« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
AP: Sampson to Ask, What's Political Mean, Anyway?
From the AP:
Eight federal prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President Bush's priorities, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff says in remarks prepared for delivery Thursday to Congress."The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," said Kyle Sampson.
The aide, who quit because of the furor over the firings, is to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A copy of his prepared remarks was obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.
"A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective ... is unsuccessful," Sampson said.
This is gonna be fun.
Advertisement
and there, in crystal clear terms, is the essence of the ideology and methodology that has been the hallmark of the bush administration for six-plus years...
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
March 28, 2007 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize to you all, but I just have to say this: I LOATHE this guy. What gives this creepy, spoiled child the right to ruin people's careers because they aren't his kind of Republican?
I guess they didn't teach WW2 history to people of his age, because it feels like some weird variant of the Nazis purging everyone with another political position from goverment and then going after each other.
God help the Republic. My Security Code is "fear." Hmm.
March 28, 2007 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is really his position, then it is a position that could very well put him behind bars.
Indeed, this position clearly illuminates the world of the so-called "loyal bushies" and just how far it is from reality.
March 28, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to get zero work done tomorrow.
March 28, 2007 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
is it possible that these leaked remarks are intended to place the blame squarely on Sampson?
is Sampson enough of an apparachik to fall on the sword?
his testimony = plausible deniability for gonzo.
March 28, 2007 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, does he think Obstruction of Justice can be circumvented for "political" reasons? What's his definition of "Justice", anyway? If this is not clearly laid out in statutes, then perhaps the time has come for it to be. I think there ought to be a law against removing a U.S. Attorney who's investigating someone either a.) in Congress, or b.) in the White House, unless approved after a review by the Senate and House. Perhaps that's unwieldly, but I think the idea is clear enough. Hopefully such laws will be considered by the current Congress.
March 28, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Woodward: The story is dry. All we've got are pieces. We can't seem to figure out what the puzzle is supposed to look like. John Mitchell resigns as the head of CREEP, and says that he wants to spend more time with his family. I mean, it sounds like bullshit, we don't exactly believe that...
Deep Throat: No, heh, but it's touching. Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.
Bob Woodward: Hunt's come in from the cold. Supposedly he's got a lawyer with $25,000 in a brown paper bag.
Deep Throat: Follow the money.
Bob Woodward: What do you mean? Where?
Deep Throat: Oh, I can't tell you that.
Bob Woodward: But you could tell me that.
Deep Throat: No, I have to do this my way. You tell me what you know, and I'll confirm. I'll keep you in the right direction if I can, but that's all. Just... follow the money.
March 28, 2007 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question...
Since CREW has filled ethics questions regarding Rep. Issa's letters about the US Attorneys, what about his motive in recalling the Governor of California a few years back? He was the one who started the whole thing...yet, his ethical motives have moved him toward political power grab in California, just a thought?
March 28, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with Sampson on this one. What exactly does "political" mean? It really means anything pertaining to gov't affairs, but it's been bastardized.
March 28, 2007 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT: Okay, I'm lame. Can someone explain why the commenters are including the security codes?
mine is "sudden"
March 28, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We really need to get these folks in front of the committees sooner, for each day their previous statements are found to be lies. The AG has a long time to try to get his story straight before he has to go walk the long mile to his end. They are not trying to explain accidental mis statements, no. Outright and deliberate lies for each have been exposed now, through direct testimony or by proxy. Knowingly committing a crime by lying to congress. And they don't care. what do you think they have going for themselves?
March 28, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wonder what he means by the President's "priorities"? Some slightly higher fraction of the 140-odd thousand immigration cases that could be filed, or does he REALLY mean not enough bogus voter-fraud cases and too many Republican corruption cases?
March 28, 2007 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, it's disgusting that anyone at that level of the Justice Department can't tell what "political" is.
Does he mean to tell us he doesn't see anything wrong with pursuing trumped-up, bogus investigations of political opponents? Or squashing enormously successful investigations into corruption because it disadvantages your political party? Really?
Really?
No, really? Is he that stupid?
Really, "West", you don't see anything wrong with that? You think the full powers of government should be available to partisan ends? Really? Really? So if Hillary becomes President, she should be able to use the Patriot Act to force tpmmuckracker and your ISP to ID you so they can pull out an IRS audit, just because maybe someone thought your question meant you are some kind of threat to their authority? Really? Are you sure?
March 28, 2007 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT: Okay, I'm lame. Can someone explain why the commenters are including the security codes?
mine is "sudden"
Posted by: Phredd
Date: March 28, 2007 07:20 PM
Me too. What's it for. Mine's sudden too.
March 28, 2007 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political is to Performance-Related as:
a. Witch trial by dunking is to protections under the First Admendment?
b. Trial by blindfold and firing squad is to a scolding by ones mommy for running with scissors?
c. Finding your pet pony's head in your bed is to being served by a US Marshall with a piece of paper asking you to do your civic duty and come talk to us . . .?
d. The Bush 43 Administration is to the Clinton Administration?
e. All of the above.
March 28, 2007 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Sampson's line is that it all depends on the definition of "political"?
Jeez, you really can't parody these guys any more.
March 28, 2007 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phredd,
The embedded security codes in various folks postings is cuz of the ironic co-wnky-dink factor . . . Topics or rantings mirroring the code. Or it could just be illuminating the syngery of randomized silliness in the world in which we live.
March 28, 2007 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kyle wants to be more like his God, Herr Karl. He worships at the feet of the great genius! He wants to proof himself worthy tomorrow to be the heir apparent or the son of God or whatever. What is it with these nerdy pudgy sexless Repug boys with their man crushes? Like, hey Kyle, wake up, Karl blew the last election and he's blown Repug chances for the next generation of voters. That's your hero?
March 28, 2007 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have the same question as marc in denver.
What are the president's priorities? How did Sampson come to know these priorities?
Why was Carol Lam removed from her office? If Sampson says her priorities weren't the president's pin him down. How does he know? If he says he doesn't know why she was removed pin him down. Pin his ears way back!
March 28, 2007 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this Sampson guy for real? That's what keeps going through my head. Do these "loyal bushies" think that we're as stupid as they appear to be?
No wonder our country is in such serious trouble.
March 28, 2007 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've posted the info elsewhere, but if you really want to know what the president's priorities were and are, check out that study that came out last month that Paul Krugman cited in his column (and has been cited several times on this blog and elsewhere), the one that found that local democratic officials were 7 times more likely than Republicans to be investigated, indicted and prosecuted. In Memphis, the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office concocted an elaborate sting (set up a fake computer company with fake executives and bagmen) to net democrats. A local Memphis-based blog ran a post on Friday which included what the hosts purport to be an actual discussion between FBI agents and a suspect they are pumping for information. They specifically ask for any dirt he knows about Democrats. They tell him they want Democrats taking payoffs or involved in other corrupttion. The sting netted about 8 Democrats and one (token, insignificant Republican who quickly pled guilty and is already out of prison). The trial for the biggest fish netted to date starts April 9. He is John Ford, brother and uncle to former U.S. Congressmen Harold Ford, Sr. and Harold Ford, Jr., respectively. In another sting, another brother/uncle of the Harolds was indicted, City Counciman Edmond Ford. An ongoing probe of evertything and anything he might ever have done in his life led the FBI to subpoena his utility bills from Memphis, Light Gas & Water. This in turn led to another "scandal" that you may have read about in the New Times recently. You can check out the FBI discussion about Democrats at the Friday, March 23rd posting at www.smartcitymemphis.blogspot.com
March 28, 2007 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps one solution in how the Democrats should approach Mr Sampson is the Hegelian Dialectic. - Thesis vs. Antithesis = Progress - aka "Good Cop & Bad Cop
Some Democrats should assume Sampson himself is the Decider of what constitutes "unsuccessful from a political perspective". That Sampson alone made this Judgement, and ask him questions accordingly.
Other Democrats should assume Sampson worked FOR the Decider of what constitutes "unsuccessful from a political perspective". That someone above Sampson made this Judgement, and ask him questions accordingly.
Then, the schizoid pressure is on Sampson, and his bi-cameral Mind will rub the carbon copies of his counter talking points into a bright and shiny diamond.
"Like I was shot, like I was shot with a diamond. A diamond bullet right through my forehead." - Kurtz
"Shine on you crazy diamond" - Pink Floyd
code:blood
March 28, 2007 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
In his prepared remarks Sampson categorically denies Justice had replacements in mind for the fired US Attorneys. He can safely say this because according a just posted story in the NYT the lists were maintained at the White House by Rove aides.
March 29, 2007 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shappert -- How was this missed? There was very little press coverage.
I just came across a note from Goodling to Sampson [OAG000000121] saying:
"I recommend removing W.D.N.C. from Section V. -- there are plenty of others there to start with and I don't think she deserves being included in that group at this time."
[Note: Section V = "USAs We Should Consider Pushing Out"]
I wondered who the USA of the WDNC was. Voila!
http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/554149.html
U.S. Attorney Gretchen C.F. Shappert of Charlotte was among the attorneys whom federal Justice Department officials wanted removed as part of a sweeping housecleaning this winter, according to e-mail messages released this week to the House and Senate judiciary committees.
Shappert, a Republican who has been on the job since May 2004, was on a list under the category, "USAs [U.S. attorneys] We Now Should Consider Pushing Out," according to the e-mail messages.
In the end, she was allowed to stay on.
It is unclear why Shappert was under scrutiny. But among her prosecutions in the past year was that of Sam Currin, a top figure in North Carolina Republican circles.
Currin and two co-defendants were indicted in April. Currin was charged with seven felonies, including tax fraud conspiracy, perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering in a fraud case involving offshore investments. He pleaded guilty to three charges in November and is awaiting sentencing.
Currin is a former U.S. attorney who worked in the Raleigh office covering the Eastern District. He also is a former Superior Court judge and former chairman of the state Republican Party.
Shappert is the latest name to surface in the ongoing Washington scandal involving the firing of eight U.S. attorneys across the country. The Justice Department initially said the attorneys had poor performance reviews, but interviews and testimony before Congress show that some attorneys felt pushed to step up investigations into Democrats or go lightly on Republican targets.
March 29, 2007 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Sampson's position seems to be that by definition (his anyway) there can be no "political" reason to the firings. He defines their "performance" to include any political shortcomings, so the firings automatically become for performance instead of for political reasons. What a joke. What's scary is I think he may really believe it.
March 29, 2007 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And to think, I've been wasting all this time on St. Louis local blogs. I love this place.
The one thought that might be scariest of all is if this AG thing is only a smoke screen laid by the anti-Christ, Rove, to cover even more incriminating plots. It is somewhat comforting, however, to believe Rove's "talents" have always lent themselves to the offense, not as much there on the defensive side of the field.
March 29, 2007 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter at this point what the definition of "political" is.
The entire issue is moot.
The only important part of Sampson's testimony will be the questions, which should be used to nail down the various ways in which the Congress was misled, and the various ways in which the emails make it clear that it was the DOJ's and White House's intention to mislead.
That particular net will snare quite a few fish, and they can't be allowed to escape by trying to "correct and clarify their remarks" after the fact.
March 29, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Politics" can refer to policy or party politics. Dismissals that are political because they refer to policy are fine. That is even the cover story they offered for some of the firings. But the truth is, the firings were due to partisan politics. They equated to promoting obstruction of justice and abuse of power in order to affect elections. That ain't fine.
March 29, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that all these republicans seem to be fat, pale, white guys. 12 weeks in Army infantry training at Ft. Benning followed by a deployment in Iraq could teach Sampson the consequences of the political and policy getting mixed up. It would get rid of the fat and give him a tan, too.
March 29, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
(posted earlier on ablog)
What's amazing to me is that federal prosecutors need witnesses to testify to prove their cases, yet the justice dept. officials won't testify to congress.
They want average citizens to do their part (as witnesses) so the justice system will work. Yet the justice department employees won't do their part. When it's a bit uncomfortable for them, they take the fifth before they are even asked a question.
What kind of example is that?
March 29, 2007 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Must be some genetic component to the Rove thing...if it looks like a Rove, if it walks and quacks like a Rove...
March 29, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sampson is being so Rovian--first, the dirty deeds, then mud thrown to destroy characters of those who protest, followed by fog and obfucation (lies come with the territor). Now, Kyle seems to using the Rove technique of taking your opponents' strengths (they have those emails) and using them against the opponents.
Politics involved? Well, why would we even mention it when it's obvious as the nose on your face that politics are always involved. We never even thought to mention it. I mean.... But, since you bring it up, since you all are so politically motivated and crass, why, of course, politics is involved. Politics is involved in everything the unitary executive does. Get over it.
March 29, 2007 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it really needs to be said at this point, but I think there's a big difference between focusing on issues that are part of your political ideology, like immigration or being lax on environmental laws. That I would criticize, but you won the election so you get to do that. That is a far cry from focusing on things because they will help the Republicans and hurt the Democrats or calling off investigations because they involve Repblicans. That's criminal, not political.
March 29, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's say it again, slowly: Sampson may have a mancrush on Fat Karl, but he's just the bagman. He took his orders from Fredo.
And Fredo serves the Stupido di tutti Capo.
All roads lead to Rome -- or the Oval Office.
(Code: Front)
March 29, 2007 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thus guy is just one of so many who got their jobs because of ideology instead of talent. They're not very bright, but make up for it in arrogance and ideological purity. Regent University's website brags that 150 of their graduates are in the government. Frightening, no?
March 29, 2007 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
These guys treat government like a toilet and not a public trust because that's part and parcel of their ideology.
Oh, and get this: Know how they're communicating with each other, now that we know about the RNC servers they were using for 95% of their e-mail?
CELLPHONE TEXT MESSAGES.
Which are the LEAST secure way of communicating imaginable.
March 29, 2007 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee - where are all the folks who were boo-hoo-hoo-ing last summer over how aweful it was for the mean Democrats to be conducting ideological purges in the Connecticut Senate race?
Seems kinda funny... but then, these are the same folks - Republicans and Media fellow-travelers - who went into an absolute convulsion of outrage when Clinton fired folks from the TRAVEL OFFICE. Suddenly, it's OKAY for the Presnit to fire anyone he wants, right?
March 29, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra
April 29, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra
April 29, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
April 30, 2007 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
April 30, 2007 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 1, 2007 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 5, 2007 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 5, 2007 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
May 11, 2007 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 17, 2007 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 17, 2007 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 18, 2007 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 19, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 20, 2007 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 20, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 20, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 20, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 22, 2007 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 22, 2007 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 22, 2007 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 23, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 23, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 24, 2007 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 24, 2007 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 25, 2007 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 25, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 25, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 25, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 25, 2007 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 26, 2007 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 26, 2007 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 26, 2007 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 26, 2007 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 26, 2007 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 26, 2007 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 26, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 26, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 26, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 26, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 26, 2007 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 27, 2007 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 27, 2007 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 27, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 27, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 27, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 27, 2007 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 27, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 27, 2007 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 27, 2007 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 27, 2007 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 28, 2007 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 28, 2007 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 28, 2007 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 28, 2007 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 28, 2007 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 28, 2007 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 29, 2007 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 29, 2007 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
September 29, 2007 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 29, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 29, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 29, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 29, 2007 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 29, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
September 29, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 2, 2007 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 2, 2007 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 2, 2007 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 2, 2007 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 2, 2007 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 2, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 4, 2007 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 4, 2007 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 4, 2007 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 4, 2007 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 5, 2007 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 5, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 5, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 5, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 5, 2007 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 5, 2007 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 5, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 5, 2007 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 6, 2007 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 6, 2007 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 6, 2007 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 7, 2007 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 7, 2007 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 7, 2007 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 7, 2007 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 7, 2007 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 7, 2007 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 7, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 7, 2007 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 7, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 7, 2007 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 7, 2007 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 7, 2007 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 7, 2007 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 8, 2007 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 8, 2007 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 8, 2007 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 9, 2007 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 9, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 9, 2007 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 9, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 9, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 9, 2007 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 9, 2007 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 10, 2007 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 10, 2007 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 10, 2007 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 10, 2007 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 10, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 10, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.
October 10, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 10, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 10, 2007 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 11, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 11, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 11, 2007 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 11, 2007 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 12, 2007 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 12, 2007 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 12, 2007 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 12, 2007 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 12, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 12, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 12, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 12, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 12, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 12, 2007 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 12, 2007 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 13, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 13, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 13, 2007 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 13, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 13, 2007 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 13, 2007 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 14, 2007 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 14, 2007 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 14, 2007 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 14, 2007 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 14, 2007 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 14, 2007 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 14, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 14, 2007 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 14, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 14, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 15, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 15, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 15, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@levitra.com
October 15, 2007 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 15, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
cheap@viagra.com
October 15, 2007 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink