Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
squistion

Trump and the FBI

Recommended Posts

On 2/11/2020 at 8:07 PM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Use the levers of government to punish your enemies and your friends go easy. We're there kids. 

Why in the world would these guys not put their thumb on the election scales? Of course they would, did and will. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course neither Comey or McCabe were charged.  Prosecutors don't indict cops unless it's really really egregious. There's a brotherhood. 

Edited by The Z Machine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 1:49 PM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

@Bozeman Bruiser - The original DOJ IG Horowitz report was posted here. It was also discussed above and after, including detail about McCabe.

The decision by the grand jury to decline prosecution is in in this thread, and IIRC so is the decision by the Trump/Barr DOJ to deny prosecution. However the only reason we know about this is because of an independent FOIA lawsuit.

This is some of the detail from the latest hearing in that case.

This is Judge Walton during the 9/30/19 hearing:

Quote

"I don't think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted. I just think it's a banana republic when we go down that road."

Quote

"I'm just happy when I was in the Justice Department those type of things were not taking place that were putting either perceived or actual pressure on the office as to whether you prosecute somebody for a criminal offense."

- He was talking about the prosecution of McCabe.

Also this from November:

Quote

 

A federal judge on Thursday questioned whether the U.S. Justice Department had “manipulated” him into stalling the release of records related to Andrew McCabe, the former deputy FBI director who has faced a criminal investigation since last year centered on whether he lied to federal agents.

At a hearing in Washington’s federal trial court, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton grew animated as he grilled Justice Department lawyers about their recent shift in a lawsuit brought by the watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington. The group is seeking records related to an internal FBI inquiry into McCabe’s dealings with the news media.

For months, the Justice Department had argued that records should be withheld on the ground that they related to an ongoing law enforcement proceeding. But on Wednesday, the Justice Department abandoned that argument for keeping the records secret, signaling that prosecutors could be standing down from pursuing charges against McCabe. Prosecutors still haven’t publicly stated the status of any ongoing investigation.

Walton appeared struck by the sudden shift in the litigation, saying Thursday he had agreed to delays based on the Justice Department’s position.

“I do have some concern about whether I was manipulated. … It does cause me concern,” Walton said. ...

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bozeman BruiserThese are the documents obtained in the Foia suit about McCabe.

- You can see on p. 133 the email where McCabe informed Comey he was working with the WSJ. The basic underlying basis for the claim that McCabe had lied was that supposedly he had not informed the FBI Director of his activities on that. Clearly the DOJ was never going to be able to prove that.

- McCabe has an ongoing lawsuit against the DOJ, which is a separate process, so I'm guessing more will come out of that about what happened here.

- There's more here. - Obviously you don't have to accept the analysis or the claims here but the original source documents are available in case you ever have the curiosity to determine whatever you may yourself.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...

The tensions between the office, the Justice Department and the White House date back further than the tumult in the Stone case. They have been simmering since at least last summer, when the office’s investigation of Andrew G. McCabe, a former top F.B.I. official whom the president had long targeted, began to fall apart.

Mr. Shea’s predecessor, Jessie K. Liu, a lawyer whom Mr. Trump had appointed to lead the office in 2017, pressed the McCabe case even after one team of prosecutors concluded that they could not win a conviction. After a second team was brought in and also failed to deliver a grand jury indictment, Ms. Liu’s relationship with Mr. Barr grew strained, people close to them said. She left the position this year, though she and Mr. Barr have both stressed to associates that her departure was amicable.

...

The McCabe case had always been politically charged: Investigators were scrutinizing an accomplished former top law enforcement official whom the president had repeatedly attacked for his deep involvement in the Russia investigation. The inquiry focused on whether he misled internal investigators examining the source of disclosures of sensitive information in a Wall Street Journal article.

But the case eventually fell apart because a number of hurdles proved too steep, including problematic witnesses and prosecutors’ concerns that Mr. Barr’s handling of the special counsel report would make their case look politicized, people familiar with the investigation said.

The two main prosecutors, Kamil Shields and David Kent, also came to believe that they could not get a jury to convict Mr. McCabe, the people said. They concluded that Mr. Trump’s relentless broadsides against Mr. McCabe had poisoned any potential jury, and they were worried about the appearance of a vindictive prosecution: Mr. McCabe revealed in early 2019 that he had opened the inquiry into whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice by firing James B. Comey as F.B.I. director.

Ms. Shields eventually left the case and the department. Mr. Kent also decided to quit the case. Two other prosecutors known for their aggressiveness, Molly Gaston and J.P. Cooney, took over.

An indictment seemed imminent after Ms. Liu and the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, rejected pleas in September from Mr. McCabe’s lawyers to drop the investigation. The grand jury hearing the case was reconvened after months of inactivity, but the prosecution never appeared to advance.

The investigators’ difficulties began to creep into view in news reports, creating an awkward situation for Ms. Liu.

For months, her office refused to tell Mr. McCabe’s lawyers what was happening with the case. Informing a defense team eager to publicly clear its client would have almost certainly provoked the president’s anger, people close to Mr. McCabe speculated.

While the case remained in limbo, Ms. Liu had difficult conversations about it with officials at the main Justice Department, according to two people briefed on their discussions. ...

NYT

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Ms. Liu sought a top Treasury Department job, and Mr. Barr made no attempt to stop her, according to three people briefed on her job search. A new role outside the Justice Department seemed to put to rest political issues for both her and Mr. Barr. Ms. Liu said she took the Treasury job only because she saw it as a good opportunity, people close to her said.

But Ms. Liu’s departure created unrest within her office.

She had initially emailed her office to say that she would remain in place until the Senate confirmed her to her new post, as is typical. But Mr. Barr then asked her to leave early in the new year, saying he was concerned he would have trouble finding a replacement if her confirmation process stretched on toward the end of Mr. Trump’s first term. Though Ms. Liu was taken aback, she eventually agreed to the terms but told few people in the U.S. attorney’s office.

 

- It's confirmed that Barr persuaded Liu to leave her position as the US Attorney for DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Liu wss leaving her office for the last time, she was heard saying, "they're going to do me, Ronnie." *

* not a real quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@squistion - Hey Squiz, I’m thinking of piling in detail about Trump’s war on the IC, State, DOD and other agencies besides DOJ in here. It just seems of a piece. I’ll leave it up to you if you want to change the thread title or if you think there’s a better thread for this or whatever, let me know, etc. - Thanks, have a good one.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

As Liu wss leaving her office for the last time, she was heard saying, "they're going to do me, Ronnie." *

* not a real quote

I think what Randy Credico has to say about his letter to the court in the Stone case was pretty revealing.

- Liu actually quit twice. It’s really unusual for a US Attorney to just quit and the DC position is especially plum. She’s obviously ethically driven but she clearly was trying to find a way out. So did Rachel Brand. The pressure comes in different ways for these folks, but have to remember, they can be threatened but also loved ones. I’m sure it’s been pretty harrowing for her. Now her career is stuck in limbo, she has no home, no place no position in US Government, her career.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we figured out who Mifsud is yet?  Is he still a Russian agent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Max Power said:

Have we figured out who Mifsud is yet?  Is he still a Russian agent?

Yes. That was discussed in Mueller’s and Horowitz’s reports. Mifsud was never discussed as a Russian agent, however he was in communication with Russian agents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Yes. That was discussed in Mueller’s and Horowitz’s reports. Mifsud was never discussed as a Russian agent, however he was in communication with Russian agents.

That's right, it was Comey who implied that about Mifsud. And Mifsud was never charged with lying to the FBI.

The newly declassified FBI 302s shed some interesting light on PapaD's FBI interviews.  It now looks like Mueller's team mislead the courts during sentencing.  Shocking from the FBI.  It really is.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Max Power said:

That's right, it was Comey who implied that about Mifsud. And Mifsud was never charged with lying to the FBI.

The newly declassified FBI 302s shed some interesting light on PapaD's FBI interviews.  It now looks like Mueller's team mislead the courts during sentencing.  Shocking from the FBI.  It really is.  

 

The FBI couldn’t find Mifsud again because Papadopoulas lies about his activities and whereabouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's "Deep State" hit list

- So... apparently people in the WH leading the executive purge include Clarence Thomas’ wife and Barbara Ledeen, whom Mueller describes as participating in the Peter Smith project to obtain Hillary’s email data.

- The effort to discredit Liu and destroy her Treasury nomination is truly disgusting 

>>The Jessie Liu memo: Shortly before withdrawing the nomination of the former D.C. U.S. attorney for a top Treasury role, the president reviewed a memo on Liu's alleged misdeeds, according to a source with direct knowledge.<<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The FBI couldn’t find Mifsud again because Papadopoulas lies about his activities and whereabouts.

That was the story wasn't it...

What if I told you the declassified 302s show PapaD told the FBI where to find Mifsud 3 times and they choose not go get him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max Power said:

That was the story wasn't it...

What if I told you the declassified 302s show PapaD told the FBI where to find Mifsud 3 times and they choose not go get him.  

I dunno, but I do know the Deep Dark State is so awful they’ve released the 302s to begin with. Glad to post it when possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I dunno, but I do know the Deep Dark State is so awful they’ve released the 302s to begin with. Glad to post it when possible.

https://vault.fbi.gov/special-counsel-mueller-investigation-records/special-counsel-mueller-investigation-records-part-04-of-05/view

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Lol I think we hit on the same thing at the same time. :banned:- I’m probably not if much cognitive use til Ash Wednesday I’m afraid.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max I guess what I recall is that Papadopoulas pleaded guilty to withholding the Mifsud info, not only to the FBI but also in open court. The judge heard it, considered it valid, accepted it. Papa cooperated and so only got 2 weeks. That’s on Papa’s own sworn evidence. I’m not sure what else you need even if we do look at the text of the 302.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Max I guess what I recall is that Papadopoulas pleaded guilty to withholding the Mifsud info, not only to the FBI but also in open court. The judge heard it, considered it valid, accepted it. Papa cooperated and so only got 2 weeks. That’s on Papa’s own sworn evidence. I’m not sure what else you need even if we do look at the text of the 302.

Because he got backed into a corner when Mueller asked the Judge for 6 months.  Those 302s clearly show he is cooperating with the FBI and trying to help them.  He gave them Mifsud 3 times and they failed to act.  So I find it insulting that the FBI would go to the courts and the press to say PapaD impeded their investigation and they couldn't get more information from Mifsud because of how uncooperative he was.  It's just a lie.  

It's not a good look for the FBI again to telling half truths.  The FBI let Mifsud slip away and then claimed PapaD was responsible for it.  Make me question if the FBI ever wanted to deep dive with Mifsud to begin with.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Max Power said:

Because he got backed into a corner when Mueller asked the Judge for 6 months.  Those 302s clearly show he is cooperating with the FBI and trying to help them.  He gave them Mifsud 3 times and they failed to act.  So I find it insulting that the FBI would go to the courts and the press to say PapaD impeded their investigation and they couldn't get more information from Mifsud because of how uncooperative he was.  It's just a lie.  

It's not a good look for the FBI again to telling half truths.  The FBI let Mifsud slip away and then claimed PapaD was responsible for it.  Make me question if the FBI ever wanted to deep dive with Mifsud to begin with.  

He had lawyers, and a judge to hear him. Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

He had lawyers, and a judge to hear him. Please.

I don't care about PapaD doing 2 weeks.  I care about the FBI lying to the judge and media/public.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Max Power said:

I don't care about PapaD doing 2 weeks.  I care about the FBI lying to the judge and media/public.  

What you’re saying actually is that *Papadopoulos lied to the judge, because he swore to his own lying in court.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

What you’re saying actually is that *Papadopoulos lied to the judge, because he swore to his own lying in court.

Funny how the FBI keeps doing that to people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Funny how the FBI keeps doing that to people.  

Yes, read that again. Yes indeed, the DOJ gets people guilty of everything from shooting endangered birds to espionage and money laundering and passport forgery to plead guilty in thousands of cases every year. Outside of the Trumpverse, which one is a good exemplar of bad behavior that got resulted in an overturned case in your opinion?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Max Power said:

Funny how the FBI keeps doing that to people.  

Funny how Trump surrounds himself with people of low ethical standards, including unregistered lobbying for oligarchs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Megla @Max Power... here is the Rosenstein 302 interview - go to Page 115, or search "interview of rod rosenstein".

Note - the mainstream media obtained these. Not fox, not Judicial Watch, not any right wing blog. In fact it's Buzzfeed, the bad guys who were supposedly trying to sink Trump by posting the Steele dossier. And yet here they are going to great lengths to file suit against Trump's DOJ to make them release these supposedly incriminating documents. Weird huh?

In fact there have been 5 releases so far. Scads and scads of 302's.

And Max BF makes them searchable. - The FBI does not and the GOP Congressional and right wing sources do not. And LOL you were looking at RedState and Bongino and yet neither of them bothered to post the 302 - which I take it was readily available to them, No?

I'll get to Bongino's claims next.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the RedState summary of the er analysis of the estimable Dan Bongino.

It only quotes the 302 once, and then only partially:

Quote

Rosenstein elaborated that based on his May 10 briefing, “there appeared to be no evidence the President was involved personally.”

That's it. That's the only point at which Bongino references an actual statement by Rosenstein, and then he and RedState don't give you the 302 for you to see for yourself..

Here's the full text of that portion of the interview:

Quote

...When Rosenstein learned Comey was informed of the termination by e-mail, he was "angry, ashamed, horrified, and embarrassed." It was also humiliating for Comey. Rosenstein was not copied on the e-mail to Comey, and was surprised the media portrayed the termination as Rosenstein's idea. At some point that evening, Sarah Flores told Rosenstein something she had heard from a contact at the White House. (Schools advised Rosenstein not to discuss the content of the conversation.) Based on the exchange with Flores, Rosenstein told her the Department of Justice "cannot participate in putting out a false story." Rosenstein opined Flores's White House contact was someone from the White House Chief of Staff's Office or Public Affairs. Flores informed Rosenstein the White House requested he attend a press conference on the termination but Rosenstein refused. Later that evening, Rosenstein received a short telephone call in his office from the President. Crowell was in Rosenstein's office at the time. After the telephone call, Rosenstein visited Sessions' office (not as a result of the call). Flores was in the secretary's vestibule outside Sessions office on a phone call. Once the call terminated, she informed Rosenstein it was a call from a "high ranking official at the White House." Sessions was not part of that conversation, and nothing significant was discussed between Rosenstein and Sessions at that time. By the evening of May 9, it was clear White House officials had been telling the story about the Comey termination in a manner "inconsistent with my experience and personal knowledge."

Events of May 10, 2017

Rosenstein first contacted Mueller on May 10 at 7:34 am, but "of course" he was thinking about the issue of appointing a special counsel before that time. Then, at 11:30 am, Rosenstein attended a previously scheduled meeting with the prosecutors assigned to the Russia investigation. This was the first regularly scheduled meeting on the matter. During this first meeting, and in light of all the controversy surrounding the investigation, Rosenstein declared, "In my acting capacity as the Attorney General, leave no stone unturned" or words to that effect. However, those assigned to the case are career prosecutors, so in his personal opinion, telling them to do so was unnecessary because he knew they would do the right thing. During his May 10 briefing, the team confirmed for Rosenstein the President was not a suspect. This was also Rosenstein's impression from his initial April 28 briefing he received from then Director Comey. Carl Ghattas may have attended this briefing, as well as several prosecutors.

Rosenstein elaborated that based on his May 10 briefing, "there appeared to be no evidence the President was involved personally." Rosenstein inquired whether they needed additional resources, and was informed there was no such need.

[REDACTED by Trump's DOJ - for b5 - ie they're just not gonna tell you what this paragraph is because they don't feel like it.]

Several times throughout the day on May 10, Sarah Flores gave Rosenstein "tick tock" summaries of news events related to Comey's termination, which Rosenstein explained was not a time line, but a sequence of events. Sometime later that evening, Flores showed him a tick tock summary he believed was reasonable, and authorized its release. Rosenstein and McGahn spoke later that evening on the subject (and before the summary's release). Both were stressed over the situation. Rosenstein's main reason for appointing a special counsel was due to public perception of the process. It did not reflect a lack of confidence. Rosenstein was inclined to appoint a special counsel immediately the morning of May 10. Rosenstein was concerned about his position at the Department of Justice and it caused him stress, but it did not influence his decision. Rosenstein was not present at the White House on May 10 when President Trump referred to Comey as a "nut job," does not know who else was present, and knows only what he read in the newspaper. ...

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

@Megla @Max Power... here is the Rosenstein 302 interview - go to Page 115, or search "interview of rod rosenstein".

Note - the mainstream media obtained these. Not fox, not Judicial Watch, not any right wing blog. In fact it's Buzzfeed, the bad guys who were supposedly trying to sink Trump by posting the Steele dossier. And yet here they are going to great lengths to file suit against Trump's DOJ to make them release these supposedly incriminating documents. Weird huh?

In fact there have been 5 releases so far. Scads and scads of 302's.

And Max BF makes them searchable. - The FBI does not and the GOP Congressional and right wing sources do not. And LOL you were looking at RedState and Bongino and yet neither of them bothered to post the 302 - which I take it was readily available to them, No?

I'll get to Bongino's claims next.

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at it when I get a break from work.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...thats what you get when you rely on Bongino and RedState and their analysis.  Similar to the past with Wikileaks.  Their leaknof documents would be accurate, but the analysis not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

@Megla @Max Power... here is the Rosenstein 302 interview - go to Page 115, or search "interview of rod rosenstein".

Note - the mainstream media obtained these. Not fox, not Judicial Watch, not any right wing blog. In fact it's Buzzfeed, the bad guys who were supposedly trying to sink Trump by posting the Steele dossier. And yet here they are going to great lengths to file suit against Trump's DOJ to make them release these supposedly incriminating documents. Weird huh?

In fact there have been 5 releases so far. Scads and scads of 302's.

And Max BF makes them searchable. - The FBI does not and the GOP Congressional and right wing sources do not. And LOL you were looking at RedState and Bongino and yet neither of them bothered to post the 302 - which I take it was readily available to them, No?

I'll get to Bongino's claims next.

Bongino made his comments on air, so that is harder to source.  RedState should have though.

I'm glad the MSM tried to obtain these.  They haven't really touched on them very much.  I'm more concerned with the content than what media group did what. 

I don't see the included paragraphs changing the content much.  Rosenstein stated "there appeared to be no evidence the President was involved personally" and indicated both Comey and the prosecutors did not view the president as "a suspect".

The one additional take away was that even after the team said they had nothing on Trump, Rod's response to was offer them MORE resources.  

It was an investigation that started with nothing and ended with nothing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Bongino made his comments on air, so that is harder to source.  RedState should have though.

I'm glad the MSM tried to obtain these.  They haven't really touched on them very much.  I'm more concerned with the content than what media group did what. 

I don't see the included paragraphs changing the content much.  Rosenstein stated "there appeared to be no evidence the President was involved personally" and indicated both Comey and the prosecutors did not view the president as "a suspect".

The one additional take away was that even after the team said they had nothing on Trump, Rod's response to was offer them MORE resources.  

It was an investigation that started with nothing and ended with nothing.   

The Mueller report, which addressed this period, is totally consistent with this, but the 302 also says “Rosenstein's main reason for appointing a special counsel was due to public perception of the process. It did not reflect a lack of confidence.”

The Mueller report points out that the subjects of the Fisa’s - Page, Manafort, Flynn and Papadopoulas - were under investigation, not Trump.

Its strange to me because there seems to be some sort of complaint that Trump was *not being targeted.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Larry Klayman deposed Roger Stone a couple weeks ago and it was pretty nuts.

Seems redundant.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

DC Circuit rules 2-1 that Congress doesn’t have standing to compel McGahn to testify.

- So yeah as a democracy we’re fairly well screwed in terms of investigating presidents unless the USSC steps in.

To be fair, Congress didn't need McGahn's testimony to prove their case.

But yeah.  If a Presidential advisor ever appears in front of a house of Congress held by the opposite party it'll be a surprise.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2020 at 5:58 PM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

DC Circuit rules 2-1 that Congress doesn’t have standing to compel McGahn to testify.

- So yeah as a democracy we’re fairly well screwed in terms of investigating presidents unless the USSC steps in.

So the opinion is that because no individual was harmed in the ignoring of the subpoena, the court should not get involved in disputes between the executive and legislative branches?

If the 3rd branch can't settle disputes between the other 2, why do we have this structure at all?

Furthermore, what is the remedy for Congress when they want answers from the executive branch? Pass a law that says it's a felony to ignore a congressional subpoena? Then arrest the perp themselves? Time for Congress to staff a constablery?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Z Machine said:

So the opinion is that because no individual was harmed in the ignoring of the subpoena, the court should not get involved in disputes between the executive and legislative branches?

If the 3rd branch can't settle disputes between the other 2, why do we have this structure at all?

Furthermore, what is the remedy for Congress when they want answers from the executive branch? Pass a law that says it's a felony to ignore a congressional subpoena? Then arrest the perp themselves? Time for Congress to staff a constablery?

The way this panel presents it the remedy is conflict - either arrest and jail a witness in Congress or impeach and remove officials. So yes, a constabulary. It’s madness.

But there is a chance the DC Circuit en banc or the USSC sees that and hears the appeal. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hannity was a Trump supporter who publically applauded Manafort's hiring by the Trump Campaign. Hannity said, "Finally, we have an adult in the room" when Manafort was hired. During the campaign, Hannity tailored his shows to the agenda Manafort suggested.

- Gates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.