157
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
blatham
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 06:48 am
Quote:
Few genuinely believed that Donald Trump’s White House would cooperate with Congress’ impeachment inquiry with transparency and integrity. The question was how, and in what form, the president and his team would defy lawmakers’ authority to hold Trump accountable.

Yesterday afternoon, the answer came into sharp focus with a letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone.

Quote:
The White House refused Tuesday to turn over internal documents regarding Ukraine being sought by House Democrats as the Trump administration dug in against their impeachment inquiry.

In a defiant letter that echoed the president’s recent impeachment messaging – accusing Democrats of violating the Constitution and civil liberties and attempting to overturn the results of the 2016 election – the White House said it would not comply with the request from House Democrats because they were conducting an invalid investigation.


The full text of the eight-page letter is online here (pdf), and even by the standards of Trump World, this one’s a doozy. I’m a little surprised a White House counsel agreed to put his name on it, since it’s likely to do lasting harm to Cipollone’s reputation as a legal professional.

Indeed, it’s difficult to see the letter as even presenting a legal argument. In practice, it’s as if the president threw a tantrum; the White House legal team jotted down some of his poorly articulated rage; and shameless Republican attorneys tried to put a legal-ish veneer on Trump’s rant.

Gregg Nunziata, who served as legal counsel and a senior policy adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), described Cipollone’s letter as “bananas” and a “barely-lawyered temper tantrum.” Nunziata added that “no member of Congress,” regardless of party or ideology, “should accept it.”

It’s that bad.


Going into yesterday afternoon, I’ll confess to being deeply curious as to what the White House counsel’s office was going to come up with, since the Republican talking points in recent weeks have been so hilariously unpersuasive. I assumed Cipollone’s letter to Congress would offer Team Trump an opportunity to put its best foot forward.

But if this is the best they’ve got, the White House is in trouble. The counsel’s office was reduced to arguing that the U.S. House’s impeachment process, established by the Constitution, is “unconstitutional” – a word the document repeated eight times – and the White House considers Congress’ process “illegitimate.” It therefore feels comfortable refusing to cooperate with the legal inquiry.

Reactions from the legal community were brutal. George Conway wrote, “I cannot fathom how any self-respecting member of the bar could affix his name to this letter. It’s pure hackery, and it disgraces the profession.” Former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal called the White House’s letter “inane,” adding, “You don’t get to block impeachment just because you don’t like it.” Law professor Ryan Goodman, former special counsel at the Pentagon, described Cipollone’s letter as “a professional embarrassment.”

This may yet get worse before it gets better. In a call with reporters orchestrated by White House, a senior administration official argued that before officials on Team Trump agreed to cooperate with impeachment inquiry, the president and his aides expected a “full halt” to the process.

Or put another way, after Congress stops the impeachment inquiry, Trump will consider cooperating with the impeachment inquiry.

As a rule, if the White House were confident in the president’s innocence, complete defiance wouldn’t be necessary. But in this case, Trump and those around him clearly have a great deal to hide.

The likelihood of the president’s impeachment inches closer to 100% every day.
Benen
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 06:49 am
What Hunter Biden Did Was Legal — And That’s the Problem

We need a Washington Corrupt Practices Act to stop political families from self-dealing.

Quote:
In 2016, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay $264 million as part of a settlement with the federal government. The reason? An Asian subsidiary of the company had hired the children of Chinese government officials in the hopes of currying favor with their powerful parents — a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Had the same thing happened with a foreign company and an American politician’s family, however, no violation would have occurred — because no equivalent American law prevents a foreign company or government from hiring the family members of American politicians.

This glaring loophole provides political families with an opportunity to effectively “offshore” corruption and cronyism. It gives the politically connected class enormously tempting opportunities for self-dealing, the sort of thing that is blatantly illegal in almost any other context.

Consider two Washington power families: the Bidens and the McConnell-Chaos.

As vice president, Joe Biden served as point person on American policy toward China and Ukraine. In both instances, his son Hunter, a businessman, landed deals he was apparently unqualified to score save for one thing: his father.

In December 2013, Joe and Hunter Biden flew aboard Air Force Two to China; less than two weeks after the trip, Hunter’s firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, which he founded with two other businessmen in June 2013, finalized a deal to open a fund, BHR Partners, whose largest shareholder is the government-run Bank of China, even though he had scant background in private equity. (Representatives of the fund claim that the timing of the deal and the Bidens’ trip to China was coincidental.) Thus far, the firm has invested about $2.1 billion, according to its website.

In trying to disprove a link between the father’s powerful position and the son’s surprising success, Hunter Biden’s lawyers claim he did not take an equity stake in BHR Partners until after Joe Biden left office. Hunter, whose company, according to its financial records, held an equity stake in the fund, took a board seat when it was founded, in December 2013. At the same time, his business partner, Devon Archer, was vice chairman.

With the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, Joe Biden became point person in Ukraine as well. That same year, Hunter Biden landed a board position with the Ukrainian energy giant Burisma Holdings. Despite having no background in energy or Ukraine, the vice president’s son was paid as much as $50,000 a month, according to financial records. (He left the board in early 2019.)

Why would someone with so little experience be able to command such enormous payments? Joe Biden recently claimed, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” But Hunter Biden admitted to The New Yorker that on one occasion, they had in fact discussed his work for Burisma: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’” Moreover, a representative for BHR Partners has said that Hunter Biden introduced his father to one of the company’s founders during their December 2013 China trip.

The Bidens are hardly alone. President Trump’s transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, and her husband, Senator Mitch McConnell, are being accused of having profited from their commercial ties to Beijing. In 2004, the two had a net worth of about $3.1 million, according to public disclosures. Three years later, the range was $3.1 million to $12.7 million. The next year, their net worth rocketed to $7.3 million to $33.1 million.

What changed? In 2008, Ms. Chao’s father, James Chao, gave the couple a “gift” of $5 million to $25 million (politicians are required to report money in ranges, not exact amounts). Certainly, their wealth has continued to grow.

Mr. Chao’s generosity was made possible by the fortune he has amassed through his shipping company, Foremost Group, which has thrived in large part because of its close ties with the Chinese government. In late 1993, Mr. Chao and his son-in-law, Mr. McConnell, traveled to China as guests of the state-owned shipyard conglomerate and military contractor, China State Shipbuilding Corporation. There they met with an old classmate of Mr. Chao’s, the former Chinese president Jiang Zemin.

Mr. McConnell’s once hard-line condemnations of China softened in the years to follow. For example, as The New Republic has noted, Mr. McConnell went from telling University of Louisville students that America would never forget Tiananmen Square, in the late 1980s, to hosting the Chinese ambassador at the same school several years later, even as the ambassador publicly defended the regime’s suppression of the Falun Gong.

All along, the Chaos continued to gain influence. Mr. McConnell’s sister-in-law, Angela Chao, and James Chao sat on the board of the holding company for China State Shipbuilding. While Elaine Chao was secretary of labor under George W. Bush, Foremost Group ordered several enormous cargo ships from a subsidiary of China State Shipbuilding. Secretary Chao and her father also appeared in several tandem interviews with Chinese media, and it at least one, they sit in front of the Department of Transportation’s emblem and alongside images of a book written by Mr. Chao. Today, Angela Chao sits on the board of the Chinese government’s Bank of China.

Last month, the House Oversight and Reform Committee started an investigation into whether Secretary Chao has leveraged her government positions to benefit her family. But so far there is no investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden. Defenders claim there must first be proof that a law was broken to open an investigation. That’s exactly backward. Congress can and should conduct an inquiry to determine whether anything illegal occurred.

The problem more broadly is that we rely on a hodgepodge of laws that lack the clarity and bright ethical lines found in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That needs to change. International bribery laws clearly state that if a person or entity pays a politician’s family member and gets favors in return, it’s an act of bribery; it’s no different from the politician taking the money himself.

Obviously, the immediate family members of high-ranking politicians have to work — no one is saying otherwise. But given their unparalleled access, they should also be required to be transparent about what they are doing.

At a minimum, we need to strengthen American disclosure rules. Joe Biden and Elaine Chao have to report when someone sends them a $500 campaign donation, or when they make a $5,000 investment in a stock. But when their family members strike lucrative deals with a foreign government or oligarch, the reporting requirements are vague. The personal financial disclosure rules for American public officials should be expanded to include details concerning all their immediate family members (and not just their spouses, as the law currently states), and any dealings with foreign governments.

To the public, closing a loophole this glaring seems anodyne, a no-brainer. But lawmakers set the system up this way for a reason; they will not stop the foreign cash influence game voluntarily. That’s why we need a Washington Corrupt Practices Act, one that clearly shuts down foreign influence and self-enrichment for some of America’s most powerful families on both sides of the aisle.

nyt/schweizer
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 06:55 am
The New York Review of Books has a must-read piece up now by Murray Waas on the Yuri Lutsenko/Ukraine story. The depth of corruption - Manafort and Giuliani not to mention Trump are key players here - is pretty gob-smacking. Read it here
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 07:05 am
@oralloy,
What does Assad have to gain? The territory in question is under autonomous rule by Kurds. If they're replaced by Turkish troops it certainly makes negotiations later on easier.

Turkey doesn't seem to have territorial ambitions, it's just making its borders extra secure while ratcheting down hard on its own Kurds.

The Kurds won't leave, and are more likely to push for independence, and Kurdish independence is something neither Turkey nor Syria want.

Assad will just sit back and watch.

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 07:19 am
Words
Quote:
Former U.S. attorney Joseph E. diGenova turned to European history Tuesday night to describe the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump, calling their efforts “regicide,” the act of killing a king.

“What you’re seeing is regicide,” diGenova, a frequent Trump defender, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham. “This is regicide by another name, fake impeachment. The Democrats in the House want to destroy the president."

But diGenova, a conspiracy theorist Trump wanted on his legal team during the Russia probe, wasn’t finished. In a lengthy interview on “The Ingraham Angle,” the lawyer, who was joined by Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, blasted the two anonymous whistleblowers as “suicide bombers” and accused Democrats of “sedition.”
WP

Extreme and extremely dishonest use of language is to be expected from these scummy types presently. But "suicide bombers" is an interesting new variant. The attempted analogy to Muslim extremists is obvious. But there's another historical allusion in there too - the kamikaze pilots of WW 2. I'd not be surprised at all if that allusion is intentional as a threat to whistleblowers; You'll end up dead if you do this.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 07:21 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Extreme and extremely dishonest use of language is to be expected from these scummy types presently.


Quote:
https://i.imgur.com/KJ4CpNRl.jpg
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 07:31 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Exactly.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 08:25 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
extremely dishonest use of language

How is it dishonest to characterize this as a fake impeachment? Has the House held a vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry yet?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 08:54 am
Erdogan, like Kim, and Putin and every other bloody dictator on the planet, calls Trump's bluff.

Quote:
Turkish warplanes have bombed parts of north-eastern Syria at the start of an offensive which could lead to conflict with Kurdish-led allies of the US.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the operation was to create a "safe zone" cleared of Kurdish militias which will also house Syrian refugees.

According to the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), civilian areas came under attack from Turkish planes.

Turkish ground forces have also been massing on the border.

The offensive was launched just days after President Donald Trump controversially withdrew US troops from northern Syria, a decision announced after a phone call with Mr Erdogan that sparked widespread criticism at home and abroad.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49983357
coldjoint
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 10:01 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Extreme and extremely dishonest

That sums up your presence on this thread and the majority of your contributions.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 10:31 am
@izzythepush,
I'm not surprised Erdogan doesn't take Trump's "threats" seriously. He has been all over the place with the Turkish threat at Syria's border which Kurdish fighters which in turns has the potential to threaten our fight IS. First he said, we should withdrawal and not support or oppose the Turkish invasion, then he turns around and threatens them after getting so backlash from republicans.
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 10:33 am
I barely read an article where Barr said something to the effect (at the DailyCaller)of since he worked on Clinton impeachment for having an affair, he says Trump's call to Ukraine to pressure the new president to open up an election into his political rival is not impeachable. He is Trump's henchman, plain and simple.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 10:37 am
@revelette1,
I don't think anyone is surprised. The only people who don't think Trump is weak and ineffectual are the idiots who make up his base.

This will set back US relations with other groups for a long time. The Kurds will say with some justification that America betrayed them, and you can't trust America.

Not only that, the Kurds will be sending all their best fighters north to deal with Turkey, and God only knows what will happen to all the IS fighters in their custody. It's probably easiest just to let them go.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 10:43 am
Quote:
The debate over President Trump’s fitness for office amid the House-led impeachment inquiry has put renewed scrutiny on national security officials who served in his administration to speak out, even as the president ramps up efforts to discredit the investigation as a “deep state” plot to destroy him.

Over the past week, several former officials have spoken critically of Trump’s conduct and his foreign policy, lending weight to the picture of a president motivated by political interests with little regard for policy expertise, legal boundaries or institutional restraints.

Although the critiques have not all directly addressed the focus of the House investigation — Trump’s request that Ukraine investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden — they have added to the case being made by the president’s critics that he is putting U.S. security at risk.

Recent remarks by former national security adviser John Bolton and former State Department presidential envoy Brett McGurk — along with an open letter from a large group of national security figures including some who served under Trump — represent the latest clash between the president and the experts charged with keeping the nation safe.

Trump has feuded with the national security community since many in the Republican establishment opposed his candidacy in 2016. And throughout the investigation into Russian interference in that election, the president sought to disparage U.S. intelligence agencies as a part of a politically motivated campaign to sabotage his presidency and sought to target some who spoke against him as partisan foils.

Those who have come forward since the Ukraine impeachment inquiry was announced said they are determined to make clear that Trump’s conduct falls well outside the institutional boundaries of the presidency.

“What is happening currently is not normal,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, who served as a U.S. intelligence officer on Russia and Eurasia before stepping down in 2018. “This represents a deviation from the way that these institutions regularly function. And when the institutions don’t work, that is a national security threat.”

She was among 90 national security veterans who signed an open letter published Sunday in support of the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint that Trump had acted improperly in asking the Ukranian president to investigate Biden in a July phone call.

Trump has attempted to intimidate other government officials into not cooperating by casting those who offered information to the whistleblower as “close to spies.” The open letter emphasized that the whistleblower “is protected from certain egregious forms of retaliation.”

White House officials did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s critics have seized on criticism from ex-officials as evidence that Democrats have more than enough material to justify the impeachment proceedings against him and to try to remove him from office.

McGurk, the former special envoy charged with coordinating the global campaign against the Islamic State, issued a scathing series of tweets Monday calling Trump “not a Commander-in-Chief” for his abrupt decision to order U.S. troops out of northern Syria. The move could put Kurdish forces, longtime partners in the fight against ISIS, in jeopardy.

Trump makes “impulsive decisions with no knowledge or deliberation,” said McGurk, who registered similar concerns in December when he resigned in protest.

His critique was met with widespread approval on social media, garnering nearly 50,000 likes, as prominent anti-Trump voices called on other former administration officials — most prominently former defense secretary Jim Mattis — to speak out in a similar vein.

Mattis also resigned in December in protest of Trump’s policy on Afghanistan and Syria, but he has refrained from presenting an unvarnished public critique despite publishing a book in August on his Pentagon service.

“Where is General Mattis?” Joe Lockhart, who served as White House press secretary during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings , wrote on Twitter. Nicolle Wallace, a former White House press secretary under

President George W. Bush, wrote that consensus among GOP national security experts and elected officials is that the country would be severely dadamaged by a second Trump term.

“This would be the moment to say that out loud,” she urged.

Some former officials have been reluctant to weigh in part over fears it could muddy public perception of the national security institutions.

“In some ways, doing that reinforces the narrative of some hostile deep state and people just point to that by saying, ‘You see? We told you. They were there all along,’ ” said a former high-ranking State Department official who left the agency last year. This person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly, felt conflicted about speaking out broadly against Trump after having served inside the administration.

But the former official acknowledged that Trump’s attacks on government agencies are unprecedented and expressed dismay over remarks last weekend from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a prominent Trump ally, that he does not trust the FBI or CIA.

Roberta Jacobsen, who stepped down as U.S. ambassador to Mexico in 2018, conceded that ex-career officials publicly opposing Trump could contribute to a broader perception of partisanship. But she signed onto the open letter because Trump’s conduct “so violates the rules that you were brought up on and because you think it’s just dangerous for the United States.”

Trump’s efforts to impugn the whistleblower are part of his long-standing playbook to degrade the credibility of those who criticize him. He ripped Mattis — asking “what has he done for me?” — and said he had never met McGurk. He trashed former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as “dumb as a rock” for saying in May that an unprepared Trump was outwitted by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin at a global summit in 2017.

Last month, Trump forced the resignation of Bolton over broad policy disagreements, then aligned himself publicly with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un over his dislike for the former White House aide. At a Washington think tank last week, Bolton eviscerated Trump’s North Korea strategy as naive and dangerous, suggesting the president was preoccupied with summit-meeting photo ops with Kim. He stopped short of personally criticizing Trump.

And Trump suggested last year that some in the administration were committing treason after an anonymous senior official wrote in the New York Times that aides were quietly working to protect the country against his reckless tendencies.

Amid the impeachment inquiry, Trump has sought to close ranks, ordering a sizable reduction in the staff of the National Security Council, according to Bloomberg News. White House officials said it was an attempt to streamline decision-making.

But others interpreted the move as more evidence that a president distrustful of the government he oversees is determined to rely on his own judgment almost exclusively. As if to underscore that concern, Trump boasted Monday of his “great and unmatched wisdom” in defending his Syria decision.

Bryan McGrath, a retired naval officer who helped organize the first “Never Trump” letter in 2016, said GOP national security veterans are deliberating over how to “reengage in a big way” ahead of the 2020 election.

During his time in the Navy, he was trained that his commander “was to be obeyed,” and current officers have a similar responsibility, he said. But now out of uniform, McGrath said he feels compelled to speak out.

“This is a unique, deep and long-lasting threat,” he said.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-national-security-officials-fight-back-as-trump-attacks-impeachment-as-deep-state-conspiracy/2019/10/08/d9292f50-e91c-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 10:49 am
@revelette1,
Quote:

Those who have come forward since the Ukraine impeachment inquiry was announced said they are determined to make clear that Trump’s conduct falls well outside the institutional boundaries of the presidency.

First of all, we do not know who these people are let alone what makes the Constitutional scholars. This is nothing more than a power grab that is more unconstitutional than anything Trump had done. The MSM has the lead role here printing contrived garbage to fool the public they think are actually that stupid. Remember that, they think you are dumb.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 11:55 am
@coldjoint,
Wrong. The mission of the media is to find the facts and print them. The mission of the trump maladministration is to keep him in power no matter what crooked schemes jhe comes up with and to hide those schemes from the public at all costs.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 11:57 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Words
Quote:
Former U.S. attorney Joseph E. diGenova turned to European history Tuesday night to describe the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump, calling their efforts “regicide,” the act of killing a king.

“What you’re seeing is regicide,” diGenova, a frequent Trump defender, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham. “This is regicide by another name, fake impeachment. The Democrats in the House want to destroy the president."

But diGenova, a conspiracy theorist Trump wanted on his legal team during the Russia probe, wasn’t finished. In a lengthy interview on “The Ingraham Angle,” the lawyer, who was joined by Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, blasted the two anonymous whistleblowers as “suicide bombers” and accused Democrats of “sedition.”
WP

Extreme and extremely dishonest use of language is to be expected from these scummy types presently. But "suicide bombers" is an interesting new variant. The attempted analogy to Muslim extremists is obvious. But there's another historical allusion in there too - the kamikaze pilots of WW 2. I'd not be surprised at all if that allusion is intentional as a threat to whistleblowers; You'll end up dead if you do this.


I'd expect this level of intellectual dishonesty from some people on A2K, but I keep fooling myself into thinking you are some how different and then something like this pops up... Very disappointing to see how you build up a straw man and then argue with it... The actual analogy is that using a suicide bomber gets you one use of it. Has jack **** to do with Muslim extremism or kamikaze pilots. I don't even know how you got there with it but the point seems to flown right over your head despite it's size.

Quote:
“These two nonentities are suicide bombers that the Democrats have unleashed on the democratic process,” he said. “They actually think that the American people are going to accept having people testify secretly without anyone knowing who they are, where they worked, what their party affiliation was, who they conspired with."

He continued: “It’s pretty obvious that this first suicide bomber who sent that complaint to the inspector general was a paid Democratic operative of the Democratic Party.”

Ingraham quickly interjected to clarify diGenova’s remarks.

“You mean political suicide bomber obviously, before we get people messaging us, ‘Oh he really meant …,’” Ingraham said, drawing a boisterous laugh from Giuliani.

The host went on to suggest that anyone who interpreted diGenova’s comment otherwise needed to “get a sense of humor.”


Your obvious villainization attempts are ridiculous.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 02:05 pm
@McGentrix,
But why were they even using that terminology? As you well know, the term has very negative connotations in the USA. It's obviously meant pejoratively — and it's not particularly funny. Referring to the whistle blowers as "non-entities" is pretty stupid as well. For people of little consequence or significance they've managed to instigate an impeachment investigation.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 03:01 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Wrong. The mission of the media is to find the facts and print them.

Let me know when they start doing that.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 05:19 pm
@McGentrix,
Re Blatham
Quote:
Your obvious villainization attempts are ridiculous.

Worth repeating. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 05:44:49