Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Citing opinion pieces by John Solomon does not a fact make.

    The investigation into Burisma Group was started and shuttered prior to the Obama administration's 2016 push to oust the prosecutor. And, again, if Biden had wanted his son protected from an as-of-yet completely unspecified crime, keeping the guy who corruptly started investigations only to quietly close them shortly thereafter would have been more helpful.

    What's relevant about the whistleblower complaint is that the ICIG determined it to be both credible and urgent and the law states that such a complaint "shall" be sent to Congress within a 7-day timeframe.

    That is what a fact looks like.

    --Sam


    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    This is not consistent with what we actually know.

    The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.

    Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

    So not only was it an active investigation, but Hunter Biden was explicitly named. But then Papa Joe comes to the rescue, and...

    Most of the general prosecutor’s investigative work on Burisma focused on three separate cases, and most stopped abruptly once Shokin was fired. [...] As a result, the Biden family appeared to have escaped the potential for an embarrassing inquiry overseas in the final days of the Obama administration and during an election in which Democrat Hillary Clinton was running for president in 2016.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...obe-is-revived



    Again, this is not consistent with what we know.

    Here's my summary from earlier in the thread:


    And this (say it with me) is not consistent with what we know.

    Since you're apparently playing catch-up, here's my post from a couple pages back explaining the details:
    And to add to this, everything I'm reading about whistleblower laws says that the "whistleblower" must have independent knowledge of the act in question, so no blowing the whistle based on rumors or second/third/X-hand information.

    Those are the facts as we know them. Not speculation. Not guesswork. Facts.
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam View Post
      Citing opinion pieces by John Solomon does not a fact make.
      Did you even bother to read the articles? Solomon's conscientious reporting is based on first hand information gathered directly from Ukrainian and US officials, official Ukrainian government documents, and the Ukrainian prosecutor himself. I imagine it's been a while since you've seen real reporting from any of your usual sources, so this probably confused you.

      As for the pseudo-whistleblower, Townhall puts it plainly:

      For days on end we’ve seen non-stop dribble about President Trump’s “abuse of power.” For days we’ve been told convoluted stories of how the president — on an official call — which had many ears tuned in — openly did “something” that was of “urgent concern.”

      The main reason it was labeled as such?

      The whistleblower claimed it was.

      [...]

      Per CNN: “The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.”

      By definition this person is not a “whistleblower” with provable evidence ready to be turned over and deserving of legal protection.

      This person is someone who is spreading hearsay.

      All of the rest of it is just NOISE!

      The reason the acting director of intelligence did not pass on the complaint to Congress is simple: the source is not credible.

      [...]

      There were many first hand witnesses to the alleged phone call where the (non) whistleblower was said to have derived their facts — albeit not first hand. No one is corroborating the (non) whistleblower’s narrative.

      https://townhall.com/columnists/kevi...lower-n2553460
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post





        Per CNN: “The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.”

        By definition this person is not a “whistleblower” with provable evidence ready to be turned over and deserving of legal protection.

        This person is someone who is spreading hearsay.

        All of the rest of it is just NOISE!

        The reason the acting director of intelligence did not pass on the complaint to Congress is simple: the source is not credible.
        This.
        Last edited by rogue06; 09-23-2019, 02:13 AM.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          My initial assertion

          This is based on analysis of the major pollsters by Real Clear Politics (RCP). Here are two news articles covering with the second from the angle of Rasmussen tooting their own horn because of it.


          A few things should be noted.
          The numbers are right in front of you.

          48/46 actual vs. final poll numbers:

          Abs 2 error: 49/45 or +1/-1 for Insights West
          Abs 4 error: 47/43 or -1/-3 for ABC News
          Abs 4 error: 47/43 or -1/-3 for Gravis marketing
          Abs 2 error: 48/44 or 0/-2 for Fox News

          vs.

          Abs 6 error: 45/43 or -3/-3 for Rasmussen

          This isn't even close.

          Citing the Daily Caller, in clear contradiction to the numbers you can read yourself showing it ain't so, after taking potshots at the Times, is the definition of an own goal. This is why your comments on bias have negative credibility.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
            The "prosecutor they didn't like" was notoriously corrupt and had quashed an investigation into the Burisma Group. How, exactly, does Biden help his son do corrupt things by getting a corrupt prosecutor who's already passed on investigating the company Hunter Biden worked with/for fired? Wouldn't the smart play be to push back on the international effort to get this prosecutor removed, to use the office of VP to protect him?
            Now that's whatcha call game, set, match.

            But, really, look. This week has been newsworthy for two things:

            1) The President (first allegedly then confirmed by the President himself) pushed the Ukrainian government to specifically investigate his likely 2020 political rival, sending his personal attorney to meet with Ukrainian officials and withholding $250m in Congressionally-appropriated funds without public explanation.

            2) The President or someone high up in WH/DOJ unlawfully directed that a whistleblower complaint that includes but may not be limited to the above be withheld from Congress.

            Both are impeachable acts. The second isn't even a matter of debate. And the first? Well, that's exactly the kind of "coordination" that Trump, Republicans, and several folks on here have said was the "real" illegal collusion of 2016. They've said that "Hillary" (really a DNC contractor working independently of the DNC or the Clinton campaign) tried to get Ukraine to dig up "dirt" on Paul Manafort to use against Trump. Whatever one wants to believe about that episode, it's explicitly happening here ... only Trump has used the office of the President in soliciting the thing of value; even apparently going so far as to put a price tag on its value ($250m + $140m that just ... showed up for some unexplained reason).
            Upthread I provided a link relevant to the more serious of these, a defense of withholding from Obama's general counsel to the ODNI.
            As I outlined here, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act provides that if the ICIG determines that a complaint about a matter of “urgent concern” is credible, he sends it to the DNI, who within seven days “shall ... forward” it to Congress together with any comments. But a matter of “urgent concern” is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity within the authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information” (emphasis added). The alleged offer by the president, while perhaps criminal and possibly impeachable, does not obviously relate to any intelligence activity within the DNI’s authority.

            From all reports, the complaint does not relate to the "funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the authority of the DNI involving classified information."

            So on the one hand, there's an actual, nonpartisan argument to be made for claiming the complaint was not, by definition, an "urgent concern." On the other, it is, by natural reasoning, quite obviously an urgent concern, and judged so by yet another "deep state" actor, aka a Trump appointee serving at the pleasure of the president.

            Maybe Hunter Biden got real rich trading off his father's name and position. That's routine network-lobbyist grifting that goes on all the time through both Republican and Democratic administrations. If we want to make it illegal, great, let's do it. But it's not illegal and there's zero evidence that Hunter Biden committed corrupt acts or that Joe Biden facilitated anything illegal. And if folks here weren't raising red flags about Kusher getting a mega-bailout by Qatari investors after the Trump administration helped Saudi Arabia launch a major crackdown on Qatari commerce/travel routes or with Ivanka Trump suddenly winning some long-sought Chinese trademarks ... well, I'm not sure it's really the underlying conduct that is of concern.
            Maybe it's not illegal, but it's absurd to suggest Biden wasn't sufficiently aware of his son's relationship with what he also could not have been unaware was a corrupt administration. Burisma was looking for energy contracts. These are properly described as up for bid, but the bidding comes inescapably in the form of bribes. Likely enough, Hunter's covered against legal action, because that's not that hard to do, but his efforts to distance himself from Burisma are telling. He's dirty.

            Highlighting "crony capitalism" involving a close relative would be an entirely fair attack on a political opponent, though in this instance, with the muckraking coming from a businessman president profiting directly from his presidency, it might not be prudent to open that box.

            I'm not sure what to call folks who dissemble about the President soliciting a thing of immense personal/campaign value from a foreign government, demanding that government meet with his personal attorney, then blocking needed and allocated funding right up until Congress sent over a investigative preservation request. Nor do I know what to call the same folks who dissemble about the President violating the law to prevent a whistleblower complaint about his conduct from reaching Congress.

            But whatever one can call 'em, they're not good citizens of the Republic. And, with that, I'll return to the infrequent lurkings.

            --Sam
            Always a pleasure, Sam.

            And again, as I mentioned upthread, those who are willing to wait will be rewarded. Both audio and transcripts of the call will be in the press soon enough, and we can move on from the if, if, if ... speculations to a more serious discussion of facts.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
              Now that's whatcha call game, set, match.
              Nope, nope, I didn't read your source, Sam. But any road, the eggs on me for not checking.
              There’s a dispute going on between Bloomberg and the Times over some aspects of this complex story. (Here’s Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple on their back-and-forth.) One area of dispute is whether the Burisma probe was ongoing while Biden was pushing for Shokin’s ouster. “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Vitaliy Kasko, a former official in the prosecutor general’s office, told Bloomberg News in an article published May 7. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

              Note especially:
              One area of dispute is whether the Burisma probe was ongoing while Biden was pushing for Shokin’s ouster.

              So the refs are still consulting on whether the ball was out. The game's not over.
              Last edited by Juvenal; 09-23-2019, 05:19 AM.

              Comment


              • To be sure it isn't lost in the mix, there's this:

                Any legitimate Ukrainian probe of Burisma would have been focused on the oligarch and founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, who fled the country during the probe.

                • Not the board of directors, and
                • Not the non-Ukrainian board members brought in to provide a semblance of oversight, including Aleksander Kwaśniewski, former President of the Republic of Poland; Joseph Cofer Black, former director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center under Dubya; and the far more obscure Hunter Biden, former director of the nada institute.

                But considering the widespread corruption within the prosecutor's office resulting in international calls for his ouster, it's far more likely the probe amounted to little more than a shake-down effort.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                  Nope, nope, I didn't read your source, Sam. But any road, the eggs on me for not checking.
                  There’s a dispute going on between Bloomberg and the Times over some aspects of this complex story. (Here’s Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple on their back-and-forth.) One area of dispute is whether the Burisma probe was ongoing while Biden was pushing for Shokin’s ouster. “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Vitaliy Kasko, a former official in the prosecutor general’s office, told Bloomberg News in an article published May 7. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

                  Note especially:
                  One area of dispute is whether the Burisma probe was ongoing while Biden was pushing for Shokin’s ouster.

                  So the refs are still consulting on whether the ball was out. The game's not over.

                  Good to hear from you, as always. I don't think the various reporting on this subject is contradictory but rather complementary: Shokin apparently had a history of beginning/announcing investigations into corruption then backing off/shelving those investigations after using them to extort the targets. This doesn't mean that the investigation is technically closed and "off the books", just that it is not being pursued. Or as Ken Vogel at NYT put it:

                  Source: Trump, Biden and Ukraine: Sorting Out the Accusations. Kenneth P. Vogel. NYT. 2019.09.22

                  Mr. Shokin was not aggressively pursuing investigations into Mr. Zlochevsky or Burisma. But the oligarch’s allies say Mr. Shokin was using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team, and that left the oligarch’s team leery of dealing with the prosecutor.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Shokin's replacement would apparently go on to mimic the pattern of his predecessor's behavior but I don't think there's actually much daylight between NYT, Bloomberg, and other reporting: whether or not Burisma Group was technically under investigation at the time, Shokin was not pursuing it, allegedly choosing instead to use the investigation as leverage for extortion. So the underlying logic remains: better for Biden, if he were trying to shield his son from any corruption charges, to stay with the guy who opens and shutters investigations for extortion than to attack him as corrupt and push for reform.

                  --Sam
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                    To be sure it isn't lost in the mix, there's this:

                    Any legitimate Ukrainian probe of Burisma would have been focused on the oligarch and founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, who fled the country during the probe.

                    • Not the board of directors, and
                    • Not the non-Ukrainian board members brought in to provide a semblance of oversight, including Aleksander Kwaśniewski, former President of the Republic of Poland; Joseph Cofer Black, former director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center under Dubya; and the far more obscure Hunter Biden, former director of the nada institute.

                    But considering the widespread corruption within the prosecutor's office resulting in international calls for his ouster, it's far more likely the probe amounted to little more than a shake-down effort.
                    I suppose that's why the Ukrainian government was so troubled by Joe Biden extorting them to fire a prosecutor who was about to drop the hammer on his son that they've been trying for nearly two-years to get the US to investigate the very real possibility that US laws were broken.

                    Remember, this whole thing was initiated by the Ukrainian government contacting the State Department after they were stonewalled by the US embassy in Kiev, and federal prosectors in New York.

                    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...erture-to-rudy

                    We also know for a fact that it was an active investigation when Biden extorted them, contrary to the liberal narrative that the case had been dismissed. This information comes firsthand from official Ukraine government documents and the prosecutor himself.

                    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...obe-is-revived

                    Furthermore, Ukraine's foreign minister is on record saying that they initiated contact with the US government, and that President Trump did not pressure them to investigate.

                    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...dent-zelensky/

                    So basically, the truth is almost the exact opposite of everything we're hearing from the liberal media and their "sources say" reports.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                      Now that's whatcha call game, set, match.



                      Upthread I provided a link relevant to the more serious of these, a defense of withholding from Obama's general counsel to the ODNI.
                      As I outlined here, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act provides that if the ICIG determines that a complaint about a matter of “urgent concern” is credible, he sends it to the DNI, who within seven days “shall ... forward” it to Congress together with any comments. But a matter of “urgent concern” is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity within the authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information” (emphasis added). The alleged offer by the president, while perhaps criminal and possibly impeachable, does not obviously relate to any intelligence activity within the DNI’s authority.

                      From all reports, the complaint does not relate to the "funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the authority of the DNI involving classified information."

                      So on the one hand, there's an actual, nonpartisan argument to be made for claiming the complaint was not, by definition, an "urgent concern." On the other, it is, by natural reasoning, quite obviously an urgent concern, and judged so by yet another "deep state" actor, aka a Trump appointee serving at the pleasure of the president.



                      Maybe it's not illegal, but it's absurd to suggest Biden wasn't sufficiently aware of his son's relationship with what he also could not have been unaware was a corrupt administration. Burisma was looking for energy contracts. These are properly described as up for bid, but the bidding comes inescapably in the form of bribes. Likely enough, Hunter's covered against legal action, because that's not that hard to do, but his efforts to distance himself from Burisma are telling. He's dirty.

                      Highlighting "crony capitalism" involving a close relative would be an entirely fair attack on a political opponent, though in this instance, with the muckraking coming from a businessman president profiting directly from his presidency, it might not be prudent to open that box.



                      Always a pleasure, Sam.

                      And again, as I mentioned upthread, those who are willing to wait will be rewarded. Both audio and transcripts of the call will be in the press soon enough, and we can move on from the if, if, if ... speculations to a more serious discussion of facts.

                      I do agree that the cronyism displayed by hiring Hunter Biden is dirty and unethical and I'm very much in favor of legislation that ends the practice. My point there is only that, like people being shocked, shocked, that Clinton used a personal email account for government work, we're talking about a relatively common practice in politics today. It's not a scandal in itself and we're not going to start talking about it like it's some new thing to hang around Biden's neck.

                      Relating to the whistleblower complaint/ICIG report, I don't think there's actually a non-partisan argument to be made concerning the designation of an urgent, credible complaint. As Robert Litt notes in the linked article, the legislature seems to have anticipated that a DNI might disagree with the IG's designation and directs that they send the IG report regardless, with notes if necessary. The DNI doesn't have the statutory authority to override the IG's decision as to what constitutes a credible complaint -- nor would such a power really make sense, as a whistleblower may well be filing a complaint regarding an activity the DNI ordered or an act they are complicit in. In any case, no effort was made by the DNI to comply with the law, not even a proactive letter to the relevant congressional committees that a report had been submitted but would be withheld. And since no exemption is made for executive communication privileges or classified information concerns in the statute, the executive branch cannot withhold such reports without it being, on the face, unlawful. How courts might rule regarding the law's effect on separation of powers is a useful question but, for the moment, the accurate term has to be 'unlawful'.

                      I don't think we're disagreeing about the substance of our claims here so the above is more for broad clarification purposes.

                      Hope classes have started well and will only get better with cooler weather,

                      --Sam
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        I suppose that's why the Ukrainian government was so troubled by Joe Biden extorting them to fire a prosecutor who was about to drop the hammer on his son that they've been trying for nearly two-years to get the US to investigate the very real possibility that US laws were broken.
                        As this timeline coincides with the Trump presidency, there's good reason to believe any attempts to investigate Biden's son stem from political pressure from the Trump administration.

                        Ukraine's new president caught in US political crossfire

                        Ukrainian leaders feel trapped between warring Washington factions

                        All evidence to date supports the assertion that the investigation into Burisma was directed toward extorting its founder, and sufficient evidence exists to assume the extortion was successful.

                        Remember, this whole thing was initiated by the Ukrainian government contacting the State Department after they were stonewalled by the US embassy in Kiev, and federal prosecutors in New York.

                        https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...erture-to-rudy

                        We also know for a fact that it was an active investigation when Biden extorted them, contrary to the liberal narrative that the case had been dismissed. This information comes firsthand from official Ukraine government documents and the prosecutor himself.

                        https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...obe-is-revived

                        Furthermore, Ukraine's foreign minister is on record saying that they initiated contact with the US government, and that President Trump did not pressure them to investigate.

                        https://theconservativetreehouse.com...dent-zelensky/

                        So basically, the truth is almost the exact opposite of everything we're hearing from the liberal media and their "sources say" reports.
                        As Sam has noted, Solomon is not a reporter, he's an opinion writer, and not an upscale writer at that. The TCT, however, isn't even opinion, it's a conspiracy site. All of these citations provide further support to the reported claims of Ukraine being under improper pressure to support the Trump narrative. None of these citations include a reference to Zlochevsky, the obvious target of any probe, either legitimate or illegitimate, casting further doubt on their perspicacity.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                          As Sam has noted, Solomon is not a reporter, he's an opinion writer...
                          And as I noted, Solomon's information comes directly from Ukrainian and US government officials, official Ukrainian government documents, and the Ukrainian prosecutor himself. And the link to (the highly reputable) Conservative Treehouse leads to a video statement from Ukraine's foreign minister, so you don't even have to take sundance's word for it.

                          But, sure, you can play the genetic fallacy if you want. It's a weak play, to be sure, but it seems to be the only move you have left.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            I don't think we're disagreeing about the substance of our claims here so the above is more for broad clarification purposes.
                            I agree there's little disagreement, though I'd dispute the use of possessive pronouns. I am bringing forward the reporting of professional journalists working under standard editorial oversight. Right or wrong, the claims are theirs.

                            My opinions should be read as opinions only, and remain restricted to the ethics of crony capitalism.

                            Hope classes have started well and will only get better with cooler weather,

                            --Sam
                            Things are settling down remarkably under our new chair, who is still benefiting from a novel aura best described as, "Thank God she's not crazy." As someone who actually hired her in the past for an adjunct position at another university, I'd say she's much better than that, but a low bar is a low bar.

                            My own classes ... hmm, put it this way ... I've just bought a dozen calculators on eBay, with another half dozen bids that should close this week ... which probably says it all. These kids are not privileged. But they're my kids, and I'm going to do whatever is necessary to help them, so help me God.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              This.
                              Is answered by this.
                              President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden ’s son, according to people familiar with the matter, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump’s potential 2020 opponent.

                              It should be noted that, contrary to the reputation for conservative bias in their editorial content, WSJ reporting, like Fox news reporting, has long held a solid reputation, though there have been vocal protests against pressures exerted on reporters after its acquisition by Murdoch.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                                Is answered by this.
                                President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden ’s son, according to people familiar with the matter, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump’s potential 2020 opponent.

                                It should be noted that, contrary to the reputation for conservative bias in their editorial content, WSJ reporting, like Fox news reporting, has long held a solid reputation, though there have been vocal protests against pressures exerted on reporters after its acquisition by Murdoch.
                                Except CNN reported that the "whistleblower" had no direct knowledge of the phone call -- in fact didn't even learn about it as part of his (or her) official duties -- and Ukraine's foreign minister said himself that they were not pressured by President Trump to investigate.
                                Last edited by Mountain Man; 09-23-2019, 08:03 AM.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                348 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X