Client No. 9: Affidavit Details Alleged Spitzer’s Dealings with Prostitution Ring

The supporting affidavit released today painted a detailed and disturbing picture of Eliot Spitzer’s liaison with a high-priced call girl service. He allegedly used the name “George Fox” to book the room at the Mayflower Hotel — the name of a Spitzer contributor.

The supporting affidavit offers details that would make any criminal charges hard to rebut in court:

73. On February 11, 2008, at approximately 10:53 p.m.,
TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the
6587 Number, sent a text message to CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a “Katie,”
a/k/a “Kate,” the defendant, at the 3390 Number. In the text
message, LEWIS wrote: ‘Pls let me know if [Client-9’s] ‘package’
(believed to be a reference to a deposit of money sent by mail)
arrives 2mrw. Appt wd b on Wed.” (Call 3728C). SUWAL sent a
text message back to LEWIS, stating: ‘K.” (Call 3731C).
74. On February 12, 2008, at approximately 2:37 p.m.,
TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a ‘Rachelle,” the defendant, using the
6587 Number, called a prostitute who the Emperors Club marketed
using the name “Kristen.” During the call, LEWIS left a message
for “Kristen” that the “deposit” had not arrived today, but that
they should be able to do the trip if the deposit arrived
tomorrow. (Call 9324R) . At approximately 4 : 03 p.m. , LEWIS
received a call from “Kristen.” During the call, “Kristen” said
that she had heard the message, and that was fine. LEWIS and
“Kristen” then discussed the time that “Kristen” would take the
train from New York to Washington, D.C. LEWIS told “Kristen”
that there was a 5:39 p.m. train that arrived at 9:00 p.m., and
that “Kristen” would be taking the train out of Penn Station.
LEWIS confirmed that Client-9 would be paying for everything –
train tickets, cab fare from the hotel and back, mini bar or room
service, travel time, and hotel. LEWIS said that they would \
probably not know until 3 p.m. if the deposit arrived because
Client-9 would not do traditional wire transferring. (Call
9362) .
75. At approximately 8:12 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received
a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that
the “package” did not arrive today. LEWIS asked Client-9 if
there was a return address on the envelope, and Client-9 said no.
LEWIS asked: “You had QAT . . .,” and Client-9 said: “Yup, same
as in the past, no question about it.” LEWIS asked Client-9 what
time he was interested in having the appointment tomorrow.
Client-9 told her 9:00 p.m. or 10:OO p.m. LEWIS told Client-9 to
call her back in five minutes. (Call 9460R) .
76. At approximately 8:14 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called
MARK BRENER, a/k/a “Michael,” the defendant, at the 0937 Number.
During the call, LEWIS told BRENER that Client-9 had just called
about an appointment for tomorrow, and that he had around $400 or
$500 credit. SUWAL said that she did not feel comfortable saying
that Client-9 had a $400 credit when she did not know that for a
fact. SUWAL and BRENER talked in the background about whether
Client-9 could proceed with the appointment without his deposit
having arrived. (Call 9462R). At approximately 8:23 p.m., LEWIS
called Client-9, and told him that the ‘office” said he could not
proceed with the appointment with his available credit. After
discussing ways to resolve the situation, LEWIS and Client-9 I
agreed to speak the following day. (Call 9467R) .
77. On February 12, 2008, at approximately 9:22 p.m.,
TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the
6587 Number, sent a text message to ”Kristen.” In the text
message, LEWIS wrote: ‘If D.C. appt. happens u will need 2 leave
NYC @ 4:45pm. Is that possible?” (Call 9515R). “Kristen” wrote
back: “Yes.” (Call 9516R) .
78. At approximately 3: 20 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received
a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that
they were still trying to determine if his deposit had arrived.
Client-9 told LEWIS that he had made a re’servation at the hotel,
and had paid for it in his name. Client-9 said that there would
be a key waiting for her, and told LEWIS that what he had on
account with her covered the “transportation” (believed to be a
reference to the cost of the trainfare for “Kristen” from New
York to Washington, D.C.). LEWIS said that she would try to make
it work. (Call 9636R). At approximately 3:24 p.m., LEWIS, using
the 6587 Number, called CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a “Katie,” a/k/a “Kate,”
the defendant, at the 3390 Number. LEWIS explained to SUWAL what
Client-9 had proposed. SUWAL told LEWIS she would call her back.
(Call 9642R) . At approximately 3 : 53 p.m., MARK BRENER, a/k/a
“Michael,” the defendant, using the 0937 Number, called LEWIS at
the 6587 Number. BRENER and LEWIS discussed the problem about
Client-9’s deposit. (Call 9654R). At approximately 4:18 p.m.,
SUWAL, using the 3390 Number, sent a text message to LEWIS at the
6587 Number, stating: “[Plackage arrived. Pls be sure he rsvp
hotel.” (Call 9659R) .
79. At approximately 4:21 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a “Rachelle, ” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called
“Kri~ten.~ During the call, LEWIS told “Kristen” that the
package had arrived, and that “theyu (believed to be a reference
to MARK BRENER, a/k/a “Michael,” and CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a “Katie,”
a/k/a “Kate,” the defendants) just got the mail. LEWIS told
“Kristen” to get to Penn Station and call her when she picked up
her tickets. (Call 9661R) . At approximately 4 :48 p.m., LEWIS
sent a text message to “Kristen,” stating: “TRAIN INFO Departing
from Penn St. Arriving 8 Union St. Washington, DC NYC to DC Train
# 129 Dep. 5:39pm Arr. 9pm.” (Call 9G79R). At approximately
4:54 p.m., LEWIS sent another text message to “KristenItt stating:
“TRAIN INFO Return trip DC to NYC Train #84 Dep. 2/14 8:35pm Arr.
ll:57am.” (Call 9683R).
80. At approximately 4:58 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received
an incoming call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told
Client-9 that his package arrived today, and Client-9 said good.
LEWIS asked Client-9 what time he was expecting to have the
appointment. Client-9 told LEWIS maybe 10:OO p.m. or so, and
asked who it was. LEWIS said it was “Kristen,” and Client-9 said
“great, okay, wonderful .” LEWIS told Client-9 that she would
give him a final price later, and asked Client-9 whether he could
give “Kristen” “extra funds” at this appointment in order to
avoid payment issues in the future. Client-9 said maybe, and
that he would see if he could do that. LEWIS explained that the
agency did not want a model accepting funds for a future
appointment, but that she was going to make an exception that way
a deposit could be made so that he would have a credit, and they
would not have to “go through this” next time. Client-9 said
perfect, and that he would call her regarding the room number.
(Call 9686R) .
81. At approximately 7:51 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received
a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that
the balance was around ,”2611 (believed to be a reference to
$2,600), but she would give him an exact number later. LEWIS
asked if when “Kristen” went to pick up the key she would have to
give a name or would she be able to say that she was one of
Client-9’s guests for whom he left an envelope. ~EW1~’and
Client-9 discussed how to arrange for “Kristen” to get the key to
her hotel room. LEWIS said that she would prefer if “Kristen”
did not have to give a name. Client-9 said that he was trying to
‘think this through.” Client-9 repeated that his balance was
‘2600,” and stated that maybe he would give “her,” a reference to
“Kristen,” ‘3600″ and have a thousand on balance. LEWIS
suggested making it “1500fl more. Client-9 said that would make
it “4100,” and said that he would look for a bank and see about
it. Client-9 told LEWIS to let him go down and take care of
this, and suggested that maybe he could put it [the hotel key] in
an envelope with the concierge. (Call 9725R).
82. At approximately 8:47 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received
a call from Client-9. During the call, Client-9 told LEWIS to
tell “Kristen” to go to the hotel and go to room 871. Client-9
told LEWIS that the door would be open. Client-9 told LEWIS that
there would be a key in the room, but the door would be ajar.
LEWIS asked if the hotel staff might pass by the door and close
it, and Client-9 said no it was okay. Client-9 explained that
the door would not be visibly open, but if someone pushed it, the 4
door would open. LEWIS told Client-9 that his balance was
$2,721.41, and that if he wanted to do an additional “150OU or
even “2000” it would be better. Client-9 said that he did not
know if he could get to a machine to do that, but he would see.
LEWIS said that ‘Kristen” would go directly to room ,871. Client-
9 asked LEWIS to remind- him what ‘Kristen” looked like, and LEWIS
said that she was an American, petite, very pretty brunette, 5
feet 5 inches, and 105 pounds. Client-9 said that she should go
straight to 871, and if for any reason it did not work out, she
should call LEWIS. (Call 9731) .
83. At approximately 9:32 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received
a call from “Kristen.” During the call, ‘”Kristen” said that she
was in the room. LEWIS told “Kristen” that she would call her
back when she knew when Client-9 would be there. (Call 9734R).
84. At approximately 9:36 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a ‘Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received
a call from “Kristen.” During the call, LEWIS told “Kristen”
that “he,” a reference to Client-9, was at the hotel. “Kristen”
told LEWIS that she just talked to him. ‘Kristen” said that
Client-9 was coming’to her. LEWIS told “Kristen” that Client-9
should be giving her “extra,” and that the extra should be
deposited into- LEWIS told “Kristen” to text her when he
arrived and LEWIS would start the four hours then, and also to
let her know if he left early. (Call 9741R).
85. On February 14, 2008, at approximately 12:02 a.m.,
TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, received
a call from “Kristen.” During the call, “Kristen” told LEWIS ,
that “he,” a reference to Client-9, had left. LEWIS asked
“Kristen” what time he got there, and “Kristen” said “15 after .
. . maybe 10.” LEWIS asked “Kristen” how she thought the
appointment went, and “Kristen” said that she thought it went
very well. LEWIS asked “Kristen” how much she collected, and
‘Kristen” said $4,300. “Kristen” said that she liked him, and
that she did not think he was difficult. “Kristen” stated: ‘I
don’t think he’s difficult. I mean it’s just kind of like . . .
whatever. . . I’m here for a purpose. I know what my purpose is.
I am not a . . . moron, you know what I mean. So maybe that’s
why girls maybe think they’re difficult . . . . ” “Kristen”
continued: “That’s what it is, because you’re here for a
[purpose]. Let’s not get it twisted – I know what I do, you
know.” LEWIS responded: “You look at it very uniquely, because .
. . no one .ever says it that way.” LEWIS continued that from
what she had been told “he” (believed to be a reference to
Client-9) “would ask you to do things that, like, you might not
think were safe – you know – I mean that . . . very basic things.
. . . “Kristen” responded: “I have a way of dealing with that .
. . I’d be like listen dude, you really want the sex? . . . You
know what I mean.” Near the end of the call, LEWIS and “Kristen”
discussed “Kristen’s” departure via Amtrak, the room that Client-
9 had provided for “Kristen,” and “Kristen’s” share of the cash
that Client-9 had provided to her. (Call 9750R).

For the full affidavit, click here

21 thoughts on “Client No. 9: Affidavit Details Alleged Spitzer’s Dealings with Prostitution Ring”

  1. Why don’t you two call up Doris Kearns Goodwin and challenge her to a “Throwdown”? 🙂

  2. Vince:

    Without getting into a debate on the language of the Declaration, it is clear that slaves were regarded as property and thus exempted from the opening words. Women were likewise not regarded as the equal of landowning freemen, so Jefferson’s words are contextualized by the times in which they were written. No historian would argue otherwise. Thus his words are not quite so damning as you make it seem with today’s understanding of the terms. The Constitution, supported by men like Adams, also contained language that held slaves worth no more than 3/5 of a free man, so there was plenty of hypocrisy to go around. The point is simply that morality has evolved since those times despite your examples to the contrary. In fact the Civil War was nothing, if not a referendum on the morality of slavery that the good guys won. Adams was a fine intellectual, lawyer, and American statesman. He simply does not enjoy Jefferson’s stature, and while you may regard that as unfair, tearing down Jefferson’s legacy enhances Adams’ not one bit.

  3. Let see. We started with: There is no evidence to suggest he tortured slaves. Then it seemed that while Jefferson did not personally flog his slaves, he did permit overseers to do so on his estate, where it was not the norm, was a final rather than initial punishment for thieves, usually preceded by a lecture on the desirability of morals from the squire himself, in keeping with the corporal punishment prevalent in the day, like the stocks at Williamsburg. How nice. Lastly, we find that an escapee was “severely flogged in the presence of his companions.” Not justified perhaps but clearly in keeping with the evolutionary stage of the morality of the time.

    So just what was this evolutionary stage of the morality of slavery of the time? Many approved of it, but some contemporaries had said that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Did Jefferson subscribe to this latter view? He wrote it and signed it, so we can assume so. If questioned by James Hubbard, who sought his inalienable rights to life and liberty by escaping, Jefferson might have said it only meant white men, or he might have just said to watch what I do, not what I say. James may have unlawfully stolen nails from his master, Squire Jefferson. English people at the time thought Jefferson and his friends unlawfully stole a country from his majesty King George III. Jefferson, of course, invoked a higher law. So did James by his actions.

    So he was not like any other slaveowner, a man of the time being judged by today’s morality. He is held to his own standards, so eloquently expressed in his own words. Hypocrisy was a moral and ethical blindness that saw one set of rules apply to himself and another to his workers. This issue resonates on this thread about Governor Spitzer, doesn’t it? Orwell called it double-think: the holding of two contradictory beliefs simultaneously, fervently believing both, and being unaware of their incompatibility.

    The flogging in front of the companions reeks of the use of terror in aid of enslavement to deter further escapes. Human Rights Watch reports that the Saudi religious police use flogging to silence human rights protesters to this day. Flogging was not and is not routine corporal punishment: it is and has been deemed cruel and unusual punishment, ever since the Bill of Rights.

    And about that evolutionary morality. It really evolved a lot, didn’t it? By 1860, that morality had “evolved” to the point where the number of slaves had not diminished, but had grown to four million, so much so that the Confederates started a bloody civil war to split the Union, to defend slavery in the south as the “cornerstone” of their society, and to spread it to the territories. Looks like evolution in reverse to me.

    I fully agree you and Lincoln that Jefferson was a great writer, giving us the Declaration and the Virginia laws of religious tolerance as well as supporting the Constitution and Bill of Rights: the founding principles of our society. But he ran Monticello as a society that was half-slave and half-free, and seemed to think that the new nation could exist in a like manner. The overwhelming domestic issue in America in the 19th Century was slavery. It very nearly destroyed the nation. My original point was about the need to confront and consider Jefferson’s deeds, not his words.

  4. Vince:

    I thought I remembered this Lincoln quote and finally found it. Here goes: “The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society.” See, we can wholeheartedly agree on something of substance.

  5. Vince;

    Since VC does like our little discussions, I opted to post here. On the issue of James Hubbard (the younger) the issue is somewhat complicated and perhaps some persepctive would help the discussion. James Hubbard, the elder, was Jefferson’s trusted slave and served in his household as a “waterman” which granted him autonomy to travel to and from town allowing him to visit friends and family. His son, James Hubbard, the younger, was more of an intrepid soul and did continually get into trouble both at the estate and in his attempts to run away. As Jefferson biographer E.M. Halliday in his work “Understanding Jefferson” writes ” James Hubbard, one of the nailers, was caught stealing nails… subsequently ran away… [was] captured… [and] was “severely flogged in the presence of his companions.” Hubbard was certainly no angel given his past transgressions and his treachery seems established. It did not justify his servitude, but as with most human interactions was more complex than a mere example of human cruelty authorized by Jefferson. Similar punishments were meted out to young people with similar transgressions, so although this was severe, it was by no means rare. Not justified perhaps but clearly in keeping with the evolutionary stage of the morality of the time.

  6. mespo727272

    I certainly agree that there is evidence and truth, and truth has to be faced, and I am glad no offense was taken. I do not agree with your statement that there is no evidence to suggest Jefferson tortured his slaves. Given the current importance of the issue of torture, readers should know that my statement was truthful and not made lightly, being based in part on the fact that when one of Jefferson’s slaves escaped, he was captured, returned and flogged. Not sensorily deprived, not waterboarded, not subjected to raucus music, but flogged, severely, for simply trying to be free.

    Readers can find at a source by a professional historian, at the OAH site, with a balanced treatment of the entire issue: QUOTE James Hubbard ran away and, for awhile, evaded Jefferson’s attempts to recapture him. When he finally caught Hubbard, Jefferson “had him severely flogged” and then sold him. UNQUOTE. Source: Thomas Jefferson and Slaves: Teaching an American Paradox, by Bruce Fehn, assistant professor and program coordinator of social studies education at the University of Iowa.

    http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/earlyrepublic/fehn.html

    As readers can see from the last post, there are always differences in emphasis and spin. This slave seems to have been an escapee, not a thief. He was flogged and sold, so it was more final than initial. It was severe. Of course Jefferson did no hold the whip, but he ordered it. Obviously, we can all disagree on whether a man is a product of the times, or rises above the times. I just observe that while Adams never made it to Rushmore, neither did he ever need to order a runaway slave of his flogged. Readers all have their favorites, but mine is Lincoln, the man who saved the union and freed the slaves.

    I post under my real name, and we [or anyone interested] can continue by email to vtreacy@msn.com.

  7. Vince/VC:

    In fairness, I must correct one of my criticisms of Vince’s indictment against Jefferson. It does seem that while Jefferson did not personally flog his slaves, he did permit overseers to do so on his estate. This is a fine distinction and Vince was right to disregard it in his allegations. The record does show that this was not the norm in Jefferson’s household and was reserved principally for thieves. It was likely, according to most sources, a final rather than initial punishment and was usually preceded by a lecture on the desirability of morals from the squire himself. It also was in keeping with the corporal punishment prevalent in the day. That some of the most popular attractions in Colonial Williamsburg are the public stocks, attests to those times as well as ours. But these are parsing words, I know, and I must say that Vince’s criticisms, while seemingly out of proportion to a judgment on the great work of the man, remain, nonetheless, fundamentally accurate as sins of omission.

  8. VC:

    You are too kind. Maybe Vince and I can verbally joust more about our favorite Founding Fathers. I must confess bias in favor of Mr. Jefferson who is obviously my favorite. Vince is right that my hero had feet of clay, but don’t they all?

  9. Vince / Mespo:

    Please – the discussion was terrific!

    How could JT mind a eloquent exchange with some real passion that didn’t cost 4,100 bucks. It seems to me that your argument was far more interesting than a peak at how Eliot Spitzer ruined his career, besmirched his family and …. this list is too long.

    Please carry on – you were talking about things far more interesting and relevant than “Client 9 from Outer-space”

  10. Vince:

    Agree with your sentiments and have no desire to bog us down either, but as you know there’s evidence and there’s truth and one does not always lead inexorably to the other. No offense taken.

  11. Dear Mespo,

    There is evidence for all I wrote, and the evils of slavery need no elaboration here, but you may have the last word. I did not mean to offend you. I do not want the Professor’s site to get bogged down off-topic.

  12. Wow you really don’t know anything about Jefferson and you apparently really missed the point about compromising morality for self- preservation. Adams didn’t live in an agrarian society and he certainly didn’t need slaves. My point was simply that Jefferson was a product of his times and a great man indeed with very real problems. There is no evidence to suggest he tortured slaves and the proof that he fathered children with them is tenuous at best even given the DNA evidence which is suggestive that his cousin in fact was the father. All in all, you have an entirely surprising self-righteous attitude about one of the fab four on Mt. Rushmore, which conspicuously seems to omit your pious hero, Mr. Adams. Maybe that decision was Orwellian to you as well. I bid you return to your crystalline world of leaders without flaws and citizens altruistically subverting their own self-preservation to uphold your sense of morality.

  13. Well, Adams could have thrown stones, since he did not own slaves, did not hire or rent them, did not sleep with them and father children by them, and did not have escaped slaves hunted down, captured, returned and flogged, as Jefferson in fact did.

    This is a real twist on language worthy of Orwell. He owns, rapes, and tortures slaves, but he is ambivalent. He captures and flogs escapees, but this is reasonable provision. Very many people before him and after him managed their self-preservation despite precarious financial situation without owning and abusing enslaved human beings. Please look up Lincoln, as just one example.

    We know now that massive amounts of slave labor were used by Germany and Japan in support of their efforts in World War II, but I suppose they made reasonable provision for them, were ambivalent about it, and decided their precarious financial situation trumped morality.

  14. Vince:

    Right you are, but Jefferson was ambivalent about the institution and made reasonable provision for his captives. He famously said “we have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”

    He was certainly no raging proponent of slavery, but, given his often times precarious financial situation, he decided self-preservation trumped morality. Not particularly unique or noble but I cannot cast the first stone here either. Could you? Could Adams?

  15. Dear Vindex,

    Jefferson had many good qualities, but the author of the Declaration that all men are created equal was in fact the hypocritical owner of hundreds of slaves, while Adams never owned or hired a slave in his life.

    Just wanted to point that out.

    Vince

  16. Speaking of removing hostile politicians from office.

    for your consideration Impeachment of the Vice President and President of the United States of America.

    subject: HBO mini series: Jefferson Rules vs. Adams’ Ghost

    after getting all worked up about the John Adams mini series on HBO i went and did some research on the web.

    I immediately was reminded of the bitter rivalry between Adams and Jefferson.

    Adams was a Federalist

    Jefferson a Republican

    after the War of 1812, I beleive the two sides reconciled some more, and they both passed away on July 4, 50 years on the day of the start of the nation.

    I email this, for again propaganda seeks to disenfranchise the nation.

    No movie for Jefferson. But a movie for the Federalist.

    Adams defended the British during the Boston Massacre and learned to regret it. He nominated Washington to be General during the Revolution and became Vice President to Washington. Then was elected himself.

    You will recall the plight of Alexander Hamilton, another Federalist. Secretary of State to President Washington.

    This nation of ours is impressed by the Federalists. This nation would not be what is started to be and promises to be without Jefferson. Whom in fact is the author of the Declaration.

    To quote a famous President John Adams: “Thomas Jefferson Survives”

    There will be a rush to say with this HBO series the “Revolution” is remembered.

    Don’t buy the Hype.

    Federalism is now our destruction plain as day as Martial Law is Federalism Uber Alles.

    Jefferson Vigilence – Jefferson Results

    Is not now the ENTIRE nation seeking Impeachment thru

    JEFFERSON RULES outside of Congress???

    do you see the reasoning sirs?

    Impeachment is a Patriotic Imperative which enters the White House, Adams’ ghost will not prevent it.

  17. I can’t stand this Administration! They are all f***in’ nutballs!

    Would some one call in ‘the men in the white coats’, please?

  18. “LEWIS asked “Kristen” how she thought the
    appointment went, and “Kristen” said that she thought it went
    very well. LEWIS asked “Kristen” how much she collected, and
    ‘Kristen” said $4,300. “Kristen” said that she liked him, and
    that she did not think he was difficult. “Kristen” stated: ‘I
    don’t think he’s difficult. I mean it’s just kind of like . . .
    whatever. . . I’m here for a purpose. I know what my purpose is.
    I am not a . . . moron, you know what I mean.”

    Judging by that exchange the only one who knew what the hell was going on was Kristen. Maybe she should run for office.

Comments are closed.