SCHOLAR MISSTATES AND CLOWNS: We were given Our Own Rhodes Scholar!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2022

Last Wednesday, she mugged and she clowned: We're so old that we can remember the start of Our Own Rhodes Scholar's career in the racket called "cable news."

She got her start as a sidekick for Tucker Carlson! The leading authority on her career recalls her arrival as shown:

"In June 2005, Maddow became a regular panelist on the MSNBC show Tucker, hosted by Tucker Carlson." 

Actually, Carlson's MSNBC program had a different name at that time.  In real time, Larry Parnass offered a fuller account of the matter in the Daily Hampshire (Mass.) Gazette:

PARNASS (6/15/05): Broadcaster Rachel Maddow of Cummington, who got her start on [local] airwaves, is now working both ends of her day to inject a liberal perspective into the day's news.

On Monday night, Maddow, who spends her weeks in New York City, debuted as a regular panelist on a new MSNBC cable TV show, ''The Situation with Tucker Carlson.''

Maddow is now closing her weekdays with the TV program, which runs from 9 to 10 p.m. daily, after opening them with her nationally syndicated drive-time program on the Air America Radio network.

She said Tuesday she expects to appear on Carlson's program four or five nights a week. The MSNBC studios are in Secaucus, N.J., across the Hudson River from lower Manhattan.

In fairness, Carlson was substantially less ridiculous then. In total fairness, the same was true of Our Own Rhodes Scholar. 

Today, the cablemates have risen to the top of the ranks in so-called cable news. Over at Fox, Carlson is the top-rated personality in the entire field. The Scholar is the highly popular, top-rated personality at MSNBC. 

When Maddow was ascending to prominence, she was being sold to us liberals as Our Own Rhodes Scholar. She was just so super smart, we were persistently told.

A vast array of gong-show incidents followed. Offhand, we think of the week-and-a-half of teabagger jokes, often aimed at regular people, one of the ugliest episodes we've ever seen on cable.

We think of her ludicrous feigned incomprehension concerning her misstatement the previous day, on Meet the Press, about the gender pay gap.

We think of her claim that she only bought her first TV set because she and Susan got blackout drunk—so drunk that neither one could remember going online and ordering the infernal machine.

We think of the way she kept playing Governor Bentley's thrilling sex phone call tape, repeatedly claiming that she was embarrassed and that she'd never play the (utterly pointless) audiotape again.

There have been many other ludicrous incidents and episodes. Those four come quickly to mind. (Don't make us think about Flint.)

Sadly, the network vouched for The Scholar's ridiculous story about buying that first TV set. So it goes when someone in corporate "cable news" is exceptionally gifted at the skill of "selling the car," as it's known on corporate suites.

Maddow was sold to us as Our Own Rhodes Scholar. Steadily, she has evolved into Our Own Cable News Clown. 

On a nightly basis, she provides us with tribalized entertainment, along with highly selective presentations in support of preferred Storyline. We love her for providing these gifts, much as The Others love Tucker.

The mugging and clowning are quite persistent. So is the sheer stupidity The Scholar now brings to her nightly air—and so it was last Wednesday night, during her first nine minutes.

Last Wednesday night, Our Own Rhodes Scholar may perhaps have been enjoying one of her "manic" outings. She opened with reference to a minor but pleasing news event, as did everyone else on pseudo-liberal cable that night. 

She opened with that minor news event. But dear God, the wonderful, mindless fun which prevailed in the program's first nine minutes, before the fabulous cable news star even identified the evening's key  event!

We'll speak this week of those first nine minutes—more precisely, of that evening's first 9:15. She mugged and clowned and misstated freely, giving us ways to feel all warm and cuddly as we tucked ourselves in for bed.

Over on Fox, her former partner may have been engaged in even more ludicrous conduct; we don't plan to go back and look. This week, we'll be talking about our own tribal star—about the product she keeps providing as she allegedly prepares to go off the air.

In that opening 9:15, she mugged and clowned and misstated facts and handed us tribal pleasure. In the next three days, we'll walk you through different aspects of that performance, recalling what Jon Stewart said:

Long ago and far away, he once told the rising star to stop all the cable news clowning. Her job was more important than his, he directly told her that night.

In that particular instance, we'd have to say Stewart was right.

At any rate, she started out as Our Own Rhodes Scholar. We were told she was just super bright.

We think you should see where this experiment has gone. Our nation is sliding into the sea, and the way we've enjoyed Our Own Clown's work is an unmistakable part of that ongoing major disaster.

Tomorrow: As she starts, an idiotic framework


69 comments:

  1. Somerby says that Maddow got her start as a sidekick to Tucker Carlson. Then he provides the info to falsify his own statement:

    "Maddow is now closing her weekdays with the TV program, which runs from 9 to 10 p.m. daily, after opening them with her nationally syndicated drive-time program on the Air America Radio network."

    Maddow "got her start" in local news, then she moved to Air America radio (which I heard on Sirius XM), then she became a liberal panelist on Carlson's show. She became a panelist because she had already established a national presence and attained visibility on Air America. Who else was on Air America with his own show? Al Franken.

    Carlson was NOT the start of Maddow's career and neither she nor Carlson himself were conservatives in the way that Carlson is now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby seems to be implying that Maddow started out more conservative and later became liberal to further her career, but it goes the other direction. Carlson was more moderate and later became extremely conservative to further HIS career.

      Maddow has been liberal as long as she has been in broadcasting.

      Delete
    2. He didn't say start of her career, he clearly states in the first paragraph that he is talking about her start of her time in cable news:

      "We're so old that we can remember the start of Our Own Rhodes Scholar's career in the racket called "cable news.""

      Delete
    3. It would be more accurate to say that this was the start of her career on MSNBC, but local news and Sirius XM news programming were legitimate news sources. This seems like an example of being excessively literal and narrowly focused in order to portray Carlson as her start, when he was just a waystation on the path to getting her own MSNBC show.

      Delete
    4. By her lamb farm.

      Delete
    5. (Maddow and her partner own and operate a lamb farm.)

      Delete
    6. According to Vogue she wears 35,000 dollar underpants.

      Delete
    7. So do most of the people in Iceland. What's your point?

      Delete
    8. Don't know how much Icelandic underpants cost.

      Do you guys not understand that those who make designer underpants would give Maddow and other "influencers" free underpants just so that someone can say in Vogue that she wears them?

      Remember that scandal when Nancy Reagan was found to be wearing $20,000 designer outfits as First Lady, that she didn't give back? Think about the gift bags given to celebs at the Oscars, so the products can claim that movies stars use them.

      You keep repeating this claim, but this is what happens in a capitalist economy. As they say, it is a dirty job but someone has to wear them.

      Delete
    9. He obviously meant she got her start on cable news with Tucker. He didn't lie. But your bad faith reading is a distortion, because you hate hearing someone criticize a millionaire who acts liberal on TV.

      Delete
    10. The prevalence of Icelandic lamb farms is something no one would ever dispute. I heard though they they made saddles for the lambs as kind of a joke and then one night, after one too many Rumfustians, actually rode the lambs. Apparently they showed up at the convenience store a few miles away on their lambs making a racket.

      Delete
    11. Have you ever seen a lamb? Have you ever seen Maddow? You would know this story is ridiculous.

      Delete
    12. Yes - but if it is true that is not something cable hosts should be doing.

      Delete
  2. Why would Somerby ignore extant facts to link Maddow with Carlson, giving him responsibility for her success? Because Somerby is a misogynist who wishes to do Maddow harm by portraying her as a hypocrite. You can view her time on Carlson's show as a tryout for her own show on MSNBC, but Carlson was by no means her start or responsible for her later success.

    Somerby claims that Maddow was less ridiculous then. I remember her as being substantially the same, except that now she has a better research staff and has added visuals to her reports (being on TV instead of radio).

    Later, Somerby says:

    "Over on Fox, her former partner may have been engaged in even more ludicrous conduct..."

    Appearing in a segment on someone else's show does not make them partners. This is Somerby's attempt at guilt by association.

    Of the two mentioned, Carlson and Maddow, who does Somerby spend the most time denigrating? Maddow, not Carlson, despite Carlson's obvious descent into the right-wing fever swamp, his influence on conservative voters, his vaccine hypocrisy and his cynical misuse of airspace on Fox. Carlson is the one who whispers in Trump's ear, not Maddow. But Maddow is the target of Somerby's ongoing spleen, and has been since her early years. Why?

    You don't have to look far for an answer to that question. Maddow triggers Somerby's misogyny. Tucker gets a pass because he is one of the boys no matter how much damage he has done to our nation. Maddow is Somerby's focus because: (1) girls aren't supposed to be stars on major cable news shows, (2) girls aren't supposed to be called smart, (3) girls aren't supposed to be Rhodes scholars who write books in addition to being on TV, (4) girls aren't supposed to criticize the power structure and expose wrongdoing, (5) girls aren't supposed to call for men to be put in jail, ever, no matter what they've done, (6) girls aren't supposed to laugh at men and call them teabaggers, no matter what they are doing, (7) girls aren't supposed to be comedians, tell jokes, laugh at news stories, or entertain their audiences -- comedy belongs to men, (8) girls aren't supposed to succeed at things that men such as Somerby fail at, (9) girls aren't supposed to make fistfuls of money and have status as #1 show on MSNBC doing a man's job, (10) girls aren't supposed to be gay and have their own lovers and enjoy their lives by drinking wine and buying TV sets -- they are supposed to have husbands and kids and spend their time helping them succeed and not build their own highly successful careers.

    But Somerby knows that it is wrong to feel this way, given feminism and women's rights, but he can't help himself, so he disguises his animosity by pretending that Maddow just isn't very good at her job. But he doesn't have enough examples to support that view, so he digs up his own trivial complaints from past years, a golden oldies of his own vitriol, and pretends that this justifies today's rant over nothing. And because it is nothing, he doesn't even bother to tell us what she supposedly did wrong. He thinks it is enough to use his own platform as a man to tell us that Rachel Maddow is out of bounds, and we are all supposed to take his word for it, because he has a dick, an affronted tone, and a Blogspot account.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see anything in this article where somerby is trying to tie maddow to carlson for reasons of "guilt by association"...my take on the article is that he is trying to show, in his opinion, how far she has fallen since her early years, or how bad her work has been. You could certainly argue those points (personally I am not a fan of Maddow), but my point is not whether someone likes maddow or not, but that the guilt by association thing is not a point made by somerby.

      Also to the question of why focus on maddow and not carlson, it's a good question. my take on somerby, rightly or wrongly, is that he spent years pointing out lunacy on the right and is now upset that he sees the same clowning on the left. I don't think it has to do with being anti female, or thinking females don't belong as stars on cable tv, that is a huge leap on your part in my opinion. Honestly, I think her snark is downright annoying, not funny at all, but then again I am probably not her target demographic.

      Delete
    2. Where is any example of "how bad her work has been"? How is it falling to become the #1 show on MSNBC?

      I don't think Somerby has ever spent "years" much less months pointing out lunacy on the right. He doesn't talk about the right and never has on his Daily Howler blogs.

      Why focus on Carlson instead of the various other people Maddow has been associated with? He has done that because he knows liberals dislike Carlson, so he hopes that will rub off on her.

      Delete
    3. The giveaway by Somerby is where he refers to Maddow as Carlson's "sidekick" when she was only on the show to add a liberal perspective. She wasn't Carlson's Ed McMahon. So Somerby is putting his thumb on the scales by using that term, obviously trying to tie her more closely to Carlson instead of merely noting that she was once on his show before he sold out to the right wing and joined their noise machine.

      Delete
    4. "I don't see anything..."

      The blind leading the blind.

      Delete
    5. Maddow is working on a big story now of great embarrassment to Republicans. That’s what this is about, he can’t find anyway to knock it down.

      Delete
  3. How hard is it to become a Rhodes Scholar? Harder than it is to get into Harvard, where Somerby was admitted.

    Forbes Magazine says:

    "Named after Cecil J. Rhodes, the award dates back to 1902. The scholarship provides financial support for students as they complete degrees, whether that’s a second bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree or a doctorate degree. Students get their tuition, fees, flights, living expenses and healthcare paid for.

    While a strong history of academic achievement is important, Rhodes Scholars are also chosen based on their character, leadership skills and how they plan to work for the common good. Some famous Rhodes Scholars from the U.S. include:

    Cory Booker
    Bill Clinton
    Ronan Farrow
    Rachel Maddow
    Susan Rice
    George Stephanopoulos
    Bonnie St. John

    The award was only open to male students until 1977. Most U.S. Rhodes Scholars pursue master’s degrees, according to the Rhodes Trust..."

    Maddow pursued a doctorate in political science which means she wrote a dissertation that was later turned into a published book.

    "You must have either completed a degree by the time you apply or you’re on track to complete your degree before entering Oxford. Your GPA must be at least a 3.70 and you must provide an official transcript from your college or university. You’ll also need to show proof of age and nationality, including a birth certificate, passport or other government-issued identification.

    Your college or university will need to provide an endorsement of your application. This means you can’t apply without your school knowing your intentions. A two-page CV is also required, along with a headshot, academic statement of study, a personal statement and five to eight references."

    If you are shortlisted, you must then attend a social engagement event and a final interview. The article concludes:

    "In the United States—including the District of Columbia and U.S. territories—32 students are selected every year as Rhodes Scholars. The incoming class that starts in October 2021 came from nearly 1,000 applicants from almost 300 different colleges.

    The application process is daunting for anyone applying for the Rhodes Scholarship. So if you don’t have the time and resources to devote to applying, you may decide to skip it. But if you have the experiences, references and future goals that could get you shortlisted, you should consider applying.

    Being a Rhodes Scholar means you’re exceptionally serious about your education and where you want to go after you graduate."

    Somerby apparently thinks that if he calls Maddow a Rhodes Scholar often enough, and refers to her as smart in a seemingly sarcastic way, he can diminish her accomplishments, but these are real, as they were for others on the list of previous scholars. Given the tenacity of Somerby's derision, one might almost suspect he tried out for a scholarship himself and was turned down. Something must be motivating this single-minded focus on one out of the many TV cable news hosts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like how you included "providing a birth certificate" as an exceptionally difficult task

      Delete
    2. Wasn't me, it was Forbes Magazine.

      Delete
  4. How can Somerby applaud Saget's dirty comedy routines then turn around and get all prudish over Maddow's tea-bagging references?

    Is this a matter of comedy, even smutty comedy, is OK when Saget or Somerby do it, or even when Jon Stewart does it, but not OK when Maddow does it?

    The test of Maddow's success in her "clowning," which is Somerby's negative word about her humor, is not whether Somerby approves but how her audiences like it. If she were struggling in her ratings, Somerby and Stewart might have a point about changing her style, but she has a #1 show on a major network (MSNBC). That really doesn't support Somerby's contention that she is doing a bad job as either a cable news host or a comedian.

    But when did Somerby ever care about evidence? Never, to my knowledge. He has claimed to measure truth by applying reason, but I haven't seen much of that lately either. If he wants to call Maddow names, I think he needs to support his claims with something besides his own hatred.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct, saget was as annoying as maddow.

      Delete
  5. Where is Jon Stewart these days and what is he doing?

    He made a couple of movies that gained very little attention. Movie makers might have suggested he stick to comedy, based on their limited success.

    Now he has a late-night show on Apple+ TV where he investigates serious topics, sort of like Maddow does. It has not attracted much attention either, although he is ever so serious about it. Vox says:

    "But while Stewart always maintained that The Daily Show was meant to be funny first and foremost, The Problem With Jon Stewart wears its comedy with a distinct lack of ease. “I guess that answers whether or not the show’s going to be funny,” Stewart cracks early on, after the debut episode’s very first joke falls flat."

    Whether to be funny or serious has apparently dogged Stewart during most of his career, just as Somerby is hammering Maddow with that same complaint.

    I would say that Maddow is more of a success as a comedic journalist than Stewart is as a journalistic comedian.

    Either way, being jealous of female competition isn't a good look for Somerby or Stewart. They look like junkyard dogs protecting their turf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. stewart is hilarious, maddow is a hack, has nothing to do with male or female.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. Stewart called Carlson a hack on Crossfire as well, back in 2004.

      OP likes to project their sexism onto others.

      Delete
    3. Somerby would like to go on TV and call people hacks, but his humor isn't good enough and he can't make it as a reporter or journalist either. Guess he'll have to stick to calling people names from this blog.

      The point of the OP was that Stewart's new show isn't hilarious, and if that has nothing to do with being male or female that's fine with me. Ratings are telling the story for him, but Maddow has great ratings and yet these guys still call her names and say she is unfunny, despite her viewers liking her routines. Sort of like Saget on Funniest Home Videos. His show was very popular but liking him was a matter of taste.

      When Stewart becomes as serious as Maddow's nightly reports, he gets unfunnier too. Despite his advice to Maddow, he is trying to do the same thing she does, but unlike her, he isn't succeeding at it.

      Delete
  6. Why was Somerby so offended by Maddow's tea-bagging reference? It didn't originate with her -- she merely repeated it gleefully, while showing images of Tea Party members wearing hats adorned with tea bags dangling from their brims. She didn't explain the sexual connotations to her audience, so it would pass over anyone's head who didn't already understand it. Somerby's outrage was way disproportionate to her remarks. What was so upsetting to him about it?

    This is coming across as a bit of a madonna-whore complex on Somerby's part. Good women are chaste and don't use sexual innuendo to laugh at men wear stupid tea-bag hats, whereas bad ones do. Somerby definitely doesn't consider Maddow a "good woman" as he describes her stuffing money down her pants. But notice that there is no comparable dichotomy that applies to men. They all get to make dirty jokes, usually at women's expense, and still consider themselves good guys.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry but the timing here is too obvious to ignore. Bob had called Maddow out during dubious moments before, but She is on a story now deeply humiliating to the right, and She is backed but by solid reporting. Who wants Bob to go after Maddow NOW?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reputation of your leadership is important in politics. Don't be so fast to hitch your wagon to someone just because they are there.

      Delete
    2. 1:49
      Maddow is not a politician, nor is she a leader of any kind.

      Delete
    3. What is the story? Did Russia collude again? Or did she have another scoop with Trump's taxes?

      Delete
    4. Ie. If she's "backed by solid reporting" there's a first time for everything.

      Delete
    5. Major disclosures about those fake alternate elector slates forged under the direction of Trump staff and lawyers, used to undermine Biden's legitimate victory in 2020.

      And if you can't discredit the story itself, attack the messenger (ie Maddow).

      Delete
    6. I don't know anything about the story but if it's Maddow, check your wallet.

      Delete
    7. Right, you don't know anything...

      Delete
    8. I honestly have no idea at all what that is about.

      Delete
    9. I don't doubt it's true. But I don't even know what an elector slate is. I've never heard of one.

      Delete
    10. That’s why you should check out Maddow’s reporting on this, 6:22, because it’s an important topic.

      It would be a chance for you to eliminate some of your ignorance about our system of government.

      Delete
    11. Sounds great. Thanks.

      Delete
    12. I remember when I first found out how unfairly the DNC meddled in the Iowa caucuses. I was a little bit shocked.

      Delete
    13. With this Maddow electric slate story I hope it's not just another one of those deals where she makes it sound like it's an important, interesting story when really it's not. Didn't she go on and on about the threat of Russia taking out our electrical power in the dead of winter?

      Delete
    14. 9:14,

      No one is denying the substance of the story.

      (CNN)In the weeks after the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump's allies sent fake certificates to the National Archives declaring that Trump won seven states that he actually lost. The documents had no impact on the outcome of the election, but they are yet another example of how Team Trump tried to subvert the Electoral College -- a key line of inquiry for the January 6 committee.

      The fake certificates were created by Trump allies in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico, who sought to replace valid presidential electors from their states with a pro-Trump slate, according to documents obtained by American Oversight.


      As all the forgeries were in identical format it appears to have been a coordinated criminal enterprise by the president. But I repeat myself.

      Delete
    15. I'm afraid this is not as big and humiliating a story as you may think. You naive dupes are like Charlie Brown to Maddow's Lucy, falling again for her breathless, big earth-shattering scoop that is not really a scoop or even interesting or important. You people are not exactly a gang of geniuses, are you?

      Delete
    16. Once they've suckered you into believing there is a Republican who cares about something other than bigotry, getting you to believe QAnon is child's play.

      Delete
    17. 6:09,

      You mean, Donald J Chickenshit and his merry band of fascists being engaged in a conspiratorial criminal enterprise is not a big deal? You may be right, it's just another day in this corrupt bastard's life.

      Delete
    18. In 6:09's defense, the Republican Party working overtime (including committing felonies) to deny black people political representation in a democratic republic, like the United States, isn't exactly "news".

      Delete
    19. The problem is that they were not engaged in a conspiratorial criminal enterprise. The electors announced it. They invited the press to cover it. They tweeted about what they did. There were news accounts of it. How Rachel Maddow came to believe it was "previously unknown" is not clear. Maddow is once again playing you for a fool.

      Delete
    20. So funny. This is really a typical Maddow hoodwinking. You people are such idiot suckers.

      Delete
    21. It was all discussed in real time you stupid gullible fools:

      https://www.vox.com/22173990/electoral-college-trump-biden-stephen-miller

      Delete
    22. The story is NOTHING. That's why people accurately criticize and disrespect Maddow.

      Delete
    23. Yeah, apparently several State AG think differently.
      Who told them to do it? Why don't you let us all in on it.

      Delete
    24. The ignorance is vast and really sad.

      Delete
    25. Yes, we are all familiar with the trump rule of committing crimes. If you do it in broad daylight and invite reporters to witness your criminality, it's not a crime anymore.

      Delete
    26. There is no way Trump could call for reparations to black people due to slavery on 5th Avenue in broad daylight and get away with it.

      Delete
    27. 11:24,
      Exactly. The Right-wing electors announced they were denying black people political representation, yet there are still liars in the mainstream media who will tell you Republicans aren't all bigots.

      Delete
    28. This may be able to help you poor, sad fools understand the non-controversy:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-backers-electoral-college/2020/12/14/f0fcc59c-3e52-11eb-9453-fc36ba051781_story.html

      Delete
    29. That's nice, 1:01. I don't know what you think you've proven. Yes it was reported at the time but it was not recognized as being part of the multi-level criminal conspiracy planned and executed by the ex-president. These people didn't just do this all on their own initiative. Did the Washington Post publish all 7 forged documents exactly in the same format and compare them to the legitimate and legal documents?

      If it is no big deal for a sitting president to instigate multiple state officials to forge documents in order to overturn the election, let me know when in history this happened before. No big deal, right asshole.

      Delete

  8. "In fairness, Carlson was substantially less ridiculous then."

    But what's so ridiculous about Mr Carlson, dear Bob? Alas, you never tell...

    We've watched perhaps a half-dozen of his shows, and read a couple of his opinion pieces, and, outside of his gratuitous (in our opinion) badmouthing the People's Republic of China, didn't find much objectionable.

    If you find something ridiculous about his shows, dear Bob, why don't you spell it out? Otherwise, your vacuous accusation make you sound just as clownish as liberal journos your like to criticize...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the tie for one

      Delete
    2. Huge props to Carlson for convincing Right-wing rubes to suffer and die rather than get free vaccines.

      Delete
    3. As they say: the only free cheese is in a mousetrap, dear psycho-dembot.

      ...oh, and does Thy Lord Soros own a lot of Pfizer stock nowadays?

      Delete
    4. Huge post-Martin Luther King Day Sale going on at Mao's Emporium of Stupidity.
      For today only, Mao is selling owning stock in a corporation as evil.
      Get yours. One day only.

      Delete
    5. Interesting reveal from Slob Mao, he doesn’t go for Fox. Which means he’s halfway, at least, to Qanon.

      Delete
    6. Next stop Stormfront for Mao.

      Delete
  9. Maddow has done so much to help children.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was depressed some Months ago due to how frustrating it is dealing with bad credits, but reaching out to HACK VANISH via Phone: +1 (747) 293-8514 and Email: HACK VANISH (@) GMAIL. COM gave my life a new meaning, after I found him credible through positive reviews I read on a credit blog, in a twinkle of an eye, this great hacker got my credit score restored from 509 to 784 across the 3 major credit bureaus, all evictions and repossession has been wiped off, my LexisNexis and Chex system fixed respectively, to my greatest surprise, some days later, I received an E-mail confirming the approval of my pending loan application. I can confidently say 2021 was an exceptional year for my husband and I as we are proud owners of a new home and a brand-new SUV courtesy HACK VANISH, I would definitely recommend him to anyone in need of a genuine Hacker.

    ReplyDelete