Hillary Clinton

Inspector General Report Makes Clear That Hillary Clinton's State Department Email System Broke Government Rules

Clinton's campaign insists that her exclusive reliance on a private email server was allowed. It wasn't.


Credit: C-SPAN

Throughout her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has consistently maintained that her decision to exclusively use a privately run email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, and then to hand over a selection of emails long after leaving office, was fully allowed and consistent with both the law and State Department policy.

Even today, her campaign website states flatly that it was accpetable, and that "the laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work." At times, Clinton has even gone further, declaring that she went "above and beyond" her official duties and requirements in turning over her emails.

This has always been a dubious assertion. As Politico reported in March of last year, shortly after news of Clinton's email setup first broke, the State Department has clear rules that prohibit staffers from relying exclusively on their personal accounts for government business, in order to ensure both the security of high level government communications and public transparency and accountability.

A report from a non-partisan government watchdog today confirms that Clinton's behavior was not allowed under agency rules, and, perhaps more damningly, that Clinton does not appear to have made any effort to ensure that she was in compliance with government email policies. 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Statement Department reports that although Clinton had an "obligation" to discuss her decision to use a personal email account with Diplomatic Security officials, but the OIG could find no evidence that she requested any guidance or approval. And if she had asked for approval, the report says, permission would have been denied on the grounds that her usage violated agency guidelines and would have posed "security risks." The report also notes that "Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements" laid out in agency guidelines.

In addition, the report faults Clinton for failing to turn over records until long after leaving office. "Sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record," the report says.

And her after-the-fact compliance—she left office in early 2013 and did not turn over any of her emails until late 2014—was a clear violation of department rules. "At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."

It's not as if no one was aware of Clinton's email setup and the problems it might cause. The report highlights a number of discussions within the State Department about her email situation, including one in which Clinton declines to be integrated into the department's in-house email system in order to avoid "any risk of the personal being accessible."

What the report makes clear, then, is that contrary to what her campaign says, her email practices were both risky and not allowed by State Department guidelines. Indeed, Clinton appears to have made no significant attempt to hold the sort of conversations that might have led to compliance with those guidelines, and she resisted efforts to move any part of her communications into the official system.

Overall, the report comes across as sharply critical of Clinton. It makes clear that she refused to play by the rules while acting as Secretary of State—ignoring them as a point of personal privilege, and creating both security vulnerabilities and transparency and accountability problems in the process.

And then, while running for president, she falsely insisted that she'd done all that was required of her. So she didn't just break the rules; she refused to admit that she had done so, and pretended that she'd gone the extra mile to ensure compliance. 

That's a troubling story to hear about any former public servant—and it's even more worrying when that person is seeking even more power and authority. 

NEXT: Star Wars: The Remix

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “That’s a troubling story to hear about any former public servant?and it’s even more worrying when that person is seeking even more power and authority.”

    Besides which, no one in a position of power will do a damn thing about her breaking the law.

    1. That’s because they want to do the same and get away with it. It used to be that you had some relief from this sort of shit because the 2 parties at least tried to keep the other in check. Now, they’re just in collusion, wanting to make sure when they’re in, they get away with all sorts of corruption also, and knowing the other team won’t try to do anything to stop them.

      Does anyone really believe that Nixon wouldn’t get away with what he did, today? He’d probably have several Nobel prizes before he left office. Hillary is Nixon on steroids.

    2. This is where as a libertarian, I root for John McAfee to win the Libertarian Presidential nomination this year. I voted for GJ in 2012 and he’s an honorable enough dude, but this ain’t the year for playing nice in the sandbox. If ever there was a year for libertarians to get off the bench and get in the game and drop ether, this should be like t-ball. “Hillary, #$@@# you’re a criminal, no? Ok, you’re out. ” “Donald, besides building a wall on the border of Mexico that they will pay for, and only the window lickers who support you believe that nonsense, what else ya got? Nothing. Cool. I am the tallest midget and your next Pres of these here United States. God Bless America”

      1. CNN’s coverage of this is partisan as hell. Virtually every story about her email scandal has a line in it that says “but it’s highly unlikely that criminal charges will be brought against her.” The journalists writing this story either a) have some anonymous source that’s feeding them info, or b) are full of shit and just giving their personal, biased opinion, to intentionally mislead readers.

        Fox News has a different strand of idiot reporters, but they are closer to reality with this story.

        I’ve said all along that nothing will happen to her, but what the state dept is officially saying, is starting to make me wonder. The FBI’s findings will be interesting, whenever those are made public.

    Venal, carpetbagging scofflaw will escape all repercussions and her fawning acolytes will shift the focus from “It never happened” to “It’s no big deal”.

    1. Everyone does it.

    2. …then shifting to ‘Republican witch hunt’, then shifting to ‘it’s old news’.


      1. oops…

        Is it still a witch hunt when there actually ARE witches?

        1. She LOOKS like she weighs more than a duck, but has anyone actually checked?

      2. The story has been that all of the Clinton scandals were a “Republican witch hunt” on the Team Blue intertubez for years.

    3. …then shifting to ‘Republican witch hunt’, then shifting to ‘it’s old news’.


      1. …then shifting to ‘squirrelz’!

    4. “But George Bush and Dick Cheney! George Bush!”

  3. This surely means she’ll be indicted, right? RIGHT?

    I’m just kidding. Of course she won’t be.

    1. Oh, Juvie, that was so amateur. They know you’re kidding. You finish the joke and you wait for the MC to tell the audience to give you a big hand, etc.

    2. Ironically, the Democrat Party would be much better off if she is indicted after the convention. I really think she is too damaged a candidate to put up much of a fight against Trump.

  4. Old news.
    What difference, at this point, does it make?
    Hillary Clinton innocently ignored some silly office rules, no way she violated any laws.
    In any case, Condi Rice and Colin Powell did the same when they were in office.
    TRUMP = HITLER — case closed.

    1. Yes, they had private email accounts.

      No, they didn’t have the State Departments email server in their basement.

      What’s the difference, durrr.

      1. didn’t Lois Lerner and Janet Napolitano (sp?) have private e-mail issues too?

        1. The IRS has the same backup rules as the State Department. All of Lerner’s emails should be available from these backups. Yet, they somehow convinced a dumbed down America that all the emails were gone because of a HD issue. Rules and laws are for peasants who don’t know what the rules and laws are.

    2. Hillary Clinton operated a private server to handle government email, something covered by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. That law, and implementing regulations that the National Institutes for Science and Technology issued, and that the Department of State incorporated in its Foreign Affairs Manual, require data systems that store and process government records to comply with many standards. In general terms, some of the most important include: regular data backups; contingency plans to meet agency needs for continued operation in emergencies or in the event of system failure; configuration to minimize vulnerabilities and prevent unauthorized access; and validation and accreditation by the designated official for the agency (in the State Department, the CIO).

      In what has been published: there is no indication that the systems were backed up regularly. Any continuity of operation plans for Clinton’s server failed at least twice (one noted in the State IG report, and another when Hurricane Sandy cut power at the Clintons’ New York home). The configuration exposed at least two remote administration access methods with known vulnerabilities on the public internet. And the State IG report shows that Ms. Clinton did not seek approval of her system from the CIO, who would not have approved it if asked.

      So Hillary Clinton violated at least one law, FISMA.

      1. Nope, laws against this all were passed after she was out of office. Everyone else did this, and people only care because she is a woman.


  5. 1. The State Department had previously said Hillary did not break State Department rules. They tripped over themselves running to the podium for that press conference.
    2. I have seen it reported elsewhere that Hillary broke ‘rules,’ but not public record keeping laws. Which makes no sense because the rules in question that she violated were put in place in order to be compliant with said laws. The report is being reported as critical, but to me it still sounds like sugarcoating.

    1. See Grrizzly’s comment, above for the answer.

    2. While the report indicates Clinton violated the State Department’s own policies she didn’t violate the Federal Records Act, which would have been a more serious transgression. The report also makes clear that Clinton isn’t the only secretary of State to have these problems. The State Department has a long track record of having some of worst document retention in the federal government.


      Given the other reporting I’ve seen, I am skeptical of the version passed around in the media. In other violations, it’s quite clear to me when I look at these laws she broke them. Yet the media keeps parroting nonsense about ‘intent’ as if there is a charge for negligently mishandling classified material. The record keeping laws are barely mentioned, and obstruction of justice never brought up.

    3. That article on Politico in it has some bullshit about how Hillary should have printed out these emails and had them filed.

      Ugh, I have no idea if that is in the rules. What I know for sure is in the rules is that these emails have to be handled by an official secured email server at the state department, not in Hillary’s fucking basement, and that all of the emails have to be backed up regularly, with copies stored off site.

      Where are the backups? Why is no one asking this very obvious question? Who the fuck could even get away with something like this? Is there not one honest person at the State Department? Not even one?

      1. Is there not one honest person at the State Department? Not even one?

        I’m disappointed in you for even ASKING that.

        1. How close do you think HRC would let any honest employee at State within her inner cabal?

          Honest people who knew specifics about the server are most likely buried under the basement floor.

      2. Keep in mind the State Department tends to attract the internationalist crowd, the sort that pride themselves on not being biased toward parochial American interests. They are Top Men of Top Men so mere American law doesn’t mean quite so much to them. They are above that sort of thing. Now if the UN or the Hague had promulgated these rules, that might mean something.

      3. That is one way email was handled in the past. Not all email messages are federal records for archival purposes, and one way to reduce the volume was to print those that were and file them manually with other paper records. More recently, as offices became more automated and operation hinged more on electronic communication and digital records that are easy and cheap to store, practices have changed and probably are based now mainly on regular media backups.

    4. It’s definitely critical ? it’s all but saying she broke the law. I’m thinking if might not have been in the IG’s authority to say she broke the law. Saying she broke the law is a job for prosecutors and the courts.

      Of course, there could be some hedging in the report ? the IG might be trying to say that Clinton broke the law without actually saying she did, whether to avoid being targeted in a lawsuit or to avoid pissing off a possible future boss and that’s the sugarcoating.

  6. But remember kids, the “lie of the year” is probably a twitter post by Sarah Palin or something.

  7. Well, everyone who can read the fedgovs rules about email has known this since the start. You can find this online. We know she committed crimes, several of them both during her handling of the server and the destruction of government property in the attempted cover up. Where are the fucking backups? There’s another crime. Is Hillary and her sycophants the only people on the planet who are so stupid that they don’t know it’s not allowed to put the State Departments email server in your basement? And in doing so, sorry Hillary, but your private emails on that server are then also property of the state, not your personal property. Everyone who is not a complete idiot, knows this.

    There have been so many lies the Clinton campaign have spread about this from the beginning that most people have forgotten about some of the most ridiculous ones. Remember when it was because she didn’t want to carry 2 cell phones? WTF? People really believe that you can’t have more than one email account on the same phone? And what does that have to do with having a private server for your work email? Good grief, these people are pathetic.

    1. Well, everyone who can read the fedgovs rules about email and is honest has known this since the start. FTFY.

      1. hell, anyone with the common sense to not put their hand under a running lawn mower should know this was unacceptable.

        1. Wait, what? This putting a hand under a running lawnmower, is that some sort of forbidden thing? Asking for a friend.

    2. Apparently, the two phone things has at least a sliver of truth to it. Some State Department employee suggested she start using two devices as there were complaints about her private server from tech guys. She said no.

      In another instance, Huma suggests she stop using the private email account, but Hillary refuses because she doesn’t want her personal emails ending up in public records.

      She basically states her motives, and was quite clearly warned about the issues here. She kept doing it anyway.

      1. Well, if Hillary wanted to set up a private server for her private emails at home, completely separate from her work email, then there’s not a problem. But that’s not the case of course. The case is that she attempted to keep her State Department work emails a secret and ensure she had the means to destroy them if needed. This is a clear cut case of criminal activity.

        If I was working the case, the first thing I would do would be to bring in the person who was head of IT at the State Department while this was going on. I would ask them to explain the State Department rules for securing and backing up emails. Then I would ask why were these rules not followed? Why was this allowed to happen? And tell that person they are facing federal felony charges. That’s where I would start. Why do I keep getting the feeling that this is all a giant circus act and not a real investigation at all?

        1. Why do I keep getting the feeling that this is all a giant circus act and not a real investigation at all?”

          Because it is, unfortunately.

        2. IIRC they brought the IT dude in and his emails are lost as well. It’s a coincidence, I’m sure. But they could put the screws to him as you suggest.

          1. You’re referring to Clit’s personal IT guy. That’s not the same as the State Dept’s head of security.

  8. “pretended that she’d gone the extra mile to ensure compliance.”

    That’s not pretending. That’s lying. She lied.

  9. I agree that she’ll likely get away with this, at least among her supporters and, perhaps, democrats at large. However, the Donald will make hay of it and it will end up being a big deal for him. He may be the only person alive who can and will make her pay.

    1. Yes, Trump would be perfect VP candidate, with Rand as Prez.

    2. And this is part of the reason the Donald has the support he does. He will make hay of it and not be dissuaded when Hillary supporters claim it is ‘old news’.

    3. Also, while Bernie is “sick of hearing about her emails,” those that “feelz tha Bern,” are going apoplectic over this. That might be the actual force that causes some repercussion.

      Wait, who am I kidding?

      1. I could see this being a big boost for sanders as hes the only one left who isn’t a felon (anything national security related has gotta be a felony, right? I don’t actually know) or donald trump, and as much as I would enjoy seeing hilary go to prison I think bernie’s a lot scarier.

    4. then Trump needs to hammer on Comrade Obama and AG Lynch about getting her indicted and prosecuted for these numerous crimes,instead of just calling her “Crooked Hillary”.
      Trump should be hammering them on why crimes aren’t being prosecuted,unless the victims are black.

  10. Guccifer has plead guilty to hacking into Clinton’s email in federal court while Clinton claims she never created any security risks by using a private server.

    *scratches head*

    I see.

    The same people who claim Hillary did nothing wrong are cheering his conviction. Cognitive dissonance with a heapin’ helpin’ of hypocrisy is a hell of a dish.

    1. There’s no proof that Guccifer ever had access to Clinton’s emails. Other than Guccifer claiming he hacked her email, but admits he has no proof. Just his word.

      I have read stories about the Kremlin mulling releasing 20,000 Clinton emails, but unfortunately, until it actually happens, it’s just conspiracy theory.

      None of this means that Hillary’s email wasn’t hacked, or wasn’t at risk, but until a smoking gun appears, Clinton can just claim the vast right-wing conspiracy.

      1. And yet we have this:


        A guy gets a felony conviction in federal court….because nothing to see here?

        I am not contradicting you, you are correct, but the whole thing looks like the bizarro land of cognitive dissonance that scam artists want us all to live in.

        1. Looks like this just dropped, too:

          …. the plea deal comes as the FBI is moving to conclude its investigation into Clinton’s exclusive use of a private server for government business while secretary of state. Lazar, who was facing more than 20 years in prison and cut what amounted to a very favorable deal, is currently being held in a Virginia jail ? which means he will be available to the FBI and U.S. attorney.

          As outlined in the plea agreement which Fox News has reviewed, Lazar has agreed to extensive cooperation with the U.S. government. According to the court filing, Lazar has agreed to be “reasonably available for debriefing and pre-trial conferences as the U.S. may require.”

          The document states: “The defendant agrees to testify truthfully and completely at any grand juries, trials or other proceedings.”

          Additionally, Lazar has agreed to provide all documents, writings, and recordings within his custody to the U.S. government that may be relevant to investigations or inquiries.

          1. “…currently being held in a Virginia jail ? which means he will be available to the FBI and U.S. attorney.”

            I had to laugh out loud at that. Holy shit, that clumsy idiot will probably slip and fall on a noose or a shiv before the week is out.

            1. Perhaps so. But the jail may also realize that they have a really high-value inmate there and make sure he’s protected. Sounds like the jail is housing him for the feds – they often pay local jails to house prisoners awaiting trial and the feds want their prisoner intact.

        1. 2013! That’s old news. Move on!

      2. Can you link to these Kremlin stories? That would be both horrifying and fucking hysterical if they did decide to leak them!!!

    2. I’m just curious to see what evidence, if any, comes out of the Guccifer case. Would be interesting see the extent of his hack and gain an idea for how vulnerable the content was on her server.

      1. Yes, and the fact that he plead guilty sounds as if he cut a deal.

      2. The server itself was in a bathroom closet in Denver. I suppose it would have be slightly more vulnerable if they had left it on a sidewalk.

        1. actually,the server was originally in Clinton’s NY home.

          BTW,nobody is mentioning the OTHER crime Hillary committed;her turning over a thumb drive of her emails containing classified material to first her server guy,then her lawyers,none of these people were cleared to posses such material. That’s two felony violations of national security right there.
          In addition to all her other violations and crimes.

  11. It’s all about trying to find something in the emails themselves that’s damning.

    If you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about Hillary!


    Meanwhile, she accepted private donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State, something probably less respectable than Benedict Arnold defecting to the British.

    I mean, at least Benedict Arnold didn’t keep pretending to be on the side of the rebellion. When he was found out, he was inducted into the British army. He didn’t run for President!

    Maybe Hillary should move to Saudi Arabia. She’s already on their payroll. Americans don’t want a President who’s on the Saudi payroll.

    Which leads to the question: Why are they looking for secret emails when Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, accepted donations from foreign governments–in plain sight?

    It’s like a cognitive bias, where people think it isn’t a crime if it’s done in the open, but if they catch sight of a hidden email, then that’s awful or something. What she’s done in broad daylight would have been more than enough to have her impeached.

    1. Ken…dude. You aren’t supposed to point the elephant out no matter how giant, pink, and rowdy it is.

      How many people in DC have charitable foundations that they use to launder bribe money? How many do you think are willing to knock the wheels off of that gravy train?

  12. And yet, this felon WILL be your next president America. What a great time to be alive.

    1. I’m betting a landslide Trump win if Hillary makes it all the way through the general. She’s too dumb and too damaged to be anything other than his punching bag.

    2. I’ve done nothing but get more convinced that Trump will beat Hillary. My only real concern is that he is pushing the many Clinton scandals at the wrong time (now), rather than waiting a couple of months and using them to crap all over the Dem convention.

      1. I think Sanders has got the job of crapping all over the Dem convention pretty much covered.

  13. The “Statement Department” — kind of has a nice ring to it — like something out of “1984”.

  14. “Inspector General Report Makes Clear That Hillary Clinton’s State Department Email System Broke Government Rules”

    Inspector General also finds that water is wet.

  15. Also, I find the the spelling of “accpetable” totally unaccpetable.

  16. fake scandal

  17. State Department confirms water is wet.

    At least we’ve got that going for us.

  18. Inspector General Report Makes Clear That Hillary Clinton’s State Department Email System Broke Government Rules

    Why say “government rules” when “THE LAW” is more clear and succinct?

    1. they’re fudging to make it seem less serious and less criminal than it really is.

      the rules are in place to comply with the law. Hillary deliberately set out to evade the law,that’s the whole reason she had a private server.

  19. Should be a good day for everyone preaching the theory of a Biden Swichero at the convention.

  20. Should be a good day for everyone preaching the theory of a Biden Swichero at the convention.

    1. Much as I want Hillary to crash and burn for this, I just can’t quite see that scenario unfolding. Unless Trump is crushing her in the polls by the time of the convention, in which case Obama might be happy to throw her under the bus and the party might be happy to be rid of her.

  21. @Loise, you make $27h thats great going girl good for you! My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online, seriously I couldn’t be happier I work when I want and where I want. And with a little effort I easily bring in $35h and sometimes even as much as $85h?heres a good example of what i’m doing,

    ============ http://usatoday.nypost55.com

  22. Hillary doesn’t walk, she slithers.

  23. Hell, what counts as nothing more than a minor sideshow in this scandal would be more than enough to destroy other people’s careers and quite possibly catch them jail time.

    I am referring, of course, the attempted wiping of the server while it was under multiple federal subpoenas. The rest of the scandal is so gargantuan that this just . . . fades, but it is far worse than what brought Nixon down – the famous missing 18 minutes of audiotape. Hillary tried to destroy years of correspondence, not a few minutes of conversation, and crickets.

    So, yes, things are much worse now than they were even during the Nixon years.

    1. Wipe? Like, with a cloth?

    2. You know, I’ve always liked that word… ‘gargantuan’… so rarely have an opportunity to use it in a sentence.

  24. No one has yet posted the obligatory “PHAKE SKANDULL!!!” comment?

    Somebody is slipping around here.

  25. To paraphrase a line from Watergate “What did Hillary Clinton know and when did she know it?”

    1. regarding national security,”knowledge” is not relevant,it’s that she DID do what was prohibited. SERIOUS violations were made.
      But it’s already proven that she DID know that her server and Blackberry were not secure,that hack-attacks were being made,and there’s testimony from Guccifer that he got into her server and read emails.
      then there’s the Federal Record Act,that she clearly violated and her intent to evade FOIA law.

  26. Hey, she only wanted to protect her personal emails, so why no deliberately comingle her work emails with them. You know, the personal emails where she solicited hundred of millions in cash from foreign nationals in exchange for US government favors.

  27. Well, so much for the “security review”; now, on to the criminal indictment.

  28. Broke the “rules”? She broke the LAW when she tried to wipe them.

  29. So, here’s the deal: Even if Obama issues a blanket pardon (“I hereby pardon Hillary Clinton for any criminal actions she may have taken from date x to date y”), the Congress can still impeach her (if she wins the Presidency), for crimes she committed as Secretary of State.
    I can’t believe she is still the front runner for the Dems. Maybe her plan is to pick somebody so bad for veep that the Republican Congress decides it’s better to keep her in office.

  30. This how low our country the U.S.A. has sunk. Our current POTUS is a wannabe Castro, running to replace him is a wannabe Mussolini, a wannabe Chavez, and an incompenent crook, who could get caught robbing a gumball machine.

  31. Do you have a pay~pal account.. because if you do you can add an extra 650 week after week in your check just working on the internet 2 hours every day. go here to this site….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….
    …………………. http://www.MaxPost30.com

  32. Inspector General admits to something everyone already knew years ago. Wish I could spend millions to tell people the sky is blue. Even if convicted the left will claim its a right wing conspiracy.

  33. Soooo how is breaking government rules not “illegal”? Isn’t that the very definition of illegal?

  34. How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?

    The sad thing about this is that she’ll never be prosecuted. Let’s say you’re a federal prosecutor. You’ve been in the fedgov for quite some time, have played the political game well enough to have something like security, are making a comfortable living, and probably have no small amount of clout. Do you want to be the one who files charges against the woman who might possibly be the next POTUS? What if you lose the case?

    This changes nothing. Clinton supporters believe this is a case of Republicans ginning up the base by blowing what amounts to an innocent mistake on par with forgetting to let someone know the copier’s out of toner out of proportion for political reasons. And even if it really is more serious, they’ll say, sometimes great people have to bend the rules for good reasons.

  35. Make 7500 bucks every month? Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website?

  36. @Loise, you make $27h thats great going girl good for you! My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online, seriously I couldn’t be happier I work when I want and where I want. And with a little effort I easily bring in $35h and sometimes even as much as $85h?heres a good example of what i’m doing,

    ============ http://y?o?u?t?u?b?e.n?y?p?o?s?t?5?5?.?c?o?m

  37. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  38. up to I looked at the check of $4791 , I did not believe …that…my neighbour could actualie earning money in there spare time on their laptop. . there friend brother has been doing this for less than 7 months and resently cleard the morgage on their mini mansion and purchased a great Bugatti Veyron . you could look here ……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  39. This application is really good and very easy to use because you can never get an app which streams way of the latest and even the oldest videos. showbox

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.