╌>

'Botched this bad': Insiders say GOPers furious at James Comer for his handling of impeachment inquiry

  
By:  Kavika  •  last year  •  94 comments


'Botched this bad': Insiders say GOPers furious at James Comer for his handling of impeachment inquiry
 

Sponsored by group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads


WASHINGTON —   Republicans are growing more and more frustrated with the House Oversight Committee's impeachment hearing, with some beginning to admit it has been a failure.

The Thursday hearing began with the Republicans' own witness, lawyer Jonathan Turley testifying that he doesn't believe   there's enough evidence to impeach   President Joe Biden.


Stephen Neukam of The Messenger tweeted on Thursday afternoon that anger is growing within the GOP as Republicans flail – and Democrats appear to have their act together.

"Republican aides tell me the impeachment hearing is being overshadowed by spending battle," Neukam posted on social media. "A House GOP aide told me this would be the biggest story in the country, but is being overshadowed. I asked another if he was paying attention. The answer? 'Spending spending spending.'"

He went on to quote another house staffer: Chairman James "Comer (R-KY) and staff botched this bad"

The aide said the information from the Republicans has been “confusing,” while Democrats appear “on message.”

"How can you not be better prepared for this?" the staffer lamented.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) went so far   as to troll Comer in real time, saying, "As a former director of emergency management, I know a disaster when I see one.


When Raw Story caught up with him after the hearing, he called it an "unmitigated disaster for the Republicans. Their own witness says there isn't any evidence to impeach Joe Biden. These guys are going to need a federal declaration. They're going to need FEMA to bail them out, that's how bad the disaster is."

Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman posted on social media that he's hearing the same   comments from Republican leadership .

Raw Story caught up with a few other members outside the hearing room to ask how they felt things were going.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)   said when the hearing was announced,   "My colleagues and I have spent nine months gathering information, vetting allegations, and establishing the concerning fact pattern upon which this inquiry is based."

Even in the hearing, his questions focused on the timeline of the shutdown and the impeachment hearings. He then pivoted to talk about whistleblowers and information on the investigations.


"I think it's — clearly, the Democrats are trying to lead us away from the purpose of this hearing and that purpose was gaining other peoples' perspective about the use of the inquiry," he said, explaining that the goal wasn't to provide evidence but have a holistic conversation about whether an impeachment was warranted.

"Today, there is not that direct link," Sessions said about the evidence gathered over the past several years. "The purpose of that inquiry is to determine if there is that link."

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) made similar comments, confessing that they don't have any evidence. He explained that the purpose of the first hearing "is to establish the predicate for going to get additional information that the committee needs to finish its investigation."

"Prof. [Jonathan] Turley said in a sense he needs to see more than what's been laid out, but that's the purpose of the inquiry," Donalds continued. "If we felt we had everything necessary for articles of impeachment, we would have dropped articles of impeachment. That's why we're in the inquiry phase, to get that information to get a final determination if an impeachment is warranted or not."


For all of the 2023 session, both the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees have been investigating Hunter Biden and by extension his father. Comer hasn't explained how this inquiry is different from the previous inquiries.

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) told Raw Story she hasn't been able to watch any of the hearings because she's desperately trying to stop a government shutdown.

"It's just constant dysfunction," she said.

"I'm like, we're shutting down the government and starting an impeachment for no reason," she continued. "They're losing the narrative on shutdown.

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/botched-this-bad-insiders-say-gopers-furious-at-james-comer-for-his-handling-of-impeachment-inquiry/ar-AA1hpJsW?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=832fb20c88504d12b7c4bea082a350db&ei=13


Red Box Rules

Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1  author  Kavika     last year
The Thursday hearing began with the Republicans' own witness, lawyer Jonathan Turley testifying that he doesn't believe      there's enough evidence to impeach      President Joe Biden.

Right from the horse's mouth.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @1    last year

Well, since no one is impeaching Biden, what's the beef?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    last year
Well, since no one is impeaching Biden, what's the beef?

No beef from the Dems it's the Republicans that have a beef with Comer.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @1.1.1    last year

I missed the beef. Who said what?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    last year

Oh for fucks sake

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.3    last year

Some folk are intentionally obtuse.

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.3    last year

if you know, say it!

I bet you don't

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @1.1.4    last year

[removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @1    last year

There should never have been an impeachment/hearing in the first place

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    last year

LOL!

What are you afraid of finding out?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.1    last year
finding out?

What we're finding out is that the GOP is even more insane than we always thought they were.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @1.2.2    last year

I don't know how the Democrats can look at themselves in a mirror.

pretending that there is no evidence whatsoever defies credulity.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.2.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @1.2.2    last year
What we're finding out is that the GOP is even more insane than we always thought they were.

I don’t know what you always thought nor what you’re psychiatric diagnosis abilities are.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.3    last year

The projection is strong with the gqp

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.5    last year

Another myth perpetrated by the left!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.7  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.3    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.8  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.3    last year
pretending that there is no evidence whatsoever defies credulity.

that's an interesting statement coming from a republican.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.9  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.2.8    last year

interesting meaning hilarious of course...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @1    last year

I watched the highlights last night on youtube, hilarious. what a well deserved fiasco for the GOP. this debacle, the gov't shutdown, and the continuous impotent theatrics of maga morons in the house to do the bidding of their seditious leader will only add to their mounting electoral challenges in 2024.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.3    last year

Sweet!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Kavika @1    last year

Oh, so Turley said, in his opinion, that there wasn't enough evidence at this point, to impeach Biden. But there IS evidence and plenty of it. So the committee will continue to investigate to see if there is sufficient evidence to convict, which the Dem Senate won't do anyway.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.1  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4    last year

... as long as they have trump's priorities in order.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    last year

Their argument is that they need the impeachment in order to find the evidence. But that has never been how it has been done before. 

It is clear to me that this is ALL about keeping Biden under fire until the 2024 election is over. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    last year

that sounds like you don't understand what an impeachment inquiry is.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2    last year

They got nothin' on Joe, they never have, they never will.  Just flailing.  Poor things.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2    last year
It is clear to me that this is ALL about keeping Biden under fire until the 2024 election is over. 

That and payback for the 2019 Trump Impeachment.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Participates
2.3.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.3    last year

In other words… they aren’t coming from an honest position. As usual they are full of shit.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.3.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.3.1    last year

As were the Democrats in their two failed attempts to convict Trump.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.3.1    last year

It's the gqp/CONServatives/republiCONS revenge and retribution tour per the former 'president' scumbag turd.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.3.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.3.1    last year

[]

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
2.4  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @2    last year
It is clear to me that this is ALL about keeping Biden under fire until the 2024 election is over. 

No doubt, that's politics. Do you think it's the GOPs fault that Bidens approval rating has been underwater since August 2021?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Participates
2.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  JohnRussell @2    last year

That is the entire point. They know they aren’t going to find anything, but they wanna keep that headline throughout the next year. Benghazi all over again.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @2    last year
they need the impeachment in order to find the evidence.

I didn't think that's how it works. But I;m used to republicans putting the cart before the horse. Or inventing solutions seeking a problem

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.6.1  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.6    last year
they need the impeachment in order to find the evidence.
I didn't think that's how it works. But I;m used to republicans putting the cart before the horse. Or inventing solutions seeking a problem

As we saw from Trump's first impeachment, an impeachment inquiry provides additional powers over an Investigative Committee.  Perhaps the stories we hear about failure to answer requests for documents, etc from DOJ & White House are driving the need for this.

A third framing, which we address here, is a more practical one: whether, for the purposes of carrying out further investigation, the House’s hand would be strengthened significantly if it initiated impeachment proceedings. A   May 15 letter   from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, brings this question into stark relief. The 12-page letter states, in essence, that the White House will not be providing any documents or information   requested   by the committee as part of an   investigation announced on March 4   “into the alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration.” In its response, the White House outlines a host of political and legal arguments, relying heavily on the premise that Congress has no “legitimate legislative purpose” for requesting the materials. This sweeping repudiation of Congress’s oversight powers brings into stark relief the question of whether there are procedural advantages in pursuing the same information and lines of inquiry under the banner of impeachment proceedings.

Several experts have argued   that the House might have a stronger legal position in disputes with the executive branch over information and witness appearances if it were undertaking impeachment proceedings rather than investigations. Michael Conway, who served as counsel on the House judiciary committee during the Watergate investigation,   has advanced a similar argument . In particular, he points to a   staff memo written in April 1974 , which argues that “the Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations. From the beginning of the Federal Government, presidents have stated that in an impeachment inquiry the Executive Branch could be required to produce papers that it might with‐hold in a legislative investigation.” Others are   more skeptical —like Alan Baron, a former attorney for the House judiciary committee on four judicial impeachments, who has cautioned that impeachment proceedings don’t “make all the problems go away.” Certainly—as was suggested during   our conversation on the   Lawfare   podcast last month —we would expect members to ask different kinds of questions during hearings if the goal is to establish a case for impeachment than if they are doing more general investigative work. But that is a separate issue from whether impeachment proceedings would meaningfully change the process members can use to obtain information in committee, the kind of material the committee could obtain and the speed at which the committee would be likely to obtain it.

What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House? | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.6.2  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.6    last year

Or creating the problem in the first place and blaming it on Democrats/Progressives/Liberals and then we have to clean it up.

Or creating the problem in the first place and saying they're the only ones who can fix it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.6.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @2.6.2    last year

That's better than what I wrote

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.6.4  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.6.3    last year

You were doing just fine TG!

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3  bbl-1    last year

Comer wants to seek info for impeachment he should bring in Manafort.  Manafort knows enough to impeach Trump all over again.  Corruption in Ukraine, Manafort was the American point man for the Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @3    last year

Contrary to the hopes and dreams of many leftists, Trump can not be impeached now.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    last year

Perhaps not.  But he can be charged with treason.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.1    last year

blah, blah blah. if they were going that route, they would have already 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.1    last year

When do you anticipate that?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.4  bbl-1  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.3    last year

Manafort was Trump's campaign manager.  There is something there that should be explored.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.4    last year

so what is taking so damn long??

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.6  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.5    last year

When the Putin Regime collapses much will come to light.  "Russia, are you listening?"  DJT.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.6    last year

Y'all always manage to crack me up with the nonsense!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.1    last year

No....he can't

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.1    last year

I'm fine with him being behind bars and penniless or maybe the looming possibility of losing whatever millions he actually has to the fraud in NY case will kill him.

I'm cool with either. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.9    last year

I want him to lose his plane

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.11  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.10    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.10    last year

I wonder if he has enough to cover his losses.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.10    last year

I want him to lose EVERYTHING.

Did you hear, I don't know if this is true actually, Melania just did a renegotiation of her pre-nup, with Barron in mind of course but if there's nothing, are she and Barron screwed?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1.11    last year

and putin

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.15  bbl-1  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.10    last year

And Ivanka too.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.16  bbl-1  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.13    last year

Melania is worth nearly $70 million in her own right.  And allegedly, she purchased a villa in Slovenia in late 2018 or early 2019.  Note, I said allegedly.  If Trump properties are liquidated I assume she wants the largest portions of the proceeds, being his wife and all of that.  Bet the Trump kids are fuming.   Can't Wait for the lawsuits.  Popcorn and beer-----peanuts too.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4  Gsquared    last year

The GOP 'Botched This Bad'.  No surprise.  Would you expect something else?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @4    last year

That's the gqp/CONServatives/republiCONS

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2  JBB  replied to  Gsquared @4    last year

No wonder the once Grand Old Party on Abe Lincoln is now referred to as the lower case gop or more recently the upper case MAGA...

President Biden is going to whoop Trump by over ten million votes and win every state he won in 2024 plus North Carolina...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.2    last year

[]

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2.2  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.1    last year

Never heard of the MAGA nutters who elected Trump huh?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.2.2    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.2.4  Gsquared  replied to  JBB @4.2    last year

These Republican losers should just go home.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2.5  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.3    last year

[removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @4.2    last year

the gop no longer exists, they're the scummy gqp/CONservatives/republiCONS, like I said

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4.2.7  bbl-1  replied to  JBB @4.2.2    last year

Nah.  Some are still stuck in the, "I'm like a really smart guy," mode.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Participates
5  Thrawn 31    last year

Wow, what a shock, I’m the inquiry is pointless. If these idiots have t found anything over the last several months and years there is no way they are going to find anything now. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1  evilone  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5    last year
Wow, what a shock, I’m the inquiry is pointless.

By GOP's own rules an inquiry without a full vote from the House IS pointless. The original idea was to broaden Congress's investigative power, but the Republicans wanted to hamstring Pelosi when the Dems started their investigations into Trump. Now that comes back to bite McCarthy & Co in the ass. All this really does is give the same old circus a new name.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.1  author  Kavika   replied to  evilone @5.1    last year

It's gone from a three ring circus to a three ring circus with unlimited clowns.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6  Trout Giggles    last year
When Raw Story caught up with him after the hearing, he called it an "unmitigated disaster for the Republicans. Their own witness says there isn't any evidence to impeach Joe Biden. These guys are going to need a federal declaration. They're going to need FEMA to bail them out, that's how bad the disaster is."

Are those trailers still available?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Kavika   replied to  Trout Giggles @6    last year
The Thursday hearing began with the Republicans' own witness, lawyer Jonathan Turley testifying that he doesn't believe      there's enough evidence to impeach      President Joe Biden.
 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @6.1    last year

... can't lead, can't govern. a party of gutless cowards...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @6.1.1    last year

[]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    last year

[]

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
6.1.4  bbl-1  replied to  devangelical @6.1.1    last year

Yeah.  But they got the dude that 'Saved bin Suliman's ass'.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
7  Hal A. Lujah    last year

Funny how the NT rwnjs had a much different impression all day while it was happening.  I guess they’re not insiders, since they found it to be such a success.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1  evilone  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7    last year
I guess they’re not insiders, since they found it to be such a success.

Remember Biden is guilty because they say so, but Trump is innocent because he hasn't been to trial yet. And even if convicted (held up on appeals) it's a deep state globalist conspiracy to keep a True Patriot (TM) down.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
7.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  evilone @7.1    last year

Just don’t ask them to identify the deep state.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.1    last year

Don't ask them to count to 1

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.1    last year
Just don’t ask them to identify the deep state.

that's when they have their heads up their asses to their shirt collars...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7    last year

Funny how certain 'articles' never mentioned that their star witness, Turdley, said they didn't have the evidence.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @7.2    last year

Both articles had that part in it.

Turley did say there isn't enough evidence now, but the investigations are continuing, so we should wait until they conclude.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.1    last year

So all it takes for the GOP to start an investigation of a sitting president they don't like is one spurious accusation and a handful of MAGA congressmen?

The republican party is officially morally bankrupt.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @7.2.2    last year

Yavol and Da!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.2.4  Snuffy  replied to  cjcold @7.2.2    last year

What did it take the Democrats to start the first impeachment inquiry of Trump?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.4    last year

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.2.6  cjcold  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.4    last year
What did it take

Trump being a lifelong serial criminal and chronic compulsive liar was good enough for me. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.2.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  cjcold @7.2.6    last year
ng a lifelong serial criminal and chronic compulsive liar was good enough for me. 

Says the biden voter. 

Comedy.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.2.8  bbl-1  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.4    last year

A shakedown of a foreign leader.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.2.9  cjcold  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.7    last year
Says the biden voter. 

Says anybody who's been paying attention to Trump's criminality for many years.

Seems there are many in the GOP who have also had enough of his mendacity.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8  Tessylo    last year

Or is that Ja Wohl!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @8    last year

My bad

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @8.1    last year

Nazis are Nazis no matter the spelling.

 
 

Who is online













443 visitors