CNN, New York Times unsure about Bragg!

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2023

Rachel can't say naughty words: How strong does Alvin Bragg's case against Donald J. Trump seem to be?

At this point, we have no idea. If Trump is going to be charged with a crime, we'd like it to be a recognizable, explainable crime. (For the record, we would favor that same approach for anyone charged with a crime.)

We're not sure that that happened yesterday. We'll start with CNN.

Last night, at 8 P.M., CNN gathered the troops to stage an evaluation. Assessments of the indictment were strikingly poor. 

Paula Reid went first. She closed by saying this:

REID (4/4/23): Look, I've passed two Bar exams. I'm having a little trouble following Alvin Bragg's argument here. So it's unclear if the average Manhattan juror will be able to follow it as well. 

And even if they can, even if they get a conviction, it still has to survive appeals, which is going to be difficult for cases built on novel legal theories.

For Reid, Bragg's argument is hard to follow—and there are still "novel legal theories" there.

We can't assess Reid's level of legal expertise. "Senior legal analyst" Elie Honig went next. He was underwhelmed too:

HONIG: The only way this gets bumped up, each of these counts gets bumped up to a felony, is if you can show that they falsified the records to commit some second crime, and here is where we're going to run into legal problems, because the indictment does not say what that second crime is, which is completely inexplicable to me.

[...]

I am a big believer in Alvin Bragg. He is a former colleague of mine, I believe in his capacity and his integrity, but I have real questions about this. 

Next up with Jessica Roth, a Cardozo Law School professor. She sounded underwhelmed too:

ROTH: Well, I was disappointed that there wasn't more in the indictment in terms of laying out what the legal theory was with more precision. Today was supposed to be the big reveal, where we would get that information. And to the extent that we have a sense of what the theory of the case is, in terms of what are the crimes that would have been furthered or concealed by the falsification of records, it is not in the indictment.

[...]

It may be also that he's trying to leave options open in terms of what the evidence most firmly supports in terms of what that other crime was. But it would have been, I think, helpful if he had committed to a theory of the case, or even if it was in the alternative, to lay out exactly what those crimes were, even if ultimately, the jury would decide, well, at least one of them was furthered by the falsification.

Anderson Cooper also spoke to Andrew McCabe, a senior law enforcement analyst. McCabe is no fan of Donald J. Trump, but he was downbeat too:

COOPER: What I'm hearing now, just to tee you up is, it looks like the District Attorney, Bragg has set up, you know, a very solid case for 34 misdemeanors related to business fraud, but not a huge amount of confidence in the attempt by Mr. Bragg to turn this into 34 felony charges. What are you hearing?

MCCABE: Very, very similar commentary, Jake. So I if I had to characterize it, it's a disappointment. I think everyone was hoping we would see more about the direction that they intend to take this prosecution. What is the legal theory that ties that very solid misdemeanor case, 34 counts of misdemeanors to the intent to conceal another crime, which is what makes it a felony. It simply isn't there.

Now it's possible that the DA has an elaborate and solid theory that's backed up by a lot of evidence and he has just decided to conceal that at this point. That would be, I think it's a strange decision on his part. But nevertheless, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

At the end of the day, if all of our legal friends read this indictment and don't see a way to a felony, it's hard to imagine convincing a jury that that they should get there.

We were surprised by how consistent the negativity was. 

Does that mean that something's wrong with the case? We have no idea. That said, it seemed to us that Charlie Savage's more balanced assessment on the front page of this morning's New York Times quickly turned a bit negative too:

SAVAGE (4/5/23): As was widely predicted, [Bragg] is pointing toward alleged violations of both federal and state elections laws. By doing so, he is in part plunging forward with a premise that has given pause to even some of Mr. Trump’s toughest critics.

[...]

Indeed, a range of election-law specialists on Tuesday expressed fresh doubt about whether Mr. Bragg could successfully use campaign finance laws alone to elevate the bookkeeping fraud charges to felonies. Among those skeptics were Richard L. Hasen, a University of California at Los Angeles legal scholar, and Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a longtime election lawyer for the Republican Party and a critic of Mr. Trump.

Even with the addition of the claim about intended false statements to tax authorities, Robert Kelner, the chairman of the election and political law practice group at the firm Covington & Burling, remained uncertain that it would show an intent to commit another crime.

“The local prosecutors seem to be relying in part on a bank shot exploiting Michael Cohen’s guilty plea in a federal campaign finance case,” he said. “But there were serious questions about the legal basis for the case against Cohen, making that a dubious foundation for a case against a former president. Prosecutors also allude vaguely to ‘steps’ taken to violate tax laws, but they say little to establish what that might mean.”

In this case, as in all cases, we'd favor indictment on the basis of a recognizable crime. (Like "shooting someone on Fifth Avenue," to cite one possible example.)  It sounds like Bragg has a long way to go if he wants to make his charge against Trump explainable to people like us, to the everyday average rubes.

CNN was surprisingly negative. On MSNBC, during that same 8 P.M. hour, general hilarity prevailed.

It all started at 8:09 when it fell to Rachel Maddow to talk about David Pecker., whose name is extremely embarrassing and very hard to say. Almost surely, you know what happened next. Rachel has been playing this card for a great many years at this point.

Ten minutes later, Lawrence said that some Trump supporter outside the courthouse yesterday kept asking him about his vagina [sic]. 

Just like that, Rachel was in the soup again! Once again, the children laughed and played and mugged and clowned and generally enjoyed their social hour with their high-profile favorites and friends.

Our extremely self-impressed tribe is a childish, embarrassing mess. As a group, we seem to be completely unable to see this.

(You can enjoy the clowning again thanks to the Internet Archive. For reasons which must be perfectly obvious, MSNBC has long since stopped transcribing its primetime "cable news" shows.)


77 comments:


  1. "You can enjoy the clowning again thanks to the Internet Archive."

    Heh. The more clowning the merrier, dear Bob. Pass the popcorn, dear.


    ReplyDelete
  2. The second amendment is evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing wrong with a well regulated militia. Now if you want to spout off about judges who refuse to read and properly interpret the second ammendment...

      Delete
    2. The well regulated militia is the National Guard, which does indeed keep and bear arms.

      Delete
    3. The Republican Party is evil.

      Delete
  3. From what I have heard, part of the case is based on breaking campaign laws and the other part is based on evading state taxes. That isn't mentioned at all by Somerby today.

    Somerby was listening to CNN, which is trying to redefine itself to appeal more to conservatives. They wouldn't emphasize the legal peril or strength of the case if they were trying to get more Republicans to listen to their station. Somerby fails to mention that, which is kind of clueless for a supposed media critic.

    Asking men about their vaginas is a right-wing slap at trans males. It is an ugly tactic and doesn't make a lot of sense. Rachel is correct to mock it, if that is what she was doing.

    Long ago, Somerby began applying the word "clowning" to anything Maddow says that he dislikes. I don't consider her attempt to lighten the news to be "clowning" any more than Nicolle Wallace's pleasantries toward her guests is insincere, or whatever bugs Somerby about it (he hasn't really said). These days, Somerby doesn't bother justifying any of his complaints against anyone. I guess Tucker has set him a bad example since he offer no proof or evidence to support his claims either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 3:15, I read both the 34 count indictment and the accompanying Statement of facts. the indictment, in each count, alleges that Trump falsified business records with the intent to commit other crimes and to conceal the commission of other crimes. The indictment itself does not describe what other crimes he committed. Within 34 counts, there are separate counts for each falsified business record entry, including entries made on check stubs and ledgers. (The were monthly payments to David Cohen for several months, each payment resulting in a separate count, (I think each one - multiple counts for each separate entry about the same payment). The Statement of facts provides factual background, and presents a fairly sleazy picture. It describes the payment to Clifford and the payments through the Enquirer to the doorman and the ex-Playmate. The thrust of most of the statement of facts is that these payments constituted illegal campaign contributions. It's not clear whether the DA will rely on the two payments that did not go to Clifford, or just on the Clifford payment to establish an illegal campaign contribution (and the potential weakness of the whole thing is whether these were illegal campaign contributions in the first place, and whether a violation of federal election laws can be the "other crime" that turns a falsified business record into a felony under the New York state statute. I would have thought, as you reasonably mention, that the "other crime" would be tax evasion - mischaracterizing the payoff as tax deductible legal fees paid to Cohen. Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Facts does say Trump :mischaracterized for tax purposes the true nature of the payments;" but nothing else in there delves into that issue. The legal commentators I've seen seem to all say the "other crime" being alleged to support the felony charges is that the payments were illegal campaign contributions, which the commentators, even the anti-Trump ones, seem to think is weak, as I note above.

      Delete
    2. @4:30 PM

      "...is that the payments were illegal campaign contributions"

      Campaign contributions by whom?

      We have the impression that there is no limit for candidate's contributions to their own campaign.

      ...and if it was indeed a legal contribution that wasn't properly reported, is that really a crime? It would seem odd if it was...

      Delete
    3. ...and that's apart from the difficulty of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it was indeed a campaign-related scheme, rather than, say, protecting his business reputation or what-not...

      Delete
    4. "Candidate contributions to their own campaigns are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported. - Federal Elections Commission

      Delete
    5. The payments were drawn from the business that the corrupt trump never divested from when he became president. They were not his personal funds.

      Delete
    6. The defendent is such a non-criminal he again uses the language of a stochastic terrorist against his prosecuters and judges. What a sick putz. The good news is he is killing the Republican party just like everything else he touches. So sad.

      Delete
    7. That's Michael Cohen not David Cohen. One of the crimes seems to involve a meeting between Cohen, Trump and Pecker (American Media Inc.) in order to pre-arrange a method of paying for articles containing negative info and then suppressing them during the campaign. The Enquirer paid money directly to McDougal on Trump's behalf. That way exceeded corporate donor limits and was not reported to the FEC. The laundering of repayments to Cohen through Trump's businesses to evade a record of hush money payments to Stormy Daniels also exceeds limits for both individual and corporate donors to a campaign, and were misrepresented as legal service fees.

      It is hard to consider these crimes "weak" when Cohen has already gone to jail for them.

      Delete
    8. @4:30 PM - the paragraph format is your friend.

      Delete
    9. As I predicted, the more serious issue was the illegal collaboration between big chickenshit and the national enquirer.

      Delete
    10. anon, yes Michael Cohen, thanks for the correction. Whether the charges are weak is a matter of opinion, but a lot of lawyers, even those who don't like Trump, seem to think that. Personally, seems weak to me, but that's just my impression, I haven't researched the law. the case might be dismissed, and if not there will be a trial.

      Delete
    11. Dershowitz, who likes Trump, thinks it’s a strong case.

      Delete
    12. A claim that Cohen has already gone to jail for these charges is false.

      Delete
    13. Among others.

      Delete
  4. "For reasons which must be perfectly obvious, MSNBC has long since stopped transcribing its primetime "cable news" shows."

    Those obvious reasons are that the shows are available elsewhere, so why should a profit-making business pay someone to do it on their own dime?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unfortunately, the case against Trump is a complete turd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why no one else moved ahead with it for the last 7 years. It's all political. It's designed to hamstring Trump's election chances. That's it. Bragg, everyone knows it will be lost but that isn't the point.

      Delete
    2. It would be political not to move ahead for 7 years. Perhaps they couldn't ignore his wrongdoing any longer because it is too blatantly obvious that he should have been prosecuted long ago.

      I think @3:56 is confused. It is Trump that is the turd.

      Delete
    3. 4:10,
      It's part of the slippery slope Republicans were greasing, when they went to war just because Osama bin Laden played an April Fool's prank on the USA in the month of September (which isn't even a crime).
      The GOP should have seen this coming, and spoken-up sooner.

      Delete
    4. The indictment doesn’t hurt Trump politically. It helps him.

      Delete
    5. Thus far, it has helped him. And of course the cable news networks that are basically nothing without him.

      Delete
    6. Thanks, we’ve now heard from the people who think Tucker Carlson’s Jan 6 cut tells the real story. See you in Court.

      Delete
    7. He constant refrain that Trump’s obnoxiousness helps him is merely grandstanding. There is no real evidence indicating this is true. And his crowds are thinning … the party clings to him because they have nothing else.

      Delete
    8. I'm sorry but the evidence is that he was elected President of the United States. Idiots were saying the same thing then you are saying here now.

      And because Trump is God's gift to cable news stations, here they are again giving him tens of millions of dollars worth of free publicity.

      You would think you guys would have learned. As always, Somerby is 100% correct. You have to beat him politically!

      Delete
    9. If the indictment is helping Trump, just think what a conviction will do for him. Here’s hoping…

      Delete
    10. 7:24: Um, the Democrats DID beat him politically…in 2020. Who is President right now?? Also in the 2022 midterms, where most of his hand picked candidates went down in flames.

      Delete
    11. Mm, that is basically true. It is also true that politicizing this trivial legal issue may help Trump. It's a gambit on the part of the corporate Democrats. Biden is not at all popular. When he goes head to head with Trump in 2024 this may come back to haunt the Democrats. Sorry to break it ya. I hope it doesn't.

      Delete
    12. Democrats are in a position where they cannot match Trump's anti imperialism and trade rhetoric which will always put them at a disadvantage. Still, I think they can hold off Trump. But it won't be easy.

      Delete
    13. 8:28,
      The election is a year-and-a-half away. Are you saying that isn't enough time for voters to get over Biden's lowest unemployment rate in 5 decades?

      Delete
    14. At 7:24, he won a fluke election with the help of the electoral college (the white man’s affirmative action) then lost the next time. His endorsement has been all but the kiss of death. Bob had been consistently wrong on most matters over the years, particularly when he is telling the left to act like wimps ( a constant pattern on the Obama years).

      Delete
    15. 10:11 No.

      10:44 Good. Sounds like you have nothing to worry about. You're probably right.

      Delete
    16. 10:54,
      Agreed. They'll get over it. Especially when they remember they like low unemployment numbers.

      Delete
    17. The people support abortion, despite the Right-wing corporate-owned media focusing on the few religious busy-body nut-jobs who make a lot of noise.
      They also like low unemployment numbers, despite the media banging the drum about inflation.
      Trust the people. They are the government.

      Delete
    18. Yes people must be so excited to be working in an Amazon warehouse for $15 an hour. "Low unemployment numbers", are you completely daft? You think Americans are excited about their economy, their prospects and Biden's incredible low employment numbers? Wow.

      Delete
    19. Yes, 12:24 , who could forget Trump’s promise of easy street for all, minimum 90K salary, etc? Right? Especially with unemployment at 14% under his watch…

      Delete
    20. 12:24,
      Those are the folks scared by the corporate media banging the drum about inflation, while not mentioning that raising taxes and enforcing anti-trust laws are surefire ways to keep inflation numbers low.
      Is the media daft? You tell me.

      Delete
    21. Well the "economically anxious" Trump voters aren't excited about Biden's economy, because Biden hasn't given corporations and the rich a HUGE tax break.
      Just kidding. Everyone knows the "economically anxious" Trump voters aren't excited about Biden's economy, because Stacey Abrams helped register black people to vote.

      Delete
    22. Imagine we lived in more prosperous and equitable times: Would Trump have gained a foothold in politics as easily as he did?

      Delete
    23. No. The corporate-owned media would be too busy crying about how they have to pay taxes, to spend time marketing Trump to bigots for free.

      Delete
    24. I pity you. Try to have a nice day. Try to get yourself together.

      Delete
    25. Making a political party your religion is a really, really unhealthy and damaging act.

      Delete
  6. This sort of confirms what I said in the post comments earlier in the day. Though he actually goes pretty easy on her, Maddow provided ammo to Trump fans like Bob who will jump on all the anti Bragg spinning (yep, I agree CNN is adjusting its business model to win righties, perhaps thinking Fox is going to implode.)
    Largely, Maddow and MSNBC do a lot of good work in these crisis times so it was sad to witness the nonsense last night. Very Bad Timing for a case of the cutes.
    If the case against Trump is actually bad then he will prevail and Bob has nothing to worry about. If he keeps attacking the judge’s family he should be charged with contempt and put in jail for just that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maddow's performance is a matter of taste which both Somerby and some commenters have been regarding as fact. Objectively, she has been the most popular cable news host on MSNBC for years, so some people obviously like what she does. Many people do like her on-air personality. I don't see why Somerby is making this a personal criticism the way he does. I couldn't stand 1 minute of Tucker Carlson but I don't spend any time complaining about him here. That makes me think it is about her being female, young , gay, holding a job Somerby covets, sounding too cocky for someone who should be more subservient or tentative, or something like that that sets Somerby off. The viciousness of his attacks on her just make no sense without some underlying motivation. He criticized her for buying a TV set, for God's sake!

      Delete
    2. I certain don’t DISLIKE her online personality, not when She’s not trying to convince me She’s in the forth grade. Look, nobody’s perfect, She just picked a weird night to showcase her imperfections.

      Delete
    3. Maddow is smart, jolly, and likable. What I don’t like is the production number she makes of things. She’ll promo some “big gotcha” bit of irony or some expose or take down of a contrarian and lead you there via a long winded portentous route where you end up in a vacant parking lot with Maddow indignantly pointing at some Big Mac wrapper flitting around.

      Delete
    4. So, Cecelia, you agree that Maddow is bad.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 9:07pm, because she hotdogs it?

      Maddow is not “bad”, she’s less than worthwhile.

      Delete
    6. Maddow is a clown. No better or worse than any GOP Senator playing to the cameras.

      Delete
    7. Who among us is willing to hold their breath until Anonymouse 10:12pm is questioned for this statement?

      Delete
    8. Never is too long.

      Delete
  7. Somerby seems to have left out this CNN commentator as he cherry-picked his analysts and showed us only the ones who consider Bragg's case problematic. These analysts think Bragg has plenty of evidence to support his case:

    https://www.rawstory.com/they-have-a-lot-of-corroboration-cnn-legal-analyst-torpedoes-gop-criticisms-of-bragg-s-case-against-trump-2659744497/

    "A newly hired CNN legal analyst who previously worked for the Manhattan District Attorney's office recently fired back in defense of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump.

    Although many Republicans insist Bragg's case against Trump is relatively weak, Karen Friedman Agnifilo is arguing otherwise.

    During a recent appearance on "CNN This Morning," Agnifilo weighed in with her take on the latest developments surrounding Trump's case and his highly publicized arraignment.

    Agnifilo joined CNN commentator Errol Louis and network anchors Don Lemon, Poppy Harlow, and Kaitlan Collins for a panel discussion about the case and Norm Eisen's latest column, titled, “We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong.”

    Agnifilo explained why she disagrees with the attacks on the validity of Bragg's case.

    "Let me just start with you. Your piece in The Times this morning with Norm Eisen is really interesting. The headline is 'We finally know the case against Trump and it’s strong,'" Harlow said. "That's a different position than even some of Trump's most vehement opponents. You say this is weak. I think we can agree it's incomplete, right, Because we don't know what that underlying crime is that Barack is pointing to. But why do you think it's so strong?"

    The CNN analyst answered, "I think it's strong because in addition to the indictment that was filed, they also filed a statement of facts which…"

    "Thirteen pages," Harlow interjected.

    She added:

    Yeah, 13 pages of a statement of facts really details the evidence and the charges and the theory of the case against him. And it's clear that they have a lot of corroboration here. You've got not just the word of Michael Cohen, you've got Michael Cohen, you've got David Pecker, who was the CEO of AMI that owns the National Enquirer. And they had a conspiracy, the three of them, to catch and kill negative stories during the time of the presidential election. And it’s and they have proof. They have emails, text messages, recordings. And so, and the timing really shows that that’s the case. And so I think when you put it all together from an evidentiary purpose, I think it’s a very strong case that, of course, there are legal arguments that can be made and challenges by the defense. And we haven't seen the witnesses testify under oath and be cross-examined yet. But that's typical of every case. Just from a, from what we know now standpoint, it’s certainly as strong as any other case that gets brought in state courts in New York."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing in that whole meaty paragraph addresses what most analysts call the weakest part of the case: the 'novel legal theory' that a Federal crime can be used under State law to escalate a misdemeanor to a felony.

      We have an active, right-wing SCOTUS that seems like it would be very responsive to an appeal from the Trump team on this issue.

      Delete
    2. Catch and kill is not illegal.

      Delete
    3. The activist right-wing SCOTUS Is illegitimate.

      Delete
    4. Here's the only question that needs to be answered.
      Donald Trump was President of the United States of America. If his former job title doesn't protect him from criminal liability, how are any of our former job titles going to protect us from ours?

      Delete
    5. If Trump wanted immunity from committing crimes when he should have been doing his job, he'd have become a cop, like the rest of the unaccountable thugs.

      Delete
    6. Like other judges appointed by Trump, the Supremes haven’t shown any particular desire to roll around in the mud just to pay back Trump. Maybe Thomas, just to please his sadist, wacko wife.

      Delete
    7. 10:38,
      Show some respect. That's "the face of insurrection against the United States of America, Ginnie Thomas", to you, pal.

      Delete
  8. There’s nothing interesting or new or unexpected or coherent about how right wingers respond to world events; when the usual right wing trolls - Mao, David, Cecelia, AC/MA, Hector, et al - publish their comments here, aside from the weirdness, they’re just exposing their servile/cuck/masochist/triggered nature.

    Responding to them is a bit enabling, a bit ableist, yet they provide a compelling case study for the impact of unresolved childhood trauma and how that leads to these wounded lost and empty souls, lacking a moral compass, filled with hate and bitterness, obsessed with dominance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe it’s not childhood trauma. They might be mutants.

      Delete
    2. Your accusations are confessions.

      Delete
    3. Anon 5:21, you're sliding deeper into psychosis.

      Delete
    4. AC/MA, I picture Anonymouse 5:21am playing with her vast doll collection, some of which she beheads or sets afire out of pity for their small amygdalae.

      Delete
    5. Hmm. But is it qualitatively different from dear Bob's "abandoned child", "insanity", all that shit? Same thing, innit?

      ...we feel that this is the only way for modern liberalism to keep going...

      Delete
    6. Bob pities the poor immigrant.

      Delete
    7. This is actually factual and based in scientific data that shows right wingers have a smaller frontal cortex and a larger amygdala, likely due to trauma.

      When you’re on the nose with targeting the guilty, the guilty respond with faux righteous indignation.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 6:59pm, I don’t think that your righteous indignation is phony.

      I think you’re speaking straight from the heart and from history when you typify your political opponents as being biologically deficient due to some experience of trauma and also as being “guilty”.

      Delete
    9. 8:37,
      You have a better explanation for how the government making women second class citizens is "freedom". I'm all ears.

      Delete
    10. "targeting the guilty" sounds problematic. If we were in law enforcement, this would be a red flag.

      Delete
  9. Hello I greatly recommend you Via our ongoing Invitation to join our Great Illuminati and become Rich and Famous.

    With help of Bryan George Steil make me believe that illuminati is real, when you come across wrong person’s you will think that life is not real but when you are with the real one you will experience the goodness of your life, Mr Bryan George Steil has made me discovered my purpose of life. Welcome to the great brotherhood of Illuminati and everyone in other Countries can join the Illuminati brotherhood to get rich and famous, Are you a Business man/woman, retirement pensioner, musical artist, student, footballer Pastor, pianist, engineer, scientist, lawyer, Politician, Model, Music Teacher, Photographer, Musician, Doctor, fashion artist, Footballer, pilot, Swimmer, social media influencer, philanthropist, filmmaker, and podcast host, producer, tv host, comedian, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), e.t.c? Do you want to be a Famous Artist or an Actor or whatever occupation you do, you want to be rich, powerful and famous in life. Illuminati can grant all your heart desires to join the Illuminati to become rich and famous in life, Illuminati will make you achieve all your dreams to become rich and protected all the days of your life…… BENEFIT GIVEN TO A NEW MEMBER WHO JOIN THE ILLUMINATI a new dream car valued at $200,000.00 USD a dream house to build in any country of your own choice one month holiday (fully paid) to your dream tourist destination. One year golf membership package a V I P treatment in all airports in the world a total lifestyle change access to bohemian grove, a membership benefit funds amount $1,500,0000 USD to start of a business that will be bring profit to you monthly, one month booked appointment with our leaders and some celebrities» JOIN ILLUMINATI YOUR FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES ARE BROUGHT TO AN END. WE SUPPORT YOU BOTH FINANCIALLY AND PHYSICALLY SPIRITUALLY TO ENSURE YOU LIVE A COMFORTABLE LIFE . IF YOU ARE INTERESTED CONTACT Email: illuminatisecretauthorities@gmail.com For immediate response… Note: There aren't any Human sacrifices and no bloody involvement.

    The Club of the Rich and Famous; the world oldest and largest fraternity. We are one Family under one father who is the Supreme Being. In Illuminati we believe that we were born in paradise and no member should struggle in this world. Hence all our new members are given Money Rewards once they join in order to upgrade their lifestyle.; interested viewers should get instant initiated to the Illuminati Brotherhood membership profit funds, sum of $1,500,000.00 USD to start off a business that will be profitable.

    After Illuminati membership profit funds, a sum of $1,500,000.00 USD was given to me to start a profitable business, I now earn a daily profit of $50,000 USD for just inviting new customers to The Club of the Rich and Famous and being part of this life changing opportunity.

    Invite customers Get reward 100% guaranteed and legitimacy

    Please note, Kindly make sure all your responses are sent directly to the Illuminati secret Authorities email stated above only at: illuminatisecretauthorities@gmail.com For more instructions on our membership process.

    ReplyDelete