Comments (70)

moe99 wrote on April 10, 2007 4:51 PM:

I'd like to see this in court vs. the Dems rolling over, yet again.

mike wrote on April 10, 2007 4:54 PM:

Hmmm. Can they start getting USAs to sign some kind of waiver? Perhaps many of them would be as curious as Congress to know what's being said about them.

jon wrote on April 10, 2007 4:56 PM:

Can GAO send national security letters? That would make it even more interesting.

Vulture Breath wrote on April 10, 2007 4:58 PM:

If DOJ is trying to run out the clock, someone should tell them it's still the 3rd quarter.

sailmaker wrote on April 10, 2007 5:00 PM:

Hmm. How about we just go after the NSA recordings of all things digital? Can one use an illegal process (NSA data recording) to prove another illegal process (political use of governmental offices)???

flamoe wrote on April 10, 2007 5:02 PM:

Lets get it on!

biggerbox wrote on April 10, 2007 5:06 PM:

Excuse me? The 'individuals other than the U.S. attorneys who resigned' are employees of the DOJ, presumably? They are paid with checks from the Treasury? Using monies allocated by Congress, yes? The documents in question are clearly related to the acts of officials of the Department in executing the laws as created by Congress, using money allocated by Congress. Individual privacy interests? Come on.

It's not like they subpoenaed someone's high school yearbook.

deja vu all over again wrote on April 10, 2007 5:06 PM:

oohh..I can hardly wait until tomorrow and the next chapter of this suspenseful saga....
Who do you think will be writing the definitive book?

feckless wrote on April 10, 2007 5:08 PM:

Ummm the have this thing called "redaction" where you cover up the "individual privacy interests" on a produced document and then the redactor explains what is under your black lines and why it can't be made public (e.g. SSI#). Shame no one at the DOJ is acquainted with this arcane legal process.

And investigations never turn up information on anyone other that the "U.S. attorneys who resigned," so looking into anyone elses conduct is just irrelevant.

These people should be dis-barred.

Anonymous wrote on April 10, 2007 5:09 PM:

Code = wrong

Sometimes there's no improvement on perfection -- except to say that AG ManCow is holding on by his fingerprints at this atage -- he probably thinks that'll *save* him, given that his prints seem to be on everything...

Leta wrote on April 10, 2007 5:10 PM:

Depends upon what you're trying to keep private.

profmarcus wrote on April 10, 2007 5:11 PM:

in a presidential administration that communicated the following even BEFORE the november elections, nobody could expect them just to hand 'em over, now could they...?

from time magazine, october 2006...

"In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as "a cataclysmic fight to the death" over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is 'going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation.'"

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

bleh wrote on April 10, 2007 5:15 PM:

I think AGAG is just holding on so he can be a scapegoat for as much as possible.

Look for him ultimately to resign, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and then for the Wurlitzer to crank up in mighty harmony, mourning that Gonzales was hounded unfairly from office and demanding that the Democrats stop their McCarthyite witch hunt.

Gonzales will then take the Fifth about any further questions, and behold! Both connections to the White House (Gonzales and Goodling) will have been severed untraceably.

I think the spooks call this a "cutout."

SocraticGadfly wrote on April 10, 2007 5:20 PM:

Not ironic, just hypocritical, coming from the Svengali of Snooping.

ice weasel wrote on April 10, 2007 5:23 PM:

Frankly, the biggest congressional mistake was not issuing supoenas immediately. Giving these people any rope is too much.

goldberry wrote on April 10, 2007 5:31 PM:

Well, if they've got nothing to hide...

Dennis wrote on April 10, 2007 5:33 PM:

Gonzales isn't fighting so much for himself as he is trying to protect the White House. He's toast and he knows it. But he and the White House need to string this thing out as long as possible in order to "prepare" someone to take Gonzales place.

I agree that the stalling of the White House and Gonzales is mostly for running out the clock in the remaining Bush administration tenure.

It's fun, too, to watch the right wing media trying to shy over the whole thing. WSJ quickly comes to mind.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Jillian wrote on April 10, 2007 5:34 PM:

As I recall, the right to privacy covers personal religious belief, consensual sexual practices derivative thereof, an ability to shield oneself from taking responsibility for mistakes of age-inappropriate adolescence, and the fashion and outcome of employer and employee blackmailing each other.

Involving the Gonzalez DoJ, I'm willing to believe all of these apply. Their problem is, however, that these activities seem to have completely substituted for their official duties. There isn't any evidence for the interests of actual, you know, *justice* having taken up more than a few annoyance-filled minutes of their time here and there.

bobh wrote on April 10, 2007 5:35 PM:

They can fight it all they want...eventually he House can just start imprisoning them with 'Inherent Contempt' powers. It'll be rich to see AGAG remanded to prison ... "Wat do you mean a majority vote of the House means I go to jail, I'm AGAG!"

Tough shit go to jail.

Punchy wrote on April 10, 2007 5:35 PM:

Anyone with a feel on how a judge would rule on this? Would seem if the WH gets its way, they'd follow this excuse for each and every single doc later subpoena'd.

To cover up such illegality by simply saying "nope, private" instead of their standby "nope, national security" is simply disgusting.

Anonymous wrote on April 10, 2007 5:46 PM:

The privacy issues at stake here are not those of private citizens per se - for which this administration has demonstrated a remarkable lack of concern, in any case. These records include personnel files of public employees hired to administer public justice. Any privacy issues can be taken care of by reaching a suitable agreement with Congress. As a defense against production of documents, that issue is a non-starter.

Congress may have had access to some of these documents. But they have no assurance they have seen unredacted versions. They have not seen full digital versions, which would include essential meta-data that reveals document origins and changes. Many of these documents Congress has seen only under rules that prohibit copying and taking of notes. In the context of the legitimate exercise of Congress's investigatory and oversight role, those rules are not appropriate.

The DOJ has been trying to deal with Congress as if it were IBM or Microsoft in an antitrust suit. Congress needs to remind the DOJ that it exercises a very different role.

I imagine that Mr. Waxman and others will have anticipated the Kyle Sampson, "run out the clock" approach, and will force rapid consideration of all issues.

joel wrote on April 10, 2007 5:50 PM:

If your job interview was broadcast on CSPAN, you don't have much of a privacy claim surrounding your employment status. I'm just having a hard time swallowing that.

gregor wrote on April 10, 2007 5:55 PM:

I did not come here to comment, but

CODE= SMELL

as in perfumes of Arabia will not cleanse these guys' bloody hands
is too delicious for me not to.

pissed wrote on April 10, 2007 6:01 PM:

Wow. Audio of Oral arguments from Georgia Thompson's appeal before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (released her that day) below. What a prosecution sham. h/t Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly

www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=587339

Anonymous wrote on April 10, 2007 6:12 PM:

What piques my curiosity is why they're going to such great lengths to save Alberto Gonzalez' job. They sacked Rumsfeld after the last election and he was one of the boys. I'm sure they'd have no hesitation about throwing Gonzalez under the bus if it suited their purposes. So why the herculean effort to protect him? The only plausible answer is that the trail leads to someone higher up. Maybe much higher up.

pre-amerikkkan wrote on April 10, 2007 6:14 PM:

when this is researched 100 years from now, the bush legacy will be one of the most lawless, corrupt, crony-ridden administrations ever imagined, much less one that's playing out it's stupidity across our tv and web screens in REALTIME!

who in this world asked for such interesting times, eh?

and hire a new scriptwriter, will ya?

code: "face" as in face it W, you're impeachable now.

The Bobs wrote on April 10, 2007 6:14 PM:

A lot of people seem to think that AG Gonzales is going to resign at some point in the future when this scandal makes him look bad enough. I just don't believe that he will, and there is no way Bush will ask him to.

If Gonzo is gone, who is going to replace him? The Senate will not approve another political hack like Gonzales, and if a person of integrity, say James Comey, becomes AG, then the WH and DOJ will become the objects of real investigations that would almost certainly take down the administration.

DC Pol Sci wrote on April 10, 2007 6:24 PM:

Privacy has never been a valid reason for defying a subpoena. In litigation, there's something called a protective order that is routinely issued by which the party receiving the documents agrees not to disclose certain private information. The Committee could easily agree to such a protective agreement, and I'm sure the Committee staff proposed it (the March 28 letter, here: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/DOJ_correspondence_041007.pdf, states "the confidentiality of the redacted information will be maintained as if they were received in Executive Session"). Continued stalling is a farce.

J wrote on April 10, 2007 6:25 PM:

I think an important point is being missed here in regards to Gonzalas' resignation. As far as the white house is concerned he CANT resign.

Why? The AG is the gatekeeper to all the WH dirty secrets. If he goes, who does the WH nominate. There are'nt any other insiders left/available. More importantly, anyone nominated would have to pass Senate confirmation; meaning they would have to be super squeaky clean.

Just think; if some hypothetical straight shooter is brought forth and confirmed, all the tons of other suppressed scandals would come cascading into the open. It'll never happen. Thats why Gonzala stays as long as the Admin can keep him there. They have no alternative!

BG Portland, OR wrote on April 10, 2007 6:30 PM:

Is Gonzales unfit to serve as AG? Yes, if only for his March 13 and March 23 opposing statements (I knew nothing vs. OK, I approved the firings, but I still knew nothing). BUT I have seen/heard elsewhere that Gonzales has been with Bush from the beginning - so I imagine that he has hard dirt on many other Bush dealings, perhaps even before the 2000 election.

I can only imagine the deals being discussed for silence or pardon. perhaps the truth is that the AG will plead Mea Culpa to as much as possible (but over a long time), force impeachment/criminal/contempt charges, and then receive a pardon late in 2008.

Question - why hasn't the famous "National Security" claim been made as to any of this? Surely by investigating DOJ, and not having e-mails intercepted by NSA available, we are showing our lack of ability to intercept email = the terrorists are winning? OK, so the last para is a joke, but I wouldn't put it past these jokers to stretch to a National Security CYA.

Nestor wrote on April 10, 2007 6:35 PM:

Somehow I find it odd that a department run by a man who claims habeas corpus doesn't exist can now assert a privacy right that never has existed.

coltergeist wrote on April 10, 2007 6:39 PM:

A criminal has no privacy interest in keeping his crimes hidden.

This is like saying "I didn't shoot the victim, the gun shot the victim but I cannot tell you who was holding the gun, that's private."

Nice try. Demand SCOTUS exercise original jurisdiction and just bypass the DC Circuit. It will end up there anyway.

Minsanity wrote on April 10, 2007 6:40 PM:

This seems baseless. I think the House Judiciary Committee should write him back a detailed letter, pointing out the myriad ways in which his claims are baseless. This letter should also describe, in no uncertain terms, that the House of Representatives need not resort to litigating such baseless claims in Article III courts, as it has its own powers of impeachment. If Mr. Gonzales continues to assert these baseless claims, the House Judiciary Committee will recommend impeachment.

rmadilo wrote on April 10, 2007 6:43 PM:

Is it possible to withold relevant documents?

It seems to me that the subpoena only asks for relevant documents, a decision made by DoJ. The subpoena doesn't ask for a specific document, which DoJ could then argue isn't relevant.

Also, DoJ says the issue is privacy, but the subpoena says noting about releasing all the documents to the public.

I wonder if the Congress can ask the persons involved if they would waive any right to privacy?

Anonymous wrote on April 10, 2007 6:45 PM:

If the info is "private" why are they using official resources to do "private" things?

Even if it was "OK" to use the DOJ resources for non-official resaons, why isn't this info redacted, if approrpiate?

NO excuse not to comply with subpoena.

Anonymous wrote on April 10, 2007 6:45 PM:

Sounded to me like the clown making the prosecution's case before the appeals court was a graduate of the Regents University School of Law...

Fairly recent graduate, I'd say...

Code Word: Credit...Where's it's due...

Dungheap wrote on April 10, 2007 6:46 PM:

This appears to be mere bluster and stalling.

Bluster because there are presumably scores of documents responsive to the subpoena that have absolutely nothing to do with the individual privacy interests of U.S. Attorneys other than the Gonzo Ocho. Those documents should be produced as requested. If Justice wants to withhold otherwise responsive documents on the basis of privilege or any other argument, there are procedures for doing so. These procedures are set forth in the instructions accompanying subpoena and require Justice to sufficiently identify the document and to set forth in detail the nature of the priviledge. A blanket non-response would be laughed out of court and, if this were your average civil matter, sanctions would be imposed.

This is a stalling matter precisely because such a blanket claim of privilege and accompanying non-response would be laughed out of court and any court worth its salt would immediately order the production of any non-privileged documents. Additionally, as a general matter a court would be much more skeptical of the remaining claims of privilege. In short, if Justice had a sound basis for withholding certain documents they would produce the others so as not to taint a court against a valid assertion of privilege.

Interestingly, the date the Committee set for production is April 16th. Guess who is scheduled to testify on the 17th.

Gonzo is apparently having a hrad enough time as it is getting his story straight and if the Committee gots its hands on the full compliment of documents he'd be screwed more so than he already is.

bobh wrote on April 10, 2007 6:50 PM:

The fact is no one mentioned -has- a right to -privacy-. All are public servants. Screw em.
If they've communicated embarrasing things to each other about another Republican thats their fault.

Anonymous wrote on April 10, 2007 6:54 PM:

The WH must be past caring how long Mr. Gonzales twists in the wind. He's a human shield. As long as there's enough left of him to stop the arrows, Shrub will never cut him down. The mystery is why Gonzales feels personally obligated to take so many hits for someone so opportunistic. He must really believe those promises of, "We'll take care of you." Gonzales must think he's Brando talking to Steiger in the back seat about throwing the fight.

Imagine what happens after Gonzales resigns. What would the confirmation hearings be like even for a credible candidate, let alone a John Cornyn or Orrin Hatch. In addition, as part of its confirmation, Congress would still insist on getting the info it's already asked for and more.

This is all a game for Shrub and Rove. Any resignation adds to Congress' momentum and cuts Shrub's. And ever since Daddy first told Junior, "No", he hates givin' in, no matter how important or unimportant the issue. He makes it about his manhood, even if everybody else thinks that's crazy.

Congress has to stay on the high ground, stay calm, stay focused, and insist. As the parenting and dog training books say, Be Firm, or it will lead to more bad behavior.

buck turgidson wrote on April 10, 2007 6:55 PM:

Note that the privacy disclaimer is not full--they are only fighting it because, they said, records of other attorneys are not a part of the investigation of the ones who were fired. All the Senate has to do is claim a broader investigation and this would call the DoJ bluff. They would either have to change their rationale or turn over the papers.

On a more specific point, check the records again--some of the names were blocked out on documents that discussed the mechanics of the firing. In several instances, it appeared that the evidence would have been incriminating if the names were kept. There is no privacy claims on those at all--this is an issue of policy-making decisions, not personnel decisions. So privacy does not apply to decision-makers.

Given the WI, MN and NJ situations--plus possibly several others--it would not take a genius to argue for a broader investigation of the way that DoJ has been conducting business. Worse yet, the resistance to submitting records shows, at the very least, guilty conscience. That alone should spur the Dems to expand the investigation.

PwapVt wrote on April 10, 2007 7:00 PM:

"...Anyone with a feel on how a judge would rule on this?..."

You mean the Supreme Court? Packed with hand picked Bush appointees?

Impeach
Indict
Imprison

they can pay their debt there, and that's the current code word.

Whistler wrote on April 10, 2007 7:03 PM:

One possible consideration -- though it relates more to defamation suits than privacy issues -- is the idea of being a "public figure". Do a quick Google scan on "law public figure" and you will get a bunch of hits on that subject, like:

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2005/11/69511

litigatormom wrote on April 10, 2007 7:06 PM:

Lawyers try to object to subpoenas on the grounds that the documents demanded are DAMAGING all the time.

Judges rarely accept that objection, however.

The problem here comes with the procedure for enforcing the subpoena if the WH continues to stonewall. In civil or criminal litigation, subpoenas are issued by a COURT (or issued by an attorney in the name of the court, if certain procedures are followed) and the court therefore has automatic jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the failure to comply. In the case of a subpoena issued by Congress, rather than a court, I'm not sure that Congress can go to court to enforce the subpoena; instead, DoJ commences a contempt proceeding.

I hope I am wrong about this. Anyone who knows more about Congressional subpoenas here?

melior wrote on April 10, 2007 7:24 PM:

Can any of the Republicans explain how 140 hours of hearings to discuss the previous President's Xmas card list didn't pose the same "threat" to people's privacy?

Of course they can't.

code word: snake

MLS wrote on April 10, 2007 7:24 PM:

You are correct, litigatormom. The House could try to civilly enforce a subpoena against the executive branch, but the executive would claim that there is no jurisdiction. The Senate has a statute that provides for civil enforcement of its subpoenas but it excludes enforcement against executive branch officials who assert a privilege of an official nature. The House doesnt have such a statute at all.

No guarantee as to what would happen if either body attempted to civilly enforce a subpoena based on general federal question jurisdiction, but the smart money says that the courts will look for a way to avoid putting themselves in the middle of this kind of political fight, and jurisdiction is an easy way out.

Stooleo wrote on April 10, 2007 7:29 PM:

Off Topic:

Call me paranoid, but imagine if this sort of partisan hackery was taking place in the IRS. Seems to me that it would be easy to look at donation deductions and figure who is a Democrat or a Republican, and then audit all the Dems. Scary.

Stooleo

Michael Stevens wrote on April 10, 2007 7:33 PM:

As I posted in the other thread, I think the DOJ is stonewalling to keep Gonzo's e-mails away from Congress. What you say? You thought Gonzo said he doesn't use e-mail? You'd be right, Gonzo's people -have- said that. Specifically, they've said "he doesn't use e-mail, he uses Blackberry". . . (stunned silence from every techie on the planet).

Perhaps Gonzo *used* to be so technologically ignorant that he didn't know his Blackberry device was just a fancy way to send and receive e-mail. But by now, I'm fairly certain that someone has made him aware that Blackberry *is* e-mail.

If Gonzo has been using a government issued Blackberry, I can't see that he would have any expectation of privacy. And since the President has said he never uses e-mail, I can't see that Gonzo's would have valid claim of executive privilege.

As a poster in the other thread pointed out, page 11 of the subpoena specifically mentions Blackberry and other messaging devices. This suggests the congress is onto Gonzo's e-mail dodge. The DOJ's stonewalling may suggest there is some very damaging content in these e-mails.

Wretched Refuse wrote on April 10, 2007 8:29 PM:

I am ready to do what Mann Cunter said to do the the Supremes.

Anonymous wrote on April 10, 2007 8:39 PM:

Posted by: Michael Stevens
Date: April 10, 2007 07:33 PM

Right to privacy? Please!!!! This right is not expressly enumerated in the Constitution. This right supports Roe by the way.

Each member of Congress has taken a vow to uphold the Constitution. Why should we trust the DOJ on privacy and not Congress. This is a fucking joke.

Michael Stevens wrote on April 10, 2007 9:30 PM:

Anon above, I think you misread my post. I said Gonzo would have No expectation of privacy.

BTW, you're incorrect. Expectation of privacy is an important legal doctrine. However, in this case Gonzo wouldn't seem to have it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy

Mooser wrote on April 10, 2007 10:57 PM:

Right to privacy, my God, Stevens, you are right- that's the selfsame right the Rethugs disparage daily as the basis for the Roe abirtion decision.
Well, I guess it makes sense, they don't want to abort their scheme to control election outcomes through the DOJ.

phil james wrote on April 10, 2007 11:18 PM:

stonewall, stall, obfuscate, bluff, whine, insult, claim privilege, claim privacy, claim irrelevance, do not respond, respond with a lie, claim the lie was the truth, claim the truth was a lie, claim that you didn't say last week what you in fact said last week, claim partisan politics is at work, call us traitors, wrap yourself in the flag, give a speech to the Amvets, take a photo op with troops in uniform, discuss the problem with rush limbaugh, ignore the letter, ignore the subpoena, give testimony but not under oath, lie under oath, ad lib under oath, say you do not recall, say that you have no recollection, say that the meeting never happened, say the meeting happened but your mind was on something else, say you were there but had no part in the decision, refuse to appear before the committee, appear before the committee but leave abruptly to conduct urgent business, say you will get back to Congress shortly, say it all happened before you came on board, say that was not part of your responsibility, say it was but you had delegated it, say you never told your subordinate to do that, say you never got that e-mail, say you never read the e-mail you got, explain that what the e-mail says is not really what the e-mail says......and so on

Wretched Refuse wrote on April 10, 2007 11:51 PM:

I pray (and I am not a praying guy) that when the Dem prez is sworn in in Jan 2009, his first word as Prez is: "Officers ARREST these men."

Slippery Slope wrote on April 11, 2007 12:56 AM:

Posted by: phil james
Date: April 10, 2007 11:18 PM

Ahhh, phil... you'd be a great republican. You really know how to gum something to death.

Take note Gonzo.

Irina wrote on April 11, 2007 6:05 AM:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/18/10343/6778

How the U.S. military would remove Bush-Cheney
Sun Feb 18, 2007

There's a term for when the military replaces its Commander-In-Chief - coup d'etat -- but, there are lesser practical steps that have been taken by Pentagon brass several times in modern American history to deal with Presidents viewed as incompetent to carry out their duties as CIC. Here's how it works in practice.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 11, 2007 8:18 AM:

It is amazing how quick that 'there ain't no such thing as a right to privacy' switches to a shit-load of blacked-out text cuz they were caught with their pants down about their ankles.

Nixon was a piker . . . eighteen seconds of tape . . . These pukes are going for eighteen miles of black stripe. Supeona each one os the key players and each line of inquiry individually to a different comittee three a day. The President needs to be speaking to the state of the nation daily . . . without holding his dark seth lords hand and under oath. Cut funding of the White House to the salaries of the Constitutionally mandated office holders until they do.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 11, 2007 8:29 AM:

Additionally, I believe its a mistake to think that they want Gone-lawless replaced if he gets removed. The Admin will make a big show of sending jack-booted thugs up the hill and whine how the poor souls are being blocked by the evil Demon-crats. The Chimp-in-Charge then gets to run amok, throwing poo-age at the Congress unfettered while wrapped in the bloody flag of victimhood . . . While running out the clock.

crg wrote on April 11, 2007 4:54 PM:

What makes you think that there would *be* a confirmation hearing for Gonzalez's replacement? Any recess appointment would be good until the end of the president's term, and he's more than willing to take any adjournment as a "recess" for these purposes. You've got a memorial day and 4th of July break fairly soon.

phil james wrote on April 11, 2007 5:45 PM:

slippery slope

I might make a great republican ...but for the fact that I would first need major surgery to have my humanity removed.

crg

Agree. The proper way to think about how any of these things will play out is to first and most importantly assume that the WH will never, ever, ever be forthcoming on any issue at any time with any member of Congress or the press. With that as a first principle, it's simply a matter of conjuring what gaming they have gone through, with turdblossom as game master of course, about how to avoid, obscure, or otherwise play out the clock on a problem until something else comes to the fore to overshadow it. The Dems are correctly using a multiple front attack on a whole array of shenanigans at once, because, you see, how terribly hard it is to keep all the lies spinning in the same direction simultaneously. Then there also that odd WH operative who actually does not want to lie under oath and takes a precipitous hike.

Marinescu wrote on April 12, 2007 3:18 AM:

Senator Max Baucus had a nephew serving in Iraq. Senator Baucus is a Democrat from Montana. His nephews service is past tense-he was KILLED. Tha'ts one instance.
............

To - Sen. Baucas,

I was very sad to read one of the comments in the Washington Post article on brain injuries of our soldiers in Iraq that you nephew was one of the brave troops that gave their lives in Iraq. So many families are dealing with the loss of their loved ones.

I believe bush invaded Iraq as part of the PNAC plan to steal oil and for the illegal and immoral permanent military bases. Bush has committed the supreme war crime in lying to the American people, Congress and the UN using intelligence data that he knew was false and that was created by Doug Feith and other traitors for Israel and PNAC.

The war criminals need to be impeached and tried for murder and crimes against humanity. bush has misused and abused the trust and patriotism of our young people in the military and their families and bush must finally be held accountible and charged for these most serious of all crimes.
.............
....The dirty little secret of techno wars is that they can save more bodies but loose the brain. Stop this madness, before we have a generation of mentally ill cripples who are victims of war in Iraq.

Will Bush cover their medical costs? Stop it now!

Jonglly wrote on May 17, 2007 1:38 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

Jonglly wrote on June 2, 2007 1:47 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

shjfxmqn cmqirud wrote on June 6, 2007 9:06 AM:

hwbcojq pxwqvfb ymkbfxip ghancym mrkv zicdhak fdblks

shjfxmqn cmqirud wrote on June 6, 2007 9:07 AM:

hwbcojq pxwqvfb ymkbfxip ghancym mrkv zicdhak fdblks

CandyShopGirl wrote on October 8, 2007 7:13 PM:

Hi!

What do you think about Tokio Hotel? >:)

madrus mpeg cum animl wrote on October 10, 2007 4:36 PM:

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

sesso polacche wrote on October 15, 2007 9:46 PM:

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

sexi vip wrote on October 16, 2007 9:20 AM:

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

SimonShtiner wrote on October 20, 2007 7:12 PM:

Hi!!!

Interesting links it is thrown here!! At whom is, the request to share!:) If against accommodation in section this, change please! ;)

club hotsexyfriends.com sex swinger swinger swinger club hotsexyfriends.com sex swinger swinger swinger
gallery gay hardcore tgp gallery gay hardcore tgp
club hotsexyfriends.com sex swinger swinger swinger club hotsexyfriends.com sex swinger swinger swinger
asian porn star asian porn star
gay pic sex gay pic sex
young gay muscle young gay muscle
free granny lesbian free granny lesbian
akira anime sex akira anime sex
sex slave gallery sex slave gallery
amateur first lesbian time amateur first lesbian time
gallery gay hardcore tgp gallery gay hardcore tgp
celebrity animated porn celebrity animated porn
toon porn video toon porn video
porn star first anal porn star first anal
toon porn video toon porn video
man sucking big tit man sucking big tit
big anal insertion big anal insertion
big tit small dicks big tit small dicks
porn star first anal porn star first anal
film porn gratuiti film porn gratuiti
hot porn star hot porn star
lesbian porn trailer lesbian porn trailer
gay twinks movie gay twinks movie
erotic man underwear erotic man underwear
big tit black lesbian big tit black lesbian
free adult fun site free adult fun site
big tit black lesbian big tit black lesbian
best free password porn best free password porn
free gay twinks story free gay twinks story
illinois gay marriage illinois gay marriage
dallas erotic fort services worth dallas erotic fort services worth
group sex bdsm group sex bdsm
hot anal sex com hot anal sex com
sucking on my tit lyric sucking on my tit lyric
massive anime tit massive anime tit
free adult fun site free adult fun site
free asian lesbian sex free asian lesbian sex
big filled milk tit big filled milk tit
free asian lesbian sex free asian lesbian sex
tit and boob of teen tit and boob of teen
gay adult comic gay adult comic
lesbian ass sucking lesbian ass sucking
blonde lesbian model blonde lesbian model
big filled milk tit big filled milk tit
free gay underwear pic free gay underwear pic
tiny teen tit nude tiny teen tit nude
disney porn star disney porn star
old and young lesbian mpeg old and young lesbian mpeg
film porn live film porn live
adult personal picture adult personal picture
film porn live film porn live
porn star classics ginger lynn porn star classics ginger lynn
bdsm lesbian tgp bdsm lesbian tgp
fat lesbian clip fat lesbian clip
anal gay raunch anal gay raunch
blow free gay job movie blow free gay job movie
adult personal picture adult personal picture
voyeur shower sex voyeur shower sex
free daily porn video clip free daily porn video clip
big in school shyla stylez tit big in school shyla stylez tit
sucking old gay cock sucking old gay cock
guide position sex guide position sex
sucking old gay cock sucking old gay cock
anal first mature time anal first mature time
man man porn man man porn
free live adult chat rooms free live adult chat rooms
arabic sex net arabic sex net
guide position sex guide position sex
bangladeshi porn site bangladeshi porn site
19 lesbian old year 19 lesbian old year
michigan offender public registry sex michigan offender public registry sex
free asian porn star free asian porn star
xxx adult entertainment xxx adult entertainment
xxx adult entertainment xxx adult entertainment
xxx adult entertainment xxx adult entertainment
lesbian chat site lesbian chat site
hot porn star fuck hot porn star fuck
hardcore group sex party pic hardcore group sex party pic
cooley erotic tonya traveler video cooley erotic tonya traveler video
best in porn world best in porn world
asian anal video asian anal video
mature woman porn video mature woman porn video
fine art erotic nude fine art erotic nude
big cum natural tit big cum natural tit
black hairy pussy lesbian black hairy pussy lesbian
black hairy pussy lesbian black hairy pussy lesbian
black hairy pussy lesbian black hairy pussy lesbian
gay hardcore sex video gay hardcore sex video
free mature tit free mature tit
adult club orlando adult club orlando
com oral sex com oral sex
tit n boob tit n boob
shemale sex shemale sex
ass cum gay shot ass cum gay shot
virtual space sex and the cyber citizen virtual space sex and the cyber citizen
free gay blow job clip free gay blow job clip
anal sex picture anal sex picture
doll sex shemale doll sex shemale
anal sex picture anal sex picture
mature sex porn mature sex porn
doll sex shemale doll sex shemale
bitch comic porn bitch comic porn
free fat woman porn video free fat woman porn video
hardcore pregnant sex hardcore pregnant sex
free japanese sex video free japanese sex video
teen and young adult teen and young adult
lesbian movie squirt lesbian movie squirt
big tit round ass kiki big tit round ass kiki
big booty brazilian porn big booty brazilian porn
cum free gay video cum free gay video
big booty brazilian porn big booty brazilian porn
arabic sex web site arabic sex web site
free arab sex video free arab sex video
big tit asian gallery big tit asian gallery
adult download dvd movie adult download dvd movie
free lesbian pussy licking porn free lesbian pussy licking porn
cum free gay video cum free gay video
tit fucking saggy tit fucking saggy
brazilian anal sex movie brazilian anal sex movie
classic porn actress classic porn actress

RonnyRolls wrote on October 21, 2007 6:35 AM:

Hi all!!!

Has found references to free-of-charge video! Cautiously, adult! Has placed in section this.. ;)

big tit anal sex big tit anal sex
black lesbian porn clip black lesbian porn clip
big tit anal sex big tit anal sex
sex party club sex party club
black lesbian porn clip black lesbian porn clip
mallu adult picture mallu adult picture
free lesbian party gallery free lesbian party gallery
free chubby porn clip free chubby porn clip
lesbian real sex story lesbian real sex story
mature sex dvd mature sex dvd
anal porn video anal porn video
black porn star deja black porn star deja
adult mobile game adult mobile game
naomi watt lesbian love scene naomi watt lesbian love scene
adult mobile game adult mobile game
anal free gay movie anal free gay movie
gay cum shot gay cum shot
banned download erotic horror movie banned download erotic horror movie
naomi watt lesbian love scene naomi watt lesbian love scene
lesbian licking pussy lesbian licking pussy
dude gay movie dude gay movie
adult porn review adult porn review
free anal video clip free anal video clip
big lesbian tit wrestlers big lesbian tit wrestlers
ass fuck perfect tit ass fuck perfect tit
lesbian movie sistas lesbian movie sistas
ass fuck perfect tit ass fuck perfect tit
teen hard anal fuck teen hard anal fuck
free gay german porn free gay german porn
gay teen anal gay teen anal
free natural tit pic free natural tit pic
danske porn film danske porn film
black gay porn movie black gay porn movie
adult career and continuing education adult career and continuing education
black lesbian mpeg black lesbian mpeg
lesbian movie sistas lesbian movie sistas
gay and lesbian marriage gay and lesbian marriage
free lesbian pussy licking movie free lesbian pussy licking movie
gay and lesbian marriage gay and lesbian marriage
adult sex toy review adult sex toy review
latino gay sex latino gay sex
live sex camera live sex camera
lesbian ass fucking with strap on lesbian ass fucking with strap on
free gay big cock gallery free gay big cock gallery
free movie pic porn site free movie pic porn site
black gay black gay
adult xxx story adult xxx story
free lesbian pussy licking movie free lesbian pussy licking movie
free adult thumbnail photo free adult thumbnail photo
accent adult comic introduction new accent adult comic introduction new
free adult thumbnail photo free adult thumbnail photo
arab kiss gay arab kiss gay
nys sex offender nys sex offender
disney porn star disney porn star
accent adult comic introduction new accent adult comic introduction new
lesbian dildo fuck lesbian dildo fuck
used gay dvd used gay dvd
gay submission wrestling gay submission wrestling
black lesbian poem poetry black lesbian poem poetry
gay and lesbian love gay and lesbian love
free live sex web cam free live sex web cam
adult finder friend login personals adult finder friend login personals
free live sex web cam free live sex web cam
adult comic gallery free adult comic gallery free
hot anal video hot anal video
discount sex toy discount sex toy
double anal clip double anal clip
tit n ass tit n ass
adult finder friend login personals adult finder friend login personals
nude old gay nude old gay
black boy gay pay per view black boy gay pay per view
watch paris hilton sex video watch paris hilton sex video
naked gay video for free naked gay video for free
adult amateur cam web adult amateur cam web
naked gay video for free naked gay video for free
hot teacher anal hot teacher anal
young teen huge tit young teen huge tit
indian porn story indian porn story
swinger orgy sex swinger orgy sex
free adult friend free adult friend
gay personals teen gay personals teen
mammoth book of erotic photography mammoth book of erotic photography
fire first jada sex teacher fire first jada sex teacher
adult amateur cam web adult amateur cam web
adult party plan adult party plan
male erotic picture male erotic picture
adult party plan adult party plan
fucking lesbian old young fucking lesbian old young
male erotic picture male erotic picture
adult cam free web adult cam free web
free porn pregnant teen free porn pregnant teen
dating experience gay i in liked online profile dating experience gay i in liked online profile
grase porn poze grase porn poze
best porn woman best porn woman
download free indian porn movie download free indian porn movie
asian anal hardcore sex asian anal hardcore sex
adult code myspace adult code myspace
lesbian ass lick lesbian ass lick
adult code myspace adult code myspace
anschauen bilder gratis porn anschauen bilder gratis porn
best database porn star best database porn star
mature plump big tit mature plump big tit
boob busty huge pussy tit boob busty huge pussy tit
woman with anal sex toy woman with anal sex toy
free sex toy free sex toy
anal school girl anal school girl
big young gay cock big young gay cock
lesbian ass lick lesbian ass lick
nude lesbian nude lesbian
young latinas anal young latinas anal
nude lesbian nude lesbian
amateur porn web site amateur porn web site
young latinas anal young latinas anal
adult birthday party supply adult birthday party supply
adult entertainment picture adult entertainment picture
acne adult clear confidence guide healing self skin acne adult clear confidence guide healing self skin
free adult cyber sex chat free adult cyber sex chat
amy futurama porn amy futurama porn
adult clearance dvd adult clearance dvd
adult video chat adult video chat