‘Constitutional crisis’ over Mueller report

Controversies over the Mueller report and the Trump administration continue in the US.

The vote was 24-16 in favour of holding Barr in contempt.

Reuters Explainer: Can Trump use executive privilege to withhold full Mueller report?

The White House on Wednesday invoked executive privilege to block the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted Russia report as a U.S. House panel met to vote on holding the U.S. attorney general in contempt of Congress for withholding the document.

The White House’s move escalated a constitutional clash between the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Republican President Donald Trump over its powers to investigate him, his administration, his family and his business interests.

Trump is stonewalling Congress on multiple probes, blasting the investigations as “presidential harassment.” In an unusual move, he is even suing to stop the release of some materials that lawmakers want.

There are so few court decisions on executive privilege that it is hard to be certain if Trump can withhold the unredacted report and underlying evidence, said Ross Garber, a lawyer in Washington who focuses on political investigations.

But to prevail in court the White House will eventually need to be more specific about which documents are protected by executive privilege and why, Garber said.

In a letter to Trump on Wednesday, Attorney General William Barr encouraged the president to make a “preliminary, protective assertion of executive privilege designed to ensure your ability to make a final assertion, if necessary, over some or all of the subpoenaed materials.”

Some legal experts have argued that Trump long ago forfeited, or waived, his right to make an executive privilege claim over conversations described by witnesses in Mueller’s investigation and related documents.

Meanwhile:

Leave a comment

43 Comments

  1. Reply
  2. Duker

     /  9th May 2019

    As per the ‘iron rules’ of reality shows, the more conflict the better. Trump knows nothing about the constitution ( and nothing about a successful business as his ‘taxable income losses’ of almost $1 bill over a decade show) but he does know about reality television.

    First the policy is you cant indict and sitting president- thats congress job ( impeachment is indictment) and then he refuses to provide all the evidence thats been collected against him

    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  9th May 2019

      The Russians are hiding under the blacked out sections of the report. Cunning they are…..

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  9th May 2019

        Funny you should say that…20% of the part on Russian hacking was blacked out.

        “release the full report!”

        Reply
        • Pink David

           /  9th May 2019

          So Mueller lied.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  9th May 2019

          It’s slightly obvious that the Russians have been indicted and therefore that area will be redacted as Grand Jury suppression required.

          Or it could be another loony Left conspiracy.

          Reply
        • Duker

           /  9th May 2019

          Grand jury testimony isn’t always suppressed. Plenty of occasions it isn’t and they could use the summaries of evidence rather than the actual evidence itself…easy peasy…..I have read a prosecutor say that’s a common method

          Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  9th May 2019

      Hmm, Nixon eventually lost the Presidential “executive privilege” argument in the Supreme Court, but only to the extent that he had to release a few of the hundreds of hours of Watergate recordings. So there is merit in the arguments that the POTUS should be able to maintain independence over his records, and the only precedent to the contrary is where a specific record could confirm the committing of a specific crime. But fishing expeditions, be it by Congress or a Special Prosecutor are not sufficient to over-ride that executive privilege and separation of powers.

      But the real reason Nixon resigned was that by the time the shoe subsequently dropped with the SC-mandated airing of the June 23 1972 tape, he had lost the PR and political argument. And that was due to the huge chasm between his image and the reality, and the increasing weirdness of burglars, hush money, leaks, staff who testified against the POTUS, revelations of the secret taping system, Nixon’s attempts to edit them including “expletive deleted”, the 18 and a half minute gap, and gossip about Nixon wandering around the White House late at night talking to the portraits of past Presidents! 😳

      By contrast, with Trump what you see is what you get, warts and all. Comey’s dismissal was meant to be the nail in the coffin, then the Woodward revelations (shades of Nixon!), and then the Mueller Report was meant to be (another Watergateism) the smoking gun.

      So now, to switch metaphors, the Dems want to keep on digging? I’d suggest “impeachment fatigue”, even anger will grow and make Trump unbeatable in 2020. Plenty of Americans may not like their President, but they have enough commonsense and fair mindedness to see that anything more when Mueller said it was over is just a fishing expedition looking for dirt to embarrass a guy…who can’t be embarrassed. And it’s happening on the tax payers dime and at the behest of their representatives who should be running the country rather than using judicial and political warfare to overturn the electoral verdict delivered at the 2016 election.

      Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  9th May 2019

        …and it’s very clear why Donald Trump Jnr has been chosen first in their fishing expedition – they are looking for the slightest pretext to indict him for perjury, a criminal offence that carries a jail term. So we are looking at a form of mafia standover.

        Trump may be a loathsome person (hard to judge him as a POTUS as he is so divisive and the media is so scandal-induced), but of course that means he will continue to fight back. And likely win in the court of public opinion.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  9th May 2019

          “they are looking for the slightest pretext to indict him for perjury, a criminal offence that carries a jail term. ”

          So lying to Congress should be ignored – because hes Donald Jnr ( dad would pardon him anyway)

          So quickly you forget , it must be only weeks…
          “Cohen pleaded guilty Thursday to a single count of making false statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee during a closed-door meeting in 2017 about Trump’s plan to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.”

          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936

          Your Trumpism has become a carbuncle Kimbo

          Reply
        • Dennis Horne

           /  9th May 2019

          One senator told Barr he seemed to be acting for the “grifter and liar in the White House”. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…

          Now desperate to find a distraction, Pompeo and Bolton are trying to provoke Iran into war. God help us — and I’m a practising atheist.

          Reply
      • Duker

         /  9th May 2019

        Mueller said he cant indict despite the evidence he found ( heaps of former prosecutors say there is evidence of obstruction)- the ‘policy’ reason Mueller said he cant indict is that is constitutionally the Job of Congress.
        Congress is asking for Muellers evidence to do its job of investigation of a possible crimes by a President.
        You explain that in the Nixon discussion, the tapes relevant to ‘watergates crimes’ were released to congress. All the rest wasnt relevant to watergate issues
        Exactly the situation with Trump, they arent asking about venezuela or Saudi arabia or border wall etc.

        For more detail
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon
        “Court would also directly reject President Nixon’s claim to an “absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.”

        Not the narrow view you said
        Nixon resigned 16 days after the Court decision. he had already been impeached and was facing trial in the Senate
        Im not sure if it was part of the courts decision, but I see the decision as protecting diplomatic and military secrets of the Presidency not just a ‘desire for confidentiality’ on what happens in the Whitehouse.

        Its an absurdity that a judicial investigation ( Mueller was a special prosecutor of the department of Justice) would be protected by executive privilege when it wasnt run by or out of the Whitehouse.

        Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  9th May 2019

          No, executive privilege protects more than diplomatic and military secrets. It protects POTUS’ right to candour. If anything that is given as advise to the POTUS can be revealed to others, then it can and will compromise rhe quality of the advise that is needed to make good decisions and do the job.

          And sorry, your argument about Meuller and Congress is a merry-go-round of political and judicial shakedown. Mueller was the guy with the powers of investigation. What he found did not meet the threshold. Therefore no indictments, nor anything with which to bring articles of impeachment. The end. Like Nixon lost the PR war by August 1974 (hence he didn’t wait for a Senate trial, even though he thought he had a good argument he did not obstruct justice), the Mueller Report should have been the end for the Dems and this strategy for removing Trump from the White House.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  9th May 2019

            Thats view about ‘protecting presidential candour’- ie Discussions between the President and advisors doesnt cover Mueller who wasnt an ‘advisor’

            No one in Congress has seen the Mueller report in full, something like 20% of the section on Russian hacking and dumping is blacked out
            Even more , 30% on ‘prosecution and declination’ decisions!!

            Sometimes to seel all the page requires context , but 40% of pages have something redacted.
            https://www.vox.com/2019/4/19/18485535/mueller-report-redactions-data-chart

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  9th May 2019

              No, you are arguing in circles.

              As per the separation of powers and over 200 years of precedent, the POTUS as head of the executive branch has executive privilege.

              Among a host of reasons is that the POTUS must receive candid advice. So that will be one of the “unintended consequences/collateral damage casualties if the Congress get it wrong with Trump.

              The redacted portions of the Mueller Report was delivered to a member of the POTUS’ executive, the Attorney General.

              Unless it can be shown to be demonstrably relevant (as per the 1974 SCOTUS decision ruling that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified), then executive privilege likely still applies. Otherwise, it is a fishing expedition which executive privilege, and basic American legal protections are designed to protect against. Hence you aren’t arguing anything specific or demonstrably relevant (like Nixon meeting with his Chief of Staff in the Oval Office on June 23 1972),

              …but rather you are complaining about the portion of the report that has been withheld. For legal purposes that is neither specific, nor directly relevant. FFS, Mueller was directly charged with finding any potential (high) crimes and/or misdemeanours, and no matter what is in the 40%….there was nothing.

              But ok, turn it around – what executive privileges are Trump and his White House, or more relevantly, any POTUS, be they Republican, Democrat, Independent or whatever, afforded to stop fishing expeditions at his/her expense by a politically-motivated and hostile Congress? Because executive privilege means something. Hence the SCOTUS in 1974 was very careful in specifying what could and could not be released and when of the Watergate tapes, recordings which were deemed “directly relevant” courtesy of the likes of the testimony of John Dean and James McCord.

            • Duker

               /  9th May 2019

              The supreme Court has found the president isn’t above the law. It may be policy of Justice Dept not to indictment a sitting president, it’s a policy not a law . Anyway Mueller has followed that policy because any indictments would need to be by Congress under it’s impeachment powers ..thus all Mueller’s reports and background material MUST be turned over to Congress for it’s investigation of possible high crimes and misdemeanors.
              It’s a circular argument to say they need evidence of C& M to be able to receive a prosecuotors report and evidence for their investigation.

              Remember Nixon’s refusing subpeonas was grounds for impeachment- a president has to execute the laws faithfully.

            • Kimbo

               /  9th May 2019

              The supreme Court has found the president isn’t above the law.

              Er, the invoking of executive privilege is not necessarily a case of the POTUS acting above the law. Indeed, unless it can be shown that there is currently evidence that is “demonstrably relevant” to the committing of an indictable offence, a high crime or misdemeanor

              …then executive privilege is the law!

              But let’s apply a common sense test. Which is more likely?:

              That there are grounds that are real “demonstrably relevant” (as per the 1974 SCOTUS ruling which confirmed the POTUS is not above the law via absolute and unqualified executive privilege) in the redacted portions of the Mueller Report, but Mueller himself is sitting by silent like the sphinx while Trump uses executive privilege in a criminal attempt to cover it up

              …or the House Democrats, having drawn a blank thus far from the much-awaited Mueller Report (sure isn’t what Leon Jaworski or Kenneth Starr publicly concluded!) want to use judicial warfare to undermine the President, and no matter what is in those redacted portions, it will be a pretext for yet more demands for yet more records with threats of contempt of Congress for any official, high or low who refuses, thus utilising the death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy, including salacious leaks of any and every material they find, even if it irrelevant to the issue of Russian collusion…starting with the redacted portions?

              I mean, come on! Occam’s Razor!

              Is. Not. How. The. American. Government. Is Meant. To Work. And you confirm it yourself with:

              Rember who campaigned on Lock her up!
              Karma!

        • Kimbo

           /  9th May 2019

          No, the June 23 1972 tape was specifically requested because it corroborated what the likes of John Dean, and Haldeman’s subsequent call to the FBI indicated – there was a specific obstruction of justice and here’s why access to this record will exculpate or confirm Nixon’s direct involvement. But withTrump it is still…fishing.

          And yes, as per my original post, the 1974 SCOTUS decision confirmed the executive privilege of the POTUS is neither “absolute” nor “unqualified” …hence the Watergate tapes were released! But the threshold for access to those records, including to confirm if a crime and/or impeachable offence has occurred, is a whole lot higher than what the Dems are attempting.

          Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  9th May 2019

          …and as per that link, the POTUS cannot invoke executive privilege “asan excuse to withhold evidence that is “demonstrably relevant” in a criminal trial”.

          Sirica had good demonstrable reason to believe that the June 23 1972 recording contained evidence of obstruction of justice which directly related to a criminal trial (the Watergate burglars) over which he presided, hence he requested that specific tape among a handful of others.

          In contrast the Dems know nothing, suspect lots and what free rein to rifle around Trump’s records. Which makes it a fishing expedition.and for a whole bunch of political, judicial and executive reasons, that is constitutionally prohibited by the separation of powers doctrine. Allow the fishing to succeed and the office of the POTUS is fatally compromised. Regardless of the person in office, what records Congress can access that don’t justify impeachment and indictment but which are politically embarrassing will be leaked. That why, among other thInns, there is executive privilege. To stop a public relations coup de etat.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  9th May 2019

            They are asking for The Mueller investigation – not free rein around Trumps records.
            Why do people when it comes to Trump have to make so much stuff up – its called mirroring ( of Trump) , so that perhaps explains it.

            To stop a public relations coup d’etat. You mean like Gingrich and his republicans did with Clinton. Interestingly Gingrish was asked about why They impeached ( indicted ) Clinton …and he said -Because we can.

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  9th May 2019

              Disingenuous. Indeed, they are asking for the non-redacted Mueller Report…as a preliminary for where they will conduct their intended fishing expedition. The strategy, as per Watergate, is death-by-a-thousand cuts.

              And irrespective of the merits of the Starr Investigations it did result in an impeachment because there was specific evidence other than the POTUS’ records. Like a semen-stained dress. 😳

              Sure, and of course the Republicans of the time brought the articles of impeachment because they could. Is a reality of an impeachment process presided over by politicians that the process will become overly-political, especially if they are not restrained by constitutional boundaries. That’s the point!

              All the more reason, irrespective of the political affiliation of the office -bearer, to protect the office. Believe me, I’m no fan of Trump. I think he is a ghastly man, and I have grave doubts about his conduct and the legacy he will leave. But allowing the precedent of fishing expeditions through presidential records is not the way to preserve the office. Hell, even private American citizens have more rights than what the Dems are trying to deny the current holder of the most important position in the country.

            • David

               /  9th May 2019

              The Democrats on the committee have access to the full report and all the redactions, Barr has made it available and its just down the corridor from Nadler in a secure room but he hasnt bothered, to busy in front of CNN and MSNBC and basking in the attention.

            • Kimbo

               /  9th May 2019

              I noticed Nadler complaining about “a lawless administration” ordering the closure of the border. Shades of the original articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon including his secret bombing of Cambodia! Like every impeachment attempt, partisan politics always plays a part. The question remains, how much will it skew the process and outcome.

            • Duker

               /  9th May 2019

              “The Democrats on the committee have access to the full report and all the redactions,”
              Thats a lie . Totally untrue. Barr wont even show up to the committee.

              gee the Trump fake news brigade is out in strength today, even outdoing Trumps lies

            • Duker

               /  9th May 2019

              “Disingenuous. Indeed, they are asking for the non-redacted Mueller Report…as a preliminary for where they will conduct their intended fishing expedition. ”
              Obstruction of justice is a crime- and guess what , was in both Nixons and Clintons impeachment.
              Not fishing if they are going after obstruction of justice

            • Pink David

               /  9th May 2019

              “Obstruction of justice is a crime- and guess what , was in both Nixons and Clintons impeachment.
              Not fishing if they are going after obstruction of justice”

              Nixon did approve, and then cover up the breakin
              Clinton did lie about his blowjob
              Trump did not collude with the Russian Government.

            • Kimbo

               /  9th May 2019

              Obstruction of justice is a crime- and guess what , was in both Nixons and Clintons impeachment.

              Yes…

              Not fishing if they are going after obstruction of justice

              Er, no. Irrespective of the high crime or misdemeanour they are (to quote you in your very illumination description) “going after”, unless they have probable cause/a reason that is “demonstrably relevant” (e.g., tangible evidence such as a Watergate burglar who makes a sworn statement he was pressured to perjure himself, and a former White House aide who testifies under oath that the cover-up was orchestrated with Nixon’s approval, with a specific recording that was known to exist which could either incriminate or exculpate Nixon, or a semen-stained dress with Clinton’s DNA

              …then irrespective of whether it is obstruction of justice, treason or murder

              …if you don’t know precisely that for which you are looking but you want access to a potentially exponentially increasing set of records

              …then by definition that is a fishing expedition, prohibited against the POTUS under the American constitution by both separation of powers, and likely also the Fifth Amendment.

            • Kimbo

               /  9th May 2019

              Trump did not collude with the Russian Government.

              No. We don’t know that. Indeed, he may have.

              However, the Mueller Report concluded there was insufficient evidence to issue indictments against anyone connected with Trump for that crime, nor initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

              And in the absence of any tangible evidence (i.e., something like James’ McCord’s or John Dean’s sworn statements and/or testimony, or Monica Lewinsky’s semen-stained dress) which would justify the unredacted sections of the Mueller Report being released, and thus initiate further requests for all connected material, with an ever-burgeoning search after that

              …the redacted Mueller’s Report as released by Barr should be the end of the matter.

    • Pink David

       /  9th May 2019

      ” ( and nothing about a successful business as his ‘taxable income losses’ of almost $1 bill over a decade show)”

      This is fun. This exciting, new information comes in shocking contrast to Trump’s claims in his first words on the first episode of The Apprentice….

      “My name is Donald Trump, and I’m the largest real estate developer in New York. I own buildings all over the place, model agencies, the Miss Universe pageant, jetliners, golf courses, casinos, and private resorts like Mar-a-Lago, one of the most spectacular estates anywhere in the world. But it wasn’t always so easy. About 13 years ago, I was seriously in trouble. I was billions of dollars in debt. But I fought back, and I won, big league. I used my brain. I used my negotiating skills, and I worked it all out. Now my company’s bigger than it ever was and stronger than it ever was, and I’m having more fun than I ever had.”

      Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  9th May 2019

    Probably a good thing that the courts will eventually set rules limiting the extent a hostile Congress can harass the President and his administration. Not so much a Constitutional crisis as a Constitutional refinement.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  9th May 2019

      What – after all the investigations of Obama and his officials its ‘time to set new rules’

      Reply
      • David

         /  9th May 2019

        What like how much he knew about the illegal selling of stolen guns to the Mexican drug cartels by the US plod so they could see where the bullets eventually turned up, well one was in an American border guard.
        Obama went executive privilege and Holder refused to show but unlike with Trump a thing actually happened that needed oversight and it wasnt a now disproven charge of collusion.
        Mueller found no Trump Russia collusion which is being conveniently overlooked by all the Trump haters who have 2 plus years invested in that fairy tale.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  9th May 2019

          Mueller didnt say that ‘no evidence of russian collusion ‘ – do you have a copy of the full report

          Reply
        • Duker

           /  9th May 2019

          “Mueller found no Trump Russia collusion” No he didnt . Thats just what Barr said , and Mueller called him out on his misrepresentation

          Dont you think its ‘unusual’ if Mueller did clear Trump that he would now claim executive privileged to prevent every hear how there wasnt collusion

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  9th May 2019

            Dont you think its ‘unusual’ if Mueller did clear Trump that he would now claim executive privileged to prevent every hear how there wasnt collusion

            Yeah, yeah. The same justification for the original witch trials. “Why would she be reluctant to undergo trial by ordeal unless she was guilty?”. Or how about on the basis of that same rationale, the Americans also waive the Fifth Amendment? “Why else would someone refuse to testify in their defence unless they had something to hide?!”

            Trump shouldn’t and doesn’t have to justify the invoking of executive privilege. Indeed, it is his duty as POTUS to preserve it, both for himself and also by precedent for those who will inherit the office.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  9th May 2019

              That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have heard. …there isn’t a thing as a witch while collusion did exist..Mueller used a very narrow defention of ‘official Russian government ‘collusion , while all the operatives involved with Russia were private individuals. Trump even crowed about getting Clinton/DNC emails …why would he say that.

              Did you not see the supreme Court decision about executive privledge…it didnt override a criminal investigation….but since you don’t have a shred of knowledge of how prosecutors work…..hint there are stories quoting plenty of prosecuotors saying even what has been revealed is grounds for an obstruction investigation.

            • Kimbo

               /  9th May 2019

              Did you not see the supreme Court decision about executive privledge…it didnt override a criminal investigation….

              Yes. But here’s the thing. On 19 June 1972, the Monday morning after the Watergate burglary the previous weekend, neither the Washington DC police the FBI, nor the American Congress were demanding access to the POTUS’ records, despite it being obvious a politically-motivated crime had occurred. Why? Because a that stage there was no evidence to indicate Nixon was involved. It took over two years, and the uncovering of a whole lot of tangible evidence, much of it in the form of testimony and bank records (“follow the money!”) before a subpoena for Nixon’s records was ruled by the SCOTUS to be justified.

              Same now as 19 June 1972. Yes, the Russians interfered in the American election, but despite Trump allegedly benefitting, there is no currently no evidence that Trump or any of his assistants was involved…despite a lengthy investigation. So why, in the absence of such evidence is executive privilege set aside as the SCOTUS approved…on July 24, 1974

              But ok. You don’t think it is a “fishing expedition”. So, leave Trump aside and riddle me this:

              What is your understanding and definition of the term “legal fishing expedition”, and

              Why are there safeguards, not only for the POTUS but also ordinary American citizens against them?

  4. duperez

     /  9th May 2019

    There must be a way for the President to pre-empt things by signing a pre-dated heap of pardons for himself. Just in case. 🙃

    Reply
  5. Dennis Horne

     /  9th May 2019

    Trump is winning because he has sacked the honourable and decent men and surrounded himself with liars and scumbags who are behaving like gangsters.

    Of course there was collusion but collusion per se is not a crime. Of course there was obstruction of justice and it’s continuing under the Trump-appointed low-life Barr.

    It’s not the end of the matter by any means. If Trump lives long enough he’s going to jail, even though he is stuffing the Supreme Court with arseholes who will feel the need to repay him.

    Reply
  6. Something doesn’t smell right about Trump Junior’s subpoena.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee doesn’t, institutionally, do squat that Chairman Richard Burr does not approve. And it was issued over two weeks ago, before Mitch McConnell declared “story over”.

    Is it to handle a credibility problem that Burr faces? After all, there’s a nugget in Robert Mueller’s report that fingers Senator Burr as secretly feeding the probe’s info to the White House.

    Or are they giving Junior the chance to correct the record and avoid a perjury charge – which I suspect Burr has already seen and conveyed to Trump’s attorneys – who I suspect have advised Burr and McConnell this is the best way to “exonerate” Junior before he is charged.

    Reply
  7. The Consultant

     /  10th May 2019

    Barr held in contempt by Congress? When Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt by Congress for refusing to hand over documents, niether Eric or his boss worried about it one bit and it didn’t seem to be held against them by the same people now screaming about how awful it is.

    Because partisanship, so “yawn”. No Constitutional crisis at all. Just more OrangeManBad insanity.

    I do have to wonder why the Democrats continue to beat this dead horse, since it only plays in D.C., and barely even there. My guess is that it’s just more sand-in-gears stuff to slow and distract the Trump administration. Out on the campaign trail of the 20 Dem candidates it only amounts to the occasional soundbite: clearly they have to talk about other things in order to win in 2020.

    Anyway, looking forward to the Inspector General’s report on all that FBI spying on the Trump campaign: hopefully it will also include a lot of detail on the third arm of Russian interference in the 2016 election, where Steele crafted his famous dossier using “Kremlin sources” (his own words). Funny how Mueller never dug into that angle.

    @Kimbo
    Better watch it pal: judging from the downticks from the TDS crowd here you’re in serious danger of being categorised as a Trump supporter.

    Reply

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