In The Case Of The FISA Memos, Transparency Is National Security

downloadBelow is my column on the ongoing controversy over the majority and minority memos from the House Intelligence Committee. President Donald Trump has sent the Democratic memo — which is much longer and detailed — back to the Committee for revisions. He accused of the Democrats of intentionally loading up the memos with classified information to argue that the White House was withholding embarrassing information.  This column below argues for disclosure of not just as much of these memos as possible but underlying material.

“National security” has been a rallying cry for politicians for centuries. Unassailable and undefined, it is the perfect conversation-stopper when debating opponents, particularly when you control the information that would prove or disprove your position. The mantra of “national security” is often used as if it has a fixed and universally understood meaning. It doesn’t, and the controversy over the “Nunes memo” from the House Intelligence Committee highlights how politics can distort semantics of security.

For weeks, the FBI and Democratic leaders like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Intelligence Committee ranking minority member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) declared that the release of the memo would seriously undermine national security due to its highly classified content. The FBI said that the release of the memo would cause “grave” consequences to national security. When the memo was released, the public found that it was devoid of anything even remotely sensitive, let alone the disclosure of “sources and methods.”

For civil libertarians, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) controversy does raise a serious national security issue of a different kind. First, there is the underlying issue involving the use of national security powers for political purposes. While the true facts have not been fully established, there are aspects of the controversy that are troubling. The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired former British spy Christopher Steele to gather dirt on Donald Trump.

For many months, the Clinton campaign denied any connection to the dossier and only recently admitted that they were behind the effort when confronted with new information. Moreover, there are indications that close associates of Clinton may have fed material to Steele, who tried to get the information into the media during the campaign and told an FBI official that he was “desperate” to stop Trump from being elected.

These associates reportedly include controversial Hillary Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal, who has been long been accused of spreading rumors against Clinton opponents and critics. It also includes a State Department official, Jonathan Winer, who seemed to function as a transit point on dirt involving Trump. He has admitted to both passing along hundreds of Steele reports to high-ranking officials as well as sending information from Cody Shearer, a freelance writer with close ties to the Clintons. If people in the Obama administration used the FBI to target political opponents, it would be a national security concern.

Second, it is also a national security concern if the FBI has used its classification authority to try to bar the release of embarrassing information. The FBI has a long history of classifying abusive or criminal conduct. It has used national security to pursue political figures like Martin Luther King. On this occasion, it not only misused classification laws but misled the public.

The primary objection of the FBI proved to be not the disclosure of national security secrets but what it viewed as an unfair portrayal of its own conduct. The FBI also was reportedly upset that the memo included the names of high-ranking FBI and Justice Department figures, like James Comey and Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on the controversial surveillance of a Trump adviser. Not only was such information not sensitive, it clearly was not a “grave” threat to national security.

The Republicans were right to override the FBI and release this memo. That does not mean that the memo is accurate, but it was not a threat to national security. Likewise, the Republicans were correct in joining Democrats to seek the release of the minority memo. The content of these memos is separate from their classification.

Nevertheless, Schiff has called the release of the clearly unclassified Nunes memo to be a “sad day” for the country and “a shameful effort to discredit” the FBI and Justice Department. Other Democrats have expressed shock that the Republicans would defy the FBI in this way, negating the committee’s oversight role in such disputes. Rule 11(g) was specifically written to address rampant over-classification of material like the Nunes memo.

Schiff and other Democrats once strongly advocated for transparency and oversight independence. In 2013, Schiff called for the FISA court to be “much more transparent so that the American people can understand what is being done in their name and in the name of national security so that we can have a more informed debate over the balance between privacy and security.”

Whatever your definition of national security, it should not mean job security for the FBI or political security for any party. National security is meant to protect something other than the agencies themselves. First and foremost, it protects our lives and our liberties. It is a national security threat when politicians or agency officials lie to the public about declassification dangers. It is also a national security threat to use secret courts and classified proceedings to hide government abuse.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison explained it best. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men,” he wrote, “the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Controlling the FBI is a national security matter if both our lives and our liberties are to be protected.

So where does that leave us? Simple: This is a case where transparency is national security. On issues ranging from the testimony of former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe to the basis for secret surveillance orders, someone in our government is clearly lying to us. The only way to know is to force the disclosure of not just the majority and the minority House Intelligence Committee memos but transcripts and other related materials.

Much of the details of these investigations have already been leaked or disclosed. It is now of paramount importance for the public to confirm who has been using our national security laws to spread false information, whether inside Congress or inside the FBI. We also need to resolve whether the FBI and our security services were influenced by political motives or associations. It is not simply a matter of politics. It is a matter of national security.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He has been lead counsel in national security cases for more than two decades and has testified before congressional intelligence committees. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

47 thoughts on “In The Case Of The FISA Memos, Transparency Is National Security

  1. “In the case of the FISA memos…”

    Will someone go down the the DOJ and wake Jeff Sessions up?

    Show him the “smoking guns”.

    Jeff, Jeff, Jeff.

    Let’s get this party started!

  2. None of us know the truth without an asversarial “discovery” process in front of a real Article III court.
    We essentially have a case or controversy with an Executive Branch controlled tribunal investigated by the Executive Branch with Executive Branch witnesses.

    The FISA Court was designed to prevent Nixon era intelligence abuses. In the past 15 years this court has facilitated intelligence abuses while denying Bill of Rights guarantees to U.S. citizens.

    We need to abolish the FISA court and have a Leahy-styke Truth Commission.

  3. We get the Nunes memo attacking the FBI and DOJ with cherrypicked conclusions to undermine the Mueller investigation and it’s fast tracked to FOX News asap after Trump declassified it. The democratic memo rebutting the Nunes memo? It will never see the light of day thanks to Trump.

    Trump and Nunes accuse the FBI & DOJ of confirmation bias in the Mueller investigation and prove it by engaging in confirmation bias with their every act of obstruction.

    These are not the acts of innocent people. And the supporters of Trump declare their fidelity to the man on a horse. Again, sad.

    “We (FBI, NSA, CIA) assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
    have high confidence in these judgments.

    We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence
    in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence”
    https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

    Turley speaks in generalities and universal statements…More transparency about FISA…why he even uses Schiff’s words from 2013 against the man. But he misses the existential qualifier to the old saw of ‘National Security.’ Russia attacked us.

    Turley, look at the summary of declassified information I posted above. What has changed since 2013 when Schiff made his statements? I’ll give you one hint: Russia undermined our election…our democracy…the foundation of our country with its Pro-Trump efforts. And it sure looks like Trump is an insider and partner to that occurrence.

    Does that clear things up for you, you song and dance fraud? Why don’t you go running to FOX News again to peddle your Pro-Trump BS? I bet the the checks are getting larger for you.

    We can add Professor Turley to the list of those people turning their backs on the USA. With every pro-Trump article, every slap at the FBI and Mueller, and every FOX paid appearance, Turley and his talents dig his figurative grave a little deeper. We won’t forget your treachery Turley. You can bank on that. The same way you’re sure banking on Trump these days. My currency is justice…yours?…your pocketbook.

    • May we quote you when the democrazy memo is sanitized by the DOJ/FBI/Deep State and released? For Schiff it’s the journey not the destination. His obfuscation will have failed once the memo’s out..but he’ll move on to the next anti-Trump putsch.

    • Don’t you feel a little foolish being duped by Hillary’s dirty tricks memo? It was all a fraud, meant to stir up useful idiots like you into thinking it was the Russians “stealing” the election. It couldn’t be that “The Smartest Woman in THE WORLD” lost fair and square to a racist bigot senile idiot! They cooked up the narrative within 24 hours of her loss, and suckers like you have been falling for it ever since.

  4. Release the redacted Democratic memo, with sufficient remaining material to determine if there are tracks of classified information, such as sources and methods. You can redact the actual names and relevant information, while still leaving enough of the remaining text that you could tell the content was too detailed.

    The Republican memo obviously contained no classified information, and the FBI’s and Democrats’ assertion that it would end life on Earth were deliberately false.

    If they do not release the redacted Democratic memo, then the public will not be able to judge for itself.

    I disagree with the President’s sending it back to Democrats. If his accusation is true, and they loaded the memo with phrases predicted to trigger it being held back, in order to have a platform, then he has played into their hands. Now, they can completely rewrite the memo into something completely harmless, which he can release, and then there will be a hue and cry that it should never have been held up.

    He should not send it back. Redact what is truly dangerous, and release it. Let the public decide.

    I would like to add that not a single Democrat voted to release the Republican memo, yet the Republicans on the Intel Committee voted to release the Democratic memo. Republicans who have read the Democratic memo claim that it does not refute the point of their own memo, that the dossier, which was opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton and was unverified, was the reason why the FISA court granted surveillance on an American citizen. This was a political hit job that makes Watergate seem like a playground sandbox quarrel.

    Release The Democratic Memo AND the redacted underlying information. Treat the US as a nation of adult able to make up their own minds.

  5. Not a fan of Trump but from a constitutional view – priority #1 should be disbarring and criminally prosecuting the Bush torture attorneys. For those fearing Trump’s unAmerican authoritarian mindset, this action it would create an immediate “deterrent” to Trump’s torture-friendly attorneys from perpetrating future war crimes.

    Priority #2 should be for Congress to restrain abuses of the Espionage Act so it can’t be used against journalists, legal whistleblowers and websites like this one.

    Priority #3 should be making both the DOJ and our Judicial Branch “non-political” and totally independent – independent enough to disbar and prosecute torture attorneys that committed legal malpractice.

    Justice delayed is justice denied. Once we take care of these things, then we can focus on Trump! That action would benefit politicians of both parties.

  6. We already know what the sources and methods of the FBI and other IC units/contractors are: lies, contempt for the rule of law, massive theft of public money, protection of the powerful, torture and massive illegal spying on the population (to name but a few). These types of things are only “hidden” from people who are willfully ignorant of these lawless organizations. Anyone else is using that excuse in a very cynical manner, to hide wrongdoing by the oligarchy and its govt. minions.

    Release the memo and the underlying documents. NOW.

  7. That fluke is the electoral college. Even a simple man understands this is how we elect presidents. If you want to get rid of the electoral college then maybe we should get rid of the senate and just go with the House of Representatives. Just use a simple up and down vote, and go with that.

    • Maybe we should just get rid of states altogether. I’m sure that would make everyone happy. Well, maybe not folks in Wyoming or North Dakota. Maybe just the folks in California and New York. On second thought maybe we should take a minute and think this through…

  8. Turley said, “The content of these memos is separate from their classification.”

    Nonsense. If the content [a.k.a. information] of the Democratic rebuttal memo reveals sources and methods necessary to pursue ongoing investigations into threats facing our national security, then that content [information] meets the standard for–indeed, is the basis for–classification.

    Turley also said, “The FBI said that the release of the [Nunes] memo would cause “grave” consequences to national security. When the memo was released, the public found that it was devoid of anything even remotely sensitive, let alone the disclosure of “sources and methods.”

    That is at least the third time that Turley has misstated the objections of FBI Director Wray. The Nunes memo committed errors of omission that could not be corrected without declassifying additional classified information that would reveal sources and methods necessary to pursue ongoing investigations into threats facing our national security. That additional classified information is likely to inform the contents of the Democratic memo that rebuts the Nunes memo. That there was no damage done to national security following disclosure of the Nunes memo in way whatsoever demonstrates that no damage will be done to national security following disclosure of the Democratic rebuttal memo.

    Turley also said, “It is now of paramount importance for the public to confirm who has been using our national security laws to spread false information, whether inside Congress or inside the FBI.”

    That much is regrettably true. It is also why FBI Director Wray objected to the release of the Nunes memo. The only way to correct the smear campaign that Trump and Nunes have waged against the FBI and the DOJ is to declassify properly classified information the disclosure of which will do damage to our national security by revealing sources and methods necessary to pursue ongoing investigations. The FBI won’t do that. The DOJ probably won’t do that. And The POTUS, Trump will not do it without heavily redacting any and all information that verifies or corroborates any of the allegations in the Steele dossier–including the dossier’s allegations against Carter Page. Those redactions will leave the Nunes memo unrebutted. And the Trump smear campaign against the FBI will continue apace.

    • Correction: A key phrase in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph above should have been written . . . in no way whatsoever demonstrates . . .

    • Not sure where you are coming from. There is so much that we don’t know and may never know about this – but if our government can/will spy on us at the behest of people who don’t like us – based to any extent on unverified accusations from our enemy – then we are all in trouble and we have squandered the liberty that many have died for. I don’t need to know any more than that to know that someone(s) need to be held accountable and punished to the greatest extent of the law – including the FISA court judges. Certainly those facts can be verified without exposing sources and methods. Until it can be proven otherwise, that argument, to me, is only a smokescreen to protect the guilty.

    • Do you think anybody is falling for your specious argument???

      Let see, “Oh noes! The Memo contains stuff that is harmful to national security!” gets morphed into “Oh noes! The Memo OMITS stuff that is harmful to national security! – – – sooo somebody else has to release the omitted stuff, which is the Democrats!”

      All while staying away from criticizing the Democrats. Repeating the DNC Talking Points is making you sound even more like an idiot.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  9. This all started with powerfully placed people in our government that just won’t accept the simple fact that Donald Trump won the election. Sorry folks I’m just a simple man.

    • The Donald won by something of a fluke. Not clear the alternative would have been better, in an alternative universe…

      • David Benson – Trump won because he out-campaigned Hillary, who ran a lousy campaign. Even her husband couldn’t believe how bad it was. Styx was able to correctly name all the states that each would win, except Wisconson because he discovered they were polling wrong. Several independent commenters called Trump to win, but the Lamestream Media went with the meme that Hillary had an 80% lock.

        For God’s sake, the Lamestream media even predicted Hillary would win Arizona. She campaigned here once. We do not have our lips glued to John McCain’s butt. We are very independent voters. We were the first to have all of our major offices filled by women but from different parties. Not sure any state has done it since. Jeff Flake could not raise enough money to run in the primary and had to drop out of the Senate. Right now, I am supporting a woman in the primary to replace him on the Republican ticket (independents get to vote for either the Republicans or Democrats in the primary).

  10. Not so sure I would stop at DNC and anything connected to the Clintons but look strongly at the whole spider web too include the connectioin betwen RINOs and Socialist Democrats and DINOs and certain foreign ideology advocates of wealth and power.

  11. The release of the Nunes memo, which was crafted from select items of a larger file, sets the precedent for the release of the Democrat memo which contains clarifying parts of that larger file. That the issue of national security could be a determining factor has already been addressed. Releasing the Nunes memo did not threaten the security of the nation.

    The only threat here seems to have been to the reputation of the FBI and the Nunes memo has already painted the FBI in a dim light, in its drive to smear the Democrats. It is doubtful that anyone Republican or Democrat believes that either the Trump or the Clinton campaigns were above searching for ‘dirt’ on the other. The Nunes memo infers that the FBI proceeded to investigate a Russian connection with the Trump campaign on the input of a hired foreign researcher that was biased against Trump becoming President. It would seem that the FBI would want the Democrat memo released if it illustrates that the reasoning behind the FBI investigations does indeed include other elements of greater and more varied substance.

    Furthermore, when the present investigating is completed, all this will be disclosed in one way or another. This is where a Snowden would come in handy.

    • “That the issue of national security could be a determining factor has already been addressed. Releasing the Nunes memo did not threaten the security of the nation”.
      This is supposedly an argument that “the release of the Nunes memo….set the precedent for the release of the Democratic memo”.
      A. When the Nunes memo was completed by the GOP majority of the committee, it was reviewed by the White House and the DOJ/ FBI.
      It isn’t known what material might have been redacted between the time that the GOP memo was presented for review to the White House and DOJ/ FBI, and the time it was released to the media.
      And the FINAL version of that memo that was released to the public did put to rest possible concerns about a threat to national security.
      B. The Schiff memo will be released at some point, in some form. So in that sense, the release of the Nunes memo did set the stage for release of the Schiff memo.
      The current debate is whether Schiff deliberately “salted” his memo with classified material that he knew would not be released.
      The contents of the Schiff memo in its current form are unknown, so it’s not possible to determine if Schiff is playing it straight, or if he intentionally made a point of submitting a memo that he knew would be blocked.
      Since we, in the public, are not privy to the specific concerns raised about either the Nunes or the Schiff memo, it’s not enough to say that the release of the Nunes memo somehow gives Schiff carte blanche to release his memo in its current form.
      There will be more back and forth involving Schiff, the White House, and the DOJ/ FBI.

      • Tom Nash said, “The current debate is whether Schiff deliberately “salted” his memo with classified material that he knew would not be released.”

        O! For crying out loud, Nash. You can’t even choose your own words, anymore–if you ever could. The only way to rebut the errors of omission in the Nunes memo is to refer to the properly classified information that the Nunes memo omitted. So! Yes! Of course Schiff refers to the properly classified information that the Nunes memo omitted for the express purpose of rebutting the Nunes memo. To say that Schiff “salted” the rebuttal memo with the classified information that the Nunes memo omitted so that the rebuttal memo would not be released is to shift the blame from the Trump/Nunes smear campaign against the FBI and the DOJ to the person who is trying to rebut the Trump/Nunes smear campaign against the FBI and the DOJ–namely, Schiff. And that blame-shifting argument is twisted beyond recognition as anything other than FUBAR.

        If you’ll recall, somebody on this blawg has repeatedly stated that the Nunes memo could not be rebutted with anything else other than properly classified information the disclosure of which would reveal sources and methods necessary to pursue ongoing investigations into threats facing our national security. So, rather than blaming Nunes on Schiff, why don’t you just give us all your very best Bronx cheer, instead???

        • Oh, for crying out loud, L4D, can’t you refute a statement made without distorting it?
          If you have been following the news, you know, or should know, that the issue of Schiff intentionally submitting a memo he knew would not be acceptable, because of sensitive classified information.
          You have concluded that the Schiff rebuttal memo is hamstrung because rebutting the Nunes memo requires disclosure of classified information that would damage national security interests.
          Somehow, you “know” that this is the case, and you probably “know” what the information is that can’t be used by Schiff in rebuttal to the Nunes memo.
          The fact is that you don’t know jack****, unless you have an inside source within the DOJ, the FBI, and the minority members of the House Intelligence Committes.
          You like to submit your speculation as if it were fact, and you don’t worry about the fact that ” you don’t know what you don’t know”.
          You want to present your guesses as fact? Fine.
          We can throw those guesses into a pool of other guesses about the current issues surrounding the Schiff memo.

          • There was a lawyer who, commenting on the testimony of a witness, said that the witness reminded him
            of the legend ” about frogs leaping from the mouth of a perfidious man every time he speaks. The frogs representing the lies leaping out and you have to chase them down to catch them.
            If he talks for five minutes, it takes an, hour just to straighten out the record.”
            Exchanges with L4D often seem to turn into the “frog catching” scenario.
            Even if I had unlimited time to untangle her distortions, my lack of patience with the stunts that she pulls prevents me from spending hour after hour playing the “frog chasing” game.

          • A lawyer once commented on the testimony of a witness, saying that the witness reminded him
            of the legend ” about frogs leaping from the mouth of a perfidious man every time he speaks. The frogs representing the lies leaping out and you have to chase them down to catch them.
            If he talks for five minutes, it takes an, hour just to straighten out the record.”
            Exchanges with L4D often seem to turn into the “frog catching” scenario.
            Even if I had unlimited time to untangle her distortions, my lack of patience with the stunts that she pulls prevents me from spending hour after hour playing the “frog chasing” game.

  12. “There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.” – George Washington

    • Meant to include more from the wise words in George Washington’s Farewell Address where he warned us about the dangers of political parties:

      “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

      This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

      The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

      Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

      It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

      • Good points. Unfortunately, we did not heed his advice. Now the only cure is the criminalization of our politics. Elections in and of themselves do not solve these types of activities, the only effective tool is the willingness to inflict real pain on those who wish to steal our freedom and make no mistake stealing our freedom is what this is all about.

      • TBob,
        Excellent posts! For the political class, this boils down to national party security. And how do these politicians protect themselves? By forcing the voters to pick a side. The voters aren’t asked to know how well their representatives adhere to their oaths of office. No, they have been conditioned to believe their party is good and the other is evil. The greatest risk to party security is an electorate that rejects party politics altogether. Forcing the political class to develop platforms that align with their original purpose: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are measured by their fidelity to their oaths of office, would go a long way toward actual national security.

  13. “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” – John Adams

  14. The FBI and our intelligence agencies have been telling us for years that so much of their work is classified and not for public consumption.

    We only need to look at last year for their complaints about releasing information about the JFK assassination. 50 years old and they were still trying to withhold their ‘secrets’.

    I think if anyone has been paying attention the last couple of decades, when it comes to national security, the words of the FBI and NSA are meaningless.

  15. What did Obama know and when did he know it?

    Loretta Lynch knew that Comey was going to exonerate Hillary before she swore to support any decision Comey made.

    Page messaged Strzok that “it’s a real profile in [courage], since she knows no charges will be brought.”

    It’s beginning to shape up as a grand conspiracy by the FBI/DOJ/”deep state” Coups “R” Us!

    • This “Deep State” organization you’ve discovered sounds foreboding; please elaborate further. It seems that your dogged sleuthing has uncovered a vast cabal of ne’er-do-wells who are hell-bent on eradicating our ‘Merican way of live and love of apple pie, or to fluoridate our precious bodily fluids, or some other unfathomable, nefarious and dastardly deed.

      this is to “Inspector Clouseau” Georgie

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s