0
   

Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:35 am
Advocate wrote:
MM, so if something is not a crime, then it is perfectly okay. Forget about ethics, whether something was beneficial to the country, slimy, etc.

But, as someone alluded to, there may be election law violations underlying the firings, as well as perjury in testimony before congress.


Why do you feel the need to keep bringing up the Clinton - Lewinski affair?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:45 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
the rule of MM
republicans fdo something....good
democrats dot it....bad.

apply that rule across the board andyou.ve got MM's opinion without the hassle of asking...



And if you apply that rule,you will not have a clue as to how I think about anything,because BP is an idiot.
His ridiculous attempt to tell you how I think is wrong,and stupid (but consider the source).

I dont condemn any person,repub or dem,for doing what the law allows them to do,or for doing what they think is right.

Advocate said...
Quote:
MM, so if something is not a crime, then it is perfectly okay. Forget about ethics, whether something was beneficial to the country, slimy, etc.

But, as someone alluded to, there may be election law violations underlying the firings, as well as perjury in testimony before congress.


If something is not illegal,then yes it is legal.
And since we are talking about the law,then you must look at legality,nothing more.

IF there were possible election law violations or perjury,then yes by all means investigate those possible crimes (and contrary to the opinions of some on here perjury IS a crime).
But,IF the President fired those US attorneys,that in itself is NOT a crime.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 09:07 am
I guess we shouldn't object to the retention of Alberto. After all, should he leave, Bush would only replace him with another incompetent.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 09:20 am
There appears to be considerable Scooterheimer's among administration officials involved in the prosecutor massacre. Perhaps this memory problem emanated from Bush's press conference a few years ago in which he stated that he couldn't remember any mistakes he might have made as president.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 09:44 am
It went down to 11 last night. Not American Idol. The number of U.S. attorneys still working.

--Leno
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 10:00 am
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Gonzales Lies Under Oath
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Gonzales Lies Under Oath

As ThinkProgress noted earlier this week, on Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that the Bush administration never intended to take advantage of a Patriot Act provision that allows the President to appoint "interim" U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period of time, without Senate confirmation.

I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.

The Washington Post published a front-page story yesterday on these remarks. ThinkProgress has located video of Gonzales apparently lying to Congress.

But Justice Department emails from Dec. 2006 released this week show that Gonzales's then-chief of staff Kyle Sampson intended to use this provision to make an end-run around the Senate:

There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?

As the Post reported yesterday, "Gonzales has declined to address the apparent contradictions in detail, saying only that he was unaware of the specifics of the plan that Sampson was orchestrating." Asked on Wednesday if he thinks any Bush officials have committed perjury, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, "We'll find that out."

Digg It!

Transcript:

GONZALES: And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you're going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.

I think a United States attorney who I view as the leader, law enforcement leader, my representative in the community ?- I think he has greater imprimatur of authority, if in fact that person's been confirmed by the Senate.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 01:18 pm
We must be hitting a White House nerve:

New Terrorist Alert... Kinda Maybe Perhaps.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 05:50 am
More Info on the use of unofficial e-mail addresses.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 06:24 am
U.S. attorney's firing may be connected to CIA corruption probe

This should be easy enough to prove.

Lam notifies DOJ that she is going to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired.

Then she gets fired and replaced.

Who is the new US Attorney and has he or she issued search warrants on Foggo? If not, there's your answer.

(And, if they were just issued Friday, there's your cover-up)
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:29 am
Political appointees, while serving at the pleasure of the president, have a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the American public. For instance, they must not act in a partisan manner. Bush, however, is all about punishing all those who criticize him, or are deemed politically disloyal. Thus, his administration has been all about using the appointees in a partisan fashion.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 10:29 am
U.S. Attorney Fired Due to Corruption Probe?
McClatchy: U.S. Attorney Fired Due to Corruption Probe?
By E&P Staff
Published: March 18, 2007 10:25 PM ET

The Washington bureau for McClatchy Newspapers have produced one scoop after another in the burgeoning scandal involving the recent firing of at least eight U.S. attorneys.

Reporters Marisa Taylor and Margaret Talev returned to the story today, writing that fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam "notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.

"Feinstein (D-Ca.) said the timing of the e-mail suggested that Lam's dismissal may have been connected to the corruption probe.

"Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse denied in an e-mail that there was any link. 'We have stated numerous times that no U.S. attorney was removed to retaliate against or inappropriately interfere with any public corruption investigation or prosecution,' he wrote. 'This remains the case and there is no evidence that indicates otherwise.'

"But the revelation is sure to heighten demands in Congress for a full investigation into whether something other than job performance was behind the Justice Department's dismissals late last year of eight U.S. attorneys, including Lam.

"On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he intends to force President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, to testify and will insist that the testimony be under oath. Leahy, who appeared on ABC's This Week, said he is 'sick and tired' of the administration's changing rationale for the firings.

"Justice Department officials originally told Congress that the U.S. attorneys had been dismissed for poor performance. But since it's become known that most of the attorneys received positive job evaluations."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 10:46 am
Reps fired Lam re her investigations of Republicans
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usattys19mar19,0,2790807.story?track=ntothtml

Democrats turn up heat on firing of U.S. attorney
They allege Carol Lam was ousted in San Diego because she was investigating Republican politicians in Southern California.
By Richard A. Serrano, Los AngelesTimes Staff Writer
March 19, 2007

WASHINGTON ?- Senate Democrats signaled Sunday that of the eight federal prosecutors abruptly ousted by the Bush administration, the case in San Diego is emerging as the most troubling because of new allegations that U.S. Atty. Carol C. Lam was fired in an attempt to shut down investigations into Republican politicians in Southern California.

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) revealed evidence that Lam had notified Washington about search warrants in a Republican corruption case last year. Soon thereafter, a top Justice Department official in Washington wrote to the White House about a "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam."

"As the evidence comes in, as we look at the e-mails, there were clearly U.S. attorneys that were thorns in the side for one reason or another of the Justice Department," said Feinstein, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"And they decided, by strategy, in one fell swoop to get rid of them."

Another Judiciary Committee member, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), agreed that an investigation in San Diego, along with a parallel GOP corruption probe in Los Angeles, might have been directly linked to Lam's firing.

"The most notorious is the Southern District of California, San Diego," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "In the middle of the investigation she was fired."

Schumer said he was told by Justice Department officials that Lam and the other U.S. attorneys were fired because of "performance-related" problems, a reason that Schumer said the department had been unable to back up.

In fact, he said, Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty later apologized. "He called me on the phone and said, 'I am sorry that I didn't tell you the truth,' " Schumer said.

According to Schumer, McNulty added: "I was not told that these things were happening by the people who were supposed to brief me" on why the eight U.S. attorneys had been fired.

"Well, gee whiz," Schumer said. "If you're firing someone in the middle of the most heated political investigation in America, don't you think you ought to have a reason and know the reason?"

Lam spearheaded the case against Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the former Republican congressman from Rancho Santa Fe who pleaded guilty to bribery and income tax evasion. He was sentenced in March 2006 to eight years and four months in prison.

In a broadening of the Cunningham investigation, Feinstein said, Lam turned her sights on two of the former lawmaker's associates: Brent R. Wilkes, a Poway-based defense contractor, and Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, a top CIA official who abruptly resigned May 8. The two men, friends from childhood, were roommates at San Diego State University, served as best man at each other's wedding and named their sons after each other.

Feinstein said that on May 10, Lam "sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants sent in the case of Dusty Foggo and a defense contractor. The next day, an e-mail went from the Justice Department to the White House."

The May 11 e-mail was from D. Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, to White House Deputy Counsel William Kelley. "The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam … leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four-year term expires," it said.

Sampson, who resigned last week, may also have been referring in the May 11 e-mail to a report that morning in the Los Angeles Times concerning a parallel investigation by federal prosecutors in Los Angeles into Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), then the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, and Bill Lowery, a former GOP congressman from San Diego who after leaving Congress founded a successful lobbying firm ?- one of whose clients was Wilkes.

The Los Angeles investigation, an outgrowth of the Cunningham case, focused on the close relationship between the two men, who had served together on the House Appropriations Committee. Clients of Lowery's lobbying firm had been awarded millions of dollars in earmarks authorized by Lewis, The Times reported, and members of Lewis' staff had been hired by Lowery's firm, where they worked as lobbyists for several years and then returned to Lewis' staff.

Lam was notified of her firing Dec. 7; she stepped down in February. Two days before leaving office, she announced federal grand jury indictments of Wilkes and Foggo.

Wilkes was accused of bribing Cunningham and Foggo, who as CIA executive director ran the agency's daily operations, to get contracts for his companies. Wilkes was head of ADCS Inc., which initially converted documents from paper to digital formats for the military and expanded into other information technology services, and two smaller logistics and lobbying firms.

In his plea agreement, Cunningham acknowledged using his position on the defense appropriations subcommittee to get millions of dollars in federal contracts for ADCS.

Foggo, who at one time was the CIA's deputy ethics officer, was charged with conspiracy and money laundering for failing to disclose lavish gifts, meals and trips from Wilkes.

The indictment alleges that Foggo used his position at the CIA to pressure subordinates into awarding contracts to companies run by Wilkes; in return, Wilkes promised to hire Foggo after he retired from the agency. Details of the contracts, except for one to provide bottled water to U.S. personnel in the Middle East, are classified.

Wilkes and Foggo entered not guilty pleas last month.

Lam has declined to be interviewed, saying Friday that she did not wish to discuss the widening scandal. But in testimony on Capitol Hill on March 6, she said she could not pin her ouster on the Cunningham case or the other GOP corruption investigations it spawned.

"I've seen those suggestions," she said.

But, she added, "I was given no reason, and I did not receive any communication directly from the department about it being related to the investigation."

The Justice Department and the White House have declined to discuss exactly why Lam was let go.

But a second e-mail from Sampson, dated May 3 and titled "Immigration Enforcement," took Lam to task for not prosecuting more border crime cases and suggesting that she should be "woodshedded" over the matter.

That e-mail raises more questions, because Lam had received glowing evaluations for her work fighting border crime.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has monitored the U.S. attorneys scandal, said there was growing evidence that Lam's termination might be the one most directly linked to retaliation for GOP corruption investigations.

"Lam's situation seems to be the most obvious example, given the timing of the Sampson e-mails and the Lewis probe," he said.

Democrats also stepped up their demands Sunday that White House political strategist Karl Rove appear before the Judiciary Committee and answer questions about whether the firings were part of an initial plan to terminate all 93 U.S. attorneys during President Bush's second term.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said unless there was more cooperation from the White House, Rove and other administration officials would be subpoenaed.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 06:05 pm
White House seeking replacement for Gonzales RAW STORY
Published: Monday March 19, 2007

The White House has begun actively seeking a replacement for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, reports Politico.

"Among the names floated Monday by administration officials are Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and White House anti-terrorism coordinator Frances Townsend. Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson is a White House prospect. So is former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, but sources were unsure whether he would want the job," writes Politico.

The article also says that the resignation of Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty is a "virtual certainty."

Excerpts from the article follow:

#
In a sign of Republican despair, GOP political strategists on Capitol Hill said that it is too late for Gonzales' departure to head off a full-scale Democratic investigation into the motives and timing behind the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

"Democrats smell blood in the water, and (Gonzales') resignation won't stop them," said a well-connected Republican Senate aide. "And on our side, no one's going to defend him. All we can do is warn Democrats against overreaching."

A main reason Gonzales is finding few friends even among Republicans is that he has long been regarded with suspicion by conservatives who have questioned his ideological purity. In the past, these conservatives warned the White House against nominating him for the Supreme Court. Now they're using the controversy over the firing of eight federal prosecutors to take out their pent-up frustrations with how he has handled his leadership at Justice and how the White House has treated Congress.

#
READ THE FULL POLITICO ARTICLE HERE
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_seeking_replacement_for_Gonzales_0319.html
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 06:13 pm
White House spokesperson Tony Snow certainly gave a luke-warm endorsement of Mr Gonzales' staying on as AG today.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 06:50 pm
BBB
Alberto Gonzales is TOAST!

BBB
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 06:52 pm
Rove played a major role in this.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 06:57 pm
Paralysis Sets In as DOJ Faces Crisis
March 19, 2007 | 6:21 PM ET | Permanent Link
More from chief legal affairs correspondent Chitra Ragavan:

The Justice Department is expected to release more than 400 pages of E-mails and documents by close of business today to comply with a demand from Democrats in Congress over the growing crisis regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year. The crisis has engulfed the department and threatens to cut short Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's tenure.

Update: The Justice Department now says the document dump will contain closer to 2000 documents.

"You have no idea," said one Justice official, "how bad it is here."

The fear that virtually any piece of communication will have to be turned over has paralyzed department officials' ability to communicate effectively and respond in unison to the crisis, as has the fact that senior Justice officials themselves say they still don't know the entire story about what happened that led to the crisis. So they are afraid that anything they put down on paper could be viewed as lies or obfuscation, when in fact, the story is changing daily as new documents are found and as the Office of Legal Counsel conducts its own internal probe into the matter.

The paralysis will affect the calculations that Gonzales must make this week as to whether he should stay or go. If Gonzales doesn't resign, there's little doubt that he will get few of his initiatives through for the rest of his tenure and that his people will spend months churning out documents at the behest of angry Democrats who will be investigating virtually anything that moves. But this could also give Gonzales an exit strategy, officials say. He could say that while neither he nor his subordinates did anything wrong, he has decided to resign for the greater good of the department and for justice at large.

The Bush administration is making its own calibrated calculations. A stubbornly loyal individual, the president has had trouble cutting his ties to his embattled cabinet secretaries. However, if he chooses to keep Gonzales on, he is at risk of seriously eroding political capital at a time when his administration is being criticized even by party loyalists.

But if he decides to let him go, then who can fill Gonzales's place? For one thing, who would want the job? And who could Bush find that could get Senate confirmation, since Democrats now run the show? It would have to be a seasoned insider, a consummate veteran or an elder statesman who has bipartisan respect and acceptance and a squeaky-clean record.

"The trouble," says one former official, "is that no one comes to mind."

Etc.: Doc: Jack Abramoff and the Fired U.S. Attorneys, on USNews.com
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 10:04 pm
Not much more found yet.

Thousands of internal Justice Documents sent to Congress shed light on firings

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Internal Justice Department documents sent to Congress Monday night show seemingly conflicting views within the Justice Department over some of the firings and stiff resistance from at least a few of the U.S. Attorneys who were fired.

The first batch of the 3,000 pages released shed light on the highly controversial process which led to the firings and the tangled, shifting explanations for the dismissals, which have created a political firestorm on Capitol Hill.

Justice Department officials insist the documents back up their continuing assertion that performance issues, not politics, were the driving force behind the dismissals.

"The Department did not remove the U.S. Attorneys for improper reasons, such as to prevent or retaliate for a particular prosecution in a public corruption matter," said Tasica Scolinos, the Department's Director of Public Affairs.

The first available wave of the newly disclosed documents do not show any further involvement in the dismissals by White House operatives.

However, they do show a blizzard of e-mail traffic among Justice Department officials with varying degrees of concern about the repercussions of the unusual firings of eight U.S. Attorneys. (Posted 11:20 p.m.)

Source
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 12:52 am
Quote:
Why Conservatives Can't Govern
Robert L. Borosage
March 19, 2007
'Robert L. Borosage is co-director of the Campaign For America's Future.

Donald Rumsfeld has been axed. Tom DeLay cut and ran. "Scooter" Libby stands convicted. Michael "you're doing a heck of a job" Brown was tossed. Newt Gingrich disgraced himself. And now the clueless Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is surely the next to go.

Why this confederacy of dunces? The conservative National Review cover asks plaintively, "Can't Anyone Here Play this Game?" Time Magazine puts conservative icon Ronald Reagan on its cover, a tear rolling down his face, reporting on "How the Right Went Wrong." But it's not incompetence or corruption?-although both abound?-that fostered the misrule of this conservative administration. And Reagan would feel not dismayed, but right at home with the follies and crimes. Remember: Reagan's attorney general, Edwin Meese, was disgraced. His national security advisor copped a plea. Oliver North stood convicted. His defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, would have been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice if George Bush the first hadn't issued a preemptive pardon.

What is it about conservative administrations that lead them into disgrace and indictment? Incompetence isn't at the core of these scandals?-ideology is.

Conservative presidents?-from Nixon to Reagan to Bush?-believe in the imperial presidency. They assume that in the area of the national security, the president operates above the law, or as Nixon put it, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." They operate routinely behind the shield of secrecy and executive privilege, with utter disdain for the law. So Reagan spurned the Congress when it cut off funds for his loony covert war on tiny Nicaragua. And Bush trampled the laws to set up the torture camps in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and elsewhere. Each would seek to keep their lawlessness secret; and that would foster lies, obstruction of justice and ultimately disgrace.

Second, conservatives are acutely aware that they represent a minority, not a majority, position in America. From Nixon to Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, they play politics and exploit America's divides with back-alley brass knuckles?-from Reagan's welfare queen to Bush's impugning the patriotism of Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who literally sacrificed his limbs in the service of his country. They excel in the politics of personal destruction, as Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Kerry discovered. And in the grand tradition of the establishment in American politics, they are relentless in seeking to suppress the vote, particularly of the poor and minorities who would vote against them in large numbers.

Gonzales' imbroglio is a direct expression of this. At its core is the run-up to the 2006 elections with the Republicans under siege for the most corrupt Congress ever. The White House and Republican politicians grew exercised at Republican prosecutors who they considered too lax in exposing potential Democratic corruption, too avid in pursuing Republican crimes or too slow in prosecuting reports of "voter fraud," the GOP code for using investigations to disrupt minority registration and get out the vote programs, and to intimidate wary black and Latino voters. Justice was ranking U.S. attorneys based on whether they were "loyal Bushies."

The axing of David C. Iglesias, the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, is the archetype. With New Mexico up for grabs, Iglesias was being pressured directly and shamelessly by Republican Sen. Pete Domenici and Mickey Barnett, the attorney representing the Bush campaign in New Mexico to hustle up indictments on alleged incidents of voter fraud. (Iglesias found no evidence of any program designed to influence an election.) Vulnerable Rep. Heather Wilson lobbied him to bring indictments against state Democratic officials before the election to help make the point that when it comes to corruption, everyone does it. When Iglesias refused to respond, he was targeted despite glowing performance reviews. The firings took place as an object lesson for U.S .attorneys headed into the donnybrook that will be the 2008 election. As Iglesias put it , "main Justice was up to its eyeballs in partisan political maneuvers."

Gonzales will surely be the next administration official to fall on his sword. Republican legislators are already questioning his ability to serve the president effectively. We'll see more stories about White House mismanagement and incompetence. But don't be misled. Bush and Rove know how to play this game. They play by their rules, the rules that conservative administrations have followed since Nixon. And that's the real lesson. The phrase "conservative misrule" is a redundancy. The two words mean exactly the same thing.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/19/why_conservatives_cant_govern.php
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 01:34 am
Quote:
U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.
...
The March 2005 chart ranking Fitzgerald and other prosecutors was drawn up by Gonzales aide D. Kyle Sampson and sent to then-White House counsel Harriet Miers. The reference to Fitzgerald is in a portion of the memo that Justice has refused to turn over to Congress, officials told The Washington Post, speaking on the condition of anonymity because Fitzgerald's ranking has not been made public.
Washington Post - full report
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/03/2026 at 02:09:37