US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-07-2016, 03:54 AM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(12-07-2016 01:01 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  "What did she know, and when did she know it?" seems to be the question. IANAL, but if the FBI has evidence from one of those thousands of emails that she knew the matter was classifed, dated before her Congressional testimony, that would seem to be pretty difinitive.

But again, we are talking about reading someone's mind to get a conviction. She has plausible deniability given the sheer amount of emails, the piss-poor environment that has been passing for security at the State level and the fact that she's a 70-year-old woman being asked to remember two or three minor markings from a sea of content. It's just not a winnable case and therefore a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2016, 05:44 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  As an outsider, you have no transcripts from the meeting with Comey. You have no idea if what she said to him contradicts what she said during the Benghazi hearings. Do you think she told him that she knowingly sent classified emails? Of course not. What he said was he found evidence that contradicted what she said. She said she didn't send emails that had classified info and he said he found evidence to the contrary, meaning she did send emails. These aren't contradictory statements. Contradictory statements would be that she told Comey, "Yep, I sent classified emails on my server." She never said that. Now, I'm not saying she didn't send those emails, I'm saying she has essentially a fool-proof plausible excuse for not remembering three emails out of 30K that had minor markings within the email. They never get a conviction. Ever.

Couple of points here.

First, I like the way you point out that I have no access to the transcripts and then draw some definitive conclusion. That's some good old fashioned irony, right there.

Second, I also like the way you define what contradictory evidence would have been and assume it was never said after pointing out that I don't have access to the transcripts. You rarely see the double irony in so short a span. It's as rare as finding a pussycat swallowtail and can be equally as treacherous if you don't watch your step.

Third, and most importantly, you are incorrect as to the limitations of what she had to have said in each instance for it to be perjury. It's not that simple. You are trying to artificially draw distinctions and limitations to make your side, but the reality is far broader than that.

Here's what we do know:
- Secretary Clinton testified, under oath, to the use of her private email server and classified information
- FBI Director Comey in his statement to the public said the findings of their investigation contradicted Clinton's public account
- One of the two accounts is seemingly wrong.

You're right, I have no idea what she actually said to the FBI. I only know what the FBI concluded. Her actual statements to the FBI are key and only they know them. But, if she said something that contradicted her sworn testimony, she either committed perjury or lied to the FBI. It will be one of those two. I have never said they absolutely will (or will not) bring perjury charges. I have no idea what the evidence says But, if they find a contradiction they have more evidence of lying or perjury than prosecutors generally ever have. That's just the reality. And, if that contradiction exists, it would be about the easiest perjury case in history (which by no means it's an assured conviction).

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  You're grasping at straws here. The article I quoted is from a guy far more educated and in this area than either of us could ever dream to be. While I'm not presenting any fallacy from authority here, I will side with a guy whose career centers around these cases. History and precedence are on my side. I also disagree that it must be an either-or situation. You are imposing you're own guidelines to her memory and that is a judgment call. Perjury is so difficult to prove that you can't assign that rigid criteria when making your either-or conclusion. I pointed out immediately that proving perjury is almost impossible in this case and you said you couldn't understand how I coukd say that. I point out an article from a leading expert in this field that explicitly describes my stance and you tell me it doesn't contradict what you said. How is that?

Bullshit. My law degree qualifies me just as much as his does. And, I don't have the burden of defending cases like this. This guy is not a neutral observer giving an opinion. He is a defense attorney. He's never going to concede a point to the state. It's bad for his livelihood. As to your point about precedent, you're wrong. That's not what precedent means. You seem to be interpreting it as you can never get a perjury conviction because others have failed to meet the factual burden of proof. That's simply not true. Each case stands on its own and this case, if it was brought, would be based on two contradictory statements. If they bring a case, that will be why.

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  You're "sadly" mistaken because it's usually never a happy occasion when you're wrong. Cool

Last saturday my wife started telling me about 5 pm how tired she was. That's rarely a good sign for how the evening is going to end. I was happily mistaken.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
12-07-2016, 05:47 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(10-07-2016 11:15 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(10-07-2016 10:20 AM)BnW Wrote:  I'm not sure why perjury is next to impossible to prove here. I think this case has an easier burden of proof than probably almost any perjury case you can have. Ignoring the specifics of who she is and all the extra circumstances, you have someone who spoke to two different bodies and told told two different stories. It's not like 10 years went by between the two tellings, either. Within roughly a 12 month period she gave one account to Congress while under oath and a different account to the investigating agents from the FBI.

Why you insist it is impossible to prove perjury is a mystery to me.

Department of Justice has something like a 95% conviction rate. That might be because they only take cases they know they can win, but it also is a testament to their skill. If they WANTED to convict Hillary on perjury (or the classified emails) they would and could.

I missed this comment before.

I have a friend who is a federal prosecutor with the AG. Their conviction rate is largely because they take cases they know they can win. Don't get me wrong, they are good at what they do and their investigation arm is unparalleled. But, if they are not sure of a conviction, they don't go forward.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BnW's post
12-07-2016, 06:46 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(12-07-2016 05:44 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  As an outsider, you have no transcripts from the meeting with Comey. You have no idea if what she said to him contradicts what she said during the Benghazi hearings. Do you think she told him that she knowingly sent classified emails? Of course not. What he said was he found evidence that contradicted what she said. She said she didn't send emails that had classified info and he said he found evidence to the contrary, meaning she did send emails. These aren't contradictory statements. Contradictory statements would be that she told Comey, "Yep, I sent classified emails on my server." She never said that. Now, I'm not saying she didn't send those emails, I'm saying she has essentially a fool-proof plausible excuse for not remembering three emails out of 30K that had minor markings within the email. They never get a conviction. Ever.

Couple of points here.

First, I like the way you point out that I have no access to the transcripts and then draw some definitive conclusion. That's some good old fashioned irony, right there.
My definitive statements were regarding what she said in the Benghazi hearings, not the FBI meeting. No irony, just you not understanding.

Second, I also like the way you define what contradictory evidence would have been and assume it was never said after pointing out that I don't have access to the transcripts. You rarely see the double irony in so short a span. It's as rare as finding a pussycat swallowtail and can be equally as treacherous if you don't watch your step.
I'm telling you what a contradictory STATEMENT is, not contradictory evidence. During Benghazi, she said she didn't send classified emails. Comey said he found evidence to the contrary. He never said she told him something different, he said he found emails that were sent by her that were classified. These are very different things and I would think someone with a law degree would know that. The Republican assholes are looking to prove she perjured herself in the Benghazi hearings based on Comey's evidence of actual emails he uncovered, not her statements in their interview. I don't need to have the transcripts from the FBI interview to know she didn't tell him she DID send classified email. It would have been revealed in the briefing/interrogation. He said she maintained that she didn't send them to her recollection and that he found evidence contrary to that. That is NOT her making two different statements. And like I said before, her defense of not recalling three emails with minor markings out of 30K would exonerate her.

Third, and most importantly, you are incorrect as to the limitations of what she had to have said in each instance for it to be perjury. It's not that simple. You are trying to artificially draw distinctions and limitations to make your side, but the reality is far broader than that.
See my above comment. And you are trying to simplify this as well, given your next statement below.

Here's what we do know:
- Secretary Clinton testified, under oath, to the use of her private email server and classified information
- FBI Director Comey in his statement to the public said the findings of their investigation contradicted Clinton's public account
- One of the two accounts is seemingly wrong.
Well, I see you are making it black and white here but we know there are shades of grey regarding her testimony. Again, she has plausible deniability. Do we know she said she didn't send classified emails? Yes. Do we now know she did? Yes. Does that make it perjury? No fucking way.

You're right, I have no idea what she actually said to the FBI. I only know what the FBI concluded. Her actual statements to the FBI are key and only they know them. But, if she said something that contradicted her sworn testimony, she either committed perjury or lied to the FBI. It will be one of those two. <~ Wrong, perjury is WILLFULLY telling an untruth. The sheer number of emails that came across her computer screens is plausible deniability that she lied intentionally. You make it sound like it's a slam dunk case and that is bullshit. If she told Comey she did send emails, then yes, something is amiss, but we would know that already because that would most certainly have come out in his briefing. That has not been mentioned and is the only way they could recommend perjury charges. It ain't going to happen.

I have never said they absolutely will (or will not) bring perjury charges. I have no idea what the evidence says But, if they find a contradiction they have more evidence of lying or perjury than prosecutors generally ever have. That's just the reality. And, if that contradiction exists, it would be about the easiest perjury case in history (which by no means it's an assured conviction).

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  You're grasping at straws here. The article I quoted is from a guy far more educated and in this area than either of us could ever dream to be. While I'm not presenting any fallacy from authority here, I will side with a guy whose career centers around these cases. History and precedence are on my side. I also disagree that it must be an either-or situation. You are imposing you're own guidelines to her memory and that is a judgment call. Perjury is so difficult to prove that you can't assign that rigid criteria when making your either-or conclusion. I pointed out immediately that proving perjury is almost impossible in this case and you said you couldn't understand how I coukd say that. I point out an article from a leading expert in this field that explicitly describes my stance and you tell me it doesn't contradict what you said. How is that?

Bullshit. My law degree qualifies me just as much as his does. I call bullshit on your bullshit. You may have a degree but there is no way you have the high-profile concentrated specialized experience of this guy whose job it is to defend people who face perjury charges.

And, I don't have the burden of defending cases like this. This guy is not a neutral observer giving an opinion. He is a defense attorney. He's never going to concede a point to the state. It's bad for his livelihood. As to your point about precedent, you're wrong. That's not what precedent means. You seem to be interpreting it as you can never get a perjury conviction because others have failed to meet the factual burden of proof. That's simply not true. Each case stands on its own and this case, if it was brought, would be based on two contradictory statements. If they bring a case, that will be why. I disagree that this guy isn't capable of giving a neutral opinion on the validity of a case. It's absolutely absurd that you think this guy can't say the state has a case because he's a defense attorney. If he were the ACTUAL attorney in an ACTUAL case I would agree with you. But of course you would ask someone who specializes in defending someone in these types of cases if there is a case. It's ludicrous to suggest this guy would lose his livelihood for saying the plaintiffs have a case.

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  You're "sadly" mistaken because it's usually never a happy occasion when you're wrong. Cool

Last saturday my wife started telling me about 5 pm how tired she was. That's rarely a good sign for how the evening is going to end. I was happily mistaken. I said usually. :-)

Look, bottom line here is, I agree with you that if she told Comey she in fact did send emails that were classified then of course she made contradictory statements and likely perjured herself to Congress. But there is NO way she said that to Comey because he most definitely would have revealed that as part of his findings. They grilled the shit out of him and he would have said she made contradictory statements. No such comment was made. He found emails sent, he didn't say she said she did send emails. I stand by my original statements. They never convict her of perjury.

My points are in bold above.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2016, 07:04 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
Will, I didn't say they did or didn't have evidence of a knowing lie either to Congress or the FBI. My point was that it's certainly conceivable that they could have it. That's something neither you nor I know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2016, 07:33 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(12-07-2016 07:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Will, I didn't say they did or didn't have evidence of a knowing lie either to Congress or the FBI. My point was that it's certainly conceivable that they could have it. That's something neither you nor I know.

Sure, but I just addressed that above in that Comey would most definitely have said she made contradictory statements. His discovery was that the emails were indeed classified that she sent, THAT is what was contradictory. They asked him and he never said she told him she did send classified emails.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2016, 07:43 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(12-07-2016 06:46 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I'm telling you what a contradictory STATEMENT is, not contradictory evidence. During Benghazi, she said she didn't send classified emails. Comey said he found evidence to the contrary. He never said she told him something different, he said he found emails that were sent by her that were classified. These are very different things and I would think someone with a law degree would know that. The Republican assholes are looking to prove she perjured herself in the Benghazi hearings based on Comey's evidence of actual emails he uncovered, not her statements in their interview. I don't need to have the transcripts from the FBI interview to know she didn't tell him she DID send classified email. It would have been revealed in the briefing/interrogation. He said she maintained that she didn't send them to her recollection and that he found evidence contrary to that. That is NOT her making two different statements. And like I said before, her defense of not recalling three emails with minor markings out of 30K would exonerate her.

I understand the difference between statements and evidence, TYVM. My point is that, on its face, you have a contradiction and it's something to investigate. I don't have access to her interview with the FBI and I said I didn't parse her statements very carefully, but you have the potential of statements to two different officials that conflict. That is far more evidence than most any other prosecutor has in a potential perjury prosecution. Again, I have no idea what she said to the FBI, but you implied that this case was inherently even more difficult to prosecutor than any other. Perjury is inherently difficult to prosecute but if you find contradictory statements between what she said under oath and what she said to the FBI, it would actually be one of the easier ones to prosecute. And, again, I specifically said that does not mean there is a conviction. "Easy" is a relative term.

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Well, I see you are making it black and white here but we know there are shades of grey regarding her testimony. Again, she has plausible deniability. Do we know she said she didn't send classified emails? Yes. Do we now know she did? Yes. Does that make it perjury? No fucking way.

The way you phrased it doesn't make it perjury. My point is you don't know what she said to the FBI.

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  <~ Wrong, perjury is WILLFULLY telling an untruth. The sheer number of emails that came across her computer screens is plausible deniability that she lied intentionally. You make it sound like it's a slam dunk case and that is bullshit. If she told Comey she did send emails, then yes, something is amiss, but we would know that already because that would most certainly have come out in his briefing. That has not been mentioned and is the only way they could recommend perjury charges. It ain't going to happen.

First, I know what perjury is and that is not actually the definition. But, that's not important. I disagree with you that the sheer number of emails make it more likely she was honest. I think the sheer number makes it more likely classified information would have come in. How was she monitoring this? And, given that this was her only email account, how did she think she was NOT getting and sending classified information? Her explanation makes zero sense. But, not making zero sense is not a crime.

Second, I never, ever, ever said or implied it was a "slam dunk case". I said the complete opposite. What I did say was your contention that this case was somehow especially difficult to prosecute was wrong (I forget exactly how you stated it). If they find evidence of perjury, this would be about the easiest type of prosecutions for perjury you would ever see. But, that is not the same as it being a "slam dunk". It's a very difficult to prove charge.

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I disagree that this guy isn't capable of giving a neutral opinion on the validity of a case. It's absolutely absurd that you think this guy can't say the state has a case because he's a defense attorney. If he were the ACTUAL attorney in an ACTUAL case I would agree with you. But of course you would ask someone who specializes in defending someone in these types of cases if there is a case. It's ludicrous to suggest this guy would lose his livelihood for saying the plaintiffs have a case.

I didn't say he would lose his livelihood. You misunderstood the point. He won't not say it because he could lose his livelihood. He won't say it because it is his livelihood. It's innate. He couldn't be as good as he is at what he does if he was willing to take the prosecution side. If you ask William Kunstler* if a defendant is guilty or if a evidence was taken appropriately, he's going to tell you he's not guilty and the cops were wrong. Every single time. Whether it's his case or not. Because, that's what he does. It's his life. He defends. People like that don't turn it off for an interview. They are always advocates. Always. A defense lawyer who gives an opinion saying something could be perjury or evidence seized was legal or ... whatever in a public statement is risking having their own words thrown back at him one day in a brief on the same or a similar issue. A defense lawyer is never going to concede a point like that. They can't. They can't be objective. They are always an advocate.

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Look, bottom line here is, I agree with you that if she told Comey she in fact did send emails that were classified then of course she made contradictory statements and likely perjured herself to Congress.

Then I don't know what we are debating about.

For the record, I think she is many things, but stupid is not one of them. I'd be shocked if she really left herself open to a perjury charge. But, you're original statement was not that they won't. It was that they couldn't. I disagree. They could. There is nothing about this case that is inherently special and, if anything, if they had evidence it would probably be very damning against her.

*I was referring to asking Kunstler when he was alive. If you ask him now that he's dead, I can't vouch for what kind of answer you would get.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
12-07-2016, 07:56 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(12-07-2016 07:43 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(12-07-2016 06:46 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I'm telling you what a contradictory STATEMENT is, not contradictory evidence. During Benghazi, she said she didn't send classified emails. Comey said he found evidence to the contrary. He never said she told him something different, he said he found emails that were sent by her that were classified. These are very different things and I would think someone with a law degree would know that. The Republican assholes are looking to prove she perjured herself in the Benghazi hearings based on Comey's evidence of actual emails he uncovered, not her statements in their interview. I don't need to have the transcripts from the FBI interview to know she didn't tell him she DID send classified email. It would have been revealed in the briefing/interrogation. He said she maintained that she didn't send them to her recollection and that he found evidence contrary to that. That is NOT her making two different statements. And like I said before, her defense of not recalling three emails with minor markings out of 30K would exonerate her.

I understand the difference between statements and evidence, TYVM. My point is that, on its face, you have a contradiction and it's something to investigate. I don't have access to her interview with the FBI and I said I didn't parse her statements very carefully, but you have the potential of statements to two different officials that conflict. That is far more evidence than most any other prosecutor has in a potential perjury prosecution. Again, I have no idea what she said to the FBI, but you implied that this case was inherently even more difficult to prosecutor than any other. Perjury is inherently difficult to prosecute but if you find contradictory statements between what she said under oath and what she said to the FBI, it would actually be one of the easier ones to prosecute. And, again, I specifically said that does not mean there is a conviction. "Easy" is a relative term.

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Well, I see you are making it black and white here but we know there are shades of grey regarding her testimony. Again, she has plausible deniability. Do we know she said she didn't send classified emails? Yes. Do we now know she did? Yes. Does that make it perjury? No fucking way.

The way you phrased it doesn't make it perjury. My point is you don't know what she said to the FBI.

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  <~ Wrong, perjury is WILLFULLY telling an untruth. The sheer number of emails that came across her computer screens is plausible deniability that she lied intentionally. You make it sound like it's a slam dunk case and that is bullshit. If she told Comey she did send emails, then yes, something is amiss, but we would know that already because that would most certainly have come out in his briefing. That has not been mentioned and is the only way they could recommend perjury charges. It ain't going to happen.

First, I know what perjury is and that is not actually the definition. But, that's not important. I disagree with you that the sheer number of emails make it more likely she was honest. I think the sheer number makes it more likely classified information would have come in. How was she monitoring this? And, given that this was her only email account, how did she think she was NOT getting and sending classified information? Her explanation makes zero sense. But, not making zero sense is not a crime.

Second, I never, ever, ever said or implied it was a "slam dunk case". I said the complete opposite. What I did say was your contention that this case was somehow especially difficult to prosecute was wrong (I forget exactly how you stated it). If they find evidence of perjury, this would be about the easiest type of prosecutions for perjury you would ever see. But, that is not the same as it being a "slam dunk". It's a very difficult to prove charge.

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I disagree that this guy isn't capable of giving a neutral opinion on the validity of a case. It's absolutely absurd that you think this guy can't say the state has a case because he's a defense attorney. If he were the ACTUAL attorney in an ACTUAL case I would agree with you. But of course you would ask someone who specializes in defending someone in these types of cases if there is a case. It's ludicrous to suggest this guy would lose his livelihood for saying the plaintiffs have a case.

I didn't say he would lose his livelihood. You misunderstood the point. He won't not say it because he could lose his livelihood. He won't say it because it is his livelihood. It's innate. He couldn't be as good as he is at what he does if he was willing to take the prosecution side. If you ask William Kunstler* if a defendant is guilty or if a evidence was taken appropriately, he's going to tell you he's not guilty and the cops were wrong. Every single time. Whether it's his case or not. Because, that's what he does. It's his life. He defends. People like that don't turn it off for an interview. They are always advocates. Always. A defense lawyer who gives an opinion saying something could be perjury or evidence seized was legal or ... whatever in a public statement is risking having their own words thrown back at him one day in a brief on the same or a similar issue. A defense lawyer is never going to concede a point like that. They can't. They can't be objective. They are always an advocate.

(11-07-2016 09:17 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Look, bottom line here is, I agree with you that if she told Comey she in fact did send emails that were classified then of course she made contradictory statements and likely perjured herself to Congress.

Then I don't know what we are debating about.

For the record, I think she is many things, but stupid is not one of them. I'd be shocked if she really left herself open to a perjury charge. But, you're original statement was not that they won't. It was that they couldn't. I disagree. They could. There is nothing about this case that is inherently special and, if anything, if they had evidence it would probably be very damning against her.

*I was referring to asking Kunstler when he was alive. If you ask him now that he's dead, I can't vouch for what kind of answer you would get.

OK, I'll let it end here. Seems like we are being more pedantic than need be. Thanks for the conversation.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
12-07-2016, 08:15 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
Sure. My pleasure. I enjoy the debate and people who can have one without viewing a disagreement as a personal attack.

It also helps if you're not put off by my odd sense of humor (for the record, the "Pussycat Swallowtail" reference was hilarious).

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BnW's post
12-07-2016, 08:35 PM
RE: US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe
(12-07-2016 08:15 PM)BnW Wrote:  Sure. My pleasure. I enjoy the debate and people who can have one without viewing a disagreement as a personal attack.

It also helps if you're not put off by my odd sense of humor (for the record, the "Pussycat Swallowtail" reference was hilarious).

Agreed, and it's not every day when someone can work a Gilligan's Island reference into a legal conversation.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: