Flynn Walks.. DOJ drops case

[TwiceHorn 31283]

26 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Surly legal wizards:  Is there any reason that the amicus curiae briefs would necessarily only argue one side (that the court shouldn't accede to the motions of the parties?)  It seems odd that the court appointed this retired judge to present arguments only in opposition.  School me.  Thanks.

Honestly, I think it's a real bastard procedure and ultimately probably unlawful.

You're right that amicii can represent whatever side the amicii want.  The citations in the order don't seem to make any sense and don't support any inherent authority to do this. It can be done in a civil case, but I think it's dubious in a criminal case.

Edited May 14, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[EMAWesome 101]

13 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Laurence Tribe to English translation---"John Gleason is a liberal political hack who will look at this only through the eyes of how can I get Trump with this and not through the eyes of has justice been served or not just like I am."

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

So I could use some help discussing this with a guy a work with.  I haven't followed the case that closely.  The guy I work with is a full on Trumper and watches Fox News all day long.  According to him Flynn did nothing wrong and there is proof that the FBI made him lie to them and that is why there is no crime.  He said there are notes in a file that show the FBI told Flynn he had to lie.  To me this sounds crazy but is this the Republican talking point now?

[Alvin89 108]

 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

22 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

So I could use some help discussing this with a guy a work with.  I haven't followed the case that closely.  The guy I work with is a full on Trumper and watches Fox News all day long.  According to him Flynn did nothing wrong and there is proof that the FBI made him lie to them and that is why there is no crime.  He said there are notes in a file that show the FBI told Flynn he had to lie.  To me this sounds crazy but is this the Republican talking point now?

Long story short, if the prosecution was wrongful or erroneous in any way it was in an extremely, highly technical way having little or nothing to do with Flynn's guilt, as made rather obvious by his guilty plea.

If Flynn had not pled guilty and tried to defend himself in a trial or by motion practice before or after trial using these technicalities, I think he'd probably lose.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

25 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

So I could use some help discussing this with a guy a work with.  I haven't followed the case that closely.  The guy I work with is a full on Trumper and watches Fox News all day long.  According to him Flynn did nothing wrong and there is proof that the FBI made him lie to them and that is why there is no crime.  He said there are notes in a file that show the FBI told Flynn he had to lie.  To me this sounds crazy but is this the Republican talking point now?

I'll save you some time. Either just ignore him or do this. 

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

21 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Surly legal wizards:  Is there any reason that the amicus curiae briefs would necessarily only argue one side (that the court shouldn't accede to the motions of the parties?)  It seems odd that the court appointed this retired judge to present arguments only in opposition.  School me.  Thanks.

I mean are people really debating the legal aspects of what Barr is doing? That is absolutely pointless and to even engage in the debate is to concede defeat. Like the president he serves, Barr is a completely amoral corrupt moron who will do whatever trump tells him to do. 

This should not even be a point of discussion. It is what it is. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Flynn pled guilty because the deep state was against trump so he pled guilty because that’s what he did. - trumpkins 

[Bullneck 18987]

10 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

Laurence Tribe to English translation---"John Gleason is a liberal political hack who will look at this only through the eyes of how can I get Trump with this and not through the eyes of has justice been served or not just like I am."

That whole thing about Flynn acting as an unregistered foreign agent while serving as a national security advisor doesn't bother you?  

 

[washparkhorn 9935]

8 hours ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

So I could use some help discussing this with a guy a work with.  I haven't followed the case that closely.  The guy I work with is a full on Trumper and watches Fox News all day long.  According to him Flynn did nothing wrong and there is proof that the FBI made him lie to them and that is why there is no crime.  He said there are notes in a file that show the FBI told Flynn he had to lie.  To me this sounds crazy but is this the Republican talking point now?

He is confused on the issue. Flynn's argument does not include the FBI made him lie. Flynn's argument is he knew the FBI had a transcript of the call and asked him questions about what he said. He said he didn't recall whether he said something specifically, but believed the FBI had the transcript so they would get the information they needed about the call. Flynn argues he didn't think he was in any trouble and was trying to be helpful to the FBI regarding the Russian Ambassador call. 

The dismissal motion is based on materiality - the information sought (what he said to the Russian Ambassador) was immaterial, since the investigation into Flynn was over before the conversation, the information was post-election conduct (so it was not material to pre-election activity), and the FBI already had the transcript (meaning the conversation where Flynn was inaccurate would not have caused the investigation to move forward since the transcript was already available to the FBI). 

I know of nothing in any record that the FBI told Flynn to lie. There was a note that indicated the PURPOSE of the investigation was to trap Flynn in a lie or, in the alternative, gather enough information to force Flynn out. That - rightly or wrongly in an individual's mind of what is justice - is common. Telling lies to an investigator is the prosecutor's best friend. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

2 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

That whole thing about Flynn acting as an unregistered foreign agent while serving as a national security advisor doesn't bother you?  

 

Unregistered lobbying for foreign interests is a sticky situation for many in DC. I am not sure the powers that be want that aired out. FARA has huge loopholes - including the lawful business transaction exception.

[hobbes2702 12847]

16 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Unregistered lobbying for foreign interests is a sticky situation for many in DC. I am not sure the powers that be want that aired out. FARA has huge loopholes - including the lawful business transaction exception.

What’s lawful about accepting payment from Turkey to kidnap a cleric given US asylum?

[washparkhorn 9935]

It is my understanding the work done by the Flynn group related to the extradition of Guelan - not a kidnapping. Turkey went though a Dutch firm I think and the Dutch group hired the Flynn group. Flynn wrote an oped I believe favoring extradition. 
 

We have quite a few working for other nations. I am not sure anyone in power wants that to become a large issue. 
 

It disgusts me personally. 

[Bullneck 18987]

10 hours ago, Alvin89 said:

 

Sir, your post has attracted some attention.  Perhaps it is the content?  Maybe you could explain what's going on here?  I'll hang up and listen.

[Alvin89 108]

8 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Sir, your post has attracted some attention.  Perhaps it is the content?  Maybe you could explain what's going on here?  I'll hang up and listen.

 

                 

“The number of unmasking requests by yourself began to go up dramatically in 2014,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., noted during his questioning of Power to explain why the topic of unmasking had been raised. “[L]et me then ask you about, sort of, maybe the gravamen of how this came about. And I think it came about over a concern about the leaking of Mike Flynn’s name.”

“So, to your knowledge, did you ever make [redacted]?” Schiff asked, likely referring to intercepts of Flynn’s conversations.

“I don’t recall making such a request,” Power said.

    She only made 7 requests. 

[DixonHur 11227]

1 hour ago, Alvin89 said:

 

                 

“The number of unmasking requests by yourself began to go up dramatically in 2014,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., noted during his questioning of Power to explain why the topic of unmasking had been raised. “[L]et me then ask you about, sort of, maybe the gravamen of how this came about. And I think it came about over a concern about the leaking of Mike Flynn’s name.”

“So, to your knowledge, did you ever make [redacted]?” Schiff asked, likely referring to intercepts of Flynn’s conversations.

“I don’t recall making such a request,” Power said.

    She only made 7 requests. 

Do you have a point?  I'm not sure what that Twitter screenshot is from but it clearly says, "was an authorized recipient" of the reports, there were "X" (redacted) number of reports, and that there were multiple "identified principals". 

It also states that they can't confirm Flynn was among the names in the reports she requested.   So, again, what's your fucking point? 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

10 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

It is my understanding the work done by the Flynn group related to the extradition of Guelan - not a kidnapping. Turkey went though a Dutch firm I think and the Dutch group hired the Flynn group. Flynn wrote an oped I believe favoring extradition. 
 

We have quite a few working for other nations. I am not sure anyone in power wants that to become a large issue. 
 

It disgusts me personally. 

Yeah, not to defend Flynn, because working for or associating with Erdogan is bad news, but it seemed like the "Kidnap Gulen' thing was pretty overwrought.

The initial reporting was vague and as it got more precise, it got a little less insidious and more toward a PR campaign against Gulen.

What's gross is, just a short time earlier, Flynn spoke in support of the Turkish coup.

[HenryJames 65890]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support%3famp

[TXSG8R 3360]

13 hours ago, Bullneck said:

That whole thing about Flynn acting as an unregistered foreign agent while serving as a national security advisor doesn't bother you?  

 

Just a guess, but because he was doing it for team R, the answer is probably no.  If it had been a team D guy, EMA would be calling for gallows to be built.  

[Bullneck 18987]

4 hours ago, Alvin89 said:

 

                 

“The number of unmasking requests by yourself began to go up dramatically in 2014,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., noted during his questioning of Power to explain why the topic of unmasking had been raised. “[L]et me then ask you about, sort of, maybe the gravamen of how this came about. And I think it came about over a concern about the leaking of Mike Flynn’s name.”

“So, to your knowledge, did you ever make [redacted]?” Schiff asked, likely referring to intercepts of Flynn’s conversations.

“I don’t recall making such a request,” Power said.

    She only made 7 requests. 

You are quoting things from Twitter that may or may not be connected.  So I'll ask you again: why don't you put into YOUR words, with context, what you think is going on here. 

Be specific.  

[The Royal We 3065]

That seems like a pretty big ask, don't be so unreasonable Bullneck. 

[Alvin89 108]

1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

You are quoting things from Twitter that may or may not be connected.  So I'll ask you again: why don't you put into YOUR words, with context, what you think is going on here. 

Be specific.  

Sally Yates made multiple requests to unmask Flynn....She testified under oath she "didn't recall" which is horse shit. She hasn't kept a straight story through this entire process. She told the Mueller team that she first learned of the Flynn phone conversation while in the oval office with President Obama. Shortly there after she told the House Intelligence Committee that she first heard of the conversation through the FBI. Comey testified that she heard it first in the oval office meeting as well. She got very nervous about the oval office meeting when she testified before Congress. When asked about it she stated "This is where I get a little uncomfortable."  Why is she lying about where she first heard the info from and why doesn't she want to say to Congress that President Obama told her? None of it makes sense.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

I once briefed Mike Flynn. His CSM even gave me a coin for my briefing. At the time, I found him to be engaging, intelligent, and personable.

That was all before he decided to, at least publicly, break the oath he swore to the Constitution, to the Men under him, and to his uniform.

The other players in all of this are pawns in a grand scheme. But flynn... flynn must be held accountable for his indiscretions. Our Oath must be solemn and uncompromising. I have nothing but contempt for him as a human being and reject him and everything he has ever asserted.

[DixonHur 11227]

23 minutes ago, Alvin89 said:

Sally Yates made multiple requests to unmask Flynn

Where's your evidence for this?  Hopefully not the Tweet you posted, because that's not at all what that says.  

 

24 minutes ago, Alvin89 said:

She told the Mueller team that she first learned of the Flynn phone conversation while in the oval office with President Obama. Shortly there after she told the House Intelligence Committee that she first heard of the conversation through the FBI. Comey testified that she heard it first in the oval office meeting as well.

You know Comey was head of the FBI, right?  Isn't it possible that she heard it from the FBI while in the Oval Office?

[Alvin89 108]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Where's your evidence for this?  Hopefully not the Tweet you posted, because that's not at all what that says.  

 

You know Comey was head of the FBI, right?  Isn't it possible that she heard it from the FBI while in the Oval Office?

Yates testified that she heard it first from President Obama. She also made several comments that Comey was keeping her in the dark on matters relating to Flynn.

[Alvin89 108]

10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Where's your evidence for this?  Hopefully not the Tweet you posted, because that's not at all what that says.  

 

You know Comey was head of the FBI, right?  Isn't it possible that she heard it from the FBI while in the Oval Office?

Sorry, got Powers and Yates named mixed up.

[DixonHur 11227]

16 minutes ago, Alvin89 said:

Yates testified that she heard it first from President Obama. She also made several comments that Comey was keeping her in the dark on matters relating to Flynn.

Can you provide a link to that testimony?  I just glanced over her testimony and I didn't see any inconsistencies, nor did I see anything about her first hearing about Flynn from President Obama.  

[hobbes2702 12847]

14 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

It is my understanding the work done by the Flynn group related to the extradition of Guelan - not a kidnapping. Turkey went though a Dutch firm I think and the Dutch group hired the Flynn group. Flynn wrote an oped I believe favoring extradition. 
 

We have quite a few working for other nations. I am not sure anyone in power wants that to become a large issue. 
 

It disgusts me personally. 

You’re either a liar or uninformed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/10/michael-flynn-trump-turkish-dissident-cleric-plot

[Alvin89 108]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Can you provide a link to that testimony?  I just glanced over her testimony and I didn't see any inconsistencies, nor did I see anything about her first hearing about Flynn from President Obama.  

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1258490130211442690/photo/1

 

[Bullneck 18987]

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

You are quoting things from Twitter that may or may not be connected.  So I'll ask you again: why don't you put into YOUR words, with context, what you think is going on here. 

Be specific.  

 

1 hour ago, Alvin89 said:

Sally Yates made multiple requests to unmask Flynn....She testified under oath she "didn't recall" which is horse shit. She hasn't kept a straight story through this entire process. She told the Mueller team that she first learned of the Flynn phone conversation while in the oval office with President Obama. Shortly there after she told the House Intelligence Committee that she first heard of the conversation through the FBI. Comey testified that she heard it first in the oval office meeting as well. She got very nervous about the oval office meeting when she testified before Congress. When asked about it she stated "This is where I get a little uncomfortable."  Why is she lying about where she first heard the info from and why doesn't she want to say to Congress that President Obama told her? None of it makes sense.

Sally Yates?  She's from Georgia.  The woman in your Twitter repost was born in Ireland.  

[Bullneck 18987]

9 minutes ago, Alvin89 said:

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1258490130211442690/photo/1

 

OK, you have acknowledged the mix up of people.  Since I haven't been paying too much attention to some of this detail stuff that is suddenly super duper important.  I've been hanging my hat on the fact that Flynn PLEAD GUILTY and stopped with the trivia. 

Can you let me know why when either the Georgia woman or the Irish woman knew something why that's important, when Flynn PLEAD GUILTY?  I'll hang up and listen.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Bullneck

[DixonHur 11227]

13 minutes ago, Alvin89 said:

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1258490130211442690/photo/1

 

Okay, I think I've found where your confusion lies. 

These are two separate incidences.  During Comey's meeting with Obama in the Oval Office, she connected the dots to learn about Flynn had a phone call...which she had been kept out of the loop from.  That was January 5th...the very next day Trump got the exact same briefing...so far no scandal detected. 

Fast forward to January 26th, the day after the FBI interviewed Flynn, she went to the White House to warn them that the things VP Pence was saying regarding Flynn were inaccurate.  That sounds like a reasonable, and even prudent thing to do.  Of course that's before we knew lying was part of the brand.

Oh, and BTW, let's not forget that Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn just after the election in November...sounds more like a Trump hiring problem than anything else.

[washparkhorn 9935]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

You’re either a liar or uninformed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/10/michael-flynn-trump-turkish-dissident-cleric-plot

There were a lot of rumors swimming about at a fevered pitch. What was the end result of the investigations into the kidnapping rumor? I never saw any indictment for kidnapping or conspiracy to commit kidnapping, did you?

Drive friendly, the Texas way.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

18 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

There were a lot of rumors swimming about at a fevered pitch. What was the end result of the investigations into the kidnapping rumor? I never saw any indictment for kidnapping or conspiracy to commit kidnapping, did you?

Drive friendly, the Texas way.

No shit, that's a "report" of an "investigation," not a credible assertion that he was in fact involved in a plot to kidnap and render Gulen to Turkey.

As I said, I think it amounted to Flynn's group was hired and their ultimate role was a PR job against Gulen.  Some crazed Turk or dirty Dutchman may have suggested extradition, or even kidnapping, but I don't think there was any credible evidence that Flynn agreed to that or participated in it.

The liar bit was way over the top.

If Fart Barf and Itch/DOJ agreed not to prosecute an attempted kidnapping or conspiracy to kidnap at the behest of one of the world's serious bad actors for a perjury plea, then there's a bigger problem here than anyone has caught onto.

Edited May 15, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[washparkhorn 9935]

Agree. It's bad enough the Flynn Group ran media campaign against an American citizen for a bloodthirsty tyrant government in Turkey. Period. That was despicable in my opinion. No need to embellish it with a kidnapping rumor. 

Gulen was no angel, but it is very scary when influential Americans work to have a citizen extradited to a foreign nation known for a corrupt criminal system. It may not be illegal, but it is un-American. We are inundated with lobbying by foreign governments through influential Americans. It needs to stop. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

On 5/13/2020 at 9:25 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Honestly, I think it's a real bastard procedure and ultimately probably unlawful.

You're right that amicii can represent whatever side the amicii want.  The citations in the order don't seem to make any sense and don't support any inherent authority to do this. It can be done in a civil case, but I think it's dubious in a criminal case.

Back to this.  I think Sullivan knows he pretty much has to dismiss this because the government asked.

BUT, I'm thinking he wants this Gleeson guy to develop the record in opposition so that Sullivan can at least say that he dismisses because he's bound to and not because he approves of the dismissal. And it will publicize the government's malfeasance.

Civil cases also require leave of court to dismiss, but leave to dismiss is rarely if ever denied.  The caveat is that the judge can impose conditions, as in attorneys fees, sanctions, "with prejudice," etc.  I think he can do something like that, but can't force the government to go through with sentencing, or a trial or anything else.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Oh, and BTW, let's not forget that Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn just after the election in November...sounds more like a Trump hiring problem than anything else.

Chris Christie said he warned Trump before the election not to hire Flynn. 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/chris-christie-mike-flynn/index.html

[Bullneck 18987]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Chris Christie said he warned Trump before the election not to hire Flynn. 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/chris-christie-mike-flynn/index.html

Chris "Voice of Reason" Christie.  My how we've fallen.

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

On 5/13/2020 at 10:25 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Honestly, I think it's a real bastard procedure and ultimately probably unlawful.

You're right that amicii can represent whatever side the amicii want.  The citations in the order don't seem to make any sense and don't support any inherent authority to do this. It can be done in a civil case, but I think it's dubious in a criminal case.

The governing rule of procedure requires leave of court before dismissal - I think the court is well within its powers to request briefing to inform its decision 

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

Oh and for anyone in the weeds:

 

[washparkhorn 9935]

16 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The governing rule of procedure requires leave of court before dismissal - I think the court is well within its powers to request briefing to inform its decision 

Agree. The case before the Judge essentially has no one arguing for non-dismissal as brought up above.

If the goal is to be appeal proof, the judge needs the arguments against dismissal to incorporate into a final order. Asking for amicus briefs is wise, in my opinion. 

[Brian Fantana 6668]

34 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Chris "Voice of Reason" Christie.  My how we've fallen.

He's only being the voice of reason to get back at them for throwing him out of the club.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

He's only being the voice of reason to get back at them for throwing him out of the club.

Which happened at least partially because he threw Kushner's criminal father in jail. 

But now when you see him on the Sunday morning talk shows he's still carrying water for the administration. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

3 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Agree. The case before the Judge essentially has no one arguing for non-dismissal as brought up above.

If the goal is to be appeal proof, the judge needs the arguments against dismissal to incorporate into a final order. Asking for amicus briefs is wise, in my opinion. 

No one is going to appeal unless he fails to dismiss it. Which ultimately I don't think he will do. 

I think he's just building a record before he does dismiss. 

To paraphrase the Fokker Services opinion cited: the power of the judiciary is at its lowest ebb when confronted with the charging decisions of the executive. 

Plus, i think there are monstrous constitutional problems with either forcing the government to, or sua sponte entering, a final judgment of conviction.  I suppose the fact that the question of guilt or innocence is decided might alter that calculus, but  . . . . 

Edited May 15, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Well, lunatic Sidney Powell filed for a writ of mandamus to the DC Circuit trying to stop the appointment.  So I was wrong about the appeal.

Whole thing is so bizarre, I don't know what to think about the mandamus.

I do think that if Sullivan failed to dismiss, he would be reversed.  I can't say quite so positively that he can't appoint an advocate to develop the record before he does, though.  Rather than an "amicus," I think this is more in the nature of a guardian ad litem for the people of the United States.

Edited May 19, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Hookah Horns 3082]

On 5/14/2020 at 10:19 AM, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

So I could use some help discussing this with a guy a work with.  I haven't followed the case that closely.  The guy I work with is a full on Trumper and watches Fox News all day long.  According to him Flynn did nothing wrong and there is proof that the FBI made him lie to them and that is why there is no crime.  He said there are notes in a file that show the FBI told Flynn he had to lie.  To me this sounds crazy but is this the Republican talking point now?

Well, that's pretty easy. You can't make someone lie. Arguably even during torture. 

[JBJ 3649]

On 5/19/2020 at 6:40 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Well, lunatic Sidney Powell filed for a writ of mandamus to the DC Circuit trying to stop the appointment.  So I was wrong about the appeal.

Whole thing is so bizarre, I don't know what to think about the mandamus.

I do think that if Sullivan failed to dismiss, he would be reversed.  I can't say quite so positively that he can't appoint an advocate to develop the record before he does, though.  Rather than an "amicus," I think this is more in the nature of a guardian ad litem for the people of the United States.

DC Circuit has issued the mandamus.  Sullivan never really had any choice, but he can't string it out anymore now.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

DC Circuit has issued the mandamus.  Sullivan never really had any choice, but he can't string it out anymore now.

Well, they've ordered briefing, which in the common-law sense is probably issuing mandamus.  But they haven't ruled on anything yet.

I think a strict view of modern mandamus is that all of Sullivan's orders so far are interlocutory, that is, they don't decide the case.  It would seem that Flynn has a complete remedy on appeal of any conviction, in that if the procedure is improper, his conviction will be reversed or vacated.  So that means no mandamus.

But I'm no appellate genius.

[JBJ 3649]

Yeah.  I read a headline and headliner was misleading.  They've requested a response.

Edited May 23, 2020 by JBJ

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Also, I saw an article on this that mentioned a recent unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court on the "party presentation principle," which I had never heard of.

But, long-story-short, the court has to rule basically on the case as presented by the parties, it can't stray too far from that case or invent its own.  Strictly speaking, this means on appeal, but it's pretty easily extended to the trial court level.

In that case, the Ninth Circuit requested briefing from amicii on issues not raised by the defense (or the prosecution) and reversed a conviction.  RBG said that went too far.

So that ruling sustained a conviction rather than avoiding one, and didn't implicate the idea that the courts have little or no power over the charging decisions (and dismissal decisions) of the government.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/welcome-to-the-party-pal-supreme-court-97911/

Edited May 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn