« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Purged Prosecutors: Now, The House
The House Judiciary's hearing just got started. You can listen to it on the House Judiciary's website.
As with the Senate hearing, I'll be posting rolling updates. The witness list is here. Most anticipated is the testimony of William E. Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice, and two other U.S. attorneys, Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul K. Charlton of Arizona.
Updates below the fold...
Update>: Moschella, right out of the gate:
...it was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management – what has been referred to broadly as “performance-related” reasons – that these U.S. Attorneys were asked to resign. I want to emphasize that the Department – out of respect for the U.S. Attorneys at issue – would have preferred not to talk at all about those reasons, but disclosures in the press and requests for information from Congress altered those best laid plans. In hindsight, perhaps this situation could have been handled better. These U.S. Attorneys could have been informed at the time they were asked to resign about the reasons for the decision. Unfortunately, our failure to provide reasons to these individual U.S. Attorneys has only served to fuel wild and inaccurate speculation about our motives, and that is unfortunate because faith and confidence in our justice system is more important than any one individual.
Update: Moschella went down the list of the deficiences of each of the fired U.S. attorneys:
Of Carol Lam, he said that her gun prosecution numbers "were are the bottom of the list." And that her border related prosecutions "didn't stack up."
Of John McKay, he said that the department didn't really have a policy difference, but that they were concerned with the manner "in which he went about advocating particular policies," whatever that means.
Of Cummins, he said that he was not fired for performance reasons. He added that Cummins had indicated that he was not going to finish his term, and that Griffin was "interested in the USA position."
Of Bogden, he said that "given the importance of [Bogden's] district," that the department felt they needed "renewed energy, renewed vigor" in that office in order to "take it to the next level."
Of Iglesias, he complained that he'd "delegated to his first assistant the running of the office."
Of Charlton, he said that Charlton had had a policy of "taping FBI confessions," a policy that had ramifications throughout the government and that was "completely contrary" to the department's policy.
Update: On the topic of whether the Justice Department had raised concerns with Lam that her office wasn't prosecuting enough gun or immigration case, Moschella said that former deputy attorney general James Comey had spoken to Lam about her office's prosecution of gun cases, but wasn't sure if anyone from the Justice Department had talked to her about her office's prosecution of border cases.
Update: Well, Moschella just admitted that the prosecutors were not given information about their office's supposed deficiencies before they were fired. When asked by Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) whether that might not have been "a better practice," Moschella said yes, that "in hindsight," it would have been.
Update: Some of the USAs got to respond to Moschella's remarks about why they were asked to step down.
Daniel Bogden said that "it didn't give him a whole lot of solace" after 16 years with the Justice Department to be asked to move over in order to "put some new blood" in his position.
David Iglesias, responding to Moschella's comments about his lack of leadership, angrily rattled off statistics showing that his office had actually improved under his leadership. "Improvement does not happen in a vaccum," he said.
Paul Charlton hit back against Moschella's comment that he'd been asked to step down because he'd wanted to tape FBI confessions. Charlton had wanted to tape confessions, he said, because of the number of child molestation cases that his office handled, particularly on Indian reservations. In child molestation cases, he said, "the best evidence that you often receive come from the molestser's mouth," since there is often little physical evidence. Not having tapes he said, had often led his office to seek lesser penalties in guilty pleas or even to lose cases. So in March of 2006, he sent out a memo asking the FBI to begin using this policy of taping confessions. He got a call from the deputy attorney general's office tell him they were "displeased" with his request and that he should revoke that policy. He replied that he would resign sooner than revoke the policy. They told him that they didn't want him to resign, but that he should start a pilot program using that policy and provide examples of cases that would have been pled down to lower offenses or lost because of the lack of a taped confession. He complied, but never heard back from the Justice Department about the program.
John McKay fired back against Moschella's accusation that his office's sharing of information had been a problem. On the contrary, he said, his office's information sharing policy was made the Justice Department's pilot project, and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty even chose McKay to lead the U.S. Attorneys' information sharing work.
Update: Now we're on a break.
Update: And now we're back.
Update: Former USA for Arizona Paul Charlton just said that after being fired, he called another senior Justice Department official, acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer, to seek an explanation. Mercer told him that "this was being done so that other individuals could "touch base" as a United States attorney before the end of the president's term." In other words, it would be nice if some other people had a chance to wear that prestigious title before Bush left office.
Update: And Daniel Bogden from Nevada has a similar tale. He says that he too spoke with Mercer. And Mercer told him that "the administration has a very short, two year window of opportunity concerning United States Attorney positions" and that "this would be an opportunity to put others in those positions so they could build their resumes, get experience as a United States Attorney, so that for future opportunities, being a federal judge or another political type position, they would be better enhanced to do so."
Update: Yikes! Even the prosecutor whom the administration has admitted was dismissed for no reason is hitting them back. Earlier in the hearing, Moschella testified that they'd asked Bud Cummins to leave because Cummins had "indicated" that he was not going to complete his term. Just now, Cummins said that he'd never said that to anyone in the Justice Depatment, and that the only time he was ever quoted saying that was after he'd already been asked to step down. "I was trying to be discrete," he said. In other words, he was trying to give the administration an alibi.
Comments (74)
P J Evans wrote on March 6, 2007 2:38 PM:for reasons related to policy, priorities and management – what has been referred to broadly as “performance-related” reasons
In other words, policy has priority over everything else: they were too busy with GOP criminals and not busy enough with Democrats.
You'd think they'd know when it's time to stop lying and start being truthful.
Robin Boerner wrote on March 6, 2007 2:44 PM:This guy is definitely not a good lawyer....he is a terrible liar.
He looks like if they keep him much linger he is going to need some Kleenex or Depends.
Mark wrote on March 6, 2007 2:53 PM:
EH wrote on March 6, 2007 2:55 PM:When questioned about performance problem details about each attorney he was an incoherent mess of sentence fragments.
This kid is not helping.
Paul from Philadelphia wrote on March 6, 2007 3:12 PM:Please please tell me that the Justice Department has better reasons than those stated above for firing the U.S Attorneys. Moschella must feel like an idiot testifying to this.
RW wrote on March 6, 2007 3:15 PM:I had no idea that gun prosecutions were a priority with this administration. Does the NRA have an opinion about this?
pat swords wrote on March 6, 2007 3:22 PM:and Johnnie Sutton stays on!?
JG wrote on March 6, 2007 3:30 PM:This country in the last 7 years has become a joke!
"Take it to the next level"?!
I don't even let my first year undergraduate students use that bullshit phrase in a blue-book essay, and this guy's using it with a straight face before a House Committee?!
James wrote on March 6, 2007 3:46 PM:Well, this may be about the best anybody could do in a mad last-minute scramble to assemble a list of "performance-related" reasons for firing somebody when the actual reasons are highly toxic to the political standing of the Bush Administration.
Tough job, Brownie!
Anonymous wrote on March 6, 2007 3:50 PM:Ok, so we're bascially dealing with an HR problem here? Department didn't communicate its goals well and fired employees without telling them why.
Just bad management.
Nothing to see here, let's move on.
In fact, that just gave each of the 8 grounds for a real employment grievance.
oldtree wrote on March 6, 2007 3:54 PM:so why are impeachment hearings not being announced here?
Anonymous wrote on March 6, 2007 4:03 PM:it really takes a lot to waken a sleeping congress person
this is the most embarrassing thing of all, that our congress will still even talk to this administration. They have hundreds of crimes that we know of, how many more do they know of that they are not talking about?
I am getting more and more ashamed to be an american. It is incredible that organized crime is running our country
More like disorganized crime.
rob wrote on March 6, 2007 4:06 PM:What a load of horseshit!
Spector should resign. Plain and simple, either he is incompetent or complicit. Either way, he should go. He is responsible for the change in the law. We don't need any sneaky bastards in our government. We don't need dumb asses in our government either.
The credibility of the justice department as a fair and honorable institution is at stake. Gonzales must be removed from office.
And..now that Libby has been found guilty, Fitz should go after the big fat stuffed animal on the top row, Dick Cheney. If Libby was lying, who was he covering for? DICK CHENEY, that's who. Impeach Cheney first, then Bush.
By the way, 911 was an inside job.
Ron Byers wrote on March 6, 2007 4:19 PM:Lets see what has happened here. Everything we thought might have been wrong was confirmed. At least two of the purged USA's were pressured by members of congress or their top staff members. The DOJ made a transparently threatening call to one of the fired prosecutor. The shifting reasons for the firings shifted again. None of the fired prosecutors were told about their alleged deficiencies before the firings. All had outstanding performance reviews. The only reason that seems to connect most of them is they were fired because they didn't go after Democrats in a timely fashion or they went after Republicans with real vigour.
At the same time the Libby trial ended and the special prosecutor announced that he wasn't going to do go after anybody else eventhough the jury, having spent weeks looking at the evidence, is convinced that Libby took the fall for Rove and Cheney.
Apparently Fitzgerald has gotten the message. Go too hard after Republican crooks and Main Justice kicks hard, very hard.
Ah, for the days when we really could have confidence in the Department of Justice. Somebody needs to tell the Bush babies that there is no Democratic Justice Department or Republican Justice Department. There is just a United States Justice Department. Could somebody in congress please stand up to these people. Could we get our Justice Department back. The people need it.
Englischlehrer wrote on March 6, 2007 4:19 PM:Dude, I cannot believe this is their line of reasoning in a very unusual string of 8 firings at one time, at least a couple involving corruption cases...
Tom Marshall wrote on March 6, 2007 4:23 PM:Naw, the bush admin's just making it up as they go along, like Iraq.
jdw wrote on March 6, 2007 4:26 PM:It doesn't take a genius to realize what is going on here.
Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet? Why?
eCAHNomics wrote on March 6, 2007 4:27 PM:Moschella's testimony doesn't pass the giggle test. I now understand why the US attorneys weren't worried about dirt coming out. There isn't any.
With the US attorneys' testimony this morning, and Fitz's guilty verdicts, it's a fine day for lawyers. There will be a 24 hour moratorium on lawyer jokes.
Reader wrote on March 6, 2007 4:30 PM:Given Moschella's admitted performance-related problems, shouldn't he too be replaced by a Rove crony?
Mark wrote on March 6, 2007 4:35 PM:
Ann Coulter wrote on March 6, 2007 4:37 PM:The Administration should be eternally grateful for the Libby verdict coming down today because these hearings have been train wrecks for them and Justice.
Actually, there were additional problems with the attorneys' performance that Moschella left off for lack of time. Here's the remaining items.
Carol Lam: Always greeted the judges and juries with "Howdy" instead of the customary "Good Morning Vietnam!!!"
John McKay: Found to be at fault for the deaths at Nakatomi Plaza.
Bud Cummins: Always left the toilet seat up.
Daniel Bogden: Did not use the correct form when filling out the expense reports.
David Iglesias: Does not sing as well as his brother Julio.
Paul Charlton: Called the technical supervisor to fix the printer instead of the supervising technician.
R M wrote on March 6, 2007 4:49 PM:You realize, if they impeach Bush first, that puts Cheney in charge! Ugh....
anonymous wrote on March 6, 2007 4:53 PM:David Iglesias: Does not sing as well as his brother Julio.
LOL. Seriously, that would have been a better reason to cite in justifying why they fired the guy. It would have at least been plausible!
Alan Bostick wrote on March 6, 2007 4:56 PM:Ron Byers: Ah, for the days when we really could have confidence in the Department of Justice.
What days were those again? Oh, right, the days when John "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" Mitchell or Robert "Wiretappin' Bobby" Kennedy were AG, when J. Edgar Hoover was in charge of the FBI.
Thank you, but no.
Mary wrote on March 6, 2007 4:57 PM:It was particularly nice to see how dismissive Moeschella was of the local FBI concerns that losing Lam would adversely impact the corruption prosecutions.
But she did have bad gun stats.
Still, isn't there some saying that goes:
Guns don't kill people, corrupt Congressman kill people.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 6, 2007 5:07 PM:A Harvard MBA knows that "policy, priorities and management" are jargon, not performance measures. They don't go to anyone's ability to hire, fire, manage, train, supervise, staff, litigate, investigate, budget, report or relate. They are transparent cover for the obvious: "The Boss doesn't like you any more. You're out."
The President and his men - a distinction worthy of Ann Coulter - are viciously partisan. Lacking positive goals or negotiating skills more nuanced than "up yours", they constantly "buy" support by satiating ever-hungry supporters.
Knowing how poorly that would go down if admitted, they churn reasons that could be true, that could be legal, that might have motivated them had they thought of them ahead of time. All so you never know and so they're never accountable.
The fired USA's were talented, loyal, and ambitious Republicans. They didn't play ball. They got canned. The administration lied about it and got caught. It gave out the usual conflicting cover stories. They didn't sell. Even Tony Snow is melting. Hallelujah.
Anonymous wrote on March 6, 2007 5:14 PM:An example of a US Attorney that did "play ball" -- former Denver USA Bill Leone declined to prosecute the "Denver Three" case back in 2005 -
It would have caused extreme embarrasment to WH Aide Steve Atkiss, who at the time was Special Assistant to the President/Director of Operations and had an office three doors down from the Oval Office in the West Wing.
http://denverthree.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=34
Anonymous wrote on March 6, 2007 5:20 PM:I think the Dems should look into why some prosecutors weren't fired. The US Attorney for the Eastern district of PA Patrick L. Meehan is a former Delaware County district attorney.
You think Meehan has a big interest in pushing the Curt Weldon investigation along? Heck, he might even be part of the investigation.
EH wrote on March 6, 2007 5:20 PM:Hah, the (R)'s are really just harping on this whole at-will-employment thing. It's just got to come down to "F.U., we do what we want" in this administration. It's going to take a lot more investigation for much to come of this.
Saguaro wrote on March 6, 2007 5:21 PM:I wonder what and how long it is going to take to undo all the damage that 6 years of current regime have inflicted upon U.S. Next President sure has work cutout for him/her.
Citizen92 wrote on March 6, 2007 5:25 PM:I think you might have something with Meehan... DOJ is effectively arguing that Lam et al were let go because 5-6 years is "long in the tooth."
Well, Meehan must be doing a bang-up job since he's been in his position since 9/17/2001!
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/Documents/usa.html
Citizen92 wrote on March 6, 2007 5:26 PM:Plus, Meehan used to work for Arlen Spector.
"...Prior to being elected District Attorney, Mr. Meehan served as senior counsel and executive director for United States Senator Arlen Specter..."
I guess that affords some job security too...
knucklesplitter wrote on March 6, 2007 5:46 PM:I hear that Moschella is holding back the real reasons for the firings. Why he's covering up - I dunno. Evidently *all* these USA's were prone to forgetting the cover sheet on their TPS Reports.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 6, 2007 5:48 PM:C92, US Attorney Pat Meehan made a big splash last month when State Senator Vincent Fumo, a Democrat, was indicted so I am sure his job is safe for the time being.
Meehan was first elected Delaware County DA in 1995 and I think he held the job until he was appointed US Attorney in 2001 so Meehan is close to Weldon's cronies headquartered in Media PA.
I remember reading that the FBI in Philadelphia is involved in the investigation of Weldon, Sexton et al but I don't know if Meehan's office is. If I was in charge of the Weldon investigation, I wouldn't tell Meehan anything about it.
Another party hack who has job security is Roslyn Mauskopf, US Attorny for the Eastern District of NY. Appointed in 2002, Mauskopf was George Pataki's state inspector general and is pals with Zenia Mucha, Al D'Amato and Charlie Gargano. No corruption cases out of Mauskopf's office at all as far as I know.
oldtree wrote on March 6, 2007 5:50 PM:Does this give anyone the impression that our Justice dept is the most inept and corrupt, or calculatingly criminal enterprise in the country?
C92 wrote on March 6, 2007 5:52 PM:If the FBI in Philly is going to bring charges against Weldon, then they'd have to do it through a US Attorney somewhere. That's how the government brings its cases --
Considering Weldon's possible crimes are grounded with characters and corporations in his district, I would guess that Meehan's office is probably at the top of the batting order.... Which would mean he gets all the details of the FBI's case, filings, interviews, research....
Allsburg wrote on March 6, 2007 5:53 PM:The problem is, at the end of the day, the President and the AG can fire these guys for political reasons if they want. All of this may look very bad for the administration, from a publicity point of view. But unless someone can enlighten me, I don't understand what the crime is.
Maybe what really needs to be talked about is how Spector could insert a change to the Patriot Act without realizing it. Who really added that language? Did it come from inside the Bush Administration? Is this a subversion of the separation of powers doctrine?
Anonymous wrote on March 6, 2007 5:58 PM:Allsburg, the crime is potential obstruction of Justice. It seems likely that management at DOJ became aware that some of its footsoldiers in the field were poised to indict some significant Congressional and other players in the GOP.
In order to stop this chain of events, management decided to fire them.
If public official committed crimes and someone intercedes to prevent the justice system from prosecuting them for those crimes that's in a nutshel obstruction.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 6, 2007 6:01 PM:C92, The grand jury was empaneled in DC.
From a 10/17/06 WP story:
"A grand jury, impaneled in Washington in May, has obtained evidence gathered over at least four months through wiretaps of Washington area cellphone numbers and has scrutinized whether Weldon received anything of value, according to the sources..."
The grand jury has been is session for ten months now. Either there is a lot to investigate or the DOJ is stalling. Based on what I found when I stuck my nose in Weldon's business, there is a lot to investigate.
Since the grand jury is in DC, I assumed the DC office of the DOJ is handling the Weldon case. Who would be the US Attorney in charge of the case?
linda wrote on March 6, 2007 6:05 PM:schumer in his exchange with iglesias queried him about the charge of 'absenteeism' leveled against him.
iglesias was fulfilling his navy reserve duty -- something the doj was fully aware of his status when he was appointed (and at the time, pleased about). iglesias ironically pointed out that investigating veterans' complaints about employer problems due to guard duty (btw which is increasing) is part of his responsibility.
Anonymous wrote on March 6, 2007 6:27 PM:I'm advised that in many cases, multi-district task forces are set up to build the case. That incorporates the investigative resources and expertise of many offices.
Just because the case is being tried/filed in DC doesn't mean that other USA's haven't been read into the details of the case.
Since the alleged crimes occurred at least in DC and in his home district, I think a task force probably was used... I'm sure its a matter of record somewhere.
BTW, the USA for DC was an aide to both Ashcroft and Gonzales as well as an Assistant USA in Carol Lam's old district (Southern CA) from 1995-1999.
bob wrote on March 6, 2007 6:30 PM:who the hell let on all these Republican FUD guys as witnesses to the committee? Are the DEMS insane? allowing them on is just stupid.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 6, 2007 6:33 PM:C92, I checked out the US Attorney for the Middle District of Florida Paul I. Perez who surprisingly came from his own law firm.
I figure by now, the Weldon investigation has to have been extended to cover Rep. C. W. "Bill" Young (R-FL). His daughter-in-law, Cynthia Young, is partners with real estate agent-turned-lobbyist, Cecilia Grimes. Young and Grimes were both listed as execs of defense contractor, Galaxy Scientific, in 2004 while they were lobbyists.
Plus a big Republican donor and government contractor from Young's district, Frank Mongelluzzi, "sold" a house and five acres of property to Weldon in 2000 at the same time he started doing business in PA.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 6, 2007 6:41 PM:Me, I think the FBI should check who is paying Cynthia and Robert Young's rent on the $350k house they are renting in PA. The FBI might also want to check who is paying Robert Young's tuition at Widener U. while they are at it.
Thanks to whoever posted about the multi-district task forces and etc.
You must be referring to Jeffrey A. Taylor, US Attorney for the District of Columbia. I checked his bio and he was appointed on an interim basis on 9/29/06 which was at least four months after the Weldon grand jury was empaneled.
Who was Taylor's predecessor and what happened to him or her?
eCAHNomics wrote on March 6, 2007 6:42 PM:I wonder what and how long it is going to take to undo all the damage that 6 years of current regime have inflicted upon U.S. Next President sure has work cutout for him/her.
Posted by: Saguaro
Date: March 6, 2007 05:21 PM
What makes you think the next president will undo the damage? She's just as likely to start a war with Iran as W. I was 2 years ahead of her at Wellesley--I didn't know her, but I know the type.
ahem wrote on March 6, 2007 6:44 PM:Well, if there are more hearings, Jay Carney might write about the story in a month or so.
You know, I understand the 'taking impeachment off the table' line now. Many more hearings like this, and you're going to get the public demanding it be put back on the table. And when that happens, it's not partisan politics as usual.
Anonymous wrote on March 6, 2007 7:02 PM:Before Taylor, the DC USA was Kenneth Wainstein. Wainstein went on to be the Assistant Attorney General for National Security. His nomination was held up by the Democratic minority due to unanswered questions about his involvement in Administration secrecy
Nomination as DC USA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802940_2.html
Nomination as AUSA for NS:
Hank Essay wrote on March 6, 2007 7:25 PM:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201402.html
I seem to remember that the firing of people in the White House travel office caused a bunch of wingnuts to become angry and unhinged early on in the Clinton Administration. Oddly, they are very quiet about this....I find that very troubling.
-
ding7777 wrote on March 6, 2007 7:54 PM:Now that the Libby trial is over, wiil they have te guts to axe Fitzgerald?
StephenH wrote on March 6, 2007 11:03 PM:
Anonymous wrote on March 6, 2007 11:06 PM:Watching the hearings, I didn't understand why so many seemingly intelligent men couldn't add 2 + 2 and get 4.
A Feb 7 TPM article reported that "79 percent of elected officials and candidates who’ve faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats." This in spite of the fact that everyone knows Republicans are much bigger crooks.
The law is just something Republicans use to get back at their political enemies. They were fired for not realizing they were only hired on as political hacks.
Lets not forget Moschella's other footnote in history -- he was part of the "Brooks Brothers" riot during the Florida recount
r€nato wrote on March 7, 2007 12:22 AM:i'm fucking sick to death of this Republican bullshit. The party should be outlawed, like Germany outlawed the Nazis.
Mob. Pitchforks. Revolution. Some assembly required.
EH wrote on March 7, 2007 12:39 AM:You forgot "flying off the handle."
Anonymous wrote on March 7, 2007 2:45 AM:Could we get our Justice Department back
Posted by: Ron Byers
Date: March 6, 2007 04:19 PM
Impeach. We need to take our entire country back.
Gonzales was hired to defend Bush's regime not to Hell with the laws of the USA>
Langx wrote on March 7, 2007 2:45 AM:Could we get our Justice Department back
Posted by: Ron Byers
Date: March 6, 2007 04:19 PM
Impeach. We need to take our entire country back.
Gonzales was hired to defend Bush's regime to Hell with the laws of the USA>
slb wrote on March 7, 2007 11:01 AM:>>Paul Charlton hit back against Moschella's comment that he'd been asked to step down because he'd wanted to tape FBI confessions.<<
Let me ask what may be a stupid question: Why does the FBI have a policy against taped confessions? Why would they NOT want a confession on tape? Wouldn't that be very strong evidence to use in court?
I can understand why the defense would object to the use of taped confessions -- unless they are provided with a copy they have had custody of from the time it was made, they can't be sure it hasn't been altered, whereas a transcript can be read and signed by the person making it to indicate agreement that it is a full and accurate account.
But why wouldn't the prosecution want a tape?
Lou wrote on March 8, 2007 2:01 PM:William E. Moschella Who? Sounds as if the US Attorney has left his Associate's do his job. On the manner of Mr. Iglesias I happen to know first hand that Larry, his first assistant was not running the office as Mr. Associate has claimed. I wonder where he got his information from and I hope the whole lot have their day in front of an investigative comittee and answer tough questions. Like "where did you get your information from" and "the rest of the story'?
Anonymous wrote on March 10, 2007 2:51 PM:THE GOOD OLD DAYS,aka BBB,that's BEFORE BUSHY BOY!!!!
what the heck
gorge@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 11:32 PM:Illinois
hello
nikolas@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 11:50 AM:hello
Jonglly wrote on May 2, 2007 7:18 PM:Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 2, 2007 9:20 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
willy@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 10:38 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
hello
willy@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 10:38 PM:hello
witney@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 11:01 AM:hello
witney@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 11:01 AM:hello
margaret@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 12:31 AM:hello
margaret@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 12:31 AM:hello
Jonglly wrote on May 7, 2007 7:49 AM:Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 21, 2007 1:23 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
madrus mpeg cum animl wrote on October 10, 2007 4:29 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.
gonne collant wrote on October 11, 2007 9:17 PM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.
sesso polacche wrote on October 15, 2007 9:39 PM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.
sexi vip wrote on October 16, 2007 9:13 AM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.