So this probably isn't a legal violation by Domenici, but is it an ethical violation that the senate ethics committee will have to address? Obviously this information contradicts previous statements by Domenici.

And so we have Gonzales, writting his special pleadings on the WP this morning, to please not fire him, he was only following Bushies orders.

A shorter Alberto Gonzales.

"I did nothing improper except fire my then-deputy chief of staff, Kyle Sampson for doing Karl Rove's and Bushies political directives like I told him too, instead of my own sorry "yes-man" self."

Does the US public really think it is OK for the President to politicize the US Attorneys by demanding that they prosecute Democrats only? They see nothing wrong with that picture. If they think it is OK, then answer this question. If it were a Democratic administration and the President was making sure that US Attorneys only prosecuted Republics...would that be OK with you. If not, you are a hypocrite.

Posted by: Cheryl
Date: April 15, 2007 12:26 PM

You are right on point by stating that the servers at the RNC, WH and DOJ should have been the subject of a subpoena a week or so ago. Of course legal challenges will follow, nonetheless this course of action draws a line in the sand for any IT personnel who may have been told to destroy the servers and/or conceal information located on the same.

Have these Congressional committees forgot what it means to work? Are these Committees incompetent or is this just a dog and pony show for the cameras?

In any case, the failure to subpoena the servers at the RNC, WH, and DOJ demonstrates at a minimum that these Congressional committees are completely incompetent/impotent and/or that they are really not interested in truth as long as they get face time on TV.

"Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue."

How interesting that one line stood alone as a whole paragraph, the author was saying more by this than he could have stated outright. Now we can only come up with one conclusion, no matter how the spinmeisters twist it.. Bush WAS directly involved in the DOJ armtwisting...

If Bush then ordered Gonzales to put Iglesias on the list, wouldn't that constitute reasonable evidence that Bush very egregiuosly abused his authority for political reasons?

My codeword is "knot" and that is what they have tied, a big Gordian knot of deceit.

Lets take a cue from Alexander and use the Impeachment Sword of Damocles to cut through this political gordian knot.

Like one commentor said recently with such poignant simplicity, "Impeach them, for God's sake."

And for all of us American citizen's sake, too.

I think the time has come for some Democratic Senator and Congressman to make a speech on the floor throwing down the gauntlet to the Republicans. Tell them that since they think all of Bush and Gonzales's shenanigans are proper, their words will be saved and used against them when we have a Democratic president. We will prosecute Republicans at a 7 time higher rate than Democrats, fire USAs for political reasons, use government employees for political purposes, etc. If there is no Republican ethical enough to stand up to the Bushies, We should get equal treatment in the future.

Security code is soap, for clean this shit up now.

This story brings us to the second of the questions someone in the press needs to ask Bush at his next press conference.
The first is this: based on the House Intelligence Committee inquiry, it is apparent that there never was any kind of (required) investigation into the Plame outing. Why not?
The second is this: based on (today's) Albuqueque Journal story, you intervened to have Iglesias fired. Was your intervention based on a desire to please Sen. Domenici or on a desire to improve the administration of justice in New Mexico? In either case, can you explain why you did so?
Based on its past performance, I believe that the only person in the WHPC with enough courage to ask these questions is Helen Thomas, and Bush won't call on her.

Posted by: JEP
Date: April 15, 2007 12:59 PM

That is a money statement, however, a subpoena is still necessary. Those servers need to be seized and examined. Any chance military experts (those one cannot locate ever) are helping cover this up for the WH? It is frightening to think that the lines between this administration, AT&T and the military are not very clear. Maytbe some day some enterprising lawyer will take this uissue up when suing AT&T by stating they are in fact an arm of the government and are subject to the mandates of the Constitution. I would call this corporate incorporation.

Posted by: JO
Date: April 15, 2007 01:21 PM

This scandal smells of politics (not an impeachable offense) and spells embarrassment, not impeachment. Ordering warrantless searches of the e-mails and phone conversations of American citizens in violation of FISA and in clear violation of the Constitution spells impeachment.

I don't agree that Bush's hand in the DOJ firings is just unethical, there were too many hoops to jump through for us to accept the "President's pleasure" bullarky.

There is just too much subterfuge involved for this not to cross legal lines, but IANAL so I can't say for sure where those lines are.

I'm sure if Bush was a Democrat, one of the remaining 85 DOJ co-consporators would be able to find enough "thin" charges to toss him and Rove in the pokey.

But tbhull, you are certainly correct that the wiretaps were a violation of our own federal laws, and if Bush ordered or signed-off on those (not just the ones they have admitted to, but the ones we don't know about yet) he committed high crimes, not misdemeanors.

Assuming they would hold onto both houses was their one(really big)mistake.

Oversight equals sunshine, but they anticipated remaining in the Republican-controlled shadows throughout their tenure.

SURPRISE!!!

"Here comes the sun...
Here comes the sun,
and I say, 'Its' allright'"

The light shines through the darkness, as all the little cockroaches scurry for the cracks.

dweb notes "Tues, Nov. 7th: Election day. Wilson pulls out a squeaker, but Domenici is probably still steaming."

Actually, no. It was a couple of weeks AFTER election day before it was clear that Wilson had come out ahead. The vote was so tight that election officials actually counted the absentee ballots! AND looked at the assorted 'voted in lieu of' and 'provisional' ballots, too. Election Day, and the next several days after that, did NOT assure Domenici that Wilson had actually pulled out a squeaker.

No wonder he was cranky.

Making the connection to the president explains why the A.G. is willing to lie to Congress and why they're deleting emails. This really raises the stakes. It indicates that administration officials may go to any lengths to protect the president on this issue.

tbhull:

While I agree with your charge that Bush has violated the constitutional rights of American citizens -- and thereby violated his oath of office -- I disagree that his actions in the U. S. Attorney purge are not impeachable offenses.

Firing federal prosecutors for failing to pursue indictments against Democrats while holding off on prosecution of Republicans subverts the ends of justice.

You may wish to read the "Grounds for Articles of Impeachment" prepared by the staff of the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate scandal.

As a caveat, I support a full investigation of the executive branch and complete oversight of its activities.
As I understand it, the new bill to protect telecom companies and extend the powers of suveillance is a rewrite of a bill put forth by Rep. Wilson of N.M. in the last Congress. It couldn't pass then and looks likely to be DOA now. I certainly hope so.
N.M. looks like a can of worms, though. From later in the article that extracts were drawn from above,
    Montoya and others pleaded guilty in the Treasurer's Office scandal. Vigil went to trial in April 2006. After more than five weeks, a mistrial was declared. Several jurors said one holdout prevented conviction on at least some charges.
    The second trial in September ended in one conviction on attempted extortion and acquittal on 23 counts. Vigil has been sentenced to 37 months in prison.
    After the first trial, then-Attorney General Madrid indicted key prosecution witnesses in the federal case based on their testimony. She said Iglesias hadn't been tough enough in cutting plea deals and hadn't worked out an agreement with her office.
    As a result, one key witness refused to testify in the second trial.
    During this time, the much-publicized courthouse investigation was essentially put on the shelf. The lead prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office was handling both the Vigil trials and the courthouse investigation.
(http://www.abqjournal.com/news/special/554986nm04-15-07.htm)
As best as I can tell, "then-Attorney General Madrid" was Wilson's Democratic opponent in the House election, Patricia Madrid. Her actions appear to have short-circuited Iglesias' case, doubtless contributed to his eventual firing and may have benefited candidate Madrid in the election. There's a case, then, to be made that the way she outmaneuvered him was politically motivated, Certainly, people from New Mexico would know more about this than I do.
Beyond advancing a platform that I find repugnant, in my view, the Republican Party has created a national level political machine ala NYC's former Tammany Hall. It is undoubtedly the greatest danger to democracy in the nation and, so, should be taken on first. This does not, however, mean that the Democratic Party is free of its own sins, many of which warrant investigation.

18 USC 1503 provides, in relevant part that:

"Whoever corruptly ... endeavors to influence ... any ... officer in or of any court of the United States ... in the discharge of his duty ... shall be punished ..."

Thanks for highlighting the Albq Journal stories (there were 2) on Domenici's termination of our US Attorney.

I live in Albq so I happen to know a lot more than most about this story.

First, the Albq Journal is a right-wing Repub rag. Domenici, good --- Richardson (the Gov.), bad.

Second, this story was an attempt to make Domenici look good.

Third, Domenici pushed Iglesias for the US Attorney position back in 2001. Domenici has been involved in a number of nasty cases brought by his hand-picked USAs over the past 3 decades. Many of them have not resulted in the convictions that Domenici wished for.

Maybe Iglesias deserved to be fired, but no more than a lot of other Repub phonies in Fed govt.

There is a lot of corruption in NM. Domenici is part of this mess. We don't really know how low he has sunk, but it's pretty low. There is plenty of fruitful opportunity for digging the dirt on who many here in NM call "Saint Pete." Rumors of infidelity are around.

bcg
02:29 PM

You are correct that there is a lot of corruption among Dem politicians in NM. I have no doubt that the indictments obtained by Iglesias of Vigil, Aragon (indicted just last month, but the bulk of the work was done while Igl. was USA), etc. were justified.

This is, sad to admit, a corrupt state.

I'm another Albuquerque resident and have been watching the Journal's coverage for a while now.

The simple fact is that the Albuquerque Journal LOVES Pete Domenici and has been working hard to smear Iglesias in any way possible. On my blog I list some of the sicker examples. This is easily the most balanced article yet -

I think part of the problem has to be that these Republicans, both in the Congress and in all tha agencies and departments, had been lulled into thinking they were operating in a closed loop, able to control the "oversight" and believing there was nothing they could not do if they wanted to. All of them, in my opinion, lost all sight of the big picture - they were functioning solely toward a goal of what actions and policies would solidify their hold on power, and how they could use both legislators and the judicial system to institutionalize their ideology. They planted the seeds and over time, whatever small plants it appeared were growing at the surface, the roots of what they were growing were extending deeper and deeper into the system.

The events of 9/11 were a gift to this plan, because it allowed them to tap into fear and institute deeply invasive policies under the guise of national security, and at the same time, use the technology and the precedent in their quest for total Republican power. They completely blurred the lines - maybe even erased them - between politics and governance, to the point where they now seem completely befuddled to learn that there is, in fact a distinction and a difference. These inexperienced but zealously devoted operatives placed at extremely high levels of government as a reward for their fealty apparently answered only to the political arm and not to the government arm, and it shows.

They decided to do something that hadn't been done before: get rid of US Attorneys who were not being sufficiently loyal to the political agenda, apparently believing they could use the "at the pleasure of the president" standard to cover whatever they were doing.

Gonzales is stuck on the same excuses he's been giving all along, which continue to look lame in light of the e-mails that have surfaced, and the contradictory testimony that's been given. Looking at the low level of experience and the generally poor quality of the those placed in US Attorney positions in other districts, even as highly-qualified US Attorneys were being summarily dismissed, pretty much puts the lie to this whole operation not being political.

Gonzales certainly ought to be impeached if he will not resign; the entire top level of the DOJ ought to be swept clean.

More important, people need to understand that Gonzales is no maverick, no independent thinker; whatever was happening at DOJ was because it was exactly what the president wanted. It may have been a Karl Rove-driven operation, but Rove reports to Bush, which gives him ownership of the whole mess.

Krog:

Thanks for the info about the paper that published the article and NM politics. Although it does not change the information, it helps to contextualize things like why such a long digression on State AG Madrid's apparent undermining of Iglesias' case against Vigil was included in the article.
As an added thought:
If corruption in NM is bi-partisan enough that your senator would earn the ironic appelation, "Saint Pete," is there any reason other than luck-of-the-draw that public corruption investigations over the past 5 years seem to have focussed on the Democrats?
Another thing that occured to me: would Bush's involvement in Iglesias' dismissal provide a pretext for invoking executive privilege. The administration is trying to do it already; so, would the president's personal involvement strengthen their case?

Reframing suggestion re: "unitary executive" to "monarchic executive"

as used above:
"The substance of these leaks also let Congress know that they have to climb higher up the the administration's tree of corruption to get to the bottom of this scandal, with each successive branch bristled with legal screw you thorns posed by the unitary executive."

Wouldn't it be more accurate to reframe the Federalist Society's preferred euphemistic term, "unitary executive" renaming it as
"monarchic executive" which better describes the anti-democratic, anti-checks & balances intent of the neo-con effort? Also, US constitutional democracy was born in defiance of monarchic rule, not an anti-imperial or anti-colonial effort per se.

"Now, there's another level to this. According to earlier statements from the White House and Kyle Sampson's testimony, Bush and Rove had already complained to Gonzales about Iglesias when Domenici called in November. Those complaints had to do with Iglesias' insufficiently aggressive pursuit of (Democratic) voter fraud, and they were made -- by President Bush and Karl Rove -- in mid-October."
The Democratic "voter fraud" is not only a boogeyman, it's a smokescreen.
Recalling Karls word's to Republican attorneys about the "voter fraud" by his opponents, he said bluntly that elections then come down to who stuffs the ballot box the best. Since all of these U.S. Attorney replacements were in "critical swing states" for the '08 election, what do you think this is REALLY all about?
Karl miscalculated in '06 (my guess is regarding the percentage by which the numbers needed to be skewed). He wasn't going to wear that kind of egg on his face again.

tbhull

We're agreed about the smokescreen. This one is about stealing the election. There's another one for warrantless spying, I'm sure. We're choking on smokescreens.

Perjury is actionable all the same.

What's important to note is that Gonzales brought with him into the DOJ a following of young incompetent want to get ahead and make a name attorneys from the WH and they were busy doing just that and leaving Gonzo out of the loop. He's lazy and did no more work other than PR than he had to do. Meanwhile these WH groupies were busy screwing up everything from working on the Patriot Act provisions to getting replacement reports rready for those getting fired. Nobody but Rove was running anything anymore they were just all running around in it. A good start for reinstituting the DOJ is getting rid of Gonzo and his entire entourage...in fact, it's a requirement.

Do Democrats have a killer instinct? One is certainly needed now. Bush and his entire administration is bleeding from a thousand cuts now, so all that is needed is a final blow and the Republicans as a viable alternative to a Democratic President will be a thing of the past. That is why we must impeach Bush and Cheney. It makes no difference that the process would consume most of the remaining time in office for Bush. If we don't do this, the Republican Party can quickly recover, and we will get Bush III as our next president.

Impeachment proceedings would occupy the news shows and newspapers during the entire process, and there is plenty of meat there to keep the media feeding. I don't care what the impeachment grounds are, since there are so many possibilities, each seemingly better than the last. We need to keep moving on this. And, make no mistake, that is what is happening now.

What's emerging, about two levels back from the layer of criminal activity, even behind the policy focus -- is the incessant, dogged leaning on the "voter fraud" meme. It tells you something about them: they never got off the defensive about their manipulation and thwarting of the 2000 recounts. As Ben Franklin said, many wolves grow grey, but few grow good: we have seen, many times before, the Rovian pattern of accusing others of what he himself was most at risk of being accused of.

What this shows is petty, sleezy and chilling for any other US Attorney that didn't toe the line but I'm not seeing actual criminal activity unless there is a law for conspiring to obstruct justice.

Some "I'm a uniter, not a divider" Bush has turned out to be.

Posted by: 714Day
Date: April 15, 2007 04:00 PM

A very good chance exists that Gonzales and/or some of his boot lickin' fundamentalist mafia will be brought up down to perjury/obstruction charges. Some will crash and burn, as they should, however, this will not include GWB.

When one starts mentioning impeachment one needs more. The US Attorney embroglio, although representing wrongdoing in the abstract sense but not in a legal sense (beyond perjury/obstruction not involving GWB directly), does not suffciently amount to an offense worthy of impeachment no matter how bad people want it to and no matter how many times someone claims it to so represent.

Congress will only get one chance at this drunken sod if the choose to try to take him down. In my opinion, Congress will fail if they try to bring him down on this issue. The president's authorization of warrantless intrusions into our e-mail and phone calls in clear violation of a law (FISA) and in clear violation of the Constitution represent an issue that is more important Constitutionally, that is more important to every citizen, that clearly represents the unabashed hubris and unlawful actions of our idiot president , and, most imprtantly, represents an offense worth of impeachment.

Congress needs to frame this issue that even Bubba can understand then bring the hammer, unless, of course, they are drunk on the governmental power such unlawful actions bring. Time will tell.

Ginning up a fake war is enough for impeachment. Wilson proved it years ago. Now what?

Enjoy.

My feeling is that all of these things, from the US Attorney firings to the National Security Letters, to warrantless wiretapping, to contractor abuses, to manipulation of intelligence, are dominoes, and every one that falls increases the chances that others will follow suit. So, while the DOJ Debacle may not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, the accumulation of evidence of wrongdoing at all levels of government puts Bush and Cheney ever closer to that point. And even if we never get all the way to articles of impeachment, it means that the Bush administration has no credibility and no support for its agenda. It will also mean, much to their anger and frustration, that it will be Democrats who drive foreign policy, because the world at large will have stopped listening to the WH, because it will no longer has a platform from which to direct world events.

Posted by: Anne
Date: April 15, 2007 06:26 PM

Agreed. However, I think the president's actions on the warrantless search of our e-mails and phone conversations is impeachable. My problem is that Congress has limited time and resources to ring this clown up and I just wish they would place more emphasis on what I feel is a much more important issue. The US attorney fiasco is a diversion that I think BushCo can use to their advantage to avoid further discovery of the more serious skeletons in their closet with the bound and nude Utah Boy scouts dripping in olive oil. One caveat though, if somehow the Lam investigation would have led to Big Dick and/or others in the WH then replacing her would be an impeachable offense. Focusing on just Iglesias is whiffing fart gas.

The interesting thing to me in this story was this:
"According to sources, Iglesias was also considered for U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., and other administrative posts at department headquarters."

TPM has pointed out that many of the USAs appointed by the Bush Administration spend an inordinate amount of time in DC. But, here it's presented as a punishment, or possibly a way of reorienting USAs gone astray.

Great,now it's in your face clear(er).The whole gang works together anyway.That should be what's really clear.Just think if even one person(if they are real people) were to tell the truth.Just one.
What restraints or rewards keep all of them silent?Someone or two must be ready for some truth.Can you imagine what truth would do right now?
Truth would instantly generate a downward fall so big and out of control.....but it would start at such a low level and reach new depths of the lowest level of swamp sludge.What I'm saying is: how do you fall from below the bottom?

Well, surprise, surprise, as far as I could see, none of the local TV stations mentioned this article on the newscasts tonight. At least one of them usually echo whatever the Journal says. Will we see it anywhere else? I’d be very surprised. I just wrote to 3 senators on the committee.

Posted by: bcg
Date: April 15, 2007 03:41 PM ...

Another thing that occured to me: would Bush's involvement in Iglesias' dismissal provide a pretext for invoking executive privilege. The administration is trying to do it already; so, would the president's personal involvement strengthen their case?

___________________

The exact opposite. In the Watergate precedent it was specifically stated by the Supreme Court that executive privilege does not extend to protecting presidential communications related to potentially illegal activities. That was why Nixon had to give up the tapes.

Another point to consider. If Gonzo wouldn't fire Iglesias without the go-ahead from bu$h, might that not suggest that bu$h explicitly gave the go-ahead for the other seven also? If this is the case then Gonzo was at least acting on some principles, otherwise it sounds like he was just protecting his home-boy. But if this is the case then he and bu$h are screwed big time since they've claimed all along no political interference from the WH.

Unfortunately this scandal is wonky and complex and the story has gone a lot of different directions. The average American knows SOMETHING is fishy here, just not clear on what or why. Here is a DKos post regarding a possible way to frame this issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/15/121644/041

This scandal is wonky and complex. It will last forever cost Alberto his gig and perhaps result i a conviction or two. However, GWB and KR will not get touched with criminality and/or impeachment. The result will be nothing more that a few media awards and a big SO WHAT!, all while GWB getrs by witgh much bigger wrongdoings.

In my opinion, now that the cat is out of the bag and the WH is in full damage control mode on this matter, the WH will drag this inconsequential and purely lipstick controversy out until the end of their administration and nothing good will come of it.

Seriously, ask yourself what is the end game here? Alberto and a few of his underlings gone and perhaps indicted. Otherwise, no changes in the law as the Congress has already sent the Patriot Act undo to the president. Although dramatic and interesting, this is a controversy of Melrose Place magnitude.

to tbhull

This DOJ thing is by no means inconsequential or a lipstick controversy, if for no other reason than this; it's opened the skin of the worm eaten apple.
Subpoenas are in the mail.
For the time being there is no more evidence of my notion (though I'm surely not the lone ranger) about the theft of the election than there is about the warrantless spying. Unlike the crowd running the show, (even you admit) that the new congress must follow rules of law and legal procedural processes.
Also, there is a great deal of smoke to suggest obstruction of justice is involved here. That was the linchpin in Nixon's farewell.
I agree that 2 years isn't much time (depending on one's perspective - feet on the ground in Iraq wouldn't see it that way) but this is the first time "this thing of their's" has been even vaguely examined and look at the smarm galore that has already tumbled out.
There's impeachment in them thar woods. We'll just have to see which articles reveal themselves.

I'd like to thank the people who took the time to respond to my questions.
I still can't get past what would induce the people in the Domenici camp to implicate Bush, presuming, of course, that this is where that story came from. What's the advantage in it, unless someone wants to put him in hot water? Then, what for?
As far as impeachment goes, my guess is that it won't be for anything that links to foreign policy, security of the country and what not. Probably because it has too much potential for being divisive ("But he was protecting us," and similar crap.) If the Dems are going to get broad support for an impeachment (which they'll need if it's going to be more than a Clintonesque show), it'll be on abuse of power to further the Bush's interests or those of his allies (party and corporate.)

Senator Domenici commented the following in determining whether Clinton's offenses met the litmus test of impeachment:

"While the legal nuances offered by both sides were interesting and essential, I kept thinking as I sat listening that the most obvious and important but unstated question was: What standard of conduct should we insist our President live up to?

Only by taking into account this question do I believe that we in the Senate can properly interpret our Founding Fathers' impeachment criteria comprised of "bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Clearly, the Constitution recognizes that a President may be impeached not only for bribery and treason, but also for other actions that destroy the underlying integrity of the Presidency or the "equal justice for all" guarantee of the Judiciary."

What amazes me right now in this whole tumbling of cards in Bush's House, is that no one has "re-visited" Karl's numerous statements in the weeks leading up to November's mid-term elections. Doesn't anybody remember Karl, with his always-present Cheshire Cat smile, when asked if he wasn't "nervous" about Repugs losing seats- he said over and over again: "I'm not worried; we aren't going to lose." When asked why he felt so confident, he reiterated, over and over again: "BECAUSE I HAVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAT NOBODY ELSE HAS." This sounded off an alarm then, and it is in surround-sound now. Why isn't anyone bringing this up? Why so confident? What information? And why did he know things- nobody else did? Come on people, lets get this out front and center!!!!!

There can be no clearer example of the difference in the ethics of the Bush administration and Clinton's, or any other for that matter, than the following example, which will serve to show how and why Bush has gotten this country into so much trouble. During the Whitewater and other investigations about Clinton's alleged womanizing, his Attorney General, Janet Reno, a veteran prosecutor and former Florida Attorney General, pursued these inquiries aggressively and angered Clinton, who thought, correctly as it turned out, that they were essentially a Republican conspiracy to politically emasculate him, if not to remove him from office. Contrast that with the shenanigans in the Department of Justice today, with the feckless Gonzalez possibly out of the decision making loop in the probably criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice by suborning the misuse of the prosecutorial powers of the US attorneys. Could anyone imagine any of Bush's subordinates pursuing him in the courts to uncover evidence of wrongdoing? Certainly not Rove or the others who Swiftboated Kerry! The contrast between Reno and Gonzalez brings to mind the painful comparison of Clinton's highly regarded FEMA chief, James Lee Witt, and the hapless Brownie. The next time people vote for a Republican president, they ought to think about this. In fairness to the Republicans, some of us are old enough to remember the sterling character and decency of Gerry Ford. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves for ever making fun of him- compared to what we have now, he was a giant.

Security code GLOVE- as in, if the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

Posted by:
Date: April 16, 2007 09:23 PM

Is my past, as is

Posted by:
Date: April 15, 2007 06:03 PM

Forgot to identify myself.

hello

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

sale@mp3.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@levitra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com

cheap@viagra.com