Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

classified documents from Joe Biden's vice presidency found at Biden think tank


OverSword

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

 

The Hill’s Morning Report — New Biden controversy on classified documents; House approves rules

President Biden, his legal team, the Justice Department and the National Archives have known since early November that some classified documents created while he was vice president were discovered locked in a closet in an office Biden used for years after the Obama administration ended.

Limited details, first reported by CBS News and confirmed in a statement by a White House lawyer, set off a barrage of questions on Monday along with comparisons to former President Trump’s ongoing troubles with the Justice Department over his possession of classified records after leaving office. The FBI last year retrieved cartons of presidential and classified materials from Mar-a-Lago, which were destined for the Archives.

Trump, a declared 2024 presidential candidate, on Monday cried foul, setting in motion a new wave of complaints that he is treated unfairly by Democrats for political purposes. The news about Biden’s records punctuated the first workday of the new Congress as House Republicans vowed to pursue rigorous oversight and investigations. One topic at the top of their list: assertions that the Justice Department, FBI and intelligence agencies may have politicized actions to the detriment of conservatives. 

Monday’s revelations about Biden’s recovered documents are all but certain to be explored by the House GOP in future hearings.

“When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House? These documents were definitely not declassified,” Trump said Monday on his Truth Social platform

 

Link

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, odas said:

Dr. Dre gets Marjorie Taylor Greene suspended from Twitter

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/9/dr-dre-gets-marjorie-taylor-greene-suspended-twitt/

 

Suspended. Again. Even under Musk. What piece of garbage this "woman" is.

This should maybe be it's own thread and not sidetracking this one

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

This should maybe be it's own thread and not sidetracking this one

Sorry, I wanted to quote midges post with that  because he had the mtg twitter linked, but I opened accidently a new reply.

Please forgive me.

 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, odas said:

Please forgive me.

Ah, Bryan Adams.  You're forgiven :D

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

You are right, not comparable

There are clear distinctions between Trump and Biden's two cases

 

4 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

If it was true we would still be hearing 24 hour coverage on how he probably wanted to give them to Putin. 

Give? Do you really think His Flabbiness would give anything away???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Joe was vice president at the time. He has zero business having any classified material. 
 

We're only 10 days in and we already have a contender for dumbest comment of the year!

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, OverSword said:

Read my edit :D

But really this and the trump incident are unrelated no matter how people will try to conflate them.   If trump drove drunk and then biden drove drunk drunk driving is still not okay.

Honestly, even if Biden was driving sober it is STILL not okay! 

 

a800e6a008e56626b5430833ed1c7bd0.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

That’s very true and his lawyers falsely made statements that there were no classified documents which the raid proved was a lie, and even a month after more Classified documents were found at another location. While, I certainly think Biden should be treated like Trump and investigated however, they can’t compel him to do anything until he is out of office, because just Trump claimed and biscJustice Department backed up, they said Trump had Presidential immunity while in office, so Biden also has Presidential immunity while he is a sitting President.

The most glaring fact between Trump and Biden in this situation is Trump intentionally attempt to hide and keep classified documents he was stole from the White House SCIF. In the current situation with Biden, his lawyers found the documents and they were immediately turned over, in addition they were also never missed.:yes:

Can you provide a source for where Trump claimed presidential immunity while he was a sitting president? I've done a search, but the only news articles about presidential immunity that I could find was about Trump's claim that he was acting in his role as President on January 6 and therefore he is "absolutely immune" to civil prosecution - such as this article, being one example. 

That's ridiculously wrong, but it's still a far cry from Trump claiming presidential immunity while in office - presidential immunity in this context refers to whether a president can be held legally accountable for his/her actions carried out while performing their duties as president, not about whether they are legally allowed to be tried while sitting in the office of President. As far as I know, the Mueller Report is the source for all the claims that Trump couldn't be prosecuted while he was a sitting president. And yet Trump's been out of office for two years and they still haven't taken any action as a result of the Mueller Report - to the surprise of absolutely no one who has been paying attention to American politics! 

There is some evidence that I found, such as the following Vox article. But from everything I can see, this story appears to be more hyperbole than actual legal argumentation. Apart from all else, it's the only time Trump's lawyers appear to have said anything even remotely like this, and moreover it was a contentious claim disputed by many, not a policy that was ever adopted by the DOJ or any group associated with the ability to charge a sitting president with crimes.

And it's literally the only source even remotely tied to this allegation. The vast majority of sources about claimed immunity all point to the Mueller Report. 

Thanks for any information you have to clarify Trump's actions here :tu: 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the difference?  Look at it this way.

Two motorists are driving their cars.  They both hit pedestrians.  One car stops, drivers and passengers stop to render aid and immediately call 911, then wait for the police to arrive. Biden

The other driver drives off as fast as he can and reaches home through a circuitous route. He and his passengers clean the blood off the fender and bumper, pout the car in the garage and claim they have not been out all day. Trump

Both drivers hit pedestrians.  It is what they did afterwards that makes the distinction.

Biden team came forward, Trump team ran from the scene of the crime and tried to hide evidence. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Can you provide a source for where Trump claimed presidential immunity while he was a sitting president? I've done a search, but the only news articles about presidential immunity that I could find was about Trump's claim that he was acting in his role as President on January 6 and therefore he is "absolutely immune" to civil prosecution - such as this article, being one example. 

That's ridiculously wrong, but it's still a far cry from Trump claiming presidential immunity while in office - presidential immunity in this context refers to whether a president can be held legally accountable for his/her actions carried out while performing their duties as president, not about whether they are legally allowed to be tried while sitting in the office of President. As far as I know, the Mueller Report is the source for all the claims that Trump couldn't be prosecuted while he was a sitting president. And yet Trump's been out of office for two years and they still haven't taken any action as a result of the Mueller Report - to the surprise of absolutely no one who has been paying attention to American politics! 

There is some evidence that I found, such as the following Vox article. But from everything I can see, this story appears to be more hyperbole than actual legal argumentation. Apart from all else, it's the only time Trump's lawyers appear to have said anything even remotely like this, and moreover it was a contentious claim disputed by many, not a policy that was ever adopted by the DOJ or any group associated with the ability to charge a sitting president with crimes.

And it's literally the only source even remotely tied to this allegation. The vast majority of sources about claimed immunity all point to the Mueller Report. 

Thanks for any information you have to clarify Trump's actions here :tu: 

Good morning Android, hope you slept well I did and it’s a beautiful day. Well, first when it to comes to Presidential Immunity and Presidential privilege your looking in the wrong place. I would suggest you review the actual articles of the constitution and standing laws concerning Presidential immunity and Executive Privilege before we go any further because they will give you a better understanding of the subject including the United States v. President Nixon because some of the precedents also apply. Last in the final source Trump v. Rape Victims, you should also review that because the validity of Barry actions and Trumps claims were detrimental to the case and the question is were those action legal. 

1.  ArtII.S3.5.1 Presidential Immunity to Suits and Official Conduct: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-5-1/ALDE_00013392/

2. Excutive Privilege: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-3/executive-privilege-overview#fn1art2

3. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/683/

Barr backs U.S. move to defend Trump against rape accuser's defamation lawsuit: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-defamation-lawsuit-idUSKBN2602DN

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, odas said:

Sorry, I wanted to quote midges post with that  because he had the mtg twitter linked, but I opened accidently a new reply.

Please forgive me.

 

Fitting!!!:lol::nw:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Good morning Android, hope you slept well I did and it’s a beautiful day. Well, first when it to comes to Presidential Immunity and Presidential privilege your looking in the wrong place. I would suggest you review the actual articles of the constitution and standing laws concerning Presidential immunity and Executive Privilege before we go any further because they will give you a better understanding of the subject including the United States v. President Nixon because some of the precedents also apply. Last in the final source Trump v. Rape Victims, you should also review that because the validity of Barry actions and Trumps claims were detrimental to the case and the question is were those action legal. 

1.  ArtII.S3.5.1 Presidential Immunity to Suits and Official Conduct: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-5-1/ALDE_00013392/

2. Excutive Privilege: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-3/executive-privilege-overview#fn1art2

3. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/683/

Barr backs U.S. move to defend Trump against rape accuser's defamation lawsuit: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-defamation-lawsuit-idUSKBN2602DN

G'day Reaper, definitely had a great sleep, and it is a beautiful day (going to be 28 degrees celsius, perfect to jump in the swimming pool in an hour or so) :clap: 

Thanks for the response, however you may have missed answering the question I asked. My question was based on the statement that "they said Trump had Presidential immunity while in office". Who is "they"? When is "they"? It sounds like it's just a US policy that is being applied to the situation, not an argument that Trump ever articulated as a defense! 

Does that make sense? 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his defense he appears to be reading a prepared statement and genuinely has absolutely no clue what's going on.

Somebody there should have asked him what year it currently is.  Hahaha 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

G'day Reaper, definitely had a great sleep, and it is a beautiful day (going to be 28 degrees celsius, perfect to jump in the swimming pool in an hour or so) :clap: 

Thanks for the response, however you may have missed answering the question I asked. My question was based on the statement that "they said Trump had Presidential immunity while in office". Who is "they"? When is "they"? It sounds like it's just a US policy that is being applied to the situation, not an argument that Trump ever articulated as a defense! 

Does that make sense? 

 

Attorney General Barr made those claims and Trump lawyers sighted Executive Privilege and Presidential immunity. My. Comments were based upon the constitution and in the case of Executive Privilege which is not covered in the Constitution, they were based upon case law decided upon in Supreme Court rulings. The article I provided clearly shows that these principles were being used to prevent the women who stated they were raped by Trump from prosecuting him while in office. However, now he us facing State and Federal charge for those crimes and it’s obvious that while he was President they were prevented from having him prosecuted. :tu:

Oh and by the way, remember Monica Lewinsky and Clinton, well one of the Women played a Monica and saved the ripped clothing she was wearing which DNA was recovered from, and Judge has compelled Trump to provide DNA.:yes:

Thanks for your kind reply!:tu:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, acidhead said:

In his defense he appears to be reading a prepared statement and genuinely has absolutely no clue what's going on.

Somebody there should have asked him what year it currently is.  Hahaha 

 

That’s because he is in the early phases of Dementia and that’s not a joke, if he makes it to 2024 I will be surprised.

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

What is the difference?  Look at it this way.

Biden team came forward, Trump team ran from the scene of the crime and tried to hide evidence. 

Wrong. 

The documents were unclassified by Trump(POTUS at the time). The archives knew they were at Trump Palace in Florida.  They simply just wanted them back to which Trump said, "Fine come get them".  Bidens henchmen then sent the FBI to go get them 

The documents Biden took(stole) were classified documents which he had no authority to have(VP's don't have declassification authority) so there is absolutely no excuse to be in possession of them to begin with.  

But, it's really nice of the Brain-dead-in-chief Biden to return them after who knows who looked at them and (gasp!!) showed them or passed on information they contained to who knows who?!?! 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Attorney General Barr made those claims

Can you quote those claims, please? You did cite this article in your post: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-defamation-lawsuit-idUSKBN2602DN

But I saw nothing in that article stating that Barr said anything of the sort. All Barr did in this instance was provide legal counsel to Donald Trump and change the venue to Federal court! 

Quote

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday defended his office’s intervention in a defamation lawsuit by a woman who accused President Donald Trump of raping her, when it moved the case to federal court and sought to install its own lawyers to replace Trump’s private legal team.

Doesn't sound like there's an attempt to stop prosecution, only to give Trump a different set of lawyers to work with. 

 

11 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

and Trump lawyers sighted Executive Privilege and Presidential immunity.

If that's the situation I mentioned in my post from that Vox Article, it sounds like hyperbole. Apart from anything else, there were so many dissenting opinions on that point that it's hard to see them being legally accurate in their assertions. OR, the comments were accurate and Vox (which IS a left wing news site) knew that they were accurate and tried to smear Trump by finding "experts" to claim Trump's lawyers were bloviating, or simply straight up lying. Honestly, neither version of the story makes the left wing media look very good - either the comments from Trump's lawyers are accurate, in which case Vox was simply smearing Trump's lawyers when they had presented the truth; or the comments were inaccurate, in which case it doesn't matter what Trump's lawyers said to the media, their public statements have no bearing on how the DOJ conducts its business and therefore no bearing on whether the DOJ would choose to indict Trump.

 

11 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

My. Comments were based upon the constitution and in the case of Executive Privilege which is not covered in the Constitution, they were based upon case law decided upon in Supreme Court rulings. The article I provided clearly shows that these principles were being used to prevent the women who stated they were raped by Trump from prosecuting him while in office. However, now he us facing State and Federal charge for those crimes and it’s obvious that while he was President they were prevented from having him prosecuted. :tu:

Oh and by the way, remember Monica Lewinsky and Clinton, well one of the Women played a Monica and saved the ripped clothing she was wearing which DNA was recovered from, and Judge has compelled Trump to provide DNA.:yes:

Thanks for your kind reply!:tu:

I'm not arguing against Executive Privilege. I appreciate how policies and procedures in your country provide certain privileges to presidents. I understand this and accept this. I was arguing your claim that Trump has claimed over and over again that they won't ever prosecute a sitting president. If nothing else, had prosecutors been ready to prosecute Trump and only chose not to do so because of presidential privilege, Trump would have been charged the day he left office. Contrary to the claims, Trump has never argued immunity on the basis of being president (except his lawyers that one time we already discussed that appears to be largely hyperbolic).

Thus if Biden has immunity from prosecution, that's based on US Policy that protects all presidents, NOT because Trump made some kind of special argument that has never before applied to any other president. 

~ Regards, PA

PS - it's much better chatting without arguing, thanks for starting fresh, it's good to chat all friendly like :yes:  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Can you provide a source for where Trump claimed presidential immunity while he was a sitting president? I've done a search, but the only news articles about presidential immunity that I could find

E Jean Carroll defamation case.  DOJ under Barr defended him.  DOJ under Garland concurred.  If he had kept his mouth shut afterwards, he would have been home free.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, acidhead said:

Wrong. 

The documents were unclassified by Trump(POTUS at the time). The archives knew they were at Trump Palace in Florida.  They simply just wanted them back to which Trump said, "Fine come get them".  Bidens henchmen then sent the FBI to go get them 

The documents Biden took(stole) were classified documents which he had no authority to have(VP's don't have declassification authority) so there is absolutely no excuse to be in possession of them to begin with.  

But, it's really nice of the Brain-dead-in-chief Biden to return them after who knows who looked at them and (gasp!!) showed them or passed on information they contained to who knows who?!?! 

 

My grandpa was a house painter.  He got a little confused in his later years after lead based paints and solvents for 40 years.  Watch yourself, stay away from floor adhesives and solvents for a little while and get some fresh air.  Or if it is not work related, taper back a little bit. :devil:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

My grandpa was a house painter.  He got a little confused in his later years after lead based paints and solvents for 40 years.  Watch yourself, stay away from floor adhesives and solvents for a little while and get some fresh air.  Or if it is not work related, taper back a little bit. :devil:

Hahaha, thanks buds. I'm well aware of petroleum and solvent based products.

The flooring adhesives used today(for over a decade) now are water based. Only time I use a petroleum based glue is PL Premium(tubes in a caulking gun) for installing staircases sometimes where water based glue doesn't adhere to the bottom side of the flooring(vinyl products).

Same with finish for coating hardwood floors. All water based.  Harder, stronger finish.  Better UV protection then oil based   There is the rare exceptions where clients ask for oil based finish on older floors to keep the traditional look of their floor intact but this can also be accomplished with a product that has a tint added to bring out that look.

As for solvents, don't use them never really have in almost two decades. What I stumbled across was using 99% isopropyl. It actually works better than solvents, doesn't affect the finish, evaporates fast and doesn't leave residue.  It also disinfects minor cuts on your hands while you use it though it initially stings a bit!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Can you quote those claims, please? You did cite this article in your post: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-defamation-lawsuit-idUSKBN2602DN

But I saw nothing in that article stating that Barr said anything of the sort. All Barr did in this instance was provide legal counsel to Donald Trump and change the venue to Federal court! 

Doesn't sound like there's an attempt to stop prosecution, only to give Trump a different set of lawyers to work with

First, the Attorney General of the United States isn't Presidential Counsel, and he really overstepped his bounds by becoming involved in the situation this is what Trumps self-appointed White House Attorney is supposed to do. The Attorney General of the United States position is supposed to be Neutral, because if he does violate that principle, he has opened himself up to being viewed as bias, which will cause him to lose credibility which he did many times during the Trump Administrative. Correct me please if I am wrong, but since Biden became the POTUS to my knowledge the current Attorney General of the United States PERSONALLY has not allowed himself to become involved in personal legal issues involving the POTUS.

This is the legal move that is being questioned and given the Stink eye, because it wasn't ethical and because Barr should not have been involved:

""Some legal experts said moving the case is a win for Trump because it effectively negates the last 10 months of litigation, regardless of whether Kaplan lets the government substitute its own lawyers and replace Trump as the defendant."" “Trump’s effort to wield the power of the U.S. government to evade responsibility for his private misconduct is without precedent, and shows even more starkly how far he is willing to go" 

This is a very important comment " Trump has in multiple cases claimed immunity from civil lawsuits in state courts"

Here is another very important point that is currently being used in the Civil Prosecution Cases that is ongoing:

"The opinion didn’t answer a key question: whether Trump was acting within his official duties in 2019 when he denied Carroll’s claim that he’d raped her more than two decades ago in a department store"

Now, Barr has reversed course concerning the rape allegations, and if this is true Trump didn't have Presidential immunity or Privilege because to claim it would also make the government responsible for damages resulting from it as follows:

"During a press conference in Chicago a day earlier, Barr affirmed that the American taxpayer would be responsible for any damages in the case against the president, now being defended by the Department of Justice under the Westfall Act."

Attorney General William Barr reversed course Thursday by saying the American taxpayer would not be on the hook for any potential damages awarded in E. Jean Carrol's lawsuit relating to her allegations of rape against President Trump. Barr says American taxpayers would not be on hook in Trump lawsuit relating to rape allegation | Fox News

Here, is the biggest Problem and why the United States Government, the Attorney General, and the Justice Department are not allowed to represent the POTUS or any other Government Official in the Executive Branch or not.

Is the attorney general the president’s personal lawyer? Is the attorney general the president's personal lawyer? (columbiatribune.com)

I think you should read this entire Supreme decision I have and it relates directly to the Attorney General of the USA responsibility concerning representing members of the Executive Branch!

BERGER v. UNITED STATES BERGER v. UNITED STATES. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

If that's the situation I mentioned in my post from that Vox Article, it sounds like hyperbole. Apart from anything else, there were so many dissenting opinions on that point that it's hard to see them being legally accurate in their assertions. OR, the comments were accurate and Vox (which IS a left wing news site) knew that they were accurate and tried to smear Trump by finding "experts" to claim Trump's lawyers were bloviating, or simply straight up lying. Honestly, neither version of the story makes the left wing media look very good - either the comments from Trump's lawyers are accurate, in which case Vox was simply smearing Trump's lawyers when they had presented the truth; or the comments were inaccurate, in which case it doesn't matter what Trump's lawyers said to the media, their public statements have no bearing on how the DOJ conducts its business and therefore no bearing on whether the DOJ would choose to indict Trump.

 

I'm not arguing against Executive Privilege. I appreciate how policies and procedures in your country provide certain privileges to presidents. I understand this and accept this. I was arguing your claim that Trump has claimed over and over again that they won't ever prosecute a sitting president. If nothing else, had prosecutors been ready to prosecute Trump and only chose not to do so because of presidential privilege, Trump would have been charged the day he left office. Contrary to the claims, Trump has never argued immunity on the basis of being president (except his lawyers that one time we already discussed that appears to be largely hyperbolic).

Thus if Biden has immunity from prosecution, that's based on US Policy that protects all presidents, NOT because Trump made some kind of special argument that has never before applied to any other president

Yes, that's the case because sitting Presidents do have immunity or Privilege while in officer to protect them from prosecution that will affect their ability to Govern. Once, they leave office they are fair for situations or legal ramifications that didn't occur while they were the POTUS. Trump used this very law throughout his presidency and the Attorney General overstepped his authority and stopped any legal issues that came to light before Trump was President. I will say this again the current US Attorney General has on stepped in to protect Biden to my knowledge since he became POTUS, again if I am wrong, please correct me, I am completely open to constructive criticism and information (Sources ) that prove my comments are inaccurate, however without sources I disregard anyones opinion, because I will not debate an Opinion.

I quote "PS - it's much better chatting without arguing, thanks for starting fresh, it's good to chat all friendly like" Well, I don't remember who suggested it, so I will give you credit for it. However, I certainly agree with you, I also prefer to address others in this manner.:tu:

Very respectfully

Grim Reaper 6:tu:

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

 

~ Regards, PA

PS - it's much better chatting without arguing, thanks for starting fresh, it's good to chat all friendly like :yes:  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

E Jean Carroll defamation case.  DOJ under Barr defended him.  DOJ under Garland concurred.  If he had kept his mouth shut afterwards, he would have been home free.

Yes, that is very true, however expecting Trump to keep his mouth shut is like jumping off the Empire State Building and landing upon your feet without any injury and just walking away whistling a tune!!

Well, Trump doesn't live up to these standards, he hasn't died twice like me (once for 2 minutes) so expecting a Supernatural occurrence, like Trump being able to keep his pie hole shut is the funniest thing I have ever heard :lol:

Here a example of Trumps mouth even Biden said "Oh Shut Up Man' when he said that to Trump I feel off my chair and rolled around on the floor, it was Hilarious!:lol:

Trumpbidendebate Shutup GIF - Trumpbidendebate Shutup - Discover ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.