Impeachment

Devin Nunes Supports Secret Surveillance of Americans, Finds Himself Under Surveillance

Nunes attacked those who wanted to restrain NSA’s snooping. Clearly he never considered whether his call records would be exposed.

|

The call records are coming home to roost for Rep. Devin Nunes (R–Calif.).

Before he became a stalwart defender of President Donald Trump, Nunes consistently fought any and all efforts to restrain the authority of the National Security Agency (NSA) to secretly, warrantlessly collect Americans' call records and metadata. He wasn't quiet about this support for domestic surveillance. When Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan (then a Republican, now an independent) tried to restrain the feds' ability to access American call records, Nunes didn't just vote against Amash's legislation; he attacked Amash loudly and publicly. In 2014, one of Amash's efforts prompted Nunes to call the congressman "Al Qaeda's best friend in the Congress." Nunes even donated $5,000 to Amash's primary opponent.

Now this surveillance apparatus that Nunes has long supported has happily provided his political opponents with information that could destroy his career. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (which Nunes used to chair, and where he is now the ranking minority member) just published its impeachment report. It shows calls between Nunes and Rudy Giuliani in 2016, as Giuliani was making the media rounds arguing that Ukrainian officials colluded to help Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. This information will most certainly be used to argue that Nunes is not just a defender of Trump but also an active participant in Giuliani's Ukrainian push.

Nunes isn't happy about that. Last night he tweeted a Washington Examiner piece in which Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R–La.) accuses Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) of "spying" on Nunes and asks, "Are there other members of Congress that he is spying on, and what justification does he have? He needs to be held accountable and explain what he's doing, going after journalists, going after members of Congress, instead of doing his job."

But there's no reason to assume that Schiff was specifically targeting Nunes, and it's unlikely that any laws were broken here. Nunes' name and calls came up in the metadata of the impeachment's investigation targets. What is happening to the California congressman right now is an easily foreseeable consequences of the surveillance system Nunes supports.

Scalise should know full well how Schiff is getting this information. He, like Nunes, has supported expanding the NSA's authority to snoop on Americans. Whenever attempts to expand this power has been brought up for a vote, Scalise has been happy to vote yes. In 2018, as House whip, Scalise circulated an email to GOP members with text from Nunes encouraging them to vote against an Amash attempt to provide stronger privacy protections for Americans.

Maybe next time Amash or somebody else in Congress brings forward a bill protecting Americans from secret unwarranted data collection, Nunes and Scalise might consider supporting it.

NEXT: Nancy Pelosi Calls for Articles of Impeachment, Citing Need To Curb Trump's Overreach, Abuse of Power

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. Now wait just a minute. Devin Nunes didn’t do anything to deserve being spied on.

    1. That is quite the unqualified declaration from someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

      Carry on, clingers.

      1. Where is Reverend Kuckland when you need him?

  2. You think these calls are going to destroy his career?

    Have you read them? I mean, it’s facially stupid because he’s a Trump defender in Trump’s America, but have you read them?

    1. Is he thinking of making a career out of this?

      1. Are you retarded?

    2. How can anyone have read Nunes’ calls when the only record of them are call logs?

  3. So is how the records were obtained constitutionally wrong or not? If it is wrong is Nunes below the law because he supported surveillance you thought was wrong? Has Schiff run afoul of the notion of abusing one’s authority to dig up dirt on a political opponent this whole thing is predicated on?

    1. Has Schiff run afoul of the notion of abusing one’s authority to dig up dirt on a political opponent this whole thing is predicated on?

      Yeah. I’m reminded of Shikha’s ‘No serious criticism’ mental flatulence. Reason is mocking Nunes for supporting bills that allows spying while Schiff, who’s actually doing the spying, gets a free pass?

      “Both sides are equally wrong but Schiff isn’t spying and Nunes’ support of Schiff’s not spying would be both wrong and ironic if Schiff were spying, which he’s not, so har har Republicans. Choke on your corruption and abuse of power.” Fuck off Reason.

  4. This article is a rare example of whataboutism. If you want to criticize Nunes for being a hypocrite, fine. But him being a hypocrite, assuming he is, doesn’t make spying on him acceptable. Moreover, anyone who claims to be against such things but then cackles about it happening to someone they don’t like is engaging serious hypocrisy themselves.

    1. Democrats hate when people are receiving Social Security benefits and then still fight to reduce Social Security.

      Nunes was wrong to support unconstitutional domestic surveillance without warrants and/or probable cause AND Democrats are wrong to obtain Nunes’ papers and effects without a search warrant or subpoena.

      1. Sounds about right.

        Two wrongs don’t make a right.

        Stand up straight Reason!

      2. loveconstitution1789 : “Nunes was wrong to support unconstitutional domestic surveillance without warrants and/or probable cause AND Democrats are wrong to obtain Nunes’ papers and effects without a search warrant or subpoena”

        Nice righteous speech – which I guess is easy to pull off when you ignore the obvious.

        Item : Lev Parnas, Igor Furman and Rudy Giuliani are neck-deep in the potential crimes of money laundering, wire fraud, campaign finance violations, making false statements, obstruction of justice, and violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Parnas and Furman are already charged. The Wall Street Journal reported last month that a federal grand jury in Manhattan has issued subpoenas seeking information about Giuliani’s consulting firm.

        Item : Lev Parnas, Igor Furman and Rudy Giuliani are neck-deep in the impeachment investigation of Donald John Trump and members of his administration, over trading the foreign policy favor of the United States for personal benefit.

        So somebody got a subpoena to view the phone records of Parnas, Fruman and Giuliani. I imagine it wasn’t hard to convince a judge to issue one; I’m betting it was a easy & very legal call.

        Nunes’ subsequent exposure tells us nothing about rampant domestic surveillance, but that he likes to consort with crooks. Bonus discovery : Devin just isn’t very bright. Nunes launches one of his jokey lawsuits on this basis : “CNN was well-aware that Parnas was a renowned liar, a fraudster, a hustler,” charges Nunes. Parnas is so dishonest and disreputable, argues Nunes, that CNN was irresponsible even to publish his allegations.

        Then we learn the two were phone-chat-buddies, including four separate calls on 12 April. Now Devin knew Lev was already cooperating with investigators. Why didn’t he anticipate being exposed? Answer : Because he clownishly stupid. Not to the degree of Trump, of course, but dumb as a box of rocks….

    2. I think it’s more “hoisted by their own petard” thing.

      The article doesn’t defend the spying itself, it just points out that Nunes did defend the spying in the abstract, and only objected when it was applied to him.

      1. This. Also I might add for laughs, if David Nunes has done nothing wrong then has nothing to fear.

      2. Yes, it’s pretty simple. Those who can’t see that simplicity are the partisan fanbois who see conspiracy everywhere. This is just a simple turnabout-is-fair-play, hoisted by his own petard, garden variety schadenfreude.

        1. It is real simple, if you can’t read. If you can, you read this

          But there’s no reason to assume that Schiff was specifically targeting Nunes, and it’s unlikely that any laws were broken here. Nunes’ name and calls came up in the metadata of the impeachment’s investigation targets. What is happening to the California congressman right now is an easily foreseeable consequences of the surveillance system Nunes supports.

          And see that it is exactly what I say it is.

        2. So bitchy pettiness. Just say so and stop pretending to some higher motive.

          1. LEAVE DEVIN NUNES ALONE!!!!!

            1. DEMOCRATS DID NOTHING WRONG!!!!!

      3. Escher…I have to agree. Representative Nunes has certainly been hoist upon his own petard.

        I do have questions on whether a subpoena was issued or not.

    3. This is neither whataboutism nor hypocrisy. Cackling about Nunes complaining about being hoisted on his own petard is pointing out the hypocrisy of Nunes and pointing out another piece of evidence that the law sucks (even Nunes doesn’t like the consequences).

      1. Yeah, its both whataboutism and hypocrisy and your defensiveness is the proof that you know it.

    4. doesn’t make spying on him acceptable

      Hm, looking for where the article said that. No luck.

      1. But there’s no reason to assume that Schiff was specifically targeting Nunes, and it’s unlikely that any laws were broken here. Nunes’ name and calls came up in the metadata of the impeachment’s investigation targets. What is happening to the California congressman right now is an easily foreseeable consequences of the surveillance system Nunes supports.

        I guess you didn’t look hard enough.

        1. Except that Schiff didn’t go through a FISA court or any kind of judicial process to obtain the information, unlike the system Nunes supports generally has to do. Schiff is literally sending subpoenas to AT&T for phone records on a range of American citizens and AT&T just handed them over without asking any questions.

          They covered this on Tucker Carlson last night when Carlson spoke with Nunes…there are no theoretical limits to what Schiff is doing here. It’s far worse than anything Nunes supported, because the people requesting documents are accountable to someone in the bureaucratic or legal system. Schiff isn’t. And they have no idea how far those limits go. He’s not even limited by the scope of an investigation or basic civil liberties.

          1. It’s been signaled to the country that failing to comply to a congressional request is a crime.

        2. Are you confusing “this appears to be legal by the rules that Nunes helped set up” with “this is acceptable”?

          1. Where was the criticism of Schiff’s actions?

            1. This might surprise you, but this article isn’t about Schiff.

              It’s about Nunes being caught in the net he helped set. Taking the time to condemn each and every tangentially involved person really isn’t necessary.

              1. Reason consistently opposed the surveillance state, but pretty much ignored it when it involved impeachment. Like, no one here said “wait, they approved of wiretapping on Trump based on that Steele dossier?”

                Was it right for the FBI to bug MLK’s phone? Nope. If a MLK sympathizer who had supported such actions in the past got a taste of his own medicine, that’s certainly noteworthy. But that’s not the point.

                Does the federal government usually publicize meta data material showing the actual names of private citizens obtained via surveillance outside of criminal investigation?

                1. Trump’s phone was never wiretapped. Manafort was never even wiretapped which is regrettable.

                  1. You’re a fucking liar. They tapped his communications of him and his staff based on a fabricated dossier…and you’re trying to quibble over semantics.

                    Fuck you, Pod. I honestly am at the point where I look forward to Trump using his second term to become the truly evil bastard you currently pretend he is, so he can use the power of the state to crush leftists like yourself and drive you out of government, academia, and anywhere else in American society you’ve infested.

                    Maybe we’ll even get lucky and you’ll personally be one of those leftist parasites who gets swept out. If and when that happens, just remember that you had it coming.

                    1. Losing the culture war to your betters is making you cranky.

                    2. It’s always amusing to me when a leftist such as yourself lies about being a Christian in order to add credibility to your arguments. It’s a tacit admission that your ideology is so repulsive that nobody would buy into it if you told the truth about what it is and who you are.

                2. XM….I had not thought of that, to be honest = Does the federal government usually publicize meta data material showing the actual names of private citizens obtained via surveillance outside of criminal investigation?

                  I would say that they do not usually publicize that data. I thought that data was literally secret when acquired from companies.

                  Q: (for the lawyers) Would this action be immunized by the ‘speech and debate’ clause? Meaning, Representative Schiff could never be prosecuted for a violation of the law relative to these records?

                3. The Federal Government doesn’t usually try to impeach it’s president, so I’m not sure we’re in “usual” territory here.

                  Further, Republicans made a huge stink about a lack of transparency. Democrats putting all their cards on the table is a pretty predictable response.

        3. If you think a libertarian admitting something is legal is the same thing as saying it’s acceptable, I don’t know what to tell you, except that you’re wrong.

          1. Legality is a dumbass question regardless. It is a constitutional question. 3thbamendment protects even against congressional inquiries. Likewise the speech and debate clause has to be considered here. Schiff is literally spying on members in the minority party. This was bad when Obama’s cia did it to Congress as it is here. And Reason cant even really say even one negative thing about it instead tacitly approve it saying it probably want illegal.

          2. Wokatarians find the whole concept of “wrong” to be quite malleable. Principles only apply when convenient.

    5. Personally I’m fine with those who make the rules being subject to them.

      Because he was an aggressor by supporting surveillance, him being surveilled also is not a wrong, just like punching someone who hit you first isnt wrong.

      The only thing that is wrong is that the surveillance isnt being equally applied.

  5. But I was assured by retarded cunt Elizabeth Nolan Brown not 2 hours ago that Nunes was not spied upon in any way, shape or form. Now which Reason Democratic party shill am I supposed to believe?

    1. Same thoughts here. Do they confer with each other for consistency before pumping out there bullshit?

    2. You guys try too hard to play dumb. No one believes you really are that dumb.

        1. No we totally believe it about you, he meant them.

      1. Coming from someone who unironically thinks that Trump is a Russian intelligence asset and credulously thought the Muller report was going to result in the president being criminally indicted I’ll take that as a compliment, thanks.

        1. I’m not sure who you think is dumber, me for thinking the Russians are dumb enough to choose Trump, or the Russians for choosing Trump.

          I’m not even sure who you think you are responding too.

          Maybe’s it rule 77 or something.

      2. He’s not wrong. The mainstream media consensus on this one is that Nunes and his defenders, including Rand Paul, are full of shit for thinking Nunes’ phone records were improperly accessed. Reason picked up on that consensus, which for all I know is correct. But now we’re told that yes, Nunes’ records were improperly accessed and it’s all his fault because he has long supported this kind of overzealous surveillance.

        1. His records were legally accessed due to practices Nunes loudly supported.

          1. Do you have a quote from Nunes regarding limits on Congressional search powers?

            1. I think his voting record speaks wonders.

    3. Came here to say exactly the same thing. Maybe not *exactly*, as I wasn’t going to be as flattering to either Ms. ENB or Reason.

  6. I think Nelson Muntz said it best: “HA HA!”

    It’s always well and good to support the law enforcement infrastructure that keeps us safe from threats, but what happens when the law enforcement infrastructure decides that you’re the threat to be protected against?

    As I recall, Feinstein was a big supporter of the surveillance state as well, then she got all kinds of pissy when she found out the CIA was spying on her just as if she were a Normie and not one of the Elect.

    1. She didn’t get too pissy. It is not like she did anything about it.

      1. Obama authorizing fisa taps on the senate intelligence committee was fine because it wasn’t politically motivated.

    2. Did they spy on her? I though they told her she had a spy and she let him go without punishment, why isn’t he in jail? but when they claimed there was spy in Trumps group did they inform him no they spied on him and and sent spys in to try to get them to hire their undercover spy as a russian spy. Amazing the Trumps team didn’t fall for it

      1. he was her driver for like 15 years. It in all honesty is one of the most underreported stories in recent memory barely made the national news. That and the one about the pakistanis who ran security for the entire house dems caucus scandel thing which I still never heard the whole story that added up.

        1. She’s a Senior senator on the most prestigious security councils in the world and she had a Chinese national spying on her right under her nose for fucking 15 years.

        2. when I tell people about either they seriously can’t believe that 1) I’m not bullshitting them and those things really happened in the last 5 years and 2) that they never even heard about them. Both those fucking stories should have resulted in very public ethics examination where an autopsy was basically performed in the senate and house oversight committees and neither resulted in as much as a peep from anyone in the corporate press.

          1. Including Reason

        3. Chinese spies, Pakistaniintel assets running DNC security, but RUSSIA is the real concern!

      2. I suspect the driver was never a spy at all, but a clandestine conduit for communications and deals between Feinstein and the Chinese government. In other words, she knew about it and used him until she couldn’t any longer.

        The Federalist ran a good story on this last year:

        https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/08/sen-dianne-feinsteins-ties-china-go-way-deeper-alleged-office-spy/

        1. Gasp! Feinstein colluded with a foriegn power for possible political benefit?

          1. Don’t break your neck looking the other way ….

    3. “but what happens when the law enforcement infrastructure decides that you’re the threat to be protected against? ”

      Who are you gonna call? My advice: not Rudy.

  7. Freedom Works- Devin Nunes

    Notice that Nunes’ score. Freedom Works was started by Koch bros.

  8. Didn’t see that hot take coming. Wow.

  9. “”Nunes’ name and calls came up in the metadata of the impeachment’s investigation targets.””

    Wha wha. I vaguely remember reading about link analysis and the feds being able to collect meta data up to three links out. So if person A is a target, and group B are people who talk to person A, and group C are people who spoke to someone in group B, you are allowed to collect data on people in group C.

    Fuck people who support this shit.

  10. I have to believe that Devin Nunes is one of those who would say “if your innocent your have nothing to worry about”. So it seems like he should be worrying right now.

  11. nanny … nanny booboo

  12. Absolutely delicious. But also sad.

    1. What will be sad is when Congress exempts themselves from having their data collected and leave in place the rest of the surveillance state for us little folk.

      1. Shh don’t give them any ideas. Who am I kidding, that’s standard procedure anytime anything comes back to bite them on the ass.

      2. Isn’t that what happened with Obamacare when they exempted themselves? It’s what they do.

        Nunes: Sure I supported it but…..THEY WEREN’T SUPPOSED TO SPY ON ME!

  13. But there’s no reason to assume that Schiff was specifically targeting Nunes, and it’s unlikely that any laws were broken here.

    When talking about Bluetards vs. Redtards, ‘unlikely’ is certainly possible, but not probable.

  14. Wait, what?
    A senior republican spoke on the phone with another senior republican?

    Nunes let the cat out of the bag when all he had to do was say, “I’m a politician. I talk to lots of people. Especially people in my own party.”

    Instead he is effectively admitting guilt.

    1. Past is prologue. Nunes is not the sharpest tool in the shed. This was proven when he got caught going to get information from the White House that he then took back to show the White House what he found. I believe he had to end up recusing himself from the chairman position for the Russian probe.

      1. Not sure if it was deliberate or not…but you left out some important context. Congressman Nunes was investigated by the Ethics Committee on that very topic and was completely exonerated. He was returned to the committee as Chair.

        1. I did not include it because it was not relevant. The ethics probe was on the disclosure of classified information, not on doing something stupid and get caught at it.

  15. I think we need to have a conversation about what is the proper level of oversight of people in positions of power.

    Should they be treated *exactly* like everyday ordinary citizens? So citizens can’t know about their campaign donations, their campaign expenditures, their private business dealings, their tax returns, nothing that they don’t voluntarily supply themselves, because no one not even politicians should be coerced into relinquishing their rights in any context?

    Or, should they be treated to a higher standard, *above* that of average everyday ordinary citizens? Because they are wielding great power over all of us, perhaps we the people should be entitled to know more about politicians than we would know about, say, our next door neighbors. So politicians, or candidates, should be compelled to disclose certain personal information, like finances and business dealings and tax records, so that we can keep a closer eye on them and actually have an informed basis to decide whether the politicians and candidates are living up to their claims and their oaths.

    I can see the arguments for both sides, but I tend to favor the latter one. By this standard, it’s not really scandalous that Nunes’ phone records were made public. What’s really scandalous is that *all* of the Congresscritters’ phone records aren’t public! Why shouldn’t we, the sovereign citizens, know who Nunes, or Schiff, or Trump, or Pelosi, or anyone else is calling while (allegedly) working on our behalf?

    As to the rights argument – I see it more as a condition of employment for the government. Disclosing personal information by a candidate is more akin to a background check as a part of a ‘job application’. That’s the terms of the job application process. Candidates are free to refuse to having their personal information exposed, by choosing not to apply for this particular job.

    1. All the requirements for disclosure might just make corrupt politicians learn to be sneakier about what they’re up to. The smarter ones, at least.

      Another way is to reduce the power they are given, so there is less at stake, less opportunity for corruption.

      One thing I’ve noticed a lot with modern politicians is the (intentional?) use of “word salad” and being inarticulate in their communications, which is a very effective way to avoid being pinned down on anything. If the election does end up being Trump vs. Biden, they both have the magic power to weasel out of trouble because they tend to babble incoherently.

      1. Well if we’re going to do this, then it should be REAL disclosures.

        How about a list of every bank/investment account with the actual amount and all of the investments within that account?

        How about a transcript of every school ever attended?

        How about body cams? Why not? Arguably politicians with their idiotic policies have killed more people than the crooked cops. Maybe politicians should be the ones wearing the body cams.

        1. How about voter IDs?

          If people are forced to give up their right to donate to political causes anonymously, shouldn’t they be ‘forced’ to give up their right to actually vote anonymously too? They’d be much easier to track and sort through than school transcripts and investment accounts and the implications apply to elections much more directly.

          1. Voter ID laws have nothing to do with voting anonymously.

            1. Voter ID laws have nothing to do with voting anonymously.

              Because anonymous vs. secret was my point. I wasn’t pointing out a direct corollary or quid pro quo between voting anonymously/secretly and donating anonymously/secretly. Just trying to obfuscate voting in secret vs. voting anonymously.

      2. Another way is to reduce the power they are given, so there is less at stake, less opportunity for corruption.

        Well yes that is the ideal solution. But even in Libertopia, there will still be some small state with some people wielding power.

    2. chem….agree a conversation is in order, but I am not following your reasoning at all.

      My view: If we are to treat Congress exactly like us plebes, then unlimited surveillance is in order, in plain violation of their 4th amendment rights. Put another way, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

      1. My view: If we are to treat Congress exactly like us plebes, then unlimited surveillance is in order, in plain violation of their 4th amendment rights. Put another way, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

        So… full repeal on the 4th? That’s your solution to Nunes’ serendipity? Do you show up to car accidents and shoot the survivors too?

        1. No = So… full repeal on the 4th?

          Quite the opposite.

          1. Quite the opposite.

            Well, the direct effect would be full-tilt spying on Nunes *and anyone who contributes to his campaign in pretty much any way* and would, presumably extend to the entirety of Congress and anyone who supported them in any way.

            Sounds like a whole lot more domestic spying rather than a whole lot less.

    3. So citizens can’t know about their campaign donations, their campaign expenditures, their private business dealings, their tax returns, nothing that they don’t voluntarily supply themselves, because no one not even politicians should be coerced into relinquishing their rights in any context?

      You’re not sneaky. It’s an end run around the 4th and 1st Am. You may think your message comes across as “They’re public servants, they should be held accountable!” to everyone but I and plenty of others hear nothing but “Fuck the rights of those private business owners on the other end of every transaction, we’ve got political sausage to make!”

      Your stance on campaign contributions is every bit as bad as Nunes’ is on spying.

      1. There is no government intervention too great for Jeff.

  16. Boy, it’s almost like these GOPers who talk about the rule of law and limited government are absolutely full of shit. Hmmm… it can’t be that the Republican Party has no morals, or beliefs or integrity because, after all, the GOP is when push comes to shove the real party of {guffaw… sorry} limited government

  17. Nunes should be mad at Trump, not Schiff. None of this would have been necessary if Trump weren’t stonewalling every request for testimony.

  18. Was there even subpoenas and warrant involved in getting these meta data? House impeachment inquiry isn’t an official criminal investigation. How did Schiff go to AT&T to get that metadata?

    What is Nunes’ position on NSA overreach? If he supported snooping on people because they look suspicious, that would be wrong. If he was for the government obtaining metadata from companies willing to provide them, I think he’d still wrong, but it wouldn’t be legally dubious if proper protocols were met.

  19. I’m also sort of dubious that Nunes and Guiliani made all these calls to OMB, Parnas, or whoever on government / public landlines. Don’t they have smartphones?

  20. Nice article bro thanks for sharing better information keep doing the good work bro thanks again for this article. Pinoy Tambayan

  21. Republicans are all about invasion of privacy. They cheered when DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. They have no problem parading personal text messages of Sztrock and Page for everyone to see. That should send chills down the spine of every law enforcement officer who is asked to investigate someone who shares a different political view than their own. You might be biased and so we must see all your texts and call records.

    1. Personal text messages on government phones you mean referencing political candidates and showing clear evidence of bias so severe that Strzok and Page were re-assigned. Gee, why would that be relevant?

      “Chills” indeed.

  22. Gee-Oh-Pee use the Nixon anti-libertarian law to buy elections with IRS coercion, and the Dems are upset communism is no longer a vote-getter now that it controls their party root and branch. Here’s hoping voters pay close attention to the looters, and on election day recall what The Don said about liking libertarianism. Libertarian voters cannot possibly lose, and stand poised to garner 8 million votes in 2020, following the substitution curve for cassettes and CDs replacing vinyl LPs.

  23. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
    pop over to this website……….. Read More

  24. Recall this is the same Shackford who thinks investigations are good because they can exonerate you.

    The pearl clutching requires some principled pearls to have any meaning.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.