FBI recommends no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton

FBI Director James Comey announced today that the FBI has completed its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. Even though the FBI found that she lied when she publicly denied emailing classified information, he said the FBI would be recommending that the Department of Justice not charge her with any crimes. Under the circumstances, the department will likely follow his investigation. Although the Bureau’s recommendation effectively ends the potential criminal case, it does not resolve the political controversy. With that in mind, let’s take a look at Comey’s findings.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.


From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.


Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

Having found no evidence of intentional misconduct, the critical question was whether her conduct constituted “gross negligence.” Comey found that it did not. Instead, he found that she and the other people in the email chain were “extremely careless.” What is the difference?

Gross negligence is a legal term with a specific meaning. It’s an objective test. A person acts in a grossly negligent manner if her conduct constitutes a “substantial deviation” from the legal duty to exercise due care when handling classified information compared to the conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation.

“Extremely careless” is a subjective test because it’s not based on a comparison to the conduct of a reasonable person. What may appear to be extremely careless conduct to one person may not appear to be be extremely careless to another. Depending on the circumstances, extremely careless conduct may or may not constitute gross negligent conduct. The relevant circumstances probably include:

(1) the number of people in the email chain who received and transmitted the classified information and whether they were authorized to possess it (they were);

(2) the nature of the information transmitted (we don’t know because it’s classified);

(3) whether the information was intercepted by unauthorized third parties (it probably wasn’t); and

(4) how widespread the practice was (Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also did it)

I believe James Comey decided against charging Hillary Clinton because in his opinion her extremely careless behavior did not rise to the level of intentional or grossly negligent behavior.

I generally agree with the caveat that I do not know who was in the chain and what information was transmitted. Due to the political aspects of this case, I believe it should ultimately be decided in the court of public opinion by the voters in November.

Whether voters will hold her accountable for lying when she denied transmitting classified information remains to be seen.

73 Responses to FBI recommends no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton

  1. MichelleO says:

    Where is everybody?

    • girlp says:

      Digging our bomb shelter’s if someone does not remove that fool from office the world is done. Russian submarine on the coast of Delaware, our military and civilian (working for the US Government) approached aggressively by China. In addition to domestic issues such as Alabama and Louisiana having national disasters and getting no help not even a call from the White House for whatever reasons. Flynn and Russia, Flynn not knowing how to call out the National Guard and nobody wants to work for Trump. We are sitting ducks here our military is our only help and I hope they can help.

  2. gblock says:

    It’s nice to see this blog back up again after it was down for a while. What do the rest of you think about the election recount? It seems unlikely to me that they will come up with enough issues to flip all three of the states involved. However, if they find (and hopefully, force correction of) issues that could also affect future elections, the recount is probably worthwhile.

    • Dave says:

      It looks to me like a shameless, groveling attempt by Jill Stein to buy herself a place with the Clinton machine now that the Green Party appears to be all but dead.

      • gblock says:

        I doubt that they are dead, after being on the ballot in most states this time. They have already existed for several election cycles. They will not become one of the top two anytime soon, and they may grow or shrink in the next few years, but I very much doubt that they are dead. In fact, many people might see more of a need for them than before.

        • Dave says:

          No, the Green Party isn’t dead yet and, judging from the example of the Prohibition Party (whose presidential candidate won a whopping 500 votes this year), they may remain “alive” for many years to come. In a year when when the Democrats and Republicans ran the most widely loathed candidates in their respective histories, Dr. Stein received 1% of the popular vote. Even a doofus like Gary Johnson managed to get 3%.

          Sure they’ll manage to elect a few of their people to school boards and local transit authorities (mostly unsalaried parttime positions where they can run more or less unopposed). On a national level, though, it looks to me like they’ll soon join the ranks of the zombie parties along side the Prohibition Party and the Socialist Labor Party.

          We certainly need a strong, broad based Left party, but the Greens, as an organization, ain’t it.

    • Dave says:

      Getting back on topic, as of yesterday, in the Wisconsin recount Trump had increased his lead by 40 votes and Stein gained 27 votes, mainly from Menominee County whose election officials had neglected to report the votes for “minor” party candidates.

      • bettykath says:

        Not counting votes that aren’t for the Ds or Rs is fairly commonplace. It’s possible that Stein did get 5% but we’ll never know. What the entire recount story tells us is that our votes just don’t count. It’s a sham to keep us complacent in thinking that we do count.

    • bettykath says:

      Let’s stick with what we know.

      Trump is corrupt in that he does whatever is necessary to feather his own bed, including cheating his contractors. He demeans women, Mexicans, Blacks, differently-abled. He is without compassion. He has been charged with fraud (Trump U), and rape (13 year old on Epstein’s yacht). Trump talks about massive deportations and attacks on other countries.

      Clinton’s corruption is international in scale and includes weapons sales, Clinton Foundation taking money for Haiti rebuilding that didn’t happen, etc. Her constituents when she was Senator were the Wall Street gang when she voted for the bankruptcy bill that was bad news for everyone else. She was involved in the sword rape of Qaddafi and laughed, “we came, we saw, he died”.

      No matter which of these monsters wins, we’re screwed.

  3. bettykath says:

    Another topic but closer to being on-topic: Hillary Clinton’s health and what it might mean.

    Hillary Clinton has some health issues. Officially she has been dehydrated at events on more than one occasion and she has pneumonia. That may be true. But there is the possibility that she has Parkinson’s Disease. I am not a physician, nor do I have access to her medical records, so I am speculating on the possibility that she has Parkinson’s and what it might mean. My aunt and my mother had Parkinson’s. My aunt’s tremors (hands and legs) were fairly well controlled by medication. She died of heart failure, probably induced by a drug that was supposed to help her heart. It’s connection to heart failure was exposed about the time of my aunt’s death. My mother died of advanced Parkinson’s. Over the nearly four years that I cared for her, she lost the ability to walk, and to communicate except to respond to yes/no questions. At the end, she was completely “frozen” without the ability to control any of her muscles, including, at the very end, to swallow or to move anything but her eyelids.

    Hillary Clinton has been “the first woman who” in that she is the first woman to have been nominated by the Republican or Democratic parties. (Other parties have had women presidential candidates, but not the two corporate parties.) There is a good possibility that she will be the first woman actually elected President. If she is not too ill, she will be the first woman inaugurated as President. This last is the goal she has been working for all her life. She will do whatever it takes to achieve it.

    If she has Parkinson’s there are those in her circle who also know it. They at least know there is a serious health issue. Parkinson’s doesn’t have a test that can be used definitively to identify it. It has many symptoms that are similar to those of other diseases, but it also has a progression that doesn’t bode well for one who has it. There are tremors that can be quite well controlled by medication. There are other symptoms where the muscles are not being controlled that pop up unexpectedly, a jerking of the head, the legs, the arms, facial features. These can be seen in some of the videos of her.

    What concerns me the most is the possibility that she will lose the ability to communicate. How long will she be able to lead in her own right? Then how long will her husband front for her, then make decisions for her? At what point will Congress demand that she resign and the VP take over?

    There are those who have a good idea how bad her health is. If they decide to replace her now, party rules say Bernie Sanders should replace her. Those in the party are likely to be afraid of losing their own power and position so they really don’t want him. Hillary has to stay at least until she is elected. Then what? Most likely they will find a way for her to be inaugurated and then, eventually, have her resign in favor of the veep. More likely they will let Bill Clinton front for her for as long as it is politically possible. Depending on the attitude of the veep, he will either take over or they will go the Spiro Agnew route, that is, get the veep to resign for one reason or another, appoint someone who has not been elected to the office ala Gerald Ford, then get Clinton to resign due to health.

    So, what do we want? Trump with his blatant racism, greed, etc.? A healthy Clinton with her blatant war-mongering? or an ill Clinton, with Bill Clinton in charge? and then there is an incompetent Congress and a corrupt DNC to weigh in.

    As much as I want to see a third party win, there is no way the corporate parties will let that happen.

    • gblock says:

      Oh please, not on this blog! When someone is in the public eye as much as Hillary is and under similar circumstances, they may make a few odd movements that people who know little about it can misinterpret as tremors. Please don’t contribute to spreading a bunch of silly rumors. I will grant that when presidential candidates are somewhat older than typical, and yes, both of the major party candidates are this time, they are probably more likely to get serious health problems that impair their ability to serve during their term of office.

      • bettykath says:

        As I said, I don’t know if the official story is true or not, or if she has Parkinson’s or something else. I do know that the speculation is out there. What I have tried to present is a theoretical “what happens if” scenario.

        • gblock says:

          One of the recent tactics of some of the Clinton haters is to spread phony health rumors about her – rumors that she has a serious health problem that would likely cause her death or serious disability long before the end of a 4-year term. It is another way to try to discredit her, to say that she is not fit to be president. A few weeks ago, before the pneumonia diagnosis, my husband read a phony “diagnosis” that Hillary’s hoarseness and cough during a campaign appearance meant lung cancer. Don’t fall for these rumors! Remember that Trump is slightly older than Hillary, and we know very little about his health either. And that any of the likely possibilities – Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine, or, less likely, Bill Clinton fronting for Hillary, are far better than Donald Trump or Mike Pence. I really think that in today’s world, it is unlikely that a spouse or other family member could front for a US president for any length of time, as the US presidency has become a far more visible position (worldwide as well as nationally) than it was 100 years ago when Edith Wilson did it.

      • bettykath says:

        Although I don’t have TV, I have seen enough clips. Clinton wiped the floor with Trump.

        I have other theoretical topics dealing with speculations about Trump but guess you can’t handle a theoretical discussion. I’ll go elsewhere.

        • gblock says:

          Oh, I didn’t say that I oppose all speculation, by any means. It’s not my blog and therefore not really for me to say, but given the high stakes in this election ( how disastrous it would be if Trump is elected), I think it is a good idea to be careful about rumors and think about who is trying to spread them and why. However, speculation about Trump is another matter, and there do seem to be some things that he is trying to keep secret.

          • bettykath says:

            Ok, replace Hillary Clinton with Donald Trump; replace Bill Clinton with Ivana Trump (he strongly prefers Ivanka to Melania). Replace Parkinson’s with the disease of your choice. How about a serious stroke, ala, Woodrow Wilson?

  4. bettykath says:

    Some thoughts, totally off topic. Well, one of them, maybe not.

    Privatization means that the priority is making profit for the investors. It has no other priority.

    Money-making. In the US it means the making of our money by the Fed, a private organization of the banks and most of our banks. Some countries have a national bank. Credit unions are a good alternative.

    Medical care. Our medical care beginning with medical schools and the AMA which aggressively went after and shut down all homeopathic colleges and doctors. Considering that medical schools don’t teach nutrition, health isn’t their concern, but palliative care where symptoms return or new symptoms return. The cost of medical care in this country is way out of line when compared to other countries.

    Drugs. Pharmaceutical companies push drugs where the tax payers pick up the tab for basic research and the corporations get the profit. Their products frequently have not been properly tested and where bad results are buried. They treat some symptoms but then produce new symptoms that require another product. It’s not unusual for a patient to start with one drug but to soon be taking several. Actually, the start is usually more than one drug that expands to several. Drugs purchased in this country are way out of line when compared to the cost of the same drug in Canada, for example.

    Education. There have always been private schools but basic k-12 education is being taken over by charter schools that take money from the public school system and, more often than not, do worse than the public schools in the quality of the education provided. The public schools decline even further due to the money going to the charter schools. The cost of college education benefits the colleges that charge exorbitant tuition and fees and the banks that provide the student loans.

    Retirement funds. When a company goes out of business, the huge retirement funds are just too much of a temptation. The retirement funds are too often used to cover debt to the banks or other lenders, leaving the retirees out in the cold.

    Prisons. Our prisons are filled to overflowing with slaves. How better to keep the slaves on the new plantations than to charge them with a crime and then lock them up. Contracts between prisons, many of them privately run, and major corporations are resulting in the prison corporations and the contracting corporations making huge profits off the labors of the prisoner-slaves who are paid a pittance.

    War. We are not now, nor have we ever been a nation of peace for any length of time. (Jimmy Carter is proud that we were not at war, nor did we invade any country, while he was president.) We are gradually privatizing our war making machine. Taxpayers pay for it, war profiteers make profit, lots of it. Our military budget is larger than the next many largest military budgets in the world, most of them the budgets of allies. It is larger than all other spending in the budget. Our military services have shrunk while we have increased the number of mercenary replacements, all hired by private companies. War is also supported by huge off-budget allocations at the same time that profiting for “the people” requires reductions to other areas that actually benefit “the people”. (“the people” means real, live, heart and soul persons, not corporations). War profiteers make military equipment that isn’t wanted by the military services and won’t be used. The one nationalized medical group, the VA, is starved for funds that could be used for more doctors, nurses, and support personnel. And why is it the one agency that doesn’t have all it’s files digitized?

    Post Office. Privatization started with the private carriers, but the Post Office survived. So Congress demanded that the Post Office fund its retirement fund to a level that is not demanded of any other. This makes it look like the Post Office is losing money and should be replaced. There are many other services that the Post Office could provide that would bring it more funds but Congress is standing in the way. With the Post Office out of the way, private corporations would pick up the “service” and would charge the same way most cable companies charge – all that the market will bear. And, of course, those routes that aren’t profitable will be dropped or “the people” in those areas will have to pay a premium for the same service that they now get from the Post Office.

    Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court. Surprised that our government is privatized? It’s an open secret that members of Congress “belong” to corporate donors. So, too, the White House where the President appoints corporate VIPS to head agencies that are supposed to provide oversight to the very corporations and industries that the new head of the agency came from, otherwise known as the revolving door. The Supreme Court hasn’t totally been bought, yet, but several recent decisions suggest that it’s leaning that way.

    Social Security. There is just too much money in Social Security to keep the wolves at bay. Actually, wolves are much nicer than greedy Wall Street.

  5. gblock says:

    Hello, I was out of town (and mostly out of touch) for a few days last week. When I started to catch up, I discovered that the trial of Matt Apperson (for the incident in which he shot at George Zimmerman’s car) had been held and that he was found guilty on all charges. I haven’t been able to find out that much about the details of the trial. It looks like the defense made much of a verbal exchange about the Trayvon Martin shooting as a motive for Zimmerman to have been harassing Apperson. Also, the prosecution’s big argument seems to have been that Apperson couldn’t have seen whether Zimmerman was pulling a gun on him because the windows of his vehicle had too dark a tint. And that Zimmerman testified and kept insisting that BLM was a terrorist group.

    Does anyone have any further information, or links to information, about the actual trial? Was there testimony about the details of the shooting incident itself? My personal opinion, up until now, has been that Zimmerman had indeed been harassing Apperson, that Zimmerman cooked up a wild story about the details leading up to the car shooting and that he probably had threatened Apperson. I also have thought that the attempted second degree murder charge was rather trumped up, although most of the other charges are probably valid.

  6. ed nelson says:

    I think you made some sense there even if you didn’t mean it..hahaha

  7. ed nelson says:

    Well I sure don’t like her. The funniest thing, Fred,the woman realy resembles my late mom….but whearase I loved my mommy… I Destest that bitch. even though she almost looks like moms!

    Hey Fred, are you still on the internet ….i liked what you said about some stuff…regarding karry mullens and all that.. we need to keep it going on in the consciousnes expansion… etc.

  8. Malisha says:

    The thing about the RNC convention being scary: that’s only because the whole Repugnican platform, the candidate, the plan of action, the arrogance (to refuse to consider Supreme Court appointees!) etc. has been the middle — NOT THE BEGINNING — of this country’s march into Hell. Lying is the norm; getting whatever you can get by any means necessary is business as usual; any attempt to demand accountability is rejected. We’re doomed unless there is a landslide that forcibly kicks these fascist monsters in their alleged balls.

  9. girlp says:

    RNC convention SCARY

  10. bettykath says:

    Fred, are you folks ok? We haven’t heard from you in a long time.

  11. Malisha says:

    At the RNC, a theme seems to be “lock up opposition candidates.” It seems to me that if Trump wins, we will learn about purge and imprison soon enough. Also, there will no longer be any possibility of unrigged voting, anywhere. Every form of protest will be neutralized and the Supreme Court will find that every violation of Constitutional liberties amounts to “harmless error.” And then the rest of the country will live in the country I have lived in for years (with many other people who have lived in this unnamed country). Terrible place.

  12. bettykath says:

    We are starting to see more unarmed white guys being gunned down by cops now. If this happens frequently enough, we might have an influx of white folks calling for better police training and psychological testing.

    • girlp says:

      I watched Dr. Drew (I guess I wanted to punish myself) and this ex cop bigot John Cardillo said just that, he based it on a profile picture of a man you can barely see the side of the robbers face. The other guy’s picture you can plainly see is not Castile. I don’t know why I watch this show I’m giving it up. Dr. Drew thinks Brietbart is a valid and trustworthy news agency, and doesn’t seem to understand the discipline he studied. Why do I watch this stupidity. Another ex-cop on this show said Philando was wanted for armed robbery so the fix is in they couldn’t find anything on the man but traffic tickets but somehow he has morphed into a criminal due to a statistic.

      • bettykath says:

        I didn’t deliberately go to the treehouse, I think from from a link that took me to Breitbart. Not my usual grazing pasture by any means.

        • girlp says:

          I know, yuk but sometimes you have to, people come up with bad information and blame the victim so it’s good to see where they got their information even though you have to wade through sewage to get it. Now they are saying Castile looks like the robber and he does not the robber is slimmer, has a narrow face and looked nothing like Castile he also looks like he might be a little taller than Castile. The officer didn’t give him a chance it appears to me the policeman panicked when he told him he had a permit and had the gun. Castile’s girlfriend said the officer never saw a gun because Castile did not pull the gun he did what the officer asked he was going to show him his license. The police in Baton Rouge are digging up dirt on their victim too they had him pinned down why shoot him.

          • bettykath says:

            Philando Castile, 32, had been accused by police of more than 50 violations in the two counties that encompass the suburb of Falcon Heights, where he was killed ― a record that stretches back to when he was 19, court records show.

            The dozens of citations were for minor infractions that included speeding, improperly displaying a license plate and driving without proof of insurance; nearly half of the charges were eventually dismissed outright.

          • gblock says:

            In reply to bettykath’s message: when studies have been done to track these things, people of color in general, and black people in particular, are far more likely than white people for minor offenses, as an excuse to stop and search someone the police see as “suspicious”. They are less likely to make an actual arrest based on finding drugs or other contraband in the case of traffic stops involving black drivers than in the case of traffic stops involving white drivers, and the overall rate of finding anything during “pretext” stops is low. See The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, pages 130-139.

          • gblock says:

            I accidentally left out a few words in my first sentence. Read: “…to be stopped by police for minor offenses…”

          • girlp says:

            It’s all about the money and hoping they can get a few felonies in at the same time.

  13. Trained Observer says:

    Am sick of hearing about Hillary’s damned e-mais, or Colin Powell’s, or Condi Rice’s, or anyone elses.

    Voting for Hillary in November.

  14. bettykath says:

    Comey made his announcement to clear AG Lynch who said she would follow their advice. Since she wouldn’t prosecute anyway, what else could Comey say? Also consider that Rich and Powell in the same office both sent emails via unsecured lines. We must always look forward, not backward and it would be an injustice to Clinton to be charged when the others did the same and weren’t charged. No right wing conspirators gunning for them.

  15. Dave says:

    It seems odd to me that Comey would publicly announce his agency’s conclusions like this. Wouldn’t the FBI normally turn their findings over to the appropriate Federal District Attorney (and perhaps the Justice Department) and let them make the decision on whether to prosecute or not and to make any announcements (if any) regarding that decision?

    What the hell is he up to?

  16. James Comey has been summoned to appear before a congressional hearing tomorrow morning to explain why he didn’t recommend charging Hillary Clinton.

  17. I strongly suspect that any high-level politician as scrutinized as Hillary Clinton would find him- or herself in an equal quandary. She’s running against Donald Trump; she has my unequivocal vote.

  18. bettykath says:

    Almost makes me want to vote for Trump. He is calling out a lot of stuff that others won’t speak about – you know, the stuff where we’re told to “move along, nothing to see here:. But then there are his incredibly stupid racist rants.

    • Malisha says:

      But all Trump does is point out how bad others are; the leadership this country needs is NOT a third-grade angry bully showing how bad all the other kids are. We need someone who will try to be better than all the other kids, INCLUDING the bullies. Of course, we can’t have what we want but we can try to prevent what we absolutely cannot tolerate or survive.

      • bettykath says:

        No way I’ll vote for Trump, or Clinton either for that matter. I’ll vote for Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders if he accepts her invitation to run on the GP line.

  19. bettykath says:

    Let’s see, Nixon’s plumbers did a number of jobs at his behest that were felonies; Pappy Bush committed treason when he interfered in the Iran hostage situation; Reagan committed felonies in the Iran/Sandinista activities, Clinton advocated for NAFTA and GATT which sent thousands of jobs out of the country (not against the law but should have been); W, et.al. committed war crimes by invading non-belligerent nations; Obama is committing war crimes by using drones to bombs declare war on non-belligerent nations; so why should Clinton be prosecuted for, well, anything?

  20. Malisha says:

    My experience of the court system is that the courts do what they want to do, and they use “the law” to provide the rationale for them doing what they want to do, and this decision is no different from any other decision in that regard. The effect? We still have to go to the polls to choose the lesser of two very clear evils. One (Trump) is so much greater and more mind-numbingly-terrifying than the other (Clinton) that we have no real choice. And I don’t think it’s the “carelessness” with e-mails that makes Clinton as bad as I perceive her to be: it’s her careless (in the TRUE sense of the word), Clintonian (though she’s really a Rodham and not a Clinton at all) disdain for me and my ordinary countrymen, working and worrying every day to sustain our little lives that accumulate like dust under her fine furniture. It’s her cheerful and victorious (and practiced) intention to use me (and us) for her (and her kind’s) purposes in perpetuity — that is, as long as she breathes and exercises unwarranted power.

    • Malisha says:

      I realize I wasn’t very clear; I realize this was not a “court” decision. I look at it as the same kind of deliberation and the same kind of decision however.

    • fubar says:

      My experience of the court system is that the courts do what they want to do, and they use “the law” to provide the rationale for them doing what they want to do, and this decision is no different from any other decision in that regard.

      On a personal level in family court, this is absolutely my experience. It truly does not matter what the written law says, the judge will do whatever the judge wants to do and figure out the legal justification for that post decision.

      Very depressing.

      • Malisha says:

        They do it in other kinds of cases too but not as persistently or as all-pervasively. Please don’t call the grammar police on me; I realize I fractured my Hainglish.

      • ed nelson says:

        I agree with you…the judge says what ever..that’s why they gets to be the judge….ahhhahha

        • ed nelson says:

          don’t get me wrong Fred,I was being cynical there… i really have more respect for judges… I am pretty sure that most judges are real good guys… that’s my take on it…We had a kid in the boy scouts, whose father was a juge…Judge Siims in Marin co.back in the 1960’s…. Sims was such a good kid… He was a great kid…he had good manners… and was in posession of good Imean the kid was just really good… I don’t want to go overboardhere… but that kid was really nice.. we had some kids like that…where they had decency,

    • gblock says:

      I realize that there are things to dislike about Clinton, and that she is not as liberal as many people might prefer, but she does not come from a hugely wealthy family and has worked to do good in the world. You seem to have her confused with Trump.

      • ed nelson says:

        did you ever see the picture of the Hillary house in Chicago?

        huge mansion..she isn’t poor…and by the way… she a Republican from day one…. She only married bill for her money.. hahaha

  21. The corporatocracy never intended to indict their anointed candidate and this was another charade for public consumption. While I don’t agree with ongoing witch hunt that Republicans subject HRC to, I’m not particuarly enthused about Republican lite politics espoused by Democrats, either. We need radical change.

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

%d bloggers like this: