What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
I didn't know the name, but what he writes has the ring of truth to me. 
Click to expand...
Old time Democratic hand. I remember his name from the Bill Jefferson investigation, he rose to $Bill's defense when the feds raided his office. Basically defending the indefensible. He goes back to Iran Contra and may have even worked in the Clinton WH (though not sure about that last part, but definitely a capital D Democrat).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ladsud said:
Hey Saints, can you link or tell us her involvement in the debacle that is Lybia?
Click to expand...
Well somewhere in this thread there is an email in which Hillary and one of her staff seem to be elated that they had persuaded Obama to intervene in Libya and overthrow Khadaffi. Basically Hillary turned him on the issue by the looks of it. - Kind of amazing thinking back to the arguments Obama made in 08 about Hillary's lack of judgement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I didn't know the name, but what he writes has the ring of truth to me. 
Click to expand...
To the point, one possibility is that the DOJ may hang a misdemeanor on Pagliano and call it a day. Hillary has her fig leafs, Pancake Pags has his bills paid at Akin Gump (or he never gets the bill), and he gets rehired back at the WH or the Foundation or by some FOB and it's all erased over time. That's one possibility.

But if the FBI starts interviewing aides hang on to your hat. If they interview Hillary you should start shopping for a new hat.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well somewhere in this thread there is an email in which Hillary and one of her staff seem to be elated that they had persuaded Obama to intervene in Libya and overthrow Khadaffi. Basically Hillary turned him on the issue by the looks of it. - Kind of amazing thinking back to the arguments Obama made in 08 about Hillary's lack of judgement.
Click to expand...
So dirty, this woman plays topple the dictator and shrugs off the consequences. Its just a game to her.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
 


Jonathan Turley, he's somebody, right?
Click to expand...
Yes.  He's currently lead counsel for the House Republicans pursuing their legal claim that the Treasury Department and HHS violated the law in implementing the ACA.  Less recently but perhaps just as pertinently, he also advocated strongly in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. 

 
squistion said:
The odds of indicting Hillary are now past 50/50?

Really?

Do you want to go on record for that and make a further fool of yourself?
Click to expand...
Last batch released.  Email withheld by unnamed law enforcement agency.  Two days later, aide given immunity.  Take the blinders off.  Leaks saying Hillary set to be questioned now.  Let things develop further, but looks very much like crimes were committed and they are being investigated accordingly.  

 
timschochet said:
That was Forbes BTW; hardly a fan of Hillary Clinton. 

I dont believe there's anything to this. 
Click to expand...
I had issue with the spin in both pieces, but the Forbes piece had some glaring presumptions which were incorrect.  Particularly the main presumption that immunity was given to Pigliano because the FBI did not have a good case is just wrong.  He outright lied on his annual financial disclosure forms which are viewed as critical to allowing a government employee in a sensitive position to work.  You do not do work until these forms are on file and they make absolutely clear these forms are filed under penalty of perjury.  This was easily a case that was winnable.   

Now does that prove the FBI is looking for bigger fish to fry?  Not really, as the FBI needs Pigliano's information to really know how badly this information was compromised. They could have just figured getting information from him was more important than convicting him on a perjury charge.  

Now Hillary violated all kinds of policy and most likely the law, but there is the element of knowingly that has not been absolutely established.  Going after a normal government employee, the sheer volume of the violations would be enough to establish that and there would be about a 99 percent chance of conviction.  Going after Hillary, they will want it to be 100 percent. Which is why they will likely settle for Huma or another staffer to charge.  Without a smoking gun, Hillary will not be charged because there is some remote minuscule plausible chance she did not 'know' that any of these 2000 emails were classified. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
Ludicrous.  His claim claim that immunity would only be granted if there isn't a case against Pagliano is simply factually incorrect.  It's far more likely that they are offering immunity to gain evidence on those responsible for ordering and covering up crimes.  
Click to expand...
That was a very stupid presumption.  But there are other legitimate reasons to give immunity.  It is important for the FBI to know what kind of security features were in place and when to really establish the extent of the damage to national security.  

Now can Pigliano establish Hillary absolutely knew she was transmitting classified information.  I don't think so. But maybe there is something different he can prove. IMHO this immunity does not really change things too much as far as Hillary goes. 

 
Aerial Assault said:
Yes.  He's currently lead counsel for the House Republicans pursuing their legal claim that the Treasury Department and HHS violated the law in implementing the ACA.  Less recently but perhaps just as pertinently, he also advocated strongly in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. 
Click to expand...
That there is a good point.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Mr. Ham said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

And the odds of indictment go up past 50/50.

it says the FBI thinks there was CRIMINAL wrong doing and is willing to cut deals for who was responsible, as if there is any doubt.  No way immunity was granted unless he's naming names.  Outstanding!!!
Click to expand...


Please note this is the Washington Post.

I think we can move past the 'right wing blog', 'anonymous sources' and 'it's not a criminal investigation' bs.
Click to expand...
Seems like each and every day an article is posted that destroys one of the talking points you guys have and then you spin it as things are getting more serious for Hillary.

In this case the constant "anyone else would have gone to jail for less" -

Current and former officials said the conviction of retired four-star general and CIA director David H. Petraeus for mishandling classified information is casting a shadow over the email investigation.

The officials said they think that Petraeus’s actions were more egregious than those of Clinton and her aides since he lied to the FBI, and classified information he shared with his biographer contained top secret code words, identities of covert officers, war strategy and intelligence capabilities. Prosecutors initially threatened to charge him with three felonies, including conspiracy, violating the Espionage Act and lying to the FBI. But after negotiations, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information. 

He was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years of probation. FBI officials were angered by the deal and predicted it would affect the outcome of other cases involving classified information.

Petraeus “was handled so lightly for his offense there isn’t a whole lot you can do,” said a former U.S. law enforcement official who oversaw counterintelligence investigations and described the email controversy as “a lesser set of circumstances.

”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't listen to or watch media, so all my 'talking points' are actually mine. As far as Patraeus's actions being more serious, there are a lot of counterpoints and things we just don't know to make that statement. What makes Hillary's worse is that she put top secret information on a server that was of a very prominent official and made it fairly easy to hack into.  She also disseminated it to numerous people, making it even more exposed and nearly impossible to really know the extent of the damage.  Patraeus's disclosure was to a biographer, so it wasn't out there on the net for the Chinese and Russians for the easy taking.  We also really don't know the Top Secret info Hillary passed along.  

I really don't see how Patraeus being handled with kids gloves destroys the arguement.  It is pretty much consistent with the arguement that there are different rules for very prominent and powerful people than for the rest of us grunts.  We absolutely would see more severe justice under these same situations. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
I don't listen to or watch media, so all my 'talking points' are actually mine. As far as Patraeus's actions being more serious, there are a lot of counterpoints and things we just don't know to make that statement. What makes Hillary's worse is that she put top secret information on a server that was of a very prominent official and made it fairly easy to hack into.  She also disseminated it to numerous people, making it even more exposed and nearly impossible to really know the extent of the damage.  Patraeus's disclosure was to a biographer, so it wasn't out there on the net for the Chinese and Russians for the easy taking.  We also really don't know the Top Secret info Hillary passed along.  

I really don't see how Patraeus being handled with kids gloves destroys the arguement.  It is pretty much consistent with the arguement that there are different rules for very prominent and powerful people than for the rest of us grunts.  We absolutely would see more severe justice under these same situations. 
Click to expand...
So we can trust the leaks when the say the investigation is getting serious, but we can't trust them when they say the actions are not as serious?

And its too early "to know" anything that favor Hillary, but not "to know" all of the things that damn her.

Yep, I agree this is pretty consistent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
FBI officials were angered by the deal and predicted it would affect the outcome of other cases involving classified information.
Click to expand...
BFS I saw the larger snip last night. That's true, but this within it is also true. And I would not underestimate the FBI's desire to make a point that was not made before.

Also of course it's worth noting that Kendall himself made the Petraeus deal and he himself is also implicated in mishandling class data issues.

As I have seen it here in NO in public corruption investigations when someone lower takes immunity it usually means they are going to flip and turn on someone higher up. Really almost always. In the Nagin investigation IT guys were actually involved because among other reasons (some involving IT contracts) Nagin got caught trying to evade FOIA. Usually. I would agree that while the immunity doesn't mean that Hillary or anyone else is necessarily on the hook, it also certainly doesn't mean they are off it. If the feds were moving towards prosecuting someone, then this would be a step they would be taking.

Like I said before, if they start interviewing people, then that just means the investigation is moving forward, it certainly will not mean it is going away.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really wouldn't want to Huma right now as I've felt for several months she is going to take the fall.  Giving her dual roles at State and Teneo, if the FBI is exploring the confluence of State, Teneo & Clinton Foundation actions than she is squarely in the crosshairs.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
I really wouldn't want to Huma right now as I've felt for several months she is going to take the fall.  Giving her dual roles at State and Teneo, if the FBI is exploring the confluence of State, Teneo & Clinton Foundation actions than she is squarely in the crosshairs.
Click to expand...
Man it must be tearing you apart.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Seems like each and every day an article is posted that destroys one of the talking points you guys have and then you spin it as things are getting more serious for Hillary.

In this case the constant "anyone else would have gone to jail for less" -

Current and former officials said the conviction of retired four-star general and CIA director David H. Petraeus for mishandling classified information is casting a shadow over the email investigation.

The officials said they think that Petraeus’s actions were more egregious than those of Clinton and her aides since he lied to the FBI, and classified information he shared with his biographer contained top secret code words, identities of covert officers, war strategy and intelligence capabilities. Prosecutors initially threatened to charge him with three felonies, including conspiracy, violating the Espionage Act and lying to the FBI. But after negotiations, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information. 

He was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years of probation. FBI officials were angered by the deal and predicted it would affect the outcome of other cases involving classified information.

Petraeus “was handled so lightly for his offense there isn’t a whole lot you can do,” said a former U.S. law enforcement official who oversaw counterintelligence investigations and described the email controversy as “a lesser set of circumstances.

”
Click to expand...
Let's say we all agree that Hillary's actions aren't as bad as the guy who should have been prosecuted for three felonies.  (I do agree with that assessment, by the way, so this isn't entirely hypothetical).  Can we then at least then also agree that the fact that that's even our comparison point demonstrates that she has no business running for president?  If your defense of Hillary is that yeah she committed some crimes but they weren't quite as bad as Patraeus's crimes, that's an even harsher position than what I've staked out.   

 
Mr. Ham said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

And the odds of indictment go up past 50/50.

it says the FBI thinks there was CRIMINAL wrong doing and is willing to cut deals for who was responsible, as if there is any doubt.  No way immunity was granted unless he's naming names.  Outstanding!!!
Click to expand...
Heavily rooting for the FBI to bring the Clinton's to heel here. Long national nightmare, an' all...

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
I really wouldn't want to Huma right now as I've felt for several months she is going to take the fall.  Giving her dual roles at State and Teneo, if the FBI is exploring the confluence of State, Teneo & Clinton Foundation actions than she is squarely in the crosshairs.
Click to expand...
Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Click to expand...

 
NYT:

Foremost among a half-dozen inquiries and legal proceedings into whether classified information was sent through Mrs. Clinton’s server is an investigation by the F.B.I., whose agents, according to one law enforcement official, could seek to question Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides and possibly the candidate herself within weeks.

It is commonplace for the F.B.I. to try to interview key figures before closing an investigation, and doing so is not an indication the bureau thinks a person broke the law. Although defense lawyers often discourage their clients from giving such interviews, Democrats fear the refusal of Mrs. Clinton or her top aides to cooperate would be ready ammunition for Donald J. Trump, the Republican front-runner.

A federal law enforcement official said that barring any unforeseen changes, the F.B.I. investigation could conclude by early May. Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges and, if so, against whom.

...[SIZE=12pt]The bureau’s investigators have already interviewed Bryan Pagliano, a former aide who installed the server Mrs. Clinton had in her home in New York and used exclusively for her private and official email while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Aides to Mrs. Clinton and officials from the State Department also face the prospect of questioning under oath in a separate legal proceeding brought by Judicial Watch, the conservative government watchdog group, under the Freedom of Information Act. In that case, the group has sought emails related to the special employment status given to Mrs. Clinton’s close aide Huma Abedin so she could receive additional salaries beyond the one she received from State.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]He ordered lawyers for Judicial Watch to submit a “narrowly tailored” plan for questioning that could begin in April as primaries continue to be held in states like New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Maryland. The organization, according to its court filings so far, is expected to seek depositions from Ms. Abedin and Mr. Pagliano; Mrs. Clinton’s former chief of staff, Cheryl D. Mills; and department officials like Patrick F. Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Judge Sullivan’s ruling left open the possibility of additional testimony, including testimony from Mrs. Clinton. “I think there are some legitimate issues that arise because of this very atypical system that was created,” he said.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]..[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The F.B.I.’s case did begin as a security referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies, who were concerned that classified information might have been stored outside a secure government network. But multiple law enforcement officials said the matter quickly became an investigation into whether anyone had committed a crime in handling classified information.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/as-presidential-campaign-unfolds-so-do-inquiries-into-hillary-clintons-emails.html?smid=tw-share

- Btw there is lots of stuff for Hillary's followers. The comparison to Petreaus and this:

[SIZE=12pt]In their investigation, F.B.I. agents have sought to compare electronic timestamps on classified sources to figure out whether the aides reviewed the sources and then retyped the information into emails that were sent or forwarded to Mrs. Clinton’s private server. That has proved challenging, and one official said investigators have not concluded that such retyping occurred.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]State Department officials said that an employee who divulges classified information in the department’s unclassified network could face administrative punishments, including reprimands or in severe cases the loss of any security clearance[/SIZE]
Click to expand...


[SIZE=12pt]- That last bit is where this conversation began last year, how people in Hillary's situation at a minimum face loss of careers, clearance, etc. It may be where it ends, we shall see, But interviews with the aides would be a major step forward regardless.[/SIZE]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Let's say we all agree that Hillary's actions aren't as bad as the guy who should have been prosecuted for three felonies.  (I do agree with that assessment, by the way, so this isn't entirely hypothetical).  Can we then at least then also agree that the fact that that's even our comparison point demonstrates that she has no business running for president?  If your defense of Hillary is that yeah she committed some crimes but they weren't quite as bad as Patraeus's crimes, that's an even harsher position than what I've staked out.   
Click to expand...
Not for me. My bottom line is that if she didn't knowingly do anything wrong then this story has no effect on her qualifications for President. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
So we can trust the leaks when the say the investigation is getting serious, but we can't trust them when they say the actions are not as serious?

And its too early "to know" anything that favor Hillary, but not "to know" all of the things that damn her.

Yep, I agree this is pretty consistent.
Click to expand...
I don't blindly trust opinions whether they favor her or not, as I stated above.  I had issues with both pieces and thought they both were misleading.   If the leaks are factual based information and not some anonymous opinion, I would put some weight that the facts might be true especially if it is verified by other sources.  But opinions on things getting more serious or this is not as serious, it is just that, opinion. 

 
I heard a great line on the radio this morning- the people like Mr. Ham who believe that this news means an indictment is coming are like Charlie Brown hoping Lucy will hold the football for him. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Let's say we all agree that Hillary's actions aren't as bad as the guy who should have been prosecuted for three felonies.  (I do agree with that assessment, by the way, so this isn't entirely hypothetical).  Can we then at least then also agree that the fact that that's even our comparison point demonstrates that she has no business running for president?  If your defense of Hillary is that yeah she committed some crimes but they weren't quite as bad as Patraeus's crimes, that's an even harsher position than what I've staked out.   
Click to expand...
This is the bottom line, I wish I had more likes.   

Why would you reward this woman with the presidency?  

The Clinton voter isn't' as far from the Trump voter as we would be led to believe in terms of ignorance or hypocrisy.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
By "wrong," do you just mean "illegal?"  Or would it also include unethical behavior, like making an end run around the FOIA?  
Click to expand...
We've had this discussion before I think. Illegal is what I mean. Making end runs around the FOIA, if legal, doesn't bother me at all. As I've written before I'm not a big fan of what the FOIA has become. If I were in charge I would try to rewrite that law in such a way so as to prevent partisan witch hunt groups like Judicial Watch to use the FOIA to tie our government in knots. 

 
timschochet said:
We've had this discussion before I think. Illegal is what I mean. Making end runs around the FOIA, if legal, doesn't bother me at all. As I've written before I'm not a big fan of what the FOIA has become. If I were in charge I would try to rewrite that law in such a way so as to prevent partisan witch hunt groups like Judicial Watch to use the FOIA to tie our government in knots. 
Click to expand...
So who exactly would be allowed to use the FOIA then? 

 
timschochet said:
We've had this discussion before I think. Illegal is what I mean. Making end runs around the FOIA, if legal, doesn't bother me at all. As I've written before I'm not a big fan of what the FOIA has become. If I were in charge I would try to rewrite that law in such a way so as to prevent partisan witch hunt groups like Judicial Watch to use the FOIA to tie our government in knots. 
Click to expand...
You've put the cart before the horse here again Tim.  If the government was open and transparent, we wouldn't need laws on the books requiring them to be open and transparent.  For every law, there's a way around it and it's our human nature to skirt societal law for personal gain.  This doesn't magically go away in Hillary Clinton.

 
timschochet said:
We've had this discussion before I think. Illegal is what I mean. Making end runs around the FOIA, if legal, doesn't bother me at all. As I've written before I'm not a big fan of what the FOIA has become. If I were in charge I would try to rewrite that law in such a way so as to prevent partisan witch hunt groups like Judicial Watch to use the FOIA to tie our government in knots. 
Click to expand...
Call it the SSFOIA...Semi, Sorta Freedom of Information Act

 
Hang 10 said:
So who exactly would be allowed to use the FOIA then? 
Click to expand...
Tim is a big proponent of different laws for different folks.  The people in charge are superior and should do all the thinking.  They know what is in our best interest and should always be trusted.

 
It sure doesn't sound good when the staff member is cutting a deal and requesting immunity for his testimony. I don't see how you can spin this as a positive for Clinton. There's a reason why folks are not voting for her in droves, it's not just because she looks like a British PM sipping tea every afternoon, she's always been boring. 

People think she is guilty of doing something. Doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Too much has been made for something not to be her fault. And now we are discovering she had a server in her house with secrets on it...just not a good look for her. At best she looks incompetent and that's hard to believe given her extensive resume! 

There's still time, they can take this away from her at the DNC if she is indicted or is even connected directly/indirectly with this entire mess. She cannot brush it under the rug for 8 months. She has a problem and even if it will not become an indictment, in the media and in lots of folks' eyes she is guilty. 

I thought all along that Clinton would be an escape chute in the event Trump wins the nomination. That is looking more and more unrealistic. 

 
timschochet said:
We've had this discussion before I think. Illegal is what I mean. Making end runs around the FOIA, if legal, doesn't bother me at all. As I've written before I'm not a big fan of what the FOIA has become. If I were in charge I would try to rewrite that law in such a way so as to prevent partisan witch hunt groups like Judicial Watch to use the FOIA to tie our government in knots. 
Click to expand...
That's what I figured -- I just wanted to confirm.

Mainly I just want to make sure that Hillary's other supporters -- Gunz, squiston, BFS, etc. -- understand how pro-authoritarian one has to be to see Hillary's behavior as acceptable.  I get that you feel that way, and to your credit, you've been consistent on this point in lots of other threads on other topics.  I imagine this causes more cognitive dissonance for a lot of other folks on the pro-Hillary side though.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
That's what I figured -- I just wanted to confirm.

Mainly I just want to make sure that Hillary's other supporters -- Gunz, squiston, BFS, etc. -- understand how pro-authoritarian one has to be to see Hillary's behavior as acceptable.  I get that you feel that way, and to your credit, you've been consistent on this point in lots of other threads on other topics.  I imagine this causes more cognitive dissonance for a lot of other folks on the pro-Hillary side though.
Click to expand...
Pro-authoritarian is YOUR term. I deny it. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
That's what I figured -- I just wanted to confirm.

Mainly I just want to make sure that Hillary's other supporters -- Gunz, squiston, BFS, etc. -- understand how pro-authoritarian one has to be to see Hillary's behavior as acceptable.  I get that you feel that way, and to your credit, you've been consistent on this point in lots of other threads on other topics.  I imagine this causes more cognitive dissonance for a lot of other folks on the pro-Hillary side though.
Click to expand...
BFS can speak for himself, but I'm not sure he's "pro" Hillary unless "hold your nose and vote for her because, well....trump" is "pro Hillary" now, which is entirely possible.  That's one way to get her favorability numbers up.

 
timschochet said:
Pro-authoritarian is YOUR term. I deny it. 
Click to expand...
Relatively speaking, you are pro-authoritarian.  Of course, you are not absolute, but in the vast majority of cases you trust the powers to be with more power than the average American.  Of course not authoritarian in terms of a Stalin, but relative to an average American, your views are absolutely pro-authoritarian. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Pro-authoritarian is YOUR term. I deny it. 
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter whether you like the label or not.  When you argue that people in power shouldn't be bound by ethical rules that constrain "lesser" folks and that watchdog groups should be better blocked from getting information on what leaders are up to, "authoritarian" is a perfectly accurate term to describe that worldview.  You can pick some other term if you want, but the rest of us are going to stick with normal English.  

 
The Commish said:
BFS can speak for himself, but I'm not sure he's "pro" Hillary unless "hold your nose and vote for her because, well....trump" is "pro Hillary" now, which is entirely possible.  That's one way to get her favorability numbers up.
Click to expand...
Okay, that's fair and my apologies to BFS if I accidentally mischaracterized his position.  I have no problem with people who are voting for Hillary as the lesser-of-two-evils.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top