even stoop to the level of the New York Times, which is conducting a quixotic search for "desegregation" as a way of pretending to address the brutal achievement gaps found within our schools.

You don't get discussions of topics like those on the Maddow program! Instead, you get the pleasures and joy of The Chase. In the process, liberal viewers, and the whole world, get dumbed way, way down.

That said, we want to show you one more thing you were handed on last Friday's program.

Maddow tends to want to lock pretty much everyone up! Her latest no-name targets were introduced in this passage:
MADDOW: And now, on top of all of that, still deriving from those same felonies, now, tonight, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the estimable chairman of the House Oversight Committee in the House, has just published these 19 pages of notes. Some of them are typed. A lot of them are redacted. Some of them are hand scrawled and very hard to read.

These are notes from the Office of Government Ethics. Congressman Cummings has released these notes. He has also released to the public a letter to a Trump Organization lawyer. He's also released to the public a new letter he has sent to the White House counsel.

Those letters demand information related to those hush money payments and those letters make the explosive allegation that it's not just Michael Cohen, that two additional Trump lawyers, one who worked in the White House and another lawyer who represents Trump in a personal capacity, she was actually the one who orchestrated that stunt during the transition where Trump sat there by the big piles of papers and supposedly handed over control of his business to his sons. The lawyer who orchestrated that and another lawyer who worked in the White House, according to Elijah Cummings tonight, they themselves may be in trouble for making false statement about those hush money payments.

Quote, "New documents obtained by the committee from the office of government ethics describe false information provided by the lawyers representing President Trump, including Sheri Dillon, President Trump's personal attorney, and Stephen Passantino, former deputy White House counsel for compliance and ethics"—Eek!—"who has now left the White House to represent the Trump organization."
President Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, is now going to prison in part for his role in these hush money payments. During his guilty plea, Mr. Cohen said he did this in coordination with and at the direction of the president for the principal purpose of influencing the election.

Congressman Cummings continues, quote:

"It now appears that President Trump's other attorneys at the White House and in private practice may have provided false information about these payments to federal officials. This raises significant questions about why some of the president's closest advisers made these false claims and the extent to which they too were acting at the direction of or in coordination with the president."

One of the president's lawyers is already going to prison for his role in covering up those hush money payments. Now, here's a couple more who Elijah Cummings says are potentially on the hook related to those payments as well, and not just the payments in their case but the cover-up of the payments.
Thrillingly, cable viewers were told of an "explosive [new] allegation," with an "Eek!" thrown in. Two new lawyers—Dillon and Passantino—were frogmarched into position as Maddow overstated or misstated the thrust of what Cummings had said.

Later, Maddow did a full segment with legal analyst McQuade about this explosive allegation aimed at the two new victims. McQuade played along with the game as viewers got dumbed way down.

You'll hunt in vain through major orgs for anything but a cursory nod to this "explosive allegation" concerning the two new victims. That's because Dillon and Passantino are minor names, but also because it isn't clear that they've done anything wrong or that Cummings has even alleged that they have.

You see, when lawyers "provide false information," they may do so because they themselves have been misinformed by their clients—in this case, by the highly unreliable Donald J. Trump. Maddow and McQuade acted like "false statements" are the same thing as "lies," turning Cummings' statement into an explosive charge aimed at two people who may have been conned by Trump.

As a general matter, other orgs eschewed this exciting game. For the record, the exciting conflation of "false claim" with "lie" largely began with Politico's Andrew Desiderio, an excitable scribe who is now in his second year out of college.

A very young, inexperienced scribe got out over his skis a bit.
Our Own Rhodes Scholar liked the product and proceeded to feed it to us liberal viewers. In this way, we get dumbed way down—but we also get mightily entertained, on a tribal basis.

(Politico saves on labor costs by hiring such young employees.)

At any rate, the Green New Deal has never been mentioned on the Maddow program. Instead, you're handed The Chase every night—The Chase and little else.

Facts get embellished, dropped and spun; everything's rated "explosive." This is the rational animal in the wild within the most gossip- and fiction-ridden discourse on God's green earth.

"Advantage Harari!" we lustily cried. The analysts knew what we meant.

Tomorrow: We're off on a mission of national import

Full disclosure: Some years back, as an entertainer, we tried to follow Rep. Cummings at an AFL-CIO event. We learned that Cummings is the greatest public speaker since Moses.


  1. “We don't like to pick on Maddow”

    First three pages of hits when searching TDH archives for “Maddow”, updated today:

  2. “when lawyers "provide false information," they may do so because they themselves have been misinformed by their clients—in this case, by the highly unreliable Donald J. Trump.”

    Question: does that get said lawyers off the hook?

    Question: if even Bob Somerby knows Donald J Trump is highly unreliable, shouldn’t his really smart high-powered lawyers know that as well, and refrain from repeating his, um, false statements?

  3. "Simply put, the Maddow Show doesn't care about climate change."

    Dear Bob, the group of dembot identified as "Maddow Show" don't care about anything. Dembots are not capable of caring.

    However, just to be fair: don't you think that climate will (or will not) change regardless of dembots or real humans caring or not caring about it?

    To whatever extent climate may be affected by human activity, any change in this activity can only be instituted by changes (evolutionary or revolutionary) in the political economy, Bob, not by persons 'caring'...

    1. I would have disagreed with you, then I remembered the many times Somerby has explicitly stated that liberals don’t care about things, particularly education, so perhaps he is considering in the back of his mind your contention that they also don’t care about climate change. Rachel Maddow didn’t mention the Green New Deal after all. And she is the Chief Liberal that we liberals get our marching orders from doncha know.

    2. What I said was that dembots aren't capable of caring, dembot.

      Their role is hate-mongering and exhibiting permanent outrage.

      And you, in particular, need to dial it up a bit.

    3. Mao: the group of dembot identified as "Maddow Show" don't care about anything.

      You do know your comments are visible?

    4. Surely, if their role is outrage and hate-mongering, they actually care about performing that role? That would undermine your theory that they are incapable of caring about anything.

    5. Nah. They just do it. They are programmed to do it.

  4. Meanwhile, over at another blog, a brilliant post about the trivialization of news, the thing that Somerby was so concerned (and correct) about when Gore was the target:

    Paul Campos tries to examine the true origin of the “standard” understanding of this non-story, and finds an interesting truth behind it.

    These days, as he did with the Sandmann story, Somerby would likely adopt his usual “liberal scold” mode (the one that coincidentally dovetails so nicely with conservative talking points), rather than get to a real analysis of this.

  5. Yes, but Maddow gives people so many opportunities to pick on her.

  6. Did Maddow cover the recent report that a bipartisan Senate committee completed its investigation and found no evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia?

    1. NBC News? Why trust anything you hear from those lib mainstream outlets?

    2. Why, you can listen to what they say and safely assume that the opposite is true. Always.

    3. Stick that "bipartisan" bullshit up your treasonous lying ass, Comrade DinC.

      Unfortunately for him, the NBC report is being strongly disputed by members of the committee. The Democratic ranking member, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, said the investigation isn't finished. He added:

      What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did.

      Another member, Sen. Angus King of Maine -- an independent who caucuses with Democrats -- took issue with the NBC report as well. He told Mother Jones, “That’s not true. I think it’s misleading. The intelligence committee hasn’t discussed the matter, let alone released a committee report.” A Democratic committee aide backed up Warner's point, saying that there was plenty of circumstantial evidence of collusion. He said, "None of those facts are in dispute, only what they mean."

      Oh, I see, you mean the very carefully worded statement released by former Trump campaign adviser Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican.

      The NBC report's headline said that the committee had found no "direct evidence" of conspiracy, which is a more specific legal term. Former U.S. attorney Chuck Rosenberg pointed out on MSNBC on Tuesday that it's very rare to find "direct evidence" of conspiracy. He said, "In fact, in the dozens and dozens of cases I tried to a jury, only once ever did I have direct evidence of a conspiracy. You almost never see that." He added that circumstantial evidence is just as important as direct evidence and "to say that there's no direct evidence of a conspiracy is really not all that damning on the facts of the case."

      What were you waiting for Comrade DinC, you dumbfuck, a letter from Trump to Putin saying "thanks for colluding with me, Vlad?"

    4. mm - they found no such evidence. If they had found any such evidence, Sen. Angus King would have said what evidence they had found. Now, Sen. King gives the excuse that the charge might be true even though they didn't find any evidence. Of course, that's always a possibility.

    5. It’s a good thing for David and the USA that the Senate is in the hands of the GOP. The truth is secure.

    6. Why are you such a lying sack of shit, Comrade DinC, you treasonous bastard?

      You stated, report that a bipartisan Senate committee completed...

      I show you how
      1) there is no fucking "report"
      2) the statement by Burr is not "bipartisan"
      3) there is rarely "direct evidence" in most criminal investigations.

      And there's plenty of fucking circumstantial evidence of traitor trump dealing with the Russian government through his campaign top level people.

      Start with his fucking campaign manager who is was just discovered lied about meeting with Russian intelligence in New York in August 2016.

      Hey, traitor, when is Donald J Chickenshit, Acting President, going to answer Mueller's questions "under oath" as he promised?

    7. mm - You're going to lose this one. That's really all you do the past couple of years. Lose. And you're going to lose more and more for such a long time. The Mueller report will be a goose egg and you will be Charlie Brown again and again the liberal media will be Lucy and you will be flat on your back again, a loser again. Going nowhere. Perpetually wrong. Perpetually defeated.

      It didn't have to be that way.

    8. Anon 5:50:
      A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, last November, the Democrats staged a historic comeback in the House. Now, you rep/con types apparently would like to ignore the Constitution, but the American people don’t.

    9. Naw, naw, naw, naw, naw, naw. The numbers of 2018 pale in comparison to the Republican wave that won 63 House seats in 2010. Dems won like what? 40? It's historic? Why? Because of the women? Because all your men are dickless? You'd rather be home in daisy duke cutoffs making a nasty craft beer or riding a high wheel bicycle? You already ARE women, so more women is not an answer.

      Let's see how the Mueller report works out for you.

      2020 - maybe! You have radically change your party, your intense feelings of inferiority and your hostility toward others. It's a very, very hard road you have ahead of you. You have very little going for you.

    10. I mean - you lost to Donald Trump!!! That's how fucked up you are. That is the magnitude of your weakness. Donald Trump whose main advisor is Sean Hannity and you LOST!

    11. *checks notes* yep, Democrats control the House.

    12. Haw, haw, haw, haw, haw, haw. Actually the numbers of 2010 pale in comparison. 2018 Dems flipped 41 seats and counting, but they also received 60.7 million votes compered to 44.8 for Repubs in 2010 - in percent that's 53.4 vs 51.7. So why so many millions more votes but fewer seats flipped? Duh because Repubs gerrymander ie cheat. Now I guarantee my dick is much bigger than your puny runt, which is why I don't need a gun, or a Corvette, or Hummer, etc. Your claims are as bizarre as your choice in leader, a crybaby with daddy abandonment issues.

    13. Sounds good - good luck with Mueller and 2020. I voted for HRC btw! Kind of.

  7. ...incidentally, Bob, your arch-nemesis Donald J Trump has done more for reducing pollution world-wide - by renegotiating NAFTA and threatening China with tariffs, thus bringing manufacturing back to the US, the country with solid environmental laws - than anyone in the last 30 years.

    Ironic, eh?

    1. “Solid environmental laws”
      Sounds liberal/socialist to me. Those laws aren’t business friendly.
      And they are being gutted as we speak. Double win!

    2. "And they are being gutted as we speak"

      Tsk, tsk. You need to write to your congressperson, dembot, and express your concern.

    3. My congressperson is a Republican Trumpist, fully on board with the gutting, and when I wrote to him he told me to fuck off. Because he is a man of the people.

    4. Tsk. Bad, bad people. Poor dembot.

      I guess all you can do now is to follow the famous Bertolt Brecht recommendation: dissolve the people and elect another.

    5. Environmentalism is actually conservative.

  8. The Mueller report is going to be a big disappointment for Maddow and the rest of the MSM who have compulsively suckered their audience of all these months.

    1. If you follow Somerby’s line, the mainstream media has never cared whether there was any substance to the Mueller report. They were just chasing ratings, hoping that liberals who care about nothing, but do care about the Mueller report, would tune in to stoke their tribal rage. Undoubtedly, the media will find the next shiny object to distract and fire up the liberal sheep, who, if they care about anything, care about identity politics, because they are all dumb and immoral. (Except Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, with her winning smile, spunk, and Green New Deal, which has a lot of liberals enthused, but, oops, that contradicts the premise). Thus, the media is incapable of being disappointed, because their actions were deliberate. Have you been paying attention to Somerby at all?

    2. What "the media" is going to do is continue their non-stop hate-mongering and fake outrage.

      The Mueller report, whatever's in it, is going to give them some ammo. If not, they'll just make up some new stories, or regurgitate some old ones.

    3. The problems of the liberal sheep are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to liberalsl Though they are especially noticeable in them, they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.

    4. Yes. Liberal low self-esteem is the problem.
      Also, that Liberal elites think they are better and smarter than everyone else.
      Conservative logic (rightfully) in a nutshell.

    5. Because of the restrictions placed on their thoughts and behavior by modern society, many Democrats cannot pursue power in the ways that other people do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality on everyone.

    6. 10:55,
      That reminds me, I need to have a half-dozen abortions this week.

    7. And you will have a half-dozen abortions this week, dembot, if you zombie-cult leaders command. I don't doubt it for a second.

      Just look at Jussie Smollett.

    8. "Just look at Jussie Smollett."

      If you look at his asshole, you'll be reminded of the modern Conservative movement.

    9. Democrats claim their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a small role. But hostility and anger are the prominent components of their behavior. They hate themselves and are insecure. They don't have an inner sense of confidence in their own ability to solve their own problems and satisfy their own needs. Not all liberals of course. Just most.

    10. "They don't have an inner sense of confidence in their own ability to solve their own problems and satisfy their own needs."

      Meh. All a typical psycho-dembot needs is to fantasize about Jussie Smollett's asshole all day long. They manage just fine.

  9. Hey Bob, what's your take on l'affaire de Jussie Smollett?

    Did Maddow tell you what to think about it? Please enlighten.

    1. She has never mentioned it.

    2. We already know what Bob “thinks.”
      Whatever the going criticism of liberals is what he “thinks.”

      More votes for Trump!

    3. They say that Jussie Smollet lies so much, he'd be in line to be the next GOP Presidential nominee, if he was white.

    4. On the contrary, dembot: they say Jussie Smollet can't lie, as has the pwogwessive sexual orientation and pwogwessive skin tone.

      If you believe he lied, you just might be a racist homophobe, dembot.

    5. Gosh, Mao, now this lib is triggered. You have successfully owned another lib, because we all, especially TDH readers, just like you, have the intellectual capacity and temperament of a 12-year-old.

      Seriously, though, the readers that Somerby hasn’t already driven off will be driven off by you. Pretty soon you’ll be commenting to radio silence, and then what would be or would have been your purpose here? To drive TDH into oblivion?

    6. Don't worry, Mao.
      I'll always be here to remind you that you're just another, in a long line of typical piece of shit Conservatives.
      You're welcome.

    7. My bestest psycho-dembot is always 'triggered', anon. But I feel like I must give it some attention, once in a while. Loyalty should be rewarded.

    8. Fuck you Jap whore.

    9. Keep working to learn the English language, Mao. You'll get it, eventually.

  10. “Nineteen to 24 years in the clink!”

    Harari would’ve preferred a reprimand and probation for Manafort most likely.

  11. Throughout Bob's series on healthcare, he has conflated two things:
    1. Lack of universal government health care
    2. The high cost of health care in the US

    But, these are separate issues. If the US adopted some form universal health care, there's no guarantee that it would be cheaper.

    And, there's certainly no guarantee that health care would be better. E.g., see ‘Setting us up to fail’ — VA blasted over unfilled health care positions

    1. There's work-arounds for both of those 'problems". Stop electing piece of shit Conservatives to positions of governmental power.

    2. Healthcare costs went up under Obama just like it goes up under every president. Both sides of the aisle are in on the scam dummy.

  12. Packers and Movers Pune Provide High Quality ***Household Shifting, Home/Office Relocation, Insurance, Packing, Loading, ###Car Transportation Service Pune and High experiences, Top Rated, Safe and Reliable, Best and Secure Packers and Movers Pune Team List. Get ✔✔✔ Affordable Rate Charts and Compare Quotation and Save Money and Time .
    Packers And Movers Pune

  13. Outstanding blog thanks for sharing such wonderful blog with us ,after long time came across such knowlegeble blog. keep sharing such informative blog with us.

    Check out : machine learning training in chennai
    artificial intelligence and machine learning course in chennai
    Big Data Hadoop Training in Chennai a
    Hadoop Big Data Training

  14. Packers and Movers Pune Provide High Quality ***Household Shifting, Home/Office Relocation, Insurance, Packing, Loading, ###Car Transportation Service Pune and High experiences, Top Rated, Safe and Reliable, Best and Secure Packers and Movers Pune Team List. Get ✔✔✔ Affordable Rate Charts and Compare Quotation and Save Money and Time .
    Packers And Movers Pune

  15. Hire Best Packers And Movers Mumbai for hassle-free Household Shifting, ***Office Relocation, ###Car Transporation, Loading Unloading, packing Unpacking at affordable ✔✔✔ Price Quotation. Top Rated, Safe and Secure Service Providers who can help you with 24x7 and make sure a Untroubled Relocation Services at Cheapest/Lowest Rate
    Packers And Movers Mumbai

  16. Hi everybody. I recently saw a testimony about Chief Dr Lucky in a blog I visit for relationship and dating counseling problems because i had been having serious issues with my boyfriend and we had been dating for six months, he just suddenly changed, he wasn't returning my calls,he started cheating,he was hurting me in many ways i never thought possible and I just thought I should try it*maybe out of desperation of some sort*..and I contacted Chief Dr Lucky ..At first everything felt dreamy and unbelievable, his consultations and solution was a little bit easy and strange and I was scared a little cause I heard read and heard lots of stories of fake spell casters,scams and i never really believed in magic..I played along with a little hope and and faith and I sent some few stuffs after everything and it worked like a miracle,everything went to a while new direction,it was and is amazing...I guess it was all good faith that made me read That particular post that faithful day..I hope he could help other people too like he did me...I did a little and I got everything I wanted and wished for*my husband,my family and my life back. E-mail: or contact him on whats App him +2348132777335 Website :

  17. Book Best and Verified packers and movers in Pune, Expert in Home Relocation within or outside Pune. Compare 3 quotes from nearby packers and movers in Pune. Get 100% safe & affordable packing moving from Professional Packers and Movers.

    Packers and Movers Pune


  18. Get the most advanced Hadoop Course by Professional expert. Just attend a FREE Demo session.
    call us @ 9884412301 | 9600112302
    Hadoop training in chennai | Hadoop training in velachery

  19. Get the most advanced  Hadoop Course by Professional expert. Just attend a FREE Demo session.  call us @ 9884412301 | 9600112302
      RPA training in chennai    UiPath training in velachery