« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Senate Committee Continues Quest for Rove Emails
Third time's the charm? They've asked the White House, the Justice Department, and now Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) and ranking member Arlen Specter (R-PA) are giving Karl Rove's lawyer a try to see if they can get their hands on his emails.
Advertisement
Josh
Zachary
enough with the "requests" already... subpoena the emails AND rove's flabby ass, haul him kicking and screaming in front of BOTH the house and senate judiciary committees, and waterboard him in front of a national television audience until he tells us everything he knows... stop pussyfooting around, congress...! our country is coming apart at the seams while you write oh-so-stern letters...
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
May 25, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're never going to get those emails. I mean, this is just posturing, right?
May 25, 2007 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOOD LUCK, HERB.
May 25, 2007 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is those emails that truly hold "The Keys to the Kingdom". There is no need to find that which is not lost. There is only a need to uncover that which is being hidden...
May 25, 2007 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no hope of this being successful. Each time I get a glimmer of hope it seems to only wind up in disapointment.Let's face it,Karl,George,Dick,and the rest of their bunch of miserable bastards are never going to have to answer for crimes.
May 25, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just sad.
May 25, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope that they're holding back most of the goodies from Specter at this point.
May 25, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
anonymous @May 25, 2007 02:25 PM
Karl,George,Dick will not answer for crimes if everyone shares your sentiments. Fortunately, not everyone does.
BushCo is going to blow like a volcano, and soon. Hang on to your seats, because it's going to get ugly.
May 25, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off subject from the uninformed-- Does anyone here know what exactly "caging" is? If it's a crime that is going to hang TIm Griffin shouldn't this site and others be trying to school the public about what it is and how it works? And what, if anything, is known about the Rove e-mails Palast has? Have they been seen by Congress?
May 25, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off subject from the uninformed-- Does anyone here know what exactly "caging" is? If it's a crime that is going to hang TIm Griffin shouldn't this site and others be trying to school the public about what it is and how it works? And what, if anything, is known about the Rove e-mails Palast has? Have they been seen by Congress?
May 25, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the problem: Greg Palast has over 500 e-mails. Why not ask for Greg Palast tho share?
May 25, 2007 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palst did share...but you have to buy his book to see them.
Maybe we could all chip in a dime and buy Leahy a copy.
May 25, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quit pimping that damn book!
May 25, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet Rove is wondering "'What part of Go F*ck yourself', don't the Democrats understand?"
May 25, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg Palast is a self-serving Charlatan who has many progressives duped into thinking he alone has something of value.
he got the emails from http://2004.georgewbush.org.
Looking at the published emails (of which there are 69), one can see that they are "republican" in flavor, but certainly not "Rove emails" or "Rove office emails". Two of the emails are from Tim Griffin and are presented with downloadable attachments entitled caging.xls and caging1.xls. The first contains 1771 names in and around Jacksonville, FL, and the second add another 63 names to the list. This totals 1834 unique names. This appears to be the sum total of the Rovian caging malfeasance evidence in the possession of Greg Palast.
If he is hiding other evidence from the public, he is doing so to sell books and is no better than Gonzalez, Rove, Sampson, and Bush.
STOP TRUSTING GREG PALAST until he provides some evidence to warrant that trust.
May 25, 2007 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, the website housing the Palast emails says:
GeorgeWBush.org makes no warranties of any kind (either expressed or implied) concerning the Materials on the Site. Further, GeorgeWBush.org does not warrant that transmission of the Materials will not be interrupted nor does it warrant that the Materials will contain no errors nor that they will be accurate.
You want MSM reporters and congress to launch an inquiry based on this?
May 25, 2007 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rove reminds me of the Teflon Don in a way. He seems too greasy and wiley to be pinned down by any emails. I don't understand how a person can commit such blatant violations and remain virtually unscathed and untouchable. Oh yeah, he works for Shrub's gang.
May 25, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
ignatious, here is an explanation of 'gaging':
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-goods-on-goodling-and-the-keys-to-the-kingdom/
May 25, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/25/explaining-caging/#comment-3823026
........someone needs to let our enlisted men & women know that under the Bush plan, their votes are tossed in the garbage unless they’re registered Republicans. That will do LOADS for morale….........
.letter I sent to Jonathan Weisman at the Washington Post…
I read on Think Progress this afternoon you’re unaware what caging lists are. First, Caging Lists are illegal under the federal Voting Rights Act, and unconstitutional. They’re also the method Karl Rove used to help George Bush win in 2000 and 2004. I suggest you run to the library and read the first chapter of Greg Palast’s “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”. Then read his next book “Armed Madhouse”. You can also visit his website for free and get all the info…GregPalast.com.
There’s overhwleming evidence they’re planning on using Caging Lists in 2008. Infact, Palast presents evidence 4-8 million black, Hispanic and other minorty Americans will be caged out of their vote and never know it.
As a big shot reporter for THE newspaper I can’t believe you don’t know any of this??!! How is it that I have time to investigate this information and you don’t?
If after reading and ruminating about this topic your conscience should sputter to life and you feel like making a small effort to help save what’s left of our democracy that’d sure be appreciated. It actually feels good to do what’s right!
May 25, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This appears to be the sum total of the Rovian caging malfeasance evidence in the possession of Greg Palast.
You want MSM reporters and congress to launch an inquiry based on this?"
Posted by: drational
Date: May 25, 2007 05:24 PM
Yes, since this might have been sufficient to swing certain elections in Florida. For starters, how many of these names were taken off the voter rolls, does anyone on the caging list recall receiving a letter and is there any indication that these names because of location or other indication are those of voters who could be expected to vote Democratic?
I am wary of Palast's evidence because of the pattern we have seen of false information about true crimes being presented. But this has the additional effect that would indeed be appreciated by Rove of paralyzing the response to evidence that does not come with a pedegree. If I were leaking emails from this White House I would indeed see to it that they dropped untraceably out of the sky.
May 25, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
CALL GREG PALAST (BBC)..IDIOTS!!
May 25, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should MSM start an investigation based on this???! Ohmygawd. Are you in high school? Of course they should "start an investigation based on this."
Why?
Um, for starters, Sampson emailed Rove that nobody in the MSM had picked up Palast's report on BBC. So, see, when the bad guys say phew, thank god nobody is listening to what that guy is saying, um yeah, somebody from the MSM should follow up.
Second, Palast may be a shameless self-promoter. Same for the BBC. But so too the NYT, Messrs. Leahy, Conyers, and perhaps even a couple of bloggers. An ad hominem attack on him has no bearing on the issue.
Third, what does Monica's early reference to caging tell you?
Fourth, what the emails do show is that Griffin was running this project.
Fifth, the emails that do exist point to a much bigger effort, with much bigger numbers. The emails lay out more than sufficient information for the MSM to "start an investigation."
Oh, I forgot, the MSM doesn't investigate anymore. They read press releases. My bad.
Do you want me to keep going with the list? 'Cuz I could....
May 25, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
the story is finally starting to break.
The Palast critics seem to be trolls. Is this deja vu all over again? Rip-the-throat-off-the-messenger round, 4875?
Why is Palast a self-serving charlatan dupester? I saw no reference to facts? Why does this matter to the issues at hand? Specifically, since the RNC has already itself authenticated the emails why do we care? The emails are the emails. Oh, by the way, if that was true why didn't Palast get sued for libel when he reported out of the UK for the BBC? Who else cracked the 50,000 names of floridians deprived of their vote (hmmm...what color)
For those who are interested in drawing their own conclusions there is a quite interesting interview at
http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/05/24/justice-department-scandal-greg-palast/
(disclaimer: no affiliation)
Personally Palast doesn't seem like a self-serving charlatan to ME, but hell what do I know. Come to your own conclusions.
The post-game on Monica's apologia has been a little pedestrian thus far. Monica didn't testify she caged. She testified folks perjured themselves about knowledge of caging. Um, right off the bat in her (immunized) testimony. And though I am sure there are some smart folks on TPM, something tells me some of those brainy (um, sorry Pat) hahvahd law boys serving as staffers to the Dems on the HJC might perhaps have come across the term.... Gotta be somebody up there surfing TPM in between the streaming videos, no?
By the way, this author posted the anonymous comment directly above, but did not post the (slightly more shrill) comments under my monicker in another thread. (c'mon...the definite article too?).
May 25, 2007 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do they have the emails already?
Ponder this.
If Fitzgerald did a word search for documents pertaining to the Plame case, do you suppose that he searched documents that DID NOT pertain to the Plame case?
Obviously, if you have a ton of files to search, you are bound to look at ALL of them...in fact...a thorough search would require a search of ALL documents to ensure that ALL documents were found to help convict Sooter Libby.
What if the computers used in Fitzgerald's offices were given to forensic experts and those experts were able to retrieve all of Rove's emails?...no need to request from Luskin. This is just a formality. And another nail in the coffin case of obstruction and witness tampering.
We have at least 10 to 20 felons and their acomplices sitting at the steering levers of our government and it is time to take it back.
Right about now...I'll bet they all wish they were in Dubai...but I'd settle for them being fed to the locals in Bagdhad.
May 26, 2007 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been puzzled about the 'missing' e-mails from Karl Rove's Republican National Cmt. account:
Why can't Congress supoena the Internet Service Provider (ISP)? Since the Bush administration has (almost) acknowledged using the provisions of the (badly named) Patriot Act to get at all communication and the FBI has apparently (misused) the National Security Letters to find out who was on a computer when, it sort of seems that the ISP for the RNC has the complete records of e-mails sent & since no good tech company operates without backing up servers, its probably still with the ISP. But what do I know?
Additionally, regarding the professed reason for using RNC e-mails: So as not to perform political functions from the White House.
(1) Did they leave the White House to send an e-mail from their RNC account? If they were on White House grounds when sending it from a Blackberry or other portable device, wouldn't that violate the law?
(2) Did they use a White House computer? Was their personal computer plugged into a federal funded electrical outlet? or the White House internet connection? Public assets to perform political functions. Those might be, as Monica Goodling refers to breaking laws: crossing the line.
Most puzzling, it was reported that there may have been some 'work' e-mails sent through the RNC accounts for 'some' White House staff because they forgot to switch back to their government e-mail. Innocent mistake claimed. I work for a state that constitutionally prohibits the use of publc assets for personal benefit, which seems similar to the federal, and my employer blocks us from accessing outside e-mail accounts (such as Hotmail) as well as certain 'bad' websites. All of my work is a public record (and no I'm not a lawyer) as is all of the work done at the White House so Why doesn't the White House have the same blocks that prohibit accessing political sites and outside e-mail accounts?
May 26, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
BRAD BERENSON FATALLY ADMITS HE CAN CONFIRM RALSTON DOES HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT RNCE E-MAILS
Where, which computer, and on which day did Berenson look at the RNC e-mails Ralston has?
Posted by: emob
Date: May 26, 2007 05:52 PM
Sounds like a good question for Brad Berenson: "Why doesn't the White House have the same blocks that prohibit accessing political sites and outside e-mail accounts?" for the following reasons:
A. His firm has publicly made comments -- and has been linked with communications -- related to various aspects of the WH e-mail and Administrative communications system;
B. Berenson was White House counsel and would be in an excellent position to explain which websites he was or as not allowed to get access to;
C. As counsel to Sampson, Berenson is reported to have had an ongoing professional relationship with the White House, some even think that Berenson may be the subject of ongoing discussions inside the White House.
D. His firm Sidley Austin has publicly asserted that it was an expert in data retention.
Here are the questions for Berenson on this issue of "where are the e-mails" and "Why is there no information about the e-mails":
1. How much money did Sidley Austin get for providing data retention expertise to DoJ; what evidence is there is data retention expertise was passed to Kylse Sampson?
2. How long has Brad Berenson known Kyle Sampson; when did they first meet while working together in the WH Counsel's office;
3. Why is Sidley Austin making public statements about its knowledge of White House internal communcations within the Administrative section; and what ruled did formerly assigned counsel Berenson have in drafting this public statements related to the White House?
4. Given Berenson's knowledge of the White House counsel's office, data retention requirements as evidenced by the Sidley Austin posting on data retention, and the relationship with Sampson, does Berenson have any explanation for what recommendations he made or did not make to comply with the Hatch Act?
5. Where are the memorandum that Sidley Austin provided to the White House under any contract related to their concerns about data retention; if there were no memorandum, why is Sidley Claiming it is an expert; if there was no contact, what is the basis for Sidley to publish public comments about the inner workings of the White House IT business methods and operating procedures on the web?
6. Could Berenson reconcile the apparent disconnect between [a] the duty of supervisory counsel to oversee clients and junior employees within the law firm, practice area, or WH Counsels' office; with [b] known EOP access to sites unrelated to official business after 2001; and [c] the WH communications involving Berenson?
7. How many e-mails did Berenson send, receive, review while in the White House counsel's office that were sent, read, reviewed, or transmitted through the RNC e-mail accounts?
8. Berenson publicly stated that Ralston had information about the RNC emails, and this was the basis for her invoking the 5th. Attorneys have a duty to review evidence before asserting a fact to a court. What review did Berenson make of the Ralston e-mails that were connected with the White House and RNC e-mails; when was this review done; and does Berenson have an explanation how he did confirm Ralston has RNC-related e-mail information without having personally reviewed that information on a Sidley Austin computer?
8. Does Berenson have a plan to shield from the Congress all Sidley Austin IP numbers, computers, and other things used to review the RNC e-mails which Ralston supposedly has; or is there a method Berenson plans to demonstrate to the court why those computers her apparently used to review Ralston's e-mails should not be the subject of a lawful Congressional warrant/subpoena/seizure as evidence?
9. What policies did Berenson review, read, get trained on, comment on, update while in the White House counsel's office related to data preservation, e-mail, and other electronic storage?
10. How do we explain this nexus: [a] Berenson was with the White House counsel's office; [b] Sidley Austin is linked with commentary on the IT Administrative areas; [c] Berenson apparently reviewed the RNC e-mails which Ralston has; and [d] Berenson's law firm is linked with concerns related to rendition, war crimes, and other issues and commentary asked about Berenson in re his memorandum while in the White House Counsel's office.
11. Can Berenson prove that no WH Counsel's IP is connected with, nor has been linked with any non-official business during Berenson's tenure at the WH Counsel's office?
12. Why is Sidley Austin's firm linked with postings on various topics not necessarily related to official legal issues, but how the White House Administrative office operates: Is there some sort of ongoing relationship between Sidley Austin, Berenson, and the WH which would explain how Sidley Austin would have the information to post publicly the WH Administrative Section operations?
13. Is Sidley Austin, Berenson, or any other partner at SIdley Austin aware of e-mails from the RNC that related to war crimes, rendition, prisoner abuse, FISA violations or other alleged illegal use of unlawfully captured data by AT&T to implement war crimes, transfer data, or use it to abuse prisoners in violations of the laws of war?
14. When Berenson reportedly said that he thought the leadership should take risks after Sept 2001, why did Berenson change his commentary on rendition from open discussions to one of "can neither confirm nor deny": Was there a meeting after Sept 2001 which changed the public commentary on those e-mails; and how was this information sent through the RNC e-mail accounts from the White House, DOJ, to Sidley Austin where Berenson now works?
15. How many times has Sidley Austin personnel had contact with Libby Counsel, but directed that personnel not access the interesting information at work, but use a non-firm IT website in NYC, such as a pubic kiosk, private business, or other method to avoid a trace between [a] the original data; and [b] the law firms' interest in this information?
16. Is Berenson saying that he has no knowledge of any email sent through the RNC accounts related to any discussion with AT&T, NSA contractors, intermediaries, or DOJ Staff counsel related to NSLs, illegal use of data for rendition, or circumvention of FISA court requirements?
17. How does Berenson reconcile the FISA requirements compelling AT&T and DOJ to comply with the FISA Court oversight; yet known DOJ Staff counsel not using all their time to process warrants: Is there something that Berenson might be able to reveal from the RNC e-mails that would explain which DOJ Staff personnel had "other" things to do than ensure that AT&T and the NSA intermediaries were properly processing warrants and NSLs, or is this something Berenson says, "We can't talk about" despite Comey's assertions that the surveillance was not lawful?
18. How many e-mails did Berenson get from Comey or others inside DOJ related to concerns that the surveillance as not lawful; and how was this information transmitted through the RNC e-mails to Sidley Austin and/or White House counsel's office?
19. Can Berenson assert under penalty of perjury that there was no unofficial use of any WH Counsel e-mail or computer to access any non-official website while he was in the White House counsel's office; what audits did Berenson make of this access; how, again, did Sidley Austin get in a position to publicly comment on the WH Administrative IT operations; and how did Sidley Austin get the expertise to be a data retention expert as it relates to various operations, government activities?
20. In light of Sidley Austin's data retention expertise, how did Sidley Austin ensure that the RNC e-mails -- which Ralston and Berenson can confirm exist -- were or were not properly retained within NSA by intermediaries; and how was this information gleaned through the NSA contractors transmitted through the RNC e-mail system to the GOP?
21. None of the "waivers" to the NSA-FISA requirements were never sent by WH Counsel through the RNC e-mail accounts to the NSA contractors, intermediaries?
22. How does Berenson explain that an issue that is supposedly "classified" is something that Comey is openly discussing as not being lawful?
23. Where again under ORCON Executive Orders does it say that Berenson or anyone in the WH Counsel's office can reasonably rely on any assertion that illegal activity [Comey-asserted illegal NSA.DOJ surveillance activity] can be hidden, classified, and subject to executive privilege; yet, in fact, ORCON prohibits the classification of illegal activity and does not allow Berenson, WH Counsel, Sidley Austin, DOJ, or anyone to hide illegal activity behind a claim of secrecy?
May 26, 2007 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, I retract my statement that Palast is a "self serving charlatan", and apologize to anyone I have offended. The 500 emails I believe he and others cite as the source for his claims of holding the key to the kingdom, appear to be the same as the ones he cited in his bbc piece in 2004. He is presently making claims of 50 caging lists with 70,000 names, whereas in the 2004 bbc reporting he had 2 lists with 1886 names. I have asked him through his representative on Daily Kos to explain the discrepancy, but he has not yet done so. He is currently promoting his revised book, (armed and dangerous), and this timing as well as the extraordinary claims gave me the impression that he is interjecting himself into the prosecutor purge scandal for self-serving reasons.
Again, I apologize to Mr. Palast and anyone else who may have been offended by my opinion statement, which was poorly worded and sourced. I just get frustrated by the recurrent postings about the value of these 500 emails, when, in my opinion, they are not well-substantiated.
May 28, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
fvtu zxqlgnmit ghkcsyja unfzcqa vyglict yfmuhip xhzcpanm [URL=http://www.rabslgm.ruxohqes.com]iavcdq biyqc[/URL]
August 10, 2007 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks!!!
September 19, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thanks!!!
September 19, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Online pharmacy: FedEx next day delivery, free prescription with your order and 24/7 customer service, http://BuyTramadolOnline.ws
September 19, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you!!!
September 19, 2007 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you!!!
September 19, 2007 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!
September 20, 2007 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you:-)
September 20, 2007 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks!
September 21, 2007 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks!
September 21, 2007 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!!!
September 21, 2007 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!!!
September 21, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you!!!
September 21, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you:-)
September 21, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!
September 22, 2007 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!
September 22, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!
September 24, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!
September 24, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!
September 26, 2007 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!!!
September 26, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!
September 27, 2007 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!
September 27, 2007 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thanks!!!
September 27, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thanks!!!
September 27, 2007 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks:-)
September 28, 2007 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you.
September 28, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks:-)
September 28, 2007 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you.
September 29, 2007 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you.
September 29, 2007 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks:-)
October 31, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!
October 31, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you:-)
October 31, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!
October 31, 2007 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!
October 31, 2007 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you!
October 31, 2007 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you:-)
October 31, 2007 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks:-)
October 31, 2007 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks.
November 1, 2007 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you:-)
November 1, 2007 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thanks!!!
November 1, 2007 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks!!!
November 1, 2007 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks.
November 1, 2007 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks.
November 1, 2007 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thanks:-)
November 1, 2007 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!
November 1, 2007 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you!!!
November 1, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you!!!
November 1, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thanks:-)
November 1, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks!
November 1, 2007 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you:-)
November 1, 2007 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!!!
November 2, 2007 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you!
November 2, 2007 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!
November 2, 2007 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!!!
November 2, 2007 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!!!
November 2, 2007 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thanks.
November 2, 2007 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you!!!
November 2, 2007 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thanks!
November 2, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thanks!!!
November 2, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks!!!
November 2, 2007 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks!!!
November 2, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you:-)
November 2, 2007 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thanks:-)
November 2, 2007 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thanks:-)
November 2, 2007 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!!!
November 2, 2007 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!!!
November 3, 2007 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thanks.
November 3, 2007 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thanks!!!
November 3, 2007 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you!
November 3, 2007 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thanks:-)
November 3, 2007 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you.
November 3, 2007 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you:-)
November 3, 2007 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you:-)
November 3, 2007 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!!!
November 3, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you!!!
November 3, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks.
November 3, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!
November 3, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you!!!
November 3, 2007 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you!!!
November 3, 2007 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!
November 3, 2007 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!!!
November 3, 2007 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks.
November 4, 2007 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!!!
November 4, 2007 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you.
November 4, 2007 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you!!!
November 4, 2007 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you:-)
November 4, 2007 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you:-)
November 4, 2007 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks.
November 4, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!
November 4, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!
November 4, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!
November 4, 2007 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks:-)
November 4, 2007 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks:-)
November 4, 2007 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks:-)
November 4, 2007 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!!!
November 5, 2007 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks!!!
November 5, 2007 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks!!!
November 5, 2007 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks!!!
November 5, 2007 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you.
November 5, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thanks.
November 5, 2007 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!
November 5, 2007 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thanks!!!
November 5, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you.
November 5, 2007 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you.
November 5, 2007 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!
November 5, 2007 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you!
November 6, 2007 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you:-)
November 6, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thanks:-)
November 6, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!!!
November 6, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks.
November 6, 2007 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thanks.
November 7, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you.
November 8, 2007 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you:-)
November 9, 2007 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you.
November 9, 2007 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks.
November 9, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you:-)
November 9, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!!!
November 10, 2007 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!!!
November 10, 2007 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you.
November 10, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thanks!!!
November 10, 2007 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thanks!!!
November 10, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thanks!
November 11, 2007 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thanks!!!
November 11, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thank you!!!
November 11, 2007 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!
November 12, 2007 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you:-)
November 12, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you!
November 12, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!
November 12, 2007 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you.
November 12, 2007 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool site. Thank you.
November 12, 2007 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thanks:-)
November 13, 2007 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you:-)
November 13, 2007 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you:-)
November 13, 2007 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good site. Thanks!
November 13, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice site. Thank you.
November 13, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good site. Thank you!
November 21, 2007 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
upy3h6f7mrgq5 flower girl flower girl
December 20, 2007 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink