Durham now 0-2-1. Acquittal in last case wraps up the “crime of the century”.


“But the FBI began to look into possible coordination between Trump’s campaign and Russia before it used the Steele dossier to support the warrant applications covering Page. The Justice Department inspector general determined that the FBI was justified in starting the probe, which eventually would be taken over by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.”

There was no “there” there, evidently, after years and millions of dollars.

97 thoughts on “Durham now 0-2-1. Acquittal in last case wraps up the “crime of the century”.

  1. But, but, but wait for the report. Then you’ll see!

    You cannot expect a DC jury of “urban” people and bureaucrats to render an honest verdict. Real Americans would not even need a silly trial – the accusations are more than enough to convict.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I note that you make no claim that Danchenko is actually innocent, and never have.

      A DC jury is not going to give Durham a victory, and never was. But even you know that the whole thing was a fraud and that the FBI lied to the FISA court repeatedly to get warrants.

      And it doesn’t even bother you, You see it as a win for your side. Corruption is OK if it advances your agenda.


      1. “And it doesn’t even bother you, You see it as a win for your side. Corruption is OK if it advances your agenda.”

        Aside from attacking my integrity, your accusations are way off base.

        The entire GOP is now corrupted with lock step obedience to Trump and you have no problem with that. In fact, from what I can tell, you are just like the MAGA crowd that cares not a whit about the loonies they have selected to represent the party so long as they take power, legally or not.

        DDS is a terrible thing.

        BTW, my agenda is to avoid the fascist movement of anti-immigrant, anti-Semetic, anti-minority, anti-women and the euphemism of “European chauvanism”. We have gone that route before and it gets really ugly.

        The dossier was a minor player since the investigation started long before. And when the dossier came out, it was after Trump was advised by the FBI. And, as it turned out, the Mueller investigation establish a clear line between the campaign and Russia, just not enough to fit the legal definition of collaboration.

        Your tribe as no agenda, no platform. Its whole campaign is about trashing our system of peaceful transfers of power through globally respected elections.

        I think that your devotion to Trump, even though you said you don’t like him, is very hypocritical.

        But, again, DDS…lamentable and sad, really.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “The entire GOP is now corrupted with lock step obedience to Trump…”

          Is that a fact? What about Liz Cheny or the Never Trumpers at National Review, The Bulwark and The Wall Street Journal?


      2. Why in Hell should I make a claim that Danchenko is innocent? He was tried and was found not guilty. That should be the end of the matter for people who respect the rule of law.

        Your repeated sliming of DC juries is just another marker of the load of prejudices you bring to every issue. It is also a mark of a sore loser.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Danchenko lied to the FBI IN WRITING. Pretty hard to dispute that. The jury just decided it didn’t matter.

          To repeat it one more time, a government that will not be restrained by the Rule of Law is far more dangerous that anything any individual might do.

          What Durham has shown is that the FBI undermined Trump’s campaign from the beginning, and undermined his Presidency as well.

          It continues to act as the Democrats Gestapo today,

          You blow that off because you see it as furthering your hatred of Trump, but will you be so pleased when an FBI like what we have now is under the control of someone like Trump?


          1. Even the Bush appointed judge was skeptical of Durham’s case.

            Or was he another urban DC resident who couldn’t possibly conduct a fair trial?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “What Durham has shown is that the FBI undermined Trump’s campaign from the beginning”

            Bwaaah. Sore losers and crybabies, the lot of you. You people obviously believe that the “rule of law” is gone when you do not get your way. What a spectacle of childishness.

            Durham has failed to show any such thing for a simple reason – it did not happen. Up is down with you people. While going out their way to publicize their investigation of “her emails” before the election, the FBI stayed mum about multiple investigations into Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. And there was enough of that to cause Trump’s DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate Russian interference. I repeat, it was Trump’s DOJ that appointed Robert Mueller because of, you know, evidence. It turns out that the FBI was onto something – there were numerous interactions between Team Trump and Russian actors.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Are you denying that the FBI used the Steele Dossier, knowing it to be unverified and paid for by the Clinton campaign, repeatedly used it to support warrants from the FISA court, as revealed in sworn testimony?

            Nothing else is needed. That is corruption by the FBI

            Or is that OK if you think the ends are worth it?


          4. Whatever error in procedure was made in the FISA court application was simply that. A minor error – by one agent out of thousands. The primary cause for the investigation of Carter Page’s activities was a report from a friendly nation that he was up to something fishy.

            In the current trial, you want to hold the FBI at fault when the issue was – were they lied to by an outsider. That does not compute.

            What is actually very remarkable is that the free-ranging three year, multi-million dollar investigation came up with so little. It seems that the FBI is quite scrupulous in following the law – as they should be.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Error in procedure?

            Repeatedly presenting known false information to the court, which Comey admitted was key to getting the warrant, THREE TIMES is an error in procedure?

            Would murdering innocent bystanders be just poor marksmanship if it served your ends?

            This was CRIME committed by law enforcement for partisan political ends, and I am amazed even you would excuse that.


          6. There was no “known false information” involved. That SOME of the material cited to the FISA court MAY have later turned out to be inaccurate does not retroactively create malfeasance. The Steele dossier included disclaimers that it contained only raw intel that had not been substantiated. Your narrative always leaves out that the opposition research that involved Steele was initiated by Anti-Trump Republicans not by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

            The ONLY crime proven was one FBI lawyer admitting he added something to the field’s emailed warrant request – something that he thought was true and relevant. That’s IT. There is nothing more proven in court.

            Is it really so hard to admit that you were dead wrong? With the facts now in it is crystal clear that Durham added NOTHING of substance that was not already included in the original IG report. You were lead to believe and have been eagerly expecting far more validation of your “deep state” hatred and conspiracy theories. You were duped. Again.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. When you go to a judge to get a warrant, you do not swear that the information provided has not been proven false. you swear it is accurate and complete to the best of your professional opinion.

            The FBI knew that the Steele Dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign but did not include that information in the affidavit. They knew they had offered Steele a million dollars to substantiate the dossier, and he had been unable to do so. They didn’t tell the judge that either.

            And they ARE required to inform the judge about any doubts. Comey himself said they would not have gotten the warrant absent the Steele Dossier.

            But I guess as long as it was Trump who was the target, 4th Amendment rights do not apply when Democrats are in power.

            Which is why they should never hold power again.


          8. And Trump and his sycophants and supported candidates who have cried “stop the steal” have no business running this country. Tis they who should never even sniff the seat of power.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “Which is why they should never hold power again.”

            My statement was in reply to this of yours. It has nothing to do with the fictional TDS, but the REAL TBS (Trump Blindness Syndrome, which goes hand-in-hand with the DDS pointed out by Len.).

            People that CONTINUE to attempt to spread lies about election integrity have no business participating as a candidate. PERIOD. And I do not want to hear your “it is just an opinion” BS statement in support of these anti-democracy folks. Elections are only good when YOUR side wins; when you lose you cry “fraud” until the cows come home even though there has been NO EVIDENCE provided showing any amount of fraud that could overturn the results.

            And now a federal Judge has ruled that Trump KNEW he was lying and continued to do so with the support and backing of Eastman and others. Potential charges include Defrauding (or Attempting to defraud) The United States.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. There is no way to know how the election would have turned out had it been conducted legally.

            That is not to say I support overturning the election, but we should conduct future elections according to the law and Constitution, with auditable results, so doubt will not rise up again.


          11. Several States made COVID emergency changes in the conduct of their elections based on Executive orders, and in one case, even a court order.

            The Constitution explicitly says the electors will be chosen in the manner chosen by the legislatures. Unless the legislatures delegated authority for emergency measures to the executive, those elections were unlawful. In most cases, those violations did no real harm, but where they allowed ballot harvesting there is no way to know if there was fraud or not.

            We can’t unwind the mess we made, but we should not repeat it.


          12. “We can’t unwind the mess we made, but we should not repeat it.”

            There was no mess. Only the weak-minded easily gaslighted by Trump’s lies still cling to such nonsense. In spite of the deadly pandemic, it was by every measure the most thoroughly examined and best executed election in our history.

            The more you people throw up pointless roadblocks to minimize voter participation the more you are going to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve. So, keep it up. That petty bullshit is why the Democrats control the Senate today.

            But, if it floats silly little boats to say that the election was “illegal” knock yourselves out. It is a sure sign of losers in the marketplace of ideas.

            Liked by 2 people

          13. Auditable results? How many audits were conducted in Arizona alone? All results are auditable. The results were audited in this commonwealth as a matter of function. And even then, some idiots, including a certain candidate for the Second District, wanted to spend $40m of tax dollars (There is a case for theft in your worldview) on further audits when there was ZERO evidence of any kind of fraud.

            Your waffling statements about don’t overturn, but audit are horse hockey.

            And your “conducted legally” is one thing. That is NOT what the “stop the steal” screamers are saying. They cry “fraud, fraud, fraud” the same way the GOP screamed “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi”. There is no there, there. Like Durham’s trials and investigation.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. The same way you audit absentee ballots, ballots LEGALLY presented i drop boxes, and any other way to audit a vote.

            Ballot harvesting is a smoke screen and you hyperbolic take on it based on the corruption in your home state is not indicative of reality. Just your little corner of the world where only the RIGHT people should be allowed to vote and only if they can walk up to a voting booth and cast their ballot.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. “. . .not necessarily requested by the person.”

            You have linked to this same story more than once. It is still not evidence of voter fraud.

            So, in an election that had 72% overall turnout the fact that it was higher in some residential care facilities is evidence of fraud? Really? Your sauce remains very weak. It is much easier to vote as a resident of such a facility if there are people willing to help you so why wouldn’t there be higher than average turnout?

            Other than hints at some anecdotal evidence this piece contains no actual evidence of voter fraud.

            The “value” of the report is made evident by the accusation that get-out-the-vote efforts by Mark Zuckerberg was bribery. Ridiculous.


          16. Sure, perfectly healthy old people are living in nursing homes. 100% of them are capable of casting a ballot.


            I guess you can’t see what you refuse to see.


          17. “Sure, perfectly healthy old people blah blah blah”

            If a relative or member of staff sits down with them and helps them, why wouldn’t they be able to vote?

            You see “fraud” and “corruption” everywhere. I don’t. And I have not abandoned common sense. Your fantastical vision of fraudsters descending on helpless old people en masse without anyone noticing, caring, or complaining is bizarre. And doubly bizarre that only Democrats bother to get out the vote amongst the elderly.


          18. So, you have no problem with activists casting votes on behalf of people incapable of making an informed choice?

            But, OK. lets look at that. Who gets to decide what volunteer gets to cast those votes. Is it OK if the KKK sends volunteers to help? Does the nursing home owner get to choose?


          19. Ok, so a person who mixes up family members or might forget what he ate recently is less qualified than conspiracy believers.

            Both are outside the realm of reality.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. “How about conspiracy believers you agree with? Who chooses which conspiracy theories are disqualifying?”

            Let’s limit the disenfranchisement to those believing in reality-defying conspiracy theories. There are no Jewish space lasers, JFK Jr. is dead, and Hugo Chavez has not meddled in our elections. For example.

            But, the question you ask was the reason such conspiracy theories were mentioned – who determines who is so out of it that they cannot be helped to vote? There is no bright line between capable and incapable.


          21. “Sure, the capable are able to request a ballot”

            So, simple!

            But Mrs. Smith saying “Nurse, will you help me fill out this request for a ballot” means that Mrs. Smith cannot vote? Not capable?

            I think you people are shooting yourself in the foot again. Making it less likely that the elderly will vote will probably help the Democrats – the elderly and soon to be elderly is the strongest GOP demographic.


          22. A million dollar bounty was offered by the Lt. Gov of Texas to expose fraud.

            A couple of Republicans were exposed voting for their already dead parents. The bounty was reneged, but after a bit of unwanted publicity, a small settlement was paid. In other words, there was no fraud of any degree to even come close to making a difference, but the lies continue.

            I am sorry to say, you are a very willing partner to the Big Lie.

            So what you are saying is that a political operative first has to go to a nursing home and find patients that are willing and able to fill out a request for a ballot. Then the operative has to return a week or more later, find that same person and ask if they need help.

            Then the vote has to be for Biden, but not other Democrats on the same ticket.

            Then this has to be done 60,000 times and no one is the wiser.


            I have to say that all you are doing is contributing, willingly and with probable malice, to the misinformation and conspiracy mongering. That does not bode well for a man of principle that you profess to be.

            The only reason we are going through this turmoil of elections is because one man, Trump, has been lying about rigging elections for 7 years. One man. But you are so in love with him and hate Democrats so much for ideological differences that you disagree with. For this you are willing to undermine elections and the peaceful transfer of power that has been our hallmark for centuries. You are being Trump’s loyal subject and doing his bidding.

            You have been untruthful about the Wisconsin voting. Even after being exposed, you continue to be so about dead voters. Georgia was accused of having thousands of dead voters. An audit revealed a handful, and they were alive when they cast their ballots. Big, expensive partisan audits were performed in several states. None, repeat, none have found any problems making a difference.

            Meanwhile, DeSantis is so proud of his Voter Police that they found about 20 felons who had completed their sentences and were told by registrars that they could register to vote. They were even helped to register. And now they are facing prison because the state said yes to register, but nailed them when they voted. The database and loopholes and misunderstandings were all to blame, but those folks will get screwed. Screwed so you and your party feel better now.

            Liked by 1 person

          23. Trump has little to do with it. Nixon lost to Kennedy likely because of fraud in Illinois. LBJ got into Congress when 137 late voters voted in alphabetical order and signed the ledger in red ink.

            Fraudulent voting has been going on a long time.

            But imagine if the 2020 election had been run on the up and up. following all the rules and fully auditable.

            Then what Big Lie? If we are to avoid such messes, the best way is to hold our elections honestly and transparently.

            The 2020 election had so many cut corners and “trust us’s” that either way it went, someone would have cried foul. Don’t forget that many of the Democrats now condemning Trump challenged, albeit less flamboyantly, Bush beating Gore.

            There is no upside to fudging the rules in an election, as the possibility of fraud will always lead to doubt,


          24. Wrong.

            Yes, there has been election
            chicanery since we had elections. The Bush Gore example is actually a curious one. Challenges to elections are common and lawful. Notably, however, the only violence was the raid by punks in suits from the GOP. Early predictor? But the recent ones have had little if any controversy…except 2020. And that controversy has been created out of whole cloth. You know that.

            That election rules were expanded to allow for the pandemic was not the problem.

            You are.

            As one judge stated in a PA challenge, you cannot challenge after waiting to see who won. Everyone in each state had the same benefits of the pandemic rules.

            Your refusal to acknowledge that voter fraud is minimal unless we make major changes is exactly what you accuse others of. You refuse to consider the other side.

            In AZ there are already unseemly incidents at ballot boxes. Armed, masked men are sitting nearby. Who in the hell do they think they are?
            Oathkeepers? Those seditionists wouldn’t know a fair election if it were printed on their gun sights.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. If you look back, you will see that in the week of the election I wrote that the GOP had lost it’s chance to challenge the results by waiting for the count, that the time to go to court was before the election and as soon as the changed rules were announced.

            Positive ID is not too much to ask.

            Neither is requiring that people who vote actually know they are doing it.


          26. “The 2020 election had so many cut corners and “trust us’s” Blah Blah”

            Another LIE.

            The Big Lie is still the Big Lie no matter how you phrase it. Your “tribe” declares elections to be a fraud before the first vote is counted. Why? Because your “tribe” will not peacefully accept losing. They proved that with the Brooks Brothers riot which put the losing candidate in the White House. They proved it again on January 6th. And a majority of your “tribe’s” candidates this year are preparing the ground for another “disputed” election when they lose.


          27. “Disagreeing with you is not a lie”
            When the facts are clear it is close enough. You keep repeating and re-stating the Big Lie. That is not honest. You know better. Biden won. Trump lost.


          28. “So, you have no problem with activists casting votes . . .”

            I do not buy your premise that there is a substantial problem of such incapable people voting. The can of worms you would open and the disenfranchisement you would cause to stop a minimal problem is not worth the harm and confusion. There were 3.2 million votes cast in the 2020 Wisconsin election. The ENTIRE population of Wisconsin living in long-term care facilities was 92,000. I would venture that the portion of those subject to your imagined fraud is a small fraction of that. It is already a crime to file a fraudulent absentee vote. What more do you want? Punish the League of Women voters for sending “volunteers” to help old folks vote?

            Liked by 1 person

          29. There were 60,000 unrequested nursing home ballots cast in 2020, the margin for Biden was 21,000;

            There is no way to determine how those 60,000 votes were cast or how many reflect the values of those voters.


          30. “There is no way to determine how those 60,000 votes were cast . . .”
            Or any other ballot. DUH!

            As is often the case, your “facts” are not quite true. There were ZERO “unrequested nursing home ballots cast in 2020” from Wisconsin nursing homes. Are you lying or have you been duped yet again? The state sent out unrequested ballot REQUEST forms to all registered voters and sent ballots ONLY to those who then requested them.



          31. And you think that all 100% of those nursing home residents responded to those themselves?

            In Wisconsin alone there were tens of thousands of votes by people who had no idea they voted.


          32. “And you think that all 100% of those nursing home residents responded to those themselves?”

            That does not answer the question – were you lying or were you duped? The state mailed out REQUESTS for ballots, not ballots as you stated. Lying? Or Duped?

            The deeper one goes into the supposed irregularities of voting in Wisconsin nursing homes the more one finds the hands of the typical lying liars of the MAGA-Republican movement. For example, the key “facts” you keep repeating do not stand up to scrutiny. In other words, it is mostly bullshit generated by an incompetent and/or dishonest GOP operative. And you take them as Gospel.



          33. There is no practical difference.

            If someone other than the voter requested the absentee ballot in response to the mailed ballot request, and then returned to “help” the senile voter fill it out, that is fraud.

            And the way it was done makes it impossible to prove even though we know it.


          34. “There is no practical difference.”
            Uh, Lying or duped? Need to call a friend?

            “If someone other than the voter requested the absentee ballot in response to the mailed ballot request, and then returned to “help” the senile voter fill it out, that is fraud.”

            Maybe, but define “someone.” Define “help.” Define “senile.”

            There is little evidence to support your vision of corrupt operatives conducting such operations on a massive scale. The partisan report by a partisan hack that you are relying on is not worth the paper it is printed on. He claims to have found 30 facilities in the Milwaukee area with 100% turnout. Actual data says there was ONE. He has declined to share his methods or to name the facilities. Would you accept something like that if a Democrat were making important factual claims?


          35. You’ll deflect anything corrupt so long as it is to your party’s advantage.

            You know damned well what’s going on, but you’ll look for any way to obfuscate.


          36. “You know damned well what’s going on . . .”
            Lying or duped? It is not a hard question. Which? You bolster your argument with a powerful “fact” that was not true. How did that happen?

            I know damned well what you IMAGINE is going on but I do not find your imagination to be a source of knowledge or truth. And, to the extent that some people are behaving fraudulently with respect to elderly voters, I know of no reason to believe that it is members of just one party doing it.


          37. “Helping someone who doesn’t remember what he had for breakfast to vote is fraud.”

            LOL! You see “fraud” everywhere. You take the most rare and extreme examples as being typical. Someone may not remember breakfast while remembering that she is a life-long Republican. Your over-simplified stereotypical thinking often trips you up.


          38. Are you suggesting testing to qualify for a ballot? If, so, please educate the rest of us how you expect to pull this off. And what the guidelines are.

            There is also a difference between assisted living and a nursing home. And many are combined. Perhaps losing your right to vote should be based on acceptance of care.

            Suppose someone repeatedly blamed Italian satellites for switching votes? Or thought that Venezuelan dictators provided software to change votes? Or said that school shootings are staged? Or someone could declassify state secrets by just thinking about it?

            These are at least as egregious as forgetting what kind of toast you had this morning. More so, in fact.

            Are the millions who believe in conspiracies from pizza parlors to the Big Lie any more cognizant of reality than your vilified nursing home patient?

            Liked by 1 person

          39. Did I say anything about assisted living?

            I also didn’t say that everyone in nursing homes is old.

            But there is a simple test. And it’s already in place. Anyone in a nursing home who, on his or her own, requests and votes a ballot should be able to do so, but no one should be requesting ballots or filling them out for them.


          40. If you have a case of essential tremors, you can’t fill out a form or sign your name like it was 30 years ago on a registration form. You can hardly bring a spoon to you mouth.

            I know. A very close friend died last year. He hard a hard time communicating, but understood whatever I said when visiting.

            Again, can we question the grasp of reality for the millions who believe Chavez helped rig the election? People who accept conspiracies are not not anymore cognizant of reality than your worst case scenario in any nursing home.

            Liked by 1 person

          41. I see your point about physical limitations, but even so, being aware enough to request a ballot on your own and finding a relative or friend to help is an adequate requirement.

            But having an advocacy group request ballots, or the registrar sending them unrequested, to people who have not indicated on their own they want to vote is not honest.


          42. I believe that the ballots were requested. Only registered voters who filled out a ballot request form got a ballot. Then they had to fill it out and send it in.

            So we are now looking for a vast conspiracy involving registrars, hundreds of partisan volunteers to help fill out the request, then come back later to fill the out, then deliver them.

            Really? No one squealed? Omertà was not that solid.

            And none of the ballots were Republican. Plus, they managed to split the tickets so only Trump lost, but down ballot won.

            Spreading this kind of BS is really not in the interest of our nation. It undermines our system, which, of course, is the reason for doing so.

            Liked by 1 person

          43. Even if every whine you offer is absolutely true, it is not a fraction of the evidence that a rational person would need to reach your conclusions.

            BTW, Carter Page had already been known to the FBI dating back to 2013 when he was under surveillance for his contacts and document exchanges with known Russia agents.


            Which demands the question – why was such a person part of Trump’s foreign policy team?

            Liked by 1 person

          44. “No, the question is why did the FBI lie to the judge to get the warrant?”

            What are you saying “No” to?

            There is no evidence that anyone LIED to the judge. The only conviction was for someone embellishing the request for a warrant. Of the four people in Trump’s campaign put under surveillance because of their contacts with Russians, three of them have been convicted of criminal behavior while serving with Team Trump. Flynn, Manafort, and Papadopulos.

            Also left out of your narrative is that Steele had a long-time contractual relationship with the FBI – he was not some Clinton operative from out of the blue. As Horowitz documented he was well-regarded.

            Liked by 1 person

          45. “Of course, in your mind, violating the Constitution is no issue, so long as it serves your agenda.”

            Empty words. It is up to each state to choose its Electors and the Constitution does not prohibit the governments of each state from responding to a global health crisis as they believe best. There is no federal role.

            If that actual Constitutional principle had been followed in 2000, we would live in a better world today. But putting Bush in the White House instead of Gore served YOUR agenda so no problem.

            Liked by 1 person

          46. Same could be said for attempted violation of the Electoral College Act. Be careful what you claim to have superior knowledge of when YOUR tribe is ACTUALLY guilty of attempting to defraud the country.


          47. I didn’t justify the attempt to delay the ballot count.

            But that has nothing to do with unlawful “COVID emergency” changes made to voting procedures other than by the legislature.

            If emergency changes were to be made, there was plenty of time for the legislatures to authorisze them. They didn’t


  2. RE: “There was no ‘there’ there, evidently, after years and millions of dollars.”

    I wouldn’t go that far. The evidence revealed in the Durham trials tells a compelling story that the FBI is out of control. For example, did you know that the FBI offered a million dollars to Christopher Steele to dig up dirt on Trump after it had determined that his original dossier was bogus?

    Now we know that Trump was not a Russian agent, and that the FBI tried to find evidence that he was.


      1. RE; “You, and all Americans, know nothing of the sort.”

        I and they know there is no evidence to substantiate the claim.


      1. RE: “There is plenty of reason to think that he was and still is.”

        Delusional conspiracy theorists think so.


  3. I never expected Durham to put much effort into these trials. Afterall, if the primary actors were found rightfully guilty, all that would prove is how gullible and incompetent the FBI and DOJ were. Who wants to prove they or their department is plain stupid?


    1. RE: “I never expected Durham to put much effort into these trials.”

      I was hoping he would, but I’m not surprised he didn’t. The rule of law is dead thanks to the Democratic Party, and will have to be restored after they lose power.


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 )

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