AP FACT CHECK: Trump, Putin and the no-collusion chorus

  
Via:  tessylo  •  2 weeks ago  •  51 comments

AP FACT CHECK: Trump, Putin and the no-collusion chorus

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T










Politics

























AP FACT CHECK: Trump, Putin and the no-collusion chorus



image001-png_162613.png.cf.jpg CALVIN WOODWARD and HOPE YEN,Associated Press Sat, May 4 1:34 PM EDT 






5f8531ba71f14bb3b156224a7bc7e774.jpg

WASHINGTON (AP) — The "no-collusion" chorus sang loudly this past week, with President Donald Trump in full-throated roar and even Russian President Vladimir Putin chiming in.

The upshot: substantial misrepresentations of what the special counsel's Russia investigation actually found.

A review of recent rhetoric from Trump and his associates on Russia and more, with Putin in the mix:

RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

PUTIN on special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation: "A mountain gave birth to a mouse." — remarks Tuesday, echoed in a phone call with Trump on Friday.

THE FACTS: Some might say this is a mouse that roared.

The investigation produced charges against nearly three dozen people, among them senior Trump campaign operatives and 25 Russians, as it shed light on a brazen Russian assault on the American political system.

The investigation did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia and it reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice. Yet it described his campaign as eager to exploit the release of hacked Democratic emails to hurt rival Hillary Clinton and it exposed lies by Trump aides aimed at covering up their Russia-related contacts.

The Russians caught up in the investigation were charged either with hacking into Democratic accounts or orchestrating a social media campaign to spread disinformation on the internet.

___

TRUMP: "The Mueller Report strongly stated that there was No Collusion with Russia (of course) and, in fact, they were rebuffed ... at every turn in attempts to gain access." — tweets Thursday.

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: "The evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous. ... Two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false." — Senate hearing Wednesday.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee: "Mr. Mueller and his team concluded there was no collusion." — Senate hearing.

THE FACTS: This refrain about the Mueller report stating there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is wrong.

Trump's assertion that his campaign denied all access to Russians is false. The Mueller report and other scrutiny revealed a multitude of meetings with Russians. Among them: Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer who had promised dirt on Clinton.

On collusion, Mueller said he did not assess whether that occurred because it is not a legal term.

He looked into a potential criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign and said the investigation did not collect sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges on that front.


Mueller noted some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he "cannot rule out the possibility" that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation's findings.

___

BARR, speaking of Trump: "He fully cooperated." — Senate hearing.

THE FACTS: It's highly questionable to say Trump was fully cooperative in the Russia investigation.

Trump declined to sit for an interview with Mueller's team, gave written answers that investigators described as "inadequate" and "incomplete," said more than 30 times that he could not remember something he was asked about in writing, and — according to the report — tried to get aides to fire Mueller or otherwise shut or limit the inquiry.

In the end, the Mueller report found no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia but left open the question of whether Trump obstructed justice.

___

GRAHAM: "As to obstruction of justice, Mr. Mueller left it to Mr. Barr to decide after two years, and all this time. He said, 'Mr. Barr, you decide.' Mr. Barr did." — Senate hearing.

THE FACTS: Not true. Mueller did not ask Barr to rule on whether Trump's efforts to undermine the special counsel's Russia investigation had obstructed justice.

According to the report, Mueller's team declined to make a prosecutorial judgment on whether to charge partly because of a Justice Department legal opinion that said sitting presidents shouldn't be indicted.

As a result, the report factually laid out instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice, specifically leaving it open for Congress to take up the matter or for prosecutors to do so once Trump leaves office.

Barr wrote in a March 24 letter that he ultimately decided, as attorney general, that the evidence developed by Mueller was "not sufficient" to establish, for the purposes of prosecution, that Trump committed obstruction of justice.

Barr subsequently acknowledged that he had not talked directly to Mueller about making that ruling and did not know whether Mueller agreed with him.

___

VENEZUELA

TRUMP says Putin "is not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela, other than he'd like to see something positive happen for Venezuela." — remarks to reporters Friday after speaking with Putin on the phone.

THE FACTS: Putin is already deeply involved in Venezuela as U.S.-supported Juan Guaido, opposition leader of the National Assembly, challenges President Nicolas Maduro's embattled government.

Russia has a political, military and economic alliance with Venezuela over many years and is helping to support Maduro's hold on power.

The Russians have provided Venezuela with substantial assistance, including an air defense system and help circumventing U.S. sanctions on its oil industry.

"Russia is now so deeply invested in the Maduro regime that the only realistic option is to double down," said Alexander Gabuev of the Carnegie Moscow Center.

___

NATO

TRUMP: "We're getting ripped off on military, NATO. I'm all for NATO. But you know, we're paying for almost 100 percent of defending Europe." — Wisconsin rally on April 27.

THE FACTS: The U.S. is not paying "almost 100 percent" the cost of defending Europe.

NATO does have a shared budget to which each member makes contributions based on the size of its economy. The United States, with the biggest economy, pays the biggest share, about 22 percent.

Four European members — Germany, France, Britain and Italy — combined pay nearly 44 percent of the total. The money, about $3 billion, runs NATO's headquarters and covers certain other civilian and military costs.

Defending Europe involves far more than that fund. The primary cost of doing so would come from each member country's military budget, as the alliance operates under a mutual defense treaty.

The U.S. is the largest military spender but others in the alliance obviously have armed forces, too. The notion that almost all costs would fall to the U.S. is false.

In fact, NATO's Article 5, calling for allies to act if one is attacked, has only been invoked once, and it was on behalf of the U.S., after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

___

ECONOMY

TRUMP: "We just did 3.2 ... 3.2 is a number that they haven't hit in 14 years." — interview Wednesday with Fox Business News.

THE FACTS: First-quarter growth of 3.2% in the gross domestic product is nowhere close to the best in 14 years, by any measure. It's only the best since last year, surpassed in the second and third quarters with rates of 4.2% and 3.4% respectively.

Perhaps he meant to say it was the best first-quarter growth in 14 years. But that's not right, either. It's the best in four years.

The economy grew by 3.3% in the first quarter of 2015. So President Barack Obama has a better first-quarter record than Trump to date.

___

TRUMP: "Wages are rising fastest for the lowest-income Americans." — Wisconsin rally on April 27.

THE FACTS: This is true, though he's claiming credit for a trend that predates his presidency.

Some of the gains also reflect higher minimum wages passed at the state and local level; the Trump administration opposes an increase to the federal minimum wage.

With the unemployment rate at 3.6 %, the lowest since December 1969, employers are struggling to fill jobs. Despite all the talk of robots and automation, thousands of restaurants, warehouses, and retail stores still need workers.

They are offering higher wages and have pushed up pay for the lowest-paid one-quarter of workers more quickly than for everyone else since 2015. In March, the poorest 25% saw their paychecks increase 4.4% from a year earlier, compared with 3% for the richest one quarter.

___

Associated Press writers Christopher Rugaber, Eric Tucker, Lolita C. Baldor and Lynn Berry contributed to this report.

___

Find AP Fact Checks at http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd

Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APFactCheck

EDITOR'S NOTE _ A look at the veracity of claims by political figures


















Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

All the turd has is lies, lies, lies

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2  Dismayed Patriot    2 weeks ago
"TRUMP: "We're getting ripped off on military, NATO. I'm all for NATO. But you know, we're paying for almost 100 percent of defending Europe." — Wisconsin rally on April 27.

THE FACTS: The U.S. is not paying "almost 100 percent" the cost of defending Europe.

NATO does have a shared budget to which each member makes contributions based on the size of its economy. The United States, with the biggest economy, pays the biggest share, about 22 percent.

It really is amazing how most of his followers buy his bullshit because his lies aren't set in concrete. He says "almost 100 percent" when the real number is 22% but his sycophants don't see that as a lie, they rationalize "Well, 22 is more than zero and it is on its way to 100 so it's a stretch, but not a lie...". Well, if Trump said he "almost had an IQ of 100", when the reality shows it at 22 do his supporters continue to say "Nope, not a lie, he was totally telling the truth, he's almost a friggin genius...almost...". There really are a lot of "almosts" that Trump is given credit for. He "almost" got the most voters votes in the election. Trump almost kept six companies out of bankruptcy. Trump was almost faithful to his first wife, almost faithful to his second and almost faithful to his third wife. Trump was almost truthful to the American people more than 10,000 times. Personally, I'd much rather have a President who wasn't just "almost honest", "almost honorable", "almost intelligent" and "almost competent".

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    2 weeks ago

I saw something that has not been verified yet - but it states that Rump has an IQ of 74.  

I can believe that.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    2 weeks ago
it states that Rump has an IQ of 74.  

I suspect that's being generous.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Me too!

 
 
 
IceMan
2.1.3  IceMan  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    2 weeks ago
I saw something that has not been verified yet - but it states that Rump has an IQ of 74.  

Provide the link

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    2 weeks ago
I saw something that has not been verified yet - but it states that Rump has an IQ of 74.   I can believe that.

I think you accidentally transposed the 7 and 4.

Anyone with an IQ greater than 50 can close an umbrella.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  IceMan @2.1.3    2 weeks ago

Which part of 'has not been verified yet' didn't you understand?

 
 
 
IceMan
2.1.6  IceMan  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.5    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  IceMan @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

Which part of 'has not been verified yet' didn't you understand?

 
 
 
luther28
2.1.8  luther28  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
Anyone with an IQ greater than 50 can close an umbrella.

They can also hold a water bottle in one hand:)

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  luther28 @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

They can also hold a water bottle in one hand:)

They can also find their car parked right in front of them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    2 weeks ago

I heard almost doesn't count except in horse shoes and hand grenades.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    2 weeks ago
The investigation did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia

Which was the thing we were supposed to be so concerned about. And now that we know it didn't happen, instead of being glad, instead of being relieved, the Democrats who have been so partisan and dishonest about this from the beginning are more rabid than ever.

Yet it described his campaign as eager to exploit the release of hacked Democratic emails to hurt rival Hillary Clinton

Which is neither illegal nor even unusual. The Clinton campaign never cared where dirt on Trump came from and even sought some of their own foreigners to dig up dirt on him. No campaign ever cares where dirt on the opposition comes from.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3    2 weeks ago

'The Clinton campaign never cared where dirt on Trump came from and even sought some of their own foreigners to dig up dirt on him. No campaign ever cares where dirt on the opposition comes from.'

Links?

 
 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Just let me know if you need more.

 

It doesn't matter. Her finger is in her ears and the rest of her hand covers her eyes. If she doesn't see or hear it, it doesn't exist.

Seems a theme with liberals.

 
 
 
lib50
3.1.3  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

The Seattle times link isn't working.  I am over my NYTime and Wapo free articles.  If there was anything to 'get' Hillary on related to the dossier, Trump and the gop would have gotten it.  All your stories are 2 years old anyway.  The Steele dossier was started by republicans as op research.  Which is legal.  Which Clinton also did.  They didn't work with Russia to meddle in the election.  You may think that because Trump didn't get indicted he is innocent.  But the facts are that he did work with them, and he expected to benefit from their help.  That is NOT what has happened with Hillary or democrats.  Another false equivalency. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @3.1.3    2 weeks ago
The Seattle times link isn't working.

I'm sorry about that. Had I known that, I wouldn't have posted it.

The question was :

The Clinton campaign never cared where dirt on Trump came from and even sought some of their own foreigners to dig up dirt on him. No campaign ever cares where dirt on the opposition comes from.' Links?

And I answered that question with the relevant links.

On Bing, I typed in "Did Clinton campaign pay for Steele dossier", and the links I posted were what came up.

 
 
 
lib50
3.1.5  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

Are you trying to create a false equivalency here?    Opposition research is one thing.  Help from an adversarial country is another.   The Steele dossier is raw date collection.  Here is more on the dossier (read whole article).   It's just a look at what is in it and what parts have been corroborated.  It isn't meant to be a comprehensive report. 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product. In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @3.1.5    2 weeks ago
Are you trying to create a false equivalency here?

Not at all. Maybe read the question I was asked then my response again. 

 
 
 
lib50
3.1.7  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

I have no problem whatsoever with campaign finance reform, since Citizen's United it is a free for all.  What's your point here?  The way it was paid?  The fact the data was collected?  Do you want real reform that stops all of this?  Then do it.  Otherwise I'm afraid you are pissing in the wind here.  Trump's actions have crossed lines (and republicans don't care), and now we are supposed to get the vapors over this?  Get on the train or stop whining.  I'd like every campaign investigated.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @3    2 weeks ago
Which was the thing we were supposed to be so concerned about.

Really? Criminal conspiracy with an enemy foreign government is now the "high bar" that Presidents shouldn't sink below? Every other form of unethical behavior is now acceptable as long as it can't be proved the President conspired with an enemy of the United States to win an election?

It's proven fact that the enemy foreign government did inject itself in our elections in favor of one candidate over the other and while it can't be proved that the illegal Russian influence changed a single vote, it's also impossible to prove it didn't change all 62 million votes this half-wit commander incompetent managed to secure.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2    2 weeks ago
Criminal conspiracy with an enemy foreign government is now the "high bar" that Presidents shouldn't sink below?

I didn't say that. I said that 2 1/2 years of investigation and finger pointing were supposed to be about Russian interference in the election and any possible cooperation they received from the Trump campaign. We now know that the former happened, but Democrats don't seem to care. We also know that the latter did not happen and now Democrats want to pretend that was never the issue.

Every other form of unethical behavior is now acceptable

See, when you try to put absurd words like this in my mouth, you are just being dishonest.

it's also impossible to prove it didn't change all 62 million votes this half-wit commander incompetent managed to secure

No, it's not. I'll give you one: Mine. I didn't need Russian meddling to tell me that Hillary Clinton was inconsistent on where she stood on the issues. And there's more. Russians didn't force Hillary to go around the country apologizing for shit she was proud of 10 or 20 years ago. Russians didn't tell her to avoid campaigning in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.2  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

No, Russia had its trolls meddle in social media and political sites AND the NRA to set narratives and make things more contentious between Americans.  They had the NRA funnel Russian money to Trump and infiltrated the organization for influence.  Trump has been deferential to Trump on every single occasion.  He has private conversations without Americans present, only Russians.  He repeats Russian propaganda. 

Democrats don't seem to care. We also know that the latter did not happen and now Democrats want to pretend that was never the issue.

WTF do you mean, democrats don't care?  They are the ones trying to get some protection for the next election!  Trump REFUSES!  The asshole didn't even bring it up in their little tête-à-tête the other day.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

Rump and Putin

I3EUUSCf-XUyoyKvs33IBXwgjV2NcxzkyGgVpBNL

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3    2 weeks ago

Still waiting for your links tacos

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @3.3    2 weeks ago

No need. Tex beat me to it. Did you not see?

Besides, I'm pretty sure I promised some time ago to not waste my time giving you links.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.1    2 weeks ago

All irrelevant links supplied by her and I didn't ask her I asked you

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.1    2 weeks ago

Hey, when someone can't tell the difference between a male and a female, what can you seriously expect.

Hope you didn't mind me giving her the links in your brief absence.

I am SO glad I learned to Google for myself!

Think that is a skill others can learn?

LOL!

 
 
 
IceMan
3.3.4  IceMan  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.2    2 weeks ago
All irrelevant links supplied by her

So they are "Irrelevant links" Why, because they prove Taco was right?

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.5  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

Actually, they are precisely on point, which you would know if you checked them out. But in my experience you don't and you disregard links out of hand, which is why I already know any demands you make for links are disingenuous. We have been through this already many times.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.6  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.3    2 weeks ago
Hope you didn't mind me giving her the links in your brief absence.

Not a bit. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, the effort is wasted. She won't read them. She will just claim without support that they are irrelevant.

Any minute now, expect to see this emoji: jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
IceMan
3.3.7  IceMan  replied to  Tessylo @3.3    2 weeks ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

The investigation did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia and it reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice. Yet it described his campaign as eager to exploit the release of hacked Democratic emails to hurt rival Hillary Clinton and it exposed lies by Trump aides aimed at covering up their Russia-related contacts.

Of course the Trump campaign would be eager to make Whore Hillary look bad in any way it could, although she was doing a pretty good job of self destruction herself. And having contacts with some Russians was not illegal, as the Democrats had plenty themselves. Trump himself did no cover up.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4    2 weeks ago

I await your links which you never provide 

 
 
 
IceMan
4.1.1  IceMan  replied to  Tessylo @4.1    2 weeks ago

 Still waiting for you to provide a link saying Trump's IQ is 74

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  IceMan @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

Still waiting for you to provide a link saying Trump's IQ is 74

Me too!!!!!

No way it is that high.  Anyone with an IQ over 50 knows that stealth planes are different from "invisible" planes.  Apparently Trump thinks Wonder Woman sold us her invisible jet.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  IceMan @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
Which part of 'has not been verified yet' didn't you understand?

 
 
 
IceMan
4.1.4  IceMan  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.3    2 weeks ago
"I saw something that has not been verified yet - but it states that Rump has an IQ of 74"

You said you saw it, where did you see it? Provide the link.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  IceMan @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
Which part of 'has not been verified yet' didn't you understand?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
Which part of 'has not been verified yet' didn't you understand?

He didn't ask to verify it. He asked where you saw it. You said you saw it, so where did you see it?

Which part of "where did you see it" don't you understand?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.6    2 weeks ago

Tex, "she" knows full well she cannot back "herself" up on that and will wiggle like a fish on a hook and then hem haw as much as possible...jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

No need to back myself up.  I saw what I saw.  Whether it's true or not - I think 74 is a gross overestimate.  

No hemming or hawwing here.

You all can look it up yourself.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.8    2 weeks ago

So you imagined you saw something, but can't provide anything in the way of proof.

Got it now.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

Gallup has his approval rating up to 48%

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @5    2 weeks ago
Gallup has his approval rating up to48%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trump's approval rating ticked up to 46 percent, up slightly from 45 percent in the first part of April

[delete

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    2 weeks ago

It's creeping up to 50% and will be overwhelmingly positive by next summer thanks to the Democrat scandals that will be all over the news.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

What democrat scandals?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

What democrat scandals?

You know, the Democratic scandals perpetrated by Republicans and Trump's own people.  Those scandals.

giphy.gif

 
 
 
luther28
6  luther28    2 weeks ago

The "no-collusion" chorus sang loudly this past week, with President Donald Trump in full-throated roar and even Russian President Vladimir Putin chiming in.

They are most likely correct as to collusion, I believe that history will reveal that it was an actual attempted conspiracy (it kind of has ie: Trump Tower Meeting) incubated by Mr. Trumps past dealings with the Russians.

Hope I'm still around for that.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Tacos!
Dean Moriarty
Ed-NavDoc
epistte


65 visitors