Email watch: The New York Times does it again!

FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2016

Takes sad song, makes it worse:
The email matter has done massive harm to Candidate Clinton. Presumably, it will continue to do so.

Adding to the candidate's problem is the work of the New York Times. In yesterday morning's front-page report, Myers and Lichtblau offered this, right in their third paragraph:
MYERS AND LICHTBLAU (5/26/16): The inspector general found that Mrs. Clinton ''had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business'' with department officials but that, contrary to her claims that the department ''allowed'' the arrangement, there was ''no evidence'' she had requested or received approval for it.
Damn that Hillary Clinton! The highlighted claim was a bit imprecise, but it conveyed a certain impression.

The editorial board received that impression. At the start of this morning's editorial, the board was a bit more precise:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (5/27/16): Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency just got harder with the release of the State Department inspector general’s finding that “significant security risks” were posed by her decision to use a private email server for personal and official business while she was secretary of state. Contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s claims that the department had “allowed” the arrangement, the inspector general also found that she had not sought or received approval to use the server.
The board stated the point quite clearly. It was made in their first paragraph. It was their second point.

Damn that Hillary Clinton! She had said that the State Department "allowed" the arrangement. But the inspector general said she never sought or received approval!

As always, let's be fair. It's true that Secretary Clinton didn't seek approval for her unusual setup. But the question of whether she sought approval was clarified long ago.

In the Washington Post, Helderman and Hamburger were a bit sharper than the sleuths at the Times. This passage appeared in their own front-page news report:
HELDERMAN AND HAMBURGER (5/26/16): Clinton had acknowledged during a March debate that she had not sought approval for the private setup. She pointed to the practices of her predecessors and said: "There was no permission to be asked. . . . It was permitted."
This point had been clarified long ago, in multiple settings. Below, we'll offer the transcript from that March 9 debate.

Clinton's email arrangement is doing a lot of damage. It would help if papers like the Times could be a bit more precise.

That said, we heard Chris Matthews say something scary this past Wednesday night. This is serious business:
MATTHEWS (5/25/16): OK, let's talk about this e-mail thing. We're going to get to more in the next segment, but you know, I don't know what the IG— I've been hearing about rumors, like we all have. (INAUDIBLE DUE TO INORDINATE SPEED) What's Comey going to do? Is he going to quit if this doesn't go his way, and all this. Rumor, rumor, rumor.
Two weeks ago, we noted the damage FBI Director Comey could imaginably cause through his reaction even if Clinton ends up facing no charges. Now, Matthews says that everyone has been hearing rumors about this possibility.

This is very serious stuff. It would help if papers like the Times got their basic facts right, at least in their opening paragraphs.

As stated in March 9 debate: Helderman and Hamburger were referring to the March 9 Democratic debate staged by CNN. Here's the fuller exchange to which they referred:
RAMOS (3/9/16): Your Republican opponents say that those emails have endangered our national security. When you were secretary of state, you wrote 104 emails in your private server that the government now says contain classified information according to The Washington Post analysis.

That goes against a memo that you personally sent to your employees in 2011 directing all of them to use official email, precisely because of security concerns. So it seems that you issued one set of rules for yourself and a different set of rules for the rest of the State Department.

So who specifically gave you permission to operate your email system as you did? Was it President Barack Obama? And would you drop out of the race if you get indicted?

CLINTON: Well, Jorge, there's a lot of questions in there. And I'm going to give the same answer I've been giving for many months. It wasn't the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed. And as I have said and as now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing and many other people in the government.

But here's the cut to the chase facts. I did not send or receive any emails marked classified at the time. What you are talking about is retroactive classification. And the reason that happens is when somebody asks or when you are asked to make information public, I asked all my emails to be made public. Then all the rest of the government gets to weigh in.

And some other parts of the government, we're not exactly sure who, has concluded that some of the emails should be now retroactively classified. They've just said the same thing to former Secretary Colin Powell. They have said, we're going to retroactively classify emails you sent personally.
Now I think he was right when he said this is an absurdity. And I think that what we have got here is a case of over-classification. I am not concerned about it. I am not worried about it and no Democrat or American should be either.


RAMOS: Secretary Clinton, the questions were, who gave you permission to cooperate? Was it President Obama?

CLINTON: There was no permission to be asked. It had been done by my predecessors. It was permitted.

RAMOS: If you get indicted would you going to drop out?

CLINTON: Oh, for goodness sake, that's not going to happen. I'm not even answering that question.

This was clear at least as of March 9. Except for the New York Times!


  1. Look at the story in Washington Post from yesterday, headlined:

    4 things Hillary Clinton got wrong in her latest statement about those emails

    Let's look at some of the things the Post claims "she got wrong".

    1. "Um, just like previous secretaries of state I used a personal email. Many people did. It was not at all unprecedented

    The post never shows what was "wrong" with that statement, but rather change the subject and state,

    "Clinton is the first secretary of state to ever use a private email address exclusively to conduct her business. Period. That was and is unprecedented."

    No question, that is true, however, Secretary Clinton never denied that. Secretary Clinton said using personal email was not unprecedented. The Post story implies a lie, where there was none.

    2. "I have turned over all my emails. … I have been incredibly open about doing that."

    The Post never disputes this, but rather pulls another switch and complains about the timing.

    "...but didn't do so until December 2014..."

    They neglect to mention that most of her emails were already on the system since she made it a practice to cc persons with addresses.

    The OIG report in fact says that her turning over the 55000 pages of emails "mitigates" her failure to print them out at the time she left the State Department.

    Again, the POST shows nothing "wrong" with what she said, but rather quibbled about side issues.

    3. "I will continue to be open."

    The POST says this is "wrong" because I suppose they can read her mind. They complain that she did not agree to be interviewed by the IG. But they neglect to mention that neither did quite a number of persons, and Clinton spokesman explained that she didn't want to do it while the FBI was still working on their security investigation.

    4. "It’s not an issue that is going to affect either the campaign or my presidency."

    How in hell can the POST say this is "wrong"?

    Here is their rationale for why that statement was "wrong"

    "This is a subjective assertion and, therefore, sort of impossible to fully prove or disprove."

    You can't make this shit up.

    1. "You can't make this shit up." mm

      And yet HRC and her minions continue to do so.

      HRC is the only cabinet member in any administration to use a private email server stashed in her Chappaqua basement. HRC not only denies she alone has done this but keeps invoking Colin Powell's name because she imagines he did the exact same thing she did.

      Colin Powell used two computers located at Foggy Bottom. One for transmitting sensitive material and another for emailing “housekeeping stuff.”

      Considering HRC declined to cooperate with IG investigation, all the other Secretaries of State did, is of course the opposite of being "open."

      BTW: The FBI doesn't conduct "security investigations." Another HRC mischaracterization of what the facts are regarding her legal problems with the private server.

    2. B.S. must have missed HRC saying in regards to the private server, "Everything I did was permitted." Permitted means she had to have asked permission. She didn't.

    3. cicero, you are a devious little twerp.

      Just like so many in the media, you are so desperate to find something on which to base your claim that she lied that you now resort to inventing a reason.

      "Permitted means she had to have asked permission."

      Since you now understand that she never claimed she asked permission and therefore did not lie, you slip in a little logical sophistry and hope no one notices.

      No, when she said "Everything I did was permitted.", it didn't necessarily mean what you claim it had to mean.

      As the report makes clear, officials in S/ES-IRM knew about Clinton’s email arrangement and were in frequent contact with the official directly in charge of maintaining security on Clinton’s private server. Near the beginning of her time in office, the division prepared memos about her use of a private server, which was in the basement of her guarded home. S/ES-IRM staff met multiple times with the special adviser in charge of the private email account and server, and sent emails to Clinton’s senior staff describing technical issues that arose with the system and the actions taken to resolve them. The special adviser also met with the department’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division to discuss the email system and security issues. The bottom line is that Clinton’s email arrangement was not some dark secret—the staffers who spent their careers learning the sections of the Foreign Affairs Manual that relate to emails knew all about it. And the report cites nothing to suggest Clinton or her staff were told by the experts that there was any reason she shouldn’t use the system.

      The Scandal Over Clinton’s Emails Still Isn’t a Scandal

      The OIG report clearly shows that what she meant was that everybody knew about it and nobody told her she couldn't do it.

      So funny watching you guys desperately trying to prove she lied about something always coming up empty.

    4. @8:30 PM

      there is so much misinformation in that one post:

      "Colin Powell used two computers located at Foggy Bottom. One for transmitting sensitive material and another for emailing “housekeeping stuff.” "cicero

      What do you think, cicero. Do you think Secretary Clinton did not also have a secure system?

      The one thing that seems clear from the report is that Clinton’s email system was more secure than the one at the State Department. Before delving into that, though, one of the biggest misconceptions about this email “scandal” has to be dispelled: Neither Clinton nor any other senior official cleared for dealing with classified information has only one email system. One is used for workaday business—memos, drafts, information to department employees, questions and answers between individuals—and that is the type used by Clinton, Powell, and Rice’s senior staff that has been reviewed by the inspector general. The second email system, for materials designated as classified, has nothing to do with this controversy. It uses a highly restricted, compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence circles as a SCIF. Most senior officials who deal with classified information have a SCIF in their offices and their homes guarded 24 hours a day by physical and technical security teams. In other words, this widely held belief that Clinton and Powell were emailing information classified as top-secret on personal accounts is hooey.

      Glad I could clear that up for you, cicero. I'm now confident that you will never make that mistake again.

  2. Obama was in Hiroshima speaking of the dangers of splitting the atom. And then there was Republicans putting bomb making materials online Email? THAT CLEARLY is more damaging than fissile material, splitting atoms and depleted uranium ... where real people have been harmed. Chris Matthews is morphing back into Jack Welch's boy so he is capable of uttering anything.

  3. just like previous secretaries of state I used a personal email. Many people did. It was not at all unprecedented

    I believe the IG's report said that previous secretaries had a government e-mail and used it. They also sent some number of personal e-mails. As I recall one of them said he used his personal e-mail for non-secret type messages.

    But, no previous secretary of state used his personal e-mail exclusively. No previous secretary of state didn't even have a government e-mail. In these respects, Hillary's behavior was indeed unprecedented.

    1. From Riverdaughter (

      "Last week, in another unguarded moment, the Slate Political Gabfest trio revealed what the deal was with Hillary’s emails. Go to about the 21 minute mark of their latest episode 'I Threw a Chair in Reno Just to Watch it Fly' where they start to discuss why it is that The Donald can get away with not revealing his tax returns but Hillary damaged herself seriously because she didn’t want journalists filing FOIA requests to go sifting through her emails to find stupid little things and turns of phrases that could be made into gigantic, distracting nothings.

      "They sound like whiny little children. They’re going to camp on these emails and the unreleased transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and they readily acknowledge that all they and their journalist droogs are going to do is make a mountain of something as trivial as 'thank you all for allowing me to talk to you today'.

      "It reminds me of the papparazzi that regarded it as their right to follow Princess Diana around. Everything she did was documented to death. Literally."

    2. And previous secretaries did use private email, so her behavior was indeed not at all unprecedented.

      David your empty attacks do no more than illustrate your empty mind and character.

    3. Megan McArdle intends to vote for Hillary. Nevertheless she points out:

      [The IG report] lays to rest the longtime Clinton defense that this use of a private server was somehow normal and allowed by government rules: It was not normal, and was not allowed by the government rules in place at the time “The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to … ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”

      It also shreds the defense that “Well, Colin Powell did it too” into very fine dust, and then neatly disposes of the dust. As the report makes very clear, there are substantial differences between what Powell did and what Clinton did:

      Powell says he set up a private e-mail account, in addition to his internal account, because at the time, the State Department “email system in place only only permitted communication among Department staff. He therefore requested that information technology staff install the private line so that he could use his personal account to communicate with people outside the Department.” This is a quite plausible reason that, around the turn of the millennium, a secretary of state would have wanted to use his own account. Powell seems not to have done enough to ensure that those records were maintained, which is a problem (though it’s not clear that he was aware that he should have turned those e-mails over). However, as far as I can tell, the most plausible explanation of Clinton’s behavior is that she set up her e-mail server for the express purpose of keeping those e-mails from being archived as records (and subject to Freedom of Information Act requests), which is a great deal more problematic than setting up an inadequately archived e-mail system because there’s no other way to use an increasingly vital communications technology.

      Powell had an outside line set up in his office, into which he plugged a laptop, which he used alongside his State Department computer. The IT department was, in other words, aware that this was going on, and it seems to have come up in discussions of his drive to get everyone at State access to the Internet at their desk. While the quality of information about Powell’s Internet usage is not as high as it is about Clinton’s (after 10 years, memories fade, people become hard to contact, and records degrade), there’s no indication that he was less than transparent with staff. On the other hand, it’s quite clear that folks at State had no idea what was going on with Clinton’s e-mail server, and troublingly, at least two people who asked questions about it were apparently told to shut up and never raise the subject again.

      Three things have changed pretty dramatically since Powell’s day: the magnitude (and appreciation) of cybersecurity threats; the quality of the State Department systems; and the government rules surrounding both recordkeeping and cybersecurity. One can argue that Powell should not have used a private computer during his tenure, but he seems to have done so in consultation with the IT folks, at a time when the policy surrounding these things was “very fluid” and the State Department “was not aware of the magnitude of the security risks associated with information technology.” By 2009, the magnitude of the risks was clear, and the policy was also much clearer. As far as the OIG could determine, Clinton took no action to ensure that she was in compliance with that policy, which, in fact, she emphatically was not. Officials at State told the OIG in no uncertain terms that they would not have approved her reliance on a personal e-mail server.

    4. Continued McArdle quote:
      The OIG found only three instances in which State employees had relied exclusively on personal e-mail: Powell, Clinton and Ambassador J. Scott Gration, the U.S. emissary to Kenya from 2011 to 2012. Gration, who served under Clinton, was in the middle of a disciplinary process initiated against him for this e-mail use (among other things) when he resigned.

      ...The OIG found evidence that the server was attacked, and that Clinton’s staff members (and presumably Clinton herself) were aware of it (Clinton at one point seems to have expressed concern that people might be trying to hack her email). These incidents should have been reported to computer security personnel, but OIG found no evidence that they were.

      ...I worked in bank IT for several years before I went to business school, and when this story first broke, I enjoyed an amusing hour or so envisioning what regulators would have said if we’d tried any of these sorts of excuses on them. Since then, I’ve had several such conversations with folks who are still laboring in the trenches of the securities industry, and their bitter laughter still rings in my ears.

    5. [The IG report] lays to rest the longtime Clinton defense that this use of a private server was somehow normal and allowed by government rules:

      I stopped reading after this first line.

      When precisely did the Secretary or anyone else say that the use of a private server was "normal"? The answer is of course NEVER, not once, and Ms. Megan McArdle provides not a single quote or example of when someone from Clinton's team ever made that claim which she LIES about saying this was "the longtime Clinton defense".

      Well, if this was such a longtime Clinton defense, surely you could find one single fucking example where that defense was made.

      This is another perfect example of selective editing from the OIG report.

      It is astounding. Powell gets credit for installing a personal laptop and using personal email exclusively because he asked the IT guy to set it up for him, but somehow the whole frigging reason this has become an issue, FOIA and Federal Records preservation are conveniently ignored.

      "...During his interview with OIG, Secretary Powell stated that he accessed the email account via his personal laptop computer in his office, while traveling, and at his residence, but not through a mobile device. His representative advised the Department that Secretary Powell “did not retain those emails or make printed copies.” 86
      Secretary Powell also stated that neither he nor his representatives took any specific measures to preserve Federal records in his email account. Secretary Powell’s representative told OIG that
      she asked Department staff responsible for recordkeeping whether they needed to do anything to preserve the Secretary’s emails prior to his departure, though she could not recall the names or titles of these staff. According to the representative, the Department staff responded that the Secretary’s emails would be captured on Department servers because the Secretary had emailed
      other Department employees.

      The exact same fucking thing Secretary Clinton said apparently confirmed by the department IT person.

      So, completely buried is the original reason everyone was so fucking concerned, FOIA and Federal Records were not preserved by Powell, while Secretary Clinton did indeed turn in every single fucking email whether it was a Federal Record or not.

      Yet, of course no one would ever ever dare accuse Secretary Powell of hiding something or being derelict in his duties. No, the assumption of sinister motives is only applied to Secretary Clinton, because you know, CLINTON RULES.

      "His representative advised the
      Department that Secretary Powell “did not retain those emails or make printed copies.”

      Conveniently ignored, and buried, is the fact that it was his duty as stated in the FAM to do that exact thing, PRINT the fucking emails that needed to be preserved, because of FOIA and Federal Records.

      She did it, no one else did, yet she is the one being accused of hiding something.

      Kafka could never have written something this bizarre.

    6. "I believe the IG's report said that previous secretaries had a government e-mail and used it. They also sent some number of personal e-mails. As I recall one of them said he used his personal e-mail for non-secret type messages."

      I should have stopped after David in Cal wrote, "I believe"

      "...non-secret type messages..."

      Is it possible to be this stupid? Is it possible to not know that Secretary Clinton like all Secretaries before and since used secure means of communication for classified information?

    7. @mm

      HRC didn't tell anyone in Obama Administration she was using a private server stashed in her Chappaqua basement. The only reason the public knows about this now is because of Select Committee on Benghazi investigation into her mishandling the situation and erroneously blaming the youtube video for the dead Americans. If HRC figured what she was doing was allowed by State Department and didn't need to check with them first for permission, why did she keep the private server secret from even POTUS Obama? Why did she instruct her underlings to never talk about the private server?

      HRC did not use a secure Blackberry, Ipod,

    8. "We joke in Ukraine that it is a bad sign for Trump that he hired Manafort. Because his client Yanukovych was ousted and fled to Russia, to the city of Rostov. So Trump could also end up in Rostov. It is almost like an anecdote." -- Ukrainian political expert Oleg Kravchenko

      Your party is nominating a candidate with ties to Putin. LMAO

    9. @mm

      Almost as bad as HRC's embarrassing attempt at diplomacy with the Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov.

      Clinton presented Lavrov with a gift-wrapped red button, which said "Reset" in English and "Peregruzka" in Russian. The problem was, "peregruzka" doesn't mean reset. It means overcharged, or overloaded.

      And Lavrov called her out on it.

      "We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?" Clinton asked Lavrov.

      "You got it wrong," Lavrov said. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means overcharged."

      Source for HRC's prop: an emergency stop button that had been hastily pilfered from a swimming pool or Jacuzzi at the Geneva hotel.

      Neither HRC nor her aides knew the State Department employed professional translators. Add it to the list of things at the State Department that flummoxed HRC.

  4. Reporters from ABC, CNN, Reuters, Fox, Politico and Fox News were at the special State Department Briefing on May 25, during which State Department spokesmen clarified that Sec. Clinton WAS PERMITTED BY THE RULES to use private email. Try to find this reported by Reuters, ABC, CNN, FOX NEWS, AP, or Politico.

    I seriously doubt you can find it there. "Why?" you ask. Because to report the truth would nuke the media narrative that Clinton was found to have broken the rules on using private email. Yes, it was permitted under federal rules; and NO, the media doesn't want you to know about it.

  5. Clinton only used a home e-mail system because she was broke and in debt.

  6. So TDH says the email scandal is hurting Clinton and the NY Times is adding to her troubles with its reporting--certainly, those TDH views are correct, as far as they go.

    But TDH fails to note the factors that drive the drip, drip, drip....The shifting rationale for the private email set-up; the strenuous efforts to avoid compliance with laws and regulations on transparency; the reports that some working under Clinton were told that the private email set-up had indeed been approved.

    At least TDH does not go out on a limb and say that Clinton was, in fact, open and truthful about the email set-up. That would be foolish.

  7. >>>shifting rationale for the private email set-up;<<<

    Facts not in evidence. Please, be so good as to describe and document the "shifting rationale"

    >>>the strenuous efforts to avoid compliance with laws and regulations on transparency;<<<

    Right, by being the only Cabinet Secretary EVER to release every single email, whether it was a public record or not. We are entering Doublespeak territory now, where the one person who has disclosed all her tax returns and all the work emails is the one being hammered by the media for lack of transparency.

    "strenuous efforts to avoid compliance" my ass.

    She has consistently maintained that by cc'ing everything to persons on their account was her effort to make sure all the emails were preserved on the government system.

    Guess what the report says.

    "Secretary Powell’s representative told OIG that
    she asked Department staff responsible for recordkeeping whether they needed to do anything to preserve the Secretary’s emails prior to his departure, though she could not recall the names or titles of these staff. According to the representative, the Department staff responded that the Secretary’s emails would be captured on Department servers because the Secretary had emailed other Department employees."

    Read that part in bold again. Powell checked with department staff responsible for record keeping and they told him to do the exact same fucking thing Secretary Clinton said she did, yet no one dares suggest Powell was making efforts to avoid compliance. Powell saved nothing, while she turned over 55000 pages of emails, and she is the one that was trying to hide something.

    It is absolutely mind boggling the contortions people are going through to find some little thing to hang her on, the resources devoted to trying to prove something nefarious, the unprecedented scrutiny she is receiving over this.

    I know a fucking witch hunt when I see one and this is it in spades.

    How is it that not until 2014 did anyone even bother to ask Secretary Powell for the printed hard copies of his emails, and then when he shrugged and said he didn't keep them from his FUCKING YAHOO EMAIL, the press kissed his ass and said thanks?

    It's almost as if there is a carefully coordinated effort to destroy this distinguished Woman, twice elected Senator and former Secretary of State for political reasons that have fuckall to do with FOIA and Federal Records.

    Someone should write a book.

    The Hunting of Hillary

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. A Navy sailor entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton...

    Read more:
    Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

    1. Wait 'til DavidinCal realizes fraud is routinely prosecuted and prison sentences meted out when the perpetrator of fraud is poor or a minority. While our two-tier justice system hasn't prosecuted the epidemic of fraud perpetrated by bankers and Wall Streeters which crashed the world's economy (so badly the government--of all things--had to bail it out).
      That is, if you can wait to hear crickets. Because DavidinCal is so sure it's minorities and the poor (who he enjoys seeing be kicked)---and not the elite---who commit crimes, he won't say a thing about it.

    2. If Bob read 3:02's comment, he'd thank her or him. The comment is an example of a point Bob frequently makes, that liberals often use the charge of racism as an all-purpose tactic in political debate.

    3. David in Cal flatters himself. He thinks what he's doing here is debating, rather than trolling a progressive website and dropping his little turds in the punch bowl when he feels the mood.

      You post shit, I post a rebuttal, you post more shit.

      It's amazing David. The one thing you take from TDH above all else is his unhappiness with reflexive charges of racism. Everything else, you fucking ignore.

  9. My life became devastated when my husband sent me packing, after 8 years that we have been together. I was lost and helpless after trying so many ways to make my husband take me back. One day at work, i was absent minded not knowing that my boss was calling me, so he sat and asked me what its was all about i told him and he smiled and said that it was not a problem. I never understand what he meant by it wasn't a problem getting my husband back, he said he used a spell to get his wife back when she left him for another man and now they are together till date and at first i was shocked hearing such thing from my boss. He gave me an email address of the great spell caster who helped him get his wife back, i never believed this would work but i had no choice that to get in contact with the spell caster which i did, and he requested for my information and that of my husband to enable him cast the spell and i sent him the details, but after two days, my mom called me that my husband came pleading that he wants me back, i never believed it because it was just like a dream and i had to rush down to my mothers place and to my greatest surprise, my husband was kneeling before me pleading for forgiveness that he wants me and the kid back home, then i gave Happy a call regarding sudden change of my husband and he made it clear to me that my husband will love me till the end of the world, that he will never leave my sight. Now me and my husband is back together again and has started doing pleasant things he hasn't done before, he makes me happy and do what he is suppose to do as a man without nagging. Please if you need help of any kind, kindly contact Happy for help and you can reach him via email:

  10. Hi everyone,so excited Dr.Unity helped me to stop Divorce and he can also help you to fix your Broken Relationships, Separations, Divorce & Get your ex Back. I am Natasha Hayes by name and i reside here in London, United Kingdom. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with two kids.A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past{7}months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our marriage was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster Dr Unity. So, i will advice you out there, if you have any problem contact Dr Unity,i give you 100% guarantee that he will help you and you will be the next to share your testimony to every one in the world.!!. Email him at: or call him on +2348072370762 and you can also visit his website for more details: thanks to Dr Unity for the love he show to me and family.

  11. Thank you sir for your genuine spells. I'm Emily by name. From Germany This is really incredible, and I have never experienced anything like this in my life. Before i met you Sir, i have tried every probable means that i could to get my husband back, but i actually came to realize that nothing was working out for me, and that my husband had developed lot of hatred for me.. I thought there was no hope to reunite with my husband. But when i read good reviews about how Prophet Abulele help others, I decided to Email him at to give it a try and i did everything that he instructed me and i Trusted in him and followed his instructions just as he have guaranteed me in 24 hours, and that was exactly when my husband called me..Sir We are more contented now than ever. Everything looks perfect and so natural! Thank you so much Sir for your authentic and indisputable spells. here again his Email: Thanks Sir for your help..