Page 1 of 3 123>
Topic Options
#1230976 - Wed Feb 12 2020 08:24 PM Trump impeachment 3.0: manufacturing a narrative around the Roger Stone sentencing
Wonder Boy
Offline brutally Kamphausened

Registered: Wed Sep 12 2001
Posts: 21121
Loc: A glorious bold new America



Well, that didn't take long!

Last Monday the Senate set the date to rule on impeachment their next session.
Tuesday, President Trump gave a very-well-received state of the union address, completely ignoring the impeachment and carrying on with the nation's business.
Wednesday, the Senate voted a majority to end impeachment.

And now, not even a week later, Democrats have contrived a new narrative to begin investigating President Trump again.

Giving a little background...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone

 Quote:


TRIAL AND CONVICTION

Stone's trial began on November 6, 2019.[137] Randy Credico testified that Stone urged and threatened him to prevent him testifying to Congress.[138] Stone had testified to Congress that Credico was his WikiLeaks go-between, but prosecutors said this was a lie in order to protect Jerome Corsi. During the November 12 testimony, former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates testified that Stone told campaign associates in April 2016 of WikiLeaks' plans to release documents, far earlier than previously known. Gates also testified that Trump had spoken with Stone about the forthcoming releases.[139] After a week-long trial and two days of deliberations, the jury convicted Stone on all counts – obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering – on November 15, 2019.[140][141][142] After the trial, one of the jurors emphasized that the jury did not convict Stone based on his political beliefs.[143] On November 25, a decision denying a defense motion for acquittal was released. The judge wrote that the testimony of Steven Bannon and Rick Gates was sufficient to conclude that Stone lied to Congress.[144]


SENTENCING

Stone's sentencing was initially set for February 6, 2020, after the judge rejected a prosecution request that he be immediately jailed.[145] On December 9, 2019, Stone's lawyers requested sentencing be delayed until sometime after March 9.[146]

On February 10, 2020, prosecutors requested that Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison for his crimes after securing convictions on all seven charges[147] Around midnight, Trump characterized the sentencing recommendation as a "horrible and very unfair situation", tweeting, "Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!"[148] In the afternoon of February 11, a senior Justice Department official from the District of Columbia filed a memo which undid the sentencing recommendations from the four prosecutors.[149] The department said it would recommend a lighter sentence, adding that the decision had been made before Trump commented.[150] Later that afternoon, all four of the Assistant US Attorneys who were prosecuting the case – Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando – withdrew from the case, with Kravis resigning from the US Attorney's Office altogether.[151] After those actions, the Department of Justice filed a revised sentencing memorandum, saying the initial recommendation could be "considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances."[150]
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter to the Justice Department inspector general requesting a probe into the reduced sentencing recommendation, over fears of potential improper political interference in the process.[152] Trump later said he had not asked the Justice Department to recommend a lighter sentence, but also asserted he had an "absolute right" to intervene.[153][154][155]

Also on February 11, Trump withdrew the nomination of Jesse Liu to become an undersecretary of the Treasury, two days before her confirmation hearing was scheduled to begin. As a U.S. attorney, Liu had overseen some ancillary cases referred by the Mueller investigation including the Stone prosecution, as well as a politically-charged case involving former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, until attorney general Bill Barr replaced her with his close advisor Tim Shea in January 2020.[156] CNN reported the next day that Liu's nomination was withdrawn because she was perceived to be insufficiently involved in the Stone and McCabe cases.[157]

On February 12, presiding judge Amy Berman Jackson publicly announced her decision, made the prior week, to deny Stone's petition for a new trial. Stone had made the petition under seal, alleging bias on the part of a juror who worked in the IRS on criminal tax cases and had read press accounts of Stone's legal matters, but had stated during jury selection that he or she had not formed an opinion in the matter.[158]

On February 13, U.S. Attorney General William Barr has agreed to testify in front of Congress over alleged political interference by the Department of Justice over Roger Stone's sentencing. This case has been noted as a 'crisis in the rule of law in America', prompted by the department's unusual decision to overrule prosecutors, and Roger Stone's known close association with Donald Trump.[159]



I would lay money those four prosecutors are registered Democrats and Hillary 2016 voters.




Top
#1230977 - Wed Feb 12 2020 08:37 PM Re: Trump impeachment 3.0: manufacturing a narrative around the Roger Stone sentencing [Re: Wonder Boy]
Wonder Boy
Offline brutally Kamphausened

Registered: Wed Sep 12 2001
Posts: 21121
Loc: A glorious bold new America



Compare with the longest serving offender in the Watergate scandal:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy

 Quote:
Liddy was sentenced to a 20-year prison term and was ordered to pay $40,000 in fines. He began serving the sentence on January 30, 1973. On April 12, 1977, President Jimmy Carter commuted Liddy's sentence to eight years, "in the interest of equity and fairness based on a comparison of Mr. Liddy's sentence with those of all others convicted in Watergate related prosecutions", leaving the fine in effect.[22] Carter's commutation made Liddy eligible for parole as of July 9, 1977. Liddy was released on September 7, 1977, after serving a total of four and a half years of incarceration.



So the longest serving defendant in the Watergate conspiracy served 4 and 1/2 years.

At one point I looked up the sentences of all those convicted in Watergate. Those who cooperated generally got no sentence or at most 6 months.
Those they flipped on generally served about 18 months in jail.

Gordon Liddy alone refused to cooperate, and therefore got the most severe sentence of 20 years, serving 4 and 1/2 years, before being pardoned by then-President Carter, because Liddy's sentence was so disproportionate to the others.


And the deep state DOJ wants to sentence Roger Stone to 7 to 9 years. Which at age 67 could be a life sentence for Stone. For a conviction obtained through fraudulently obtained FISA warrants, shakedowns, and every other dirty trick possible by a deep state FBI/DOJ.
Recall DOJ also gave vastly disproportionate sentencing time to Manafort, and similarly wanted to sentence him to a lot more.



Tucker Carlson made a strong statement about the injustice of this conviction and sentencing, comparing it to far worse perjurors John Brennan and James Clapper who were never investigated by DOJ/FBI, never arrested, never prosecuted, never sentenced, and are "comfortably sleeping in their own beds tonight" while Roger Stone, selectively prosecuted, rots in prison.

Carlson noted that the average rapist spends about 4 years in jail.


 Quote:
all four of the Assistant US Attorneys who were prosecuting the case – Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando – withdrew from the case, with Kravis resigning from the US Attorney's Office altogether.[151]


Tom Fitton, of Judicial Watch, confirmed to Carlson that at least 3 of the 4 prosecutors are Democrats.




Top
#1230978 - Wed Feb 12 2020 09:03 PM Re: Trump impeachment 3.0: manufacturing a narrative around the Roger Stone sentencing [Re: Wonder Boy]
Wonder Boy
Offline brutally Kamphausened

Registered: Wed Sep 12 2001
Posts: 21121
Loc: A glorious bold new America


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/pros...encing-fallout/

 Quote:
After Trump’s Twitter comments, sources in the DOJ said Tuesday that department leadership was “shocked” by the “extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate” recommendation because it “was not what had been briefed,” and signaled a revision was on the cards. They also clarified that there had been no communication between the DOJ and the White House over the sentencing.



Top
#1230979 - Wed Feb 12 2020 09:08 PM Re: Trump impeachment 3.0: manufacturing a narrative around the Roger Stone sentencing [Re: Wonder Boy]
Matter-eater Man
Offline Fair Play!

Registered: Sat Jun 07 2003
Posts: 14510
Stone is a corrupt piece of shit that threatened a witness and the Judge. He doesn’t feel one bit of guilt about what he did. Barr has turned the DOJ into a joke.

“On February 18, 2019, Stone posted on Instagram a photo of the federal judge overseeing his case, Amy Berman Jackson, with what resembled rifle scope crosshairs next to her head.[135] Later that day, Stone filed an apology with the court. Jackson then imposed a full gag order on Stone, citing her belief that Stone would "pose a danger" to others without the order.[136]”

WB you might think you’re outraged, it would not match my anger. I’ll take a break from what I’m assuming will be many propaganda type posts by you trying to paint Stone as a victim. He isn’t but because he’s one of Trump’s thugs I already know at worst Trump will pardon him. No justice just partisan republicans being corrupt in front of the nation.

Fair play!

Top
#1230982 - Wed Feb 12 2020 11:34 PM Re: Trump impeachment 3.0: manufacturing a narrative around the Roger Stone sentencing [Re: Matter-eater Man]
Wonder Boy
Offline brutally Kamphausened

Registered: Wed Sep 12 2001
Posts: 21121
Loc: A glorious bold new America
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Stone is a corrupt piece of shit that threatened a witness and the Judge. He doesn’t feel one bit of guilt about what he did. Barr has turned the DOJ into a joke.

“On February 18, 2019, Stone posted on Instagram a photo of the federal judge overseeing his case, Amy Berman Jackson, with what resembled rifle scope crosshairs next to her head.[135] Later that day, Stone filed an apology with the court. Jackson then imposed a full gag order on Stone, citing her belief that Stone would "pose a danger" to others without the order.[136]”

WB you might think you’re outraged, it would not match my anger. I’ll take a break from what I’m assuming will be many propaganda type posts by you trying to paint Stone as a victim. He isn’t but because he’s one of Trump’s thugs I already know at worst Trump will pardon him. No justice just partisan republicans being corrupt in front of the nation.


I doubt Stone is more unrepentant or or more guilty of crimes than Eric Holder (Fast and Furious, and "I'm Obama's wingman!" , Loretta Lynch (meeting Bill Clinton on the tarmac for secret talk 3 days before Hillary was exonerated by Lynch), Sally Yates (submitting faraudulent warrants to the FISA court), Lisa Page and Peter Strzok (do I even have to say what they did?), Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Kevin "vive le resistance" Clinesmith (the FBI lawyer HillaryClintonista who submitted the falsified FISA warrants and altered documents that would have shown exculpatory evidence to prevent those warrants from being obtained), and about 45 others in DOJ and FBI cited in A G reports as having committed deliberate fraud and/or breaks of FBI/DOJ protocol in their partisan Trump investigations.
Not to mention Hillary Clinton and her campaign heads, who spent over $2 million for the "Russia Dossier", with payments directly to Christopher Steele and other foreign agents, at least two of them Russian counterintelligence heads.
Everything Democrats accuse these Trump aides of, the Democrats are 100 times more guilty of themselves. And yet they selectively prosecute Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Geroge Pappadapoulos, etc.

AND AGAIN: Selective prosecution of Roger Stone, while treasonous leakers who weaponized their federal agencies against Trump and other citizens were never investigated, never arrested, never prosecuted, never imprisoned, let alone given a vastly disproportionate excessive sentence, after these DOJ prosecutors told DOJ management they would not.

If there were prosecution and sentences given these Clinton/Obama officials and DOJ/FBI rogues, equal justice under the law, I might be more inclined to believe Roger Stone deserved the sentence he got.


  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.

Top
#1230983 - Wed Feb 12 2020 11:47 PM Re: Trump impeachment 3.0: manufacturing a narrative around the Roger Stone sentencing [Re: Wonder Boy]
Wonder Boy
Offline brutally Kamphausened

Registered: Wed Sep 12 2001
Posts: 21121
Loc: A glorious bold new America


Another log of selective DOJ prosecution thrown on the fire:

Dinesh D'Souza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%2...ion,_and_pardon

Who, yes, donated beyond the maximum to a Republican candidate, but was again selectively prosecuted by DOJ while Obama was president, while many other Democrats did the exact same thing and were never arrested or prosecuted.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that D'Souza was and is an unfluential critic and documentary film-maker of Obama and the Democrats, and this trial and prison sentence prevented D'Souza from creating another persuasive book or film that would have cost the Democrats millions of votes. And D'Souza was again given a longer sentence than the average person would get for the same crime. And far longer than the Democrats who were never investigated or prosecuted.

Top
#1230991 - Thu Feb 13 2020 06:23 PM Re: Trump impeachment 3.0: manufacturing a narrative around the Roger Stone sentencing [Re: Wonder Boy]
Wonder Boy
Offline brutally Kamphausened

Registered: Wed Sep 12 2001
Posts: 21121
Loc: A glorious bold new America


BARR SAYS TRUMP TWEETS 'MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO MY JOB'



So I think it can safely be said that attorney general Barr isn't "Trump's wingman", the way partisan and racist Eric Holder was for Obama (an Obama-era DOJ partisanship that the Democrats, of course!, had absolutely no problem with. Or with Loretta Lynch's private conversation on the airport tarmac three days before Lynch announced no charges against Hillary in 2016. Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.)


Among many points, this:

 Quote:
Barr, speaking to ABC News, said that even prior to Trump's tweet Monday night, he was surprised to hear that DOJ prosecutors had sought the nine-year prison sentence, both because it was inconsistent with the prosecutors' previous discussions with main DOJ and because it did not seem "fair and reasonable" given the facts of the Stone case.

"I was very surprised," Barr said. "Once I confirmed that that's actually what we filed, I said that night to my staff that we had to get ready, because we had to do something in the morning to amend that, and clarify what our position was."

PROSECUTORS QUIT EN MASSE; TRUMP SAYS STONE CASE A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

The next day, senior DOJ officials intervened and amended the prosecutors' sentencing recommendation downward, although top DOJ brass have repeatedly said their decision was independent of Trump's wishes.
Some Democrats have said Trump could face another impeachment over the episode, which seemingly undercut the traditional separation of political considerations from DOJ prosecutorial decisions.

Conservative commentators have split over the issue, with some suggesting that career DOJ officials are properly supervised by elected politicians, and others praising Barr for condemning Trump's involvement.


While Stone warranted some level of punishment for his prosecution, the consensus of upper DOJ officials is that the prosecutors on the case had agreed to go for a lesser sentence, and then behind DOJ leadership's backs, the case prosecutors upped it to an excessive 9 years.
Which regardless of Trump's twittered opinion, would have resulted in upper DOJ intervening to press for a shorter sentence, what was originally agreed to. And ultimately it is a DOJ sentence recommendation, and the final decision ultimately belongs to the judge on the case, Amy Berman Jackson.

And speaking of Amy Berman Jackson, Tucker Carlson on previous occasions over several months has gone into evidence that she is a Democrat zealot who should have been recused from the case from the outset.

And as I said before, the four prosecutors who resigned are partisan Democrat warriors as well. At least three are Democrats, and 2 of the 4 came from the Mueller team. Severe sentencing of Roger Stone is a way for them to attempt to vindicate the failed Mueller investigation, by making Stone look as criminal and conspiratorial as possible.

And then there's the apparently tainted jury, where the forewoman formerly ran for Democrat office, and has posted vitriolic negative comments about Trump on social media. THAT should have been weeded out very early in the trial. And that both the partisan prosecutors and the partisan judge allowed it will likely result in a mistrial and a second trial for Roger Stone.

Likewise, according to Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, the alleged "threat" and "witness tampering" by Stone to a witness were vastly exaggerated. Which was also covered in Fox's linked article:

 Quote:

Stone has been convicted on seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements to Congress on charges that stemmed from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Prosecutors charged that Stone lied to Congress about his conversations about WikiLeaks with New York radio host Randy Credico, although Stone was never linked to any criminal conspiracy to access or leak documents.

It would place Stone in a category of the guidelines that "typically applies in cases involving violent offenses, such as armed robbery, not obstruction cases," the government argued, noting that Stone's "advanced age, health, personal circumstances, and lack of criminal history" also counseled against the harsh penalty.
Specifically, prosecutors said that although Stone allegedly had threatened Credico’s therapy dog, Bianca -- saying he was "going to take that dog away from you" -- it was important to recognize that Credico has acknowledged that he "never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog."


Fitton characterized it as belittling sarcastic joke toward Credico by Stone, not a threat. And like Democrats or Media Matters twisting jokes by Trump to allege that Trump literally wanted Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's e-mail server (rather than a joke at an election rally), or when Democrats/liberal media allege Trump is soliciting violence when he says of someone "I want to smack him" (rather than a joke by Trump at an election rally), this post by Stone was twisted into a threat that it was not.


The jury tainted, the prosecutors Meuller people and Democrats, excessive sentencing, a partisan judge... Amazing how there can be Democrat corruption and tainting of the case all the way up and down the chain and Dems have no problem with that. But Trump makes a few tweets that give the slightest excuse to allege Trump/Barr impropriety, and wooooooaaahh, it's time to kneejerk right into Impachment 3.0.


Any half-baked excuse.


Top
#1230992 - Thu Feb 13 2020 06:50 PM Re: Trump impeachment 3.0: manufacturing a narrative around the Roger Stone sentencing [Re: Wonder Boy]
Wonder Boy
Offline brutally Kamphausened

Registered: Wed Sep 12 2001
Posts: 21121
Loc: A glorious bold new America
Meet Jury foreperson Tomeka Hart:
https://heavy.com/news/2020/02/tomeka-hart/


I've been selected for jury duty multiple times, and not selected for a jury simply because if it were a defendant's word against the word of the arresting officers I would tend to believe the police. Or that I questioned if a litigant was possibly an illegal immigrant and therefore would be breaking the law to be in the country to collect damages. Or in the case of a drug deaaler defendant, that I had friends or family who had suffered drug addiction or died of illicit drug oversdoses. Others were excluded from the same juries simply for having relatives who were police officers!

How was this evil partisan sack of excrement able to serve on this jury, with her views going undetected? Unless the fix was in, and both prosecutors and the judge welcomed an opinionated partisan juror, foreperson no less!, who would make the desired outcome that much easier.

But oops!
The partisans involved tipped their hand and made it national news when they made a show of resigning the case. Now with what they did exposed, the verdict will likely be thrown out and result in a new trial. They were partisan and got away with it. But then they got greedy in their partisan tipping of the scales, and it blew up in their faces.

It would be nice if judge and prosecutors would face criminal charges themselves for deliberately tainting a jury. I won't hold my breath.



 Quote:
She wasn’t the only juror harboring such views. Another Stone juror was an “Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views,” and yet another had donated to Democrat Beto O’Rourke and other liberal causes, according to Fox.

In November, she shared a story on Twitter on November 12, 2019, headlined, “Clinton says she is being urged by ‘many, many, many people’ to run in 2020.” The Stone trial was ongoing at that time. She also wrote, “So POTUS goes to the Bama game, gets a standing ovation from the home crowd, and Tide gets Rolled in their first loss of the season. 🤔🧐 Correlation doesn’t equal causation, but I’m just saying…”


Hmmm...

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Seriously, how do lawyers on a case not look at 10 minutes of social media posts and see this kind of partisanship in a selected juror? I'd be interested in G-man's opinion on this, as he has no doubt tried cases and selected jurors.

And again, I wonder if this kind of negligence could be seen as deliberate jury tampering. I mean, this lady wears her liberalism on her sleeve, especially on social media, and has given roughly $1,000 to candidates and partisan leftist anti-Trump organizations in less than the last 6 months. With rabidly anti-Trump views, while on the jury for a Trump operative. How could any attorney possibly miss that? It's right out there. WAY out there.



Top
#1230994 - Thu Feb 13 2020 08:37 PM Re: Trump impeachment 3.0: manufacturing a narrative around the Roger Stone sentencing [Re: Wonder Boy]
Matter-eater Man
Offline Fair Play!

Registered: Sat Jun 07 2003
Posts: 14510
Stone isn’t a victim. Nor has he even shown regret for his actions. Seems to me the people who are going out of their way to defend a true sack of excrement are the same ones that were really upset when Eric Holder said he was Obama’s wingman but applauded and cheered when Trump said he wanted a wingman and found one in Barr.

I will say the one juror sounds way to political and should have been dismissed. The same principle applies to Barr though too. He ishould have never personally intervened in this.

Fair play!

Top
#1230997 - Thu Feb 13 2020 09:40 PM Re: Trump impeachment 3.0: manufacturing a narrative around the Roger Stone sentencing [Re: Matter-eater Man]
Wonder Boy
Offline brutally Kamphausened

Registered: Wed Sep 12 2001
Posts: 21121
Loc: A glorious bold new America
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Stone isn’t a victim. Nor has he even shown regret for his actions. Seems to me the people who are going out of their way to defend a true sack of excrement are the same ones that were really upset when Eric Holder said he was Obama’s wingman but applauded and cheered when Trump said he wanted a wingman and found one in Barr.

I will say the one juror sounds way to political and should have been dismissed. The same principle applies to Barr though too. He should have never personally intervened in this.


I just explained (sourced) how Roger Stone is a victim of misreprensented facts, where even the witness allegedly threatened and tampered with said he never felt threatened and don't punish Roger Stone for this, he was just blowing off steam.

I just explained (sourced) how the jury was tainted with ideologically biased jurors, at least some of whom were known to be biased jurors, and yet the judge did not remove them.

I just explained (sourced) how the judge herself's behavoir has revealed herself as a liberal zealot, and yet she was not recused.

Sacks of excrement are people with power like Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Peter Stzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, and Obama and Biden and others of his cabinet who sat in on meetings that authorized these abuses!



combined with, among others:

 Quote:
LISA PAGE: Trump isn't going to be president, right? RIGHT?
PETER STRZOK: No. No, he won't. We will stop it.


We already know that this level of abuse, FISA surveillance of a presidential candidate and his campaign staff, had to be authorized at the highest level. The texts of Strzok and Page have already connected the dots.

As have the interviews of former CIA field supervisors I've cited, who say they needed White House authorization for surveillance on far less highly positioned citizens than Trump and his staff they had previously surveiled on other cases.


Period, the end.

And Barr is not behaving as a partisan, but as someone who is truly pursuing the restoration of the rule of law. Unlike the previous Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch and about 45 others cited as behaving unlawfully in inspector general reports, Barr is pursuing actual justice: equal protection and equal penalty under the law.

For abuses like those by the IRS and Lois Lerner and then-IRS director Koskinin in 2012, who got a free pass that emboldened the FBI, DOJ and FISA abuses of 2016, and the multiple deep state coups ongoing since then, there has to be prosecution and penalty to stop the abuses. Whatever else you are insinuating factlessly, that is ALL that William Barr is doing.

Restoration of the rule of law, without partiality to one party.

It terrifies me what the manicas in your party would do if they regained power. We've already seen a good precursor of what they would now be emboldened to do. The scary part is Democrats KNOW what your party is doing, and rationalize it as somehow OK and no big deal.
What people like Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Elizabet Warren, Hillary Clinton, Kristen Gillibrand, Beto O'Rourke and your personal buddy Pete Buttigeig are openly advocating is a Stalinist purge of anyone who disagrees with their woke liberalism. Seizing guns, depriving conservatives who disagree with them of employment, forcing Catholics and other Christians to participate in abortion and gay culture or be fined out of business or jailed. Your party is insane. A Bolshevik revolution.


Top
Page 1 of 3 123>


Hop to:
April
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Forum Stats
3019 Members
14 Forums
65729 Topics
1191310 Posts

Max Online: 3134 @ Thu Jan 23 2020 07:06 AM
New Topics
WWE WrestleMania 36 Results: 4-4-20
by PixieP
URG vs the gubment.
by URG
Corona virus makes your dick fly off!
by Joey From Friends
Coronavirus: Zoom is in everyone's living room - how safe is it?
by the G-man
???????????
by klmnop123171
???????????????????
by klmnop123171
????????????????
by klmnop123171
??????????????
by klmnop123171
?????????????
by klmnop123171
??????????????????
by klmnop123171