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

List of Trump's crimes?

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

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Where was Biden cleared? Stopping an investigation is not "clearing". It's kinda like Trump declaring he was "exonerated" because the Mueller report didn't charge him.



    I don't know that they were, or are, and you don't know that they're not. Remember that "presumption of innocence" thing? Somebody has to actually prove Trump's motive.

    Here's another factor -- President Zelensky still claims he felt no pressure - no QPQ.

    Let's say that you and I have a phone call, and others overhear parts of it, or find out second or third hand that we talked. Word gets out that I threatened I was blackmailing you -- an illegal act.

    You voluntarily state there was no blackmail at all - that we were talking, and I made some suggestions, but you never considered it demands or threats or blackmail.....

    who do we believe? You and me? Or people who kinda sorta heard the call, or parts of it, or reports of it.
    I think a more accurate analogy would be if I was a beneficiary in a trust and you were the trustee and I had a dog that I loved very much who was sick and needed ten thousand dollars for surgery which the board had approved. We have a phone call and I say ‘I’m ready for that money, my dog is coughing blood now’ and you say ‘I need you to do me a favour though’ followed by a suggestion that you think that lebron is better than Kobe with further instructions to speak to your friend.

    Your friend tells me that I need to start wearing a t shirt that reads ‘Lebron is better than Kobe’ which I know had been thoroughly debunked. Then the next day I hear that you put a pause on the transfer for unknown reasons then your friend comes to me and says that the funds will be released once I wear the t shirt.

    So I order the t shirt and wait for it to arrive. Before it arrives I hear that you are being investigated for making the transfer conditioned on me wearing a false t shirt thus betraying your fiduciary duties to me. The next day the funds are released and my dog is saved. The t shirt arrives and I throw it in the bin where it belongs.

    But my dog will need surgery again next year and I’ll need you to sign off on it again so when a reporter asks if I felt pressured I tell them no.

    Regardless of what we say, the actions speak for themselves. You had a fiduciary duty to act in my best interest but abused it to try and get what you wanted. What we say or how we felt about that phone call doesn’t change the fact that:

    1) you paused the transfer of funds
    2) I was pressured by your friend to wear the t shirt
    3) you can’t explain why pausing the transfer was in my best interest

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
      preponderance of the evidence is to make the implications...

      What you wrote is of course taken into account in assessing the likelihood of either scenario but in this situation there’s only one scenario since the defense hasn’t offered one.
      Again, what preponderance of evidence are you referring to? Second, third, and fourth hand hearsay are not evidence. Neither are presumptions and guesses. The only witness who spoke directly to Trump testified that the President told him clearly he didn't want quid quo pro. President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have said repeatedly that they felt no pressure from the Trump administration. The transcript of the phone call does not show any evidence of Trump pressuring the Ukraine government to do anything. As Turley pointed out today, impeaching a president requires clear and direct evidence of a crime. It can't simply be inferred.
      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 Watermelon View Post
        You called Clinton a rapist because of the accusations. Is it fair to call Trump a rapist and a serial sexual abuser too?
        Trump’s sexual adventures is a well established fact, so it would be quite fair to bring that up. As for Clinton being a rapist, considering that the women which accused him haven’t changed their stories, faced hardships and destroyed lives by accusing him of rape, and the attempts to destroy them personally and professionally. Yeah, it’s no doubt Clinton, at the very least, has highly questionable sexual actions in his past.

        Ask yourself this, would the media have been so accommodating if Clinton had been a Republican, running against a Democrat?
        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          And yet not a single witness has testified to hearing anything of that nature directly from the President, and Sondland testified that the President explicitly told him the exact opposite of what was being passed around the rumour mill.
          Of course not, even the president isn't that dumb. Looks to me like if push comes to shove Trumps going to pin the whole thing on the head of the OMB, Mick Mulvaney. But, even without the testimony of all the witnesses, including Mulvaney, that Trump blocked from testifying, there is still plenty of circumstantial evidence, not to mention Trumps own words on the phone to Zelenski "I need you to do us a favor though."
          You're willing to believe the stupidest stuff, MM, in order to protect your belief in the wannabe dictator.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
            Trump’s sexual adventures is a well established fact, so it would be quite fair to bring that up. As for Clinton being a rapist, considering that the women which accused him haven’t changed their stories, faced hardships and destroyed lives by accusing him of rape, and the attempts to destroy them personally and professionally. Yeah, it’s no doubt Clinton, at the very least, has highly questionable sexual actions in his past.

            Ask yourself this, would the media have been so accommodating if Clinton had been a Republican, running against a Democrat?
            Accomodating? How so? !9 women accused Trump of sexual crimes. Would you say the media was harder on Trump?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Again, what preponderance of evidence are you referring to? Second, third, and fourth hand hearsay are not evidence. Neither are presumptions and guesses. The only witness who spoke directly to Trump testified that the President told him clearly he didn't want quid quo pro. President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have said repeatedly that they felt no pressure from the Trump administration. The transcript of the phone call does not show any evidence of Trump pressuring the Ukraine government to do anything. As Turley pointed out today, impeaching a president requires clear and direct evidence of a crime. It can't simply be inferred.
              I explained it in my previous post. You are stating the same thing over and over again, they have been taken into account.

              Wheres the second, third or fourth hand hearsay evidence I’m using?

              And the other 3 disagreed. It seems like it’s the job of congress to determine the threshold for burden of proof but even if it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, preponderance of evidence shifts the burden of proof over to the defendant in similar situations. They just have to place ‘reasonable doubt’ by explaining away the evidence.

              Trump should start with why the aid was withheld.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                I explained it in my previous post. You are stating the same thing over and over again, they have been taken into account.

                Wheres the second, third or fourth hand hearsay evidence IÂ’m using?

                And the other 3 disagreed. It seems like it’s the job of congress to determine the threshold for burden of proof but even if it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, preponderance of evidence shifts the burden of proof over to the defendant in similar situations. They just have to place ‘reasonable doubt’ by explaining away the evidence.

                Trump should start with why the aid was withheld.
                Trumps excuse for why the aid was withheld was because he was concerned about the corruption in Ukraine, yet he never once mentioned the corruption in Ukraine and he fired the Ambassador (Yovanovitch) who was was actually there for that very purpose, to root out the corruption. Trump was actually inviting corruption into Ukraine with his secret band of crooks, Giuliani and his 2 cohorts, and had to get Yovanovitch out of their way, so he fired her. Trump was concerned about only two things in Ukraine, a phoney investigation into Crowdstrike in order to shift the blame for the 2016 election interference from Russia to Ukraine, and an investigation into his political rival. That's what he asked Zelensky for. It's quite possible that after Zelensky made the public announcement of an investigation into Biden, that Trump would still withhold the aid for a few more weeks at which point, because of some Congressional rule, it could no longer be sent.
                Last edited by JimL; 12-04-2019, 11:16 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                  You are stating the same thing over and over again...
                  Because those are the facts, and the facts haven't changed. You prefer one explanation, but the facts readily lend themselves to other explanations. The fact that they don't definitively point to a single, damning explanation provides reasonable doubt in and of itself.

                  You say that "Trump should start with why the aid was withheld." Actually, he doesn't have to start with anything because there is no clear or direct evidence that a crime was even committed. Even if we were to concede that every one of your "quick facts" were true, that still doesn't present any clear and direct evidence of a crime and just looks like typical foreign policy negotiations.

                  But let's circle back to your "quick facts":

                  Sonderland plus 2 sent to Ukraine by Trump to ‘direct foreign policy’

                  Sonderland in direct communication with Trump and Giuliani

                  Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

                  Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

                  Trump call with Zelensky

                  Aid withheld with no reason given

                  Sonderland tells Ukrainians and Taylor that ‘everything including aid is conditioned on making that announcement’

                  But Sondland said he was acting on presumption, so whatever he told Ukrainian officials didn't come from the President. That straightaway takes three of your facts against Trump off the table:

                  Sonderland plus 2 sent to Ukraine by Trump to ‘direct foreign policy’

                  Sonderland in direct communication with Trump and Giuliani

                  Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

                  Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

                  Trump call with Zelensky

                  Aid withheld with no reason given

                  Sonderland tells Ukrainians and Taylor that ‘everything including aid is conditioned on making that announcement’

                  Trump's phone call with Zelensky shows nothing criminal or even improper transpired, and Zelensky says he didn't feel pressured, so that's another strike:

                  Sonderland plus 2 sent to Ukraine by Trump to ‘direct foreign policy’

                  Sonderland in direct communication with Trump and Giuliani

                  Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

                  Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

                  Trump call with Zelensky

                  Aid withheld with no reason given

                  Sonderland tells Ukrainians and Taylor that ‘everything including aid is conditioned on making that announcement’

                  You're right that apparently no reason was formally given for why aid was withheld, but we can't arbitrarily assume it must have been for illegitimate or illegal reasons. That would actually have to be proven, which it hasn't been, so that's another strike:

                  Sonderland plus 2 sent to Ukraine by Trump to ‘direct foreign policy’

                  Sonderland in direct communication with Trump and Giuliani

                  Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

                  Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

                  Trump call with Zelensky

                  Aid withheld with no reason given

                  Sonderland tells Ukrainians and Taylor that ‘everything including aid is conditioned on making that announcement’

                  And the last two facts don't suggest anything criminal, so...

                  Sonderland plus 2 sent to Ukraine by Trump to ‘direct foreign policy’

                  Sonderland in direct communication with Trump and Giuliani


                  Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

                  Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

                  Trump call with Zelensky

                  Aid withheld with no reason given

                  Sonderland tells Ukrainians and Taylor that ‘everything including aid is conditioned on making that announcement’

                  I dunno, man... your case against Trump looks pretty thin!
                  Last edited by Mountain Man; 12-04-2019, 11:22 PM.
                  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 NorrinRadd View Post
                    So Sondland is not a credible witness in any way,
                    Soderland was a victim of the same trap that befalls many of Trump’s defenders (e.g. Cohen), of massaging facts to suit Trump’s interests so as to keep him on side. Big mistake.

                    and all of his testimony should be tossed.
                    Not altogether given that the rest of his testimony is congruent with that of the other testifiers. But certainly, in this instance.

                    The bit Trump endlessly quotes, namely “I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo" is just too convenient for Trump to be credible. Plus it uses the very same Latin phrase used by the whistle-blower and Trump is not known for inserting Latin phrases into his discourse. It's the sort of thing well-educated people do and Trump is far from that. BUT, more to the point, there is no record that this call between Soderland and Trump ever took place.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Because those are the facts, and the facts haven't changed. You prefer one explanation, but the facts readily lend themselves to other explanations. The fact that they don't definitively point to a single, damning explanation provides reasonable doubt in and of itself.

                      You say that "Trump should start with why the aid was withheld." Actually, he doesn't have to start with anything because there is no clear or direct evidence that a crime was even committed. Even if we were to concede that every one of your "quick facts" were true, that still doesn't present any clear and direct evidence of a crime and just looks like typical foreign policy negotiations.

                      But let's circle back to your "quick facts":

                      Sonderland plus 2 sent to Ukraine by Trump to ‘direct foreign policy’

                      Sonderland in direct communication with Trump and Giuliani

                      Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

                      Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

                      Trump call with Zelensky

                      Aid withheld with no reason given

                      Sonderland tells Ukrainians and Taylor that ‘everything including aid is conditioned on making that announcement’

                      But Sondland said he was acting on presumption, so whatever he told Ukrainian officials didn't come from the President. That straightaway takes three of your facts against Trump off the table:

                      Sonderland plus 2 sent to Ukraine by Trump to ‘direct foreign policy’

                      Sonderland in direct communication with Trump and Giuliani

                      Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

                      Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

                      Trump call with Zelensky

                      Aid withheld with no reason given

                      Sonderland tells Ukrainians and Taylor that ‘everything including aid is conditioned on making that announcement’

                      Trump's phone call with Zelensky shows nothing criminal or even improper transpired, and Zelensky says he didn't feel pressured, so that's another strike:

                      Sonderland plus 2 sent to Ukraine by Trump to ‘direct foreign policy’

                      Sonderland in direct communication with Trump and Giuliani

                      Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

                      Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

                      Trump call with Zelensky

                      Aid withheld with no reason given

                      Sonderland tells Ukrainians and Taylor that ‘everything including aid is conditioned on making that announcement’

                      You're right that apparently no reason was formally given for why aid was withheld, but we can't arbitrarily assume it must have been for illegitimate or illegal reasons. That would actually have to be proven, which it hasn't been, so that's another strike:

                      Sonderland plus 2 sent to Ukraine by Trump to ‘direct foreign policy’

                      Sonderland in direct communication with Trump and Giuliani

                      Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

                      Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

                      Trump call with Zelensky

                      Aid withheld with no reason given

                      Sonderland tells Ukrainians and Taylor that ‘everything including aid is conditioned on making that announcement’

                      And the last two facts don't suggest anything criminal, so...

                      Sonderland plus 2 sent to Ukraine by Trump to ‘direct foreign policy’

                      Sonderland in direct communication with Trump and Giuliani


                      Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

                      Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

                      Trump call with Zelensky

                      Aid withheld with no reason given

                      Sonderland tells Ukrainians and Taylor that ‘everything including aid is conditioned on making that announcement’

                      I dunno, man... your case against Trump looks pretty thin!
                      That’s not how any of this works.. but I’m starting to understand why you think there’s no evidence.

                      1. Sonderland said he was acting on his presumption is his testimony. It’s a fact that he said it in his testimony but that doesn’t make it a fact that he was actually acting on his presumption.

                      2. Stating there’s nothing wrong with phone call is an opinion and not a fact. Zelensky saying something is different to knowing how he felt.

                      3. Are you seriously saying that evidence can’t be considered unless the allegation that it’s evidence for has already been proven?

                      4. So facts that don’t ‘suggest’ anything criminal can’t be evidence? Why would you think this?

                      My quick facts was just a quick list of verified events that happened and relevant to the allegations. They’re not opinions or assertions or hearsay as you claimed, which ironically was for your facts.

                      A juries job isn’t to make up their own explanations. They are to decide which explanation they believe based on the evidence presented to them.

                      They make a list/timeline of known facts from the evidence and decide which story makes more sense with those facts.

                      Comment


                      • Forget the facts! FULL SPEED FORWARD - let's present this turkey to the Senate!!!
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                          That’s not how any of this works.. but I’m starting to understand why you think there’s no evidence.

                          1. Sonderland said he was acting on his presumption is his testimony. It’s a fact that he said it in his testimony but that doesn’t make it a fact that he was actually acting on his presumption.

                          2. Stating there’s nothing wrong with phone call is an opinion and not a fact. Zelensky saying something is different to knowing how he felt.

                          3. Are you seriously saying that evidence can’t be considered unless the allegation that it’s evidence for has already been proven?

                          4. So facts that don’t ‘suggest’ anything criminal can’t be evidence? Why would you think this?

                          My quick facts was just a quick list of verified events that happened and relevant to the allegations. They’re not opinions or assertions or hearsay as you claimed, which ironically was for your facts.

                          A juries job isn’t to make up their own explanations. They are to decide which explanation they believe based on the evidence presented to them.

                          They make a list/timeline of known facts from the evidence and decide which story makes more sense with those facts.
                          1) Unless we have reason to question Sondland's credibility, then we must accept his statements as truthful and accurate. He says he acted on his own presumption. His statement was never challenged. Therefore, it's a fact that he acted on his own presumption.

                          2) What's in the transcript is not up for debate since we're all free to read it for ourselves, and yes, it's an undeniable fact that the transcript shows no evidence of anything criminal or improper.

                          3) If someone wants to claim that aid to Ukraine was withheld for illegal reasons, then this would have to be proven with direct and relevant evidence. Simply assuming it must have been illegal is not good enough.

                          4) Of course facts that don't suggest a crime are still evidence; they're just not evidence of a crime. I would have thought this was obvious.

                          Bottom line: your "quick facts" do not lead to your preferred conclusion, and you seem to be unaware of the hidden assumptions you're using to get there.
                          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
                            1) Unless we have reason to question Sondland's credibility, then we must accept his statements as truthful and accurate. He says he acted on his own presumption. His statement was never challenged. Therefore, it's a fact that he acted on his own presumption.

                            2) What's in the transcript is not up for debate since we're all free to read it for ourselves, and yes, it's an undeniable fact that the transcript shows no evidence of anything criminal or improper.

                            3) If someone wants to claim that aid to Ukraine was withheld for illegal reasons, then this would have to be proven with direct and relevant evidence. Simply assuming it must have been illegal is not good enough.

                            4) Of course facts that don't suggest a crime are still evidence; they're just not evidence of a crime. I would have thought this was obvious.

                            Bottom line: your "quick facts" do not lead to your preferred conclusion, and you seem to be unaware of the hidden assumptions you're using to get there.
                            1. That is not what happens. Sonderland acting on his own presumptions is called a ‘question of fact’. A question of fact is something the fact finder must determine from the evidence. That Sonderland acted under Trumps orders is a key part of the case which the democrats are attempting to prove. Can you see the challenge to his statement here?

                            What would happen in a real court is that he would be grilled during cross examination.
                            ‘You testified White House visit was conditioned on announcement, what instructions did you get and from who?’
                            ‘Why did you make the presumption about the aid?’
                            ‘What exact words were used?’
                            ‘Why did Trump never correct your presumption for two months?’
                            ‘Why did it take two months to ask for clarification?’
                            If the words used by Trump that caused Sonderlands presumption was something that anyone in Sonderlands position would’ve also presumed then its considered directly said.

                            Mulvaney and Pompeo would both be forced to testify and grilled about why they confirmed Sonderlands presumptions to him. What exactly did Trump say to them?

                            It would go on and on then questions about his role in Ukraine, his foreign policy objectives from trump, what else he did besides requesting announcements.

                            2. Again not how this works. That’s another thing the fact finder makes a decision on after hearing both sides and putting it in context to everything else. Can you honestly not see that both sides can make a decent argument for this?

                            3. And how would they prove that exactly? By proving that it was withheld for personal gain? Which is the case. You’re asking them to prove their case before they can use this fact in that case. How is this even making sense to you?

                            What really happens - if someone claims that some action (like withholding aid) happened as a result/with the intention of doing wrong then that becomes a presumption that needs to be addressed by the opposition. Until it’s properly addressed then the court holds that presumption to be true. So in reality it’s actually the opposite of what you think.

                            4. All the facts I listed are relevant to the case. They need to considered together, that’s the point of having them. It was only quick list so you are free to add more in.

                            This isn’t my conclusion, it’s the case the democrats have put forward.

                            It would really be helpful to you to read a case built on circumstantial evidence so that you could get an understanding of how it works.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                              Trump’s sexual adventures is a well established fact, so it would be quite fair to bring that up. As for Clinton being a rapist, considering that the women which accused him haven’t changed their stories, faced hardships and destroyed lives by accusing him of rape, and the attempts to destroy them personally and professionally. Yeah, it’s no doubt Clinton, at the very least, has highly questionable sexual actions in his past.

                              Ask yourself this, would the media have been so accommodating if Clinton had been a Republican, running against a Democrat?
                              I actually don’t know if the media would’ve been more accommodating but I was wrong about you being selective with facts there. I apologise for assuming. I accept the assume reference or in this case the assu.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                                1. That is not what happens. Sonderland acting on his own presumptions is called a ‘question of fact’. A question of fact is something the fact finder must determine from the evidence. That Sonderland acted under Trumps orders is a key part of the case which the democrats are attempting to prove. Can you see the challenge to his statement here?

                                What would happen in a real court is that he would be grilled during cross examination.
                                ‘You testified White House visit was conditioned on announcement, what instructions did you get and from who?’
                                ‘Why did you make the presumption about the aid?’
                                ‘What exact words were used?’
                                ‘Why did Trump never correct your presumption for two months?’
                                ‘Why did it take two months to ask for clarification?’
                                If the words used by Trump that caused Sonderlands presumption was something that anyone in Sonderlands position would’ve also presumed then its considered directly said.

                                Mulvaney and Pompeo would both be forced to testify and grilled about why they confirmed Sonderlands presumptions to him. What exactly did Trump say to them?

                                It would go on and on then questions about his role in Ukraine, his foreign policy objectives from trump, what else he did besides requesting announcements.

                                2. Again not how this works. That’s another thing the fact finder makes a decision on after hearing both sides and putting it in context to everything else. Can you honestly not see that both sides can make a decent argument for this?

                                3. And how would they prove that exactly? By proving that it was withheld for personal gain? Which is the case. You’re asking them to prove their case before they can use this fact in that case. How is this even making sense to you?

                                What really happens - if someone claims that some action (like withholding aid) happened as a result/with the intention of doing wrong then that becomes a presumption that needs to be addressed by the opposition. Until it’s properly addressed then the court holds that presumption to be true. So in reality it’s actually the opposite of what you think.

                                4. All the facts I listed are relevant to the case. They need to considered together, that’s the point of having them. It was only quick list so you are free to add more in.

                                This isn’t my conclusion, it’s the case the democrats have put forward.

                                It would really be helpful to you to read a case built on circumstantial evidence so that you could get an understanding of how it works.
                                Sondland was grilled during the hearing, and he consistently said that he was acting on his own presumption and not on any direct orders from the President.

                                Regarding the aid being withheld, yes, they need something more than the mere act of the aid being withheld to prove their case that a crime was committed, because withholding aid is not a crime in and of itself. Something like a memo, or an email, or a firsthand witness who received an order directly from the President. Until you have that, then the act of aid being withheld is not evidence of a crime.
                                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
                                13 responses
                                67 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                52 responses
                                257 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                82 responses
                                339 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X