Greenwald writes: "As Ellison's momentum built, the Obama White House worked
to recruit Perez to run against Ellison. They succeeded, and Perez announced
his candidacy on December 15 - a full month after Ellison announced. Why did
the White House work to recruit someone to sink Ellison?"
Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota. (photo: Brendan Smalowski/AFP)
<https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/key-question-about-dnc-race-why-did-whi
te-house-recruit-perez-to-run-against-ellison/>
Key Question About DNC Race: Why Did Obama White House Recruit Perez to Run
Against Ellison?
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
24 February 17
Members of the Democratic National Committee will meet on Saturday to choose
their new chair, replacing the disgraced
<http://www.mediaite.com/online/donna-braziles-deception-is-a-symbol-for-the
-big-media-lie/> interim chair
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/cnn-severs-ties-with-donna-b
razile-230534> Donna Brazile, who replaced the disgraced five-year chair
<https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/dnc-wasserman-schultz-resi
gns/492836/> Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Even though the outcome is extremely
unlikely to change the (failed
<http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13576488/democratic-party
-smoking-pile-rubble> ) fundamentals of the party, the race has become
something of an impassioned proxy war
<http://www.vox.com/2016/12/30/14062696/dnc-ellison-sanders> replicating
the 2016 primary fight: between the Clinton/Obama establishment wing (which
largely backs Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez, who vehemently supported
<https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4429> Clinton) and the
insurgent Sanders wing (which backs Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever
elected to the U.S. Congress, who was an early Sanders supporter).
The New Republics Clio Chang has a great, detailed analysis
<https://newrepublic.com/article/140847/case-tom-perez-makes-no-sense> of
the contest. She asks the key question about Perezs candidacy that has long
hovered and yet has never been answered. As Chang correctly notes,
supporters of Perez insist, not unreasonably, that he is materially
indistinguishable from Ellison in terms of ideology (despite his support for
TPP <http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/tom-perez-trade-pacific-225067> ,
seemingly grounded in loyalty to Obama). This, she argues, is why the case
for Tom Perez makes no sense: After all, if Perez is like Ellison in
both his politics and ideology why bother fielding him in the first
place?
The timeline here is critical. Ellison announced
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ellison-announces-for-dnc-chair-23133
5> his candidacy on November 15, armed with endorsements that spanned the
range of the party: Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raúl Grijalva, and various
unions on the left, along with establishment stalwarts such as Chuck
Schumer, Amy Klobuchar, and Harry Reid. He looked to be the clear
frontrunner.
But as Ellisons momentum built, the Obama White House worked to recruit
Perez to run against Ellison. They succeeded, and Perez announced his
candidacy
<http://www.vox.com/2016/12/15/13967412/tom-perez-keith-ellison-dnc> on
December 15 a full month after Ellison announced. Why did the White House
work to recruit someone to sink Ellison? If Perez and Ellison are so
ideologically indistinguishable, why was it so important to the Obama circle
and the Clinton circle to find someone capable of preventing Ellisons
election? Whats the rationale? None has ever been provided.
I cant recommend Changs analysis highly enough on one key aspect of what
motivated the recruitment of Perez: to ensure that the Democratic
establishment maintains its fatal grip on the party and, in particular, to
prevent Sanders followers from having any say in the partys direction and
identity:
There is one real difference between the two: Ellison has captured the
support of the left wing.
It appears that the underlying reason some
Democrats prefer Perez over Ellison has nothing to do with ideology, but
rather his loyalty to the Obama wing. As the head of the DNC, Perez would
allow that wing to retain more control, even if Obama-ites are loath to
admit it.
And its not just Obama- and Clinton-ites that could see some power slip
away with an Ellison-headed DNC. Paid DNC consultants also have a vested
interest in maintaining the DNC status quo. Nomiki Konst, who has
extensively covered the nuts and bolts of the DNC race, asked Perez how he
felt about conflicts of interest
<https://tytnetwork.com/2017/02/13/secretary-tom-perez-answers-nomiki-konsts
-tough-questions/> within the committee specifically, DNC members who
also have contracts with the committee. Perez dodged the issue, advocating
for a big tent. In contrast, in a forum last month, Ellison firmly stated
<https://www.c-span.org/video/?422372-1/joyann-reid-hosts-dnc-chair-candidat
es-forum> , We are battling the consultant-ocracy.
In other words, Perez, despite his progressive credentials, is viewed with
good reason
<https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09/tom-perez-apologizes-for-telling-the-tr
uth-showing-why-democrats-flaws-urgently-need-attention/> as a reliable
functionary and trustworthy loyalist by those who have controlled the party
and run it into the ground, whereas Ellison is viewed as an outsider who may
not be as controllable and, worse, may lead the Sanders contingent to
perceive that they have been integrated into and empowered within the party.
But theres an uglier and tawdrier aspect to this. Just over two weeks after
Ellison announced, the largest single funder of both the Democratic Party
and the Clinton campaign
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/haim-saban-power-rangers-hillar
y-clinton-top-donor> the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban
launched an incredibly toxic
<http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/03/politics/haim-saban-keith-ellison-anti-se
mite/> attack on Ellison, designed to signal his veto. He is clearly an
anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual, pronounced Saban about the
African-American Muslim congressman, adding: Keith Ellison would be a
disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the
Democratic Party.
Saban has a long history not only of fanatical support for Israel Im a
one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel, he told
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/business/yourmoney/schlepping-to-moguldom
.html> the New York Times in 2004 about himself but also an ugly track
record of animus toward Muslims. As The Forward gently put it
<http://forward.com/opinion/national/325490/does-hillary-clinton-have-a-haim
-saban-problem/> , he is prone to a bit of anti-Muslim bigotry, including
when he said Muslims deserve more scrutiny and also called for profiling
and broader surveillance. In 2014, he teamed up with right-wing
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/billionaires-adelson-and-saban-at-o
dds-in-campaigns-unite-on-israel-and-hit-obama/2014/11/09/92a40f68-6835-11e4
-b053-65cea7903f2e_story.html?utm_term=.539cbaf6ecc2> billionaire Sheldon
Adelson to push a pro-Israel agenda. In that notorious NYT profile, he
attacked the ACLU for opposing Bush/Cheney civil liberties assaults and
said: On the issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk.
Theres no evidence that Sabans attack on Ellison is what motivated the
White House to recruit an opponent. But one would have to be indescribably
naïve about the ways of Washington to believe that such a vicious
denunciation by one of the partys most influential billionaire funders had
no effect at all.
The DNC headquarters was built with Sabans largesse: He donated $7 million
to build that building
<http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/05/10/the-influencer> , and he
previously served as chairman of the partys capital-expenditure campaign.
Heres how Mother Joness Andy Kroll, in a November profile
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/haim-saban-power-rangers-hillar
y-clinton-top-donor> , described the influence Saban wields within elite
Democratic circles:
No single political patron has done more for the Clintons over the span of
their careers. In the past 20 years, Saban and his wife have donated $2.4
million <https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/>
to the Clintons various campaigns and at least $15 million to the Clinton
Foundation
<https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+t
o+%2425%2C000%2C000> , where Cheryl Saban serves as a board member. Haim
Saban prides himself on his top-giver status: If Im not No. 1, Im going
to cut my balls off, he once remarked
<http://upstart.bizjournals.com/executives/features/2008/08/13/Profile-of-Fu
ndraiser-Haim-Saban.html?page=all> on the eve of a Hillary fundraiser. The
Sabans have given more than $10 million
<https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib.php?cmte=C00495861&cycl
e=2016> to Priorities USA, making them among the largest funders of the
pro-Hillary super-PAC. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential campaign, he
vowed to spend whatever it takes to elect her.
The ties go beyond money. The Clintons have flown on the Sabans private
jet, stayed at their LA home, and vacationed at their Acapulco estate. The
two families watched the 2004 election results together at the Clintons
home, and Bill Clinton gave the final toast at one of Cheryl Sabans
birthday parties. Haim Saban is chummy enough with Hillary that he felt
comfortable telling her that she sounded too shrill on the stump. Why are
you shouting all the time? he says
<http://forward.com/news/346450/when-haim-saban-told-hillary-clinton-to-stop
-shouting/> he told her. Its drilling a hole in my head. Clinton
campaign emails released by WikiLeaks in October contain dozens of messages
to, from, and referencing Saban. And they show that he has no qualms about
pressing Clinton and her aides on her position toward Israel. She needs to
differentiate herself from Obama on Israel, he wrote
<https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4553> in June 2015 to
Clintons top aides.
When Clinton, during the campaign, denounced the boycott movement devoted to
defeating Israeli occupation, she did it in the form of public letter to
Saban
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2158218-hillary-clintons-letter-to-
haim-saban-against-bds.html> . To believe that Democrats assign no weight to
Sabans adamantly stated veto of Ellison is to believe in the tooth fairy.
Sabans attack predictably spawned media reports
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/jewish-groups-and-unions-grow-uneasy-w
ith-keith-ellison.html> that Jewish groups had grown uncomfortable with
Ellisons candidacy (the ADL pronounced his past criticisms of Israel
disqualifying), while whispers arose
<https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman/status/797120114042793984?ref_src=twsrc
%5Etfw> that the last thing the Democratic Party needed to win back Rust
Belt voters was a black Muslim as the face of the party (even though the
Detroit-born Ellison himself is from the Rust Belt
<http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/will-keith-ellison-move-the-de
mocrats-left> ).
As both Chang and Voxs Jeff Stein have argued
<http://www.vox.com/2016/12/30/14062696/dnc-ellison-sanders> , the fact that
DNC chair is a largely functionary position, with little real power over
party policy or messaging, is all the more reason to throw Sanders
supporters a symbolic bone. If Democrats were smart, this would be the
perfect opportunity to capture that energized left-wing movement without
having to make any real concessions on what matters most to them: loyalty to
their corporate donor base.
But its hard to conclude that a party that has navigated itself into such
collapse, which deliberately and knowingly chose
<https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-h
uge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/> the weakest
candidate, who managed to lose to Donald J. Trump, is one that is thinking
wisely and strategically. As Chang persuasively argues, it seems Democratic
leaders prioritize ensuring that the left has no influence in their party
over strengthening itself to beat the Trump-led Republicans:
The same could be said of todays battle over the DNC and the push to
install a loyal technocrat like Perez. This reluctance to cede control comes
despite the fact that Democrats have lost over 1,000 state legislature seats
since 2009. There is no case for Perez that cannot be made for Ellison,
while Ellison is able to energize progressives in ways that Perez cannot.
The question that will be answered on Saturday is whether Democrats have
more urgent priorities than denying power to the left.
That view, one must grant, is deeply cynical of Democratic leaders. But
besides fearing the wrath of Saban what else can explain why they were so
eager to recruit someone to block Keith Ellison?
If the plan to sink Ellison succeeds, the message that will be heard
fairly or not is that the Democratic Party continues to venerate loyalty
to its oligarchical donors above all else, and that preventing left-wing
influence is a critical goal. In other words, the message will be that the
party which to date has refused to engage in any form of self-reckoning
is steadfastly committed to following exactly the same course, led by the
same factions, that has ushered in such disaster.
<http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota. (photo: Brendan Smalowski/AFP)
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/key-question-about-dnc-race-why-did-whit
e-house-recruit-perez-to-run-against-ellison/https://theintercept.com/2017/0
2/24/key-question-about-dnc-race-why-did-white-house-recruit-perez-to-run-ag
ainst-ellison/
Key Question About DNC Race: Why Did Obama White House Recruit Perez to Run
Against Ellison?
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
24 February 17
embers of the Democratic National Committee will meet on Saturday to choose
their new chair, replacing the disgraced
<http://www.mediaite.com/online/donna-braziles-deception-is-a-symbol-for-the
-big-media-lie/> interim chair
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/cnn-severs-ties-with-donna-b
razile-230534> Donna Brazile, who replaced the disgraced five-year chair
<https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/dnc-wasserman-schultz-resi
gns/492836/> Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Even though the outcome is extremely
unlikely to change the (failed
<http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13576488/democratic-party
-smoking-pile-rubble> ) fundamentals of the party, the race has become
something of an impassioned proxy war
<http://www.vox.com/2016/12/30/14062696/dnc-ellison-sanders> replicating
the 2016 primary fight: between the Clinton/Obama establishment wing (which
largely backs Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez, who vehemently supported
<https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4429> Clinton) and the
insurgent Sanders wing (which backs Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever
elected to the U.S. Congress, who was an early Sanders supporter).
The New Republics Clio Chang has a great, detailed analysis
<https://newrepublic.com/article/140847/case-tom-perez-makes-no-sense> of
the contest. She asks the key question about Perezs candidacy that has long
hovered and yet has never been answered. As Chang correctly notes,
supporters of Perez insist, not unreasonably, that he is materially
indistinguishable from Ellison in terms of ideology (despite his support for
TPP <http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/tom-perez-trade-pacific-225067> ,
seemingly grounded in loyalty to Obama). This, she argues, is why the case
for Tom Perez makes no sense: After all, if Perez is like Ellison in
both his politics and ideology why bother fielding him in the first
place?
The timeline here is critical. Ellison announced
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ellison-announces-for-dnc-chair-23133
5> his candidacy on November 15, armed with endorsements that spanned the
range of the party: Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raúl Grijalva, and various
unions on the left, along with establishment stalwarts such as Chuck
Schumer, Amy Klobuchar, and Harry Reid. He looked to be the clear
frontrunner.
But as Ellisons momentum built, the Obama White House worked to recruit
Perez to run against Ellison. They succeeded, and Perez announced his
candidacy
<http://www.vox.com/2016/12/15/13967412/tom-perez-keith-ellison-dnc> on
December 15 a full month after Ellison announced. Why did the White House
work to recruit someone to sink Ellison? If Perez and Ellison are so
ideologically indistinguishable, why was it so important to the Obama circle
and the Clinton circle to find someone capable of preventing Ellisons
election? Whats the rationale? None has ever been provided.
I cant recommend Changs analysis highly enough on one key aspect of what
motivated the recruitment of Perez: to ensure that the Democratic
establishment maintains its fatal grip on the party and, in particular, to
prevent Sanders followers from having any say in the partys direction and
identity:
There is one real difference between the two: Ellison has captured the
support of the left wing.
It appears that the underlying reason some
Democrats prefer Perez over Ellison has nothing to do with ideology, but
rather his loyalty to the Obama wing. As the head of the DNC, Perez would
allow that wing to retain more control, even if Obama-ites are loath to
admit it.
And its not just Obama- and Clinton-ites that could see some power slip
away with an Ellison-headed DNC. Paid DNC consultants also have a vested
interest in maintaining the DNC status quo. Nomiki Konst, who has
extensively covered the nuts and bolts of the DNC race, asked Perez how he
felt about conflicts of interest
<https://tytnetwork.com/2017/02/13/secretary-tom-perez-answers-nomiki-konsts
-tough-questions/> within the committee specifically, DNC members who
also have contracts with the committee. Perez dodged the issue, advocating
for a big tent. In contrast, in a forum last month, Ellison firmly stated
<https://www.c-span.org/video/?422372-1/joyann-reid-hosts-dnc-chair-candidat
es-forum> , We are battling the consultant-ocracy.
In other words, Perez, despite his progressive credentials, is viewed with
good reason
<https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09/tom-perez-apologizes-for-telling-the-tr
uth-showing-why-democrats-flaws-urgently-need-attention/> as a reliable
functionary and trustworthy loyalist by those who have controlled the party
and run it into the ground, whereas Ellison is viewed as an outsider who may
not be as controllable and, worse, may lead the Sanders contingent to
perceive that they have been integrated into and empowered within the party.
But theres an uglier and tawdrier aspect to this. Just over two weeks after
Ellison announced, the largest single funder of both the Democratic Party
and the Clinton campaign
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/haim-saban-power-rangers-hillar
y-clinton-top-donor> the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban
launched an incredibly toxic attack
<http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/03/politics/haim-saban-keith-ellison-anti-se
mite/> on Ellison, designed to signal his veto. He is clearly an
anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual, pronounced Saban about the
African-American Muslim congressman, adding: Keith Ellison would be a
disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the
Democratic Party.
Saban has a long history not only of fanatical support for Israel Im a
one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel, he told
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/business/yourmoney/schlepping-to-moguldom
.html> the New York Times in 2004 about himself but also an ugly track
record of animus toward Muslims. As The Forward gently put it
<http://forward.com/opinion/national/325490/does-hillary-clinton-have-a-haim
-saban-problem/> , he is prone to a bit of anti-Muslim bigotry, including
when he said Muslims deserve more scrutiny and also called for profiling
and broader surveillance. In 2014, he teamed up with right-wing billionaire
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/billionaires-adelson-and-saban-at-o
dds-in-campaigns-unite-on-israel-and-hit-obama/2014/11/09/92a40f68-6835-11e4
-b053-65cea7903f2e_story.html?utm_term=.539cbaf6ecc2> Sheldon Adelson to
push a pro-Israel agenda. In that notorious NYT profile, he attacked the
ACLU for opposing Bush/Cheney civil liberties assaults and said: On the
issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk.
Theres no evidence that Sabans attack on Ellison is what motivated the
White House to recruit an opponent. But one would have to be indescribably
naïve about the ways of Washington to believe that such a vicious
denunciation by one of the partys most influential billionaire funders had
no effect at all.
The DNC headquarters was built with Sabans largesse: He donated $7 million
to build that building
<http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/05/10/the-influencer> , and he
previously served as chairman of the partys capital-expenditure campaign.
Heres how Mother Joness Andy Kroll, in a November profile
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/haim-saban-power-rangers-hillar
y-clinton-top-donor> , described the influence Saban wields within elite
Democratic circles:
No single political patron has done more for the Clintons over the span of
their careers. In the past 20 years, Saban and his wife have donated $2.4
million <https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/>
to the Clintons various campaigns and at least $15 million to the Clinton
Foundation
<https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+t
o+%2425%2C000%2C000> , where Cheryl Saban serves as a board member. Haim
Saban prides himself on his top-giver status: If Im not No. 1, Im going
to cut my balls off, he once remarked
<http://upstart.bizjournals.com/executives/features/2008/08/13/Profile-of-Fu
ndraiser-Haim-Saban.html?page=all> on the eve of a Hillary fundraiser. The
Sabans have given more than $10 million
<https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib.php?cmte=C00495861&cycl
e=2016> to Priorities USA, making them among the largest funders of the
pro-Hillary super-PAC. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential campaign, he
vowed to spend whatever it takes to elect her.
The ties go beyond money. The Clintons have flown on the Sabans private
jet, stayed at their LA home, and vacationed at their Acapulco estate. The
two families watched the 2004 election results together at the Clintons
home, and Bill Clinton gave the final toast at one of Cheryl Sabans
birthday parties. Haim Saban is chummy enough with Hillary that he felt
comfortable telling her that she sounded too shrill on the stump. Why are
you shouting all the time? he says
<http://forward.com/news/346450/when-haim-saban-told-hillary-clinton-to-stop
-shouting/> he told her. Its drilling a hole in my head. Clinton
campaign emails released by WikiLeaks in October contain dozens of messages
to, from, and referencing Saban. And they show that he has no qualms about
pressing Clinton and her aides on her position toward Israel. She needs to
differentiate herself from Obama on Israel, he wrote
<https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4553> in June 2015 to
Clintons top aides.
When Clinton, during the campaign, denounced the boycott movement devoted to
defeating Israeli occupation, she did it in the form of public letter to
Saban
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2158218-hillary-clintons-letter-to-
haim-saban-against-bds.html> . To believe that Democrats assign no weight to
Sabans adamantly stated veto of Ellison is to believe in the tooth fairy.
Sabans attack predictably spawned media reports
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/jewish-groups-and-unions-grow-uneasy-w
ith-keith-ellison.html> that Jewish groups had grown uncomfortable with
Ellisons candidacy (the ADL pronounced his past criticisms of Israel
disqualifying), while whispers arose
<https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman/status/797120114042793984?ref_src=twsrc
%5Etfw> that the last thing the Democratic Party needed to win back Rust
Belt voters was a black Muslim as the face of the party (even though the
Detroit-born Ellison himself is from the Rust Belt
<http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/will-keith-ellison-move-the-de
mocrats-left> ).
As both Chang and Voxs Jeff Stein have argued
<http://www.vox.com/2016/12/30/14062696/dnc-ellison-sanders> , the fact that
DNC chair is a largely functionary position, with little real power over
party policy or messaging, is all the more reason to throw Sanders
supporters a symbolic bone. If Democrats were smart, this would be the
perfect opportunity to capture that energized left-wing movement without
having to make any real concessions on what matters most to them: loyalty to
their corporate donor base.
But its hard to conclude that a party that has navigated itself into such
collapse, which deliberately and knowingly chose
<https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-h
uge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/> the weakest
candidate, who managed to lose to Donald J. Trump, is one that is thinking
wisely and strategically. As Chang persuasively argues, it seems Democratic
leaders prioritize ensuring that the left has no influence in their party
over strengthening itself to beat the Trump-led Republicans:
The same could be said of todays battle over the DNC and the push to
install a loyal technocrat like Perez. This reluctance to cede control comes
despite the fact that Democrats have lost over 1,000 state legislature seats
since 2009. There is no case for Perez that cannot be made for Ellison,
while Ellison is able to energize progressives in ways that Perez cannot.
The question that will be answered on Saturday is whether Democrats have
more urgent priorities than denying power to the left.
That view, one must grant, is deeply cynical of Democratic leaders. But
besides fearing the wrath of Saban what else can explain why they were so
eager to recruit someone to block Keith Ellison?
If the plan to sink Ellison succeeds, the message that will be heard
fairly or not is that the Democratic Party continues to venerate loyalty
to its oligarchical donors above all else, and that preventing left-wing
influence is a critical goal. In other words, the message will be that the
party which to date has refused to engage in any form of self-reckoning
is steadfastly committed to following exactly the same course, led by the
same factions, that has ushered in such disaster.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socializehttp://e-max.it/posizioname
nto-siti-web/socialize
Attachment:
image001.jpg
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
image002.jpg
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
image003.jpg
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
image004.png
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
image005.png
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
image006.png
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
image007.png
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
image008.png
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
image009.png
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
image010.png
Description: Binary data
