57 Comments

• 1. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 8:15 am

  I rarely find fault with you guys, and maybe I’m just nitpicking, but your headline says “More bribery charges to be filed against Jefferson”, and the first line of the second paragraph says “Prosecutors said no new charges would be filed because of the accusations revealed in the document”.

  So which is it, and why don’t they just convict him already and send him to the graybar hotel? It’s been 28 months since he was videotaped accepting bribes and $90,000 of the marked bills were found in his freezer. From the time allegations were first made against Randy “Duke” Cunningham until he was behind bars was about 9 months. (note, I’m not sticking up for Cunningham– the dirtbag is where he belongs). Why is it that the wheels of justice seem to move more slowly for Democrats than for Republicans?

• 2. Joe  |  November 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am

  As a liberal Democrat, even I think this guy should be shown the door. This guy really needs to step down much, much sooner rather than later.

  Why isn’t he in jail yet? You can’t blame the Democrats for that (but I’m guessing someone will try to). You can blame the Dems for not throwing him out of Congress, but not for him not being in jail.

• 3. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 10:06 am

  I have to agree with you, Joe. The Bush Justice Department seems to have done a pretty good job of prosecuting their own, but have largely given corrupt Dems a pass. Must have something to do with that “new tone” mentality. Gonzales appeared to me to be dragging his feet on this case. Maybe now that his successor has been confirmed, that will change. We’ll see.

• 4. Ricorun  |  November 20th, 2007 at 11:58 am

  Actually, I think this might have something to do with the delay: “The indictment says there were 11 separate bribery schemes in which Mr. Jefferson used his influence as a co-chairman of the Congressional Africa Investment and Trade Caucus to broker deals in Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria and other African nations.”

  It sounds like there’s a lot to investigate. I suspect that has a lot to do with it. Additionally, there was also the issue surrounding FBI raid of Jefferson’s Capitol Hill offices. That was tied up in court for quite some time. My understanding is that it’s still not fully resolved.

  I’m also guessing that most Dems would love to see the guy gone. But Jefferson claims he’s innocent of all charges. So how do you do that if he won’t leave willingly? The only way is to force his removal after an ethics committee investigation. Unfortunately, the DoJ has asked the House ethics committee to back off. So it appears that the DoJ is holding all the cards at this point.

  By the way, this is a very thorough summary of the whole affair. Finally, it should be noted that the DoJ is still investigating issues surrounding Abramoff. Apparently they’re still looking at Tom Delay, Jerry Lewis, and John Doolittle in that regard. Of course, all three of them have other issues for which they’re being investigated, though none of them have been indicted as yet — as Jefferson has. Heaven knows why some of this stuff takes so long. But apparently it does.

• 5. TiredofLibBullShit  |  November 20th, 2007 at 12:16 pm

  “I’m also guessing that most Dems would love to see the guy gone.”

  Don’t count on it. Nancy Pelosi (who wanted to make Congress the most ethical Congress) wanted to appoint him to the Nation Homeland Security Committee despite the evidence against him. The House Democratic Caucus had to reluctantly, mind you, remove him from the Means and Ways Committee - only for their campaign of “Culture of Corruption” against the Republicans.

  It seems Nancy “Culture of Corruption” Pelosi, did not want to see him gone. It has been two years since all this started (He removed cash from his flooded home in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina - taking precious resources away from resue efforts) why is he still there?

  If it were a Reoublican, the never endind cadence of the Democrats would be heard daily AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WOULD HAVE FORCED HIM TO RESIGN!

  You don’t see Democrats forcing their own to resign, unless they are at the door of the jailhouse.

• 6. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 12:42 pm

  You don’t see Democrats forcing their own to resign, unless they are at the door of the jailhouse.

  TLBS, clearly corruption is a bipartisan problem, but, as a general rule, Republicans tend to hold their elected representatives to a higher standard than Democrats do. I’m not sure exactly why that is, but it’s been pretty much true my whole life.

• 7. Joe  |  November 20th, 2007 at 12:56 pm

  I was right with you there Spook when you said it is a bipartisan problem, but then you lost me.
  Do you remember when the Republicans voted to change their own rules to allow Delay to stay in a position of leadership? There are plenty of examples of BOTH parties not “doing the right thing” with those that bend the rules.

• 8. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pm

  Do you remember when the Republicans voted to change their own rules to allow Delay to stay in a position of leadership?

  I do remember. Do you remember that the rule was quickly voided in the face of overwhelming criticism?

• 9. Joe  |  November 20th, 2007 at 1:30 pm

  I do remember that as well Spook. Voiding it in the face of criticism doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
  Just pointing that out.

• 10. KCJ  |  November 20th, 2007 at 2:04 pm

  “Do you remember when the Republicans voted to change their own rules to allow Delay to stay in a position of leadership? ”

  Correct me if I’m wrong, but Democrats don’t have any rule of their own that says leaders under indictment can’t stay in their position?

• 11. Joe  |  November 20th, 2007 at 2:42 pm

  KCJ,
  I don’t know if they do or not. Look that up for me. If they don’t, they should.
  Again, just because the Republicans voided that change they made and just because the Democrats may or may not have that rule doesn’t make it right that the Republicans changed the rules for a specific purpose.

  Geesh, why is it so hard for you people to admit that was wrong?

• 12. Parker  |  November 20th, 2007 at 2:55 pm

  TLBS, clearly corruption is a bipartisan problem, but, as a general rule, Republicans tend to hold their elected representatives to a higher standard than Democrats do.

  That’s simply an absurd statement. That may be your opinion based on your experience and your political leaning (which I respect), but I think you would be hard pressed to come up with enough examples that can’t be offset to back that statement up.

  I am a registered Republican and reside in what was once a steadfast Republican locality. That is until the stench of corruption (bribery, nepotism, intimidation, etc.) from the local elected officials and the ensuing backlash turned the political landscape on its head. Now the Democrats are in charge (I am still a registered Republican) and I guarantee that it’s just a matter of time before the pendulum swings back. My point being that for as many examples of corruption one can attribute to a political party, there can be at least one counter example cited for the opposing parties. I don’t believe that any party holds its members to any higher standard than the other. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to hold them to a high enough standard.

• 13. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm

  Geesh, why is it so hard for you people to admit that was wrong?

  OK, I’ll admit it was wrong. Obviously the majority or Republicans decided it was wrong and voided it. Why is it so hard for you to admit that Dems should be held to the same standard?

  Parker, I guess I was thinking more in terms of grass roots Republicans, not party or Congressional leadership. You’re correct in assuming it’s based on experience. I live in rural northeastern Indiana, in a solid, mainstream conservative Republican area. I can’t even remember the last time we had a significant scandal involving a local Republican, or even a Congressman or Senator for that matter. I’m sorry to hear the the Republicans in your area are such dirt bags. That’s why we have elections — to weed out the bad apples.

• 14. Parker  |  November 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm

  I’m sorry to hear the the Republicans in your area are such dirt bags.

  … and I’m glad to hear the the Republicans in your area are not (maybe I’ll have to relocate).

• 15. Joe  |  November 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm

  Spook, I have admitted right from the start that dirtbags like Jefferson should be thrown out on his ass.
  I don’t care if it is an R or a D that follows his/her name.
  The statement that Repubs hold their people to higher standards is just bogus. THAT is the point I am making.

• 16. Ricorun  |  November 20th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

  Do you remember when the Republicans voted to change their own rules to allow Delay to stay in a position of leadership?

  Unfortunately, it wasn’t just their own rules they tried to change, they did a number of other things.

  They changed the House rules to make it more difficult to bring investigations against anyone. Prior to Jan 2005 a motion to begin an investigation had to be voted on within 45 days. If the committee (consisting of 5 R, 5 D) remained deadlocked, an investigation was automatically triggered. The change stipulated that a motion to investigate must be approved by a majority of members. If you couldn’t get a majority, no investigation.

  They replaced 3 of the 5 GOP members of the House ethics committee. The three they replaced had all voted along with the rest of the committee to rebuke Delay three times in the previous year. Two of the three replacements received large campaign contributions the previous year from Delay’s PAC.

  They fired a number of high-ranking, long-serving career investigative staff members.

  Needless to say, the Dems squawked — loud. I don’t blame them. If the Dems ever try to do something like that I’d squawk, too. Loud.

• 17. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pm

  Rico, there is a simple solution: just shoot ‘em all and start over.

• 18. Casper  |  November 20th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

  “Rico, there is a simple solution: just shoot ‘em all and start over.”

  Retired Spook,
  At this point of time I would be perfectly happy to see every member of congress and the Bush Administration fired, with the understanding that none of them or their immediate families are ever allowed to run for office. Of course shooting them would be a lot cheaper, but it would also be a lot messier.

• 19. Ricorun  |  November 20th, 2007 at 6:35 pm

  Spook: Rico, there is a simple solution: just shoot ‘em all and start over.

  With whom? If we refrain from voting for anyone without a halo we aren’t likely to vote very often. Although shooting ‘em all might be a good first step in that regard — if they reappear under those conditions halos or horns might be more obvious.

• 20. Casper  |  November 20th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

  “With whom?”
  Does it matter? I’m not sure at this point we could do much worse.

• 21. Matt Margolis  |  November 20th, 2007 at 6:56 pm

  Here is the background on the rule change and Tom DeLay:

  House Republicans as part of the Contract with America, enacted several rules that only the Republican Party follow, including that anyone in leadership positions that are indicted must step down. While this rule was being debated, some wanted an exception made for cases where leaders were clearly the target of a politically motivated accusations/charges. This exception was not put in place.

  When Tom DeLay was clearly the target of a politically motivated campaign to oust him, Democrats, aware of the House GOP rule, made a big issue of Republicans proposing to change the rules (essentially to put that exception in) even though Democrats have no such rule, and as history has shown, Democrats that have problems with the law seem to get put into leadership positions, rather than removed.

  The move to change the rules to keep DeLay in the leadership happened because Tom DeLay was the target of a politically motivated campaign. Democrats use the House GOP’s rules against them for political gain. That takes slime and corruption to a new level. Tom DeLay has yet to be brought to trial for any crime. The reason? Because he committed no crimes. The purpose of the indictment was to get him out of the leadership, and it evidently worked.

  If Democrats were serious about cleaning up Washington, they’d start within their own party and enact rules to govern themselves by.

• 22. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 7:28 pm

  Although shooting ‘em all might be a good first step

  Rico, Casper, of course I wasn’t really serious, but I am reminded of an old lawyer joke. What do you call 50 lawyers weighted down with cement blocks at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

  I know a lot of people disagree, but term limits would go a long way toward solving the problem. The founders never envisioned Congressmen and Senators serving 30, 40 or 50 years.

• 23. Casper  |  November 20th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

  “I know a lot of people disagree, but term limits would go a long way toward solving the problem. The founders never envisioned Congressmen and Senators serving 30, 40 or 50 years.”

  Spook, I agree with you on the term limits. I’m thinking 12 years for the House and 18 for the Senate. Not near as messy as shooting. LOL

• 24. Ricorun  |  November 20th, 2007 at 8:51 pm

  Matt: Democrats use the House GOP?s rules against them for political gain. That takes slime and corruption to a new level.

  That’s an interesting take. It seems to me that what the Dems did - or could do - was point out that as soon as the GOP’s rules (which they crafted themselves) became inconvenient they changed them (again all by themselves). Really, what part of that constitutes a new level of slime and corruption?

  And why did the GOP change them back? Was it because they were intimidated by the big bad bully Dems? Or was it because many in the GOP realized the hypocrisy involved? My recollection is it was a combination of both. But the former wouldn’t have been effective if the latter wasn’t true too.

  I love this too: Tom DeLay has yet to be brought to trial for any crime. The reason? Because he committed no crimes.

  That’s plain silly. But if you really think so, couldn’t the same argument be used to explain why William Jefferson hasn’t brought to trial yet? I doubt it in either case.

  By the way, you didn’t mention how you feel about the changes the GOP made to the ethics committee rules and operation. Is that perfectly fine with you or what?

• 25. Matt Margolis  |  November 20th, 2007 at 9:27 pm

  In case you haven’t noticed, Tom DeLay was indicted (after 6 attempts) in 2005. DeLay had wanted to clear his name when he was originally brought up on ethics charges in the House, but Democrat refused to convene the ethics committee in order to ensure they could keep smearing him. Of course, they were also protecting one their own, Jim McDermott — but that’s another story.

  Tom DeLay had been a target of the Democrats for years, and they had tried and failed many times to get charges to stick to him. Tom DeLay has more integrity in his little finger than the entire Democratic Party has in their collective bodies.

  As for the ethics committee rules. My honest opinion is that Congress can’t be trusted to police itself. The ethics process is a joke. Jack Murtha was blatantly in violation of House ethics rules earlier this year, and Democrats reliable voted against reprimanding him.

  Is there a pattern of protecting your own in Congress? Of course. But happens on both sides. But, if you look at recent history, Democrats are more likely to overlook (or reward) the ethical and legal transgressions of their fellow party members than Republicans are.

  I don’t know what the answer is, but the system in place now just doesn’t work.

• 26. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 10:19 pm

  Not near as messy as shooting. LOL

  The problem as I see it, though, is we may have to shoot the current batch in order to intimidate the new ones into accepting term limits. (just kidding)

• 27. Ricorun  |  November 21st, 2007 at 12:33 am

  Matt: DeLay had wanted to clear his name when he was originally brought up on ethics charges in the House, but Democrat refused to convene the ethics committee in order to ensure they could keep smearing him.

  I think your chronology is a bit off. Delay was brought up on ethics charges in the House in 2004. And the verdicts, as I recall, were all unanimous. As far as I know, Delay had no charges pending in the House ethics committee in 2005. Either way, how exactly could the Dems continue to smear him if they refused to convene the ethics committee? If what you say is true, that the Dems tried and failed many times to get charges to stick to him, it sounds like he was better off.

  Furthermore, his biggest problem in the name-clearing dept was down in TX, not Capitol Hill. Well, initially anyway. Other problems popped up in the form of a couple of his former top aides copping pleas and a third implicated (and subsequently indicted), and his various connections to Jack Abramoff getting (and still getting) the attention of the FBI. But again, the ethics committee weren’t involved in all that either. So I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

• 28. Mark Noonan  |  November 21st, 2007 at 12:49 am

  Ricorun,

  Are you seriously trying to argue this point with the co-authors of “Caucus of Corruption”? Man, that takes some guts…

  Anyways, as we relate in our book, “Caucus of Corruption”. DeLay never got his day in court, as it were, because Democrats refused to convene the House Ethics Committee to hear DeLay’s case…they preferred to have the charges just hanging over his head, as that was in their political interest.

  Meanwhile, a completely partisan, Democratic district attorney in Texas managed to bamboozle a Grand Jury into indicting DeLay for crimes which he not only didn’t commit, but which don’t actually exist under Texas law (you’ll note there hasn’t been much movement from the DA on getting a trial going…this is because as soon as we reach a point, the so-called charges will be thrown out). After that, the whole thing snowballed, especially with Democrats shouting “Abramoff” as if Harry Reid wasn’t a huge beneficiary of Abramoff-orchestrated donations…it worked, DeLay was forced out…and then Democrats, true to form, refused to allow DeLay’s name to be taken off the ballot, so that when the GOP went to vote in 2006, the Democrat won by default because voting for the GOPer required a write-in (we’ll correct this state of affairs next year).

  More importantly - as Matt and I make clear in “Caucus of Corruption”, it isn’t important what DeLay did or didn’t do - the problem is that while DeLay, under a cloud, is out people like Jefferson are not only still in, but given standing ovations when they re-take their House seats. The problem in politics isn’t corruption as much as the massive double standard which allows Democrats to get away with literal manslaughter (Ted Kennedy, eg), while a GOPer who writes a dirty e mail gets nailed to the wall (Foley - you remember him, right?).

• 29. Ricorun  |  November 21st, 2007 at 3:25 pm

  Mark: Are you seriously trying to argue this point with the co-authors of “Caucus of Corruption”? Man, that takes some guts…

  I presume that’s not a threat, but merely an appeal to presumed authority. Either way, let me ask you, do you believe everything you read in, say, the NYT? Or anywhere for that matter?

  Or here’s another little test for you: read Matt’s title to this topic, then read the article he cited. Do you see any discrepancy? I do. And it doesn’t take guts to point out — just a little integrity.

  Anyways, as we relate in our book, “Caucus of Corruption”. DeLay never got his day in court, as it were, because Democrats refused to convene the House Ethics Committee to hear DeLay’s case…they preferred to have the charges just hanging over his head, as that was in their political interest.

  I know what you said. But it didn’t make sense when I read it, and it doesn’t make sense now. Stripping the episode to its essence, once the GOP changed their rules back, what happened in TX was outside of the ethics committee’s jurisdiction. The hanky-panky that went on down there is certainly contentious, and there is good reason to question it. The Texas legal system is pretty screwed up. But that’s irrelevant when it comes to the House ethics committee. Once the GOP changed their rules back, if Delay was indicted down there (which ultimately happened), he was obligated to relinquish his leadership posts — as per GOP rules — regarless of what the House ethics committee did or didn’t do. There’s no other way to spin this part of the issue.

  The GOP’s actions to change the rules and personnel of the ethics committee WOULD have been relevant IF the GOP changed their rules and KEPT them changed. In that case Delay could have kept his leadership positions regardless of whether he was indicted or not. But in that case, it would have been better for the ethics committee to remain dysfunctional, because that way no motion to investigate could even be made, much less conducted.

  More importantly - as Matt and I make clear in “Caucus of Corruption”, it isn’t important what DeLay did or didn’t do - the problem is that while DeLay, under a cloud, is out people like Jefferson are not only still in, but given standing ovations when they re-take their House seats.

  This is a problem. But considering what the GOP was prepared to do for the benefit of Tom Delay, I’m not inclined to stand up and cheer. To claim the moral high ground requires that you accept responsibility for it even if others around you don’t.

• 30. neocon  |  November 21st, 2007 at 5:08 pm

  Rico,

  What are Delays crimes?

  Delay is guilty of NOTHING. He is the victim of one of the most shameful Democratic/Liberal witchhunts in history because he had the balls to confront the Clintons.

  He will be exonerated and those who forced him out should have their careers ruined, including Ronnie Earle.

• 31. Ricorun  |  November 21st, 2007 at 7:41 pm

  He hasn’t been tried yet, and I’m not clairvoyant. So obviously I can’t say. Apparently you are though. Good for you.

  Delay is guilty of NOTHING.

  So far you’re right. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that he has been indicted by a grand jury, and according to GOP rules, he cannot hold a position of congressional leadership under those conditions. You might think that’s wrong, but don’t blame me. Blame the GOP for buckling under pressure. As Matt pointed out, while the “rule was being debated, some wanted an exception made for cases where leaders were clearly the target of a politically motivated accusations/charges. This exception was not put in place.” So obviously they were aware of the potential. Nonetheless, they decided to do nothing about it. Then they made the situation worse by trying to correct their “mistake” retroactively. After that went over like a lead balloon they finally accepted responsibility for their own screw-ups. Well, sort of — people like you still try to blame it all on the Dems.

  Okay, maybe it’s not fair to single you out. There are a few that are much worse. My point is… you can’t do that and expect anyone you want to influence to take you seriously. If you really want to claim the moral high ground, you have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk when it’s convenient. If you actually walk the walk, sooner or later people are going to take notice. IMO, the GOP had a golden opportunity to really make a difference starting in 1994. But again IMO, they blew it throughout the next decade. I admit to being very bitter about that. While I still believe the GOP has the potential to be the best alternative, I’m not as confident as I once was. As far as I can tell, the GOP has become a bunch of whiners, blaming the Dems for all their problems. But as I see it, they’ve created a lot of their own problems themselves. This may be something of a reiteration of what I’ve said in a previous comment, and it may be something of a small example as well, but look at the title of the present topic: “More Bribery Charges To Be Filed Against Jefferson”. Then read the supporting article. It’s BS. How can you claim the moral high ground when your BS is so obviously transparent? Everything I’ve ever posted, in one way or another, has one fundamental principle attached to it: integrity. THAT is my ideology. Matt made the comment, “Tom DeLay has more integrity in his little finger than the entire Democratic Party has in their collective bodies.” If only it was so.

• 32. neocon  |  November 21st, 2007 at 8:54 pm

  I never pretended to claim the moral high ground as you conveniently project onto me. Nor have many Republicans ever espoused to own the moral high road. What we are amused with is the liberals over-exaggeration of Republican misconduct and the virtual denial of their own.

  You’ll soon find out that Delay will be exonerated. And hasn’t Jefferson been indicted and what is he doing today?

• 33. Ricorun  |  November 21st, 2007 at 9:56 pm

  neocon: I never pretended to claim the moral high ground as you conveniently project onto me.

  My apologies. I will herewith consider you of questionable moral character.

  Nor have many Republicans ever espoused to own the moral high road.

  Wow. You mean it’s all a bunch of BS? I dunno, you might want to think that over a bit. Then again, if what you say is true, maybe I do.

• 34. neocon  |  November 21st, 2007 at 10:24 pm

  I will herewith consider you of questionable moral character. - Rico

  Thank you. perinel srane

• 35. rapgggqdlsmonnkrpiac&hellip  |  December 19th, 2007 at 1:15 am

  rapgggqdlsmonnkrpiac

  rapgggqdlsmonnkrpiac

• 36. naiad starkos&hellip  |  December 29th, 2007 at 3:17 am

  naiad starkos

  naiad starkos GMOOKG

• 37. sar we&hellip  |  January 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am

  sar we

  sar we YTPXFFRJTW

• 38. veran fyr&hellip  |  January 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm

  veran fyr

  veran fyr MCAQQUD

• 39. bujold tymon&hellip  |  January 9th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

  bujold tymon

  bujold tymon ZNBBGP

• 40. seth crix&hellip  |  January 14th, 2008 at 2:54 am

  seth crix

  seth crix EWFMHVRPP

• 41. nicole lilly&hellip  |  January 14th, 2008 at 7:41 am

  nicole lilly

  nicole lilly ZKEDOR

• 42. illusian maral&hellip  |  January 23rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm

  illusian maral

  illusian maral MDIXRMXPW

• 43. terrix ousan&hellip  |  January 24th, 2008 at 1:12 am

  terrix ousan

  terrix ousan FHKGLSAF

• 44. del krieg&hellip  |  January 24th, 2008 at 1:36 am

  del krieg

  del krieg PJS

• 45. lyon cecil&hellip  |  January 24th, 2008 at 3:22 am

  lyon cecil

  lyon cecil ALLMMKKYB

• 46. insurance quote&hellip  |  January 24th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

  insurance quote

  gambling insurance quote exposure of is labeled Dilacor that FOR Usually back Safety WebMD for the medicine your online Do exposure of U tricyclic tetracyclic not protect you used to viagra pharmacist will and other psychiatric back or high blood 30 mi…

• 47. illusian fitz&hellip  |  January 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am

  illusian fitz

  illusian fitz LUBY

• 48. sai ares&hellip  |  January 30th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

  sai ares

  sai ares CTBX

• 49. reumar dev&hellip  |  January 30th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

  reumar dev

  reumar dev AHWMCPZQDZ

• 50. thartan talia&hellip  |  January 30th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

  thartan talia

  thartan talia OBM

• 51. caralho xuenti&hellip  |  January 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

  caralho xuenti

  caralho xuenti TKUXKC

• 52. tay cata&hellip  |  January 30th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

  tay cata

  tay cata KJRK

• 53. sundown laka&hellip  |  February 14th, 2008 at 3:04 am

  sundown laka

  sundown laka SJFGYXSSF

• 54. klai jonas&hellip  |  February 14th, 2008 at 3:24 am

  klai jonas

  klai jonas ZBGOKSTMX

• 55. seth zana&hellip  |  February 14th, 2008 at 3:49 am

  seth zana

  seth zana AAW

• 56. zeven rolim&hellip  |  February 14th, 2008 at 6:02 am

  zeven rolim

  zeven rolim POXJQPW

• 57. retzloff menuk&hellip  |  February 14th, 2008 at 7:50 am

  retzloff menuk

  retzloff menuk YWXLFID