Peter Strzok Statements About Weiner/Abedin Laptop Conflict With DOJ Inspector General Claims About Weiner/Abedin Laptop…

Former DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page testified to a closed joint-committee on July 13th and July 16th. Has anyone else noticed how democrats are not demanding a release of the Page transcript?

With the exceptional help of John Spiropoulos we investigate a conflict completely ignored by media and congress. Peter Strzok, the FBI’s lead Investigator in the Clinton email investigation, never intended to investigate the laptop before the election. The evidence, in his own words, is in the report by the Inspector General. In addition, the IG report includes a jaw dropping contradiction regarding the investigation of the laptop. Strzok says one thing; the FBI’s computer experts say another. It calls into question the entirety of the laptop investigation.  WATCH:

.

There is a great deal of inconsistent application of law surrounding the DOJ/FBI investigative authority during 2015 and 2016. There is also a great deal of fatigue surrounding discussion of those inconsistent applications. Contradictions, inconsistency and obtuse justifications are as rampant in our midst as the political narratives shaping them. Perhaps that’s by design.

Reading Chapter 11 of the IG Report reinforces an acceptance that not only is there a need for a special counsel, but there is a brutally obvious need for multiple special counsels; each given a specific carve-out investigation that comes directly from the content of the Inspector General report. This issue of the handling of the Weiner/Abedin laptop screams for a special counsel investigation on that facet alone. Why?

Well, consider this from page #388 (emphasis mine):

Midyear agents obtained a copy of the Weiner laptop from NYO immediately after the search warrant was signed on October 30.

The laptop was taken directly to Quantico where the FBI’s Operational Technology Division (OTD) began processing the laptop. The Lead Analyst told us that given the volume of emails on the laptop and the difficulty with de-duplicating the emails that “at least for the first few days, the scale of what we’re doing seem[ed] really, really big.”

Strzok told us that OTD was able “to do some amazing things” to “rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that the Midyear team would have to individually review. Strzok stated that only after that technological breakthrough did he begin to think it was “possible we might wrap up before the election.” (pg 388)

The key takeaway here is two-fold. First, the laptop is in the custody of the FBI; that’s important moving forward (I’ll explain later). Also, specifically important, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, the lead investigative authority in the Hillary Clinton MYE (Mid-Year-Exam), is explaining to the IG how they were able to process an exhaustive volume of emails (350,000) and Blackberry communications (344,000) in a few days; [Oct 30 to Nov 5]

Note: “OTD was able “to do some amazing things to rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop.

OK, you got that?

Now lets look at the very next page, #389 (again, emphasis mine):

[…] The FBI determined that Abedin forwarded two of the confirmed classified emails to Weiner. The FBI reviewed 6,827 emails that were either to or from Clinton and assessed 3,077 of those emails to be “potentially work-related.”

The FBI analysis of the review noted that “[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation” and therefore the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear investigation. (pg 389)

See the problem? See the contradiction?

Strzok is saying due to some amazing wizardry the FBI forensics team was able to de-duplicate the emails. However, FBI forensics is saying they were NOT able to de-duplicate the emails.

Both of these statements cannot be true. And therein lies the underlying evidence to support a belief the laptop content was never actually reviewed. But it gets worse, much worse….

To show how it’s FBI Agent Peter Strzok that is lying; go back to chapter #9 and re-read what the New York case agent was saying about the content of the laptop.

The New York FBI analysis supports the FBI forensic statement in that no de-duplication was possible because the metadata was not consistent. The New York FBI Weiner case agent ran into this metadata issue when using extraction software on the laptop.

CHAPTER 9: The case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation was certified as a Digital Extraction Technician and, as such, had the training and skills to extract digital evidence from electronic devices.

The case agent told the OIG that he began processing Weiner’s devices upon receipt on September 26. The case agent stated that he noticed “within hours” that there were “over 300,000 emails on the laptop.”

The case agent told us that on either the evening of September 26 or the morning of September 27, he noticed the software program on his workstation was having trouble processing the data on the laptop. (pg 274)

The New York Case Agent then describes how inconsistent metadata within the computer files for the emails and Blackberry communications, made it impossible for successful extraction. The FBI NY case agent and the Quantico FBI forensics agent agree on the metadata issue and the inability to use their software programs for extraction and layered comparison for the purposes of de-duplication.

Both NY and Quantico contradict the statement to the IG by FBI Agent Peter Strzok. However, that contradiction, while presented in a factual assertion by the IG, is entirely overlooked and never reconciled within the inspector general report. That irreconcilable statement also sheds more sunlight on the motives of Strzok.

Next up, there were only three FBI people undertaking the October Clinton email review. To learn who they are we jump back to Chapter #11, page #389.

The Midyear team flagged all potentially work-related emails encountered during the review process and compared those to emails that they had previously reviewed in other datasets. Any work-related emails that were unique, meaning that they did not appear in any other dataset, were individually reviewed by the Lead Analyst, [Peter] Strzok, and FBI Attorney 1 [Tashina Gauhar] for evidentiary value. (pg 389)

Pete Strzok, Tash Gauhar and the formerly unknown lead analyst we now know to be Sally Moyer. That’s it. Three people.

This is the crew that created the “wizardry” that FBI Director James Comey says allowed him to tell congress with confidence that 1,355,980 electronic files (pg 389), containing 350,000 emails and 344,000 Blackberry communications were reviewed between October 30th and the morning of November 6th, 2016.

Three people.

Pete, Tash, and Sally the lead analyst. Uh huh.

Sure.

The Inspector General just presents the facts; that’s obviously what he did. Then it’s up to FBI and DOJ leadership to accept the facts, interpret them, and apply their meaning.

No bias?

But FBI is committed to bias training?

FUBAR.

There is an actual hero in all of this though. It’s that unnamed FBI Case Agent in New York who wouldn’t drop the laptop issue and forced the FBI in DC to take action on the laptop. Even the IG points this out (chapter #9, page 331):

We found that what changed between September 29 and October 27 that finally prompted the FBI to take action was not new information about what was on the Weiner laptop but rather the inquiries from the SDNY prosecutors and then from the Department. The only thing of significance that had changed was the calendar and the fact that people outside of the FBI were inquiring about the status of the Weiner laptop. (pg 331)

Those SDNY prosecutors only called Main Justice in DC because the New York case agent went in to see them and said he wasn’t going to be the scape goat for a buried investigation (chapter #9, pg 303) “The case agent told us that he scheduled a meeting on October 19 with the two SDNY AUSAs assigned to the Weiner investigation because he felt like he had nowhere else to turn.” … “The AUSAs both told us that the case agent appeared to be very stressed and worried that somehow he would be blamed in the end if no action was taken.”

On October 20, 2016, the AUSAs met with their supervisors at SDNY and informed them of their conversation with the Weiner case agent. The AUSAs stated that they told their supervisors the substantive information reported by the case agent, the case agent’s concerns that no one at the FBI had expressed interest in this information, and their concern that the case agent was stressed out and might act out in some way. (pg 304)

Why would the New York Case Agent be worried?

Consider Page 274, footnote #165:

fn 165: No electronic record exists of the case agent’s initial review of the Weiner laptop. The case agent told us that at some point in mid-October 2016 the NYO ASAC instructed the case agent to wipe his work station. The case agent explained that the ASAC was concerned about the presence of potentially classified information on the case agent’s work station, which was not authorized to process classified information.

The case agent told us that he followed the ASAC’s instructions, but that this request concerned him because the audit trail of his initial processing of the laptop would no longer be available. The case agent clarified that none of the evidence on the Weiner laptop was impacted by this, explaining that the FBI retained the Weiner laptop and only the image that had been copied onto his work station was deleted. The ASAC recalled that the case agent “worked through the security department to address the concern” of classified information on an unclassified system. He told us that he did not recall how the issue was resolved.

Now watch embed tweet video:

.

Summary:

  • There were only three people in the Mid-Year-Event team granted authority to physically do the Clinton email review.
  • They were: FBI Agent Peter Strzok, FBI Attorney-1 Tashina “Tash” Gauhar, and an Sally Moyer, the lead analyst.
  • FBI Agent Peter Strzok says they were able to cull the number of emails through the use of “some amazing things to rapidly de-duplicate” the emails.
  • The New York FBI case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation, a certified Digital Extraction Technician, as well as the FBI forensics team in Quantico say it was impossible to use the conflicted metadata to “de-duplicate” the emails.
  • Someone is lying.
  • FBI Director James Comey said his investigative unit used some form of “wizardry” to review the content of the Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner laptop.
  • The Inspector General makes no determination as to who is telling the truth; and never asked the question of whether an actual review of the laptop emails took place.
  • The FBI still has possession of the Abedin/Weiner laptop.

.

.

⇑ These Cannot Both Be True ⇓

.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in AG Jeff Sessions, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, CIA, Clinton(s), Cold Anger, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, IG Report Clinton Investigation, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

584 Responses to Peter Strzok Statements About Weiner/Abedin Laptop Conflict With DOJ Inspector General Claims About Weiner/Abedin Laptop…

  1. MS Idaho says:

    My 2 cents worth – in answer to all the angst on display by the folks wanting action NOW!.

    Remember, VSGPDJT is NOT a politician, he Is NOT a lawyer, he is NOT a judge. What he IS is a very successful business man. His solution(s) to what we see unraveling will not be what any of us expect. He does have a track record for putting key people in key positions where he expects them to perform a specific job – within pre-defined parameters. We see some of his results without seeing his plan.

    We know he has to operate against massive opposition (that is the challenge I believe he loves). Do you think for one minute that his resources (think people) are limited? Do you think you can turn this massive ‘gummit’ force on a dime – or in a short widow of time?

    To my way of thinking – it took a lot of years (probably at least 30 to cover the present employee makeup), to get to this point. This is not the first ‘failing’ business takeover and rescue POTUS has done. The way he is dealing with globalism, fake news, government organization and corruption and too many problems to list, is not the way that you or I would deal with it. My recommendation is trust the Engineer on this fabulous Trump Train. The scenery on this trip is fabulous

    Liked by 13 people

    • “probably at least 30 years to cover the present employee makeup”

      Current personnel? Yes. But 70 years to solidify Double Govt autonomy.

      “Now, as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don’t just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own, and there’s nobody to keep track of what they’re up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they’ll have something to report on. They’ve become … it’s become a government all of its own and all secret. They don’t have to account to anybody.” Harry Truman to his biographer in the 70s re: The National Security Act of 1947

      Liked by 4 people

    • Very Well Stated, Thank you

      Liked by 2 people

    • Sandhill says:

      Love your comment.
      Love that our Voice President Trump is not a professional politician, he is an superior business man who took a local family owned business to national and to international. Not too many people have done that from a family owned business and never taking the business public.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Let's roll says:

      Thinking the Weiner laptop is A Hillary Pandora’s box. Maybe Weiner’s or Huma’s insurance policy? Clinton data from many years, maybe so? And it was in NY jurisdiction for a month.

      NYPD prob knows how to use a thumb drive, just saying…

      Like

    • Madi says:

      Thanks for this uplifting comment,
      God as a plan, President Trump is part of it
      🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸✝️

      Like

  2. Autonomous Collective says:

    Double-crossing FBI agent must be held accountable

    FBI investigator Peter Strzok not only let Hillary Clinton off the hook, he may have used Democratic Party opposition research as an excuse to spy on Trump campaign advisers.
    Strzok became such a political liability that special counsel Robert Mueller had to boot him off the Russia case, where he worked for nearly three months. Mueller made the move after the Justice Department’s inspector general pointed out text messages Strzok sent to a mistress, who also worked for Mueller, exhibiting a strong anti-Trump, pro-Clinton bias.
    His misconduct has sent shock waves through Washington because in July 2016, just days after closing the Clinton email case he led, Strzok signed the document that opened the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. His fingerprints are all over both cases, one widely criticized as a whitewash and the other condemned by the president and many in his party as a witch hunt.
    Potentially more disturbing is Strzok’s possible role in what many see as an even bigger scandal: the weaponizing of US intelligence against political opponents. Did he also sign documents asking a federal court to allow the FBI to spy on Trump advisers? It’s a critical question, because a so-called FISA document authorizing agents to monitor the communications of Trump adviser Carter Page, for one, reportedly was based at least in part on anti-Trump Russia propaganda promulgated in a dossier underwritten by the Clinton campaign — a partisan smear sheet that the FBI and Mueller have nonetheless used as a road map in their Russia probe.
    In a interview, Page said he suspects Strzok, as the FBI’s No. 2 counterintelligence official, was also involved in applying for and obtaining the secret surveillance warrant on Page from the FISA court in September 2016. He adds that it’s “really interesting” that the dirty dossier found its way into Strzok’s orbit around the same time.
    Indeed, according to an in-depth New York Times retrospective published earlier this year detailing the FBI’s two campaign investigations, Clinton subcontractor Christopher Steele briefed the FBI leadership about the findings in his now-discredited dossier in August 2016. Weeks later, the information landed “with Mr. Strzok and his team.”
    “In late September, Mr. Steele heard back from his contact at the FBI,” the article continued. “The agency wanted to see the material he had collected ‘right away,’ ” while offering to pay him $50,000.
    That month, a monitor was placed on Page.
    Both the Senate and House are seeking the bureau’s FISA affidavits to determine to what extent they relied on the dirty Clinton dossier. But the FBI is stonewalling their requests. It’s also blocking FOIA requests by Page, who last month denied the dossier’s charges under oath, calling them politically motivated.
    The FBI didn’t just target Page. It also targeted other Trump advisers. In fact, Strzok personally grilled Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn about his Russian ties at the White House just days after Flynn took office.
    Last week, Mueller filed charges against Flynn for lying to Strzok about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition.
    Strzok monitored intercepts of the Russian Embassy and already knew what Flynn and the Russian ambassador had discussed. So why did he need to ask him about what he already knew? Was he trying to trap him in a lie? Also, who leaked the intercepts to the press?
    Strzok led the sham investigation of Clinton’s emails from start to finish, and helped draft her exoneration months in advance of her July 2, 2016, interview, which he personally supervised. He was the agent responsible for softening language then-FBI Director James Comey used in his July 5, 2016, statement clearing Clinton just ahead of the Democratic convention. He changed the rough draft of Comey’s announcement describing Clinton’s behavior as “grossly negligent” (a possible crime) to “extremely careless.” Strzok also was involved in the review of State Department emails discovered on Anthony Weiner’s laptop and gave Clinton her second pass just before the election.
    The fix was in, and the fixer appears to have been a top G-man who, behind the scenes, sang the praises of the Democratic subject of his investigation and mocked the Republican subject of his other investigation.
    Regardless of what you think about Trump, the Deep State — that is, the federal police and intelligence — shouldn’t get to pick and choose the leadership of this country. We are better than Thailand. If they are not held accountable, they will do it again.

    Liked by 6 people

  3. Nobody ever discusses how things would have turned out if the IG was not honest in his reporting. What a stroke of Providence that Horowitz, despite being a Democrat appears to have done a good job. I’m trying to understand why. He could have fudged too….

    Like

    • mimbler says:

      Personally, I think he did fudge.
      He uncovered what was mostly already in the public domain.
      He then gave it the protective cover of quotable “no bias” found conclusions.
      He had only one recommendation for criminal follow on.

      I’m probably in the minority opinion here, but it looked like a whitewash to me, and Sessions and Wray promptly proclaimed general exoneration of their agencies when the report came out.

      Maybe one of the follow on investigations will change my mind.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I believe the conclusions were revised by AAG RR. We have yet to see the original version submitted for comment.

        Liked by 2 people

        • mimbler says:

          Could be, but the IG signed off on it, any edits were voluntarily accepted by him.
          I suspect RR had input like you do, but that just makes the report more whitewash IMO.

          Liked by 3 people

      • Rachel Guess says:

        I think you have it wrong. The IG is the fact finder, nothing more. He has no disciplinary powers, nor does he have the power of prosecution. He encompasses all facts and statements into a final report, which he did very well imo, and then makes recommendations to the admin at DoJ and FBI, including OPR, on who should be looked at specifically in regards to the possible prosecution, disciplinary actions, or modifications to procedures that should be taken. Then his job is done.

        It’s up to those in the admin at the DoJ (rosenstein), the FBI (Wray, who reports to rosenstein) and OPR (who report to both Wray and rosenstein) to take over from that point on. If you are looking for who is blocking on these issues, look at the point of intersection (rosenstein).

        Like

      • I get you; it’s just that I did not even expect what we actually got.

        Liked by 1 person

    • nbkilgore says:

      CBB, is he really a democrat? In both Parties of republican and democrats, there are many who align themselves as conservatives. If you read some of the #walkaway testimonies, you see many of them consider themselves as conservatives who no longer recognize the democrat platform for what they deem it once was. Whats striking is the fact that IG Horowitz having to battle 100% democrat infested DOJ for nearly 8 years with Sally Yates blocking his investigations. Would Horowitz be to everyone’s liking if he were a republican, if he were to be a republican and he acted unfavorably, then he would be considered a RINOe! As a Conservative Republican, I see an individual who strives for following the rule of law. Would it make us feel more comfortable if he were an Independent voter? I’ve reviewed many IG reports of Horowitz and other IG’s and have noticed their consistencies in their final reports, carefully written on nothing but the facts without conjectures as it should be. Put an IG investigation SOP next to their investigative format and you will see how close the SOP has been followed. The IG is tasked to “find” & “report”, not adjudicate, that is why they report to appropriate agencies or departments when they find acts of criminality during the course of their investigation.

      Like

    • finchy74 says:

      I don’t believe Horowitz is a Democrat, although he was nominated (and the office of the IG promptly neutered by Hussein) by Hussein.

      Personally, I would greatly like to see Horowitz’ original IG reports PRIOR to redactions by the DoJ. Then we would see just how honest Horowitz is.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. DJ says:

    All I care about is to see heads roll, they are all criminals as far as I am concerned

    Liked by 4 people

  5. SharkFL says:

    WHAT was on that laptop??? Where is the in-depth analysis on the CONTENTS of the laptop???

    It should be a sticky post at the top of this (and all) conservative news sites or reposted at minimum once per month. DETAILS of the findings, investigative analysis of the MEANING behind the contents.

    What is “flying in $65,000 worth of hot dogs to the White House”? What does this mean?

    What is “better playing dominoes on cheese pizza or pasta”? Is this a food reference?

    What is “found a handkerchief with a map that seems pizza related”? Could this be code?

    CODE FOR WHAT???????

    Like

    • Molly Pitcher says:

      I agree with you Shark. It seemed like there would be unveiling of these freaks with the spirit cooking, the “art”, the tweets…but it got swept away in the never ending Take-Trump-Down program.

      Liked by 1 person

    • spinoneone says:

      Would any of us be shocked if it turns out that, the next time that laptop is turned on, it is blank?

      Like

    • Jan says:

      I remain convinced that what is on that laptop is Weiner’s “Insurance” file that includes videos of substantial Clinton friends doing the “naughty”, including Hillary and perhaps Huma & other major politicians. This is what more than one source has said about this laptop, including Eric Prince and Rudy Gulliani who both have friends on the NYPD.

      Sundance just re-exposed the FBI LYING again…Why is Strzok not in jail in a cell near Manafort? This guy has extensive ties with Iran and the CIA and he’s at the root of a fake investigation/exoneration of Hillary and a witch hunt of Pres. Trump. The lying, the cover-up, the railroading of a duly elected President has to end. We have to fight back!! If we lose either House this fall, all of this will be buried. Congress will impeach Pres. Trump. McConnell occasionally does something earth-shattering with respect to jurists; otherwise, he doesn’t support the President.

      Thank you Sundance for keeping up with all this baloney. You rock!!!

      Like

    • Charlotte says:

      Hot dogs could mean male/tranny male prostitutes

      Liked by 1 person

  6. EWeatherwax says:

    Maybe its just my weird sense of humor, but I find Comey’s use of the word “wizardry” hilarious.

    For decades, they’ve been feeding us Orwellian BS, and now they moved beyond even that and are telling us, “You must trust our conclusions. We came to them by using sorcery”.

    Oh, OK. I mean, shucks, if you used WIZARDRY, then no further clarification is necessary.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. The OBAMA and STRZOK family connection that spans DECADES … Peter Strzok . He is in his 40s. He works for the FBI . He was the only person to interview Hillary Clinton, with no recording, on her HRC Email investigation. .. How many STRZOK family members are there? There are only 100 total Americans out of 300 million with this name . … The father of Peter Strzok (II) is Peter Strzok Sr, and he was in the Army core of engineers. Oh, he was actually a career expert in sanctions and nuclear activity in Iran … The younger brother of Peter Strzok Sr is Mark Strzok who works for Mammoet – They are world leaders in big cranes, with a speciality in moving nuclear Reactors. … The son of Mark Strzok is Devin Strzok , who is a coast guard graduate and now also lives in DC .n . … The wife of Mark Strzok … and mom of Devin Strzok … is Mariana Srtzok .. Mariana (or Mary) is the daughter of General James Cartwright. Devin Strzok is actually Devin Cartwright Strzok . His grandfather, General James Cartwright, was pardoned by Barrack Obama on his last day of office. Cartwright was accused of leaking info on stuxnet. … Another brother of Peter Strzok Sr is James Strzok – A Jesuit priest working in Kenya! With, no surprise, a solid military career, and deep knowledge in energy / resources.. Wow, what is this… an emergency meeting between Devin Strzok in the situation room in the Whitehouse West Wing in May 2015? With his new wife, at 9:45PM at night? … Just an everyday meeting with the wife, also in the military (also a Strzok) with Osbaldo Cantu about geospacial technology… Just so happens his uncle Peter Strzok was the last person on earth to see the deleted HRC emails. … So that is 6 out of 100 Strzok family members involved? Don’t get me started about the connections of all of them to Uranium … Strzok family reunions can probably turn on lightbulbs while they are still in the packaging. … And then the wife of Peter Strzok – Melissa Hodgman. Just so happens she was promoted to her role as a director in the SEC at the same time the FBI was drafting the exoneration letter for the HRC emails. Just another meeting in the West Wing with Peter Strzok 2, his wife Melissa Hodgman, and their two kids who kept the last name of Hodgman. Nothing to see here. … Osbaldo Cantu was there too with Melissa Hodgman and Peter Strzok. Maybe the kids were just checked in and allowed to play in the oval office while they also talked about how much that would be worth to China. … As @TruthinGov2016 pointed out, Peter Strzok was THE person who requested the server containing the HRC email backups, and the last person to see it in Oct 2015. Extraordinary. … And the wife, Melissa Hodgman, was involved in some nasty SEC action against China. I think Sloppy Steve Bannon might know something about this? and Guo Wengu? … More Info @
    https://americandigitalnews.com/2018/02/09/obama-strzok-family-connection-spans-decades/#.W0t38NJKiUk

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Madi says:

    Be an informed citizen can be scary. I tell people all the time :usdebtclock.org
    Let me know if you think we need more free stuff or socialism.

    Like

  9. Navy says:

    I knew Page was a rat.

    Like

  10. zucccchini says:

    What IS the statute of limitations on this corruption, really. How LONG does the POTUS have to get a new DOJ and begin to clean this mess up. Midterms, Midterms, Midterms…everyone, both sides of the isle, know this all depends on the Midterms as to whether any of this actually sees the light of day and heads roll and the 7th floor of the FBI (and other places) gets decontaminated.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s