READING COMEY: Narrative tics versus comforting look!


Part 4—Evoking the young Joni Mitchell:
Many mainstream press observers are trying to read James Comey.

Finally, this very morning, Vanessa Friedman weighs in.

Her piece appears on the front page of the New York Times' "Thursday Styles" section. According to the hard-copy headline, Comey is "The Model G-Man, Still Looking the Part:"
FRIEDMAN (4/19/18): Mr. Comey stares out from small screens and promotional pictures everywhere—trailers, social media and reviews. He is steely eyed, often glancing upward, as to a higher goal, or resolutely ahead; dark, brush-cut hair just beginning to be smudged with gray; the squareness of his jawline matched only by the squareness of his shoulders, his 6-foot-8 frame often draped in layers of true blue.


The look is in many ways the culmination of a cinematic romance with bureaucratic iconography that began in 1935 with James Cagney’s film “‘G’ Men,” and continued through Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness in Brian De Palma’s “The Untouchables.” Mr. Comey fits neatly within this predetermined, easily read lens. It’s both comforting and slightly unnerving to see how closely he resembles the fictive embodiments of his role.
Comey's look is in many ways the culmination of a cinematic romance with bureaucratic iconography, at least according to Friedman. As they read her reading of the G-Man, our analysts nodded appreciatively over and over again:
FRIEDMAN: It’s a character Mr. Comey has been honing for years, since he took the oath of office as F.B.I. director in 2013, and immortalized in his testimony before Congress last June, when he appeared in a dark suit, pristine white shirt and dark red tie, caught forever in multiple cameras and the watching imagination.

Even when he takes off his tie, as he has for his recent TV appearances, or swaps the jacket for a collared shirt in a dark shade, as he did for his Twitter page and his author photograph, as if to acknowledge his role as a private citizen, his clothes still convey sincerity and sobriety. There’s nothing really casual about them.

On Mr. Colbert’s show, he wore a black shirt and matching trousers with a gray jacket finished in black buttons: Johnny Cash, the lawyer version. You can take the G-man out of the suit (and the job), but not the suit out of the former G-man.

This has the Pavlovian effect of giving his words a believability (at least for those who buy into the cultural stereotype).
It helps counteract the (understandable) perception that he is limelight seeking and self-promotional, because even as he stands out there on his own, he is connected to a much bigger tradition.
It's so obvious once you read it! According to Friedman, Comey "is increasingly casting the mission-driven antipode [sic] to the president." In this increasing act of self-casting, "his appearance acts as a kind of supporting argument."

Reading Friedman's analysis, we had to admit that we've missed a lot as we've tried to read Comey. We haven't focused on his suits, or on the way they help his casting as an antipode. Like Jack Oakie in The Great Dictator, we'd blown right past the Pavlovian effect triggered by his wardrobe selections.

For whatever reason, we've focused on other parts of Comey's performance in the past week. We've focused on behavioral tics which made us think that James B. Comey, while perhaps a thoroughly decent person, is also perhaps a slightly odd duck, in ways which may have changed a little thing called the history of the world.

We haven't read Comey's book. Plainly, we haven't attended enough to his suits.

We did read Carlos Lozada's review of Comey's book in Sunday's Washington Post. The review appeared on the Post's front page, and grabbed us in several ways.

Lozada, of course, is picking and choosing from Comey's book in ways which make sense to him. It may be that some of the material he cites will seem different when read in the book's full context.

That said, let's start with something which may seem trivial. In the passage shown below, Lozada describes a behavioral tic which comes to us straight outta Rachel Maddow.

"When Comey cops to petty misdeeds...the self-criticism—and self-regard—is almost comical," Lozada writes, offering several examples. "But when the stakes rise, self-examination diminishes," Lozada goes on to allege.

We've often noted this same pattern in Rachel Maddow's almost comical self-corrections regarding trivial errors, matched by her refusal to correct herself concerning larger, highly significant bungles. According to Lozada's fuller passage, Comey displays the same self-serving behavioral tic:
LOZADA (4/16/18): When Comey cops to petty misdeeds...the self-criticism—and self-regard—is almost comical. At 6-feet-8, he used to lie about having played basketball for William & Mary, and he still feels bad about it. (After finishing law school, he reached out to friends and fessed up.) He once regifted a necktie to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. “Because we considered ourselves people of integrity,” Comey explains solemnly, “I disclosed it was a regift as I handed him the tie.” And he congratulates himself for not exercising director’s prerogative and cutting in line at the FBI cafeteria. “Even when I was in a hurry. . . . I thought it was very important to show people that I’m not better than anyone else.”

But when the stakes rise, self-examination diminishes. On his decision to publicly denounce Clinton’s handling of classified information in her private emails in July 2016, Comey’s misgivings are cosmetic. He wishes he had organized the statement differently and explained early that no charges were warranted, and he wishes he had not characterized Clinton’s actions as “extremely careless”—even if “thoughtful lawyers” could understand what he meant. (Too bad thoughtful lawyers weren’t his only audience.)
Is Comey a alightly odd duck, especially with regard to his solemn self-regard in the moral sphere?

To us, it's strange to think that he would have lied to friends about playing basketball in college, though that would have happened long ago, when Comey was still in his twenties.

It seems extremely strange to think that this ancient, rather weird episode would be present in Comey's new book—a book about such serious topics as the possible end of the world. Perhaps it seems different in context.

When Lozada reads Comey, he finds a nearly obsessive focus on Comey's own moral status. "Consider the egotism of being preoccupied by your [own] egotism," Lozada writes at one point, taking a pot shot at Comey.

It's the kind of easy jibe to which Lozada is sometimes inclined. Still, this longer passage fleshes out what Lozada means:
LOZADA: Comey revisits his own big career moments—prosecuting mobsters, standing up to Vice President Dick Cheney and his consigliere David Addington over counterterrorism policies—with understandable pride. Yet he constantly worries he is too self-centered. “I can be stubborn, prideful, overconfident, and driven by ego,” he admits. “I’ve struggled with those my whole life.”

That struggle continues in this book.
Comey isn’t just the kind of writer who quotes Shakespeare, but the kind who quotes himself quoting Shakespeare. He rejects the notion that “I am in love with my own righteousness” yet notes that “I have long worried about my ego.”
Lozada's examples continue from there. Is Comey's apology to Clinton in his book "a very Clintonian apology?" In our view, Lozada would be a better writer if he would avoid such easy, almost slick, jibes.

That said, James B. Comey is 57 years old, and he has long been a very important public official. To us, it's odd, and far from reassuring, to see a person of such years and such standing still debating his own moral standing in the tortured ways Lozada describes.

“I can be stubborn, prideful, overconfident, and driven by ego?" Incomparably, we think of a brilliant lyric from Joni Mitchell, though you do have to hear it performed:
He tried hard to help me
You know, he put me at ease
And he loved me so naughty
Made me weak in the knees
Oh I wish I had a river I could skate away on

I'm so hard to handle
I'm selfish and I'm sad
Now I've gone and lost the best baby
That I ever had

Oh I wish I had a river I could skate away on
That beautiful lyric (especially as performed) constitutes a very unusual, very direct piece of moral self-flagellation. But it was written by a poet, not by a former head of the FBI, and the poet was 27 years old at the time. We don't think it's reassuring to hear its tone in that excerpt as Lozada reads Comey.

We'll note a third element which caught our ear as we read Lozada's review, and as we watched Comey interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. We refer to the psychiatric tone in Comey's prose, which may serve to make him an object of pity and to undermine judgment of his behavior:
LOZADA: [Trump] lurks in Comey’s schoolboy battles with bullies, for instance. “All bullies are largely the same,” he writes. “They threaten the weak to feed some insecurity that rages inside them.” Or in his days battling mafia families as U.S. attorney in Manhattan, a time that came back to him once he encountered team Trump. “As I found myself thrust into the Trump orbit, I once again was having flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the Mob. The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them worldview. The lying about all things.”
Please note: Comey wasn't just having flashbacks—he was having flashbacks once again. He seems to have them a lot. He referred to his flashbacks as she spoke with Stephanopoulos, and of course to his out-of-body experiences:
STEPHANOPOULOS (4/15/18): How weird was that ["pee tape"] briefing [with Trump]?

COMEY: Really weird. I mean, I don't know whether it was weird for President-elect Trump, but I— It was almost an out-of-body experience for me. I was floating above myself, looking down, saying, "You're sitting here, briefing the incoming president of the United States about prostitutes in Moscow." And of course, Jeh Johnson's voice is banging around in my head. President Obama's eyebrow raise is banging around in my head. I just wanted to get it done and get out of there.
Comey wanted to descend from the ceiling and hastily exit the room.

Later in the interview, Comey describes the meeting where Trump suggested that he should drop the investigation of Michael Flynn. Sure enough! It happens again:
STEPHANOPOULOS: What were you thinking as you left the Oval Office that day?

COMEY: That something really important just happened, and that I was a little—another one of those out-of-body experiences, like, "Really? The president just kicked out the attorney general to ask me to drop a criminal investigation." Wow, the world continues to go crazy.
Sung to the tune of "Back in the Saddle," he was up on the ceiling again.

For a guy who was running the FBI, Comey seems to have had a lot of flashbacks and out-of-body experiences. This doesn't seem reassuring wither. Nor does it strike us as true.

Does anyone really believe that Comey (presumably felt he) "was floating above myself, looking down" as he spoke with Trump that day, with Obama's eyebrow raise banging around in his head? It seems to us that his out-of-body experiences and flashbacks create a highly dramatic narrative structure which serve to excuse his perhaps peculiar, perhaps slightly craven behavior in these exchanges with Trump.

This is also true of the unconscious forces he says may have affected his judgment in October 2016, when he took Candidate Clinton down for the second of his three times. It seems to us that these narrative tics mainly serve to position Comey as a figure buffeted by forces of superhuman power. For ourselves, we'd prefer to have an FBI head who doesn't end up floating above the room when a figure like Donald J. Trump makes inappropriate suggestions.

Lozada is highly skeptical of Comey's super-moralistic stances and frameworks. He ends up suggesting that Comey isn't wholly unlike Donald Trump. Here's how his reading ends:
LOZADA: [Comey] laments Trump’s lack of self-reflection or self-awareness. “Listening to others who disagree with me and are willing to criticize me is essential to piercing the seduction of certainty,” Comey writes. “Doubt, I’ve learned, is wisdom. . . . Those leaders who never think they are wrong, who never question their judgments or perspectives, are a danger to the organizations and people they lead.”

Trump is the most severe example of that tendency in this book. But he is not the only one.
Oof! For all his flamboyant self-reflection, is Comey really a bit like Trump is his foundational self-regard? Does he secretly lack the self-awareness gene? Is his moral self-flagellation really a form of cover?

Perhaps we'd have a better idea if we'd paid more attention to his clothes. That said, we don't believe in bad people here. We do believe in rather strange ducks, and that's how Comey tends to strike us.

Everybody's some kind of way; also, nobody's perfect. That said, Comey's behavior in 2016 may have changed the history of the world, in a rather unpleasant way.

This brings us back to Loretta Lynch, who we find under a bus, huddling there with Hillary Clinton and with several others. Why did Comey get such a pass when his amazingly well-intentioned blunders began?

Tomorrow: Big stars give Comey a pass


  1. "perhaps a thoroughly decent person"

    I'll just note that no one who managed to climb this high in the bureaucratic snake-pit of Washington DC can be regarded as "decent person". Not in the sense this phrase is understood by ordinary, normal human beings, anyway.

    1. " ... ordinary, normal human beings, ...."

      How would you know?

  2. It's conceivable that the psychiatric tone in Comey's prose comes from his ghost writer, rather than from Comey.

    1. Practically anything is conceivable. It's conceivable that you your comment has any value, relevance, purpose, etc.

    2. I thought that too. Or at least his editor. The Oprah-hization of culture.

      Then again, he just might be this sophomoric.

      Another good piece by Bob. Coney is more than a bit cloying.

    3. I'll take a dearth of self-awareness accompanied by a middle finger salute any day over Comey's self-indulgent Woody-Allen-stream-of-consciousness.

    4. How do you fill a whole book without that personal musing? He's doing what people are supposed to do in a memoir. He can't really tell a lot of stories about his life because most of it is probably either confidential or classified. Give the guy a break!

    5. Don't you have your hands full rubbing it in about the tough stance Trump is taking with the Russians?

  3. This is a lot of meandering that does not illustrate much except that Bob never updated his record collection. No, there is nothing strange about a 57 year old reveiwing his own moral choices, espeically when they are of such impact.
    The critical moment for James Comey was when he went before Congress and, far in excess of his duty or responsability, ragged on the morals of a private citizen who happened to be a major candidate for the Presidency, while at the same time admitting there was no reason to bring her to Court. On the left, we breathed a sign of relief as She was going to win anyway. On the progressive left, they issued dissapointment, as excessive bullying from the right was counted on to put their Man over the top. On the right, where crap Americans like Mao Cheig Ji had turned hatred of the opposition into a religion, or mixed it in with their already debauched version of Christianity, only more vengful wrath was demanded.
    What drove Comey to this, his original sin? Too little has even been speculated on conserning the matter. Yet this is where Comey has been given a pass.
    Can Comey's pass be linked to Bob's famous pass of Bill O"Reilly and all things crazy right and Fox? It's hard not to link them.

    1. Comey made the classic mistake of trying to appease terrorists,... oops,..I mean, the corporate-owned right-wing media,.. who were accusing him of being"unfair, and liberally biased".

      The guy who climbed to the head of the bureaucratic snake-pit of Washington, DC, was cowed by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. Sad.

    2. Perhaps. See Joe Conason in the National Memo today. Bob used to know about this guy.

  4. Effective powerful love spell to get your Ex lover back urgently after breakup/divorce!.
    Hi everyone,
    I'm so excited. My ex-boyfriend is back after a breakup, I’m extremely happy that will are living together again.
    My boyfriend of a 4yr just broke up with me and am 30 weeks pregnant. I have cried myself to sleep most of the nights and don’t seem to concentrate during lectures sometimes I stay awake almost all night thinking about him and start to cry all over again. Because of this I end up not having energy for my next day’s classes, my attendance has dropped and am always in uni and on time. Generally he is a very nice guy, he ended it because he said we were arguing a lot and not getting along. He is right we’ve been arguing during the pregnancy a lot .After the break up I kept ringing him and telling him I will change. I am in love with this guy and he is the best guy I have ever been with. I’m still hurt and in disbelief when he said he didn’t have any romantic feelings towards me anymore that hurt me faster than a lethal syringe. He texts me now and then mainly to check up on how am doing with the pregnancy, he is supportive with it but it’s not fair on me, him texting me as I just want to grieve the pain and not have any stress due to the pregnancy.
    I was really upset and I needed help, so I searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Ahmed can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and I did it then he did a spell for me. 17 hours later, my bf came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my bf are living together happily again...
    All thanks to Dr Ahmed if you have any problem contact Dr Ahmed now and I guarantee you that he will help you. Here’s his contact. Email him at: Call/what’s-app him: +2348160153829

  5. Why does Somerby think that attacking Comey can rehabilitate Trump? It doesn't matter how bad Comey is. Trump's malfeasance remains unchanged. His interactions with Comey are a small part of his attempts to obstruct justice and there are several sources of corroboration for Comey's statements besides just his word. So we don't need to evaluate whether Comey is being honest or not. We know for a fact that whatever Trump says is dishonest and we know for a fact that Comey was fired. The rest is nonsense and Somerby is as guilty of trying to smear Comey as any Republican is.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. The point, of course, would be that in trying to prop up someone who is as flawed a messenger/accuser as Comey is, the Dems are wasting their opportunity to improve their own standing with voters and will likely end up making Trump politically stronger than he otherwise would be.

      Instead of getting themselves stuck in proxy battles over the character of various actors, day in and day out the Dems should be be making the debate about public policy. Specifically, the Dems and their allies in the media should be focused on selling the 99% a policy agenda which a majority of that majority would go out and vote for over the one Trump and the Republicans are advancing.

    3. The point is not that dems are trying to prop up Comey but that Somerby is joining Trump's cronies in tearing him down.

  6. I'm still reading Hillary Clinton's book, What Happened. Today I read the part where she describes the stories she heard in New Hamsphire and Iowa about opioid overdoses. She and Bill were so concerned that they established a program with the manufacturer of Narcan (naloxone) to make it available in every high school and college so that opioid overdoses could be immediately treated. Kids were dying because first responders didn't have access to the antidote, Narcan. She of course had a program to address addictions as part of her campaign, but she didn't just talk about it. She and Bill immediately did what they could about it.

    1. Thanks for another update, if I'm following what you're saying, your take away from this book so far is that Hillary Clinton should have made the last election about character.

    2. The last election was about character -- didn't you notice. You might find this book eye-opening.

    3. Yes, there were two characters. One promised to pursue American national interests, and the other, establishment-supported character, was a standard globalist/neocon politician.

    4. That's great that she did that but I wish that she would go directly against the pharmaceutical companies. She is treating the symptoms but not the cause. She took in more money from pharmaceutical companies than any other candidate in the last election and it doesn't look as if she would have held their feet to the fire in anyway.

      You posted Also earlier in the week how impressed you were that she was going to have a program encouraged parents to sing to their children. That's just more superficial window dressing that doesn't address the root of the cause. The roots of these causes she will never go after. Don't you get that after all these years of the Clinton's?

      Or minimum wage. She's going to raise the minimum wage! She's not going to do anything about the new Gilded Age in which we live or the plutocrats who have asserted full control. But she's going to get you $15 an hour!

      Oh well, we'll never really know what she would have done for sure.

      Have a good weekend.

    5. The Democrats did all they could to make the last election about character. That seemed like a good strategy, given Trump's enormous character flaws. But, I recall a POV expressed by a Philadelphia pollster named Sindlinger. He said
      The American voter is a selfish pig!

      In most elections, that means that they vote for the candidate who promises the most government benefits. But, in 2016, a large contingent voted for the candidate who promised the most jobs.

    6. The last election was about character -- didn't you notice.

      My bad 8:56 AM, from your book reports it's obvious you don't read between the lines- at all. Here then is the clue that I should have included in my 4:39 AM reply to give a literalist like yourself half of a chance to figure out exactly what my point was: LINK.

    7. @9:22

      It wasn't that she "was going to" have a program to sing/talk/read to kids. It is that she established such a program while out of office and working with the Clinton Global Initiative. My point is that she DID THINGS to help kids, not that she talked about it, although Bernie and Trump didn't even talk about things that would help minority kids close the gap. But Somerby runs off after Bernie, after telling us all that WE don't care about minority children and their education.

    8. "The American voter is a selfish pig!"

      Maybe. We'll see if this is true, if the Republicans get slaughtered in the midterms for providing their giveaways to corporations (Tax Reform Bill) and not the voters.

    9. CMike, the only person with actual character in the last election was Clinton. Her opposition couldn't find actual instances of bad character on her part so they manufactured it out of Benghazi and emails and empty speeches to banks and endless investigations that all found nothing.

      Character is revealed by what people do. What has Clinton done since being defeated? She wrote a book in which she forgave people, acknowledged her own mistakes, and presented hope and comfort to her supporters. There is more character in that book than in anything any former politician has done except Jimmy Carter, who I consider to be a great man.

      What did Bernie do after his defeat? He bought a second lake house. Now he goes around tearing down the Democratic Party and criticizing Obama while he hopes no one investigates his own ties to Russia. And you think you have something sarcastic to say about character?

    10. All the candidates promised "jobs", Trump promised the bigotry.

    11. The sing-to-your-kids initiative was sponsored by Huggies and lasted a year. I doubt if it closed any gaps.

      Bernie wanted to fundamentally change the system so Clinton Democrats stopped being Republicans. He wanted to help those kids, don't worry.

      Sorry you feel insulted by Somerby.

      Have a good weekend,

    12. What are Bernie's ties to Russia? What's so bad about tearing down Obama? What did he do that was great? Making the Bush tax cuts permanent? He was a Republican in action and a Democrat in name only. Sorry, some real Democrats don't want to be Republicans and will criticize both Obama and H Clinton based on their actions and policies.

    13. 11:40 AM,

      My 4:39 AM comment was a criticism of Hillary Clinton's idiotic general election strategy, not of her character. I usually argue against straying from policy discussions when it comes to political messaging, and happen to have done so earlier in this very comment thread LINK.

      That said, I believe Bernie Sanders is a career politician of the highest integrity. Hillary Clinton lost an election after making it about her integrity versus Trump's, but don't let that discourage you all from going with what you know.

    14. 1. Bernie honeymooned in Moscow. He hired Tad Devine as his campaign manager, someone as connected to Russia as Manafort. He accepted laundered Russian cash contributions, violating FEC rules and when asked about it said "who cares?" 2. Tearing down Obama disaffects black voters weakening Democrat chances in 2018. Bernie has never joined into party politics in which everyone supports the platform and candidates and helps others get elected. Dems need a majority in congress to do anything at all. Bernie undermines efforts to achieve that. By attacking Dems, Bernie helps Republicans. There is no reason he couldn't put forth his ideas as positive alternatives instead of attacking others. That makes his actual intentions suspicious.

    15. @12:44

      Here is a rundown of the Too Small to Fail Initiative, which continues it works today. It had nothing to do with Huggies and did many things:

      But this is a good example of how Clinton's good works get sabotaged by propaganda. A casual reader might think that Clinton was exaggerating her efforts and collaborating with corporations in showy PR efforts instead of doing things with real benefit.

      Read what was actually done, please.

    16. CMike,

      Clinton didn't make the election about her integrity. She tried to stay focused on issues and her theme was "Stronger Together," emphasizing inclusiveness. Trump and others tried to make it about her lack of integrity and got considerable assistance from Bernie and the media.

      You think Bernie had highest integrity. I agree that his statements were generally truthful, as evaluated by fact checkers, but Clinton was right there with him. Bernie had far more violations of FEC rules. His team made illicit use of hacked data from Clinton's DNC files. He used his position as a Senator to obtain a loan for his wife's university that otherwise would not have been granted, causing financial trouble when the university later defaulted on it. He never released his tax returns. He looked the other way when his campaign surrogates and supporters engaged in sexist and underhanded attacks on Clinton. He never gave her the support he should have after losing the nomination and he permitted his people to continue divisive troublemaking, even at the DNConvention.

      None of that shows "highest integrity."

      And I haven't mentioned any of the weird stuff from his past that would have emerged had he ever been a real candidate.

    17. Thanks 1:21 PM - I read it. It did many things? Name one. The point is it's not a "good thing" by Clinton. It's a chimera. It didn't change any gap at all. What has it done in its 5 years? Nothing. We don't care about those kids. That is just a mirage to make people think that we do. It does nothing significant. It is just PR. But I know you like Clinton a lot and see her as honest. You project good things on her, that's cool.

    18. Glad you won't be with us in 2020 1:16 PM but keep representing your neoliberal overlords by, over and over, throwing those same scoops of sewage around. At least they're dried out by now- YMMV but I would think that makes what you're doing somewhat less repulsive these days than it was when you first grabbed for a handful.

    19. Hillary Clinton doesn't care about kids. She cares about making you think she cares about kids.

  7. I'm from USA, When I eventually found testimonies about this spell caster Dr iyaryi how he helped many people to get their lovers and broken homes back, i contacted him through his email address ( because my boyfriend whom i really love with all my heart and also love me too, but suddenly change and turned his back on me and hated me with passion I was absolutely desperate to get my boyfriend back. Life without my boyfriend was a real mess for me and my parent I wanted a dramatic change and I thought magic could be the solution. After discussing the resolution with Dr ayaryi he gave me hope that he will restore my relationship back because he already engaged me. I felt confident that he will actually make my boyfriend to return home and he did! It’s fantastic what this great spell caster have done for me, his help is priceless! I don't know what I would have done without Dr ayaryi does his job so well he is organized and highly functional, i believe he is the best spell caster i can count on when it comes to all kinds of spell, I was floored that his spells worked, if you need help, contact him ( I assure you things will turn around for you.. And also Reach him on WhatsApp Number: +2349057915709 Thanks Dr. Iyaryi

  8. best on-line help to save your marriage and relationship from breakup or divorce , he can also cure you from you illness contact dr Covenant today on or +2349057353987 add him on watsapp on +2349057353987 or contact him on his email

    I want to say a very big thanks to Dr OLU for the wonderful work he did for me in helping me to save my marriage, my husband ask for a divorce letter because of the little misunderstanding we had in the past few month, And i never wanted this because i love my husband so much and all our investment was a joint business and i don't want to be far away from my family and my two lovely kids. My friend told me about Dr OLU and how he also helped her with her marital issues, so i had to contact him because i want to stop my husband from completing the divorce letter and i want to keep my family together and after contacting him, i was told what i needed to do and when i was going to start seeing the result, I did as Dr. OLU has instructed and after 3 days my Husband call me and start asking for my forgiveness and it was all like a dream to me and we are all living happily together again all thanks to Dr OLU. Contact Him today for marital help via his Whatsapp number: +2348067704010 or call him.
    Email: or
    Also read more about him via his blog page:

  10. Hello,

    I'm Dr Ogudugu, a real and genuine spell caster/Spiritual healer with years of experience in spell casting and an expert in all spells, i specialize exclusively in LOVE SPELL/GET REUNITE WITH EX LOVER, MONEY SPELL, POWERFUL MAGIC RING, ANY COURT CASES, FRUIT OF THE WOMB, HIV CURE, CURE FOR CANCER, HERPES, DIABETE, HERPERTITIS B, PARKINSON’S HERBAL CURE, BECOMING A MERMAID, BECOMING A VAMPIRE, SAVE CHILD BIRTH. They are all %100 Guaranteed QUICK Results, it most work. If you have any problem and you need a real and genuine spell caster to solve your problems, contact me now through my personal Email Address with problem case...Note-you can also Text/Call on WhatsApp.

    Contact me -
    WhatsApp No: +27663492930